Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-110Appeal of Black River Corporate Park Development : Tract B Friends of the Black River September 1 , 1998 Documents for Friends of the Black River Appeal Section 1: 1. Copy of Notice of Appeal 2. Copy of Testimony from Friends of the Black River 3. Map used to show distances from colony Section 2:=Comments on Documents written by City and Applicant 1. Comments on"Tree Height and Screening" report submitted by applicant 2. Comments on"Visual Assessment of Great Blue Herons" report submitted by applicant 3. Comments on Environmental Checklist 4. Comments on Environment Review Committee Staff Report Section 3: Information on Black River Heron Colony 1. The Herons of Black River: a compilation of data 2. Map showing sites used by heron at the Black River 3. Historical Nest Counts for the Black River Heron Colony 4. Disturbance of Nesting Herons at Black River Site (anecdotal experience) Section 4: Management Guidelines for Heron Colonies l. Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Heron 2. King County Issue paper: "Proposed Northshore Community Plan Great Blue Heron Protection" 3. Expert letters sent in response to proposed development in 1991 4. Expert letters sent in response to proposed development in 1998 Section 5: Papers on the Effects of Human Disturbance on Heron Colonies 1. Paper: Disturbance and Heron Colony Size (Unpublished) 2. Paper: Challenges to Reproductive Success in Great Blue Herons(Unpublished) 3. Paper: Determinants of the Size and Location of Great Blue Heron Colonies Published in Colonial.Waterbirds 20(1):1-7, 1997). 4. Paper: Status of Great Blue Heron Colonies in King County, Washington(Published in Western Birds 19:37-40, 1984. 5. Paper: The Influence of Human Disturbance on the Location of Great Blue Heron Colonies in the Lower Chesaake'Bay(Published in Colonial Waterbirds 17(2):184- 186, 1994). 6. Paper: Colony Effects on Fledging Success.of Great Blue Herons in British Columbia(Published in Colonial Waterbirds 18(2):159-165, 1995). Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 425)226-0188 NOTICE OF APPEAL The Friends of the Black River appeal the environmental determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)for the Black River Corporate Park(Project No. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM). We believe that the ERC decision was arbitrary and capricious in that it did not comply with the provisionsincludedin, but not limited to, Section 2 of the Renton Environmental Ordinance(Chapter 6, Title 4 of theCodeofGeneralOrdinancesoftheCityofRenton). We believe that the ERC in issuing its Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated should have requiredthefollowingadditionalmitigationmeasures: The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the setback distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The setback is necessaryinordertodecreasetheriskofabandonmentoftheheroncolony. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The applicant shall limit all heavy construction on the project to a period from June 15 to January 15.The limitation is necessary in order to protect the heron colony from serious disturbance during theheron-breeding season. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The ERC addresses these mitigation measures in their staff report and determines that these mitigation measures are not necessary to protect the Black River Heron Colony. However, the ERC provides no scientific evidence to support their claim. We will provide expert testimony in support of these mitigation measures. The ERC in its staff report refers to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to support its decision not to require certain mitigation measures. We believe that the MOA does not apply to this project and should not be referenced in support of, or opposition to, the project. We request that the Hearing Examiner make adeterminationastowhethertheMOAmaybereferencedinmattersregardingthisproject. Agenda Introduction Overview of Appeal Explanation of Issues Including Science Used by ERC Subject Matter Experts Closing 1 A. Introduction: I. Thanks to All Participants Jennifer Henning for her presentation & thank everyone who has come here today to discuss the issues resulting from the proposed development of Tract B, Black River Corporate Park. II. Friends of the Black River (FBR) Citizen stewards, involved in habitat restoration at the Black River Riparian Forest. We believe the Black River Riparian Forest to be a unique inter city wildlife habitat particularly for Great Blue Herons and waterfowl. Past activities that the Friends of the Black River have performed include flora & fauna surveys, removal of non-native invasive plant species, planting of native plants, installation of bird houses, the conducting of field trips, amphibian monitoring, litter control, etc. We have worked with local high school clubs, the Boy Scouts, the Cub Scouts, and the public at large. III. Value of the Heron Colony It is the largest heron colony in King County. We believe the heron to be a magnificent bird and its adoption of the Black River Riparian Forest as its home to be an asset to the community at large. This heron colony has value to citizenry. Hundreds of people participate in the field trip each spring to view the courtship and nesting activities of the herons. And the City of Renton has received over 50 letters from citizens that are concerned about the impact this development will have on the herons. The site has also been mentioned in numerous newspaper articles. The heron colony was even mentioned in a recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal. 2 IV. Agreement with Developer not Achieved The FBR would also like to point out that at the request of the Hearing Examiner we did attempt to reach an agreement with the developer on our appeal but we were not able to reach an agreement. V. Submittal The FBR would like to submit to the Examiner at the close of this hearing a notebook covering the major points that we will be discussing today. VI. Opening City of Renton Environmental Ordinance, paragraphs 4-6-2 B,E,&F In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Ordinance, it is the continuing responsibility of the City to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of State, and City policies, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs and resources to the end that the State and its citizens may: ... (4-6-2 B 3) Attain the widest range of beneficial use of the environment without degradation, ... or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4-6-2 E) To the fullest extent possible, the City will utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's environment. 4-6-2 F) ...{The City} ... will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making... 3 B. The Appeal The FBR believe that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) should have required the following two mitigation measures for the Black River Corporate Park Project: 1. The buffer: The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the buffer distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The buffer is necessary in order to decrease the risk of abandonment of the heron colony. (This setback of 660 feet should be measured from the heron nest nearest the development and not the center of the island). 2. Timing for Construction: The applicant shall limit the time for all heavy construction on the entire project to a period from June 15 to January 15. This limitation is necessary in order to protect the heron colony from serious disturbance during the heron- breeding season. As of yesterday, August 31, 1998, there were still young herons in the nesting trees. There are other examples of projects in King County that were built with similar limits on the timing of construction with the intended purpose of protecting Red Tailed Hawks during their breeding season. Anstalt Plat, located northeast of Redmond Beaver Creek Estates Plat, located east of Redmond Benson Downs Apartment Complex, located east of Renton East View Terrace Plat, located east of Auburn Additionally, the state of Washington places these types of restrictions on developments near bald eagle nests. The timing of these building restrictions varies by the specie being protected. King County for example restricts access to areas around the Kenmore Heron Colony until after July 31. 4 C. Explanation of the Issues The appeal is based on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, and the City of Renton Environmental Ordinance, Chapter 6 of Title 4 of Ordinance Number 4260. The FBR believe: The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee are inadequate to protect the Heron Colony. Experts on Great Blue Herons will provide testimony to this effect. The FBR believe: The impacts of the development to the heron colony have not been adequately addressed. Experts on Great Blue Herons will provide testimony to this effect. The mitigation measures as outlined in our appeal should be required. Experts on Great Blue Herons will provide testimony to this effect. The FBR believe: There are flaws in the science used by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Both myself and the Great Blue Heron Experts will explain that the:. Environmental Checklist: Visual Assessment of the Heron Colony Tree Height Screening Report The ERC Staff Report are flawed. 5 The Environmental Checklist: This checklist, required by SEPA, was incomplete and did not properly address the environmental sensitivity of the site. The authors failed to mention that great blue herons and colonies are designated by the state of Washington as priority species and habitat, respectively, that require protection. They relied on a defective report (the Tree Height and Screening report) to characterize vegetative buffer between the colony and the development. They discounted the value of the site to wildlife by omitting species such as deer and beaver in the checklist. The Visual Assessment of the Heron Colony: This assessment was conducted over the course of a single day and was supposed to determine the flight patterns of the herons. The report concludes that herons do not fly over Tract B. In reality, our members have reported many instances of herons flying over Tract B. This report represents a minimal effort to characterize the heron's use of the site and therefore does not provide usable data. The advice of the author that the observations may not be representative of activities at other times sums up the quality of this study. Tree Height Screening Report: It describes the Lombardy poplars as providing a screen between the colony and the development when in fact they do not. The poplar trees run in a thin strip in a north-south direction along the western boundary of the development and will only provide a screen between a small portion of the development and the heron colony. Furthermore the Tree Height Screening Report talks about other deciduous trees providing a screen but they do not provide much of screen in the critical months of January, February, and March when they do not have leaves. The ERC Staff Report: This report does not present any clear scientific evidence to support the not having a timing restriction for construction. A timing restriction was part of the 1991 agreement. Timing restrictions are common practice for many developments in King County. The ERC Staff Report makes references to noise sources located in close proximity to the heron colony such as railroad tracks, concrete recycling, and Oaksdale Avenue. These noise sources are located at 1000 or more feet from the heron colony as shown in Exhibit 2. 6 D. Introduction of Experts They will talk about why: The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee are inadequate to protect the Heron Colony. They will explain why they believe: The impacts of the development to the heron colony have not been adequately addressed. They will talk about why: The mitigation measures as outlined in the appeal should be required. And they will talk about The flaws in the science used by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee. There are four subject matter experts that would like to talk. They are Don Norman, Kate Stenberg, Dee Boersma, and Robert Butler. I would like to start with Mr. Don Norman. 7 E. Closing City of Renton Environmental Ordinance, Section 4-6-2 A. The City, recognizing that man depends on his biological and physical surroundings for food, shelter and other needs, and for cultural enrichment as well, and recognizing further the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high density urbanization, industrial expansions, resource utilization and ... recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare ... of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the City, in cooperation with Federal, State, and other local governments and in cooperation with other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations ..." Again, thank you for the opportunity to present our appeal. 8 41, IILiip... 7., d't90, 147.- - 1I' 4.1'14, k. IIN. v 0 A - s vor „\ 4. . 1 s. ' • - • 1;1 4111164114 6,. 4°146. f f'. • .1 . i& ,A 1 "' I Ae t3 • - -4--N't • , .ti" ' ..._ .‘ 4 .41L.Ae4.1.111tila ' 'I)s • A .'i F.: 8* ', * • , 4."..3g, ,_. N.. .. .. 0' 1 illtl I. i 1 sr11*-.0 A' -' il , al.-- Cs 0\•i Zr-):_'.' ‘1441..:., '., - It , ; ."'-*1.4r:-C .;t. -: , ....1',4'! its 1 c Ava. r •:.- - . In\ II•eiekw . `-.164,,___"- st* ' NV' .4' le,'. , '-' 4/1AS, ''''--ryik,' ''•- 1,;:- * :.. •,- ..,4 to o- ., sr - ....= e- sIlit-e ...- r. !•1k,., x riq 1 44k . .• - ./40"*40140 ; ''' s- tt . es, 6.-,‘ e:itilvif.... -, A'fit* - 44.# 0 '2,- sr"— • ,:,'..-' 1 4 , CI ' V' , ttik44 . N 't-e' ,, 23.14,, --,. 1 : , . ‘ is 1t•sr t ,.- 4aA: 4 i,--i,-.-;.. b- i1. f.. to.s-. k-- s-.4.- s- co..* v._.... rtt-..fv-t.''-" 4 r• ' k' i i-.t.ii ,t 1- 4t.4 1 r4i • • ..- 4 i A._i -till 441114-I 44' ' ' ilioli • , , Iv 4( • 10 4.. As: iV. 410 ANIP0106 ..; , : , ...! l 1 41„ i, ily•* 40,,riios w,: r 3' 4 ' t•I t.,.. tir XI: it 'I i 7/ 0• - ' t 44, Als -4e 1 ri Ilk.111140,ALINI4 2. e ..1 , 41•:.i s, -I 4," , •' 4, , ma t4•••• at.,,,i. '. / 4titeil s s nil J . . , • . -1 -.:; ..• , ., -. -.4... 1) -. 4 --1141*.ftt N * 110, 1.'5 5 litnik 41 . ..... ._.......... r 4 4NP .2 o i' 1/4 I;, i 1. 1N.-i.,.1/4 VN 10, 0'144 1 J . i 1 41-41,N ,,... f i. 4104,17' j00 v. 1' t ip eli."11111 a111"9111111116j4.71111111K; ...... timmi.. 1119. 1, . 11, ....... frie•:- 4 ''' 414111191 07 '. -It k ':SI" •.tr tt\ .,;-•..Q Li,I notr-1 IN - i .*il lrgifS-. 1' A dor EXHIBIT 1 BLACK RIVER WETLAND rt 420 W' y 31 1‘ 44. 1 . ... II 44. 40. e 1 0 0. 3.3..7.1 1:::.. 1.'•. ll . t. s.( II,,:-. / 0.‘. 0 .:, ‘ 4.: ..;. 4, ,. vi c::' - ' 1 . 1 .= a r 4."' 41:' „ fr."' ,,/ l% At ) • A 0 .. ply 4,, ri Q el a 1// l i jra 4. 1 i 1 k 9100. 1 1 Z L-i- 1 ', 04.,' '...- .•' 11. *, . ' s --"': " i, i el . yy M VI 4. I K„.„ - 4 , ,,,, 4 1` • . ,.. r l'% 4 i ' ';• Y.' .)' 11( 4 ' '..., ' 1,` 1-' -.: '' ••• 4.:.- 4" v". - 4' ,.,,, t. A. i a)=.,-- z„ , ,... iI Li...d t ik- r' 1.\ ib! z j r e 4 f.`, c i a! 71 L r Allilff t Friends of the Black River August 1998 Comments on Natural Resource Consulting's "Tree Height and Screening Between Proposed Black River Corporate Park"Tract B" Building and the Heron Rookery in Renton, Washington" The Friends of the Black River found this report to be inadequate and the conclusions inaccurate. This study is a `reconnaissance study' and is not meant to be a scientific study. The following items do not support the conclusion that the vegetation provides an adequate buffer between the colony and the proposed development: 1. Study occurred in early March and as stated in the report deciduous trees did not have leaves at this time. Herons start using the nesting trees in late January and February. 2. As shown in Figure 1 of the report, the Lombardy poplars referred to in the report are located on the `western property boundary' and are not located between the colony and the proposed developoment as stated in the report . 3. The evergreens mentioned in the report are directly east of the Lombardy poplars on the western boundary of the property and do not block the view between the colony and Tract B. 4. No method was given for determining the visibility of the colony from Tract B. Because there is existing vegetation on the site including large trees, no explanation for the determination that there is only a 30 foot gap where the colony is visible from Tract B was given. 5. No evidence was provided that a vegetative buffer that provides a physical barrier to the colony would provide an acoustical barrier. Deciduous trees do not provide an adequate buffer when they are not leafed out. Cottonwoods are late to leaf out and do not leaf out until early April. Our group has monitored leaf cover over the last few years because we plan field trips for viewing the heron colonies. It has been our experience that field trips planned until the first week of April provide good viewing of the herons in nests because the cottonwoods have not leafed out at this time. Conclusion: This report is flawed and does not provide evidence to support the development plans and the lack of a timing restriction on development. The vegetation referred to in the report may not provide an adequate buffer either physical or acoustical. Friends of the Black River August 1998 Comments on Natural Resource Consulting's "Visual Assessment of Great Blue Herons in the Riparian Forest North of the Black River Corporate Park Tract B Property in Renton, Washington" The Friends of the Black River have reviewed the above report submitted by the applicant. This report is not to be considered a scientific study because: 1. As the author of the report states it is a `reconnaissance' study, i.e. an exploratory or preliminary study. 2. The length of observation was inadequate to make a final determination. The entire study took approximately 15 hours in one day. This included scoping the area, choosing viewing sites, lunch, breaks, etc. 3. As admitted by the researcher there was a limited view from 2 of the 4 stations. 4. The author did not observe from Tract B and may have missed herons that flew over this site. 5. As stated by the author in the last paragraph, the observations on this day may not be representative of activities at other times. C 8 N Members of our group and other groups and individuals have seen fly over Tract B. If needed, we can provide this information. A Conclusion: This report represents a minimal effort to characterize the heron's use of the site and therefore does not provide useable data. The advice of the author that the observations may not be representative of activities at other times sums up the quality of this study. Corrections to study: Item 1.2: The Lombardy poplars are located on the western edge of Tract B along Springbrook Creek and do not block the view from Tract B to the heron colony. Item 2.0: The Department of Fish and Wildlife's(WDFW) database is not complete for this site. WDFW does counts of colonies every 1 to 5 years. The data for the years missing in the WDFW database are available through the city of Renton or citizen groups who monitor the site. Friends of the Black River August 1998 Comments on Environmental Checklist An Environmental Checklist required by SEPA was completed by the applicant. This checklist contains flaws including: Mischaracterization of the vegetative buffer between the colony and Tract B(see Items 4 d and 5 a)as adequate based on a defective report(see Comments on NRC's Tree Height report); Neglecting to mention that great blue herons and colonies are designated by the state of Washington as priority species and priority habitats(respectively)that require protection(see Item 4 c); Discounting the value of Tract B to wildlife by omitting species present(deer and beaver)and assuming erroneously that Tract B is not part of a migration route(Item 5 a). The proposed buffer is measured as 500 feet from the center of the island but is less than 425 feet as measured from the nearest heron nest(Item 5 d). We have provided comments on these items and several other items which need addressing: Item 3 a. 2) The drainage outfall from the wetpond should be constructed outside the heron breeding period. Item 3 a. 3) A wetland classified as emergent Category 3 approximately 0.07 acres in size is proposed to be filled. This wetland is located in the southeast corner of Tract B. This wetland is contiguous with the other 2 wetlands on Lot 4 and are remnants of the old Black River bed and therefore is important and should not be viewed as a separate wetland. The bed of this river has been filled for many miles through Renton. Item 3 c. 1) Plans for the enhanced water quality control pond(wetpond)that will be constructed to collect stormwater should be reviewed for adequacy. Because the wetpond drains directly in P-1 pond which already has water quality problems, it is important that the stormwater not add any more impact to the already stressed water quality and habitat. Item 3 d. Use of pesticides and herbicides on Tract B should be restricted or carefully controlled. Drainage of pesticides into the creek and pond would stress an already stressed ecosystem. Because insects are a valuable portion of birds diets spread of pesticides through this area would diminish food supply. Some fish are exquisitely sensitive to certain herbicides. These herbicides should not be used. Containment of drainage from the roads and parking areas is necessary to prevent oil slicks in the pond. Minimal use of chemicals in landscaping is vital. Item 4. c. Although herons are not federally designated threatened or endangered species, they are designated by the state of Washington as a Priority species and thus are protected by the state and are therefore a public resource and are in the public trust. Heron colonies are designated Priority habitats by the state. This is because herons are colonial breeders and require specific habitat for nesting. The state has drawn up recommended management guidelines which could be adopted by jurisdictions(county or city) for protection. Item 4. D. The existing buffer is not adequate between the development and the heron colony. These trees are deciduous and do not leaf out until well after the breeding season has begun. Black Cottonwoods Pojiulus trichocarpa)are late to leaf out. Past experience in planning field trips to view herons in the nest has shown that cottonwood trees do not leaf out until late March or early April, well into heron breeding season. Page 2 Environmental Checklist Item 5. A. Deer and beaver were omitted from the checklist . Deer are resident to this area and on numerous occasions they are sighted. On one of our missions to control purple loosestrife(a non-native invasive plant that grows in wetland and along streambanks)along Springbrook Creek and the pond in September, 3 deer were flushed out of the dense shrubs next to Tract B. Beaver have been observed in the pond and also on the banks of Springbrook Creek along Tract B. The Heron Rookery: The heron rookery is not separated from the site visually or physically by lombardypoplars(Populus nigra; not native). These poplars line the ridge on Tract B above the east side of SpringbrookCreekanddonotinterferewiththeviewofthecolonyfromTractB. These trees are not native and may not provide suitable habitat. We challenge the statements that there is only a narrow corridor where the colony is visible from BuildingBandthatthetwostorybuildingwouldblocktheviewfromalltheotherbuildingsonthesite. Item 5 b. Again heron should have been listed as a priority species(Wa state). Item 5 c. Herons do migrate through Tract B. Also many waterfowl which migrate through this area to destinations north or south fly over Tract B and use the Black River site. The planting of the Lombardypoplarsmayhavecreatedadetourindirectmigrationtothesite. Item 5. D. The 500 foot buffer in previous documents was measured from the center of the island. Estimation of a 150 foot diameter to the island and the edge of the colony would make this a 425 foot distance from the colony edge to the development with the wetpond occurring at less than 425 feet from the colony. Item 8. h. The location of the site adjacent to a heron colony qualifies the site as an environmentally sensitive area. Item 12. a. Lot 4 is described as a recreational opportunity. This lot contains environmentally sensitive wetlands. Item 12. c. Picnic areas should not impact heron colony. Exhibit 2 This appears to be a chronology of the entire Black River Corporate Park of which Tract B is a part. Item 17. Construction occurred during heron nesting period but was outside of 1000 feet from the colony. Friends of the Black River August 1998 Friends of the Black River August 1998 Comments on ERC staff report dated June 16, 1998 We appreciate the adoption of our recommendation for lighting that will not impact the heron colony. However, the staff report ignores the previously agreed heron protections that were adopted for the previous site plan. The ERC presents no clear evidence for the lack of a timing restriction for construction. The vegetation buffer is not present when the trees are not leafed out until late March. Cottonwood, alder and Lombardy poplars are cited as dense tree cover. However, cottonwoods do not leaf out until late March to early April well after the herons have started laying eggs and incubating the eggs. (Based on our experience from planning field trips to view the colony.) The Lombardy poplars alluded to are on the western boundary of Tract B and do not physically provide a buffer between the development and the colony. Ambient noise cited is located 1000 feet(Oakesdale Avenue) or more from the heron colony. Friends of the Black River August 1998 The Herons of Black River We are providing the following information about great blue herons at the Black River site based on experience and field notes from 1988 to the present. Table 1: Summary of Breeding Season Duration Activity Observed period 1. Congregating(pre-breeding) December and later 2. Nest Building and Pair Bond formation January to March or later(occasionally as early as December) 3. Displays January and later 4. Egg laying and incubation February through May and later 5. Caring for young April through August 6. Fledging of young May through August Breeding season activities—December through August: 1. Congregating: Throughout the year herons roost in certain trees that line the north side of the main P-1 pond. (see map) However in late December and January, the numbers increase as a prelude to courtship . As many as 55 herons have been observed in this small area in January. These trees provide an area where the herons are visible to each other. Some pairs have already formed at this point. In past years, when winds are high in January and February, herons roost in trees to the northeast of the main heron nesting trees. 2. Nest Building and Pair Bond Formation: From January to March or later, the herons stake out available nests or start building nests. In our records, herons were in nesting trees as early as December(1988 and 1991). These activities may continue through April or later since some pairs start early and others later. Table 2: Dates that herons are first observed in nesting trees Year Herons First Observed in Nesting Trees 1988 December(last week of Dec.) 1989 January 1 1990 January 22 1991 December 31 1992 January 1 1993 February 14 (no observations made before this) 1994 January 23 1995 January 10 1996 January 23 1997 January 22 1998 January 27 Page 2 Herons Groups of nests are in mature black cottonwood trees that are in 3 locations in close proximity(see map): 1)on an island in the northeast part of the main P-1 pond(the main nesting tree), 2) in trees located on the mainland directly northeast of the main nesting trees, and 3) in the forest directly north of the main nesting trees. 3. Displays: Herons have a ritualized set of courtship displays that are particular to the breed. These displays are present through pair formation, nest building, mating, and feeding of the mate tending the nest. These behaviors have been observed as soon as the herons start occupying the nesting trees as early as January. 4. Egg laying and incubation: Herons lays eggs and incubate the eggs from February through May (and possibly later). During this time(approximately 28 days)parents take turns tending the nest and turning the eggs. 5. Caring for young: In most years young have hatched in April and May. Viewing of the nests with a spotting scope reveal that the young in different nests are at different stages of maturity showing that the breeding process for the heron population is staggered over a period of time. 6. Fledging: Generally the young herons fledge in May to July. However, this year there were still heron young in the nest as late as August 30. Foraging: Herons have been observed feeding in shallow areas throughout the Black River watershed. These locations include: west of the congregating area, on downed logs on the north side of the P-1 pond, the northeast shore of the P-1 pond; the south shore of the P-1 pond; upland on Tract A; along the old Black River channel; and along Springbrook Creek. A recent sighting of herons on the stream that leads into the old BR channel has been reported. Because Tract B is private property, there is not information about occurrence of heron feeding on Tract B. Herons also feed in the Cedar River, the shores of Lake Washington, the Green River, the Duwamish River, and numerous wetlands in this area including one just north of the railroad tracks on the northern border of the Black River site. Flight Patterns: Herons have been seen flying over Tract A, Tract B, northeast from the nesting trees, and directly over the pond. Page 3 Herons Bald Eagle Attacks In 1991 bald eagles attacked the herons and the herons abandoned their nests. In subsequent years, several instances of bald eagles either harrassing or in close proximity to the herons have been observed. No observable effect to reproductive success has occurred. Heron Behavior During Heavy Machinery during Breeding Season See Accompanying letter" Disturbance of Nesting Herons at Black River Site" from Shelly Anderson, Soil Conservation Service. This incident occurred in 1987 and is also referenced in Murphy's paper" Status of Great Blue Heron Colonies in King County, Washington. Source of information: Ted Mallory 1988 to 1998 Keith Anderson 1995 to 1996 Shelly Anderson 1987 Trudy Thomas 1993 to 1997 t Ui fi , S wig Vlir' 4° ''''' '''' - 7-"" r‘•A ..- ft'. ! MI. :, ;,,..,,. - ' • it, V, V,,, 1 ,. a t t+ 1 r . l 77 i none - t Air. t i. l. r . •. y } 4 '- 7s f. sari. *.« ; off y,; , •-- .' Si \ 4 7 4 ifdre. J 41. t1 i 1: 414' IL oval,* , . :' ..,' : , i ' . :',. ...' ri-,: t 4 . . h. 7:••,... 4 ,?-. 4..,,.. ts.--,:-• •). ' ein.• i # MA A 40,- 1.. XS., i: \ I* 41: i. 4..:. vs..... 6.... m.'-' 7 41„ Oe' i\„ .' A .-.', ) i"' t.:... i i t •• T• lei 1 2s Z i• ,' ' fit i iii.',... z • r vi...;,„. t,. a.„. • iph \ . . ..,.. isi. A.. . 34,- ,.. _:?•.= , , . ii,.:.. f., i:,.. ..:-..- 41%.:,,,, iel.,..... _ ....,.„,....-:,--.,.- ...,.. e. * .. \. f,.. r.-,, ,•,.. 4ww.. y. - I ' NT it' rec‘ i - 2. Afe* ,, t..?„, 4, 11, itk,,) fir.... w 4?„... t. r„, , * 1/ 7! Ili\ e.•...% .. Iii .. i ' 4: ; re f 1 • Kr ' r it F 1. 1.1: c' f-_. ,.:',.--._,... Ski j 41! p ly l.. \ t3i 5 Y F f"•.. . Z • fir j r. \ I iiib s. Jay'=:-- s., 4i s 4 AO>• r ins ist. M Disturbance of Nesting Herons at Black River Site August 30, 1998 I am writing to you in response to the recent proposal at the Rookery for office building construction. I would like to address the stress that construction has on the Herons at that site. During the later 1980's, I was an Inspector at the Rookery site for the 20 acre pond constructionandfollowinglandscapingactivities. I was also on the survey crew initially and involved full time in the preliminary pond layout activities. Pre-pond construction the heron visited the site primarily to feed. After pond construction there were nine nests on the island the first year, as I remember it. The developer decided to remove a good part of the lowland forest north of the rookery with no notice to the city or anyone. Marty Murphy was doing bird counts on site and saw this activity and called me. I went to the site in the afternoon. The birds were tremendously stressed. The 20 to 30 birds were circling the rookery area immediately around the island and making loud squeals that I had never heard from them before. They were +/-20 feet above the ground and circling in an obvious panic. This should all be in the City of Renton's files along with aerial photos of the sediment in the pond area from the tree cutting. I know this because they were presented in a hearing to Fred Kaufman that I was part of. The Department of Natural Resources stopped construction on the site as illegal that day after an employee visited the site. He should also be able to document the birds high stress levels. The Stop Work Order was removed in a "deal" never fully disclosed to the public. Construction continued and the birds circled for the entire rest of the day while cutting occurred. This site has been fought for by the citizenry for nearly 30 years. A letter from the early 1970's from a citizen illustrating the area as a park is also in the files somewhere. The City of Renton has made a genuine effort and some real strides to preserving that area for the citizens of all the country. It would be nice if somehow the entire site could be saved and not developed. I'm available for information and am hopeful that a way is found to make the best use of the site and prevent this development. Sincerely, Shelly Anderson 1192 Xenophon St. Golden, CO. 80401 303)234-9365 Washington Department of Wildlife Management Recommendations for Priority Species 11 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron RANGE: Found throughout most of North America south of 55°north latitude and ex- tends into much of Central and South America.Breeding pairs on the Pacific WASHINGTON coast occur only to about 52°N. DISTRIBUTION: Statewide. 4ffsopgyp' ...: ..•::0 Atari:UP"TWA HABITAT Great blue herons occur near all types of fresh and saltwater wetlands includ- REQUIREMENTS: ing seashores,rivers,swamps,marshes,and ditches. They are found at most elevations,but are more common in the lowlands. These herons are colonial breeders,generally nesting in tall deciduous or coniferous trees near wet- lands. Although occasionally smaller trees,bushes,and artificial structures have been used(Bruce 1986,Blus et al. 1980),nests are usually constructed in the largest trees available. For example,a study in British Columbia found that most heronries occurred in trees over 14m(50)tall and no nests were found in trees under 10m(30)high(Mark 1976). In an Oregon study,the birds nested in trees averaging seven to 25m height(23'to 82')(Werschkul et al. 1976). Great blue herons feed on aquatic and marine animals found in shallow wa- ter. Feeding in upland fields upon mice and voles also occurs(Calambokidis, et al. 1985)and may be important in winter,especially for herons in coastal areas(Simpson,pers.comm.). Although documented distances from an ac- tive heronry to a foraging area range from four to 29km(2.5 to 18 mi.),most are located within a radius of about four to five km (2.5 to 3 mi.)from the heronry(Short and Cooper 1985). Feeding territories may vary from year to year with respect to size or location(Hoover and Wills 1987). Birds from Pa- cific coastal colonies may depend on specific nearby shallow water areas which provide consistent,abundant food during the critical nesting and young rearing periods(Kelsall,pers.comm.). Alternative nesting and feeding habitat is probably critical to great blue her- ons. Colonies usually exist at the same location for many years,but some herons may naturally relocate their colonies in response to increased preda- tion on eggs and young by mammals or other birds,or declines in food availability(Simpson et al. 1987). Heronries built in spruce or Douglas-fir trees may damage the host trees over time,which may also influence natural colony relocation(Tulin 1986). Great blue herons arc shy birds,generally sensitive to human disturbance and frequently the target of vandalism (Parker 1980,English 1978). Herons have abandoned heronries because of housing and industrial development,high- way construction, logging,actively used roads,and repeated human intru- sions into colonies(Leonard 1985,Parker 1980, Kelsall and Simpson 1979, Werschkul et al. 1976). Herons that have experienced few past disturbances are unlikely to tolerate human activities near their colonies(Bowman and Siderius 1984). Other studies suggest that some herons,which are frequently or consistently exposed to disturbance,may habituate to human activities(Webb and Forbes 1982,Vos et al. 1985,Calambokidis et al. 1985,Shipe and Scott 1981). Thus,herons nesting in different locales may have different tolerance levels to humans,with colonies located close to human activities responding less to disturbance than those in remote areas(Simpson 1984). Certain colonies may tolerate disturbance because nests are built in coniferous trees,whose fo- liage naturally buffers the effects of human activity,or they may be influ- enced by proximity to heavily used foraging areas(Webb and Forbes 1982). LIMITING FACTORS: Availability of suitable habitat which provides adequate nest sites and feed- ing areas located in the vicinity of breeding colonies. MANAGEMENT Site specific management plans should be developed for individual heronries RECOMMENDATIONS: whenever activities that might affect herons are proposed. Factors to consider include,but arc not limited to: I) The heronry's relative isolation (Henny and Kurtz. 1978). Some evidence suggests that colonies located in close proximity to existing human activities can tolerate more disturbance compared to colonies located in undisturbed areas(Simpson 1984,Webb& Forbes 1982, Bowman and Siderius 1984). 2) The timing of a proposed activity relative to the heron's nesting cycle. Herons are most vulnerable to disturbance early in the breeding cycle. It is generally agreed that herons ate less tolerant of disturbance during the pre- nesting courtship period and egg laying. becoming progressively less likely to abandon nests after the young have hatched(Kelsall 1989,Bowman and Siderius 1984). 3) Topographic features surrounding the heronry and type of habitat sur- rounding the colony. 4) Proximity of a heron colony to likely feeding grounds (Simpson 1984, Gibbs et al.1987). 5) Proximity to,and availability of, forest stands which might be used as alternative nest sites(Simpson 1984,Tulin 1986,Gibbs et al. 1987). 6) The numbers of potential predators. such as bald eagles or crows, in the area(Simpson et al. 1986,Kelsall and Simpson 1979). 7) Degree of habituation to disturbance (Bowman and Siderius 1984). All authors on heronry management recommend buffer zones around the periphery of nesting sites(Kelsall 1989). Recommended buffer distances vary from 1,000m (3280')during the nesting season (Bowman and Siderius 1984)to a year-round"no activity"buffer of 25m (75')encompassed by a 0.25km (0.4 mi.) zone off!Units from March through mid-May(Parker 1980). Ogden,and S. Winckler, eels. Wading birds. National Audubon Soci- ety Research Report No. 7. Gibbs,J.P.,S.Woodward, M.L. Hunter,and A.E. Hutchinson. 1987. Deter- minants of great blue heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. Auk 104:38-47. Henny,C.J. and J.E. Kurtz. 1978.Great blue herons respond to nesting habitat loss. Wild. Soc. Bull.6(1):35-37. Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Wills,eds. 1987. Managing forested lands for wild- life. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Julin, K.R. 1986. Decline of second growth Douglas-fir in relation to great blue heron nesting. Northwest Sci.60(4):201-205. Kelsall,J.P. 1989. The great blue herons of Point Roberts: History,biology and management. Unpubl. rcpt. for the Point Roberts Heron Preserva- tion Committee. and K.Simpson. 1979. A three year study of the great blue heron in southwestern British Columbia. Proc.Colonial Waterbird Group, Vol. 3:69-79. Leonard, W. 1985. Inventory of great blue heron nest colonies in southern and western Puget Sound. Unpublished report to Washington Dept.of Wildlife, Nongame Program,Olympia,WA. Mark, D.M. 1976. An inventory of great blue heron(Ardea herodias)nest- ing colonies in British Columbia. Northwest Sci.50(1):32-41. Parker,J. 1980. Great blue herons(Ardea herodias) in northwestern Mon- tana: Nesting habitat use and the effects of human disturbance. Unpubl. M.S.Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. Pullin, B.P. 1988. Letter to Ms.Linda George,Point Roberts Heron Preserva- tion Committee. On file with Washington Dept.of Wildlife,Nongamc Program,Olympia, WA. Shipe,Si.and W.W. Scott. 1981. The great blue heron in King County, Washington. Unpubl.Rept to Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Urban Wildlife Program, Mill Creek, WA. Short, H.L.and R.J. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Great blue heron. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.99), Washington, DC. Simpson, K. 1984. Factors affecting reproduction in great blue herons Ardea herodias). Unpubl. M.S.Thesis, Univ. British Columbia,Van- couver, B.C.,Canada. J.N.M. Smith,and J.P. Kelsall. 1987. Correlates and consequences of coloniality in great blue herons. Can.J.Zool. 65:572-577. Vos, K.K., R.A. Ryder,and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in north central Colorado.Colonial Waterbirds 8(1):13-22. Webb,R.S.,and L.S.Forbes. 1982. Colony establishment in an urban site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63(3):91-92. Werschkul,D.F.,E. McMahon,and M.Leitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in Oregon. Wilson Bull. 88(4):660-662. KEY POINTS: Habitat Requirements: Colonial breeders,generally nest in tall trees near wetlands. Usually forage within four-five km of colony. Alternate nesting and feeding habitat important. Sensitive to human disturbance. Management Recommendations: Maintain habitat within 250-350m buffer zone around colony. No human instrusion in buffer zone between February 15 and July 31. Maintain alternate nesting habitat nearby. Protect wetlands and other feeding areas within four km of colony. Develop a site-specific management plan for each heronry(see text). C:T2/27/91 RM JUN 02 '98 09:53AM AG & RES LANDS SCC P.1/5 King County Environmental Division Parks, Planning and Resourora Department 3600-136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 2,06)296-6602 June 18, 1992 TO: Arthur Thornbury, Council Staff, King County Council FM: Kate Stenberg, Ph.D., Wildlife Planner, Environmental Division IL RE: Proposed Northshore Community Plan Great Blue Heron Protection Attached is an issue paper that provides more background on the Great Blue heron Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) in the Proposed Northshore Community Plan. This paper includes a discussion of the need for heron protection and an explanation of how the proposed P-suffix conditions provide heron protection. I hope this information will address the questions raised by the Northshore Panel . If I can clarify any additional questions, please let me know at 296-7266. Thank you. Enclosure HEROH$NS cc: Brad Liliequist, Community Planner, Planning and Community Development Division Derek Poon, Chief, Resource Planning Section Post-it•Fax Note iiiIM7871 oat' 11111 IMIt. V 1- L•ac a Co/Dept JUN 02 '99 09:53AM AG & RES LANDS SCC P.2/5 EXECUTIVE PROPOSED NORTHSHORE COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE AND AREA ZONING GREAT BLUE HERON NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA Sionificance of Great blue herons: There is a Great Blue Heron rookery on the north side of the Kenmore Park-and-Ride between 80th Avenue NE and 73rd Avenue NE. This unique wildlife feature is exceptionally important to the citizens of the Kenmore area. Policy NR-16 calls for protection of the heron rookery and feeding areas. The Great Blue heron is a protected species and is classified by the Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) as a state monitor species (WDW Policy 4803; based on Policy 4802, WAC 232-12-297, WAC 232-12-011, WAG 232- 12-014) . The herons are also listed as a Priority Species on the Washington Department's Priority Species and Habitats list which is supported by the Wildlife Commission. In addition, Great Blue heron nests are protected by state and federal laws (Title 77 RCW Game and Game Fish, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Wildlife Conservation Act). Heron colonies usually exist at the same location for many years. In addition to the Great Blue herons there is a wide variety of other wildlife species that use and depend on the same areas that the herons use for nesting and feeding. Birds such as Common mergansers, Red-tailed hawks, Bald eagles, Belted kingfishers, Cormorants, Canada Geese, salmon and other fish, frogs, salamanders, snakes, and mammals are known to use these areas. Many of these additional animals are the prey species on which the herons depend.. Development activity is a significant threat to the protection of this important resource. Special conditions are necessary to ensure the protection of the heron rookery and feeding areas in Northshore. Properly planned and directed development can integrate habitat protections to the benefit of all. Offers: The regulatory buffers required under the SAO for streams and wetlands are not designed to provide complete wildlife protection. Where there are significant wildlife features, the SAO allows for additional buffer requirements (K.C.C. 21.54 Section 90 B. Additional buffer requirements for wetlands and K.C.C. 21.54 Section 94 B. Additional buffer requirements for streams). The King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) highlights heron rookeries as a significant wildlife feature exempt from certain general utility exceptions (K.C.C. 21.54 Section 91). Interpretive Sionaae: Interpretive signage can help residents understand and appreciate more fully the significant resource of the Great Blue heron colony in the Kenmore area. Signage of wetland and stream buffers is required by the SAO (K.C.C. 21.54 Sections 14 C, 90 E.2, and 94 F). Interpretive signage adjacent to multifamily residences where length of oc9upancy tends to be shorter can have significant benefits for resource protection. Enhanced Plantings: Enhanced plantings to screen high activity areas from areas where a quieter atmosphere is desired are commonly required around a JUN 02 '99 09:54AM AG & RES LANDS SCC p,3/5 variety of development types. (For example, KCCP policies E-303, E-328, R- 301, R-310, CI-212, CI-220, CI-231, and F-232.) Enhanced plantings to screen natural resource protection areas from developed areas have also been required for wildlife protection to mitigate for significant impacts through SEPA. Rpokery - Nesting Areas P Suffix Conditions Condition Number 6 of the P-suffix conditions in the Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) provides protection for the heron rookery. A minimum buffer of 660 feet radius around the rookery is recommended. In this location the rookery and the buffer would be contained within the wetland and floodplain of Swamp Creek. Human access to the rookery should be restricted during the breeding season (February 15th to July 31st). Several methods for restricting access are given. Conditions Number I and 5 which address the Swamp Creek floodplain and wetlands also serve to protect the area around the rookery. Justification/Need Great Blue herons are colonial breeders, generally nesting in tall trees near or in wetlands. Sites that are suitable for nesting are becoming increasingly scarce as urbanization continues. The Kenmore rookery consists of approximately 23 nests in 1992. The Kenmore herons have evidenced a low tolerance for disturbance. There is some evidence that the herons moved to King County when development occurred too close to the colony in Snohomish County. The location they have chosen for the rookery may appear to be in a very urbanized area to human perceptions. However, the rookery is in fact in the midst of a very large wetland and floodplain area that is very inaccessible to human intrusion. A minimum buffer width of 820 to 980 feet is recommended by WOW (Management Recommendations for Priority Species 1991) . The US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a 660 foot buffer for the Black River rookery in Renton. Other researchers have recommended everything from 500 to 1000 foot buffers around rookeries. Since the Kenmore rookery appears to be somewhat sensitive to disturbance, the recommended buffer width is 660 feet. In a few locations current structures approach the colony closer than 660 feet, in these areas new developments would be permitted within 660 feet of the rookery when current structures are between the proposed developments and the rookery. Feeding Areas P-Suffix Conditions Condition Number 1 restricts development in the Swamp Creek floodplain and requires interpretive signage adjacent to multifamily developments. Conditions 2 (Upper Swamp Creek), 3 (Samnamish River Corridor), 4 (Lake Washington Shoreline), and 5 (Wetlands Habitat) require a 50 foot buffer in N, ',shore Natural Resource Protection Area 6/18/92 Page 3 3 TUN 02 '98 09:54AM AG & RES LANDS SCC P.4/5 addition to the standard SAO requirements. This additional buffer can be used in calculating allowable site densities however. These conditions also require planting of native vegetation to enhance the habitat for both herons and their prey species and to reduce disturbance of feeding herons by human activities. Condition Number 7 requires mitigation of losses of heron feeding habitat resulting from construction of new docks, piers, bulkheads and boat ramps. Justification/Need Great Blue herons will fly up to 18 miles from a colony to find food. The minimum distance from the rookery is 2.5 to 3 miles (WDW Management Recommendations for Priority Species). Through an analysis of the locations of existing rookeries in King County, the most important feeding areas were determined to be within 4 miles of the rookery. Although there is some evidence that the Kenmore herons are feeding further south along the Lake Washington shoreline (Readdy 1992). Heron habitat in King County is becoming increasingly disturbed which reduces the foraging area available. Reduced foraging areas are directly correlated with reduced colony size (Jensen 1992). Protection of feeding areas is a critical and integral part of heron colony protection. The key heron feeding areas of stream, river, and lake shorelines, floodplains, and large wetlands within 4 miles of the rookery were identified and are specifically listed on the NRPA map in the proposed plan. Great Blue herons feed on fish, frogs and other amphibians, crustaceans, shrews, mice and other small rodents (Jones & Stokes Assoc. , Inc. 1991). In search of these prey species, herons will commonly forage up to 150 feet from the water's edge (Jensen 1992). Herons' primary feeding strategy is to stand very still in shallow water or on the water's edge and to ambush prey items when they come along. Human activity nearby causes herons to move, disturbing their hunting strategy with the result that they miss potential meals. The additional sensitive area buffer requirements are only imposed in areas identified as significant foraging areas. The additional buffers and enhanced plantings at the buffer's edge will provide feeding habitat for the herons, adequate habitat for the herons' prey base, and protection from human disturbance which disrupts feeding. Necessary buffer widths for wildlife protection vary considerably depending on the species and their habits. WOW and the Department of Ecology (DOE) state that buffers need to retain their natural plant structure for a minimum of Z00 to 300 feet from the wetland edge especially if the wetland provides feeding for herons (WOW 1992 and DOE 1992). An additional sensitive areas buffer requirement of 50 feet was judged to be exceptionally minimal for protection of heron feeding areas. Docks, piers, bulkheads, and boat ramps reduce heron feeding areas. Within the NRPA, impacts to heron foraging areas should be minimized and losses should be mitigated. i hshere Natural Resource Protection Area 6/1R/92 Page 4 4 JUN 02 '98 09:54AM AG & RES LANDS SCC P.5/5 Citations: DOE. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Olympia, WA. Jensen, K. 1992. Personal Communication. University of Washington. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991. Revised Life History and Effects of Human Disturbance on Great Blue Heron Colonies. Bellevue, WA. Readdy, P. 1992. Personal Communication. WOW. 1991. Management Recommendations for Priority Species, Great Blue Heron. Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management Divisions, Olympia, WA. WDW. 1992. Buffer Needs of Wildlife. Washington Department of Wildlife, Habitat Management Division, Olympia, WA. Northshore Natural Resource Protection Area 6/18/92 Pape 5 h 0 King County Department of Natural Resources Resource Lands Section 506 Second Avenue, Suite 708 Seattle,WA 98104-2311 Phone (206) 205-0535 FAX 296-1473 July 1, 1998 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Black River Corporate Park, Tract`B" Dear Ms. Huerter: I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate some of my comments from June 12, 1998 regarding the proposed development of Black River Corporate Park, Tract`B" (LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A and LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM)and its impacts to the Black River Heron nesting colony. I feel very strongly that there should be a seasonal construction limit imposed on this site. Great blue herons in the Puget Sound region appear to be declining. Herons are extremely sensitive to disturbances near their nesting colonies in the spring. While the vegetated buffer between the project and the heron colony has grown up in recent years, the buffer is composed of deciduous trees. Deciduous trees do not provide buffer benefits early in the spring when the herons are beginning courtship, nest building and egg laying activities. Disturbances at colonies during this time have repeatedly resulted in nest abandonment and a loss of heron reproduction. The City of Renton has a significant investment of public funds in protecting the Black River heron rookery. To protect that public investment, there should be no construction between January 15th and June 30th within 800 to 1000 feet of the rookery. Seasonal construction limits do not apply to interior finish work. Many sites around Puget Sound are often too wet to work during this nesting season, and we find that contractors do not have a problem working around seasonal construction limits. To provide better year-round buffering of the heronry in the future, the project should also be required to plant additional evergreen trees in the buffer area. Landscaping and enhanced planting requirements are also typically required on projects of this sort and most contractors find them easy conditions to comply with. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the long term health of the Black River heron colony. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 206-296-7266 or via e-mail at kate.stenberg@,metrokc.gov. Sincerely, Kate Stenberg, Ph.D. Wildlife Program Manager King County Wildlife Program D _OPMENT PLANNING 506 Second Avenue,Suite 708 CITY OF RENTON Seattle,WA 98104-2311 Phone (206)296-7266 FAX 296-1473 J U N ). I June 12, 1998 RECEIVED Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton Development Services Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Black River Tract"B"Development Proposal Dear Ms. Henning: Thank you for taking the time to meet with on June 1, 1998 about the proposed development of the Black River Tract`B" (LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A and LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM). I would like to take this opportunity to restate my comments at that meeting and to convey the thoughts of Rob Butler, Ph.D., Canadian Wildlife Service Biologist, concerning the great blue herons. The suggestions that follow should be considered in project design and in drafting mitigation requirements. King County has identified the great blue heron as a species of local significance in our Comprehensive Plan and we have passed regulations specific to the protection of heron rookeries in other parts of the County. The Black River rookery is one of the largest rookeries remaining in the region. Both King County and the City of Renton have shown that they are very concerned about protecting the nesting habitat for this species. The citizens of Renton have supported a considerable expenditure of public funds to acquire the land that surrounds the rookery. Development of Tract"B"has the potential to impact that investment. The great blue heron is a very sensitive species. The population in the greater Puget Sound area appears to be declining. The coastal herons that occur in King County apparently are also a non- migratory, subspecies of great blue heron, separate from the herons found in other parts of the continent. Canadian wildlife officials are investigating the need to potentially list this subspecies 4V as threatened in the greater Puget Sound basin. In King County we have also observed declines in the number of herons. Many of these losses appear to be due to urbanization, habitat loss and disturbance. Jennifer Toth Henning June 12, 1998 Page 2 Buffers: An optimal buffer width for protection of the heron rookery would be 600 feet or larger. However, it should also be noted that the four and five story buildings proposed under the old project scenario would also have a significant impact on the rookery, as they would rise above the treeline. Rob Butler expressed the opinion that the slightly smaller buffer proposed here with one and two story buildings might have less impact than the taller buildings proposed earlier. However, it is difficult to predict exactly how a particular rookery will respond. The City of Renton has a significant investment in the current Black River rookery and prudent management of public funds should lead one to err on the side of caution and to keep the rookery buffers as large as possible. The habitat buffer area north of the stormwater detention facilities should be vegetated with dense plantings, including coniferous species that will both get very tall and provide screening throughout the winter months. The area of existing trees that will not be disturbed should also receive enhanced plantings of coniferous tree species that will eventually provide winter screening. Native plants should be used in all plantings. Noxious and invasive plant species such as ivy should be avoided on all parts of the project site. These species spread readily and could easily escape to impact the open spaces preserved by the City of Renton. The north, east and western edges of the parking lot should be fenced to prevent human intrusion in the open spaces, wetlands, and habitat buffer areas. Herons seem to be extremely sensitive to any sort of human activity near their nesting areas. Even something as simple as a few people walking near the nesting trees has caused nesting failure and abandonment of rookeries. Fencing would be a fairly simple technique to help insure protection of the public investment in the Black River herons. If the utility easement shown on the plan set following the northern perimeter of the property has not yet been built on, this would be a good time to relocate it further into the interior of the project area. Should access to this easement be required for new utilities or for maintenance, then there could be severe impacts to the vegetation that is currently buffering the rookery with potentially devastating effects on the rookery. Seasonal Construction Restrictions: As previously noted, great blue herons are extremely sensitive to disturbances of all sorts. There should be no construction during the nesting season within a larger buffer zone of about 1000 feet. The nesting season for these non-migratory birds is approximately January 15 through June 30`h. Seasonal construction limits do not apply to interior finish work. Jennifer Toth Henning June 12, 1998 Page 3 Lighting Herons are very sensitive to light disturbance. All outdoor lighting should be focused and shielded to prevent light leakage into the buffer area. Outdoor lights on the north and west sides in particular should be of a lower intensity than might be allowed in other parts of the development. Some communities have been very successful in controlling light pollution. You might wish to check with Pima County, AZ, for example, for details on the type of light shielding they require on new projects. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the long term health of the Black River heron rookery. If you have any questions or comments,please feel free to call me at 206- 297-7266 or via e-mail at kate.stenberg(@,metrokc.gov. Sincerely, Kate Stenberg, Ph.D. Wildlife Program Manager rArt,. VFIOPMENT PLANNINGCITYOFRENTON JUL 13 1998 STATE OF WASHINGTON RECEIVEDDEPARTMENTOFFISHANDWILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206) 775-1311 FAX(206)338-1066 July 8, 1998 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue Renton, WA 98055 RE: BLACK RIVER GREAT BLUE HERON NESTING COLONY AND PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION BY ALPER NORTHWEST Dear Ms. Huerter: I have been informed by a group of citizens that the Black River Great Blue Heron nesting colony is being threatened by a proposed complex of buildings and parking lots approximately 500 feet from the nest trees. These citizens have been observing the colony for a number of years and are invested in the preservatoin of these birds, as is the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW). This letter is also in support of the letter dated July 1, 1998 from Ted Muller, WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist, regarding the protection of this great blue heron nesting colony. The great blue heron is listed by the WDFW as a Priority Species and is protected by state law. Because of the specialized nature of its nesting habitat, this species is experiencing a critical decline in suitable places to nest. According to the WDFW Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species, to prevent nesting habitat destruction and disturbance to nesting birds, a minimum buffer zone of 250-300 meters (820-980 feet) should be established from the periphery of the nesting colony. Additionally, surrounding feeding areas, usually wetlands, should be protected within a minimum radius of 4 kilometers (2.5 miles). Because this is a large, established and productive heron colony, its importance to the Puget Sound heron population is essential. Suitable alternate nest trees with associated wetlands are no longer available. We hope that, at the very least, the conditions referred to in Mr. Muller's letter will be honored, and that conditions will be arranged to protect this heron colony beyond 1999 and into perpetuity. Sinc y, zcr Patricia A. Thompson, Wildlife Biologist cc. Ted Muller, WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist V1- 015 1+1 Environment Envirc...._..lent Canada Canada DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Canadian Wildlife Service JUL 10 1998 Pacific Wildlife Research Centre RECEIVED5421RobertsonRoad Delta, B. C. V4K 3N2 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 USA FAX: 425-430-7300 6 July 1998 Dear Ms. Huerter: My colleague, Don Norman asked that I write to you regarding a colony of about 65 pairs of Great Blue Herons nesting in the Black River colony in Renton. I haven't visited the site but I would like to pass along some information to help with your decision. The advice is based on over a decade of research of this species in British Columbia. Much of this information appears in my book published last year by the University of British Columbia entitled The Great Blue Heron. Background: the Great Blue Heron(Ardea herodias fannini) living in Puget Sound is a subspecies of about 9000 individuals whose range extends northward along the coast of British Columbia to southeast Alaska. About 4800 herons live in Puget Sound. in Canada,the coastal subspecies is federally listed as `vulnerable' and provincially listed as 'blue listed' because the number of nesting pairs is in slow decline; heron populations are near extirpation on the Sunshine Coast (north of Vancouver) and appear in trouble on southern Vancouver Island; the major threats are human disturbance near colonies and eagle predation in colonies; most of the human disturbance is from new activities near colonies such as road and house construction, logging, and blasting; the Black River colony supports about 65 pairs (130 individuals) of herons. A colony of this size in Canada would be likely be considered `nationally' significant in Birdlife International's `Important Bird Areas' program; x W LLDR iariada the `Heron Stewardship Program' was established by the federal and provincial governments, and the Wild Bird Trust of BC to advise land owners about the protection of herons in Canada. Herons exhibit a range of sensitivity to human disturbance. Some herons take flight at the slightest provocation whereas others tolerate humans near the nests. Moreover, their sensitivity wanes as the nesting season progresses. The Black River colony is probably intermediate in their sensitivity to human activities. I have provided a list of guidelines for your interest that have been adopted by the Islands Trust in the Canadian Gulf Islands to protect a large heron colony. Not all of these guidelines are necessarily appropriate to the Black River colony. Given the importance of this colony,I urge precaution in the vicinity of the Black River heron colony. If you would like to hear more about our program,please call me at 604-940-4672. A copy of this letter has been mailed to you today. Guidelines: 1. Within a one kilometer radius of the colony encourage land owners to minimize forest clearing to provide roosting sites and alternate nesting sites for new herons; provide a 15 m buffer zone along seasonal and permanent streams,to minimize runoff into shoreline areas where herons forage; allow normal activities to continue throughout the year but restrict novel loud activities such as blasting, logging, or road construction should from 1 August to 31 December when herons are not nesting. 2. Within 300 meters of the colony In addition to the above restrictions, building construction should be restricted to the period 1 August to 31 December when herons are not nesting. Yours s' cerely, i C 7 Rob But er(PhD) Head of Research and author of The Great Blue Heron NORMAN Wildlife Consulting. D1. 2112 NW 199th cirY u - Shoreline, WA 98177 206) 542-1275 FAX # 542-1388 f 0 , ;;8 donorman@aol.com EcE-i vED Wildlife Toxicology and Assessment July 6, 1998 Jennifer Henning City of Renton Dept of Community Planning/Building/Public Works Renton, WA RE: File Number: LUA-098-075, SA-H, SM, ECF(Black River Corporate Park) In 1990, I commented on the proposed development near the Black River great blue heron colony, along with many other well known heron biologists, including Range Bayer from Oregon, John Kelsall, PhD (now deceased), L. Scott Forbes, PhD, and Dee Boersma, PhD, professor of Zoology at the University of Washington. That development was never completed. Now the same developer is proposing a similar project at the same location. I have been asked again to present information on the status of great blue herons at this colony, which has persisted at the site in the intervening eight years. I am taking the lead for comments by Range Bayer and Dee Boersma who have contributed to this process but will be unable to attend the hearing on July 14th. In summary, conditions at the site have not changed in the intervening years to allow any relaxation of the comments made in the EIS of 8 years ago. Since 1990, I have continued to work on the issue of mititgation of development in relation to herons. I have also worked under contract for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service collecting information on herons at Commencement Bay and Elliott Bay. I have provided assistance to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I wrote a management plan for the Maury Island heron colony. In reviewing the information provided by consultatns to Alper Northwest to the City of Renton dated November 25, 1997 and the June 16th, 1998 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, I wish to make the following comments and I am prepared to provide more detailed responses at the July 14th hearing. NWC Comments to Renton ERC 1 July 6, 1998 The cottonwoods and poplars at the site do not provide screening at the critical nesting periods for the herons. The "Lombardy type" poplars are on the west side of the project, not providing a direct visual barrier to the heron colony, and it is not clear whether the twp large cottonwoods in the direct line of site to the colony will be impacted by the construction of the proposed wet pond. Examination of the distances used in calculating the distances from the buildings to the heron colony are incorrect. The distances stated appear to be in direct contradiction to the MOA which is still in effect between the developer and the City of Renton. The distance from the development should not be from the center of the colony, but from the closest nest to the proposed development. The distance from the edge of the colony to the closest major heavy equipment use is much closer than to the edges of the buildings, as the construction of the wet pond, though temporary, will be even closer to the colony. The visual vegetation barrier suggested by the ERC will not be present during the spring when the herons are most sensitive to disturbance, as the leaves on the cottonwoods will not be present, and a clear line of sight to the proposed development will be visible. The rescinding of limitations to limit heavy construction to periods outside of January to June 30th, in order to avoid disturbance to the heron colony, is also completely unaffected by the growth of the trees. At such close distances to the colony, the trees will not reduce construction noise. Noise created in the early spring will be within distances and noise levels known to cause heron colony abandonment, especially if the noise if sudden and unexpected by the herons. The distances to other existing noise disturbances suggested by the ERC as evidence that herons are "acclimated" to noise are not only outside known heron disturbance limits, but also have existed prior to the herons decision to nest in the area. Sudden construction noises will not be buffered by the vegetation to the extent that it will reduce disturbance of the herons. This is a serious breach of state guidelines. The information presented about the flight paths of the herons is not documented and appears to be biased in favor of showing that the herons "avoid" the proposed development area. I challenge the methodology, accuracy and precision of this data It should also be noted that the flight path of the herons has little to do with abandonment of the colony due to disturbance, and is thus irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely noise and distance of the proposed development to the heron colony. The applicant and the ERC do not provide any evidence that noise from the HVAC systems will not provide an additional disturbance factor for the herons. The screening of the trees does not provide sufficient noise abatement. I have also reviewed the recent letters by Kate Stenberg and WDFW, and find their comments similar to the above concerns. I am also dismayed that the City of Renton has allowed this project to be split into into separate projects and that the City appears to have abandoned their past commitment to protect this site. The separation of the project into two components appears to be a attempt to avoid reasonable protection of the site by the developer. That the City purchased all of the surrounding lands at the site indicates a serious attempt to provide the residents of the City of NWC Comments to Renton ERC 2 July 6, 1998 JVY)JJJ-/700 Wi17/6/98 04:10 PM E9 4/4 Renton with a substantial example of wildlife and open space, while providing major flood protection. The ease of observing the herons is apparent each time I visit the site, with many local visitors commenting to me about their enjoyment of the herons. The proposed short platting of the original tract B further compromises all the good work and environmental protective measures that the city has made. The colony has survived at this site, which is contrary to many other great blue heron colonies in the region. The prognosis for herons is not good. With continued development in the Puget Sound Lowlands, particularly in agricultural, wetland, and open space areas that are preferred by herons, impacts on heron overwintering survivorship will be severe. Fifteen years ago, eagle harassment was non-existent; today every known heron colony has eagle predation, including the Black River colony. Unlike many other colonies that have been abandoned, the Black River colony has survived the eagle harassment and continues to be productive. This further emphasizes its regional significance. It has been shown that with proper buffers, control of the timing of development construction, and protection from direct disturbance, heron colonies can thrive in urban areas and provide an excellent tool for monitoring the health and quality of the urban Puget Sound Lowland ecosystem. The complete abandonment of the Auburn's Peasley Canyon heron colony last year makes the importance of the Black River colony even greater. There is strong public support for protecting this site. I have changed by schedule to be able to be present at the hearing only for the morning of the 14th. Dee Boersma will be Australia, and Range Bayer has previous work engagements. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 206-542-1275 if you require more information. I will provide more detailed written comments at the hearing which have reviewed by Dee Boersma and Range Bayer. Sincerely, Donald Norman NWC Comments to Renton ERC 3 July 6, 1998 The University of Puget Sound 6 July 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: CITY OF RENTON Ms_ Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager JUL 0 6 1998 Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Henning, This letter is in reference to Project LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/ Black River Corporate Park, and to the possibility that the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the nearby Black River colony of Great Blue Herons. I am not an expert on Great Blue Herons per se and thus am not writing a lengthy letter,but I am a professional ornithologist who has lived in the Seattle area for over 30 years. I have taught ornithology classes, both in the university setting and to adults, for much of that time. Thus I feel qualified to recommend certain steps with regard to the Black River Great Blue Heron colony. As a large and conspicuous bird species, the Great Blue Heron is an appropriate symbol of wetlands all across North America. As such, we will know we are taking care of our wetlands if we can maintain healthy populations of this species. Great Blue Herons are not increasing in the Pacific Northwest. Although there is no precipitous decline, their relatively specialized nesting habitat, primarily tall riparian trees, continues to diminish in extent. Thus we must be concerned with threats to individual colonies, and this colony on the Black River is now thought to be the largest in King County. Thus it is of special value, and its loss through desertion would represent a serious environmental mishap. I recommend the city adhere to the minimum buffer of at least 600 feet between development and colony, as recommended by heron experts. These guidelines are set up with considerable thought and should be taken seriously_ A more conservative course of action would suggest that the 1000-foot buffer recommended by the state would be the safer alternative (but see below for a built-in procedure that would allow comparing these alternatives). Jaynes R.Slater Museum of Natural History 1500 North Watncr r Txoma,Washington 98416-0360•(206)756-3356 1 I also recommend that construction not be carried out while birds are present at the colony, typically from late winter to early summer. Long-lived birds such as herons 20 Ost sensitive have manyThisisbecause, for birds that live years reproductive opportunities, it may be better long-term reproductive strategy for an individual to desert lciesthe chanceest to e its own life beingkilled n to stay with the eggs or young and injured. This could happen becausedisturbancebe v occurs at any time during the breeding effort. Such birds tend tovery protective of their own lives, whereas small birds that live only a few years are much more likely to attempt to protect or all of their total given clutch of eggs or brood of young, which may represent reproductive activity. I have two suggestions for the city, in addition to my previous recommendations. 1) Have construction begin at the most distantill be able to assess the point of the site. This allows an experiment of sorts, in which yo effects of disturbance each year over the course of the project, as the construction moves closer. This could prove a very important experiment to be used in future planning of developments that impinge on heron colonies. This information is all too scarce, unfortunately, one of the reasons it is difficult to make hard-and-fast predictions when birds and development clash. 2) As part of the mitigation effort, the developers should construct a covered platform at or on one of the nearer buildings so that visitors to the site can view the heron colony. Possibly a window or set of windows in the nearest building would serve this function, with accompanying interpretive material. This would make it clear that the development was attempting to respect the colony. Sincerely, egf,a, Dennis R. Paulson Director EVEWPMENT PLANNING 4-:CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 6 1998 STATE OF WASHINGTON RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ,, - 16018 t,'.;Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206) 775-1311 FAX(206)338-1066 July 1, 1998 Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue Renton WA 98055 RE: GREAT BLUE HERON NESTING COLONY/ALPER NORTHWEST PROPOSAL Dear Ms. Heurter: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has been informed that there is currently a proposal before your division to construct a building and parking lot(s) less than 500 feet from the "Black River Heron Nesting Colony." WDFW understands that a hearing is to be conducted on July 14 to decide on permitting this proposal. We request that this letter be made part of the record at said hearing. It was WDFW's understanding after the hearing of a former proposal (1991)that a negotiated agreement had been reached which was to protect this heronry (through 1999) by requiring certain conditions to be imposed on construction at this location. These conditions include: 1.Protection during the nesting period (February through July). A. No (outdoor) heavy construction during this time period - within 700 feet of the nearest nest tree. B. No pile driving during this time period (augered or otherwise). 2. No visible post-construction human disturbance within 600 feet (pedestrians or automobiles). 3.No harsh outdoor lighting. 4. Non-reflective glass windows. 5.Fencing to prevent human and domestic animal encroachment into the herony. According to the information we have received, most of these conditions are being proposed to be ignored by this new development. In our expert opinion, this would be a grave mistake. This heronry has thrived under protection of these listed conditions. It has grown to be the largest heronry in King County - largely because it has most of the requisites for a colony such as this. The nest trees are large - because they are old; a good food supply exists in close proximity (Green River); and it has been Jana Huerter July 1, 1998 Page 2 marginally protected by the conditions previously mentioned. Large old-growth black cottonwood groves such as this are rare in the Puget Sound trough. Most of the landscape has been cleared and developed. If this colony is forced to relocate due to human disturbance, there is no other nesting habitat within many miles with these attributes that could accommodate a colony of this size. This colony has been very productive for the last several years. Probably due to the large number of birds in the colony, they have developed a very effective defensive strategy to protect their eggs and young from crow and eagle predation. We believe that if they are forced to relocate, the colony would be fragmented leading to a loss of this defensive capability and resumption of high predatory losses. WDFW asks that you give our comments serious consideration in this deliberation! Continued imposition of the protective measures will help to protect and sustain the state's valuable wildlife resources. Sincerely, t •_ a Theodore A. Muller Regional Habitat Program Manager cc: Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, Renton Patricia Thompson King County DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Department of Natural Resources CITY OF RENTON Resource Lands Section 506 Second Avenue,Suite 708 JUL 0 2 1998 Seattle,WA 981 04-23 1 1 Phone (206) 205-0535 FAX 296-1473 RECEIVEDJuly1, 1998 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Black River Corporate Park, Tract "B" Dear Ms. Huerter: I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate some of my comments from June 12, 1998 regarding the proposed development of Black River Corporate Park, Tract "B" (LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A and LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM) and its impacts to the Black River Heron nesting colony. I feel very strongly that there should be a seasonal construction limit imposed on this site. Great blue herons in the Puget Sound region appear to be declining. Herons are extremely sensitive to disturbances near their nesting colonies in the spring. While the vegetated buffer between the project and the heron colony has grown up in recent years, the buffer is composed of deciduous trees. Deciduous trees do not provide buffer benefits early in the spring when the herons are beginning courtship, nest building and egg laying activities. Disturbances at colt-lies during this time have repeatedly resulted in nest abandonment and a loss of heron reproduction. The City of Renton has a significant investment of public funds in protecting the Black River heron rookery. To protect that public investment, there should be no construction between January 15th and June 30th within 800 to 1000 feet of the rookery. Seasonal construction limits do not apply to interior finish work. Many sites around Puget Sound are often too wet to work during this nesting season, and we find that contractors do not have a problem working around seasonal construction limits. To provide better year-round buffering of the heronry in the future, the project should also be required to plant additional evergreen trees in the buffer area. Landscaping and enhanced planting requirements are also typically required on projects of this sort and most contractors find them easy conditions to comply with. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the long term health of the Black River heron colony. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 206-296-7266 or via e-mail at kate.stenberg@a,metrokc.gov. Sincerely, Kate Stenberg, Wildlife Program Manager T — ilIt0. Itf VIEW or LIRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR pURICKVER ft I1I'ORA YE BARK herds will remain al the she during the prolonged and Intense disturbance anticipated 3fromconstuctionactivitieslathepresentprojectproposal,L Scott Forbes, Halved Resource Management Rogan, Simon Fraser Univasily, Burnaby, 106ivtScColumbia. Canada eso cis Crest Blue Herons we sensitive to human disturbance during the fleeting season. NUmerdJ3 examples of colonies being dslo.:ated by various lams of human disturbance are documented biver Corporate Park with respect to the in Forbes el al. (1985). A theme of Appends B(and elsewhere)of the DEIS,is that herons I have been asked to evaluate the DEIS la the Blac al impact m the heron rookery located oath of pond P.I. Construction is to take place sometimes nest in dose proximity to human disturbance,Ipso facto management ;sidelines laonhuetact,of land(A and B)southwestt and south of the rookery.al distances z 40 It kom the motecting heron rookeries we too etingent(e.g.. Washington Department ol WidderookeryAtpresent, the rookery exists in a relatively rrndsturbed location(no regular 1 management ; USFnes 800 to end loof ofuf{tr during the Greeting leeeon, and a permanentdstvbanceoccurswilMn1000feelofthebarony, and noise monitoring(Table 3-12 of the 1- 750 loot buffer:USFWS recommendation a permanent ant foot butter). Ouite dearly,none ofDEIS)"Acmes quiet conditions at present)- Great blue herons characteristicallychoose DEIS. the above guidelines have been Is to occur as thedoseevebpmml of the heronry, Corporate Parktin/se/bed sites la heedn although fool buffecaly,construction to occur as a 400 feet kom the heronry,and only aheroneateriesareusuallyocalednewuIeyingsiens, thus the local wetland andIcrrtstilso 600 buffer Is to be implemented during the heron breeding season. I consider these minimal butler zonesto be inadequate to safeguard the existing heron rookery. II constructionhabitatmaybeimpotentasfeedingareas, activity occurs as proposed, abandonment of the colon e'r1e a a dred result of humanTheproposeddevelopmentposeslourhfsddtheeriskstoheronrookery: cis-urbane, is a strong possibiity. y Ili dstuhance of heisting herons rising the several construction noted in the DEIS Appends B.the response of ha one to human dsturbance Is variable, andphasesoftheproject, thus subied to some uncertainty. II is deer that this uncertainty has been used by thoseelevatedlevelsofhumanactivityresultingindsivbancetotherookerywhentheprojectispreprrngtheDEIStochoosemitigationmeasuresthatdeliberatelyassumeaveryoptimistic S con>ateresponse from the herons(e.g.,tolerance of high levels of dstvbance). The deficiency of thislooicIsobvious. Fa example, if 1000 herons colonies had residential developments built within7) degadation of keshwraler aquatic habitat which may serve u lagging sites la local herons. 10 feet of the colony perimeter,undoubtedly 1 a-2 would remain after such dsivbence. the other 998 a 999 abandoning the site. That t er 2 colonies out of tOpO remain with that level of4)loss cl terrestrial habitat which may serve as euxilley foraging areas la the herons. dshebance Is not adequate justification law routinely slaving similar levels of dslubance. The lest two of these we related to dshrbance of nesting herons,the latter two we related to the A colony located alacent to the Della River Inn, between a highway end a parking lot is tiledavailabilityoflocalforaginghabitatlatheherons. I shall addoess these issues separately, tequently dnroughout the DEIS as evidence that herons mod tolerate high levels of human dslubance. These observations we derived kom a short note that I co-euthaed(Webb andEllec)5_91Sistv¢Anc-t_rdl lltgi,39 1(sfVL2 Forbes 1982). (Webb and Forbes we cited in Appends B but the reference Is not included in the wtereture died of Appends B-I Qve the cibisproposedconstucticnactivity, and subsequent levels of human activity alter construction is cared citation below). It is accurate to slate that complete pose a sigwlicanl risk to the heron rookery. Forbes el el,(1985:pg. 77)recommended these herons tolerate high levels of human dsltrbence. However, I believe that my paper hasthatactivitiessuch,as construction, l er{ng& etc, should not be canned out within 500 m been used to build a spedous argument In the DEIS. One must consider the confer in whichoftheheravy(1642 ft) kom ml&Fehuey to mid-Jvly(the approximate citation of the heeding this colony dears II Is found on See dadaist heronsstely south d II. Vancouver. Most of SeaseasondGreatBlueHeronsinsoudnyeelanBritishColumbia)and hither recommended that Island was dewed of tee suitable fa nesting wound WW II. However,extensive o,whenever possible. such activity should be carried out gads.the heron nesting Beeson. I A ess(ands east on Sc. Island which contain abundant populations of voles on which heronssuspectstoncjythatthenestingchronologyofheronshnorthwestWashingtonstaleIssimper del(herons kom the Dells ey Inn colony teed almost exclusively on vats,pars.obs). It IstoheronsinBritishColumbia, and would ace no reason to eller the above management deer that herons nest where they do simply because they have no alternative. The hams haverecommendations. The mitigationend wouldaprotects, no reasenn to in the DEIS(no extaier been laced to accept what wouuld otherwise be unsuitable habitat. Herons nesting new. humanconstructionactivitiesshouldoccerwithin600ftoftherookerycuringtheperiodtomFebruaryproblhabitemnearurban tly imitates . g. Smi Vancouver, v Sofeattle) netting habitat. This Is a and ind s ly acuteiStoJune16)fah far short of Fabee el al.'s management recommendations with respect both development nave centers claimed mtof the Seattle)where urban sprawl ndi herons. to distance and and temporal dration, devdopmenl have ',reedy dalmed moss d woodand area! syllable la nesting home.Whether heedng populations of herons can be maintained over the long-term In disturbedDisturbanceduringnestingfromconstructionBedvlUesisofparticulrconcern. loud noiseshebltets Is unknown. It Is well established that herons In large colonies exhibit hisher breedngeg,teed t,power tool,&etc.)disturb herons tom netts,leaving eggs and small dicks success than herons in anal colonies. a tend observed in many colonial bids(e.g,rabies31985). Cvulnerabletodnilfngapredationkomaowe, avrne. Thal the colony has remained al thedonles h disturbed sites tend to be grits smallh size(e.g.,there we only treepresentsiteeventhoughitwas!died to some ds tibanee h the past h no way guarantees o ed nests h the Delta River Ion colony this yyear,Pan,ass.). Thus It ISImpotentAral wepriedexistingcolonyafterInrelativelyundattrbedstet mew .loess. tam all — ama am A A 3 Pvlrny4l.ElltcI; of l Lital-Oa<l.adalion Overall.a to clear that the proposed consbucllon on Tract B poses the greater threat to the CURRICULUM VITAE netting herons: such construction would ocar incloser proximity to the rookery than I LYLP, SCOTT FORBES construction on Tract A, and would cause the less of productive wildlife habitat(as ndcatrd in the DEIS itoMt ADDRESS 11315-11675 7th Avenue Unlortunatety I can find no systematic observations of habitat use by the herons in the DEIS, 8 Richmond, B.C. V7E 4X4 (Tel t 272-^37:i) mating rt imposciUe to assess the importance of the local terrestrial end aquatic habitat la A(L,xlA, luagng!tacos [loth Tracts A and B support populations of voles and mice which ale kequent BUSINESS ADDRESS NgtuA SIA+ b Kel.,Ie1 M0,v,lentgif NogtbM lions items fa geat blue herons. The proposed development could impair the terrestrial i21pec.tuent_of Rlne-¢{..1 Cal ,,es d 0 tuagogcçpoutjnitlos Ice herons. Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. VSA 1S6 (Telt 291-4502) y,/I UpvAswel,I can find no adequate inventory of the aquatic fauna,no'can I find systematic i,M 6 rr observations of keshwatea habitat use by the herons 13 evaluate the irrpatance of these ereas DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH L e 1oR,1roc Pond P-1, Sping.rook Creek)10 laagn9 herons. Nauss are generally secretive when October 2, 1958, Vancouver, B.C. f ' pJxr' Iaagng. end sensitive to the presence of humans. Human disturbance on Tracts A and B MARITAL STATUS it) LE• 1hduringI"4.aftet poled construction would very likely result in diminished use of these areas for Married. no children i N rtltuagngI1theseweimpstantlaagngsites•this could pose a significant threat to the netting f S colony dose proximity to good leedng areas is an impatanl attribute of most heron rookeries. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION The impact of human activity on aquatic Icragng yeas could be mitigated by construction of f 0 Ph;D. vegetation buffers(e.g,low shrubs.tall yass,& etc.)along at riparian meas, sufficiently dense to obscure hxurnan activity kom leedng herons. SEPT. 1989 .- Simon Fraser University. Department of Biological Sciences - Supervisors Dr. R. C. Ydenberg, The ellects of the development on water quality is a concern, Pollution of the seek and pond Biological Sc 1 sous e born moll(toxic chemicals,automobile pollutants)born the ind,e ial site is almost Inevitable. 11 I Iisunportantthat112slumsowers(often sureputlously used for the deposal of toxic chemicals) Thee I e born the industrial park enter theaect. Sigiiicant pollution could degade the value ofthe Environmental variability and genotypic conflict. during vest and pond as foraging sites to herons. reproduction in families of ospreys. ScholarshipsIITERATUfIECITEO Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Post- fvlxs,L.S.,K. Simpson, J.P.Ketsall,andD. R. Hook 1965. Great Blue Heron colonies in doctoral Fel losehlp (declined 1n order to accept post- doctoral (elloushlp with R. Peterman, Natural ResourceBritishColumbia. Envionment Canada. Canadian Wildile Service. Pacific and Yukon Management, Simon Fraser University)Argon.Delta,B.C., Manuscript Depot, 78 pp. Natural Sciences and Engineering Reeearch Council Post- Fubes.L SS.K. Simpson,J.P.Kelsall,and D. R.Flook. 1985. Repodictive success of Great graduate.8cho)arch i p (May'86/Apr i l 80)• Blue iterate In P_ritish Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 1110.1113. Simon. Fraser.Oraduatt R h;Felloushlpe.(Sept.. 08/Aug. Webb.R.S., and L. S.Forbes. 1982.Colony establishment in an urban site by Great Blue e91 herons. Muretel 63.91-92. Preeld nt•sxRriegaroh' .dtlpend:(S U).•iHi OD%1 ur 'Y o• 90) .•'t • i.C. ' tic.: i— -i• dr •, 'r i_ ., lr ..x ,1, 1 t i .( S. ts,I, +•Br(tletr;,o)webla•Poet Seoofldsry• 9cholir.hlpe -"Clve,held' 1, aC . M+} L- ' r ..1 t r • r'.[ -.I;yyt...• . v.; e`7 ' i y p ref l . . 1 r i .;0..{..,i:it (t .- !• t•+,,. '. J wi ,' J. AtU-aktipfte ;9010rihlvj40040cb(orairRtegiisn SucyIilftC•. l ,-, '+ r gyBeaifnik•I151`rtrhin( s j^ ` 4r .4 p1hll% .pov •:.r-;,•.. •r"w!f'.Ir ii..•.-''`.r.• i its \,+ s' y5; i`t t S'..' ,;i e,: ••;i•",.' 11'' Se : ••if V•%(:. e.F ( L uy j;h.ii' j'cyc f t/'.{ •z ' A't'1('. jr• . . ,:1+. n::l+', ;. 7..'.'=•l;':J:' t a: t T.:I•. `1`''. r ;* ).'0.•• , ,0.,•'tt/:ii••: .(.+ f' Z. 2..r Yw..- tt.4't•.,^, J i. f tY•:v: .: '(%."+' ; t•l•»,' e' f,::•.ta.11*.,•'rrv«;ir7•i:, ',rrr',:vi iti%t..y.•',r '.t r.. 7 Y•Cr, J IVUS University of Manitoba, Department of Zoology - Forbes,. L. 9. and 0. R. [look. 1905. Notes on the occurrenceSupervlvr: Dr. S. 0, Sealy. Zoology and ecology of black bullhead. J taiucia m[1;S, WeerCreston, Bretlsh Columbia, Canadian Field-Naturalist 99:Thesis I10-ill The feeding ecology of western grebes breeding at DuckLake, British Columbia. Forbes, L. 9., K. Simpson, J. P. Kelsell , and D. R. Flook.1905. Reproductive success of great blue herons In British Sc..Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 1110-I113 19P1 University of British Columbia. Cepartment of Forbes. L. S. 1905. Extra-pair feeding In yes:ern grebes.Zoology" Wilson Bulletin 971 122-123 PROFESSIONAL E>iERIEl:CE nEe °n,i-, t/ ai ll,V Forbes, L. S. 1905. Cared grebe nesting at Creston, British y,b(1)/ . Columbia. Murrelet 66. 20-21 431Hey-August, 1979 to 1984 U techniciantfor Canadian Wfldll(e Service V, ,,{,1 Chapman,) 8.-A. and L. 9. Forbes, 1904. Observations onti Field - Yn:on region) I gIf P 'detrimental effects of great blue herons on breedingyryBlackTerns. Journal of Field Ornithology 55: 252-253PUBLICATIONLISTR/0 ' On,/ I Forbes, L. 9. and E. McMackin. 1984. Extreme aggression InRCFERF.ED PUBLICATIONS: JOURNALS r d/1! great slue herons. Wilson bulletin 96t 310-31DAAAForbes, L. S. 1909. Prey defences and Forbes,renL S. and C. a Kaiser. 1ste. ObservationsCol ofbehaviour: the dangerous predator handling breeding bald 2-glee In southeastern British Columbia.155-15e.prey hypothesis. Olkos fist Murrelet 651 22-26 Forbes, L. S. 1982. Prey manipulation In the great blue Fortes, L. S. 1909. Colonlallty in herons) Lack'sPredationhypothesisreconsidered. Colonial Waterblyde heron. Murrelet 63: 89-9112: 2a-29, Webb, R. S. and L. S. Forbes. 1902. Colony establishment InForbes. L. S. and S. C. Sealy, 1980. Diving behaviour of an urban site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63: 91-92mateandfemalewesterngrebes. Canadian Journal of REFERE20 PUBLICATIONS' SYMPOSIA Zoology 66:269S-2690. Ydenherq, R. C. and L. 9. Forbes. 1988. Diving and foraging Flook, D. R. and L. S. Forbes. 1903. Ospreys end eaterIntheeasterngrebe. dL. For es. 1988. a int and-fo3 management at Creston, British Columbia. pp. 201-206 In.D. M. Bled (chief ed.), Biology and Management of baldForbes. L. S. 1908. Western grebe nesting In British Eagles and pspreye, Harpell Press, Ste. Anne de Bellevue.Columbia. Murrelet 69: 28-33 Oebec Forbes. L. S. 1987. Feeding behaviour of NON REFEREED PUBLICATIONSt TECHNICAL REPORTSronsatCreston, British Columbia. Canadian Journall of Zoology6S13062-3067 Forbes., L. ,9. 1905. The meting ecology of the eastern grebeInBritishColumbia: Canadian Wildlife Service ManuscriptForbes..L: S. 1987.. Predation on aduit.great blue herons. is Report, Delta. B.C...It Important?=Colonial Waterblyds 101 120-122 Forbee,.L;, 9.,, t. 91mpson, .J, P., KeI1a11, and.D R :Pinsk..Forbae, L S:, 1986;,TIie:, thminq.and direction o(.food, flights. 1983;: CreaE tsltie hecori eolonlee•lii B Itleh Columbia .lroin aft Inland?orsat blue heronr Canadian Journal of cevleati):' Canddian.l{Ildlite.Servlce MantiecrlptrRePort;Zooing, 641 667-669 r• D f J•` i`./'tl • ir yp ,^••:,•:fr~1! i7 (I• :•qt,.•i. ,.«.•'i•. )1',',' t4,!' ',tr.1983.i ore6•bkUe9lispeoni•,' '.^{'t.,A'eleal))r`etidd'tR.[look, a`'"ice a • Can heron-cojld tq s lft:Britloh• ColUm is i.•.j ':, ty. ,t t ,(li..7 .N ada lil: 111"dlhfj:Bef4Ic1!tMihil•e[Ip•E:;Repoi;ti;!Delfa:.t).C.- 1' ,, , r t,V i a_. • v • .•- r—M^--.:.*/* i .1.",t/ t .^ n I mi': t t )t. r- '•..;•i./ rl:t : ranr[Jt V li, t• ",S:.1.1 r ' f LJINa 1K,t U. ,P('Ior.., '4,{ ,'I1'} V+ aC.r y .r i: 1 ''Q stiff 1 ,I a rt i _ae 1 1 1 1 e 1 Murphy - Black River Corporate Pork Ill', 1 5/141/90 4) FEEDING Or WILD BIRDS - The feeding of wild birds. in IDonaldK. Erickson Rer DEIS, Black River particular Mallards and Canada Geese, must be prohibited by the Chief . Current Planning Corporate Park, Tracts ALB introduc)ion of a City ordinance which includes a fire fur an City of Renton feeding. ' 100 Mill Ave. So. Penton, WA. 98055 5) FOOD SUPPLY - GREAT BLUE HERON- Although I noted 8 6 occasionally some adult heron feeding in the ponds, any fish brought to the young was delivered by adults flying to and from the south- Dear Mr . Erickson:southwest. Possibly the Tukwila ponds are one source. if they have not since been drained for a shopping center. Since only fish is You have, for this phase of the development, received fed to pre-fledged young heron I postulate that during the critical testimony from a number of recognised and highly respected period prior to fledging the P-1 ponds are lacking ir fish• or from. persons in the scientific community. namely to my,knowledge Hay possibly to'late tall. My reasoning Is as follows? Dr . L. Scott Forbes. Dr. P. Dee Boersma, Ted Muller, Dr. John Kelsall and Mr. Range Bayer. The Great Blue Heron and other a) The diet of the Double-crested Cormorant is schooling !r wildlife are indeed fortunate to have such advocates. I urge fish. Four cormorants were present March 1 and 4/21/67. but not emphatically that the decision-makers carefully study their before or after those dates. documents. b) Bufflehead, totalling 70 pairs on December 25, 1986. Cl) DUFFER ZONES - Guidelines established by the Department and in less but'still substantial numbers from November 1. 1986 of Wildlife recommend at least 750 feet. In view of certain through May 1. 1957, are partly aquatic vegetarian but become fish- unresolved questions regars),nq human disturbance et Great Blue eaters during winter. Since these are diving birds it is difficult to Heron colonies, I firml, eh this guideline should be honored. determine whether they are eating aquatic foods or fish. 2) A. NO=DISTURBANCE DATES - While the British Columbia c) Only one other species, the flooded Merganser, eats Heron. as both Forbes and Kelsall indicate, settle in at their mostly fish. Twelve pairs of these were observed on!) once in 35 colonies in mid-February as do the Marsh island and Samish Island visits, on November 6, 1986. heron 70 miles north of Seattle. lit each of these colonies there n is no sign of heron In either Padilla Bay, Samish Bay or the trees f-"6) PILE DRIVERS - On July 2l, 1967 I noted through my spotting until mid-Februa'ry. Pair-bonding, nest defense may take place at scope that six young heron loafing In the nest tree (rote in an erect both the Renton and Lake Sammamish heronries any-here from late position at the sound of a pile driver near Springbrcok Creek. The 7 December to January's end. On 12/25/56 I noted 6 heron present sound created a substantial echo that bounced off the hills behind at the Renton heronry. On February 17, 1967 I counted 28 heron the colony. P1ealt_11 .tI. 1.11at_date of hs_fsn ['relent. ''ell after t111 there, tar more than 8 nests could accomodate. These were probably fledging period between June 20 and July 1. heron seeking nesting sites. I therefore am in agreement with Bayer that no disturbance should be permitted from at least mid- 7) Dr. Kelsall describes the absence of a list or biological January. diversity at Black River Corporate Park. I submitted such a list to the Planning Commission In 1907. The table attached, adapted from 8 B. Young heron fledged at the Bleck River colony between the original chart presented, accounts for water, shore and land 6/70/67 and 7/1/S2. (1 was unable to visit the site during that birds. Only one mammal was noted in 35 visits to the site - a dead period). On the July date I counted 6 Juveniles. loafing on the beaver along the south berm, cause of death undetermined. Coyote islands in the pond. It must be emphasized that recently fledged. 3 scat use also present in this area. I found no raptor pellets here heron do not leave the colony for at least two to 'three weeks past but believe they world be found on the hill beneath the trees there. the fledging date since they must gather strength to forage in a wider range. In summary, the no disturbance dates must be from Finally, I a in full ag t with Dr. Kelsall that 'the at least mid-January to August 1. 1 further emphasize that in large developers of Black River Corporate Park are clearly playing brink- colonies a week or more may pass before ail fledging occurs. manship with the heron and possibly with other ecological values as well.' Developers stated In 1957 that they considered the Great Blue 3) SEVEN STORY STRUCTURE- This not only poses a threat to Heron •an amenity,. This materialistic vial/, not only of heron but the Great Blue Heron and songbirds but is totally out of synch with J of a whole ecosystem, is responsible for the precarious state of not only this site but with the entire business park areas.wildlife and its habitat throughout the United States, particularly when city governments are willing to trade off natural for A suggestion to erect the building on tract A is totally economic benefits.4 >11lr,41 unacceptable since it would then be directly in the flight path of Mrs. Marty Murphy the heron, their major route particularly during nesting season. I 2016 Bordeaux Lane Half Moon Bay, CA. 94019 c Lotto'to M.L My.r May I.1990 Donald Norman May 9. 1990 I have based my comments on several years of field research investigating the 4420 larchwoo Ave. Impacts of pollutants on herons. This was the subject of my Master's Thesis Philadelphia, PAA 19104 1 research at Western Washington University. I cannot stress strongly enou911 That the real Issue here Is planning how to manage sues such as the 111acktrver Mary lynno Myer Senior Environmental Planner for the long-term survival ol witdtite. Department of Community Development 84CityofRenton 200 Mill Avenue South Herons need trees,large old trees,which means that those big cottonwood flenton.WA 98055 nesting trees have to be protected.kept alive, and nearby trees groomed for future duly as nurseries. The proposed planting of bullets.and other mediation Dear Ms Myer; efforts should be set up for the long-term,not to satisfy the short term SEPA guidelines and the current conscience of concerned citizens. I was contacted by Susan Krom of the Citizens for Renton Wiidlands Preservation to comment on the ©lackriver Corporate Park DEIS. I first visited I have proposed that a trust be set up. The city ol Renton,local conservation the site In March ol 1989 to discuss the great blue heron colony there to a group groups,the Washington Department of Wildlife, and the surrounding land of 50 Seattle Audubon Society members,many of them Renton residents. I am owners would provide funding for educational aspects such as viewing areas, familiar with the area having done research at the Renton Sewage Treatment protection such as fences, and tree evaluation. Only with such longterm Plant when I lived In Seattle. The heron colony has grown over the last live commitments can I see a future Ior wildlile anywhere. Herons are indicators of years,indicating its potential as a successlul colony. II is certainly a wildiile the health of our environment,and having a colony in an urban area for spectacle for an urban area,and deserves a plan for long-term preservation. monitoring Is an additional reason for preserving the colony. I am sorry I am too tar away to actively participate in this project,but I remain interested in the I am pleased with the dedication of the authors of the DEIS for their sensitive outcome. review of the impact of major construction near the heron colony. The use of Northwest native species plantings as habitat mitigation will Improve wildlife nc ref 2 habitat over the existing spoil areas,and has the benelil of low cost Dona Norman maintenance. White there will be dillerences of opinion over the possible cc; Susan Krom ellects of the proposed construction on the future of the colony,I believe all Kelly McAllister,WDW parties share a concern for the future of these magnificent birds. We are lucky Seattle Audubon Society that herons are adaptable birds,and the chances are good that the birds will not desert the site. Much more Information on herons In Puget Sound Is needed. Careful scientific documentation of the consequences of this project will provide a better understanding of the dynamics ol planning our lives In better harmony with nature. Let us not turn our backs once the solution Is decided. tiff;, w N •4 • .I Olad,)vu Corp.Park DEIS Comm, 2- 0 AI rJ iman5990 Written Comments on the IntroductionDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement for I have limited my comments on the proposed office building development at the Black flivor site In Renton,WA to the Impacts on the great blue heron colony there ITheDlackrlverCorporatePark was contacted by Susan Krom of the Citizens for Renton Wikllands Preservation toTractsAandDOfficeBuilding comthent on the Blackriver Corporate Park DEIS. I am quite lamihar with the site having visited II several times during my ma;ler's thesis research on great blue heronsby at Huxley College of Environmental Studies at Western Washington University in Donald Norman Bellingham. I am now a predoctoral candidate al the University of Pennsylvania in442larchwoodAAve. Philadelphia. I have enclosed a summaryof myresearch activities to establish myselfPhiladelphia. PA 19104 as a knowledgeable biologist on the subject of great blue heron biology. May 9, 1990. Disturbance Presented lo: As a biologist who has studied great blue herons,II Is my opinion that a 7 story building built as close as 400 feel from an active heron colony should not be allowedEnvironmentalReviewCommittee A 660 ft.guideline recommended by the Washington Department of Wildlife was notDepartmentofCommunityDevelopment City of Renton followed,though a great deal of Information In the literature suggests that this distance f200MillSouthAvenue may not be far enough. As documented In the DEIS,herons do live close to human y Renton,WA 98055 structures. In some Instances these distances are less than 660 feet.but the herons have moved Into areas alter the construction. The typical reason for this behavior is the lack of alternative nesting sites. Herons acclimate to the narrow noise and visual Summary of Comments on the Impacts of Construction buffers because of a lack of disturbance. This prevent usually prevent abandonment.Upon the Great Blue Heron Colony In Renton,WA No Information on what methods will be used to evaluate the effects of Phase One construction in Tract Et the heron colony. The presence of herons In the1. No construction should be allowed within 660 feel of the heron colony. area,or birds attempting to breed does not mean that there has not been any2. No information was presented In the DEIS on how disturbance levels will be disturbance. Only by the measurement of breeding success can the evaluation of the Z.measured. No Information on what methods wilt be used to evaluate the effects of Phase One construction in Tract B upon the heron colony were colony be established. No measurements of the breeding success of the colony werediscussed. given,especially during the spring disturbance of forest clearing within 200 feel of the colony In 1987,and during the 1984 pond construction. No data on the relationship9. Any construction should be halted on January 15th not February 1st. between disturbance and breeding success were presented for other heron colonies4. A committee should be established to evaluate the outcome of any construction and filed In the DEIS.evaluate the ellicacy of butler revegelation. This committee should have lunds in trust, provided by the builder,the city,local environmental groups and other land owners to provide longterm monitoring of the project s outcome. Noise at the Black River site was used as a measure of disturbance,yet 11 Is well 3knownthatheronsmayhabituatetonoisesthatobviouslydonotthreatenthem. No studies,however,have been done to examine the reproductive success of colonies Oladorvar Corp Park DEIS Comma. 7 0 IA Norman 5 9 90 eladrbar Corp.Park DEIS Comma 4. O.M.Norman 5.9-90 exposed to excessive noise. I have studied Me heron colony at Ault Naval Air Station the region,herons appear to have recovered from past reproductive problems, thoughonWelbuyIslandthatislossthan500yardsfromthelandingstripforNavylelIota,ellects of pollutants at places such as Commencement Bay may be exertingbombers, and round that breeding success was comparable to nearby colonies. some effects. Anyone tamuhar with that area knows the noise level is excessive. If weather has been followed and determined not to be a factor, and foodWithoutrecordsofthebroodingsuccessoftheBlackDivercolony,it is abundance Is measured under the colony and round equal to previous years,impossible to obtain an Idea of the possible ellects of construction disturbance. I have disturbance could bo presumed to be a major cause of nesting failure. Necropsies ofcompiledthebreedingsuccessdatafromthe1964studylundodbytheNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM)and from my thesis research into a chicks round under the colony can be performed to distinguish between starved, Auburn colony poisoned,and healthy chicks (Langelier 1989,unpublished thesis research U. M.summary table(Table 1)(Calambokldis et al. 1905). The data from the Norman). This Information could have been obtained on several visits over Iho period iphif'oasloy Canyon Is also available for 1984.In which 4 of 10 nests were successful, [/ and averaged 2 9 young/per nest. Typically, almost 90%of nests are successful for J of study this colony has undergone for the preparation of this DEIS. Counting the this subspecies (Butler 1989),and It Is estimated that a reproductive rate of about 2.4 number of chicks In the successful nests was an essential aspect of evaluating this colony that was not performed. A registered wildlife veterinarian was available at lireyoung/successful nest Is necessary to maintain the population (Forbes el al. 1985). Institute of Wildlife Toxicology at Western Washington University during theFromthesecalculations,II Is obvious that many colonies In Puget Sound are not preparation phases of this report, and Ken Langelier,a DVM on Vancouver Island hasreplacingtheirownnumbers. The colony may appear to stay the same,but this is due to the influx of new birds. Without measuring the reproductive success of the colonyin performed necropsies on many herons to consult with other vets. This extent of evaluation in the preparation of a DEIS,unfortunately,has not been a requirement byquestion, and also noting the numbers of lirst year birds,II Is impossible,without banding,to know whether the colony has been disturbed or impacted. the stale of Washington. Measurement of Disturbance Periods of No Distubance At Heron Colonies The arrival of herons and commencement of prenuptual activities al the BlackIproposethatanyheroncolonywithlossthan50%of the attempted nests being Diver heron colony may occur prior to February 1st. Other colonies, such as thesuccessful, and with a reproductive rate of less than 2 birds per successful nest is Dumas Bay colony In nearby Federal Way show activity as early as mid-January. Thu 7definedasbeingadverselyimpacted. Sources of the lowered reproductive success IportedbeforenestingIsmuchmorecriticaltopreventabandonmentthantheperiodscanbereducedfoodavailability,poor weather,predation, pollution and disturbance.t later In the breeding season. It Is better to resume construction activities earlier In theNoresearchontheprimaryfoodsourceoftheBlackRivercolonyhasbeendone. No research on Ilse ellects of weather on heron colony breeding success has been done, summer than to allow heavy construction until February 1st when herons are present at their colony. I propose that any construction should be trailed on January 151 r,notandthemlcrocfimalesofthePacificNorthwestwouldmakethisquitedifficulttoFebruary1st. generalize. The resurgence of populations of Bald Eagles puts many heron colonies In danger,as Bald Eagles have been documented to eat heron nestlings (Norman et Flight Zones al. 1989). Judging the Impacts of toxic chemicals upon herons Is difficult. Despite a decrease In available habitat, heron numbers appear to have Increased In the past 20 No data was presented for the INN tones presented In Figure 4 of Appendix B of the DEIS, Unless these drawings are the proposed unobstructed paths available to Byears,perhaps when ellects of pollutants were greater. Herons continue to show the herons after construction.their relevance Is minlmal. The directions herons flyeggshellthinningfromDOE,though DDT was banned almost 20 years ago,and the ellects of dioxins on herons Is a major research ellort in Canada(Elliott of aI. 1989). In when approaching the colony wllhln 1000 reel of the colony Is variable, even when birds are returning from the same feeding location. mamma - 11011.1 Y..rxr .- .msviii AIM - 1 IPn Ao...Curt' 1 5 Cu.nnu. S 111u1..bH co.11 AI n,,..n,,n y•„ p.('.A n[1$corn... l) M Ilorman S 9 90 breeding biology of groat blue herons. Because the subspecies ol great blue heronRemedialActionelIhoSite that occurs In this area ranges from Puget Sound up to Alaska,there is great interest No information was presented In the DEIS That indicated the duration of Ong- on the part of Canadians to Impovo the level of research on herons in Washington lens commitment to maintaining the vegetated no-build butler. I recommend that Over hall of the estimated population of the subspecies occur In Washington slate, and cottonwood and red alder be planted as they are the fastest growing trees. They are movements across the border aro common. Other than my research,tiro only oilier also less expensive than the largo evergreens necessary to provide a butler zone.project that has attempted to evaluate the biology of great blue herons in western though they are not as complete a butler as evergreens,they will be larger,and will 9 Washington was the 1904 NOAA survey. This project was tended to evaluate the protect the integrity ol the colony(roes. Additional cottonwoods and alders should be ollocls of pollution upon herons. A previous report by NOAA had reported high levels planted around the colony to increase the size of the wooded area. This will certainly of toxic chemicals In herons from Seattle,the Pigeon Point Colony.and from Tacoma, allow thu future survival of the colony alter the current cottonwoods aro destroyed by the Dumas Bay colony(Riley el al. 1983). Major research,on the other hand,is the birds I am currently involved In documenting the rate of deterioration and death of ongoing In British Columbia. Another heron expert,Range Bayer,Ives in Newport, cottonwoods and alders in heron colonies. No allocation of funds or method of Oregon,might be available to evaluate Impacts of this project. Michael Brandman evaluating Iho ollecliveness of the remodiationienhancement of the site was Associates,a consulting firm near Los Angeles,has expertise in the evaluation of presented I commend the planners of the vegetation enhancement for their selection Impacts of construction on heron colonies. At least one export from outside the area of hardy native species. should be on the committee. This will allow en impartial voice on the committee,and provide contacts to other parts of the country. A Monitoring Committee for the Black River Heron Colony Summary I propose that a committee be established to monitor the outcomes of the Questions about the survival of herons al small urban colonies versus the threeprotect, with funding to maintain the colony and provide environmental educational opportunities for the people of Renton to learn more about their heron colony. This large colonies north of Puget Sound(Samish Island.Birch Bay.and Point Roberts) committee shall be composed of representatives from the city of Renton,the property remain as an important research Issues. Research needs to be undertaken to owr.ers,the Washington Department of Wildlife,a scientific review committee,and determine the stability of these urban colonies. As western Washington continues to local environmental groups. II is desired that funds from all of these groups can be set grow,the quality of life we cherish will hopefully not bo measured by the miles of freeway,but by the numbers of heron colonies. The Renton colony,along with thein:a a trust for their use In maintaining this area. Projects include the yearly evaluation and care of trees in the colony area,and construction of the appropriate viewing areas /D other urban colonies,can provide Important Inlormatlon on the levels of environmental with good signs. If fencing is necessary,it can be funded through this committee.contaminants to which we are also exposed. Efforts to require several years of Local environmental groups and the Department of Wildlife can offer field trips to local background monitoring of heron colonies within 1000 feet of proposed projects should persons.be undertaken under wildlife protection legislation. Further research may allow even better methods to estimate the bounds ol disturbance. I recommend that any committee establshed to evaluate the Impacts of distubance upon herons Include Dr. John Kelsalt, retired Canadian Wildlife Service biologist,or Rob Butler, a biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service,both of which live just north of the border In British Columbia. Dr. Kelsail has been Involved In evaluating the Impact of human activities upon herons In the Pacific Northwest,and Rob Butler is currently completing his PhD al the University of British Columbia on the . Oladrr,r Corp Pah DEIS Co. ;nit 41- e IA I7ouuan S 9 90 Literature Cited Great Blue Heron Activities Buller, R. W. 1989. Brooding and ecology and population trends of Iho greet blue heron Donald Norman May 1990 lifted)lgfod(ans hiflflhal)In the shall of Georgia. pp 112.1 17. In:Tho Ecoloov and Dept.of Biology-Lotdy Labs Sl{lllrs_4L!P_it!LI ,nt. 14f4Jine birds In the Stfail of Georgia.British Columbia. Spec University of Pennsylvania I'ubl Can.Wadi. Sorv,Ottawa. Philadelphia. PA 19104.6018 Calarnt)okidis,J., S. Spolch, J. Poard, G.II. Steiger, J.C. Cubbago, D. M. Frye,and Professional Activities L J lowonstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine birds: Population health and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA Technical Memorandum. Heron Related Publications National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Md. 159 pp. Norman,D. M. (In Preparation). A retrospective analysis of changes In great blue heronfIlion,J F , H.W. Butler, R. J. Norslrom,and P.E.Whitehead. 1900. Levels of flea tlefIldias lanninl)population using Christmas Bird Counts. pulychlorinntod drbonzodloxlns end polychlorinated dibonzolurans In eggs of groat blue herons (lea hefQdlas)In British Columbia. 1983-1987:possible Impacts on Norman.0. M.,S.Spoich,J.Calambokldls,R.J. Kendall,and L.F.Kill. (In Preparation) reproductive success. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Nolo No. 17G. 7 pp.Levels ol eggshell thinning in groat blue heron colonies in Puget Sound Forbes,L. S.. K. Simpson, J.P. Ketsall,and D. R.Flook. 1985. Reproductive success of Norman,D. M.,G.P.Cobb,and R.J.Kendall. (In Preparation). Levels o1 great blue herons in British Columbia.Can.J.Zoo!.63: 1 110.1113. polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and chlorinated hydrocarbons in sediment and eggs ol great blue herons(6fdita herodias la0111n1) from Commencement and Samish Langelier,K. 1989. Post modem examination of 43 great blue heron nestlings in 1908. Bay Washington. Wildl.Vet.Report 2(1): 17. Norman,D.M., I. Moul,end A. Breauh. 1989. Bald eagle Instrusions in great blue Norman,D.M., I. Moul,and A. Breauh. 1989. Bald eagle Instrusions in great blue heron colonies. Colonial Waterbirds 12:215-217 heron colonies. Colonial Walerbirds 12:215-217 Norman,D. M., G.Cobb,and R.J.Kendall. 1989. Use of Great Blue Heron Eggshell Riley,'" G., E.A.Crecelius, R.E.Fitzner, B.L.Thomas, J.M.Gurtisen,and N. S.Chorio-Allanloin In Toxicological Research. Insliliute of Wildlife Toxicology.Huxley Bloom 1983. Organic and inorganic toxicants in sediment and marine birds Iron College of Environmental Studies Report 8 pp.Puget Sound, NOAA Technical Series Memorandum NOS OMS I. National Ocean Service,NOAA. 125 pp. Norman,0.M., S.Tank, R.J.Kendal, P.T. Haug,and H.Webber. 1989. A Review ol Environmental Contaminant Studies In Washington Inland Marine Waters Wildlrle and Development of a Relational Computerized Database:WILUTOX with Recommendations for Future Research. Report submitted to the 011ice of Puget Sound, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,Seattle,WA. 141 pp. Norman,0. 1988. Measurement of fluoride In greet blue heron eggshells as an indicator of dispersal of en environmental pollutant. Huxley College of Environmental Slydies,Environmental Biochemistry Report. 12 pp. Masters Thesis Topic Orgenochiorine Pesticides and Polvchlortnated Hlphenyl Congeners in Great Diu()Herons from the Puget Sound Ecosystem. Huxley College of Environmental Studies,Western Washington University,Bellingham,WA. Committee Chairman:Dr.Ronald J.Kendall(now Director.The Institute of Wlidtle and Environmental Toxicology,P.O. Box 2278 Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29832). M,y!r. ..1' UL lOb f,,n1. t .,,,, r I'.''Ns•a'Yr!i4r't•.;;s7'..x,' i41ll4fler Now w a nar ... ...I elnpr sun" M ill Mg11rvusa.. r. M No,ma. Mq 1990 7 Research GrantsIlnoo CV D. M. Norma@ May 1990 3 Norman. D. and R. J. Kendall. 1988. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Great Blue I lawns Groat Blue Heron Colony Field Work Cont.m the Pugol Sound Ecosystem. Funded grant proposal carbotle to the WashingtonStateDepartmentofWrk1410 6. mombranesWhidboy Island Naval lA andStallonMay Colony. Eggshells and partCh01 allanloln 5,000)and U.S. Fish and Wildlilo Service($7,000). Environmental( CAM),april May 1989. Collection was of a National InstituteInstituteofWildliloToxicology, Huxley College of Environmental Studios,WesternWashingtonUniversity, Bellingham,WA. 61 pp of beris. Health Sciences project to TIWET.7. Point Roberts,WA. Mapping 1988, 1989.Professional Presenlallons 8. UBC Endowment Lands Colony,Vancouver, B. C. July 1988 Eggshell collection9. Crofton, British Columbia colony,Juno 1989 This colony Is located at a pulpI1gnl6hl mill on Vancouver Is. that Is being monitored for dioxin contaminationMQcufo tads of •onhifl))11,7n1 •monilorine .i(h ar al bl r and II i Assisted tan Moul,a graduate student al University of British Columbia,inIlL1i111lYlldklainW,shrngl fie. Trancbo m 1•- Assist oral observations.foster session al 10th Annual SETAC Meeting - Toronto, L4. 10. Washington Stale Dept. Wildlife,July 1909. Survey of Tolson IslandOntario.9,Oc1.28 Nov.2, 1989, Toronto, noar Olympia,WA). ColonyEggshellCollection.Qreat_Dlia a ens ii Padi___hl Des Presentation and Field Trip,Annual meeting,11• Maury Is. Colony,Vashon Island WA. 1988. EggshellFriendsofPadillaBayNationalEstuarineReserve. Bayvlew,WA. May 12, 1909, 12. Pigeon Point colony,Seattle.WA 1988. Eggshell Collection. 13. Black River colony, Renton,WA. 1989, videCollection.nor cl on.Me1 14, Tulalip Indian Reservation Colony,Marysville,WA,north of Everett.1f211Pll hlortna___ tad Flvdrocarbon.Blue Herons ice n Eggshell and Chorlo•altanloln membrane collection 1999.e!IaC Membr Society Mee1i Februaryentation al the Joint Washington-Oregon Annual WildlifeMeeting. 23, 1989, Hood River,OR. p uhQn Monllorl___ n4 In pyggl Sound ltllltlna .real BI rp to Community AcllvhlesPublicInvolvementInEducationprogramonVashonsanrdponsoredbythePugetSoundWaterQualityAuthorityandFriendsoftheVashonLibrary,October 26, 1988. resentation lo the Reports f_'glt ejim MonRofingielugs Current Status of the Great Blue Heron Colony near Birch Day Stale Park.presentation al the Second ter SesslonJo4njMeetingoftheColonialWalerbirrdPosSocietyand the August 1989. Submitted to Washington Stale Parks Commission. Comments submitted for Environmental Impact Statement,Gull View Gott Pacific Seabird Group. Washinglon,D. C. October 12-16, 1988. PgliiuLon Monitorina In PuggLSQu Course at Point Roberts. Dept.of Public Works,Division of Ourk)mgs andFosterSessionpresentationaltheFirstPugetgtSoBndWaternDualityAuthorityCodeAdminlslrallon,Whalcom County,Washington. April 19a9ResearchMeeting. Seattle, WA. Comments submitted for Environmental Impact Statement, pverGreatBlueHeronColonyFieldWorkCorporalsPark,City of Renton,Dept. of Community Developmentment, 200 MillAve. S. Renton,WA 98055. May 1990.1. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Colony,north of Olympia,WA. Collected eggsandchicksApriltoMay1988. Samples analyzed by US FWS.• Field Trips Vachon Is.High School, May 1988(Maury Is.colony)2. Dumas Bay Colony,Federal Way,WA. Collected eggs and chicks, April to May1988. Samples analyzed and archived by WWU. Thesis Colony.3. Samish Island Colony,WA, Collected eggs and chicks, April to July 1988, Seattle Audubon Society, Feb. 1989(Renton Black River colony)eggshells and Chorlo•allanloln membranes (CAM), May-July 1989. Mapping 1988,1989. Samples analyzed and archived by WWU, Thesis Colony. Prosenlatlons 4 Birch Bay State Park Colony,Whalcom County,WA. EggshellJuly 1989 Presentation to the Samish Island CommunityClub. I membrane collection 1988, 1989. Mapping In U, 19 1989. and Chodo-allanloln 5. March Point Colony,Anacortes,WA. Eggshell and Chorlo-allanloln membrane each, Samlsh Island. Blue Heron collection(CAM),April and May 1989. March 18, 1989. Presentation to Seattle Audubon Society monthly meeting,g, Seattle, August 11.1988. Presentation to the Natlonal Wildlife Federation ConservationSummit. Bellingham,WA. May 1988. Presentation to Vashon Island High School students. V fir 1 I i e ' J4 J,.W . . . :" I ,_ •--__J f - ,. PLANNING DIVISION IUNIVERSITYOFWASHINGTONCiryOrRRENIONThepresenthabitatfortheheronrookeryIsnotidealbutallbettersiteshave it AU It I.'i/Atn111C10N t,111 been lost to development. With the restoration of this wetland rues the MR 2 6 1990 production of herons,waterfowl and other wildlife would be increased. The present E.I.S. does not consider the restoration of the'wetland but this J RECEDED shouldlbe an Important option for several reasons. First, over 90%of the Eno t A,,,. FM-I) wetlands In King County have already been lost. It Is not In the public's 1061 s41-1a1, interest to lose any more wetlands. This is an Important wintering area for Donald K Erickson April 25, 1990 many resident birds and would be of more value,if the wetland had not Chief, Current Planning been illegally filled. One option that should be considered Is the restoration of the wetlands. City of Rcnlon If development was allowed,where could the birds move? The no Mill Ave South present site is one of the few wetland urban sites that birds can use for Renton. WA!MOSS 7 7 breeding and wintering so that the proposed development must he Dear Mr Erickson, birds with the heron rookery and use by shorebirds, waterfowl and birds of prey. The evidence suggests that the development Is not compatible i/ I am writing about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for with the heron rookery and further, that wetlands will be lost damaging a the filar kriver Corporate l'ark Office Buildings tracts A and B as addressed variety of wildlife Development that reduces wetlands could be allowed in in the Revised State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). very unusually conditions that were in the publics Interest but there is no evidence that this project has such redeeming value. Moreover, there are There are several activities that have taken place on the land prior to legal questions £bout whether this wetlands could be developed since this proposal that were illegal and should be fixed. Partial filling of the site federal law protects them. In tsar, no evidence Is presented that makes it hiss been done and all this fill should be removed since It fills part of the in the public's interest to develop this site. In fact, there is evidence that the public Interests, natural resources and wildlife will be harmed. wetland Since this has occurred on the land during the ownership by First The report points out that a disturbance free tone for the herons of City Development Corporation they should pay to restore the wetland to Its 820 feet over land and 500 feet over water is needed. Many scientists would original condition argue that this space Is not enough. In any case, the proposed development Ilecause the development site sits next to land regulated by the does not meet the heron's minimum needs for protection. Die goal is not to 5- Federal government the National Environmental Policy Act should apply see If the heron can survive closer development but to protect the herons. and the E I S. should be done under the federal act and not just under the The proposed development should meet the minimum requirements givenSlateF.nvlrorvnental Protection Act . ilre Council on Envlronmenl Quality In the USF'WS Habitat Suitability Index model. Even If this standard is IC L Q 1 supporir the need of public involvement In their memorandum whenn they state rd,rir re-yre..it r,er try,it the prq„sar is a ardrxiine C Ir.,..her time it a used the evidence on how easily herons are disturbed strongly suggests that rr-,walla„r..rvnt It.Iveyaration ergo Eft er wl,rn them la t...,r1[e orpd,Uc 2 this distance is likely to be Inadequate. ru.rtrwrrvy over Ihep,vposal.- This requirement alone should make NEPA Buildings that are taller than the trees in the area may not be apply to the present case. Further there Is a question whether the Black compatible with the rookery. The height of the proposed building's are likely tv hive; should be restored and salmon reintroduced. The present EIS does to be a problem for the birds. not address how the development could Impact a salmon run. Some of the If the minimum buffer standards of 82.0.feet Is used and development present development done illegally may harm the restoration_ Because of allowed to proceed It should proceed at the developer's risk. There should be the Back River rims In the area, the National Marine Fisheries Service several requirements with the permit. First, a monitoring study by could have Interest in the area and this would mean that NEPA would scientists should be required and be conducted to assess whether the birds apply l'le present EIS does not address these federal Interests, show any sign of desertion or the number of roosting pairs drops. If any 7 adverse impacts can de quantified, all development permits would be Moreover, there are serious problems with the conclusions drawn - immediately revoked and work permanently curtailed. Thus, ii within the EIS statement concerning the heron rookery. Scientific evidence development is allowed It should proceed only as long as there are no strongly indicates that the proposed development is likely to harm the heron adverse impacts on the herons. If there are adverse impacts, the developer rookery. Note that heron rookeries are no longer easily relocated because 3 should be required to halt development and Immediately begin restoring the there is not other habitat for the birds to move to that is suitable. In the past site to its original condition. birds could move because other area were available even If these areas The EIS states that there are not wetlands of significance on the site. I ra were not as good as the site abandoned. However, If the birds move from the As I have stated,this Is not true. It Is true that part of the wetlands have Id present site they will have lower reproductive success and many may die. already been harmed. Serious consideration should be given to restoring nr ..rYrhJ,M, 1 Response to Comments from Dee Boersmat this site to Its original condition I.e. to the condition before the develope,or Stothrsfilledanddrainedpartofthesite. I. Op Illegal filling was done by the applicant on either Tracts A or B. Tract A was previously filled and regraded during construction of the P-I fond.As a wetland, the site has a storage function and further development may add drainage and runoff water to this wetland. The Portions of Tract B were also regraded.ru quality of tide water from the development Is not likely to be good. Theincreasedr-moB is likely to have petroleurn products and even heavy Two Isolated wetlands created from the regrading activltlu on Tract A andmetals, conynotnvls that may damage the wetlands. The EIS should totaling 0.10 acres,would be filled while one Isolated wetland totaling 0.04add,ecs these Issues. acres would be filled on Tract B. Mitigation would be provided by creatingThislandisoneofthelastremainingurbanwetlandareas. As such additional wetlands on Tract B. Please tee Figure 2-2 for an aerialNEPAshouldapplyandtheEISshouldbereviewedbythefederalagencies /0 photograph of the site In 1977,prior to construction of the P-1 Pond. The sitethatwouldhaveinterestInthishabitatandarea. These agencies include at that time was a part of the Earlington Golf Course.the Dept.of Commerce and the Dept. of the Interior and the Env. Protection Agency. 2. NEPA does not apply to this project because no federal action is proposed on Sincerely,the site. The applicant may need to file a Corps of Engineers 404 permit application as a part of project approval. The historic Black River was diverted In 1916. The large majority of the old channel(with the exception of the small wetland remaining on Tract 0 and the channel downstream of the pump stations)has been filled and developed over the years. Water quality In the watershed would need to Improve considerably before salmon populations would be viable. As previously mentioned, the P-1 Pond wasP. Dee Boersma originally constructed by the SCS as a ttormwater detention system,a function It now provides and will provide for future development In the basin.Professor. Instltrrte For Environmental Studies and Department of Zoology r t, , , o. a` r f+.•4 f., tc, tv• 4- ^• 3. There Is no evidence to suggest that herons move to new nest sites any lessfrequentlynowthanInpreviousyears. See response to comment from Range Bayer (letter No. 39) response No. 10. Wetland restoration was not considered for this project since none of the wetlands affected by the project are significant enough to warrant protection and restoration. The City of Renton wetland study(1981) Identified the area north of the r.i Pond and Tracts A and B as significant wetlands and worthy of preservation. This project would not affect that area. 4. See response to comment 3. S. Please see responses/to comments from USF'sVS and WDW 6. The building height Gould not be taller than the height of the lowest nests on the Island. 7. A phased development program Is proposed by the applicant and a monitoring program during construction and development has been defined as a mitigation measure. 8. Please see responses to comments I and 3. 9. See response to comment 2. 10. See response to comment 1, 4.57 Ho activity should be allowed near this Great Blue Heron colony alter January IS, few researchers have made observations at Pacific Northwest A{ f ttittt G A I I M ICE N P R'S S Great Blue Heron colonies before mid-February, but Marty Murphy (pers.1a ' !1 coayp.) noted herons at the Slack Diver colony on 25 December 1986 and I — P.O.BOX 1961 13 February 1987. Also, herons were present as early at January 28-30 at two Oregon colonies (Trowbridge and layer In Press). Since Vos et a1.NEWPORT.OR 91165 1985), who studied the effects of human disturbance on Great Slue Herons, concluded that disturbance should not be allowed near heron colonies after IB May 1990 5 9 herons first arrive at a colony, activity within the butter tone around the Black River colony should not be allowed after January 15 to minimize the risk of disturbing early netting herons. Ms. Mary Lynne Myer Evidence that allowing human activitysuch as construction or landSeniorEnvironmentalPlanner clearingnear a Great Blue Heron colony In February is detrimental is thatDepartmentunityDevelopment construction work done near the Slack elver colony on lB February 1981200MITIIIAvenueueaCSouth Renton, Washington 90055 resulted in an average of only 2.0 young fledging per successful nest a nest that fledged young)(Murphy 19881. This Is lets than the 2.2-3a young fledged per successful nest found at other Great Slue Heron colonies In the Pacific Northwest (Henny and Delbert 1971, Werschkul et al. 19)6, 1911;Dear Mt. Myer: English 1978, Simpson and Kelsall Me, Warren 19)9, Irowbrldge and Sayer In Re. Black River Corporate Park Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS1. Press). I have studied Great Blue Herons in the Pacific Northwest for a number The DEIS on B- 99ofyearsandhavepublishedaboutadozenpapersInrefereed, scientific p. S suggests that Great Blue herons will nest in small journals about Great Blue Heron netting and feeding biology (see Literature trees or shrubs if large trees are not available. While this can occur in 2 Cited at end of this letter). tome areas within the range of the Great Slue Heron, I know of no 3 instance, and the DEIS gives no examples, of Great hue Herons nesting In I have read the DEIS and am concerned about the Inadequacy of the shrubs in western Washington or Oregon, so this It hot currently a likely proposed guidelines to protect the Black River Great Blue Heron colony, alternative In the King County area. I urge that the following guidelines that art partially derived from the Washington Department of Wildlife Wongame Program (19881 guidelines be followed In the construction of the black River Corporate Park: The DEIS misleadingly suggests that Crest Blue Herons can tot tlhumanactivitynearaheroncolony. Human disturbance such as logging UT 11 Ho disturbance within 800-1,300 ft of the heron colony be allowed during construction, or repeated human intrusions into or near a heron colony during the breeding Season can cause total abandonment of a Great Blue heronthebreedingseasonfromJanuaryISthroughAugust1. colony (Mark 1976, Werschkul et al. 1976, English 1918, Kelsall and Simpson 21 Ho disturbance be allowed within 150 ft of the heron colony throughout the 19)9, Forbes et al. 1983, Murphy 1908). year. Further, the authors of the DEIS have failed to mention that the merei presence of Great Blue Herons at a colonyy11Standsoftreesatleast50fthighandatleast10AcresinareashouldSitedoesnotmeanthatthecolon is 'viable' (see p. 0-3, 1-7, and S-10 in the DEIS). Herons can be presentbepreserved. at a disturbed colony but if no young are fledged or If fewer young are My reasons for recommending these guidelines are on the following produced than are necessary to maintain a stable population, then the heron population Is not truly viable (I.e., self-sustaining). Herons, like gullspages' Bayer 19831, can return each year to a disturbed site (especially when Thank your (or your time and consideration in considering my comments there are few nesting sites as in King County), even though their nesting on the Black River DEIS. success is poor. The case studies cited im the DEIS to show that Great Blue Herons Tours, tolerate nearby human disturbance art incomplete because nesting success is not given for any of the sites. Disturbance can cause some Great 2-9,4 " r` Blue Herons to abandon their meats; for example, 90-931 of nests la undisturbed colonies were active, which was significantly greater than la tv Range D. Bayer disturbed colonies (Werschkul et al. 1976, Simpson and WW1 1918) or than the 751 active nests ob d in a disturbed colony studied by Webb and Forbes (19821. Although some Great Slue Herons that abandon their netts may renest, some have apparently abandoned nesting for the entire nesting season v, s .f A nanvu of lacer's [Dements on Slack River Corporate Park DEIS Page 2 of 8 pages of Bayer's Comments on Slack River Corporate Park DEIS 11becauseofdisturbancesuchasconstructionorlandclearing (English 19)8, the DEIS suggests that disturbed Great Blue Rerun tuiuntes ire 'vi•Lle.'Simpson and Kelsall 1918). Other herons that abandon their nest and go IP but this is misleading because the nesting success of disturbed treat Blocelsewheretonestwillprobablydosoatamoredistantheroncolonyand Herons can be less than necessary to maintain stable population numbers.thus have reduced nesting success because herons typically nest near their Although Ilenny (1972:33) estimated that 1.91 young per pair of Great blueiuragingareasandifforcedtonestfartherfromtheirforagingAreal, they Herons are necessary to maintain a stable population, he included data fromcanhavelowernestingsuccessle.g., Simpson et al. 19811. birds reared and banded at Matlonal Wildlife Refuges, where Great Blue there are at least six examples where the nesting success of Gre(l[ Blue Herons evidently survive much better than elsewhere (Bayer 1981c). Bayer herons at disturbedcolonies was lower n hnerons. As previously 1981c1'estimated that herons reared north of 40 W latitude and away from National Wildlife Refuges would need to produce as many as 2.11 young permentioned, the 2.0 young fledged per successful nett at the disturbed Black breeding pair to maintain a stable population. Since the number of youngHive' iuluny In 1987 was less than that at other Great Blue Heron colonies, fledged per successful nest is 0.2-2.1 young greater than per breeding pair ?fSecond, Wersehkul et al. 119)61 found that the average Great Blue heron or per nest (Vermeer 1969, Ilenny end Bothers 1971, English 19)8, Warrenfledgingsuccessof2.20 young per successful nest at a disturbed colony was 1975, Collaco 1981, Webb and Forbes 19821, a minimum average of at leastlowerthaninthreeoutoffourundisturbedOregonCoastcolonies. Third, 2.11 young per successful nest (based on Henny 1912:331 or perhaps as manySimpsonandcelsall (19781 found that, in 1978, the average of 2.06 young as 2.53 young per successful nest (based on Bayer 1981c) must be produced topersuccessfulnestatthePenderHarbourcolonyinBritishColumbia, where maintain a stable population from non-National Wildlife Refuge colonies suchroadconstructionandtreeclearingforahousingdevelopmentwereoccurringastheBlackRivercolony. the breeding success of 2.0 young per successfulnearby, was less than the 2.6 average at an undisturbed colony; in 1979, nest at the disturbed Black River colony In 1981 (Murphy 19881 is clearlywhenhumandisturbanceatthePenderharbourcolonywasreducedbecausethe below current best estimates of the reproductive success necessary todevelopmentwasabandoned, the average number of young per successful nest maintain a truly viable II.e., self-sustaining) heron population. and it itincreasedmarkedlyto3.0 (Forbes et al. 1981:38, Simpson et al. 1987:5/61. also questionable if the breeding success et some of the other disturbedFourth, the t.14 and 2.20 young fledged per successful nest In 1978 and colonies mentioned previously is adequate.19)9, respectively, at a colony in Idaho about 680 ft away from railroad r/ tracks and about 1,720 ft away from a campground (Collauo 19/9:4, 1981) was 7 On p. B-I0, the DEIS misleadingly indicates that Great Blue heronsabout0.4-1.2 young per successful nest less than at a much less disturbed established and maintained colonies at sites of disturbance that was colony in Idaho studied in the same years (Warren 19)91. Fifth, Webb and obviously acceptable' to the herons. This conclusion Is baseless forForbes119821recordedanestingsuccessof2.)) young per successful nest several reasons. First, the herons really may not have had any choice butatadisturbedcolonyinBritishColumbia, which is comparable to the number to nest near the disturbance; If they netted farther away from their feedingoffledglingspersuccessfulnestsatundisturbedcolonies, but the areas, they may have had even lower nesting success (see Simpson et al.proportion of abandoned nests was high at their colony, so that Great Blue 19871. Second, Great Blue Herons indicate their displeasure withHeronsintheircolonyonlyfledgedI.)S young per nest, which is less than disturbance by moving their nests away from it. for example, at disturbedthanfoundpernestorbreedingpairatlessdisturbedPacificNorthwest colonies, active nests were significantly farther away from disturbance than Qcolonies (Henny and Bethert 1971, English 19181. Sixth, and finally, a were inactive nests (Werschkul et al. 1976), and herons that abandoned their /Great Blue Heron colony in Stanley Part in Vancouver, British Columbia is nests because of disturbance then built new nests at disturbed colonyfamousfurbeingnearongoinghumandisturbancefrompassersbyandIscited farther sway from the disturbance (Simpson and Kelsall 1978). Third, thisintheDEISonp. B-) as an example of a colony that has persevered with DEIS falls to mention that the kinds of human disturbance have differeddisturbancesince1921; h the authors of the DEIS did not mention between their examples of disturbed colonies and that while Great Bluethatoilscolony, perhaps because of disturbance, had moved at least twice Herons can become habituated to some forms of human disturbance, they aresince1921 (Mark 19)6:3), Forbes et al. 1981:48-49) and that the netting less tolerant of others. The proposed Slack River construction beginning onsuccessatthiscolonyIn1980and1981wasreducedtoonly2.05 and 2.18 February IS Is a type of disturbance that could adversely affect Great Blueyoungpersuccessfulnest, respectively (Forbes et al. 190]:IB 1. In Herons because herons have sometimes responded to construction by abandoningsummary, there Is ample evidence that nesting Success at some disturbed their colony or nests and because herons are most sensitive to disturbanceLreatClueheroncoloniesIslessthanatundisturbedcolonies. early in the netting season (Vol et al. 19851 and herons can first arrive at Disturbance such at construction or land clearing can lower nesting their colonies in late January (Trowbridge and Bayer In Press). success by causing those Great Blue Herons that do not abandon nesting to The DEIS Implies that if a disturbed colony grows, then Use colony isleavetheirnestsinhaste (which can break eggs or knock young out of the nrstl and expose their eggs or young to predators or Inclement weather that viable. This can be ,capacious unless information about the nesting success may kill heron eggs or small young (e.g., Simpson and Kelsall 19]8, Kelsall at the disturbed colony or knowledge about the fate of surrounding colonies and Simpson 19)9, Yos et al. 1985). Disturbance can also delay or impair is available. For example, the ParEIS indicates on p. S-8 that the number of nesting so that young fledge later and are smaller than average, so that nests at the Lake the DEIS neglects State Park Great Blue Heron colony has Q their post-fledging survival may be much less than for fledglings from increased; what DEIS to mention is that the growth of this undisturbed colonies.colony may be because of the abandonment of a nearby colony at Weowna County Park (see Murphy 19881. There appears to be a shortage of available nesting sites for Great Blue Heron colonies in King County (see Murphy 1988), so herons are forced to nest in the few sites remaining, In spite of disturbance, Page 3 of 8 pages of Bayer's Comments on Black River Corporate Park DEIS Page 4 of 8 pages of Bayer's Comments on Slack River Corporate Park DEIS In summary, since the DEIS (ails to give the nesting success at any of only one of the four references cited It a Thesis at all! the disturbed colonies cited as examples of herons tolerating human 4) p. 8-4: The Milner pers. Co... Is not listed In the 'Personal disturbance, the DEIS' conclusion that disturbed Great Blue Heron colonies,. I0 Communications" at the end of Appendix 0. are 'viable' is Inappropriate and questionable. On the contrary, there 1! 5) p.f,8-4: Two references, Mark 119)5) and Benny (19711, are not given In ample evidence that some forms of human disturbance, including construction, the 'Literature Cited' at the end of Appendix B. tan hurt heron nesting success. 6) p. 8-4; There is no Cottrille (1958) In the 'literature Cited' at the end of Appendix B; this should have been Cottrllle and the distanceguidelines of the Washington Department of Wildlife (WOW) Cottrllle (1958). 9 P p. 11-5: Ilenny (19)1) It not in the 'Literature Cited' at the end of to eliminate disturbance around a Great Blue Heron colony are reasonable and Appendix 8. should be followed. The WOW has undoubtedly spent time and care in 8) p. 8-6: There Is no Simpson et al. (198)1 In the 'literature Cited' determining their guidelines, which (in my opinion) contrasts to the at the end of Appendix 0; however, there is a Simpson and Webb sometimes sloppy preparation of the DEIS' Appendix B (see below). The WOW's 1987), which is presumably what is meant here. 'Et al.' properly recommended buffer zone of 800-1,300 ft around a Great Blue Heron colony refers to three or more authors. I. reasonable because Buckley and Buckley (1976:27-28) recommended that there 9) p. 8-7: Two references, Webb and Forbes (1982) and Taylor and should be a Duller zone of 1.000 It around colonial nesting waterbird Reshktn (19811, are not given in the 'Literature Cited' at the end colonies. further, the average distance between active nests and of Appendix 8. Further, Taylor and Reshktn (1981) is an Incorrect disturbance was )18 ft at one Great Blue Heron colony IWerschkul tt al. citation because there wire actually three authors (see Taylor et 1941. Additionally, Short and Cooper (19851 and Vos et al. (1985) both al. 1981 in the literature Cited at the end of this letter). recommend that a buffer zone of 820 ft on land and 492 It on water be 101 p. 8-7: Reference to J. [Jill) Parker (1980) should be to 'she' not maintained to avoid human disturbance. The case studies in the DEIS that he` as In this DEIS because I don't know of any men named Jill. are given to indicate that herons can tolerate human disturbance at closer I wonder if the authors of this DEIS actually saw this reference) distances are tither for less obtrusive disturbances than the construction II) p. 8-8: Webb and Forbes (1982) is not In the -literature Cited' at proposed for the Black River Project or for disruptive disturbances that may i( the end of Appendix 8. not have occurred during the Great Blue heron's breeding season. Using the 12) p. 8-9: R. W. Thorpe and Associates (1985) Is not In the black River Great Blue Heron colony as an example, construction In February literature Cited' at the end of Appendix B. definitely disturbed the heron's nesting in 198) (Murphy 19881. 13) p. B-10: Webb and Forbes (1982) Is not in the 'literature Cited' at the end of Appendix B. On p. B-) of the 0E15, It is stated that Taylor and Reshktn 119811 14) p. 8-11: City of Seattle (1986) and Taylor and Reshkin (1981) are I..trich should actually be Taylor et al. 1981) concluded that not given in the 'Literature Cited' at the end of Appendix 8. recreational activities during the nesting season could be allowed 15) p. 8-12: No explanation Is given of who the 'WOE' Is. within 5)5 feet of the nesting rookery.' this DEIS' statement is erroneous;161 p. 8-1S: The full citations for Sjorklund 11975) and Cotta and Uhler laylor et al. 119811 actually recommended that limited recreational use be 1945) are not given. no closer than 574 ft (175 m) of the heron colony. The DEIS correctly 171 p. 8-15: There is no such word as 'Fynamlcs.' rnterpets Taylor et al.'s 119811 guideline on p. 8-11. the proposed Black 181 p. 8-1S and B-16: References are not in alphabetical or Never Corporate Park would Involve a more Intense form of human disturbance chronological order (i.e., Palmer 1962 on p. 8-IS belongs alter than the limited recreational use considered by Taylor et al (19811. so Murphy 1988 on p. 8-16; Van Wormer 198) should be before Van Taylor et al.'s 11981) buffer zone of 5)4 ft and, certainly, the 400 ft Wormer 1988). Duller zone proposed for Tract B of the Black River development (p. 8-14 of 19) P. 8-16: Typographical errors such as "Auccess' and 'Lertschuh' are the DEIS) could be inadequate to maintain a truly viable (i.e., elf- inexcusable. sustaining) heron population at the Black River colony. 20) p. B-16: Short and Cooper 1985 Is listed twice. 21) p. 8-16: The Simpson and Webb reference is incorrectly cited; there are actually 3 authors: Simpson, Smith. and Kelsall; but no In my opinion, parts of the DEIS' Appendix B were hastily written with Webb. inadequate art. The sloppiness In the writing of Appendix 8 Indicates to 221 Throughout Appendix 8, Great Slue Heron nesting 'rookeries' are me that the proposed guidelines for Tracts A and B in Appendix B on p. 8-13 referenced; however, Great Slue Herons do not nest in 'rookeries.' and 8-14 may not have been thoughtfully enough researched and are inadequate. Only the Rook of Europe nests in rookeries. It Is more proper to write that Great Blue Herons nest In heronries or colonies. The sloppiness of Appendix 8 preparation Is apparent in the following items, which are by no means all the errors in Appendix B: Ir"" I) p. 8-2: Erickson (pers. comm.) and All.endinger letter are not given Literature Cited in the 'Literature Cited' or 'Personal Communications.' 2) p. 8-4. Contrary to what Is written, lowe (1954) contains no information Bayer, R. D. 1978. Aspects of an Oregon estuarine Great Slue Heron about the Great Blue Heron (Arden herodlatl; Lowe (1954) Is about population. Pp. 213-217 in A. Sprunt IV, J. C. Ogden, and S. WInckler a different species, the Gray heron 17—clnereal. . eds.). Wading Slyda. Mat. Audubon Soc. Set. Rep. Mo. 7. 7) p. 8-4: It is not true that any of the references that are cited as Bayer, R. D. 1979a. Bald Eagle-Great Slue heron interactions. Murrelet Doctoral dissertations are really Doctoral dissertations. In fact, 60:32-37. P,n. 5 of R oaoes of Bayer's Cotvnentt on Slack River Corporate Park DEIS Page 6 of 8 pages of Bayer's Coements on Slack River Corporate Park DEIS mean arm ar Us,rr N. U. I9/9b. Great Blue Heron allacks Horned Grebe. 8Ird-Banding50764-765. Greet Blue Heron. U.S. Dept. Interior, fish end Wildlily Zvi.uvBayer, N. D. 1981a. Arrival and departure frequencies of Great Blue Herons Div• Biological Services, Blologlcel Report 81 110.991 July I90.Simpson, K. and J. P. Keltall. 19)B. Capture and banding of adult Great ai two Oregon estuarine colonies. Auk 98:589-595.Beyer. R. U. I901b. Great plus Herons 'mooting- In western Oregon. Murrelet Blue Herons at Ponder harbour, British Columbia. Proc. Colonial61.91. Walerblyd Group 19)B:]1-)8, gSvily, J. Simpson, K„ J. N. M. Smith. and J. P. tel 198). Correlates and Bayer, R. D. 1981c. Regional variation of Great Blue heron lonfieldOrnithol. 52:210-211, 1 consequences of coloniality In Great Blue Herons. Can. J. loot.Bayer, R. U. 1901d. Weights of Great Blue Herons at.the 'equine Estuary, i' 65:5)2-57),Oregon. Murrelet 62:I8-19, Taylor, T. M„ M. Reshkin. and K. J. Brock. 1981. Recreation land use estuarins, adjacent to an active heron rookery: a management study. Proc. Indiana Dwyer, R. 0. 1981. Great Blue heron eggshell thickness at OregonWilsonBull. 94:198-201. Au deny of Sciences 91:226-236.Bayer, R. O. 198]. 198-2 g success of Western Gulls at Yaquina (lead and on Trowbridge, E. M. and R. O. Sayer. In /rats. A 1-3 nest Great Blue HeronBayermannudestructuresforalnglggrinaEstuary. ound displays Oregon. Great BlueMurreletIleroneatI Vermeer, K. 1969, Great Blue Heron colonies in Alberta. Can. Field-Nat.Yaqulna colony near Weskowin, Tillamook County, Oregon. Oregon Birds. Estuary, Oregon. Colonial Waterbirds 7:45-54. 87:2])-2/2. Veit, D. K. R. A. Ryder, and W. D. Grain. 1985. Response of breeding Lreat Bayer, R. D. 1984b. You litatlons of Great Blue Herons at /equine Estuary,O egon. Colonial Waterbirds ):]5-44. Blue Herons to human disturbance in northcentral Colorado. ColonialSayer, N. D. 1985a, Bill length of herons and egrelf as an estimator of prey Waterbirds 8:13-22. Warren, W. M. 19)9, Ecology of Great Blue Herons on Silver Creek, Idaho. site. Colonial Waterbirds 8:104-109,Bayer, R. 0. I985b. Interactions of Great Blue herons and gulls. Wilson M. S. Thesis, Univ. Idaho, Moscow,Bull. 9):5]8-511.Washington Department of Wildlife. 19(38. Draft, recommended anageaentBayer, R. D. 1989. Great Blue Heron killed by striking an overhead power guidelines for Washington Endangered and Threatened Species and SpecieslineatCoosBay, Oregon, Oregon Birds IS:19)-198.of Concern--Great Blue Heron, Nongame Wildlife. Webb, R. S. and L. S Bayer, R. D. and E. McMahon. 1981. Colony sites and hatching synchrony of s. 1981. Colony ettabllShment In an urban site Herons Great Blue Herons in coastal Oregon. Murrelet 62:73-29. by Great Blue herons. Murrelet 63:91-92.Buckley, P. A. and F. G. Buckley, 19)6, Guidelines for protection and Werschkul, D. F., E. McMahon, and M. Leltschuh. 1926. Some effects ofmanagementofcoloniallynestingwiterbirds, North Atlantic National human activities on the Great Blue Heron in Oregon. Wilson Bull.Park Service, Regional Office, Boston, Mass.88:660-662,Collato, J. A. 1979. Breeding biology and food habits of the Great Blue Werschkul, D. F., E. McMahon, M. Leltschuh, S. English, C. Stibinski, and G.Heron at Heyburn State Park, Benewah County, Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Williamson. 19)). Observations on the reproductive ecology of theIdaho, Moscow. Great Blue Heron IArdea herodlas) in western Oregon. Murrelet 58.7-12.Collard, J. A. 1981. Some aspects of the breeding ecology of the GreatBlueHeronatHeyburnStatePark. Northwest Science 55:293-297.English, S. H. 1978. Distribution and ecology of Great Blue Heron coloniesontheWillametteRiver, Oregon. Pp. 215-244 In A. Sprunt IV, J. C.Ogden, and S. Winckler (eds.). Wading Birds. Mat. Audubon Soc. Res.Rep. No. 7. Forbes, 1. S., K. Simpson, J. P. )(else)). and D. R. Flout, 1983. GreatblueHeroncoloniesInBritishColumbia. Environment Canada, CanadianwildlifeService, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, British Columbia,lienny, C. J. 1972. An analysis of the population dynamics of selected avian species with special reference to changes duringithe modernpesticideera. U. 5. Dept. Interior, fish and Wildlife Service,Wildlife Research Report No. I. Henny, C. J. and N. R. Bethers, 1921. Population ecology of the Great BlueHeronwithspecialreferencetowesternOregon. Can. Field. Nat. 83:205-209. Keltall, J. P. and K. Simpson. 19)9. A three year Study of the Great BlueHeronInsouthwesternBritishColumbia. Proc. 19)9 Colonial WaterblydGroup3:69-74. Lowe, I . A. 1954. The (Gray) Heron, London, Collins.Mark, 0. M. 1976. An Inventory of Great Blue heron (Ardea herodias)nesting colonies in British Columbia. Northwest c5Tce50:J2=41,Murphy, M. 198B. Status of Great Blue Heron colonies In King County,Washington. Western Birds 19:3)-40. Short, H. 1. and R. J. Cooper. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index models: Page 1 of 8 pages of Bayer's Comments on Black River Corporate Park OtIS Page 8 of II pages of layer's Comments on Black River Corporate Part DEIS eunnrnl:; on TUC b1ACkwATCli tluldnallATl I'A(It UIIAF1' I ut ptAnts• ,arpl.Ilalauu, roptllce. tatrdu, ur mammals. ..cfeatlllc cnviiiufrrtl tliAL S'lAri11l.NT Of AVHIL, 171U nnmraaa:laluru lu nut given fur the Iry specter, that aro tpeclllt'ally mentldnud In the text. Vugetotivu habitat eumpuneoto are mentioned. by 58 but only In qualitative. rather than quantitative. irohlon• From the text_ It .lppuaru that biological Invuellgrlluns un the ground b.f,n V. Kclwull. Ph.D. . Ii.l'.Olo. may hhvc liven limited to a r,ingle fluid trip - 'the field vigil in 77 Ueeitield brivu mid-Juno' (p. 3-311. although "field visits' aru reletred to (p. Delta. U(Illch Columbia 04) In cunnuetlun with the heronry In Appendix 0. Canada. Vert 7W•1 The Lunt. particularly "3.S.1 Vegetation' and '3.S.3 Wildlife itesuurcer", lu lull of quallliere that reinforce an Impression that introjo.ttu„tlauru war nu on--site douctlptlon of current biota. Such phrases as Specieo ouch as Timothy., .ete prevent 'an extensive shrub none My tn..ecolt thy F,lactouleir Corpoaate Park draft environmental churaclerized primarily of rod eider and black cottonwood". 'trees t(alc.•,•nl Si,,• r .rnf :nud to portions where l havu some of epproxlmululy 100 to I10 ltcl In height'. "Spector, such ea led experience a,:J crl..'rtite. They .are thou,/ eectlont of the main Idur It is lli'ely that predators use those wetland areas". rc pw,t ,Ic.i aa.-1 with pinntn anti am r,ale and. particularly. will. wild!ltu must likely to utll Its the ells Include-. Appt„din It - Laic nitlury and elects of human aie turbanvu on Walut'(uwl . . .may oust", du not !sod confidence that the authors guest bloc he:cn auv..urle.i . Hocause I have not visited tho situ, had more thun a suporficiol 'duo of what they were writing about. my aevlra Is concerned only with the technical' accuracy and dcgo.t. y of .anal is tail in thu EIS. I do not comment specifically In gestural, plsntr and plant associations are described somewhat nn proposed mitigation measurou or alternative plans because. In better than the animals. The authors at least know the colloquial my opinion. the 0,01o0cal baseline is Inadequate for such names of a number of y herbacoous plants, shrubs. and trees. considerations. The reader yule a reaseanublu Idea of the aorta of vegutative associations that will be loot with development of the site, but 1,7 A stlonq first impression was that the EIS appears to accept the no Idea of the importance of that loss to the surrounding corporate pail: development as virtually a lorogone conclusion - unvlron.ant. snot the only decisions remaining are those of how beet to provide fur the retention of some habitat and wildlife around.. the Ileferuneg Js,madu to a dosun or so bird species• although it is not peripheries of the site. The heron colony and P-I pond arc the only clear if lhuy ware rain by the investigators, or are merely olldlilc values given more than supurticial consideration, and the mentioned os being possible occupants of the site. corporate pare design, lc modified. perhaps only slightly, to lenoun impacts un ar,cr. „ "nu action" alternative is e.eaalioned In A few mammaiu aro mentioned by name as well. but again with no connection arlth cote ruction of the development• but is nowhere certain Indication that they were identified through on-site seriously discussed. Nu Intotmatiun is given on the importance of Inventlgallun. One would like to know what the Investigators mean the cahstiny site to local wildllte. to the local environment, or when they say "Few mammals, other than mice, voles, and adaptable to the quality ul lite In Hanlon. What Is planned for the residual t predators such as rrconns, striped skunks, and opossums will be riparion lam er .'adjac,:nt to thu site? From the ucant information . L sustained." What are the le that, through Infurrnce. will not upplicJ. it sce.,s that the corporate park site may supply yo.0 his suutalnod7For that matter what species of voles and .Ica aro ci1J land that cnmpiemonts the residual forest by adding they talking about, and In what numbers? There are some rare and considerable biological diversity. Interesting voles slid mice In the Pacific northwest, and there art. also ro.o extremely common ones that provide much food for predators. Including great blur herons. Are there shrews. moles. Ucliciencies In the LIS other small species, or other large specie.. prevunt? The .oat cerlous. Immediately apparent, deficiency in the Things are oven lure clear with the 'amphibians and reptiles'. No environmental impact tlatement is the absence of biological amphibians or reptiles are named. Insects are not considered at inventory. 0lulogical inventory Is usually the first, basic. and 2 all. cceeuary step when aaskii.q an environmental ausessment. It In dlt(lcult to Imagine attempting bloloylcel deeeription of an area I would like to have some assurance that the site le not without (list knowing what Is there. but that Is exactly what the ecologically Important to a lsrqur area, and that It does nut ulackwuler Corporote Park draft attempts to du. There are no lists contain rare or endangered life forms. Ho such assurance can be ell f- be much •,ruder (hen I1 they Arc nnl. I ti y.ven nt .nl•, . cJ It um the t15 aJ It. clan.l!1. I 1 llfwould aluu be uuulul to coo con,:Iderotion of thu elevation of foe...Alocrl..g auyccts u( the Envlroomtotul Impact lelomenl may thu heron a nuata In rotation to that of (hi Planned Uulldings. One be . l Junc end llw rough. They include aura hard data. and appear would nucpoet, although L know ut nu dlroe(Iy eootlrml.y data. that 7I., have cone uoh::lance. but I a. nut •luallllad to InJye thus. I eau tolfdingu that overlook /lest, would ha ye a much greeter impact than p ate. hrw.vc. that. excepting :toms sup a•uls of Appendix U. the unee below neat level. We know how high the planned building, will n.o l.•q teal veyeclu nl the environmental ulwlu.enl are almylletic be. Ile(allvu to (hum. how high ore the nests'? WIII the roots of the and soto'i 1 idol in the extreme.bulldingu have human activity arubel IL is out evident. trom the LrlS, what configuration (or bolldluys and parking to moat likely in the planned corporate park. The plena A 1,yenurn is .and the great blue heron nesting colony uhuwu In -Append x U' are nut the same as (hoar shown in the main the Jc_crrplluu and discussion of the greet blue heron culouy. body of. the work. Cunsidetiny the huge size of outdoor pnrklny 11 thorn un some of the dlagramu. It seems surprlrluq that the authors ucaccat to the Clackwwter Corporate Park site. Is uurprlainyly ItcJ cunsidorin• the did not attee.pt to analyze the effect of car pack activity on Iprominence Oven to It In the E15. nesting I.ut'unu. Whal about ulynt lime activity In the corporate h,ufo,.ral eat.. reluling to It apneas to be almost entirulY Li pork? Ileruhs may woke lsrdinq (lights day and night. u, , ,a•.0 'tom unpubllsl.ed reports and conversations. The colony la out ...lt .Jr ,cribed. We are told that the nc,ln art Io a grove of Ito to till tool tell black eotlonwoods. We in nut told the The authuru have done a commendable Job of locating selective reluroncvu. particularly from the northwest. that. dcmons,rute that n,.whet of extant of lever uued for netting. thu helghtc of thu mem al,o uvo gtuund. the condition or viability of thu nesting hoconu may maintain colonies despite much environmental n disturbance. Their data show, however. that such colonies are _1 leave. or (tie condition end composition of the subcanopy almu:t invariably small. Thy average number of active neat. in the venvt..t .,.n. 6 colonies shown on their Table 8-1 is 18.6. with a range from 0 We are nut told what disturbances the nesting herons are subject to 50. That is about half 9e colony size for the province of to now. We ate not told if there are alternate nesting sites In Brltich Columbia., and soma other vonues examined (Kelsall 1989. time local arcs. In the event that development for the corporate F'urbru qj II. 198 ,a). Lark should cause abandonment of the heronry. We are not told why S •Thu 'notability of such smell colonies is demonstrated by the fact. the herons established themselves where they have. Were they perhaps displaced from some known prevloua site? fly second hand that they are short lived. Table 8-1 'lows no record for any of the r afar matron. slightly different from that given In the EIS, is that colonies prior to 1985, end the test suggests no ulgnifleantly the culu..y l..0 had progressively increasing numbers of nuts - from longer history for any of them. Uy contrast, large colonies. In J in I•,e6 to over 30 in 1990 (S. Krom, personal communication). large and recurs acropolis are known. if only throuyn oral that suggests a reaaunably secure. undisturbed. and increasingly tradition. to be Tony livid. For •sample, a colony of upward to 700 nestu In Tsuwwausen, British Columbia. that was destroyed by /0 important nesting site. logging in 1955, had been at rho same forested site since the turn of the century. end probably long before that. Urban development the CIS 'acts, or Is leer than precise on. some basic information forced it to move ueveral times in the neat Ill years. It relocates c ourrnlny the heronry. Whore, and on what, do the nesting herons about 19'1] In a forest of 1 hundred acres in Point Roberts. teed" Uu they nit tho adjacent park and pond site, or do they go Washlnyton, where It now has .345 active nests per year. Large further atleldT Feeding locations are determined by the simple yrnccas of ubuorvinq the dlreetlone of feeding [lights, and colonies are also more productive than small ones, fledging more following those flights to their sources. The finding of feeding / young per neat It Is believed that some small colonies might not I nratlons m y be simplified by determining what the birds are (p produce enough young to maintain themselves without recruitment satiny. that determination Is often made by examining [oodatufta form nearby larger colonies (sou i-orbus t1 It.. 19asa. (orbs t1 el. commonly dropped over the sides of active nests. Colonies open 17Esb, Kelusll 1989. Duller 1989) have. mote than one teedlny area. Have those matters been Tho authors ohould qualify their [-closeted use of the Stanley Park investigated? The EIS plane heron flight corridors between heronry in Vancouver. and the pelts River Inn heronry in Blchmond // butldlnya In the corporate park. but It doss not 1nJleate that not Vancouver). U.C. as exampled o[ tolerance to vehicular and those corridors ore ones that the herons actually use. In fact the Ll:i is vague on that point. If the buildings will be in the direct human traffic. The Stanluy Park colony indeed tolerates much human. and so-. vehicular traffic. 11 it should be noted that It has and commonly used flight paths of feuding herons. their impact will 5 hod t,u y.:,rs ul pioprveulvuly nru..lei dot:lurb•nen in which lu niter( Jnu lu Jluturb.ncu Aril legion. I Iiuno,l „n.. It hat. nnI been rr.war l:ahfy successful detph le hiving it•er:clle.., neat liven and rout to rove oruun1. uatenrlve feeding Vuu el al. 119hbl experimentally examined the reaction of nee/lingh..bilnt , and elltu.,lly nu avian prud:.tion. The Del:a River Inn I/ I'uru.0 to dlulurbance by humane. end may have produced the mosthutun' r. in .. noisy ..nil buoy ully. lu • real eno.ealy. However, lhu dell,ltivu study to date. 'Ihry luund, and other authors serve, thattree.) involved plov1Jv the only Icaslble near utter In nn extremely lierone rru loos toleronl of dluturbuncu early In the neotln9 cycleh1.'.J,n.l tote,, near VaOcuuvur al,porl. lI.eorellcnlly doers la i .e. during courtwhlp, neat building, e99 laying, and earlyin... In, .'any ncalu. In (act, only a (cw biida (J nests In 1990) incubation) than they are later In the (reason. Vlolbly disturbedt"'..clooyly Na„ ' n.' (here (Scott iorbua. peltunal communication/. by an Intruder nl a,. avuraye of 560• (170 w1 In 1larch. theytheronry ,L not viable In the usual sense of the word, end IOlete:eel Intrunlon to wllhin 1h5' to 210' (50 to b5 al Inc. thet..inly nut oumeiht,g to be emulated at Ulacl:riv•r, llulancv ul lhu rueuon. Ilk. woof Miter eulhora un the subject. Yoe rl al,, believed that I'erune may bu considerably disturbed wellhere .arc tome oddities In the summarised data relating to small beluru they actually provide overt evidence by flushing from theharm'., ,co in IwLlr U-7. Pirrl. the distances between human foot. Their. recomwcnda(iuno (or • buffer zone around heronriesywas 'clivittcu and "Iloul:cries. (In my dictionary rookcrlet are for e7U' Iti0 wl, the grerlesl distance al which herons wore lluahndka. lu, vus (uyli,eguy, although the trim is sometimes applied to loom the haul by un Intruder, plus IGI. (50 rl us a safety margin.tore. why.. seals :..,d pt•n9olnu haul Out nl the water) arebv,,,u.iy .o.,qh app'oxiratlons. Curiously, the approximations used hoot recant recommendations for the protection of heronries r.ugq•stinthetableareoftendifferentfromthoseusedInthe /1,000• (JOU w) as • tune within which there will be no disturbanceacru.panyi,,q Juueriptive teat. Th•: 'llscrepan. ies are su(ticiently of any ourl during the nurlln9 :season. The most comprehensive.frequent and divergent as to wake all the given dle(Ances suspect.rocunt 9uldulinuo, of which ( am aware, are those of Buwwan andia,,le, ,till .0 (hr status rating giver, for two of the herunriuo Slderiue (1984) for the Province of Ontario. The WnLhln'ton StateintableU-1 . What were the re-lief-la by which the Pigeon Point Department of Care draft wanegewent guidelines (or huronrler, citedIntuu. y. th,,t had only 16 nests in 1986. none In 19(17 ur 1908, and in the EIS, are alonu In recommending • 656' (200 al butter tone.whusu torrent status is unknown, wet Judged to be "viable-7 Its In leaving much to tho dlacretlun of biologists when recu.wendingviabilityacc..0 to be west uncertain from the data given. The buffer zones, t?,ey forget that few biologists have experience orSpencerPropertyheronry. with only 6 netts In 1986 and no knowledge of lhu needs of nesting heron•. The 4J10 neat Pointubsequenldata, surely haw unknown, rather than "viable utatua. llutertu colony haw come perilously cloy• to destruction, and way yet_gu, because a state blolo9lst apparently did not thoroughlyTheauthorsuppeartohaveselectivelyignoredasubstantialInvestigateexistingandplannedencroachmentsonthenestingarealiteraturesuggestingthatpersistenceofhuronneslingIraseeKelso!' 19E9).disturbed chtcs is an exception rather than a cola. The corporateparkJevalupmenlwillceitalnlyImpacttheadjacentheronry. perhaps even cause Its abandonment• despite suggested safeguards.Literature reterencesWcrschku) et fl . I1'1761. whom they cite, oh ' d that heron nests within 48G ( lee ..) of a logging operation very Inactive. While I frequently edit draft manuscripts for technical Journal..neat) 719 (719 a) (row the logging etre active• birds were Inciudiny the Journal of hammslogy. Journal of Wildlife ftenagewent.shifting newt,. to the tide of the colony diutal from the Canadian Journal of Zoology. and Wildllf• Soclety Bulletin, and forJIJtuib..nce. Sinpuun and Yelsali (19781 compared two Sinner heron i3 book publluhrru, consulting companies. and the Canadian Wildlifecolonies. one scvuiely Impacted by development of a housing Service. It Is rare. in my experience, to sea literature citations '.5subdivisionnearby. 'Inward the end of the breading season In 197d.handled as carelessly •s they are In Appendix B of the Bleckwatersetofnest• in the undisturbed colony were active, but only 27% Corporate Park draft/, I( • structure l• no stronger than Itsofthoseexposedtodevelopmentwerestillviable. The disturbed w•akest .link, the Ulaekw•ter Corporal• Park EIS is hanging by •tulnny was abandoned by the birds lit(' following year. Corbett NI threadlal . 119l5) detcr11,yd a classic case where • large heronry ofperhaps700yearnstandingwoeabandonedfollowingprogressive The following eltutlone given In the tort. figures. and Table B-1humanintrusionuvetaperiodofJ0years. Sows of the factors wore of Append!. B are nut given In the -1,112rityri_cilsc. There mayconstrnellonofacausewaytotheislandsite• progressive be ethers that I did not note In passing,enlargement of encroaching camping and parking laclllllea and, finally. confinement of the heronry to unsuitable conlferuus forest City of Seettl• 1906 - Table 8-1. p. 8-11whereheronsk111rd .any nest lures with their •xcr•went before Cottrlllu 1950 - p. U-4finallyabandoningtherite. Examples of herons abandoning nest Ronny 1971 - p, li-5 r. A !y Sul'. t. "tf. iR . • 4 5N. . .owl it ''..(..}1(Jh..i • t a I : '.,. l.7es'./. ; i. . s- 1 in• .•• br'{ .1. •: ram . 1 MEW.141K am this, efrhle;%Y i*__b...it 0s./}1 14 msrsls a` tll..me J: a.m.rr h4 a 1. r I I 1 . 1 it Henry 14/1 - p. 11-4 Caurgla. )n1 Vermeer. K. and R.N. butler led.. . Ecology and uN. Inc. I9Ru - Figs. 2 and ]. r status of marina and tthorelino birds In the Strait of Georgia. nark. 19/5 - p. U-I t• Proceedings Ut • symporium rpueeured by the Pacific Northwest R.W. Thorpe and Ac9uelatca 19t5 - p. U-9 Bird bnd Ma..al Society and the Canadian Wlldllle Service. Simpson et :.1 . 190/ - p. 11-6 Canadians Nildille Service, Special Qeportt112-119. Taylor and lit•chkin 1981 - p. U-'/. 0-11 van Wormer 1909 - labia U-i Corbett, O.N., I . Hubinnon, and C. Roberts. 1985. A review of the Webb and I'orhes 1902 - p. U.7. n-o. n-io Iluotico Island heronry in Prince Edward Island National Park. Parks Canada. Atlantic Region, Natural Resource Management In addition the following anomalies ware noted In the -61&Vr.Algfy Planning. Technical Report (with A..end.enlal. le p. Ut l_c.s_ Forbes, L.S., K. Simpson. J.P. Kal a1l . and O. Flock. 1985e. Great Short and Cooper. 1905.- are given twice. blue heron colonies in british Columbia. Environment Canada, t..pnun. K. and J.N.M. Webb. 1987." Is not a bona fide reference. IS Canadian Wildlife Service. Delta. 78 p. It may be a contut,lon of papers published by Wcbb and Forbes Wait?). and by Simpson. Smith. and Eelsall (1987 given in my Forbes. L.S. . K. Sle.pnon, J.P. Kelaall, and 0. Flout... 1965b. Iltet ..ture citations below. Reproductive euceeea of great blue herons in British Columbia. I n.y have missed the., but 1 did not see 'llenny and Oetbrrs.Canadian Journal of Zoology 6315).11I0-111J. 19/I.- or' U.S. Fi.:h and Wildlife Service. 1902." cited in the leaf. Kulsall. J.P. 1989. Tho great blue herons of Point Roberts - hf9tory. biology. bud management. QueueQ for Point Roberts Some of the references given are Incompletely cited. Four of the Heron P ion Committee. Point Roberts. WA (unpublished last live literature reirrunces for example. on page 8-16. provide report). 32 p author, date of publication, title. end pagination only. They give only Indirect indications of where they might be found. thus Simpson. K. and J.P. Kelaall. 1976. Capture and banding of great thwarting the esoentlal purpose of literature citations• which is blue herons at Pander Harbour. Orltlih Columbia. Proceedings to allow a reader to look things up personally.of the Colonial Waterbird Croup 2.71-78. Simpson. K.. J.N.M. Smith. and J.P. Kelaall. 1987. Correlates and consequences of colonlality In greet blue herons.. Canadian Concl...ions Journal of Zoology 65i572-577. Since the developers of the Olackvater Corporate Park are clearly Vos O.K. , M.A. Ryder. and N.O. Creul. 1985. Response of breading playing bilnkimanuhip with the Renton heronry. end possibly with greet blue herons to human disturbance In northcentral other ecological values es well. it Is reasonable to expect that. Colorado. Colonial Waterblyd• 8(1).13-22. any .nvtrona.ental ant of the site should be systematic and comprehensive. Unfortunately, the biological considerations in the I/ Webb. R.S. and L.S. Forbes. 1982. Colony establishment in an urban draft fnvlron.untal impact Assessment are Inadequate and flawed. site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63(71191-92. Iney Should he upgraded to reasonable professional standards. Fur example. they should be acceptable to a panel of professional Werachkul. 0.. E. hells/ton, M. Leltrchuh. S. English, C. Skibin•kl , biologists in relevant fields. using the same sort of criteria that and C. Williamson. 1977. Observations on the reproductive apply to pert-edited technical publications.. , ecology of the great blue heron (Art!!! tfC44112) in western Oregon. Mu4•relet 56111.7-12. Llterolure cited above nBowman. 1. and J. Slderlus.. 19In. Management guidelines lln for the Ct Lt protection of heronries In Ontario. Ontario Mlnlstry of Y Q(Xn,.e,{{/fJly/Natural Ilcsuurcos. Wildlife Branch. Toronto. 41 p. Outlier. H.N. 1989. BreedingecologyJohn P. Kalmall April 24. 1990. end population trends of the great blue heron. Al !! b!E0916i j409jnl. in the Strait of Resume of 1959 to 1965 I+1olo is{ ). Educational leave in AustraliaPerth, • 1959-60. Research biologist for easternJOiIRP. KELSALL Australia, National Parks. Pioneered studies of behaviourOttawa. Ont. and morphological adaptions of moose and deer22DeerfieldDriveand for snow and investigated factors involved inDelta. British Columbia Sackville, widespread 'moose sickness" in eastern NorthCanada. V41.1 2W9 Telephone. (604) 94)-876) N.B. America. 1948 to 1959 ItShrlIciel Of(1ctr 7. Biologist ). For CanadianOccupationalOttawa, Ont,, Wildlife Service, led research on barren-OD ective Consulting assignments in any aspect of Vancouver. ground caribou 1950-59. Developed newD.C. and techniques for biological research under arcticrenewableresourceuseorresearchwheremy education and experience can be used to Yellowknife, conditions, Made short term investigations,advantage. N.W.T. from Alaska to Greenland, involving beaver,arctic fox, musk-oxen and other life forme.Reported many new records for plants, birds andExperience mammals. Educational leave 1950-51. EdUc ti n Ph.D. In Zoology, University of Western1981toIrellilms. Kelsali Research Ltd. Consulting in Australia, 1965.date. Delta, ecological research, review and resource B.C. management for various clients including the Post graduate studies in Ecology. University ofOttawa, 1960-61.Banff Centre School of Management, Beak Consultants Ltd, LCL Ltd, Environcon Ltd, Post graduate studies in Wildlife Management.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, University of British Columbia, 1951-52.Northwest Territories Department of Renewable Resources, National Parka Canada, Canadian M.A. In Hlonomles. University of Toronto, 1949,Wildlife Service, and The World Wildlife Pund. B.A. in Biology, Acadia University, 1947. 1968 to 1980 ResearchSc14nt1gt 2 to ggesarch Scientist 4. Completed courses In Field Geology andDelta, B.C., Retired, December 1900. Directed and reported Mineralogy, 1954 and Intermediate GovernmentEdmonton. reoearch ongY. andgreatblueheronecolo Administration, 1965.Alta., end environmental ments of National Wildlife Nanalmo,trees and reserves. Developed a curriculum and Professional American Society of North America B.C. school in Renewable Resources Technology forAssocia Aff111atlon Aretle Institute of North America (Fellow)the Northwest Territories. the first clano British Col of CProfessionalolumbia Biologists of graduated In 1979. Developed, directed and Canadian Columbia (past Director) reported research toward learning geographic Paraplegic Association origins of birds from their feather chemistry. International Oceanographic Foundation Designed, conducted and collaborated on major Ottawa eScisField-Natura studies of northern wildfire ecology and Multiple Sclerorla Society of Canada adeptlone of large mammals for life in snow. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society (pastStudiedandreportedtheecologyof ) IBP Canadian Vice President) sites and a proposed National Park in the North.The Wildlife Society (Certified Wildlife Presented papers or otherwise represented Biologist) employer, the Canadian Wildlife Service, at many 111211oaohy Authored, or coauthorednationalandInternationalmeetings, 1948-1959. re7o Dealings anh many unpublished reports mostly dealing with1965to1968EQarshPianager1, B141ortisi 5. Directed the origin research but including research andEdmonton, research program for Western Region, Canadian management plans, environmental impact 00000Alta. Wildlife Service. Responsible for all research documents. Won bibliographies and administrativeinthewesternNationalParksandArctic, and documents. The Wildlife Society's award for cooperative programs in the 4 westerh bast monograph in 1968 for 'The migratory provinces. Acting Director of the Western barren-ground caribou of Canada's runner-up forRegionthrough1967. Left management because of the same award in 1958. Wrote and read 48 radio a preference for research. page 1 of ) oars 2 of 1 m roam seas e.....I J•rr ,,,)girl AMOK MIN IILIoCRMHI John P. Keleall October, 1910 lbito pplhy broadcasts for the Canadian Broadcastingcontd. Corporation, 1969 to 1971. Personal Photography, creative writing, reading, world ub cations n treii travel, northern history and ecology, swinging, KrtsALt, J./, I9/9. A studyof bird ppcollectingCanadians.populations In the • le orchard, of the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, with particular reference to the ffects of orchard sprays upon them. Can. Wild). Serv., wild). Manage. Peroonal Born )0 September 1924. Canadian Citizen. Dab, Married, ) children. Height 18) cm. Height Dull. 1, Series 2. IN.A. thesis, U. of Toronto) 69 p. 04 kg, Wear glasses. Service with the Royal Canadian Air Force 1944-451 pensioner. KELSALL,, J.I. 1951. Caribou calving studies, 1951. Arctic Circular 611), 6 - 7. Physical Limitation§ Physically limited by spastic paralysis of the KtLSALL, J.P. 1953. {lological I lgations of the Thelon Gs.e Sanctuary.legs. Upper body and arms unaffected. Can Arctic Circular 6(1)17 - S. drive vehicles with hand controls, travel KLtSAi1, J.?. 19S). I -ground caribou movements in the Canadian Arctic.locally or internationally If required. Assistance required when faced with physical Trans. 20th N. Am. Wildl. Coot.till - S60. barriers to a wheelchair. Health otherwise satisfactory.MNri[Lo, A.v.r., ?LOOK, D.a., KtLSALL, J.P. and IOl1GHIRCY, A.G. 1955. An aerial survey technique for northern big game. Trans. 20th N. Am.R1<ISIeh000 References and a detailed bibliography on Wild!. Conf.s519 - S)2. request. KX S ALL„ J.I. 1957. Continued barren-ground caribou studies. Can. Wildl. Serv., Wildl. Manage. lull. 12, Series 1. 14S p. KItS Ott, J.I. 1957. The barren-ground caribou cooperative Investigation October 21, 1986. 1957-SI. Rept. No. 1. Can. Wildi. Serv. 12 p. KttSALL. J.I. and IOUQIRZY, A.C. 19S7. The barren-ground caribou cooper- ative investigation. Rept. No. 2. Can. Wildl. Sera. S1 p. KELSALL. J.I. 19S{. The barren-ground caribou cooperative i igation. Rept. Ho. 1. Can. Wildl. Sere. 23 p. KELSALL, J.P. 1959. A poisonous fungus in the Northwest Territories. Can. leld-Net. 71(21,110. Kr13 ALL, J.I. 11160, Co-operative studies of barren-ground caribou, 1957- S6. Can. Wildl. {erv., Wildl. Manage. lull. IS. Series 1. recsALL. J.., tOUQi,LT, A.Q. and STEWART, A.C. 1960. Arctic •pert test. North 7(6).17720. MAC?HtASca, A.M., MAAING'TOW, C.A., and KILSALL. J.P. 1962. The barren- ground grizzly bear in northern Canada. Arctic 1S(1), 294-291. One of three finalists for The Wildlife Society award for 'the out- standing publication ort wildlife ecology and management- in 19S7. Pare ) of ) 1. 1. ILSALL, J.P. 1961. Barren-ground caribou and their management. Can. KE SAIL. J.P. 11170. Sn ion between b -ground caribou and musk- Audubon, Nov. - Dec., 141 - 149, rats. Can. J. tool, 4Sf)11 605. r[ISALI., J.P. 1961. Review of 'Land end freeh-voter mammals of the ILEISALL, J.P. 1970. Migration of the barren-ground caribou. Natural Ungava Peninsula- by Francis Harper. J. Wlidl. Manage. 27(211 1 jllstory, Aug. - Sept., 90-106. 304-105. KLLSALL, J.P. 1970. Chemical elements in waterfowl flight feathers. rTL5A11., J.P. 1964. The decline of the caribou. Orya 7151, 704-746. Car.. Mild'. Serv., Progress Notes No. 17. II p. KSLSALL. J.. 1965. Insular variability in the tar (Protemnodon KLLSALL. J.P. 1970. Comparative analysis of feather pert. from wild cuaentil of Western Australia. Ph.D. thesis, U. of West. Aust. 107 p. mallards. Can. Wlldl. Sere., Progress Notes No. 15. 6 p. KL IS ALL, J.P. 1966. Additional bird ob ions at Bathurst Inlet, KELSAI.L, J.P. 1970. Soe4 breeding records for birds on the central H.W.T. Can. field-Nat. 8017)1 174-179. Coppermine River, N.W.T. Can. field-Net. S4(311 306-107. KLLSALL, J.P. 1967. Review of 'A continent in danger' by Vincent Serventy. KLISALL, J.P. 1970. Obssrvattons of birds and maan,la at Bluenose Lake. Can. Ileld-Nat. Blltl, 194-795.M.M.T. Arctic 23131, 190-196. rwNr, O.R., fULIIR, W„ RELS ALL, J.., scorres, G. and WIfHART, W, 1967. KLLSALL, J.P. 1971. Die Wanderungen der Barren-Cround Raribus. Des Resource administration and development in the Northwest Territories Tier, Hr. t, April. pp. 4-9 and SS. IA brief of the Alberta Chapter, Canadian Society of Wildlife and fishery Biologists to the Advisory Commission on Development of KXISALL, J.P. 1971. A range extension (or the bushy-tolled wood rat In Government is 0,e Northwest Territories). C.S.v.r.i. Occasional Alberta. Can. field-Nat. 8S1e1, )16. Papers 71 6-11. 12LSALL. J.P. 1971. Hinterland Who's 1.1No. Woodchuck. Can. 141141. Kt1SAIJ-, J.P. 1968.-Hinterland Who's Who. The caribou. Queen's Printer, Serv., LAND Pub. No. QS-10/1-000-[t-A-1. 6 p. Ottawa. 6 p. (published anonymously). KELSALL; J.P. and 'mute, G 1. 1971. Studies of the physical adaptlon of kitSALL. J.P. 1960. The migratory berren-ground caribou of Canada. big game for snow. Proc. Snow end Ice In Relation to Wildlife end Can. Wild). Serv.. Monograph No. 1. The Queen's rinter. Ottawa. Recreation Symposium, Iowa State U. 11e-146. 340 p. KLLSALL, J.P. and RESCOTT, W. 1971. Moose and deer behaviour in snow CIARX, A.N.,Kelsall, J.P.,and PARXLR, G.R. 1961. The land snail fauna of in rundy National Park, New Brunswick, Can. Wlidl. Sere., Rept. Fundy National Sark, New Brunswick. Hat. Museum Can. lull. 121, 5-71. Series No. 15. 27 p. THOMAS, D.C.,ARKER, C.R.,KLLSALL, J.P.,and DOUGHRLY, A.C. 196B.KtLSALLI J.P., HAWtPY, V.D. and THOMAS. O.C. 1971. Distribution and Population estimates of b -ground caribou on the Canadian abundance of muskocen north of Croat Bear Lake. Arctic 2413)s 151- mainland Iron 1955 to 1967. Can. W11d1. Serv., Progress Notes Ho. 1. 161. S p. KLISALL, J.P. 1917. The northern Halts of moose In western Canada. RttlktL, J.P. 1969. Structural adaptlon• of moose and deer foi snw, J. Ma.mulogy S11111 119-111. J. Manoalogy SO (2)s 302-310. ICELSALL, J.P. and CALAPRICE, J. 1972. Chemlcal content of waterfowl LOOCHRLY, A.G. and KLLSALL, 3.P. 1961. The ecology and population plumage and population diagnosis. J. wild). Manage. 36141, 1055-10117. dynamics of the b -ground caribou In Canada. Ecology of the sub Arctic regions. Proc. of the Helsinki Symposium (UNCSCO)s KLLSAl1.. J... RUYT, t. and tOL:A!, S.C. 1971. Ecology of the fort 275-700. Reliance-Artillery Lake area. Can. Wlldl. Serv. 99 p. 47 maps. KtLSALL. J.P. 1970. Review of 'Reindeer ecology and management in Sweden' Kr1SALL, J.P. 1974. Snow goose primaries as indicators of eve and see. by folk. Skuncke. Arctic 1311), 67. Can. J. tool. 32(6), 791-7114. Won The Wildlife Society award for beet publication on terrestlel RILSALL, J.. and TTIILR, C.S. 1974. 11o9 u9raphy of .come with part- s/11.1 fe In 1968. lcular reference to western North America. Naturalist. Can. 1011 117-130. yJ( ,!j 1 .;(:01 ll ( ,.E ' y F,ttfl.t 1 . r411, •,,try ` w; .) 1,: lf 1 •'•1 ;' iL . i'y- ir M v•-71s:La7r-'•", Fl iy1 f 'li`} 1...{ 4. S. KELSALL, J.P. 1177. Review of 'The logeocba.lstry of blue, snow and P ANNE tote, W,J., AILSALL, J.P. and &URTpf. R. 1974. Methods of analys- geese- by Herold C. Hanson and Robert L. Jones. J. W11011. manse.. Cl Ing feathers for elemental con . Environment Canada. fisheries I11, IO1-IO1. and marine Serv, Tech. Rept. No. OS. 16 p. KLLSALL, J.P. and BURTON, R. 1177. Identification of origins of lesser snow ISALL, J.P. 191S. Warble fly distribution among some Canadian caribou. geese by r-ray spectrometry. Can. J. tool. SS141, 111-7)). Proc. 1st. Int. Reindeer/Caribou Symposium. Biol. Papers U. of Alaska, Special Sept. No. Is 509-S1). P2 LSAtL, J.., TRITER, C.S. and WRIGHT. T.D. 1171. The effects of fire on the eulogy of the boreal sorest, with particular reference to the Canadian rItSA1.L, J.P. and BURTON, R. 197S. Erperimental use of • helium au.or- north, • review end selected bibliography. Can. Wlldl. Serv., Occasional phcre to t-ray spectroscopy. Can. Wilds. Serv., Progress Notes No. Papers Ho. 32. Si p. 49_ 4 p. NOLAN, J.W. and KELSALL, J.P. 1177. Dell sheep and their habitat in t.lstion KELSALL, J.P. and SUPTON, R. 197S. Some a. ecte of variability Y In the to pipeline proposals in northwestern Canada. Can. Wlldl. Serv., Ma d..nt e e.aminatlon of biological materiels by X-ray spectroscopy. Can. Valley Pipeline Investigations, Ottawa. 64 p. Wild'. Serv. Progress Notes No. 50. S p. KELSALL. J.P. 1978. Use of chemical analyses to diagnose waterfowl populations. K[LS AL L, J.P. and /URTOH, R. 1975. Abstract of Proposed 1 J.I. area at Torenslo Sciences Symposium Proceedings, April I), 14, IS, 1911. Alberts Caribou Point, Macl:entie District, Northwest Territories, Canada. fish and Wildlife Service, Edmonton. pp. 1)1-166. 1e1 pp.). In IMP ecological sites in subarctic Canada. D.r.e. Rickel led.). U. of Lethbridge Production Services, Lethbridge. KEIS ALL, J.P., MICR, C.S. and KINGSIEY, M. 117s, Relationship of bison vieght pp. 67-61. to chest girth. J. Wlld1. manage. U 01s 651-661. KLLSALL, 3.., IUR?OH, R., and PANNEKOEK, M.J. 1175. Chemical variabll- 511G5CN, K. and KELIALL, J.P. 1178. Capture and bending of adult great blue Icy In plumage of wild lesser snow geese. Can. J. tool. 5119), herons et Pander Harbour, •ritlsh Colusble. Proc. 1978 Conf. of the 1)61-1)75. Colonial Waterblyd Group, New York. pp. 71-78. KLLSALL, J.., KUMT. C. and ZOLTAI, S.C. 117f. Abstract of Proposed KPSLALL, J.P. and SURTON. R. 1171. Bo.. problems In identification of origins I J.. area at fort Reliance-Artillery Lake, Northwest Territories, of waterfwl by chemical profiles. Can. J. tool. $7111)1 2)11-2)01. Canada. 1)2 pp.. In IMP ecological sites in subarctic Canada. D.K.I. Becket led.). U. of Lethbridge Production Services. Lech- KELSALL, J.?. and KIUIN, D. 1171. The state of knowledge of the Procupine bridge. pp. 16-17. caribou herb. Trans. 44th. H. Am. Wlldl. and Netur. Resources Conf., S05-521. KELSALL, J.P., MV LICAN, T. and LAP). L. 1175. Chemical examination of feathers by an electron beam. Can. Wild!. Serv., Progress Notes KELSALL, J.P. and SIMPSON. K. 1179. A three year study of the greet blue heron No. SS. ) p.in south-western British Columbia. Proc. 1111 Meeting of the Colonial Wetirblyd Croup, Lafayette, LA. pp. 61-14. KYLSALL,J.P., PANH[KOEK, W.J. and lUR7ON, R. 117S. Variability in the chemical content of waterfowl plumage. Can. J. tool. S111011 TTLFER, LS. and KELSALL, J.P. 19711. Studies of morphological peramater affect- 1119-1186. ing ungulate locomotion in snow. Can. J. tool. 5711111 1153-1159. KELSALL. J.,,SNACYLETTE, N.T. and STEERS, N.C. 197S. Abstract of KELSALL, J.?., TUFT!, E. and BI1teSON, K. 1180. Indirect determination of Proposed I J.P. area st Port Radulm, Northwest Territories, Canada. ungulate foot area. Can. J. tool. Sill), 464-466. Il5 pp.. In I8 ecological sites in subarctic Canada. O.K.B. Becket led.). U. of Lethbridge Production Services, Lethbridge. KELSALL, J.P. In press, The use of chemical profiles from feathers to pp. 112-11).determine the origins of birds. Proc. Sth Pan African Ornithological Congress, Malawi, Aug. 23-30. 1S p. KELSALL, J.P. and 'UPTON, R. 1976. Variability in the fhe.ieal contamin- I ation effects of gunshot. J. Radtoanal. Chem. 311 451-459.. KELSALL, J.P. and ANHCKOCK, M.J. 1976. The mineral profile of plumage in captive lesser snow geese. Can. J. fool. 54(2), 301 - 305. 6, Ma1or sorts) WY1ISA11, ),, 1946. 1Krukti, J.P, and UCHRry, A.G.AO PISS, Sarren-ground caribou resurvey. A study of the Ktntvlllt alyd Sanctuary, C.W.S.C. C.W.S.C. 77), )) p. 711, 20 p, KTLS AL L, J.P. r 1¢LSAit, J.P. and IAHrzrLD, A.W., 1956, S1916. A study of the waterfowl populations, waterfowl activltIroundleien and utilisation winter 195S-56. C,W.I,C, 116. 7 ptarlbou populationsandwaterfowlenvironmentonthemarshesalongandneartheinttrpro-d boundary between Nova Scot and Nev Brunswick. marshes J.P. 1957,C.W.S.C. 711. lip. Car lb ou leading habits on fora led winter range'.vinciaC.w.S, re pt, 7 p.IWITT, O,P., KLLSALL. J.P. and LUiltuc, obs.P In the James as R L. 1946• Annotated list of birds rrts Ali.y egion in the autumn of 1947, J.P. 1961, Aerial survey - Camp Gagetown N.D.), March 70-71, 1961. C.W.S.C. ell. 7 p. C.W.S.KL LS AL L, reps. 10 p.J.?. 1915. mammal and bird curve New BY [unw KELSAI.L,ck National Park June 1-It D• J.P. 1967, Wildlife inventory for management ac Camp Gagetown. July 4,1918. C.W.S.C. )4. C.W.S.C. 177). 13 p.KFISALL, J.. 1948, Wildlife and geological observatio fC.W.S.C. 101. )B p. Task force 00, KTLSALL. J.P. 1961, The moose, Alcoa americana americana (Clinton), of ns from Fundy National Park, Nev Drunsvlck,Pa er_ELSALL. J.i. 1949, Baffin Island caribou !survey wIth population Portland, He. Chimers.) 1S p, P Presented to N.[. Wild. Cont.,and recommendations. C.W.S.C. 1, 70p. estimates gameKLlSALL, J.P. 1961, Research and management requirements for big 9e inKTISALL• J.P. 1949. Beaver survey September 16-22, 1949, C.W.S.C. 11). 10 p, Fundy National Park,C.W.S.C. 971, KTISALL, J.?. 19e9. Beaver survey September 7-B, Kt/.!-L• J.P. 1965, fancy National Park an w1919. C.W.S.C. 111, B p, Study. C. 1767. )1 p.KTtS ALL• J.P. 1949. Investigation of the white-tailed deer population on K=LSALL. J.P. 1965,Beausoleil Island, Georgian Snow Reconnaissance of the Cape Ireton Highlands.9 an Bay Islands National lark. C.W.S.C. 44. 6 p, C.W.S.C. 1776. IS p. KE G u1• J.P. 1951. Caribou winter range study 19S0-S1. C.W.S.C. 61. 18 p. 10ELSALL. J.P. 1965,Caribou introduction. CAN Breton Highlands National Park.C,W.S,C, 1711• 15 p.rLLSALL, J.P. 1951. Report on caribou calving studies 1951. C.W,S,C, 6e, 74 p. KLLS ALL, J.P. 1966, The barren-ground caribou tagging program in the North-rTISALL, Thelon Cane Sanctuary. fee. C.W.S.C. J.P. 1951. west Territories.tolry. C.W.S.C. 198, 20 p, 1079, 10 p. KELSALL, J.P. 1966,Came Sanctuary, C.W.S.C. 197. IS p. Animal Foundation to the Thelon Lundy National Park snowstudy, C.W.S.C. 1))7. 4S p. KEIS Aii• J.P. 1951. Expedition of the vereont K=i_Silt , J.P. and HAW1,ft V.D. 1967. Status of Dorian-ground caribou north ofKLLSALL. J.P. 1955. Barren-ground caribou resurvey 19SS. C.W.S.C. Be, 6 p• Croat near Lake, 1966. C.W.S.C. 1096. • p. KELSAL1191,P 1S196S. Pesticides and mammals !n New Brunswick forests. C.W.S.C.p. 1 KL13ALL, J.P. 1969, F}at wFeatherchemistryandter fow origins. Progress Pepo rYlr.cluding numerous minor re Ho. 1, C.W,S, tops, II p• greportsandreportssubsequentlypublished - theServicereportlibrarycontainsover )0 additional documentsbycetera) since 1946. C.W.S.C, numbers are those assigned by the J.P. 196I. u Uer chaletC/S central library but not all such numbers are known to the author. No. I. ry and waterfowl.orlgtna, Progress Report G nadl an W C•W•6. rapt, S p. ra KE13ALL, J.P. 1169, Feather chemistry and watartwl origins, Progress ReportNo. 1. C,14.9. rept.' 6 p. n.s ALL, J.P. 1970. Leather chemistry and waterfowl origins, Progress AeportMo. 4. Elemental content of primaries from captive waterfowl. C.W.S.rapt. ) p, Substantially revised about 1163 as C,W.S.C• 17)1. I f• s moms Ammis MOO f 1 s. It L`ALL, J.P. 1971. Problem analysis - body chemistry and waterfowl 1rr1 SALL, J.P. I91B. Partial lief of vet Nlsr plant species of or Nine, C.u.S. rept. 10 p.KCLIJ:R, RA, the V asue Lake area. C.W.S., Delta rapt. imlw o.l 11 P. it t.S r.l.l, J.P. 1971. Revised project plan - body chemistry and moat e'foul g origins. C.N.S. rept. 10 p. S1101SON, K. and KEI-SALL, J.P. 191B. Preliminary studies of seat blue heron colonies. 1977. C.W.S .. Delta rept. 20 p. r:ILSA1L. J.P. and YELPER, C f. 1971. Morphological parameters for caa,mal r locomotion in snow. Paper presented to An. Soc. Mammalogist, siitSON, K. and KLLSALL, J.P. I'll. Th• llm+r National wildlife Areal moll - Vancouver, June 70, 1911, 7 P.lifs and habitats. C.M.I., Del a rapt. (m Veo•) d rI LS ALL, J.r.. SALTER, R., SIIARPr, L.. KILLCR11A15, e,, and ZOLTAI. S.C. 1977, KELSALL, annotated croft. J. 1nces919. bibliography. the Porcupinee C.W.S. caribou rend. and it sor) 719 p. fish and olldlife inventory of Orledmeat Lake, Alberta. Alberti Dept. of Invirorueent. 100 p. KLLSAtt. J.P. 1974. Arctic Islands pipeline overview studies - birds. Problem analysis and project plan. C.W.S. rept. 11 p. tELTCR. C.S. and KCLSALL. J.P. 1974. Sexual dimorphism In ungulate hoofs. C.N.S. rept. 1 p. KI LSAI.L, J.P. 1975. Project plan - study of the interlakt a ndhill crane population. Manitoba. C.W.S. rept. 7S p. KELSALL, J.P. 197$. Whooping trans project. Canadian Wildlife Service, western Region. C.N.S. report 75 p. KL LS All, J.P. 1975. A proposed functional structure for Canadian wildlife Service. Pacific and Yukon Region, Environment Canada. C.W.S. rept. 14 p. KELSALL, J.P. 1976. R h proposal for the development of • curriculum in Isle resources technology for the Northwest Territories. . .. . Proposal for Renewable Resources Manage. Advisory Committee. H.W.T. 9 p. KCtS ALL, J.P., KELSALL, J.I. and KELLCR. R.A. 1977. A curriculum In renewable resource technology for the Northwest Territories. Rept. for the Renewable Resources Manage. Advisory Committee of the N.W.T. 165 p. KELSALL, J.P. and SIMPS0N. K. 191$, Project plan - ecology of great heron colonies on the lower mainland of Iritlsh Columbia. C,W.S., Delta rept. mimeo.) 11 p. rim Note, Between April, 1971 and June, 1977, 49 radio broadcasts, mostly on northern and Arctic conservation and historical topics, ware written and read for the Cenadlsn Broadcasting Corporation. Most were used on both the trans-Canada Network and Northern Service, some on oversees networks, and they are currently (1979) being rebroadcast by the Northern Service. ii)United Slates Dcpnrlinent of the Interior these situations has circumstance' different from the proposed project. liar }' FI511 A N b WILDLIFE SERVICE is not sufficient justification to conclude that the rookery near the proposed Fish end Wildlife Enhancement Blsekrivsr Corporate Park would continue to be successful simply because other 2625 Perkaont Lane SW, Bldg B I rookeries have appeared to co-exist with development activities. Olympia, Washington 98502 206/753-9440 FTS 434-9.40 The proposed project has the potential to create • significant disturbance to r the Blackrlver heron rookery. Impacts frog the office building development 7 May 29, 1990 would be permanent and ongoing, not one-time-only events such as logging (an activity which occurred near this rookery previously). The proposal Include construction of surface parking lots to within 400 feet of the rookery. This would introduce year-round, day-long, huasn and Department of Community Development autosobile disturbance. Use of the office building,De . iron Moerwould Introduce permanent CBI, of Renton 1 activity, with people moving In and out throughout the days. The closest 200office buildings and the perking garage would be within 600 to 700 feet of the f0 Reenn n. Avenue toon, weshington 99055 rookery. This Is within the 750-foot buffer tone that Is recommended by Wsehim-'laent of Wildlife's management guidelines. The proposed seven log would reach the same elevation as the heron nests. Re• Risckriver Corporate Park, Tracts A and B Office Buildings- Hat could act as a visual buffer between this seven story s. Any buffer trees planted during project construction Drell Environmental 'enact Statement telght for any years. f disturbing this rookery to the point of failure. Dear Hs. Nyerr. A C \v r` l\ J ` t. the Service recommends that the maxisus eet-bscks The C.R. Fish and wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the above r partment of wildlife's great blue heron management draft environmental impact statement. The following cosments are pro d for this project: on• .unsiderntion when preparing the final document. Potential shoo ld be Initlattd •t any time of the year raft document. resources of clusion th the Se djac hews been addressed o \ / of any nesting tree. This Includes the d.n!t ntbi The conclusion that the adjacent great blue heron 1`- parking would not be disturbed if the proposed development guidelines are Imp) C A of office buildings, parking garages. is rot supported In the draft document nor In appendix B. Conger, al trails. pote,tial aspects from the project may be more severe th d. xterlor construction or new activity within GF`•STtL CONVENTS te of a rookery during the nesting season (January 1 gn August 1 of any year). tirtiaur Tt:rreltfleLRceov7Ces SUMMARY COMMENTS The proposed project Iles es close se 350 feet to the Dlackrlver great t heron rookery. This rookery has been establishing In a rapidly developing) The great blue heron Is a migratory bird, protected fros take, capture or kill urban valley. With increasing development, there are greater disturbances to under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Disturbance of great blue herons and the rookery end more restrictions on feeding . great blue heron rookeries should be avoided. The extent to which a project may impact nesting great blue herons may be due The proposed projecthas the potential to significantly disturb the adjacent to site specific conditions such as height of nests In trees, year-round Blackriver great ba heron rookery. It may create enough disturbance to cause abandonment of the rookery. Potential sites within the valley to which foliage In nesting and buffer trees, height of buildings or other structures t/(J relative to the height of nests, and many other factors. These factors at the 3 this heron rookery could relocate are limited. The great blue heron project site have been consideredude In the draft document. Even with all knowna population within the Blackrlver valley may be adversely affected as a result. factors considered, great blue herons in similar situations may still react To minimise this disturbance, the aforementioned u lmu development set- differently. Whereas some rookeries may not be disturbed by a particular backs should be incorporated into the project plan. Implementing these set- activity, this same activity at another rookery may be enough disturbance to backs would entail some re-designing of the development. cause the herons to abandon the site. Appendix B described several projects In the Pacific Northwest where) 2 successful rookeries ere close to huaAa7t and industrial activities. Each of Ire appreciate notification of this project and the opportunity to comment.Pie... call Ann R.eberl at the letterhead phone/sddress If you hare any Questions concerning these comments or if the Service can offer technical militancy In the development of the final project plan. Sincerely, ancy Cl"" Actin/ Field Supervisor AR:fs c: VDU (Muller) WOW (Mongsae) I 3 1 1 I NIP NIP I e 1 1 e 1 AOMMI) I F 0J A 1 Stall lr wAVtar,iflN Huller to Myer f ff^RTM(Ni OF Wtlf)UAO E101)1 Ha 16, lro, ItI Al ll cart nl.d M.q Creel, WA 91011 rate 2 Td. ) 17311,111 1' II eye v A. Y. 11rk rencreuing, of the colonies over time. However, in thous cares whirs the numbersyofnestaIOI It Is not .leer whether this is due toL, a brv.dint population, or whether ne ats are being abandonedcryLynneMyer end rebuilt further from the disturbances, es reported by VeraehbulrnlorEnvironmental 1 4 U et.• 1 (1976) and Simpson and Katmai' (191$),rpartment of Community Development0H111AvenueSouth To then stets (hit all these h lee are •vl•ble,• w• believe, yneon, Washington 960SS without foundation.la DOAIT lrvI9OHHFUTAL IMPACT STATEMEHThe •heron protection guldellne.' developed with the wee of thesePARKTFORSLACKIIIYlItCORfO11At! Incomplete data, are therefore, highly I flyquestionable. I-! or 1. Hs. Hyerr, The third apparent deficiency In the document Is the completeIureetoinventorythewildliferesource• utilizing the site. Ourpersonal shington Department of Wildlife (VDU visits to this site have revealed lIrumen, and our enm.^ents follow, ) et off h aa reviewed the subject wildlife .peel." should be added that at least six additional document (Section 3.3.3 and 7.3.4). te the haviste ob tad In tonstE11ALCOHH[ no, bufflah,ad•, Beldame ee, her• d widgeons,f 1 F shoveller., geld finches, and pine .,skin. on ,,,) I this site, V• suspect that • thorough and comprehensive wildlifemotestrikingdeficiencyInthisdocumentInventorywoulddl•eloae use by eighty, ttinl public resources at risk, is that It sow dle include fish, reptllaa, amphibians small rm axnal••pand eadd ltlonalvbirdwithoutestablishingtheneedtodoIn . recent telecast (King aro•deratin peel.•, s staff eeeet to ec a s, April 2S, 19901, King Tv 'Imott )0 percent vacancy rate In ecently oft r rseructt olf ice ban a In s In toe Ve do not believe that (allure t greater Bead le aria, Vlth this to conduct adequate field work is en Aelofavailabilityofalreadyconstructedbuildings. It seems excuse to provide Inadequate mitigation of Impact., or to dies to encroach, with the mass density described, Into An disclose impacts.fall toIronmentelly encroach. native and unique area, This document's focus, relative to he stsecond exeluslvat ont natural environment, 'Is almost moat striking deficiency relate• to the great length. theCor y the heron colony, and seemingly, hors have gone to In scorching outthe other wildlife resources which depend upon this site.impacts to ailcAsupposedly l camse histories of heronries y 'coexist' with development--because they InhabitisclosetoIt (Appendix a), H , the ecological data V. are not suggesting by this that the herenr y is net Important, buteweeptoevaluatethereelviabilityofthesenestingsits" (Table rather, that all ether v 1Append'. a) Is Iac4lnt,wildlife I. Important a well. 3,1CIPIC COftNIHT3, bnllty• es It * polies to a wildlife population, describes editlonInwhich • breeding population produces enough offspring Table l-I (pale" 1-3 habit 1-Ililice • major portion of Its own members, over time, end exchange te I tthrough11 the table state. that signlllcant wildlife rill •Igoe ahabit• t wiThlls Is lost be , Implying that t trial here with other breeding populations (genetic drift). The number In addition, h Indlvldu.It In the population meat either remain "table or lucre u e year around tole of erkie the 7rtime. porkies within close proximity to the (-1pondrillcreatedieturb•nce Impacts to this Important aquatic, featuresewell, Our visits to the site haver oevaaled peer around use of thele11-1 doe• not list the number of herons in en pond by waterfowl and wading lode,heeItshowwhetherthecolonieslire ronasing, decressinolony, nor riming stable In ante. It onl l' or 3 Secondly, the table states that there will be no eltallicent adygivesthenumberofnestsinmoat ii opiate to here.• so loos as 'heron protection guidelines' errs i 8 1 ' Il 414. S IMF MIK MOM maw n mamma IMMO II Muller to Slyer May 16, I990 Muller to Myer Pegs ) Hay 16, 1990 Pate t a 4, followed. The discussion In Appendix 1 does not mace to support thisstatement. A number of caseIn studies i an given In eemAppendix p, h wildlife now using thel project site, and droves,a these species with Hi none of the examples included a man-red• development including crows, house sparrows, Norway starlings, rock doves, etc.'. s. On Presumably. the Istorybuildingandover1,100 surface parking stallsa etc. would refer to rate and possibly ferret cats. Only one ofinsuchclosetractAand ed these species (crow) is even classified Is wildlife, and then proximity over to a h y. perkingapposesstet that the so-calledheronprotectionguidelinesaremoreanattempttomaximizeeconomic primarily as • pest species. return--liven the physical constraints of the site—rather than an Vs do understand that a few other specie• of •urea• wildlil will useattempttodevelopthesiteInanenvironmentallysensitivem the developed sets a sore for of arilnal Asbltat as well. HInouropinion, the preferred al the resultant change in wildlife specie, diversity doss not conatltuteIvesfordevelopingthemetwoICItractsproposetoplayakindof 'Russian roulette with the heron mitigation In any real l the word.colony, This section also describes changes (negative) that will occur ItPeteI-IS, Mitigation Heasurea we a species diversity of the wildlife using the P-1 pond. Although the 1 t n• that reducing the sits of the City of Renton pond access Iran adjacent to the 'CDCbuildingwouldreducetheimpactstosomey i- building Itself d reduce lees intrusive, buts • swells[ bulotlonlng yowwoulddlthe /0 provide some excellent buffering of the and asoas • multi will require a less • been.. parking eru--which, layered mixed coniferous-deciduous lorast establishes itself),tw•p t hich, In turn, would help cannot Imagine any real mitigation being accomplished by thisreducehumandisturb.,nee. vegetative cover, for many years,Section 1,4,1; Surface Vetter Movement/Quant1lyl Fag. I-191 paragraphpriortoImpacts; this paragraph refers the reader to • discussion of As ad before, ed is the believe that the heron protectionwetlands, in Section 3.4,2. Ws located this dleeuaslon In Section // guidelines p tad It the Dtl] will substantially protect theSagsheronry, These guidelines ere not consistent between the two tracts,end they Impose a more significant risk to the heronry than can beSection7.5.I also makes reference to this same section, supported by the available literature. We have included • draft copy of the Washington Department of Wildlife Page I-)0; Mitigation measures; It Is unclear from the dr w ant. InSection2 (Figures 2-) and 2-5these wend Guidelines I for Onset roue t. hiron. V. sequoia that just erw much tree FCDC is a the committing thee, guidelines b• Implemented to protect Asrens on this site.to Duffer area for the P-1 pond and heronry.of their lands r• It appears that the areaproposedtobecom.,ltted to mitigation is only 15-20 I/_ In our opinion these guidelines cantata the su stssce of a less feet in width. It would be more appropriate to leak out mane wherebytheprojectprovidesitsownwltltatconwithintheconfinesofthe biased, more balanced, w[vey of lAm stislll 1. Ilteratur• on heroneeoloty, site. i Please notes These guideline., under Management Recommendation., give Page I-721 Section 1.5.7; the wildlife inventory Ivan here is a range of di.st incomplete. It Is difficult to imagine how avec•s•lr• environmental g hat should be die00000ece free during theImpactdocumentscouldhavebeampreparedforthesesites, since 1919, 'dint in--loosed di on site , will berlstics, ]Inc., on thisandnoactualphysicalInventoryAueveractually men made, to elle, the pmaxiitiml disturbs..• will be useere.sed and Ilse-of-support those documents. sight, the maximum distance .f 1520 feet (1/4 mils) should beImposed. the year around no disturbance buffer should be IS0 feetPageI-76; Mitigation Measures! the so-called "mitigation m or tors) in width.listed her• ere not racily mitigation In any real I the word. Il, n summary, re rill rlsfly reltsrmte tM rajer petits •bore,Our Vebst•r's dictionary defines sltllation as a transitive verb,meaning *to make or become milder, loos n uses, lase rigorous VDV fled• the DtI] dellclut lm three ra)or •rs ,At page 7-IA the DEIS states that this proposal will eliminate ell i r itelnlommem- 1`( Moller to Myer May 16, 1910 Page S I. The need to place there wildlife resources at risk 1 not LITERATURE CITED clearly substantiated I` 7. The Information upon which the 'heron protection guidelines' are Simpson, K. end J. P. Kel sal l. WO. Capture and banding of adultbareddoesnottrulyreptabalancedsynthesisofthe Oreat Slue H srone at Ponder Nsr our, Srltlsh Columbia. Proc.va11ebie literature on h • Colonial Vater Ird Group 16701/1-75. The DEIS does not provide detailed D. I., S. McMahon. and M. Lsltschuh, 10)6, Some effect, a and comprehensive inventory of human activities on the Croat Blue Heron In Oregon. Wilson lull. of the wildlife resources at risk, 061660-6et, There is no true mitigation proposed forimpacts en terraatrialwildlife, waterfowl, or shore birds. VDV recommends that the VDV Management Ouldellnes for Crest BlueHeron, ( copy attached) be followed as a means of mltlgeting Impactstotheheroncolony. Thank you for sending this document, we appreciate the opportunity tocommentonmean, for protecting the 'e velus le wildliferesource,. rleaae give these comments every eeneideretlon In yourdectalonmakingprocess, Sincerely, Theodore A. Muller Regional Habitat Program Manager TAM:kh c: habitat, Olympia gti 1 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SIZF Karen Jensen University of Washington Department of Zoology, Box 351800 Seattle, WA 98195 USA e-mail: kjensen@u.washington.edu LAND DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN DISTURBANCE INFLUENCE GREAT BLUE HERON (ARDEA HERODIAS) COLONY SWF AND LOCATION KAREN E. JENSEN Department of Zoology, Box 351800 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 USA e-mail: kjensen@u.washington.edu P. DEE BOERSMA Department of Zoology, Box 351800 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 USA 3 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SIZF INTRODUCTION In the Puget Sound region of Washington State rapid growth in human population and associated land development has increased the potential for human disturbance of wildlife populations. Human population growth in the Puget Sound basin ranged from 19- 30% between 1980-1990 (1991 Annual Growth Report). Since 1880, nearly 50% (5700 ha) of coastal wetlands have been converted to agricultural and industrial use, and 50-60% of palustrine and riverine wetlands along stream corridors have been lost(Boule et. al. 1983). In western Washington State Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) traditionally nest colonially in deciduous or coniferous trees near the freshwater and marine wetlands where they forage. In the Pacific northwest, human development encroaches on many Great Blue Heron colonies in both urban and semi-rural environments. Much of the previous work documenting heron reaction to increases in human activity has taken place in relatively isolated, wooded environments where there has been little or no opportunity for herons to habituate to humans (Bjorklund 1975, Mark 1976, Werschkul et al. 1976, English 1978). In such situations, heron reaction to human encroachment is apparently variable, ranging from complete abandonment (Forbes a al. 1985, Mark 1976, Werschkul et al. 1976, English 1978, Murphy 1988), to relocation of nests away from the disturbance (Bjorklund 1975, Mark 1976). In most cases increased human activity was found to reduce colony size, nesting activity, and ultimately reproductive success (Werschkul et al. 1976, Simpson and Kelsall 1979). The disturbance which accompanies human development can negatively affect colony settlement and reproductive success. Herons are especially likely to flush when approached early in the breeding season (Pratt 1970, Vos 1984). Sudden flushing of adults can result in egg breakage or dislodging of nestlings (Jenni 1969), increased 5 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SIZF human and herons both prefer waterfront habitat, land use changes may force herons to trade-off proximity to foraging sites with maximizing the distance from disturbance (Gibbs et al. 1987), relegating herons to lower quality nesting and/or foraging sites. As development continues to reduce suitable habitat in both quantity and quality, colony size should decrease. Therefore, development and colony response to it can be used as a natural "experiment" to test human impact on heron colony location and size. We tested whether increasing development was negatively correlated with heron colony size and location We also examine the relationship between heron nesting patterns with the amount of and proximity to development in three King County heron colonies. To examine the effect of different types of human development on heron colony size we examined colony size as a function of its distance from roads, housing and other land uses. We assumed that as the distance between a heron colony and human development decreased, the level of disturbance experienced by herons should increase. We predicted herons would respond negatively to increasing disturbance caused by development, with the eventual result that colony size would be negatively affected. In order to examine the effects of disturbance on infra-colony settlement we determined the pattern of nest settlement and productivity for three colonies. STUDY AREA AND METHODS Great Blue Heron colonies were located in two Washington counties, King and Kitsap: King County, on the east side of Puget Sound, is a highly developed urban and suburban area with two large metropolitan areas, Seattle and Bellevue, and a number of smaller cities including Renton and Kent. Kitsap County, on the west side of Puget Sound, has two large cities, Bremerton and Silverdale, but is predominately made up of 7 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SI7.F We chose five heron colonies in King County for observation, but two colonies, Black River and Yarrow Bay, were abandoned by the herons in May and June 1991 because of Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)predation. During that time mature eagles were repeatedly observed harassing adult herons and eating heron eggs and chicks until the adults finally abandoned. The three remaining colonies, Peasley Canyon, Salmon Bay and Lake Sammamish were visited five times between 30 March and 13 June 1991 to map nests and record reproductive behavior. Observations were made from the ground using 10x50 binoculars and a 15x60 power spotting scope. We determined the sequence of nest occupancy and measured reproductive success for each nest, defined as the number of chicks fledged/active nest. We recorded the presence of adults, adult posture incubating, brooding or standing), the presence of chicks, and chick age (estimated from parental behavior and fledging dates). Juvenile herons were considered fledged at 6-8 weeks (Hancock and Kushlan 1984), at which time most young were able to climb out of the nests onto tree limbs and fly short distances. Wetland area was measured within a 6 km. radius of each King County heron colony from Fish and Wildlife Wetland Maps (1982), including all freshwater-inland and saltwater wetlands along with a 2 m. littoral (wading) zone for lakes and rivers (see Gibbs et al. 1987). Some urban waterfronts and waterways were not included because the depth of water precluded heron use. We assumed our estimates represented the maximum foraging area available to herons because much of the shoreline we included lacked sufficient cover or was so heavily used by humans that herons did not frequent the area pers. obs.). We were unable to include Kitsap County in this part of our study due to the absence of wetland survey data. 9 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SI7.F from development (X24=14.49, P<0.01). Nests which were occupied early also had higher reproductive success (X2,=13.60, P=0.02). The mean number of chicks fledged in early occupied nests was 3.13 (SD =0.72) as compared to 1.51 chicks for late occupied nests (SD=1.34). In King County, colony size was significantly correlated with available wetland area(Fig. 5), but was not significantly related to nest tree availability (R=0.05, n.s.). In thirteen colonies, nests were only in red alder (Alnus rubra) and, two colonies used only black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) another colony had nests primarily in red alder with two nests in a single douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii). In all heronries, nesting trees were the dominant tree species in the area and the majority of nests were in the tallest trees within the stand. In King County, the number of nest trees per colony ranged from 2-21, with a mean of 8.25 trees (SD=7.22, N=8). The number of nests per individual tree ranged from 1-14 with a mean of 2.48 (SD=2.18, N=6). Nests were located at heights of 9-26 m.. In the three colonies followed during the 1991 breeding season, the pattern of nest settlement was independent of the number of nests per tree X2,=1.80, n.s.) or nest height (X22=0.02., n.s.). During the 1991 season, two King County colonies (Black River and Yarrow Bay) were apparently abandoned because of persistent eagle predation on eggs and chicks (pers. obs.). At the Nisqually heron colony in Thurston County, colony location shifted after 1990, increasing the distance between the colony and a recently established eagle's nest (G. Schirato, pers. comm.). In highly developed areas such as King County, Bald Eagle sightings and occurrences of eagle predation at heron breeding colonies is becoming a commonplace event. Moreover, Bald Eagles are rapidly increasing in King and Kitsap Counties. Christmas bird counts of Bald Eagles in King and Kitsap Counties has risen 11 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SJ7.F, significant difference in heron response to different types of human disturbance. Both the intensity of vocalizations and the number of birds flushed increased when the disturbance was sudden and unpredictable. Our study supports this theory suggesting, herons may be able to habituate to common,expected activities such as road traffic, but not as well to sudden, unpredictable disturbances such as people and/or pets arriving at, or leaving a residence. The proportion of, rather than the distance from, surrounding development was more closely related to colony size. As the amount of surrounding development increases so does the likelihood of an escalation in sudden, unpredictable disturbances. Increased disturbance can also lead to lower reproductive success. Werschkul et al. 1976) found that in disturbed colonies, active nests were significantly farther from disturbance than inactive nests and that nesting success was much lower in disturbed colonies than in undisturbed colonies. In the three colonies followed during the 1991 breeding season, the first nests occupied were significantly farther from disturbance than nests which were settled last. Since both colony size and reproductive success show a significant negative correlation with distance to development, disturbance may be the reason herons move. The significant positive relationship between wetland area and the size of King County heron colonies suggests available foraging area may restrict colony size. The correlation is stronger than the data suggest because total calculated wetland included areas unsuitable for heron foraging. In both counties, many potential foraging areas, particularly lake and river shorelines are heavily developed, and many freshwater wetlands are densely vegetated, providing little suitable foraging habitat for herons. Moreover, the market value of waterfront property has historically been two to three times greater than nearby non- waterfront property (Seattle-Everett Real Estate Research Report), hence development has 13 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SI7F community composition is just being recognized (Paine et al. 1990). Furthermore, smaller heron colonies such as those located in King and Kitsap counties may be acting primarily as sinks for larger, outlying source colonies. Butler et al. (1995) found the probability of reproductive failure was 2.5 times more likely to occur in small colonies than in large colonies. Greater recognition of how different types of development and disturbance affect herons is important if negative impacts are to be reduced. These considerations become more important as avian predators, such as eagles, increase. Heronries in rural areas with rapid growth and development are likely to become smaller and more uniform in distribution making them more vulnerable to predators. Fewer herons occupying the area and breeding in smaller colonies could lead to lower reproductive success and viability. Therefore, careful management of land surrounding heron colonies is likely to become increasingly important in maintaining heron populations. Future research should include the investigation of small colony viability and recruitment. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Kathleen Wilson and Corinne Hensley for the help with field work and research at the beginning of this project. Greg Schirato and Kelly McAllister of the Washington Department of Wildlife provided both advice and access to state data and Gerry Adams brought the Kenmore heronry to our attention. This project was funded in part by a Howard Hughes research award. S. Andelman, D. Stokes and J. Parrish improved the manuscript. 15 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SIZF Forbes, L. S., K. Simpson, J. P. Kelsall and D. R. Flook. 1985. Reproductive success of Great Blue Herons in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:1110-1113. Gibbs, J. P., S. Woodward, M. L. Hunter and A. E. Hutchinson. 1987. Determinants of Great Blue Heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. Auk 104:38-47. Hancock, J. and J. Kushlan. 1984. The Heron's Handbook. Harper and Row Publishers, New York. Jenni, D. A. 1969. A study of the ecology of four species of herons during the breeding season at Lake Alice, Alachua County, Florida. Ecological Monographs 39:245- 270. Kelsall, J. P. and K. Simpson. 1979. A three year study of the Great Blue Heron in southwestern British Columbia. Proceedings of Colonial Waterbird Group 3:69- 74. Longley, W. H. 1960. Comment on the flight distance of Great Blue Heron. Wilson Bulletin 72:289. Mark, D. M. 1976. An inventory of Great blue Heron (Ardea herodias) nesting colonies in British Columbia. Northwest Science 50:32-41. McCrimmon, D. A. 1978. Nest-site characteristics among five species of herons on the North Carolina coast. Auk 95:267-280. Murphy, M. 1988. Status of Great Blue Heron colonies in King County, Washington. Western Birds 19:37-40. 17 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SIZF Thompson, D. H. 1979. Feeding areas of Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets within the floodplain of the upper Mississippi River. Proceedings of Colonial Waterbird Group 2:202-213. Vos, D. K. 1984. Response of breeding Great Blue Herons to human disturbance in north central Colorado. M. S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Werschkul, D. F., E. McMahon and M. Leitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the Great Blue Heron in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin 88:661-662. Werschkul, D. F., S. English, C. Skibinski, and G. Williamson. 1977. Observations on the reproductive ecology of the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) in western Oregon. Murrelet 58:7-12. 1991 Annual Growth Report. A report on the growth and development trends in King County, its cities and planning areas. Parks, Planning and Resources Dept. King County, WA 1991. 19 DISTURBANCE AND HERON COLONY SIZF 15. H. Miller Bay 1989 16 (1989) 28 16. Port Gamble 1983 02 (1983) 17 TOTAL 353 a Nest counts from Washington Department of Wildlife's Nongame Data File. b Were abandoned during 1991 breeding season as a result of eagle predation. c 1990 nest count for Little Clam Bay from Greg Schirato, Washington Dept. of Wildlife. d As of 1995, tree condition has continued to deteriorate and herons have not returned. e From 1992-1993 herons were present early in the season but never settled. However, in 1994 there were approximately 22 active nests that successfully fledged chicks. OwASHINGTN STATE AC'77 Z 4 Study Areai. k I .•1.,'--------''----'1 11.•.'''• ' tili C'''''',.''''...'''''.;'?-71;111:;,''45.4t;1...s:'',.i''''''..-.7',".::: .gia,:.--''',•.`77:.',:i'4,'-'-''''.'s'....:',!;ii,l'k-,ar:,,..-..s.,::,,.,':' "r:'.. 3,e'i.'-.. . -:‘-', Y,,,,,;.:-.';'"....• . ,.:::-. 1,.:!ittt7:.',g...,7'.'....,. . - r‘ 2.!,.1.. ,, ‘ 1 • t, ,. 5,-- iciiq.....____Pi.':1 10;i:- \) ' - -- CO UNTITE ty(JNT1(7:i,..7- -1 1 ' .-, 7,..:,....,''' '..,•,.....-:::::, - .'-.. !:.-:: r.7".'••••.-:!.'-',.: 111',..42..C::::',frf 1:_,. s''. ' 8 z' k...,:s' 'N s-\ 1---;' Heron Colony i•• A 50 45 40 • 35 30 25 0 U 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Developed 40— 35— 30— 25— ga 20— 0 0 U 15-- 10— 5— 0 I 1 I 1 I f 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Wetland area(ha) within 6 km. Challenges to Reproductive Success in Great Blue Herons by Trudy Thomas ESC 451 Abstract Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) are colonial nesters, feeding primarily in wetlands, streams, and rivers. In Puget Sound, great blue heron populations are maintaining but not increasing. Limiting factors that have an impact on reproductive success are natural and human-related. Natural factors include climate and weather, predation, food supply, and physical constraints. Human-related factors include habitat destruction, human activity, and environmental contamination. Some natural factors may be affected by human activity. For example, habitat destruction may cause a decrease in food supply available during critical times of development in heron young. Also, destruction of optimal nesting areas may cause herons to nest in areas that are more accessible to predators. Because they are at the top of the food chain, great blue herons have been recommended as indicator species for the presence of contaminants in the environment. Their elegance, size, and visibility have made the great blue heron a symbol of those things wild to many people. Protection of the great blue heron and its habitat will ensure the survival of other species that are not as visible or elegant but which are just as important to our ecosystems. This paper will discuss the natural history of great blue herons in relation to habitat, behavior, and reproduction; available information on impacts to its survival and reproductive success; ways to protect the great blue heron and its habitat through regulations and buffer zones; and finally, research needs to gain more information on heron populations. Great Blue Heron Page 2 Introduction Purpose of this paper The purpose of this paper is to identify natural and human-related limiting factors which impact great blue heron(Ardea herodias; referred to as great blues in this paper) survival and reproductive success. Information about biology, behavior, and habitats is essential in determining the extent of impact on this species. This paper will give natural history information on great blues; present the natural and human-related limiting factors that impact reproductive success; discuss the opportunity to control these factors; and discuss the status of great blues in Puget Sound. Finally, research needs will be identified. Historical threats to Great Blue Heron populations In the past, humans have hunted great blues for food. Audubon claimed that, as far as taste, he preferred crow or eagle (Allen 1991). In the late 1800's great blues were the target of hunters who sought the beautiful plumage for fashion. Women's hats and soldiers' helmets were adorned with plumes from great blues and other heron and egret species. It is estimated that 20 million birds of 40 species were sacrificed for this reason. Great blue numbers decreased drastically (Allen 1991). Because of public outcry over this onslaught, the Audubon Society in the U.S. and the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were formed (Allen 1991). These groups increased awareness of the problem and worked for solutions. In 1900, the United States enacted the Lacey Act which prohibited the commercial trade, both foreign and interstate, in feathers. In 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act also provided for the protection of bird nests and eggs, and gave the federal government the power to set seasons and bag limits for hunting of waterfowl and gamebirds (Bolen and Robinson, 1995). Because of these laws, the heron and other birds hunted for their feathers made dramatic comebacks. Natural History of Great blues The great blue,Ardea herodias, evolved during the Paleocene and Eocene Ages along with ducks, pelicans, owls, and cranes. It is classified as a `long-legged wader' in the order Ciconiiformes along with 120 other species (Allen, 1991). Characteristics for great blues are presented in the Great Blue Heron Data Sheet. Great Blue Heron Page 3 Great Blue Heron Data Sheet Ardea Herodias Class: Ayes Order: Ciconiiformes Family: Ardeidae Genus: Ardea Species: herodias Subspecies: Wardii, cognata, treganzai, hyperonca(western U.S.) sanctilucae, occidentalis(great white heron) (Hancock and Elliot, 1978 as cited in Butler, 1992). Fannini (northwest North America), herodias, cognata, and occidentalis (Payne 1979 as cited in Butler, 1992). Aliases: Great blue, Indian hen, Indian pullet, crane, blue crane, blue cranky, poor joe and long john Relatives: Great white heron, green heron, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, Ward's heron, black-crowned heron, yellow-crowned heron, cattle egret, snowy egret, great egret, reddish egret, American bittern, least bittern. Height: 48 inches tall or more Wingspan: 6 feet or more Weight: Between 5 and 8 pounds Sexual dimorphism: Males and females have same plumage. Males are slightly larger than females. Age to maturity: 3 years Eggs laid: 2 to 6 Molting: During summer and early spring. Never flightless. Lifespan: Approximately 20 years Allen 1991; Stokes and Stokes, 1989) Table 1: Great Blue Heron Diet Diet component of diet Freshwater and marine fish 72% Insects 8% Crustaceans 9% Mice and shrews 5% Amphibians and reptiles 4% Vegetative matter 2% Cottam and Uhler, 1945 as cited in Final EIS, Great Blue Heron Page 4 Behavior Great blues are usually solitary birds but they flock together during courtship and breeding and also during migration in fall and spring in areas where they migrate (Allen, 1991). Great blues may roost communally during the winter(Stokes and Stokes, 1989). On the west coast, great blues are year long residents and may move only locally Stokes and Stokes, 1989). Some of the great blues seen in Puget Sound during the winter may be migrants from further north. Dispersal may occur after breeding. If food resources are low, adult great blues may continue migrating north after breeding(Allen, 1991). Breeding habitat Great blues prefer to nest in isolated areas far from human disturbance. They prefer to nest at the tops of tall trees on islands or surrounded by water, perhaps as protection from predators such as raccoons. In areas where tall trees are not available for nesting, great blues may nest in shrubbery or even on the ground (Stokes and Stokes, 1989). Gibbs and Kinkel (1997) speculate that great blues first choose a site based on wetland availability, then on remoteness from human activity and predators, and then on competition for food. They found that the larger great blue colonies were more likely to be located near lake associated wetlands than were the smaller colonies. Colonies are also more likely to be located centrally to complexes of lacustrine, emergent wetland, scrub- shrub wetland, unconsolidated bottom and riverine wetlands. The preferred prey are more dense and accessible in these wetland types (Gibbs and Kinkel, 1997). Great blues nest in colonies which can be quite large. In some colonies, other species may also nest including other heron species and cormorants. Great blues may nest at the same colony each year, may move to another colony, or establish a new colony Henny, 1972 as cited in Final EIS, 1991). There is evidence that the larger the colony, the greater the reproductive success as measured in fledged birds per nest (Allen, 1991). Colonizing may facilitate the location of food because the colony may be an information center for food location (Allen, 1991). However, this hypothesis is not well supported(Mock et al. 1988 as cited in Butler, 1992). Butler(1995) hypothesizes that great blues nest in colonies because of the way mates are selected. Females approach males who display at nest sites and choose a mate in this way. If nests are close together Great Blue Heron Page 5 the female heron expends less time and energy to select a mate and devote more energy to the breeding process. Males nesting together would therefore be rewarded by raising more young because of the potential to nest earlier. Feeding Behavior Great blues hunt for food in lakes, rivers, freshwater shoreline, rocky saltwater shoreline, saltwater shores of mud and sand, riverine woodlands, and meadows (Hunn, 1982). In one study, primary feeding areas were an average of 2.6 km from the colony(Butler, 1995). Great blues are known to congregate at hatcheries and ponds where fish and amphibians are raised(Allen 1991). Great blues are omnivorous carnivores but are primarily fish eaters (Allen, 1991). Food includes fish, frogs, small turtles, snakes, small rodents, lizards, crawfish, crabs, coastal shrimp, grasshoppers, dragonflies, and small birds. (See Great Blue Heron Data Sheet). Great blues may establish temporary feeding territories during the year depending on the availability of food. These feeding territories range in size from very small areas of a few yards to several hundred yards in diameter. In times of food scarcity, these territories are defended from intruders. (Stokes and Stokes, 1989). Reproduction Great blues usually breed for the first time at age 2 or 3 and are annually monogamous. Great blues lay 2 to 6 greenish-blue eggs at intervals of at least 2 days (Stokes and Stokes 1989; Butler 1992). Clutch size generally increases with latitude (Butler, 1992). Incubation starts before the last egg is laid(Stokes and Stokes, 1989)therefore hatching is asynchronous. The incubation period takes approximately 28 days (Allen, 1991). Great blues hatchlings are semi-altricial and require parental care for feeding and maintenance. Both parents incubate and bring food to the young(Butler, 1992). The parent regurgitates food into the nest and then feeds the young. Later, the parents will regurgitate food directly into the bills of the young and later directly into the nest (Stokes and Stokes, 1989) The young are 7 to 8 weeks old before fledging. After fledging, the young remain with the parents and are fed by the parents for 2 to 3 weeks. After breeding, great blues Great Blue Heron Page 6 disperse in all directions to locate foraging areas. The young may travel the furthest Stokes and Stokes, 1989). Limiting Factors Although great blues lay 2 to 6 eggs per nest, Butler et al. (1995) found that an average of 1.7 great blues fledge per nest in British Columbia. Another study in California found a mean of 1.45 fledglings per nest (Pratt and Winkler 1985 as cited in Butler et al. 1995). Any factor that keeps the parent from tending nest duties, including rebuilding the nest, turning the eggs, and feeding the young could have an impact on reproductive success. Also, factors which compromise the breeding ability of the parent and development of the young will affect reproductive success. Below are listed some of the limiting factors which could impact the reproductive success of great blues. Habitat destruction Great blues prefer to breed in areas where there is abundant food supply and where there are nesting sites that are protected from predation and disturbance. Destruction of habitat may cause loss of foraging area and loss of breeding sites. The food source may be depleted by changes in habitat such as a draining of wetlands or urbanization. Depletion of food sources from contaminants may occur more slowly (Allen, 1991). Great blues choose nesting trees that are in groves of 1 acre or more in close proximity to water(Short and Cooper 1985 as cited in Final EIS, 1991). If these areas are not available, the great blues may choose less suitable sites to nest. These alternate sites may not adequately provide the protection and food supply needed. A trend toward smaller colony size may occur after reduction in riparian habitats that are able to support large colonies (Parker, 1980 as cited in Final EIS, 1991). Smaller colonies tend to have reduced fledgling count per nest probably due to the decreased defense capacity and the decreased food supply (Allen 1991). Great Blue Heron Page 7 Food Supply and Energy Requirements Bennett et al. (1995) deduced from several studies that starvation may be the primary reason for nestling mortality. This may be due to lack of food; competition for food in the nest; and timing of breeding. Food supply Habitat destruction by draining of wetlands or deterioration of habitat quality may cause a lack of food for nestlings. Change in water quality may affect the availability of prey and the ability of great blues to see prey in water. Contaminants in water may kill prey. Competition Young compete for food from parents particularly when fed small prey (Butler, 1992). Great blue young hatch asynchronously, therefore the first chick to hatch in the nest has a size and age advantage. Because not all the chicks in the nest are the same age, the smallest or the youngest may die before fledging because of starvation (Stokes and Stokes, 1989). Timing of Breeding and Food Availability Food availability must coincide with the timing of breeding to assure reproductive success. Feeding visits by parents to the nest peak at 29 days after hatching(Bennett et al. 1995). In several studies reported by Bennett et al. (1995), wild nestlings had peak mortality during the period of greatest energy requirements. Butler(1995) found that the relative abundance of food energy on the Fraser River delta coincided with the peak period of energy requirements by great blues—mid to late May. Food availability dropped drastically by mid-June. Great blues nesting late or those laying replacement clutches after first clutch failure may not be able to find adequate food for chick survival. Human Activities Human presence and disturbance in areas where great blues feed and breed may disrupt the life cycle of great blues. Great blues have abandoned colonies during human activities such as housing and industrial development, road construction, logging, and repeated human intrusions (Leonard 1985; Parker 1980; Kelsall and Simpson, 1979; Werschkul et al. 1976; and Bjorklund, 1975 as cited in Final EIS, 1991). Great Blue Heron Page 8 The timing of activities may affect the response by the individual birds or the colonies. If disturbed before laying eggs, great blues may abandon the nest site. If disturbed after laying eggs, they may temporarily leave the nest but return to continue incubating the eggs. When chicks are present in the nest, the parent will remain in the nest after disturbances (Butler 1992). Repeated activities that are non-threatening may lead to a habituation response Anderson 1978, Parker 1980, Vos et al. 1985 as cited in Butler 1992). Some colonies are able to successfully breed in locations where there is non-threatening human activity. For example, the Peasley Canyon colony located near Auburn Washington thrives despite close proximity to heavy freeway traffic. Another colony is located near the Park and Ride lot in Kenmore. Environmental contamination Exposure to chemical, metal, and radionuclide contaminants in the environment may affect reproductive success and survival of great blues. Potential effects from exposure to environmental contaminants include direct poisoning causing mortality, or sublethal effects that reduce resistance, alter behavior, and reduce productivity. Exposure may affect the parent's fertility and fecundity, attentiveness behavior, and ability to procure food for young. Exposure may affect the young as a secondary effect through parental exposure or as a result of direct exposure to the young. Effects may also be manifested in future generations. Agents that may cause these effects include DDT and other organochlorine pesticides and chemicals, organophosphorus pesticides, dioxins and PCBs, heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, and many other chemicals. These chemicals may be acutely toxic, persistent in the environment, have toxic metabolities, accumulate in the food chain, and/or make food unappealing(Hoffman et al. 1995). The ability of some chemicals to mimic or inhibit endogenous hormones has caused concern in the scientific and non-scientific communities. There is growing evidence that exposure to some environmental contaminants has an effect on fertility, sexual behavior, sexual development, brain development and many other parameters in wildlife. Some of these chemicals are organochlorine compounds such as PCBs and DDT, Great Blue Heron Page 9 others chemicals include nonylphenols which have low acute toxicity (Colborn et al., 1996). There is limited information on the effects of contaminants on great blues. The great blue is a higher trophic level feeder so bioaccumulation of contaminants may cause a problem. Contaminants may accumulate in the tissues of great blue prey. Ingestion of these prey by great blues may result in exposures that are significantly higher than in the original contaminated media. There have been reports of incidental poisoning of great blues with anticholesterase insecticides. Great blues may be secondarily poisoned from eating prey poisoned by organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides (Hoffman et al., 1995). The heavy metals lead, cadmium, chromium, and cobalt were found in fecal castings from great blues in eastern and western Washington (Fitzner et al., 1995). There are some studies on effects from exposure to DDT, PCBs, dioxin, and other organochlorine compounds. Great blues are not considered to be sensitive to DDT and metabolite effects (Fitzner et al., 1988). There were no associated problems even during the period of highest DDT use (Henny 1972 as cited in Fitzner et al. 1988) although subtle differences would not be detectable because of available crude measures of success Butler, 1992). A reproductively critical level for the content of DDT and other organochlorines in heron eggs has not been established(Fitzner et al. 1988). In one study, a critical level of DDE, a DDT metabolite, was between 78 ug/g and 234 ug/g in heron eggs (Vermeer and Reynolds, 1970, as cited in Fitzner et al. 1988). Below are summaries of studies in Washington, western states and British Columbia: From 1977 to 1982, Fitzner et al. (1988) collected great blue eggs from colonies in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Nevada. They found decreased eggshell thickness up to 13% in these eggs when compared to pre-1947 collected eggs. However, they found no evidence of crushed or cracked eggs. They found DDE and PCB residues in egg, tissue, and whole body. Residues in livers of prefledglings were low in spite of the higher residues found in other media. Speich et al. (1992) collected eggs from nests in Puget Sound and found up to 13% reduction in eggshell thickness in agricultural areas and 5 to 7% reduction in eggshell thickness in urban-industrial areas when compared to pre-1947 measurements. They Great Blue Heron Page 10 also found smaller egg size than in the pre-1947 measurements. It was not determined whether the decreased eggshell thickness was the result of the smaller egg size. Faber et al. (1972 as cited in Speich et al., 1992) found that a 17% decrease in eggshell thickness was associated with breakage and reproductive failure in a California colony. High levels of PCB's were found in the eggs of great blues in the Seattle and Tacoma area due to industrial activity and a past spill in the Duwamish waterway(Speich et al. 1992). These levels were above levels found by Bush et al. (1974 as cited in Speich et al. 1992) to cause embryo mortality and deformities in chickens. Cobb et al. (1995) found low concentrations of DDT and PCBs in chorio-allantoic membranes in great blue eggs from colonies on Whidbey Island. Considerable study of colonies in British Columbia have shown effects of environmental contaminants. In 1987, there were no great blue fledgings from 57 nests located near a pulp and paper mill (Elliott et al., 1989 as cited in Sanderson et al. 1994). This failure was associated with exposure to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, byproducts of the chlorination process (Sanderson et al. 1994). Henshel et al. (1995) found brain abnormalities in embryos exposed to dioxins. Predation Despite the protection of a beak powerful enough to kill a human, colonial nesting in tall trees to deter predators, and alarm calls, several species are predators of great blues when given the opportunity(Allen 1991). Eagles, raccoons, red tailed hawks, crows, ravens, and turkey vultures (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Procyon lotor, Buteo jamaicensis, Corvus caurinus, Corvus corax, and Cathartes aura, respectively) will prey upon great blue eggs and young. (Simpson et al. 1987; A. Breault, personal communication as cited in Butler, 1995; Butler 1989 as cited in Butler 1992). The major predator of great blues is the bald eagle. There have been several reports of bald eagle predation in great blue colonies. Norman et al. (1989) reported that observations of 4 colonies in the Pacific Northwest showed bald eagle incursions at the rate of 1 per 10.3 hours. Two of the incursions resulted in chick predation. In a colony in British Columbia, there were 34 eagle incursions observed during 270 hours. At this colony, an eagle landed in a nest and proceeded to consume at least 2 great blue young Great Blue Heron Page 11 estimated at 3 weeks old) while the parent bird called loudly and lunged at the eagle although not making contact(Norman et al., 1989). In another colony, local residents reported that bald eagles repeatedly carried away great blue young to the eagle's nest. No great blues fledged from that colony (Breault, personal observation as cited in Norman et al., 1989). Bayer(1979) observed bald eagles attacking adult great blues and harassment of chicks in a colony, although he witnessed no mortalities. The presence of bald eagles may cause adult great blues to leave their nests Kelsall and Simpson, 1980 as cited in Norman et al. 1989)therefore exposing the young or eggs to adverse climatic conditions or predation by corvids (Norman et al., 1989). In the Black River colony, bald eagles were believed to have significantly impacted the reproductive success during the early 1990's by predating on nestlings. In subsequent years, bald eagles have been observed circling above the nests, flying near the nests, and sitting in the trees. Unfortunately, there were not enough sitings to determine whether bald eagle predation was still occurring. ( Personal observation and discussion). Butler(1995) states that great blues may locate colonies in areas in order to avoid predators. However, Butler found no difference in brood size, or mean percentage of successful nesting pairs when nests were near or far from eagle nests. Butler hypothesized that for great blues that are nesting close to an eagle nest, there might be a protective effect against other eagles attacking great blue nests because of the territorial nature of nesting eagles. Weather/Climate Natural conditions of weather and climate can have an impact on reproductive success. If eggs get cold during the incubation process, they may not hatch. Great blue young are semi-altricial and unable to thermoregulate during their early development, they rely on the parent for warmth. In the Black River colony, an unseasonably cool and wet spring in 1995 was suggested as a reason for the apparent low percentage of fledgings that year WDFW, 1996a). High winds may cause parents to be blown off the nest and not able to return for significant periods of time. This was seen in 1997 in April at the Black River colony Personal communication). In high winds, nests may also be destroyed. Great Blue Heron Page 12 Physical constraints Because of the large size of the young prior to fledging, nests with 3 young plus a parent are crowded and it is surprising that they are able to all fit in the nest (Personal observation). The young may fall from the nest as they manuever around the nest or walk out on branches. The young attempt to defecate off the edge of the nest (Stokes and Stokes, 1989). A wrong step may result in a fall from the nest and certain death. Great blue nests located in trees with many branches require the newly fledged young who return to the nest to be adept at landing. They may become trapped in branches trying to return to their nests(Personal communication). Great Blue Heron Conservation Of the challenges to reproductive success discussed in this paper, some are natural limiting factors and others are human-related limiting factors. Human-related factors are disturbances, habitat destruction, and environmental contamination. Natural factors include weather and climate, physical constraints, food supply, and predation. However, humans can increase the impact of natural factors. Habitat destruction may increase predation due to lack of availability of protective breeding areas. Habitat destruction may also remove or reduce available food supplies necessary for peak energy requirements of the great blue young. Protection of foraging and breeding habitat is essential to the reproductive success of great blues. Restriction of development and human activity in these habitat areas, preservation of alternative breeding habitat, and control of pollution sources are first steps. State laws, classifications, and guidelines help local jurisdictions to develop laws and ordinances to protect these habitats (WDFW, 1997a). In Washington state, great blues are protected wildlife (WAC 232-12-011) and the taking and possession of protected wildlife and destruction of nests and eggs are illegal (RCW 77.16.120). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has designated great blues as a priority species because of their tendency to nest together. These 'vulnerable aggregations' are susceptible to population declines within a specific area. They have also designated great blue breeding habitat as a Priority Area because it is a limited area that Great Blue Heron Page 13 supports a high number of birds (WDFW, 1996b). Priority Areas and Priority Species are priorities for management and preservation. Based on these designations, WDFW(1997b) has made the following recommendations: Site specific management plans should be required for projects that might affect great blue colonies. These plans must take into consideration the isolation of the colony, the timing of proposed activity during the non-breeding season, topographic features of the habitat, proximity to feeding grounds, proximity to alternative nest sites, numbers of potential predators in area, and degree of habituation to noise and disturbance . A minimum buffer zone of 250 to 300 meters (833 to 1000 feet) should be maintained around great blue colonies. Human activites should be restricted from February 15 to July 31. Logging and other activities should be avoided in the buffer zone. Preservation of stands of large trees of 17 meter(50 feet)or higher and at least 4 ha(10 acres) in the vicinity of great blue breeding and foraging areas is recommended. Surround feeding areas within at least 4 km (2.5 miles) of colonies should be protected. The buffer area recommended by WDFW may not be sufficient. Butler(1992) reviewed several studies and concluded that most studies recommend a minimum 300 meter (1000 feet) buffer zone during the breeding season where no human activity should take place. The Status of Great Blue Heron Populations in Puget Sound The great blue population in Puget Sound was estimated at a maximum of 1000 pairs in 1989 (Norman et al., 1989). Populations appear to be maintaining but not increasing. However, there is no formal census for these populations (WDFW, 1997a) so trends may not be known until significant changes in population occur. There are many challenges to the reproductive success of great blues in Puget Sound. Eagle numbers have increased in Puget Sound by an estimated 34% in the 1980's McAllister et al., 1986 as cited in Norman et al., 1989). Increasing urban and suburban growth and development destroys breeding and foraging habitat. Industry and other pollution sources contaminate the food supply. Great Blue Heron Page 14 The most obvious limiting factor for increase in the great blue population is the availability of suitable nesting trees in undisturbed areas (WDFW, 1997a). There is evidence in King County that availability of suitable breeding habitat in King County is inadequate. Many great blue colonies are located at less than the recommended buffer zones from human development and activity. In King County, the Peasley Canyon colony is located within 300 feet of a major traffic area. The Kenmore colony is located within 150 feet of a parking lot and 300 feet from apartments. The Yarrow Bay colony is 200 feet from a 4 story apartment building(Final EIS, 1991). These colonies may be habituated to human disturbance but there are no studies available to determine whether reproductive success is being compromised by lack of suitable breeding habitat. Wildlife as indicator species of environmental contamination Great blues have been recommended as an indicator species for impacts of contaminants on fish-eating wildlife and environmental contamination(Cobb et al. 1995; Fitzner et al. 1995). Available methods for these studies include determination of contaminants in tissue, egg contents, material rejected from nest including fecal material and regurgitated food, and feathers (Burger et al. 1992; Fitzner et al. 1995; Cobb et al. 1995; Rickard et al. 1978; Speich et al. 1992; Fitzner et al. 1988). Eggshell thickness is a marker for the effects of chemicals. Also contaminants found in eggs are the result of deposition by the parent during egg development. Tissue analysis involves sacrifice of young and adult birds to determine the accumulation of contaminants in the body. Research Needs In order to protect the great blues, more study needs to occur. Examples of types of studies that would provide more information on great blue population trends, viability, and reproductive success include: Census of great blue colonies in western Washington. Censuses and reproductive success studies of great blues in the Puget Sound area have been rare (Speich et al. 1992; WDFW, 1997a). Survey of habitat availability to determine the adequacy of available foraging and breeding habitat. Great Blue Heron Page 15 Studies to determine impact of environmental contamination on great blues. Protection of great blue foraging and breeding habitat is essential to the reproductive success of this species. Their elegance, size, and visibility, have made great blues a symbol of those things wild to many people. Protection of the great blue and its habitat will ensure the survival of other species that are not as visible or elegant but which are just as important to our ecosystems. Great Blue Heron Page 16 Literature cited • Allen, H. (1991) The Great Blue Heron. Northword Press, Inc.:Minocqua, Wisconsin. Bayer,R. (1979) Bald eagle-great blue heron interactions. Murrelet, 60(1):31-33. Bennett, D.C., P.E. Whitehead, and L.E. Hart. (1995) Growth and energy requirements of hand-reared great blue heron chicks. Auk, 112(1): 201-209. Bolen E.G. and W.L. Robinson. (1995) Wildlife Ecology and Management. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Burger, J., I.C.T. Nisbet, and M. Gochfeld. (1992) Metal levels in regrown feathers: Assessment of contamination on the wintering and breeding grounds in the same individuals. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 37:363-374. Butler, R.W. (1992) Great blue heron. In The Birds of North America, No. 25 (A. Poole,P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. Butler, R.W.,P.E. Whitehead, A.M. Breault, and I.E. Moul. (1995) Colony effects of fledging success of great blue herons in British Columbia. Colonial Waterbirds, 18(2):159-165. Cobb, G.P., D.M. Norman, M.W. Miller, and L.W. Brewer. (1995) Chlorinated contaminants in chorio- allantoic membranes from great blue heron eggs at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. Chemosphere, 30(1):151-164. Colborn, T., D. Dumanoski, and J.P. Myers. (1996) Our Stolen Future. New York,NY: Dutton. Final Environmental Impact Statement. (1991) Black River Corporate Park. City of Renton Fitzner,R.E., L.J. Blus, C.J. Henny, and D.W. Carlile. (1988) Organochlorine residues in great blue heron from the northwestern United States. Colonial Waterbirds 11(2): 293-300. Fitzner, R.E.,R.H. Gray, and W.T. Hinds. (1995) Heavy metal concentrations in great blue heron fecal castings in Washington state: A technique for monitoring regional and global trends in environmental contaminants. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 55:398-403. Gibbs, J.P. and L.K. Kinkel. (1997) Determinants of the size and location of great blue heron colonies. Colonial Waterbirds, 20(1):1-7. Henshel, D.S.,J.W. Martin, R. Norstrom,P. Whitehead, J.D. Steeves, and K.M. Cheng. (1995) Morphometric abnormalities in brains of great blue heron hatchlings exposed in the wild to PCDDs. Environmental Health Perspectives, Supplement 4: 61-66. Hoffman,D.J., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton Jr., and J.C. Cairns Jr. (Editors) (1995) Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Boca Raton,Louisiana: Lewis Publishers. Hunn, Eugene S. (1982) Birding in Seattle and King County. Site Guide and Annotated List. Seattle Washington: Seattle Audubon Norman, D.M., A.M. Breault, and I.E. Moul. (1989) Bald eagle incursions and predation at great blue heron colonies. Colonial Waterbirds, 12(2): 215-217. Great Blue Heron Page 17 Rickard, W.H.,J.D. Hedlund, and R.G. Schreckhise. (1978) Rejecta cast from heron nests as an indicator of food chain contamination. Auk, 95:425-427. Sanderson, J.T., J.E. Elliott, R.J. Norstrom, L.E. Hart, K.M. Cheng, and G.D. Bellward. (1994) Monitoring biological effects of pollychiorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls in great blue heron chicks in British Columbia. J. Tolxicol. Env. Health, 41:435-450. Speich, S.M., J. Calambokidas, D.W. Shea,J. Peard, M. Witter, and D. M. Fry. (1992) Eggshell thinning and organochlorine contaminants in western Washington waterbirds. Colonial Waterbirds, 15(1):103-112. Stokes, Donald and Lillian. (1989) A Guide to Bird Behavior. Volume III. Stokes Nature Guides. Little, Brown and Company:Boston, Massachusetts. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). (1996a and 1997a) Discussions with Patricia Thompson,Wildlife Biologist. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). (1996b) Priority Habitats and Species Lists. Habitat Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). (Received 1997b) Great Blue Heron. Management Recommendations for Priority Species. 4 ., t*::: '' „ y COLONIAL WATERBIRDS JOURNAL OF THE COLONIAL WATERBIRD SOCIETY V'ot.. 20. No. 1 1997 P:la;Es 1-1(35 mental Scient d ss Internet:-;,' Determinants of the Size and Location of Great Blue Heron Colonies 3j a'+: JAMES P. GIBBS' AND LINDA K. KINKEL" i Alder k _ Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, 1008 Schermerhorn Extension, 1200 Amsterdam Ave., Mail Code 5557,Columbia University,New York,NY 10027 USAofinternetjamesgibbs6`aol.com Alcyon Environmental,48W153 Shadetree Ct.,Maple Park,IL 60151 USA Abstract.—We integrated habitat information over a range of spatial scales for Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias)nesting in Illinois,U.S.A.to identify key habitat factors associated with the location and size of nesting col-onies.Availability of lacustrine and emergent wetland was the primary determinant of which regions Great Blue 3, t. Herons established colonies.Within such regions,the herons located their colonies near local concentrations of SI 0 wetland and centrally to regional wetland complexes.Herons settled among colonies in numbers proportional to the availability of foraging habitats near colony sites.Colonies were located at sites with more buffering habitat(for-est,swamp,and open wetland)and lower road density,and within larger forest stands,than expected at random. Characteristics of vegetation used for nesting varied strikingly among nearby colonies.A hierarchical model of hab-hool itat selection may be useful for explaining distributional patterns of nesting Great Blue Herons. Received 31 May4401-792-1996,accepted 29.September 1996. Y,s" Key words.—Ardea herodins,colony,Great Blue Heron,habitat use,wetlands.waterbirds. R-- Pt'. Colonial S1'aterbirds20(l): 1-7,1997 Large-bodied animals typically function crate quantitative information on habitat over a wide range of spatial scales. Identifica- that could be used in conservation planning,tion of key habitats at all relevant scales is we integrated habitat data across a range of necessary to understand why such species at- spatial scales to characterize environments c -, • taro a particular pattern of distribution and associated with 29 nesting colonies of Great l abundance across the landscape (Weiss et al. Blue Herons (.4rdea hcrodias) in the State of I•° 1986), as well as to predict how various hu Illinois, U.S.A.Y v ., s - them,man-associated disturbances to habitats may tavid N. affect populations (Hansen et al. 1993).This METtious is particularly true for colonially nestingti1,7` -iSk waterbirds, Regional populations are often Identification of Colony and Null Colony Sitesµ T concentrated at discrete breeding sites vul- We studied nesting colonies (aggregations of>l of tt1-Y:<29 c:;1;1 J Individuals w.- nerable to disturbance (Parnell et al. 1988) nest) that were active in Illinois in 1991.Our sample in- r chided all known colonies located >15 km from thetail;$45 for instittlt: x4. from which individuals range daily over scare's boundaries (colonies closer to state boundariesty,Colonial Water-.:` ,; ; large areas to forage. Thus, potential deter- were not studied because complete information on wet-ual meetingheld ..` tk lands near those colonies was unavailable).The sample•minants of sizes and locations of nestingndarchivesofthez included most colonies active in the state except thosepopulationsincludethesmall-scale (1-10 associated with the Mississippi River Valley.InformationnInstitute,Wash....-_ k m2) characteristics associated with nesting on size and location of colonies was obtained from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Springfield,sites, medium-scale (1-10 km') characteris ocie Illinois (Y. Kieen, pers. ,omm.). Colors•size estimatestyisavailable _ tics of colony sites, and large-scale (10-1,000 from 1990 or 1992 were s:thstituted for O colonies deter-km') characteristics of foraging areas. To mined to be active in 1991. hit for which no size esti- Y$,^"t better understand the factors underlying mate was made in 1991. ttf patterns of distribution and abundance of We examined use versus as.,.l,tbiliry of nesting habi- 3-,eez f tat by contrasting the features of existing nesting siteslarge-bodied colonial waterbirds,and to gen- with those of-null"nesting sites,which were located in 1' K.pr 1 - • L4Y .. jib.. i.. GREAT WAIF 11FRoN Col oNy DIsTRIBI'TluNeCOLONIALVt'AI'l:RNIRnti 3 randunlls chosen fires stands(>11)trees.each>10 in formation on the type,location,and area of wetlands Table I.Coverage(%±SD)of the landscape within I km of Great Blue Heron colonies active in Illinois during 1991 high with contiguous canopy)heated within a 15 kin ra- was obtained in digital form from the U.S. Fish and N=28 sites)and null nesting sites randomly located within the foraging range of each heron colony(N=28 sites). dim ccl each culuny,a distance within which most Great Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory(Illinois film I Ieron flights between colonies and foraging areas Natural History Survey,Urbana,Illinois).Wetlands were I leron Colonies Null Sites 1 i, occult (Part is and(:rat I!179..rhumpson 1979, Dowd grouped among the billowing seven general types:laruv and Flake 1985).'this paired-sample•design permitted a trine,lacustrine littoral and palustrine open water wet- lousing 4.89±1(1.41, 8.53±12.6ll 2.27 1.023 cnn11ua1'on of occupied nesting habitats with nearby lauds;aquatic led,palustrine aquatic bed wetlands,Er Industry 4.85±13.32 5.14±1(1.71) 11.14 11.889 and brace accessible,but inestimably unused testing those dominated by suhmergent or floating-leaven yew- Agriculture 37.89±23.72 51.53±21)1)5 3.28 II.011 habitats.and allowed us to control for large-scale Milli- ration;emergent,palustrine emergent wetlands,i.e.,those cures Oh,:It raging habitats might have exerted on nest- dominated by persistent or nonpersistem, emergent Forest 27.42±19.711 a.lill±17.81 11.97 11.:3311 iug habitat use. li, cntrast large-scale variation in vegetation; forested, palustrine forested sac tl.,nd,. i.e SSwamp Il.fi3±17.N5 3.14±9.N5 2.24 0.025 o asailabilits of foraging habitats across the state,we iden- those dominated by deciduous,evergreen of deed trees: Open wetland 13.46±16.85 8.07±13.62 2.85 0.004 tilted a second set of"mill-colony sites located in forest scrub/shrub,palustrine scrub-and shrub-dominated wet- hndisuu'led 52.42±23.72 34.82±22.12 3.80 0.0011 suuul,or swamp at randomly selected coordinates in II- lands, i.e., those dominated by short, woody hydro- hunk (stratified by county ill reflect the geographical phyles; unconsolidated bottom,palustrine unconsolidated I'-calnrz according tic W'ilcoxun signed-rank tests. distribution of colonies studie(1)and>15 kin from the bottom wetlands,i.e.,those largely unvegetated and tut- state'. borders (in older that wetland data would Ix• derlain by gravel,sand,nerd,or organic material;and landscape near heron colonies were mini- (>50 nests) differed from smaller colonies available Inc an(lithe coldly foraging range).This sant- riverine,all wetlands of all types;associated with rive'riur plug design pet rained anti to examine how wetland dis- habitats.lacustrine limnetic wetlands were excluded be- mat (<5%on average)and did not differ be- only in the availability of lacustrine wetland tributions influenced the location of colony sites c. . • their depth (1 in) exceeded the leg-length of tvyl•t'tl null nesting and colony sites. Also, within their foraging range (1057.1 ha/100 independent of nesting habitat availability. Great Blue Herons.extent of forest cover slid not differ between km>±407.6 SE versus 70.0±39.2;•Xt„_„=8.4, We determined the availability of foraging habitats colony and null nesting sites. Size of forest P = 0.0036). Local availability of foraging g associated with each colony or null colony site be' : - stands supporting colonies (median = 108 habitats(<5 km from sites) was greater(I'Cunq,il:uion of Nesting Alva Data wing areas()leach wetland occurring within the Iirag- We c haracteri,ed the landscape near nesting areas iug range of each site.Wetland data were unavailable ha),however,was greater than stands associ- 0.05) for heron colonies than mill colony In estimating the areal extent of the following habitat tic 2 colonies,so sample size for foraging habitat:ucals ated with mall nesting sites(median 48 ha,z.,,, sites for lacustrine wetland (1 3.9x), enter- types within a 1-km-radius circle of each colony and mill sis around colonies was reduced to 27.Foraging habitat 3.483,P=0.001 nesting site: agree ch,a.d. :areas of cultivated land, hay- data fir 25 null colony sites also was compiled.Wetland Based on the number of gent wetland (3.Ix), forested wetland fields.or pasture;inthechra/.:yeas of mining operations, availability across the entire 15 km foraging range was roads intersected by 8, 1-km-long transects (2.9x),scrub-shrub wetland (6.9x), and un- icansportation corridors.and non-residential develop- compared between colony and null colony sites,and Ix- radiatingr nesting consolidated bottom wetland (1.7x). At in- meat: n•udecrtial, areas developed predominantly for tween the 14 larger versus 13 smaller colonies,with a from each colony or null housing:purged,areas covered by trees estimated to he Mann-Whitney U-test (Zar 1984). We also compared site, fewer roads occurred (zz,,,,= 3.460, P = termediate distances (5-10 km), heron do tit high with a contiguous canopy and growing on wetland availability between colony and null colony sites 0.001) near heron colonies (X=0,80±0.15 colonies were associated with more (P < uphold:tromp•areas of trees>1(1 nt high with a contig- across three distance intervals(0-5,5-10,Ill-I5 ken)with- tons cat topv and growing on flu aided land;and often owl- in the foraging range.The relationship between the sire SE) than null nesting sites (1.34±0.21 SE). 0.05) aquatic-bed wetland (2.3x),emergent tend. areas of ern.(,cueaed wetlands. i.e.• wetland of colonies and availability of each wetland type was ex- The proportion of sites in swamps, riparian wetland (2.0x), and scrub-shrub wetland tit ' aced by subnaergent,emergent,shrub vegetation antined with a multiple linear regression model (Zar forest,and upland forest differed (X =9.52, (I.3x) than null colony sites.At the fringes or open water.We also measured the areal extent of the 1984). P = 0.086) between colonies (36%, 43%, of foraging (10-15 forest tract supporting each colony and null nesting site. The point of minimum aggregate navel to foraging f; f;areas km from sites),her forest proximity was assessed by determining the fre- areas was also determined for each colony and null col- 21%,a, respectively) and null nesting sites on colonies had more (P< (1.05) emergent c gteurc:md distances at which surfaced roads intersect- ony site.We identified this point along a grid with cells I I coos 68%,21%,respectively).wetland (1.8x),scrub-shrub wetland (2.2x), er18,I-km-long transacts radiating front each colony or 0.1 km square overlying each foraging range.The point null nesting site.Cod :and null nesting sites were etas- occurred where the sum of single,linear distances be- Across the entire foraging range (0 IS unconsolidated bottom wetland (2.0x),and si6ed as occurring in ssyamnp(forest in standing water tween each wetland and the colony multiplied by the kilt,Table 2),heron colonies were associated riverine wetland (1.8x) than null colony dsihte horn aerial photographs), riparian forest (no weighted area of the wetland was minimized.Each wet- with significantly (P<0.05) more emergent sites. Heron colonies were located,on aver- standing seater but<I kmfrom permanent stream or rev- land was assigned a weight proportional to its type's Ire- el I. err IIpIacncl forest. All habitat measurementswere gooney of use by foraging Great Blue Herons as wetland (1.8x),scrub-shrub wetland (2.1 X), age,about 2 km closer to points of minimum made sill a digitizing tablet from high-resolution aerial determined from a study involving>3,510 h of obsers:r and unconsolidated bottom wetland (1.7x), aggregate travel to all wetlands within their photographs(I:40(N)(1 scale,black and white,obtained lion of heron activity at 87 wetlands in Maine(see Gibbs and marginally more lacustrine wetland foraging ranges (X = 5.8 ± 0.69 SE) than during spring,1988.by the Markhurd Corporation,345 et al.1991).The weighting procedure assumed that her- renusylsania Ave.South,Minneapolis,Minnesota)and on wetland use in Maine was comparable to that in Illi- I.SX) and riverine wetland (1.9X), than were null colony sites(7.9±0.73,t„=2.0455, t'.ti.(e•Ilhlgl('aI Survey topographical maps.The mini- s. We used a t-text (Zar 1984) to evaluate the were null colony sites.Larger heron colonies P=0.046).Variance in displacement distanc- ncuuc mapping unit was ca.((Sc ha.Habitat descriptions hypothesis that heron colonies were heated closer u, were made for 2/4colonies and 28 mill colony sites be- the point of minimum aggregate travel than were null Table 2.Availability of foraging habitats(X ha/100 km'±1 SE)within 15 km of Great Blue Heron nesting colonies c: . •aerial photographs was unavailable for one colo- colony sites. IN=27)and null sites(N=25)in Illinois.U.S.A.,1991. iv. Habitats savour contrasted belwee•n hrrun (ulunies and null roluny sites with a Wilcoxon signed-rank text Zar 1984)because of thepaired sampling design and RESUL'I'S Heron Colonies Null Site, a.Pc lecausr data were not distributed normally over most of 1ae mariner e the variables me:pa ed. Mann-Whitney U-rests (Zar Size of colonies ranged from 5 to 550 83.8±32.3 I7..)±34.1 3.3 II.II68 Aquatic-bed 3.1±0.8 2.0 r n,1i 1.9 I.15N198nwe•t a used lot habitat comparisons or nesting halt- nests,and averaged 158.9 +179.7 SD The east hcrncen the I I largest and 14 smallest colonies. Emergent 119.N±19.N lifi.l±17.1i 8.2 0.I04 landscape near heron colonies had less resi-Forested 283.5±45.5 223.2±53.3 2.1 0.14(1 l.nnpit.tion of Inc aging I I;cbicat Data dential development, less agricultural use,tit tub-shrub 30.9±5.0 14.8±4.5 9.2 0.(1112 l be unsdiri atc•d Iionutt 38.6±(i.11moreswamp,more open wetland,and more 22.3t5.2 4.4 0.034 G c onl1)111d inlonu:uion on the availability of wet- undisturbed habitat than did null Rive•rioe•211.1±ti.2 lll.:3±5i.3 3.1 0.076 hutch'ct.mging habicu,within Ice•rirculam lur:aging tango aggregate 1 I c km-radio e hi c owns and null colony site.In- nesting sites(Table 1). Industrial uses of the I.-values according to Slain-Whitney lI-tests. I 1 Ill N11AI.WAI'IiR1411ttS GREAT MATE HERON Ct)LUM'Dlxl'Rlltt''17UA 5 es did not differ between heron colonies and these wetland types support the most dense tics influenced where heron colonies were herons (e.g., Gibbs et al. 1987, Fasola and null colony sites(F,,.,,,= 1.04,P=0.92).and accessible populations of the preferred lusted. Primary among these were the ex- Alfieri 1992) but could not be accounted for Approximately half the variation among prey of Great Blue Herons,that is,small-lxxl- tent of aggteg;ue undisturbed habitat near in this study because a complete survey of colonies in size of nesting populations was ied aquatic vertebrates (Butler 1992). The colonies(including forest,swamp,and open colonies was not undertaken. directly attributable to the availability of for- low availability of wetland near the sample of wetland),remoteness from roads,and size of We doubt that small-scale habitat factors aging habitats near colonies (Table 3).The null c dory sites(Table 2)suggests that large forest stands. Many of these features can be (characteristics of nesting vegetation) are primary determinants of colony size were the portions of the Illinois landscape lack suffi- interpreted in terms of avoidance of human important influences on patterns of Great availability of lacustrine wetland,aquatic-bed cient wetland resources to support nesting disturbance,which is an important cause of Blue Heron distribution and abundance. wetland. emergent wetland, and forested populations of herons. In particular,the ab- reduced nest productivity and colony aban- Great Blue Herons use a wide variety of tree wetland: increased availability of these wet- sence of heron colonies over much of cen- hutment in Great Blue Herons (Bjorklund species and tree dimensions for nesting in II-land types. except aquatic-bed wetland, was tral Illinois is likely caused by the paucity of 1975, Werschkul et al. 1976, Simpson el al. linois(see Table 2 in Graber et al. 1978).Fur- associated with larger nesting populations wetland resources there,which has resulted 1987). For example, road proximity likely thermore, nesting habitats often differ table 3).Smaller-scale habitat variables also from extensive wetland drainage,particular- represents an index of human activity, and strikingly among nearby colonies. Ivor exam- accounted for some variation in colony size. ly of palustrine vegetated wetlands,for agri- hence the potential for disturbance,at a giv- pie,a cluster of 3 colonies in northeastern II- Colony size correlated positively with the culture(Wilen and Frayer 1990). en site (Watts and Bradshaw 1994). Aggre- linois hosts herons nesting (It in dense unotnl of swamp within I km (I:,,,=0.48,P= Within regions of Illinois supporting suf- gate undisturbed land and large forest concentrations in several dead trees (with 0.01 ti),amount of open wetland within 1 ken ficient wetland foraging resources, the her- stands can serve as "buffer" habitat to con- some nests at ground level in fit!lcn trees) in r,.= 0..15,P=0.023),and size of forest stand ons appear to locate their colonies near (<5 ceal colonies front such disturbance (see an otherwise unvegetated area, (2) mostly stq)porling a colony (rU,, _ 0.43, P = 0.031), km)local concentrations of wetland,partic•tr- also Cox 1991). singly in a dense upland forest with a toting-and negatively with the amount of agricul- larly lacustrine, emergent.scrub-shrub, and In addition to the spatial distribution of nous canopy, amid (3) in shrubs and small ttn:l land within I km (r.",=-0.50,P=0.011). unconsolidated bottom types. Herons also wetlands,wetland availability also influences trees tun small islands in a lake.Owing to theappeartolocatecoloniescentrallytoregion- the local abundance of nesting herons.The variability in nesting situations exhibited by I)Isc(st ely al wetland complexes,as indicated by the po- number of herons settling in colonies is evi- herons in this and other areas(see also R,•,c sitioning of colonies closer to points of Icntly proportional to the availability of for- ver et al. 1980, Erwin et al. 1981,Gibbs et al.Several, strong heron-habitat correla- minimum aggregate travel to regional fi)rrg- aging habitats near colonies. This 1987),it seems unlikely that herons have rig-lions were apparent from this analysis, and ing areas than expected by chance.Energetic conclusion is further supported by the posi- id requirements for nesting substrates. permit the following inferences to be drawn considerations may underlie these patterns. five correlations between colony size and We speculate that a hierarchical model of about distribution patterns of nesting Great Colonies situated near wetland complexes wetland availability in other regions(see also habitat selection may be useful to integrate Blue Herons in Illinois. At larger spatial can provide efficient access to foraging re- English 1978,Weise 1978,Gibbs et al. 1987, habitat information across spatial scales and scales, availability of lacustrine and emer- sources while minimizing time in flight for Gibbs 1991). However,in Illinois about one- to explain the patterns of habitat use ob-half of the variation it colony size was not ex- served. Regional wetland availability likelygentwetlands. and secondarily of scrub- both adults and newly fledged young. Cols, shrub,unconsolidated lxutom,and riverine nies located centrally to regional wetland plained by availability of wetland foraging determines the general area where heronshabitats.Great Blue Herons were largely ex- choose to focus their nesting activities.With- wetlands, is likely the primary determinant complexes may further reduce flying time nf which regions of 111' 's are attractive to for those herons commuting from the nest- tirpated front Illinois in the early part of this in a region providing suitable foraging habi-t;-cat Blue I lerous to establish nesting coin- ing colony to multiple foraging areas within century(Graber et al. 1978)and the popula- tilts, herons may then choose to nest at nie•s. These wetland types are among those the maximum flight range of the colony. non is now recovering.Such dynamics prob- particular sites within the region where(lis- ntosl commonly used by foraging Great Blue Within regions providing suitable forag-ably account for some of the "noise" in turbarce by humans and predators is mini-Herons (Gibbs et al. 1991),perhaps because ing resources, landscape cover characteris population-wetland availability correlations. mined. Herons might then distributeAsthegrowthofthestate-wide population themselves among potential nesting areas Table 3.Results of a multiple linear regression model of the number of heron nests versus availability of wetland slows and colony sizes gradually stabilize rel- relative to levels of competition fin'food ofmforaginghabitat(ha)within 15 k of 27 colonies of nesting Great Blue Herons in Illinois,U.S.A.,1991. alive to the carrying capacity of local forag- foraging areas present at)each potential col- l' ST E h t p'r ing habitats, we predict that correlations ony site (Brown et al. 1990), such that pro-between local population size and local wet- ductivity is comparable, on average, among3141.91 0 Itilsu„su it,• net7 n.118 2 6l 00.0 17 lain availability will strengthen.An addition- sites. Notably,an extensive productivity sun- bu Aquari,-I„•d 1.46 1. 1126 3.28 wows al source of "noise" in population-wetland vey of Great Blue Heron colonies in(:alifor- hu,,gun! 0.02 0.0411 2.10 o.or,(I correlations possibly derives from the variety nia found no correlation between colony epee,.revel 0.l I 0.040 2.87 auto of techniques used tot estimating colony sin- size and colony productivity (Kelly et al. tirrub-sh,,,b 41.13 0.27.1 0.50 0.620 es(ground and aerial counts),each of which 1993).Alternatively,because this population L(1 l'n„,n,,,G,Lu,d It ar„n, I I onto 0.71 0.483 kiwi Il has its own, unestimated, bias. Locations of is below carryingcapacity, density depen-Rin hi 1.1(ili 7 Il.l!IR other colonies also may represent an impor- dent effects onreproduction nlikelyu,"t,•'v P:0111.adj.le=0.45. tin determinant of colony site choice in (Butler 1994). Possibly, the ' •t a join- 6 COLONIAI.WATFRBIRIrS GREAT BI.IIE HERON(A)LONV DISTRIBUTION 7 irlg colonies to take advantage of proximity Butler, R. 1992. Arden It nxiinc Great Blue Heron. In Watts,B.U.and D.S.Bradshaw.1994.The influence of Sprung IV,J.C.Ogden,and S.Winrkler.Eds.).Na- Birds of North America No.25(A.Poole and F.(:ill, human disturbance on the location of Great Blue lional Audubon So iety Research Rrlsnu Numb,'7.u)consp'Cif ics,hill du so until food coupe Eds.).The Academy of Natural SfirnCes.I'hiladel- Ileum Colonies in the lawyer Chesapeake Bay.Colo- Werschkul.1) F.,E.MacMahon and M.Lrits('hui.1976.lilion occurs in a given colony, whereupon )hia, and the American Ornithologists' Union, vial Waterbirds 17:184-186.I M( Some effects of human activities on the Great Blue new colonies are finned.This process would Washington,D.C. Wins,J.A.J.T.Rotenht•rry and B.Van Horne.1986.A Heron in Oregon.Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662. produce a range of"saturated"and"unsatur- Butler,R.1994.Population regulation of wading ciconi_ lesson in the limitations of field experiments:shrub- Men.B.O.and W.E.Frayer.1990.Status and trends of forth birds.Colonial Waterbirds 17:189-199. steppe hI11h.111,1 Ill hn.,i alteration.Ecology 67:365- U.S.wetlands and deepwater habitats.Forest Ecol1-ated colonies and explain why population- Biorklund,R.G. 1975.On the death of a mid-western 376. try and Management 33/34:181-192. wetland correlations exist but are not,as yet, heronry.Wilson Bulletin 87:284-287. Weise,J.H. 1978.Heron nest-site selection and us ern- Zar,J.11. 198.1.liiostatistical analysis.2nd ed.Prentice- Iiruwn,C. R. B.•I.Stutchbury and P.I).Walsh. I!MNI, logical effects. Pages 27-34 in Wading Idols (A. Hall,Inc.,Englewood Cliffs,New jersey.strong. Alierr:ltive•ly. wetIttneI productivity Choice of colony sir,in birds.Trends in F.Culnkn andandtlistt!rbancc may fluctuate among years Evolution 5:398-403. and over space,such that local nesting pop- cox,J. 1991.lend-cover correlates of wood stork illations fail to "saturate" nearby wetland pro- ductivity in North and Central Florida. (]loofa ll'aterbirds 14:121-1211. habitats but regional populations are stable Dowd,E. M.and L. D.Flake. 1985. Foraging habitats over little U.I'. Kelly.pers.comm.). and movements of nesting Great Blue Ileruns in a prairie river ecosystem, South Dakota.Journal ofWefurtherspeculatethatatparticularFieldOrnithologyill:379-387. nesting areas offering favorable fOfaging en- English,S.M. 1978.Distribution and ecology of Great vironmeuts, herons may nest in whatever Blue Heron colonies on the Willamette River,Ore- gon.Pages 235-244 in Wading birds(A.Spruill 1%;J.vegetationtation types are present as long as mini- (. Ogden,and S.Winckler, Eds.). National Audit-mat requirements for protection front dis- lion Society Research Report Number 7. tur'bance by predators and humans are met. Erwin.M.,J.Galli midi.Burger. 1981.Colony site dv- Thus,habitat selection in Great Blue Herons natuifs and habitat use in Atlantic coast seabirds. Auk 98:550-561. in Illinois and other areas may proceed in a Fasoda.M.and R.Alien. 1992.Conservation of heronre top-down" process from larger to smaller Ardeidae sites in North Italian agricultural land- spalial scales,with larger-scale habitat factors land- scapes.Biological Coissrrv,,ti 1I1112:219-228. Gibbs,J.P. 1991.Spatial relationships between nestingdetermining (lie associations between her- colonies and firraging areas of(;real Blue I lerom. ors and smaller-scale habitat features, In Auk lox:764-77(1. Gibb,,J.It,S.Woodward,M.L.H r and A.E.If inch-contrast,evidence for a"bottom-up"process inson.1987.Determinants of Great Blue Heron col-or habitat selection, that is, consistency in tiny distribution in coastal Maine.Auk 1114:38-47. the types of nesting substrates used and lack Gibbs,J.P..I.R.l arngcore,U.G.Mt-matey mull K.Rite of correlation between heron distribution gelman. 1991. Use of wetlandhabitats by selected nongame water birds in Maine.U.S.Fish and Wild-and wetland distribution, is lacking. An im- life Service,Fish and Wildlife Research 9, portant caveat is Ihat wide-spread or episodic Grahs•r,J.W.,R.R.Grater and E.I..Kirk.1978.Illinois birds:Ciconiifimnes.Illinois Natural I6stoy Stoves;disturbance of potential heron nesting habi_Biological Notes N her 11M! tat by I ans may prevent the formation of Ilatisen,A.J.,S.1..Garman and B.Marks.1993.An ap- stable associations between nesting herons proachtor managing vertebrate diversity afros: I- aii(I Ilt•slillg habitats. tiple-use landscapes.Ecological Applications 3:48I- 496. Kelly,J.P.,H.M.Pratt and P.I..Greene. 1993.The dis- tribution,reproductive success,and habitat charm-A,:KM 1\\L),IN:MFN-is tetistics of heron and egret breeding colonies in the San Francisco Bay area.Colonial Waterhirds 16: 18- We thank the Village of Bartlett.Illinois.through the 27. assistance of V.Salmons,for providing financial support Parnell,J.E,D.G.Ainley,H.Blokpoel.B.Cain.T.W. for this study.V.Merit.Illinois Department of Natural Custer.J.L.Dusi,S.Kress,J.A.Kushlam.W.E.South-Re.' -e•s,and 1..Suloway.Illinois Natural History Sur- ern.1..E.Sten/el and B.(..TI pson. I988.Colo- vv. kindle assisted with the acquisition of colon'and vial waterbird management in North America. wetland data.We ale abai grateful for many useful con,- Colonial Waterbirds I I: 1''2!-169. meat, n) the manuscript provided by R. Butler. l.. Parris,ris,R.W.and G.A.Gran.1979.Feeding sites of GreatFlake. I. Kelly.A. 51acc.lrone,U. Mc(:rinmlon,and B. Blue Herons in southwestern I.ake Erie. Colonial Watts. Waterbirds 2:110-I I3 Simpson.K..J.N.M.Smith mull P.Kelsall. 1987.(or- relates and consequences of tolnuialits in (:realfrie.R.V l•RF.(a'r):u Blue herons.(„u,adiaui journal of Zoology 65:572- 577. Brien.I).I...R.(:.Osborn and"1.W.Custer.1980.Nest- Thompson, D. H. 1979. Feeding areas of Great Blue site and(ulnas o h:rcaut•ristic's of wading birds in se- I Ieuuns and Great Egrets within the fhiodplain of lei ted Ad:uti( ,oast col •s. Wilson Bulletin 92: the Upper Mississippi River.Colonial Waterbirds.•: lW)22t1. 2112-213. NOTES gill,and Yates. STATUS OF GREAT BLUE HERON COLONIES IN31airmightbe KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONgndobserved nest, we walked far- r adult with a young MARTY MURPHY. Box 3070, Half Moon Bay, California 94019ightthechickfora The Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) has been common in western Washingtonismuchdarkerthanthroughoutrecordedhistory (Jewett et al. 1953). Shipe and Scott (1981) surveyedbedtoesandmask_ Great Blue Heron colonies in King County for the Washington Department of Wildlife.bts Eggs, and Nest- In 1983 the Department resurveyed three of the colonies noted by Shipe and Scott.ved an incomplete In this paper I update information on Great Blue Heron colonies in this area.lacked the white Since 1981, four of the six colonies reported by Shipe and Scott have beenituuckeerus). abandoned,but six new ones have been reported and confirmed (Table 1). Most heroncoloniesinKingCountyarenowthreatenedbyproposedcommercialdevelopments.nd found the chick i it. The chick had The Great Blue Heron is considered a species with special concerns on the nationalownbreastband; level(Tate and Tate 1982),and the state of Washington has designated the Great BlueprimarieswerenotHeronaspeciesofspecialconcernandhasestablishedguidelinesformanagementofcolonies. vering ca. 300 ha Many of the herons'feeding grounds are threatened also. The largest lakes in KingshorelinesofsandCountyareLakeWashingtonandLakeSammamish. Around the former only sixhotel edingand nesting wetlands remain,and some of these are threatened by development.The two wetlandsareawheretheonLakeSammamisharebothwithinparks.According to the Puget Sound Water Qualitysirealkalineflat•Authority (1987), approximately 14,000 acres of wetland around Puget Sound haveofsandandfinebeenconvertedtootherusesbydikingandfilling. Fifty percent of the wetlands alongshrubs. W. N. streams have been converted to pastures.Along the floodplains of six major rivers moreArea. Suppl. 12 than 150,000 acres have yielded to flood control dikin a1972Federaldevelopment. g, griculture, and other scientists and Known since 1955, the Black Diamond colony suffered from shooting up to 1981.OR) provide a Since then the surrounding area has been developed extensively.I saw no herons duringmytwovisitstothesitein1986and1987. script and The eight-nest Black River rookery in Renton is on an island within ponds createdbytheSoilConservationServiceforfloodcontrol. Developers proposed an office parkforthesitebutfailedtonotethepresenceofthecolonyintheirproposal. On 18 Februarydiprif19881987, at a time of pre-nesting and territorial activity of the herons, they cut a riparianforestjustnorthofthecolonyinanareadesignatedbythecityofRentonasaconservancyzone. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Ecology, andWashingtonDepartmentofWildlifeorderedtheworkstoppedcouldreviewtheproject's effects on the herons and other wildlife. The herons returned a to the area on 20 February,occupied seven nests, and fledged an average of two youngpernestbetween10and20June, later than at the Sammamish and Yarrow Baycolonies. I could not locate the Crystal Lake colony in May and June 1986 and presume ittobeabandoned.On 11 June a highway was being cut through the forest and a housing f development was in progress. Park biologists discovered two heron nests in Discovery Park, Seattle, in 1986. Thiscolonymaygrowbecauseitiswellprotectedwithintheparkandtreesareabundant.Perhaps herons from the recently abandoned Pigeon Point rookery about 2 km southwestwillattempttonesthere. Although development surrounds the Dumas Bay colony on three sides, the colonyliespartlywithinDumasBayCountyPark, within which it is protected by fencing. Thedenseundergrowthbeneaththecolonyandthevigilanceoflocalresidentsalsoprotectit.The colony discovered in 1984 at Jensen's Cove, Lake Sammamish State Park, isstillgrowingbutfacesproblems. A public boat launch lies within 100 m of the rookery,and use of the launch has tripled since 1985. Water skiing and fast boats create wavesthaterodetheshorelineandsteepenthebanksonwhichfledglingheronsforage. InWesternBirds19:37-40, 1988 37 n.. NOTES NOTES 0 E. u= nearby Issaquah approximately 405 ha of wetlands and open fields are now shopping co TA. A centers and freeway. Destruction of riparian growth along Issaquah Creek,within 10 N m of the colony, restricts foraging habitat near the colony to the state park.c, c y a I made no attempt to observe the colony at Maury Island, accessible only by boat. The island was logged extensively in 1981,and no nests were observed there during F. 0 o. o°o the aerial survey of 1983. 0 o. 47 The Peasley Canyon colony lies on a ridge, owned partly by a developer, above o? o 0-o o a receding marsh at the junctions of state highways 18 and 167. A shopping center O c o „ o 0 0 0 b that would cover a portion of the fields and wetlands adjacent to the colony has been a ¢ c n' c c c 3 proposed. o — o .. ., o ... OO .. o c° t 11 U.. Z tLL " t UA 'MO313 '0UgU c rn Di12 - o¢rn.c- rn.x Snohomish County0u77-0 u Y-0 7 u u 7 u a A 0 0 a S C a O A A OA CC[Dc) c)trrDDCC003000 on x3 oo 000 I C4 NN 1 _'- 00 I I 'D co OooO NNN •1 M,000,D a q 13. Lake Sammamish tg In c" rn I I I I IZ I I `n I I IN 1n 12x OC L\ 6 i l l l ^ I d I ° I I I 10a \\ 0 x9 C zO P Z o co I I ° IM I0O I I I I I os 3 li x11 2 a co 00 I N I N I I I Iva I 3 c o 0 U d rn . _ccoo coo coo m coo co E °c King County a C -o 7 sD iD^D sD sD sD sD sD A q oo oomi 0000coc000 a Maury Island Y E o - °mrnrnrnrn rnrnrnrn°rnrn d - L c E y F- j NI-N-MT MTr.--.+N ? Q as gay 5 c N I c .Y hum r A r 8 xl 0 Is 0 U 7v 8E o N 0 E E 0 v<` o Pierce County Iv c > d-o x y pi 6' 6 y A0, a ,. a a. . C. N m m C 0 O .,.2G. 45 Ed F. C-6 q q Cn 7 d d g te C .p d 7 C7 9 N L Q 01 Q a a A 2 tx a cc 0 v d3 dD 6 a' Z. O, N OSi C Y a E TY - 7 7 Y .o."a C d g tel Y a ,- E c o a a ° ° T It °Z= Figure 1.Locations of Great Blue Heron colonies in King County,Washington. 1,Blackr c A '_i 2'm A a U E Cl.° A to o o > o o Diamond;2, Black River;3,Crystal Lake;4, Discovery Park;5,Dumas Bay County a) 9 o Y o o A d 2`N c o t 3 o A q q q Park;6,Lake Sammamish County Park;7,Maury Island;8,Peasley Canyon;9,Phan- A A A y m g d r n 2 $ A o o 6 o o tom Lake; 10,Pigeon Point; 11, Seahurst County Park; 12, Weowna County Park; I-. J CO m U es 0,..t a a a uo 3>- 13, Yarrow Bay. Squares, active colonies, crosses, abandoned colonies. 38 9 P 11 NOTES At Phantom Lake, herons originally nested near a boat-launching area, accordingtolong-time lake residents. In 1985 they moved to an approximately 2-ha stand of NORTHERN WATEIDouglasfir, where they nested again in 1986. Cutting of cattails in the herons'feedingarea, harassment by crows,and high winds are probable causes of abandonment in 1987. OREGON Located high on a bluff above the industrialized Duwamish Waterway,the Pigeon Pointcolonyencompassed16nestsin1986butwasdesertedin1987 (Stephen Penland pers. ALAN CONT Oregon, Bureaucomm.),possibly as a result of bulldozing too near the colony or frequent blasting for a University of Oregon, Eugene.tunnel within 1 km of it. Seventy-six residences and improved access roads are being builtwithin100moftherookery, in contravention of the Washington Department of Wildlife'srecommendationofaminimumbufferof200mbetweendevelopmentandheroncolonies. Northern Waterthrushes (Sei I saw no evidence of a heron colony when I investigated the site at Seahurst County bred in the central Cascade RaParkon1March1986. Bluffs once well vegetated with Douglas firs and cottonwoods the first location was discusseswerebare, and new homes had been placed nearby. The parking lot has been enlarged Figure 1). This note discusses since 1981, increasing human use of the beach. The Northern Waterthrush is I noted no heron nests at Weowna County Park in May 1986. A large new housing in southern British Columbia (' development had been placed at the southeastern border of the park. In 1987 cutting eastern Washington (Mattocksoftrailsthroughtheparkresultedinthelossofmanytrees, further diminishing the checklist of the birds of Washin possibility of the herons' return. Since this colony is only about 1 km from the Lake 7.1-24). Weber found at least Sammamish colony the herons at Weowna County Park may have moved to Lake tributaries near Tonasket in nor Sammamish. The Yarrow Bay rookery consists of six nests in a single Black Cottonwood in anapproximately25-ha wetland owned by the city of Kirkland.A condominium lies only50meastofthecolony. Lane County In King CountyGreat Blue Herons fledge between 15 and 30 June.All appear to winterlocally, though they disperse from the colonies between late August and October. Some Gold Lake may go to Padilla Bay, Skagit County, where I counted 270 at low tide on 16 August1986. Some of these undoubtedly came from the two large colonies in Skagit County,ontheSwinomishChannel, south of March Point and east of Anacortes (80 nests in 1987),and on Samish Island, northeast of Anacortes (340 nests in 1987, Toby Michelena pers. Salt Creekcomm.). itClearly, further monitoring of Great Blue Heron colonies in Washington state is inorder. At present,species of"special concern"receive a minimum of Odell Laic( process of environmental impact review Ex attention during on o from King Countybecomesmoreprobablewithcontinuedrapiddevelopmetntotehron only of King CountybutoftheentirePugetSoundregion. Summit Lake t'I thank Stephen Penland, Kelly McAllister, Bob Zeigler, and Susan Tank, Washington Cres Department of Wildlife, and Jim Likes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for their Lake encouragement and advice, Greg Butcher, Jim Lowe, and Helen Pratt for sharing theirdata, my husband Tom Murphy for his interest and assistance, and Dennis Paulson Ore and Philip Unitt for their help with the manuscript. Douglas County Little LITERATURE CITED Jewett,S.G.,Taylor,W. P.,Shaw, W.T.,and Aldrich,J.W. 1953.Birds of WashingtonState. Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle Northern Waterthru Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986.Habitat and wetlands protection.Issue paper.Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle. Possible Watc rthrur Shipe, S.J., and Scott,W. W. 1981. Great Blue Heron in King County, Washington.Washington Game Department Non-game Program, Olympia. Tate, J., Jr., and Tate, D. J. 1981. The Blue List for 1982. Am. Birds 36:126-135. Accepted 5 March 1988 40 Figure 1. Northern Waterthrush su Western Birds 19:41-42, 1988 i W..vrrs K BRADSHAW•DISTURBANCE AND GREAT Bit I I It•RON C:OLONIt's The Influence of Human Disturbance on the Location of Great Blue +Ile,.,(uS(s);otherwise,this might have resulted and 4703 nl.'knr fur colony sites and ran-nnv iw•sots Iw•ing obviously unsuitable tier a r par- dons points, respectively, Mann-Whitney UHeronColoniesintheLowerChesapeakeBay o investigate the influence of proximity to man- test statistic=1171,P<0.05;secondary roads I 1 f) BRYAN D.WATTS AND DANA S.BRADSHAW' de.nitctures,we took measurements of disturbance =2034 and 3658 m/kmr,U=947,P<0.(I(1 I; 1.) eouvtrrs within concentric rings tin wing outward buildings=2.9 and 11.3 N/kill',U=831,P< anit(fur(e usrrvatiou Biology(blit ge of William&Marv, Ioot and random location'.Distance categories 0.001).Within colony plots,the ratio of sec- a Williamsburg.VA,USA.23185 4 included:I)-2(1)in.201-40N)m,4111-81N)in.and I MOO in.Variables quantified included:number of ondary to unimproved roads was significant-Virginia Department of Game&Inland Fisheries,Box I I II)4, ldu'ts.length of union c roadwa ys,d ti length of ly lower(G=5.76, <0.05) than in random 1i Richmond,VA,USA.23230 Ive et g 1' 4.od.uv rwdVa s,and length of primary roadways. plots. I Abstract.—We examined the influence of man-made structures on the distribution of Great Blue Heron(Ards `'I'I"K'were counted directly and roadway lengths In addition to a lower overall density of h,•;,.ai•u)cuIonies in the hisser I liesapeake Bay,Virginia,USA.Colony sites were situated farther from maul-made ""'I"amilir<I using al electnanagnrti•digitising tab- N,•.dtsay(thee.h,Bow uses designau.•Its. structures,colony and random plots diffi•red su urunrs and in areas where the density of'slnurnitC was lower when compared with randomly located sites un the 1D,,,,111)11 were quantified duet II) from wpo- in the spatial arrangement of elan-made oastal plain.The spatial pattern of structures around colony sites relative to random sites suggests that the area of yii)1L maps.Ildai,s varied with respect to date of last re- structures within 1.6 km (Figure I).For col- i t ue•nce was restricted to 4n11-8(NI in.Area of influence was found to vary according to structure type.Rernerd I +, n coon 19(iri w 1!Iri9. However,the majorit had On sites,density ImIIYye ,increased significantly with f,1 ;1 noel I"9t,wiepted IS/uh 199.I. Iwt revised after 19H0. T,check for systematic KeyWords.—Arden hmxlins,Chesapeake Bay Hcolonydistributions,Great Blue eron,human disturbance. vn;•.iu disuobance tariables,over one half of used distance fin all three structure types Kruskal-Wallis H > 121.0, P< 0.001 for all t • Colonial Waterbirds 17(2):I44-186,1994 '" loin sites wrrr compared to aerial phumgraphs Iit1989.Very few land-use changes%VIC noted types). The same pattern was not detected 1100 fit of either random or colony sites and no within random plots(H< 1300,P>0.05 for 1 • n.,nal bias was evident. 5 real!lisle Herons(A/flea herodias)breed tures (i.e., roadways, buildings) mat y,,,1 kngdl:old building density d:ua were highly all types). across the entire North American continent influence the distribution of colony sites m ,,,low calory and tamp). uses wrrr neither 1 in a great variety of plivsiographic settings mains poorly understood. The purpose of ,,,..,•tte•,oue nor honoscedastic. BC•c: of these DISCUSSION Palmer 1962).As with most species,nesting this investigation was to: (1) determine the ••'I''•s.Mann-Whitney 1,two-sample leas were used areas represent an integral component of nature of the relationship between mats ,,:i.ol(Lltttw. lrlittt, formrdetvhultandomspi ants. Nesting Great Blue Herons in the lower breeding and the lack of acceptable sites may made structures and the distribution of cob ,,, sndntiutl acctlrllptions for parametric test,(disc Chesapeake Bay seem to avoid human dis limit 1>0>_ulation numbers. H1>itat•c11ar Lc- ny sites,and(2)determine the spatial extent ",,.,,,buildings were log,,,transformed,distances to turbancr. Ccicny sites were situated farther trrTsucs Tai influence Ihr location of breed- of this relationship. 1•••trd roadways were um:ire-rout transformed) from man-made structures and its areas 1 Awed using a one-way AN()VA.where the density of structures was loweringcoloniesarethereforeofinteresttoland. managers. Straw Srrr.AND Ml'.rn(ros than generally found (i.e., random points) Researchers investigating the determi_RESULTS on the cuasl,d plain.These findings empha- size the remote nature of most Great Blue irantsofcolonylocationhavefocusedprima- hhe sooty wa cunfiurd w the n)astal plain of\51RIa I scat Blue Heron colony sites and rats- Heron colon sites and support revious i; I 1 lilt on the structure of nesting foragsubsting ales and is USA from the Atlantic(kran west to the edge I tIr y,;,points (differed in location relative to contentions that human disturbance previous a ma- jtheavailabilityofpotentialforagingsitespiedmontandfromtheVirginiabankofer the Pnmtaa r.made Structures(Table 1).On average, determinant of colony locatione.g.,Vermeer 1969,Gray el al. 1980,Gibbs el Rhrt ww1111 u,the North Carolina border.The arras ( jor Miller al. 1987).Whereas these habitat parameters eludes approximately 16,41N) km`of land drained t sites were distributed farther from all 1944, Hemn and Kurtz 1978, Gibbs el al. f are clearly essential for breeding, some re- hour nl?lot-rivers and nitmerous large tributaries r(, +,•• 'b.nue Sources. In addition, the mini- 1987). The data also suggest that adequate I searchers have suggested that isolation from land areas remain pnlnardy forested but have largef r U Ct)iutd distances to man-made struc- "buffer zones" are required to maintain 1nrdutalexpansesandexpandingurbaninnnrlres „ ere two to three times greater for Great Blue Heron populations in hutnan-disturbance may play the dominant Pole in within the region,Great Blue Herons nest primanh• the selection of breeding sites within man- forested wetlands and mature pine stands(primanh h I cites compared with random loca- dominated estuaries. dominated landscapes (Miller 1944, Short nos stela)near water(Watts,pers.ohs.).In addition to differences in the density I ! f Snotvs of(:real Blue Heron colony sues wrrr ow I he(te'currence of elan-made structures of man-made structures,colony and random 1 % and(:caper 1985). iislands In coastal Maine,occupy ( lusted lion fixed-wing aircraft((rscna 172)dunnktw :1 I.6 kin was also different between ran- plots differed in their spatial ar'auge ulrnl aslionofcoastalislandsbyGreatBlue a li'oi s Inreding season.Snsll suveytr have tabueen sonducrd * and colony sites.Colonysites had signif- well.In contrast to random plots,the densitywasbetterexplainedbythedistancefromfiliallysince1977tomonitorpopulationtrends (Ilefs towns (Males by proximity to feeding areas smchlucusedon53coloniesknowntobeactiveinlYN `loser densities than random sites of structures within colony plots was not uni- Gibbs el offs 1987).Tocompare with active colonysites,wechose ea. • m length of unimproved roads = 3952 form but instead increased with distance loin locations within the study area.Random site tees IHumanactivitywithinornearactive1initiallychosenona1:250,000 scale topographic mg Great Blue Heron colonies has been associ- the study area by overlaying a transparent, 101ttn to I Distances be Ns'een Great Blue Heron colonies/randomly selected points and the nearest unimproved road, ated with low productivity and site abandon- grid (0.284 intersections/km') and choosing modals '("`road,ancitiNutiding.F-ratios presented result from one-way ANOVA. MOD (Blol'kl1lll(1 1975.Simpson el al. 1987, coordinates without replacement. Plotted points tow 1 it then transferred unw 7.7.min topographic maps Y Colony' Random' N'crschkul et al. 197(i). However, as with F-ratio p 1c:ulse uo spatial cunsuaints were used,random 6• Illatly waders, lresponse l>(hstttrball('E'. is 117- r 53)pbuns were assumed to provide an imbued flue'ncrd by stage of breeding and distance representation u1'the disturbance par:tneu•rs hoe Vas el al. 1985,Erwin 1989).How the occur- itously,no random points tell within Ends designates(a t. rence or establishment of man-made strut- high de y urban areas by the United States Grohs. ,,,., i 1> fiHl t 52.3 408 t 65.4 7.71 o.ol t •. 700 t 49.b 465±50.7 10.98 0.01 78H 2 68.7 4611 56.2 20.84 0.011 184 1 l 1 SI'.given. 186 k)LoN 1A1.WA I F:RR1Rn5 UNIMPROVED ROADS ea of influence"are also suggested by the die Interspecific Kleptoparasitism by a Fork-Tailed Storm-PetrelE1200 - tance data (Table 1 It is likelythat these E 7000 - <0001 Renaem discrepancies reflect different levels of"aftll Oceanodroma furcata) I L am • NS al"human activity associated with the differ l 1'" 8 eoo NS ant structures (i.e.,human use is higher or K.H.MORGAN' i o secondary roads compared to unimprovet f400 - CanadianDelia, ritishService,t roads). It should he noted that the finding ( f O.Box 340,Delta,British Col bias5200ofthisstudyarerestrictedtocolonydistrihu maada,V4K 3Y311olionpatternsastheyrelatetoman-made 10-200 2e1400 401400 got teoo structures.Further study is needed to invrsti Abstract.-1 describe the first record of kleptoparacitism between a Fork-tailed Storm-petrel(OrranodromaJurra- J Dr•t (ma) gate the links between actual disntrhan(f J011 a Leach's swim-pen-et(O.burarlunr).condonedwerenrnducd in the Gulf of Alaska.Received 8 fitter and these structures and the direct influenn "•'r"../11"1'fh.1"n,I yew. key words.—Fork-tailed Stoma-petrel;Gulf of Alaska;Hydrobaiidat•;Kleptoparasitism;Leach's Storm-petrel;SECONDARY ROADS of disturbance on the distribution of colt) 1200 _..—----------- - r„rhnrna/urr alrr;Orrnnrnlrnma lnrrarluxr. a E 1 NS • Ceeenr rimless E woo 0001 Rena. Colonial Wan:thuds 17(2):I87-I88,1994 J 2' e00 I <001 001 A(;KNe)w1.F.n(:MEN'rs 2 lccording to Furness (1987:77) "Klepto- above the water,the Fork-tailed Stornl;petrelxe0oM.A.Byrd and R.A.Beck provided colony locamxn to the Virginia Dt•)arunent of Game and Inland Fishn :.n.,Mtsm is the deliberate stealingbyone would dive rapidly(at an oblique angle),un- S 400 A° I rQies.Rob under,R.M.Erwin,and(lilt anonymous re or. tot,Iil of food which has already been cap- ail it was within a few cm of the Leach's head.200 er made helpful comments on an earlier Bran ur Ihr -,, r d by another."Kleptoparasitism,also re- At that point,the'attacker'rapidly ascendeds0VmannaroptsDartcollectionandmanagementwapnrn,•ti to as eitherparasitism or piracy, is a in preparation for the next dive.This behav-o-zoo 201-400 401-800 eol-le0o limited by Ellen Mclean.This project was supported b p y, p proundsfrontlilt.Virginia F:m'ircrnm(ntal EndoN7ltenl. maim)foraging method employed nu- for was repeated four or five times,until theolet•nce (m) by cr Ills temper:ue North Pacific seabirds,in- 'victim'dropped the fish and flew away.TheBUILDINGSLnr.RAn RF OM) roil r skuas Calhararla pp.), jaegers Fork-tailed Storm-petrel immediatelyi20 --- -- caenr ltjorkl I,R.G. 1!175.On the death of a midwestret )l:•rararil(.)sl)p.),and gulls(Laws spp.), grasped the fish, and fled t oln the agRandomheronry.Wilson Bulletin 87:284-287 White conducting a seabird survey across proaching vessel. I could not detrrtnine if2•c0.001 Erwin.R. M. 1989. Responses to h an int-uden b f kI: 0.01 00t Ns birds nesting in colonies:exp•rimemal results an ulf ul'Alaska,I witnessed an act(If keep the fish was swallowed,or was nll-I -1 held in 1ato _ management guidelines. Colonial Nacrbird, It -'p.aasitism between aFork-tailed Storm-pe- tin hill. E. In1-ION. 1 (Orea)anlroma furcate') and a Leach's There are at least two unpublishedGibes,I. P.., S. w(re(hv.ud, NI. L. I'Miter, and A.1 r nor)curl O. leurorh(xe . To my know'- records of intraspecific parasitism by stormmI'ua hinson.1987.Deter ants of Great Blue Il I I ( o ono 'limy distribution in coastal M:' •.Auk Int, ,t'.this represents the first published oh- petrels. I..Spear and I). Ainley observed pi-s 0-200 201-400 door-eoo 001-1800 17. en Ilion of parasitise)by a species of storm- racy between two Markham's Storm-petrelsl..on,Pt A.,J.W.(:Tier,G.D.Hamilton,and I).I'.Fa wank. 1980.(:,'tat Blue Ileum col a ill note'O. markhami) off Peru, and between two western Ontario.Canadian Field-Naturalist!n:iC .11 23:0)PST,on 17 July 1993,the Cana- l.each's Storm-petrels off California (I..I84. u llydro'ra)hie Service vessel the/./'.Tul- Spear, pers. comm.). The above described Figure 1.Average density of man-made structures mov- I Icon)•,(:.).:mdJ.E.Knott.I!17N.(:oral Blue I Icnan rr h I ing outward from colony and random local' Areas snood to nesting habitat loss.Wildlife Stalely Bulk 1 t'.ts ;lppr'u%Imalely 20 km southeast of interaction between !'i il k-Called and L,ttaC'll'swerenon-overlapping and include the space confined 1l•rtt Sealnount (at 54 27'42"N, storm-petrels is, however, noteworthy; it a Iiilli::i:r-47. y p- within c 'entric rings defined by the paired radii:0- Miller,R.F. 1944.The Great Blue herons—The Inert ,. q 5.)1"200 m,201-400 m,401-800 m,and 801-1600 m(distance I a 41')in the central Gulf of Alaska.I pears to be the first record of interspecilicingbirdsofthePhiladelphiaregion(fart II).(avavaluesreflecttheouterlimitforeacharea).Significance conducting seabird surveys from the kleptoparasi(ism between storm-petrels.i:r:i:i:l-2:i. g values indicate results of Mann-Whitney U two-sample Palmer.K.S.1962.Ilandbookof North American Rio! -I's flying bridge, approximately15 m During springtestscomparingcorrespondingareasforcolonyandNew {raven, Connecticut, USA: Yale Unisrnv b f and fall migration, seleheavi- random sites.Nile the sea surface. Viewing conditions species of stone-petrel are themselvesI' laII rue ideal: winds were <5 km-h', the swell parasitized byParasitic Slerrorarius parasit-Shurt,II.and R.Cooper.1985.Habitat suitabilio inelr. ly p• away from the colony.Moving outward from models: l (el Washingtoue n UC11n.USA' SFWS, Biol. Rep.t .as only slight(I.0-1.5 in)and the light level zeus)and Lung-tailed(.S.longiraudus)jaegers the corona location, the density of all sn tic- 5,,,,(1011.K. W.sh nAl.g on DCmith,:mall P.Krls:dl.19N7 t.. ; all.•1s I se tined the sea surface with 10 x (K. Morgan, pers. ohs.). This has been oh- un . types eventually appruat•hed or sue- coitus :end consequences of coloniality in (:era '''° u hint/Caws,oh tis, my attention was cap- served elsewhere;in the eastern tropical Pa- passed estimates of background" levels Blue I loons.Canadian n Journal ofZoology 61:572 ''•I by a Fork-tailed Storm-petrel that was cific, 28 of 110 acts of piracy by Parasitic ordeterminedfromrandomplots). IJowtver, 577.1.nsing a Leach's Storm-petrel on the wa- Long-tailed "at.refs, involved five •species oftermite.K 191i!e.Great Bill I loom l 1(111rs in Alterruthedistanceatwhichvalueswerestatisticallyel:madi:ut Field-Natuealist 83:237-242_ proximately 70 no away. seam-petrels(Spear and Ainley 1993).indistinguishable from "background" levels vos, it., R. Ryder, and W. Grata. 1985. Response., the leach's Storm-petrel had a small Both storm-petrel species are regularly'breeding Great Blue Herons to humane distill n I.:I--I cm in length,grasped diagonally in encountered off the British Columbia coast• varied between structure types. From These patterns, it appeals that btlihdjllgs h:n't• (he in,tenth central Culora(lu.Colonial Walerbirds(I I I l,},,, bll. From approximately 1.0 to 1.5 in over the continental shelf,as well as farthersllun/i•sl inllll<•Ilcc, fi)llotwl•tl by sefolulaly )1'enrhkul,D.F.,E.MacM1lahon.and M.la•itschul,I!tl roads, linen unimproved roads. Differences Some effects of Ium)an activities on the Great Bla benvel'll structure types in terms of their"ar- Heron in Oregon.Wilson Bulletin88:fi(i(FIifi2, 187 lI li N2. Patterns ofdu Colony Effects on Fledging Success of Great Blue Heronstt _____ reproductive and fotulBurgbirds. Pages 118-234 ri, Ardea herodias) in British Columbia the littoral and pelagic sysI. V. Shireman, Ed.).,..n a Water Management Dh ROBERT W. Bl TLER , PHILIP E. WHITEHEAD,ANDRE M. BREAULT.kND LkN E. Moot. a ida. he feeding ecology of five Pacific\Wildlife Research Centre.Canadian Wildlife Service north-central Florida 5421 Robertson Road.RRI.Delta.B.C.\'4K 3N2.Canada tv of Florida,Gainesville, n. Internet:BUTLERR:CWS\'AN.DOTS.DOE.CA Iparison of wading bird nei Abstract.-We present 6 years of data on the distribution and fledging success of 4.510 Great Blue Heron nests 11-1946 and 1974-1989) of c,dunies on the Pacific Coast of British Columbia.Herons nested as solitary pairs and in colonies of up to 387 In conditions in the sou i70 in Everglades: tlre .Itt'•Almost half of all herons nested in just three colonies.An average of 1.7 young herons fledged per nesting n IS.in Everglades: vis a es: The eoo t1'tt4'I The probability of a pair failing to raise fledged young was over 2.5 times greater in small colonies than Delray Beach.Florida ae- •1 I1O1t'.. However,the probabilityof a nest having>3 fledglings was over i`_'times greater in a small colony. m. 1979.On the theory of h.w in,t large one.Fledging success vv~as significantly and positively correlated with the number of years a colony Iges 155-177 in Analysis of eeta, ' li.Id been in use.Colony size was not a significant correlate of the number of fledglings a pair of herons could expect orn,G.Stairs,and R.mitehei raise over the 6 years of this study.Received 14 February 1995,accepted 28.Uay/995. iversity'Press,Columbus,Ohio Key Y%ords• Great Blue Heron.Arden herodias,colony,fledging success.reproduction.British Columbia. 1.Harris. 1995.Vegetation map. Colonial Waterhirds l8(2):159-165. 1995 ction in the Lake Okeechobee hiv far Hydrobiologie Bel 4dogie45:17-39. The Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) is eral authors (Forbes et aL 1985, Simpson et S.a.S/ST.AT user's guide,ro , arolina. a ye.u'-round resident of the coast of British al. 1987, Butler 1989). However, these stud- trtxluctiv'e and foraginget•,o. (:olulnbia with the highest densities in the ies overestimated fledging success because Is ((aconiiformes) at Uhl Strait of Georgia (Butler 1995).About 1,500 they used data only from successful nesting Ph. i dissertation, Cnivend7q pairs of Great Blue Herons nest around the attempts (Butler 1992). Florida. it. ability of nesting * strait of Georgia on the southwest coast of In this paper,we describe distribution of tee•Okeechobee,Florid& British Columbia (Butler 1995). Herons on colonies and continuity of colony-sites, and 3; Il 995. Colony turn , the British Columbia coast move between compare Fledging success between colonies roductivity.and causes of color-sites within and between years (Simp- of Great Blue Herons during 1987-1992 in birds(Ciconiiformes)at Lake .on 1984). Bald Eagles (Haliaetus leucoceph- the Strait of Georgia. British Columbia. I. Archly fur Hvdrobiologie r Limnologie 45:287-316. dull are major predators on heron chicks son and M. W.Collopy. 1995, and adults and cause colonies to abandon STUDY ARE\.\VU\IETiI(>Dti ection among wading birth sites .Norman et al. 1989, Butler 1995). Bald e Okeechobee,Florida,in re- of vegetative cover..srchiv fur Eagle populations in the Strait of Georgia in- The Strait of Georgia is a 150 km long body of water n Ergebnisse der Limnologie creased by about 30% between the mid that separates Vancouver Island from mainland British 1. 19711s and mid 1980s (Vermeer et al. 1989). (-olttmhia. Its mostly rocky coastline is crossed by six croft and D.J.Forrester.1993,large rivers and shallow beaches where herons forage at rttstrong lidosis in wading Reproductive studies of herons in the high densities.The land is forested by secondary succes- in Florida.Journal of Wildlife Strait of Georgia have been reported by sev- sional deciduous forests dominated by red alder(.Anus i ith and D.J. Forrester. 1994. Table 1.Frequency distribution of maximum number of breeding pairs of'herons counted in 31 colonies between ual infections ofLustrangylida 1987-92 in the Strait of Georgia. 1 • wilt and survival of nestling i- 3'28-;336. Colonies Pairs Feeding areas of Great Blue refs nesting within the flood. Number of pairs N N c issippi River.Colonial Water. I.1u 7 22.6 39 2.6 Hunt.Jr. 1985.The adaptive ll _ 6 19.4 93 6.3 lily in birds.Pages 1-78 inAvi. Farner.J. R. King,and K.C..1" '" 4 12.9 100 6.8 tc Press.New York. 1.{" 4 12.9 134 9.1 1 ig bird utilization of Lake 11-iu 12.9 170 11.5 i 1977-1981.South Florida Way it-I'm 3 9.7 228 15.4 1 i ct Technical Publication 84-9. ,I it' 3 9.7 715 48.3 t Iota! 31 100.0 1.479 100.0 159 t: j r,t ''• T. 160 COLONI.-U.VVATERBIRDS 9P$6 t T N i BRITISH 23 COlUMB1A d' 22 stag r ara 16 4-6 31 0 7 D 92-15 L Co 00, 91a 28 ' VANCOUVER 18-20 30 0SISLANDl1 Fraser I c179i ls 11 er 21 2 24 27 no• 25 3 2@/ // Heron Colony 290 1(1:0 0 20 40 kmr!! !!!Q5T6/Ni qWASHINGTONSTATE Figure 1.Distribution of Great Blue Heron colonies around the Strait of Georgia in which reproductive data Inacollectedbetween1987and1992.The numbers correspond to the colonies shown in Table 2. rubra) and by climax coniferous forests dominated by n,Lt... e considered a nest occupied (i.e..a nestingaDouglasfir(Pseudotsuga menciesii)and western hemlock tempt) if it had fecal matter and heron eggshells cTsugaheirrophslfo). Most herons build their nests in chicks on the ground below the nest,or there were 1-these tree species (Butler 19891. The oceanography, adults on the nest on 2 or more visits.We used the nunpreyavailability.ecology and distribution of waterbirds. her of fledglings counted per nesting attempt to est.including herons, in the Strait of Georgia is described mate the fledging success in each colony.The principobyVermeerandButler(1989). foraging sites of 18 colonies were determined by mapWevisitednestingcoloniesofGreatBlueHeronsbe- ping the major flight directions. nyeen March and July from 1987-92 to record the num- ber of nesting pairs of adults and the number of chicks raised in 4.510 nests.Visits coincided with the time of RESULTS year that most herons returned to nests (March).incu- bated eggs (April and May), and raised chicks (mid- Herons nested as solitary pairs and in mi.June to mid July) (Butler 199414n the 6 yr period onies of up to 387 pairs (Table 1).Three colthisstudy,we recorded the Fled n s 1 ot qP of nests in colonies vvitll 520 pairs, c o nests in colonies onies accounted for nearly half of all nesting—nests with 21400 nests and 30 c of nests in colonies with>100 pairs (Table 1). The largest colonies welt HERON COLONY-SIZE AND FLEDGING SUCCESS IliI able 2.Mean colony fledging success of Great Blue Herons in 31 colonies 1987-92.Fledging success is defined as e ra,mtber of fledged chicks that departed from all nesting attempts(see Methods for details). Numbers corre- th locations shown in Fig. 1. Minimum number Mean of years in use fledging success Range Beacon Hill 3 1.4 o-1.7 owichan Lake 2.5 2.1>:;.11 rotton 3 1.8 0.7-1.9 Denman-Allen A 2 0.4 4N1.8 Denman-Allen B 2 1.4 0-2.8 Denman-Allen C 2 0.9 11.3-2.0 Denman-Brewer 3 1.9 1.3-2.1 Denman-Elliott 2 0.7 0.4.1.0 Fanny Bay 1 0.5 Hammond Bay 4 1.9 0-2.3 Holden Lake 5 2.0 1.4-3.0 Hornby-Centre 1 2.4 Hornby-Lazare 3 2.2 0-3.1 Hornby-Paris 9 1.6 0.6-2.6 Hornby-Wiseman 3 1.7 0.3-2.8 Little River 4 2.6 2.3-3.9 Nicomekl River 3 2.2 2.1-3.2 Parksille-Acacia 2 4.0 0-4.0 Parksille-Gravel 2 1.3 0-2.6 Park.sville-Northwest Bay 3.0 2.4-3.3 Point Roberts 5 2.1 1.9-2.3 Powell River-Gibsons Beach 2 0.8 0-1.6 Powell River 1 0 1. Quamichan Lake 4 2.1 0-2.8 Sahtlam Creek 2 1.3 1.0-1.5 Sidney Island 4 0.8 0-1.8 outhey Point I 1.0 tnley Park 4 2.7 1.9-3.5 Ilicum 4 1.5 0-2.0 aiyersity of BC 5 2.0 1.5-2.9 I. Union Bay 1 1.0 1.7 and mean SE=0.2) 0-4.0 lustered in the southern portion of Georgia Colonies with declining fledging success strait (Fig. 1). A sample of 18 colonies were were eventually abandoned. The average ncated an average of 2.9 km (SE=0.6) from number of fledged young in 17 colonies that heir principal foraging sites. eventually were abandoned, declined from Colonies that had been used for several 1.9 (SE=0.3) fledglings per nest attempt 2 vrs ears had significantly greater fledging suc- prior to abandonment to 0.9 (SE=0.3) fledg- ess than colonies that had been used for few lings per nest attempt 1 yr prior to abandon- ears.The mean fledging success per nesting inept. Twelve colonies (14.1%. N=85 attempt in 31 colonies was 1.7 fledglings colonies) totalling 239 nests (5.3%, N=4,510 SE=0.2,Table 2).The colonies with average nests) were abandoned before raising fledg- j ledging success below the mean were occu- lings over the 6 years of this study.The aver- ied for an average of 2.2 vrs (SD=1.1, N=16 age number of nesting pairs in the 12 olonies) whereas colonies with an average abandoned colonies was 19.9 (SE=3.7)with a ledging success above the mean were occu- range of 1-44 pairs. pied for at least 3.3 vrs (SD=1.2. N=15 colo- The dynamic nature of heron colonies lies: one-tailed t,,,=2.5, P<0.01). was exemplified by the percentage change in 1 ,I 162 COI e)NI.\I.\\'.\I FKItIRt)s I IFl0)N(:( I. SIZI•.ANI)FI.EixaNti SI!MINS 103 Table 3. Percentage change in number of nesting pairs in 26 Great Blue Heron colonies used>1 yr between 1987- t Table 3. (Continued)Percentage change in number of nesting pairs in 26 Great Blue Heron colonies used>1 yr92. between 1987-92. Go( • War No.nesting pails Percent change Colony Year No.nesting pairs Pert(Ili change Beat ort Hill 1988 6-1 Point Robe'Is 1987 18319895511.1 1988 335 83.11991127509I 1989 256 23.6Cowieban19891199(1 150 3Ii.7 11191)1 0.0 I991 387 Ill.li roll,ett 1990 32 Powell River•(:ib• 1111NI 38 19II 47 16.9 i991 I:t 65.8 1992 61 29.8 t Heitman- then A x ihtantie kin l;tke 11989990 2328 I Jl1 1991) I 81111 1991 28 0.11Denman-All,•u It 1989 la 1992 I9 t!I.:S 1990 Ix e211.11 Sibilant(:eeei, 1989 f Denman-.\llen( 1989 I 1990 1 511,11 1991) 3 25.11 fines.Island 1987 103 1991 11 36:.7 i 1! ix NI 3.Denman Denman-Brewer 1!1x9 21 J 19x9 4 t 55.li 1990 25 1.'1 1990 lIt 63.6 i 1!91 22 12.11 VanI,- ('ark 1987 31 Denman-Fllion 1989 15 i 1989 30 3.2 1 1990 18 211.11 j 1991) all 11.1) Hammond It.n 1988 2.1 I 1992 32 6.7 1989 11i aa.:t Idlkw° 1989 1-1 19 911 21 31.3 1990 • 2I 432,:S 19I1 IS 28.6 11911 21 I•1.3 I Ioldcn I.ake•19$8 MO1!M12 I i 29.2 1989 Ili2 Ii2.11 I I'R.1•' I!Ix7 Ilai1. 19901:12 18.43 19xx 143$I.ri 1991 1)1 5 S-x 111 I 1989 1992 112 83.ti 1991) I, I•I.lIIIIe4.1 Ilontbe.I-v.ne eI,Iri!I 7 I!rl l 112 111.7 1 199011 28.1: 1 111111 Io I 1.1 number of breeding pairs each year.The at•- Meanfledging success was not signili-Ilotnlu•I'.u,s 19x!1 15 rragt•annual net change ill die percentage canllycorrelated wills the•numle•rofne•sting11{ I!r.Nl 17 t Ia.a of breeding pairs was I9.09f, in I I colonies pairs (Pears(in Rank correlation, r:_.,=-0.113,Ilortiln-Wiseman 19811 Ix h•nceen 1988 and 1989,3.2%in 25 colonies P=0.6),•although most large broods (>31990950.0 between 1989 and 1990.and 13.0%in 24 col- fledglings) were found in small colonies19912618)4 91 I onies Irelween I99(1 aid I!19II.Our estimates (Fig. 2).-fie probability of a nest holding aI.iule•Rum 1989 22 include an unknown number of herons that brood of >3 fledglings was over 12 limes19902722.7 moved 10 colonies inside and outside our greater in colonies with<34 pairs (P=0.049)MI 28 3.7 b 1102 14 57 1 rllxllx area, and herons than died between than colonies with>_:i4 pairs(P=ll.11(14).Vari- Nir •kl Ricer 11I8ri x erars.Large changes in numbers of breeding ation in fledging success was negatively and 19911 1u 5.3 pairs were not confined to small col '•s. significantly'correlated with the cumber of 1992 34 The maximum change was 3hh.lie'/c,in a colt)- nesting pairs (Pearson Rank correlation, Palkscill.--Acacia Hum I I nt that grew from 3 to 14 pairs,but a colony r.,ei=-0.502,I'=0.006;Fig.2). 1910 I 0.0 with 183 pairs grew by 83.1% between 1987 Pal kaill,--(:ravel I!Ix9 9 and 1988 (Table 3).The median change in DIscusslON 19110 Io III.I the number of herons in colonies was 22.7% Several early breeding studies of theI'mksille-N\C It.i 1989 x Her the 6 years of the present study ("(able Great Blue !fermi use only data from nestst911))) II 37.5 b. that held fledglings (e.g., McAlone•y 1973, I Cohla,o 1981, English 1978, Forbes el al. i l 1'i A)LONI:\I.N':\rI:RI11Rns I IF KON(.o,a 1N\'-SIZI:AND FLEECING SI3C:ENS rIli,) INIt)ul:lllon has grown hJ':damn 2.3%per an_ Butler.K.W. 1995.The paticnu prt•clator:foraging and E nunl to 0.I t eyries per km l shoreline(Very population ecology Il the Great Blue heron(ArdenE4 heamb.1)in British Columbia.(:muli:ul Wildlife Scr-tu nlrer et al. I!IH9). II arts and eagles hf, have sire(h visional Paper No.NIi:1 14.been inlplicaie(1 in IIIli,.ab:u)donnl(•nt of her- (ol azo..J.A.1981.Some aspects of the breeding erob,- m tll IleSts all(d('olollieS(WerSchk111 el al. 11176, gy 111 the Great Blue IlerUtl al Ilrybltrn time I':u'k. NC Simpson et Ill. 19R7, Norman ('I al. 1!IR9), Northwest Sc ieuc,55:293--_97. ForIN•s.L.S.,K.Sinylsna J.1!Kelwll and I).K.Flook.y 3 _• •A•• IlIions abandone(t:t colony-site on Sidney I!I115.ReprtNlurlit, surf essof(:rea11tMut.11eolrlsinC Island ahee Bald•Eagles preyed (II) ('IIi('ks British' la hia. (:tl:Mi:ul -Journal of lNloiydWill1141113.O. A• •• and adults(Bullet' I!Nl i). English:S.M. 1978.Distribution and ecology of GreatNIT11hu'1lrron col •s to 1hr Will+uncue Riser,Ore- 2 •• ••• • ACKW lt%l.E1N:MENIS gtn1.Pages 235.244 in Wading Birds(A.Spruill IV,1. O1eden and S.Winkler, Eds.). Research ReportN •• •• •• No.7 of the National A11du1Nm Society.The aillholr thank'lerry Sullivan tier his enthusiastic McAhme•v,K. 1973.The breeding biology of the(:real i in help in the field.Moiia IA•nlun 1•nt,,,ii most of the data Blue II1'01111111 I'obarcn Island,Nota Scotia.(:111a1li-auI104ontl •r tiles,G.E.John Smith provided statisi- 481 Field-Naturalist 87:137-140. luck let•and I'am Whitehead prepared the tigules.Ni. Nurnl:ul.I).M.,A.M.lire:nth and I.1:-Motif 1989.RaidE1 -•A• A thank the private landowners Willi alhwed us to visit col- F.Iglc incrrsitlls and predation at(aeat Blue I lentilmiesniltheirland.This project was I led in pail by colonies.Colt final Naterbirds 12:I43-2:411. C die CNN Wildlife 111C1/'111tf,,,t'FIIII/I.Fred Cooke.(.II:11Ies Pratt.II.NI.and I)W.Winkler.1!)R5.Clutch site,fining C Homy and an anonymous Ia4i1et•Ii•virWcd the m: - 01 Ewing and 1epr00uc4ive success in a colons of fa sIill. teat Blue I Ieums:mil(areas Egrets.Auk 11)2:•9-fi3. Y•v•• I Simpson, K. 1l11i•1. Factors Alerting reproduction inI real Bile Ileums(,Infra hrmdias).M.S.thesis,Uni- 0 1.11 EN.tlt'Nf(:n Ft) versify of British(ol Ina..Vancouver, British(or1002003004001biBrosgt,(:. K..B. J.Si,,cldnuv and I'. D.Walsh. 1991. Simpson.K.,1.N.NI.Smith and].I'.Kclsdl. 1'947.(on'- Number of nesting pairs Noire ofcohmy site in birds.lre'ids inF.ctlltry(yalyd relates and cons•qucucts of coloniality in Grt•a1Evolution5:398-403. Blue Itertlts.(anal::ill Journal of iai louts•65:572-tk•r•R.N'. 1989. hording ertlogv and IN,puLuior, 577. pairs Y.Relationship between the mean number of fledglingsI per nesting alien-pi and number of breeding adultales. sends of the(arras Blue IIrian(Alden hrrcc!,,, Coeur:- WI mev1;K.and R.N'.fouler.I!IM9.The mains and ecol•pairs of Great Blue Herons in British Columbia,1987-92.Circles represent one colony,triangles equal Iwo colonies. nil in the Su'ait tf(aangia.British Colombia.Pages sky'oI urarirre and shoreline birds it, the Strait ofandsquaresequaltherecolonies. I IY-I 17 in'file sl: and ecologyu(marine oust (w•ur. gia British Columbia. Canadian Wildlife SI.r-shtu•linr bills in 111e Snail tf 1leol gaol,Itrifuh Co- vat r SIN•t tat I'ublicaion,OI1:nsa.Iumbia.(K.\reamer and R.N'.Built%Eds.,.(:aura):- ccrmecr, K., K. 11. Morgans,K.N'. Buller and(:. F. J.an I14%%W lc St'r sal pt•S11c1 i.l P11111i1 alitn,()n.n.a. Smith. I 11M!).I'opuliIIr1111,nesting habitat,and 11NNl19E61. I lowever,nesljng failure accounts for colonies might not represeul the fledging &n1er.R.W.11192.Coral Blue 114.84481.Pages I.20 nr flit• of Bald Eagles in the Gull Islands.Pages 123-I30aI:II-)le source OI v:ill Mon in fledging success success of(,I'Citl Bluer I lerotls within those birds of North America.NO.25(A.1'tmle,It Stencil- The .status and ecohno! of in: ' • and shorelinehelmandF.Gill,Eds.).Academy of Sciences,1'hila- birds in the Sirail tl Georgia,•British Columbia.tmbia.(K. III(rr(•:It Blue fief-tins.For l'X8111p11',the titan- colonies or a region. clelphia and American ()unit holtgists' l'uion• Vermeer and R.N'.Butler.Fads.).Canadian Wildlifelarderrorofmeanfledgingsuccess,valet,- Brown rl al. (1990) proposed that no col- Washington,D.C. Senile Special I'ublic:nituu.(biawa.kited using data from only nests with oily size is favored when reproductive costs &nlrr,R.W.1994.'laser of bleeding it,relation to food Wersrhkul.U.E.F:.Mc M:du NI and M.lA•its boil.I976.fledglings was half as great(SE=1) I,Forlx•s el and benefits arc equal between sites. Their availability of female Great Itlue Dennis (:lobs, Some ctfiels of hum:w activities on the Great Blueheradiasl.Auk I I II:1193-7(11. I lelau in(EI'rgolt.N'ils,n Bulletin 8II:060-662.ill. 1983) as when all nesting:turnip's were model requires that herons move Iwiween used (SF:=0,2,this sorb'). Pratt and Winkler colony-sites to improve their reproductjtt' 19851 calculated fledging success using all success. Individual herons Move l)elwe'11 nest alb ulp's in one colony. Their Ia year colon)-sits in British Colombia alive a nesl- study of one colony of:15 to fi2 nesting pairs ing failure (Simpson 1984). They move a, 1ofheronsin (::Ilifiirnia revealed a mean other colonies within and between years al- fledging success of Lob fledglings per nest- ter failing to raise young (Simpson 191(I. Mg auenipt. which is slightly greater than Simpson et al. 1987). our(estimate of I.4t)fledglings peer nesting at- The interchange of herons between colt. liIt'lllpi in ilIIcolonieswithinthesamesize v-sites in British Columbia might bea re- r I range. cent phenomena resulting from The present studs also shows that median disturbances by humans and Bald Eagles change ill the number of nesting pairs in col- (Simpson I984,Simpson et al. 1987,Norman onies anti fledging success was highly van- et al. 19149).Since 197.1. th('human popnl& able Iielween 'eats. Tht•rrfiwe, studies Zion around the Strait of Georgia grew In lasting a few v(•ars and including 'or a few about 5-6% per anntun and the Bald Eagle Carlson, B., and E. McLean. 1996. Buffer zone and disturbance types as predictors of fledging success in great blue heron, Ardea herodias. Colonial, Waterbirds 19(1):124-127. Vi LxL i n. L ‘-4.- ( C 6 it)s k.. Luffer Zones and Disturbance Types as Predictors of Fledging Tal• age Success in Great E e Herons, Ardea herodias He BECK1'.. GARLSO\t' AND E. BRUCE MCLEAN Lit Department of Biology 1 John Carroll University University Heights.Ohio 44118 USA 9 Internet: BACARLSONejcvaxa jcu.edu 2Current address: 15 The Links,Belmont,Durham City,DHI 2AG,UK 3. Abstract.—Nineteen nesting colonies of Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) were surveyed in northeast Ohio and western Pennsylvania. fledging success was correlated with the type of barrier forming a buffer zone around 4. each site.and the types of human disturbances experienced.fledging success was not related to colony size or to width of the buffer zone. Received 13June 1995,accepted 17 December 1995. Key words.—Ardea herodias,harrier type,buffer zone,fledgling count,Great Blue Heron.human disturbance. inland colonies,Ohio. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1): 124-127. 1996 6. t. In northeast Ohio and nearby Pennsvlva them. In addition, numerous beaver impoundments, nia, large numbers of Great Blue Herons ponds, and artificial reservoirs in this area contribute if extensive littoral foraging areas. Arden herodias) breed in inland colonies. We visited each heronry six to eight times through- 8. Studies of herons in this region have in- out each of the 1991 - 1993 breeding seasons (mid- volved foraging habits and breeding biology March to mid-July).We counted nests from the ground during incubation in late-March to mid-April: nests 9. in selected coastal, southwestern Lake Erie were considered active if occupied or attended by her- sites (Edford 1976, Hoffman 1978, Parris ons. and Grau 1979),and the monitoring of indi- We calculated the average number of large young 10. per nest.Counts were performed just prior to the dates vidual colonies (Chasar 1990, Burkholder when we observed young herons leaving the nests. At and Smith 1991). Management and protec- that time.mature nestlings could be viewed standing in 11. Their nests and on adjacent branches. Nestling survivaltionofthisspeciesrequiresagreaterunderdatareportedarebaseduponthethirdyearcountsonly. standing of the effective determinants of We included only occupied nests in our counts.White 12 colony- and nest-site selection and fledging most nests built in dead trees could easily be accounted success. In particular, the impact of human for,locating nests in dense canopies involved painstak- ing searches,listening for calls and watching for motion 13. disturbance and the mechanisms of colony through leaf cover. isolation should be addressed.We assessed the isolation of heronries(from human disturbance) in two ways. Buffer zone width was mea- 14 cured as the distance between perimeter nest trees and STUDY AREA AND METHODS the nearest source of human foot-traffic (visible foot- paths,hike trails,roads).Distances less than 200 meters We studied 19 Great Blue heronries in nine counties were measured directly in the field, while greater dis- 15. of northeast Ohio (OH) and two counties of western tances were estimated using topographic maps. Barrier Pennsylvania(PA),USA(Table 1).Colonies were locat- ed types were categorized as (0) none (foot-traffic evident by ground and aerial surveys,and with the assistance within the heronry perimeter),(1)land(woods.fields). 16. of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ohio Depart- (2) land and water (pond or lake edge). (3) water mentof Natural Resources,park districts in all counties. ( moat-like formation).and(4) fencing. and local guides. The extent of human intrusion was evaluated during 17. Colonies were scattered inland,away from the highlymultiple visits to each site,and through interviews with developed Like Erie shoreline. This pattern tillers local land owners. managers. and birders. We ranked from that of northwest Ohio, where extensive coastal heronry sites according to a subjective scaling of increas- I;t. marshes still support large aggregations of wading birds. ingh intrusive events: ((I) no disturbance (no hikers, Herons in our study area utilized a varier of colony paths.footprints,trampled vegetation or litter).(1) me- sites, including farm swoodlot (3), bracer impound- chanical disturbances(farm equipment.vehicle traffic. 19. i trains, low-flying aircraft) and (2) tiwt-traffic (hikers i menu (3), riparian zones (4), upland woods (:) and I swamps (4).All colonies were situated near stream%v_ terns and the potential foraging areas associated with and horseback riders). 124 GREAT BLUE HERON FLEDGING SUCCESS 125 Table 1.Great Blue Heronry Sites in Northeast Ohio and Western Pennsylvania,Showing 1993 Nest Counts,Aver- age Number of Young Fledged/Nest,and Buffer Zone Characteristics. Heronry Site and Location No.Active X±SD Buffer Zone Barrier Disturbance Lit. N/Lung.W Nests Fledged/Nest Width (in) Index Index • 1. ' ingfoot Lake Portage Co.,OH 1256382.06±0.ti6 1141°00'07"/81°56'36"1 2. Hardscrtbhle Medina Co.,OH 178 2.22±0.72 800 1 241°15 10"/81°56 36" 3. Walborn Reservoir Stark Co.,OH 23 2.13±0.54 225 1 1 i io 40°58'42781°10'5F id 4. Geauga Park Dist. to Geauga Co.,OH 185 2.28±0.78 300 2 1 41°30'24781°17'16" Ce 5. Vogel Farm Beaver Co.,PA 44 2.17±0.58 475 1 1 40°45'49780°13'36" 96 6. Pittsfield Lorain Co.,OH 74 2.54±0.71 550 3 1 41°15'34782°11'42" 7. Hinckley Res. ue Medina Co.,OH 26 150±0.63 0 0 3 41°12'33781°41'23" 4h- 8. Durkee Road id- Lorain Co..OH 54 2.21 ±0.63 100 2 2 nd 41'18'43"/82°02'36" sts 9. Pukkerbrush Swamp er- Trumbull Co.,OH 5 2.60±0.55 800 3 1 41°23'15780°56'16" ing 10. Solon GBH Sanctuary tes Cuyahoga Co.,OH 46 1.23±0.81 0 0 3At41°25'507,81°2112" in 11. Tinkers Creek SNP al Portage Co..OH 101 2.45±0.67 150 3 1rah•. 41°17'08"/81°22'54" tile 12. Ravenna Arsenal ed Portage Co.,OH 5 1.60±0.45 450 2 3ak- 41°12'46781°05'25" __ On 13. Piney Narrows Cuyahoga Co..OH 81 2.22±0.67 40 3 2an 41'19'35"/81°36.30" ea- nd 14. Breakneck Creek ot- Portage Co.,OH 5 2.50±0.89 500 3 1 ers 41°08'43"/81°18'12" Lis- 15. Mercer Counts. ier Mercer Co..PA 169 2.17±0.67 300 1 1 ent 41°23'02780°24'06" Is). 16. Bath Road#1 ter Summit Co.,OH 39 2.50±0.62 75 4 2 41°09'47"/81°34'14" rag 17. Bath Road#2 ith Summit Co..OH 31 2.50±0.52 300 4 1 ed 41°09'50 81'33'45" 1S- 18. Ashtabula Airport rs, Ashtabula Co.,OH 246 2.30±0.70 135 2 2 ne- 41°46'26780°42'05" tic. 19. Atwater ers Portage Co..OH 11 2.11±0.60 800 1 2 41°36'10"%81°10'42" r 126 COLONIAL WATERSIRDS Table 2.Multiple range analysis(Duncan's) for mean number of young fledged per nest/heronry by barrier type.Years with the same letter are not significantly different. Barrier Type No.Sites Mean Fledged/Nest/Heronry Homogeneous Groups 0(None) 3 I (Land) 1.44 6 2.14 B2Land/water) 3 2.263(Water) B 4(Fencing) 2 2.50 5 2.46 C C RESULTS DISCUSSION Number of nests per colony was highly Along with sufficient food, colony sizevariable (X ± SD = 71.63 ± 71.30), ranging •has been linked to breeding success forfrom5 - 246 (Table 1). Linear regression Great Blue Herons in Maine (Gibbs et aLshowedthatcolonysizewasnotagoodpre- 1987). Colony size was highly variable anddictoroffledgingsuccess (r2, 8 = .026, n.s.). was not a good predictor of success in our re-Buffer zone widths were also variable (X ± gion.SD = 332.90 ± 273.79 m), and linear regres- Great Blue Herons are negatively affect-sion (r21, = .147, n.s.) showed no association ed by human disturbance, particularly dur-between buffer zone width and fledging suc- ing early stages of breeding; repeated t,cess. intrusions can result in nesting failure or col- pBarriertype, however, influenced fledg- ony abandonment (Bjorklund 1975, Parsons Ni ing success (Table 2).An analysis of variance and Burger 1982). Gibbs et aL (1987) identi- ot rnindicatedthatheronriesisolatedbyfencingfledinaccessibilityasamajorcomponentof m and moat-like formations produced signifi- colony site selection. candy (F4 14=44.27,P<0.0001) higher num- Our study shows that the type of bufferbersoffledglingspernestperheronrythanzone (as presumably related to effectivenessthosesurroundedbylandbarriersornoinpreventinghumanintrusion) was associat-buffer zone. ed with fledging success. Indeed, all heron-The types of human disturbance occur- ries in our study area with fledgling countsringateachsitehadsignificant (ANOVA, below latitudinal average experienced re-F0.16 = 34.14, P < 0.0001) effects on fledging peated human intrusions (foot-traffic,horse-success in herons. Duncan's pairwise corn- back riding) in close proximity to the nestparisontest(a<0.05) indicated that sites ex- trees. periencing human foot traffic had Buffer zone width alone is only one corn-significantly fewer fledglings per nest than ponent of heronry isolation. Our data indi-sites with no disturbance or mechanical dis- cate that highest fledgling rates wereturbances (Table 3). The mean number of associated not with distance, but with effec-fledglings per nest in areas with foot traffic tive barriers created by fencing and moat-was below northern Ohio's latitudinal mean like water formations that successfully limit-of 1.91 (Hennyand Bethers 1971),while the ed foot-traffic. Thus, small parcels of landothermeanswereabovethisvalue (Table 3). can provide suitable colony sites, given the existence of effective buffer zones. Table 3.Multiple range analysis(Duncan's) for Mean number of young fledged per nest/heronry by Disturbancetype.Years with the same letter are not significantly different. Disturbance type No.sites Mean fled ed/nest/heronsg Homogeneous groups I (None) 9 2.37 A2 (Mechanical) 7 2.23 A3 (Foot-traffic) 3 1.44 B r• e.1 it i a.1 GREAT BLUE HERON FLEDGING SUCCESS 127 type. Human disturbance clearly impacted LITERATURE CITED heron nesting success in our study. Corn- pared to disturbance from foot-traffic, her- Bjorklund, R. G. 1975. On the death of a midwesterns heronry.Wilson Bulletin 52: 124-125.ons demonstrated greater tolerance for Burkholder. G. and D. G. Smith. 1991. Nest trees androutineoroccasionalmechanicaldistur- productivity of Great Blue Herons(,4rdea herrxfias)atl Knox Lake.north-central Ohio.Colonial Waterbirdsbances, even when such events were accom- panied by loud noise. Fledgling counts were sar): 61 62. c: g g Chasar, D. 1990. A brief history of the CVNRA. OhiosimilarbetweenheronriesexperiencingnoCardinal13(4): 16-17. Edford.L.H. 1976. Breeding biology of the Great Blueapparentdisturbanceandthosehavingonly na- Heron in southwest Lake Erie. Unpublished M.Sc.mechanical disturbances. The repetitive thesis,The Ohio State University.Columbus,Ohio.ture of such disturbances, proximity to the Gibbs,J.P.,S.Woodward,M.L.Hunter and A.E.Hutch- heronry perimeter and their low frequency inson. 1987.Determinants of Great Blue Heron col-size onv distribution in coastal Maine.Auk 104:38-47. for and amplitude may contribute to the her- Henny,C.f.and M.R.Bothers. 1971.Population ecolo- et al. ons' ability to habituate to them. gy of the Great Blue Heron with special reference to western Oregon. Canadian Field Naturalist 85(3):and 237-242. ir re- ACFNOwLEDCSIENT$ Hoffman,R.D. 1978.The diets of herons and egrets in southwestern Lake Erie. Pages 365-369 in Wading We are birds (A. Sprunt, 1V,J. C. Ogden and S. Winckler.Ffect grateful to the many individuals who assisted Eds.). National Audubon Society Research Reportdue with field work, and to the landowners and managers No.7,New York.who allowed us continual access to heronry sites. We Parris,R.W.and G.A.Grau. 1979.Feeding sites of GreatacedthankDr. Jeffrey Johansen for his assistance in Blue Herons in southwestern Lake Erie. Colonialrcol- preparing the manuscript. We are indebted to Donald Waterbirds 2: 110-113.McCrimmon.John C.Coulson and three referees who Parsons,K.C.and J. Burger. 1982. Human disturbanceSons offered valuable comments on earlier drafts of the and nestling behavior in Black crowned Night-Her-end- manuscript. ntof ons.Condor 84: 184-187. uffer mess rciat- Ton- runts 1 re- orse- nest com- indi- we re ffec- zoat- imit- land r the bance Or 42 COLONIAL WATERBIRDS sus. Nest counts or estimates were made on Changes in Colony and Heron Numbers Be- Table 2 51%of the colonies outside the census areas. tween 1976-81 and 1986-91 Within the two census areas, counts or esti- mates were available for all known colonies.There was a 45% increase in the number AreaofactivecoloniesacrosstheprovinceasaFrombothperiods, 1,613 colony sites Whole and a 98% increase in the number of soothe,across the province were catalogued, of which 928(58%)were new since 1976-81.Of active colonies within the eastern and south- the colonies present in the census areas dur- ern census areas since 1981 (Table 2).There Eastern ing 1976-81,48%were extinct by the end of was an overall 55%increase in the total num- 1991 and 67% of the colonies from 1986-91 ber of heron pairs for the combined census had become established since 1976-81. The areas between 1976-81 and 1986-91 (Table Combii average longevity of a heron colony in Ontar- 3). The southern census area had a 44% in- io was 9.0 years (SE=0.41,N=749),with the crease in heron pairs,while the eastern cen- Other( oldest being 93 years (Fig. 2). sus area showed a 103% increase in heron pairs. However, there was no difference in Total mean active colony size between 1976-81 andNestCountAccuracy1986-91 for either census area (southern census area: X = 101.59, SE = 17.91, N = 49 bons,Validation nest counts indicated volun- and X = 84.56, SE = 12.73, N = 86 for the rorsteershadanaveragecountingerrorof1976-81 and 1986-91 periods,respectivelEU Volunt39.6% (SE = 0.05, N = 41) for active nests, = 1792.5, P > 0.05; eastern census area: X = while staff had an average count error of tree rt 101.22,SE=32.07,N= 11andX=72.52,SE edton10.7% (SE=0.02,N=43).The main reason = 20.89, N= 33 for the 1976-81 and 1986-91 zeforpooreraccuracyinvolunteercountswasperiods,respectively, U= 159.5, P>0.05).volunvolun othatvolunteersmissedentirenesttrees. There was no significant difference (Wilcox-to deft on T 170, P > 0.05) DISCUSSION to mar s2 = in the numbers of provid'nests per tree counted by volunteers (X = The use of volunteers is a cost-efficient fall, to2.0,SE=0.2) and staff(X= 1.9,SE=0.1). way to census Great Blue Heron popula- nest tr counts. 160 colony the col 140 -• prefers and 5) 120 -the col Number of 100 short tr Colonies to six d could 80 t parts of 60 In estimat 40 - ern an Table 3. peri o.„. .. 0 Area 0 20 40 60 80 100 SouthernYearsinExistence Figure 2.The number of years in existence of Great Blue Heron colonies in Ontario. Data come from historical Eastern(records for colonies present during one or both study periods and which may have been established earlier than the study periods. u jf k 14.If' •F • ' " 4 y o t{.; 4. 44e x i M L V4`. J S A it,,' . • Y+4{ it" d +! , -'7 t t''. f4 f•^ , ?L J °t: Y.Fr r y y° r _ OP' ram' L+^r ,474v 5+ j '''- • + ` ; _ :. . f.+.-. 4,41,...V ' .} i`u'le L" .Y y• iy_ 'er: jj, 4_.4 . M V im* ti r .. . Y • Et t!s ? r irk 4 1 N.t' r I ri Plate 1. Condition of buffer screening vegetation. w Y P Y. . 1`. -1.' .•- lr" 1 M ..: Y'. a K , e' T'". ate' , s 4 ti l 411yt2:, xram u l-- 2-1. .e. -it.. • •.111,,n-... 7"-:#4e.4• s'q 3 1Qt 4-y.'. Y r..i k • i' y'{a ik G may Plate 2. View of colony and trail from bridge. ls'' .T;' 3 5 fir . ., r kQ w r,E.i.: f Ir y 4. . i 7::-.L."-- 4.' yi14 ' J i . e 1:1:' a;::"... s.: 71^ OVR ka 46t,...„ t. ir. '' / '/) ra 1ti ts,..5.,,, 4,,,te,. I,. . 4 i - r-- iv. ilt 4. ` yr 1 ' t rtV-2y'14:lideieNa ti..F.ANtadthA-t ‘a:rori....u :.av•:.---1a.,i:_.<.3...---....r..as'` Plate 3. View of island colony from trail. IIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIV V ' i'a 2yµ ". u tt r .f A s. k st) .4110/0Z Plate 4. View of island colony from trail. 4!'1,••••:.,..•:‘,".',...;.';44:%;tt• A.:A'' •t .e....;3$: • fil,,t . '‘.4,1*'''d'• ' ,`• ' ,:‘.• :„ Vtqlik ,•, ' ,. A As3 '..r4,4-,,," , `2. •A'. fiVit . IN. P'',• • - • '•;,.. if„,.....,,. -,tte , ft.7. .:4 ':• '=Lt. .0, 1,/, •-.. . ..•) , ,...; ,,, „... p - . , t,--, A.4.14,.' , , •"" .,.,.- .- , :$",vei'•'0.••••*...i..• i" '•I.:•14ti..,--'.. ., : . J. ,' -., •;t'•.. 'f. r4-%•, f. •• 4 i. ; ip ; v !;"•-l', .., .": .42.1./4• i. .,;•4. . ..'''- ...t.„ • r 1..."7 ..s, •:.,..70 „,1.71. -, . ....4.-. 1„t„, • -, t:. t.t',-..-„A: . ,^. k• , • y r. ,,Na'r..VON t••::.• .:.''•'• . t,' . . :. ,- 4 ••'.-...) .„.40.4''ip 2'. .."•:, •0111;-,,.., 'ir .;;,•';14,, .••;"• --,;:* ' , i ;. .., ...., ,'- fIriP.7.% i • ,.. ."• n-' ,,,,,.1,,-4, , '4,...: :;..... ."..s.t... ' r' .. , k•-' -`••• t C..1% g• •• ~1,.•"' ,. •'os•i ,-••••••. / - , .e Ar..13 .,',/ k.-44. , ••-,z•-•: , . 1.......31,4:, ..,p2.,4 • - it. A v,...14‹.. .1„.e. .........,. ..i .. . : ,..:.,45!),;,-I 1 4gigi .- .1 fp'\r., ......5,-;',.. - ' .• .•o. i.,- • -?.' - 4ii ;...4 ' .h•-•... . -•:, • 767••• 1, ' 4., 4t, ', • , • '7 •'7„, •: •, t '...4,- ' •••-i •'," 'f.; .. 3.4. .....1'• 4 'rad.•‘..4.i1;• ..1••••, I. ; 4•,.t ‘,..-4'. t''. - 1...,A,. . .4,-.;,,:4 . .r,v....,....•4. it. • ...ft,.•,..-,.,„ ....•...0...., .- 4...:.....,•-••• ,,,,...*,... ii..... r.4.4A'' ... ' )4 •.• ' t.-i--•`..,' .'. '• ••,,' 4.--, r- ......-•!.., - 4 ".. •. .,-. ,- ttit4, ..a . . 1 t4•$. 1(..V4....4 •‘. 4'.. i''"A''''.4.'" 4,••• i. '*' itsV.. '%4 p,..'t'':•••t...t.f'„„•.: -,;,?:',.* . ..,*. v, ',IA; •' "' - ....', -.- •'.4r, v .": '`•,....p.,... ...`". "•.iti ' ,• •:..' ',/,.. „ 4:,.,•,," •, ..: • •-,.•••;. 1,4_•,•.• •-.. • : 4 ..,,Vtatleir. .:-• +,..-:0. ,A,,, . ......- . ..., -`'. v;•4 N.•....„.: : ....`. , -,..$ 5.1- 1.-.-., .,-3," 1;44C '4;Iiit 4.,I• %,•••}..-. '/• "''- 4'••••","4 1,. .. -•••••-•,•,,.. I',. ,4%,.. • 4.0.+: ..1- •-,... ...6 1,,,- ,),.:16 ,. ' _;„y.1.., .... t`..•1•,"; •--sig•---• ,A4• • 1• •''."'N\ -4,:::tigiSf...}:-; ,-.r.,,f4.1.-...a.t,,e? -,,, • • ,,, • 4. f Plate 5. Island colony nest tree conditions. iiii(17 e-----ir -, •k, .., t Af..... ...e. ,...v1Ai„,..1•,, . .. . .4j .., ..,45' to. •..t.i3'%' '113'.*1- • . '."' ,' . ? ' 4t.- ••?,1-••••,. • I, .. ••`i ,,,,t ,,,' , ii..4:‘I 1j.;?,(,.. Z.; ...,J....11/43,y.'.. ,..-?:;:.41..,;_,At• • :-‘• ik..4,.•.,. , $.'--,,,,' '-',.,.,e;•,...,„:,,,,y,,:, , , ',. , , ., ._ t-...-.-.. i: i. ...,,- 7, 1. 4,14$.1,5; -,..,'•'.4..„*.'' t 0-..---' .,.. ..•---- -' •• .. - e-. '- : ,',4'41.1.:A0J,• ".:, ,,'...'t t. --••f k i.,i,,i,... ,...n:::4!‘. . ..;15v....00 :-,;,,,.ii, .fi.,. ,"';•;11,..k 'i ,N.i."".. 1:4,. '"<"'',' • -....'" '• ,* '.' lid-' - • _ lk. rF...s...-,'.:.•.•,• 0• ...,,. i.. k,_,„,,,....„,....,4•..,.-,,,‘.: 4, 4,7i.,'•.174,.•.'..,. t..15....:..:•:. T,,..A. t.!•-f4.::•..$).at...,.,. y e,..;i,..,.,, s-,. r‘,,,-... h,..-_.t,,,..„.,...,....,;.:,, i;. v•••i•,•_,* 4„4,..•. 14 e; Y‘.'" .. •,: tc -.., ir....,-:-0::•1•:\,....... 4.. in lit .....ts., .,'. . V • , ... 4,,r. l',, • .. .. i ' , 10.p 0.. Plate 6. Mercer Slough colony nest trees. 00, 1• • 4& a r 1 1•. w(li 4.,....;..' s. I..I, s...-...._. i•ti.&f. fir, `' c4,.. 0. 4.. s . ' ,.d . . 3 Ai. C- 1 . jaw( f l; E r r1 ..V' ' 1 K. +14+w' .. T .. r ` ." vim, ~ r 1 a 4•:- r 04, p4H1L‘ f.' f: A1. 7",..,.-'• ?:".'...- 4.4 -.. /,••'4. 1.' 1.4'il•' it' e;';:::)• 4..:17:11..... 4:::: ' :'':' T .-1,-.1.::-‘•';'11'4„," itrAtAlnit 1..,"Pti II lilt.4:' 4. n No 7:7' yr t 40('-:: ... 7 1`Wil ., :37,.::'t• „,,,,);...;..;;••,-4.......:Vir ;... a.- 70- ..* , 11 r, N Plate 7. Condition of colony trees. Y.S., a. x r ti 4S r I 1 k. 7t ' r Plate 8. Kenmore colony. t wit 4, 1,...;10 ,.....,i. -e-..,.. 5....;:. .•-: - !i,.•.. .1 $,,,..'.: :*t,x, 4,robt4 ,.... - ,10". ..-7•4 i.,40":; 16;; ..' - 'IIIF' 1 r RJR • 1 ! '' ' f ' • '_l Plate 9. Kenmore colony nest tree conditions. 1041N. s J- V co-`"J a.,e ,l.A-`, . 447 N—a : ( 3 S . oN ( 2 \3 1 r tlJI •J J ! 2-/ 9 • b, t11 c.O•-F.tbll p' x a...n., r <,,, y+ ' f { K a4 y y 1),' ) J *i 1 a r 6 A t' ` r ;;;yam a t 4 ' : 3) . 4170s0 tfb :.'(74 „1•1.1,/. 7A1 _.1/4 A ;•iv •illia:',140.4•I' iiipi?.' ' ' ' F ,4411 $ .).010)4, b,Anikit).ECL\---‘i)illi .... ,,,,` '' i IR".. k t ii. , ,J/yy` ',r t sip CP4 SAP'. kil r QJ. Airrtif$.• -..,,m. ll ytit., *, .!.... t,411 ,,...,,b, .., • ,,_ .. . 00 ti 11--fs,II-I.LI:,‘ 4.4.. sii. ii 1 s• '... M....!!,, k...,, 1 .i+0, ..., ..,1,,1 ;.• irlf- it.",y, 111,‘ ,) . , 7..01' 40' 4,,,77.:16.7. ; i. qtat.44.„still ?‘tx,...d. m.71i.... 4r lit k 1 t,# rir P"'" fir'l S.9\ 1 ''.., 1 14, 7'-,''3.': 7.7. 0.' asi 1'S 4, ' C AS i'' i 'i` F h s. t4"'. 4 1i. 4 s:.: r1` *-,,' ";, r 4 ,.+ %'! ate i, ,t 1. .' I { V f . r k 4 r ir.l'' -,W. 4. l t c j r: • t Via iyB a i%A '• T . 4 i.'.' 4 A 4 f s + r to,N,` l ,t ', T . „ ',.r- Birk `1 i. its,. 3 1''[y ,,,,,,,+++ i i.- rl ` i— yr ` f i., i t r+. E b1 Ai/ 1' i x.• yam. - t r T., k t s tSS 777 r wiii 1.,,, 1 Jr r 4ys1 1:::: fz,:.„-- dA.:; l i1 1 Ems; „ z : f it Per r. . N{. f.• ico____ .......„, co morlik\ ;.- t . 1_,,-, . . t: 1. 7..,,.,; 1 . , r. r.., 10('' '''''.. 0 ..*. 3. ''''. .... . ii.... :, * 1,..,::: 1„,,,,,,,' .... 7,...,:_...,...: _.• . .,,, 44, i r yam y 4'**-. N t, . ** V 4 "‘,.,." .. • ` 44iit?‘'.-* ' '' .''''* .• • 4,‘ - At i ' I V', 7 1 Ntrilti,r h r I ate' Yl i. i"'+ g. `, \ , 4, . Y Ct fief"'"'- yy 44: 111kHlir.; 7 44';' El 0,."- ' .;-.'''..*:''''"..-;-. t'•' 7 . t 7. 1' 1, 4 4' , '' 117" N, . ippimor--,- _ _. --- .,:...', i , _ . 1! r,----._: 4.. f' r7-:.-:,' 1, ,,,,,.:', I,* !'''''',', - 4- - 4), r7,'''''',.' 41N,.-- k , t, ' li . ' -.'''' 1, p.,,:, 4-:i -,-.,.. 7, j;''''''?",._,,,..,,;.' s51..,. 1 . , .,..- ..., , .'',-, ') S i , s' , 1 a . Y, t C, 4 r.. i^ k'.'. DNY. 1 r_, i 7 rC"'- 11 f t,.,.,-.'", f , .,,,,, -;--,-, . —.. • I,.:, oir: ,., ...- •..„. ,... ,, , , ..,„ ,„?.. 0, y. , sh sitr PI f,, r, yy , kr r L „ 1Y r t, y 4. f F ! lrs/ y '' 33"" rItT r, sY f FF M f 4. L.%. a I, , 1) 1, 4 b V.. V ftjai )' rt a. 4, _ V _ Si J I k .,' t'- 7 4• ei 41 '+ it i s ... t +, I,,•,... I• I ,\, k_ Cq•:_, A' 4 ; $ I J , ' 4° 1 t• st h, f i e t. ,. V ue.oti41k onsii6tierr4rL. Wal A f •.. f A4. it . 1 iii,,,-;;...,,--,- rr-..- 1 , . .' . 4i: it i s '' - 1,, 0 ,... "` i.. s• . , . Y ., ,' s; 4. 1 Q V 7 , . . 7.,,.,, : i. .: i' f / S : ' r y v ice 47\ II 4. A rr f\- ': 1 1 L le, mot y 4. l sil 2'- :'•' ."-. . --- t: s'..-------„. JR 1l 1- . 0,, # Pam. i. Akep' ` j4y.. r \ 44..,'._,,,`_ g,., :" V iLi Lit- r+ a- e S s r am,. 3 a 1• 1 i ev a 1 O Y) I. e 1 4- 6w/ oh, i4y a al./. 7uV a w. ____ ic'STi a:SetiY i a T7' • T_° II i. ._, y„_..._. pICOMUTAT r - r ' !r• i, .. Gni,MIN 111"' a`ali tirofl.''1' I IIwe em Fir— eAg 4. ..od.Siiip, , i,. -1-, ' irtilli MT.Ut Ail , , t IH•..f '--- b I MA\,‘ fr Ot:. ailr1'• .ii :.t-% .i1 : - 4 t I ` tG + . JQ : f I1II w•', 124uo _ 4. . *S y(t2) ,... , •-,"y4//:1 i • :, us.:..,...,A 0 4 ti i'. iii el' \-......‘ '''''' /* -In.' Ow L t` • .7 4 C 3'?''' r rill NN J sr.' r v e•+r..n+ei rAli : ...' f ' •'c "°", 01 • .. 1. L. $ • . / 40••• . . O peg*• •-\,.• • - •!' i i ems Ate ' c•y • .' A A i r 1• CRP PO, t, , 0,+,° •/ • 06.E. t, * Sr,: ,4:\ , 4/Cbe4 A asM an cr CAM:-\ co ` No,4,,, s; BLACKRI VER ./NI°n' CORPORATE PARK ra If(j / o 10\ 90t RENTON WASHINGTON l s f' I , I pi w Z to ,if N. N. Q Z\ 1991 MOA PLAN TRACT B 1998 PLAN (SUPERIMPOSED) 0 100 200 300 400 500 000 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 I I I I I i 1 FOKIMNO51-5 140 Q 80 Q 60 M7zos 0 - 1._ -. .-. - - - t_g_= 5 W 7TH AVE. t r.VW.I w,IV ART A rll ING s rce.nvOO,AM A GAUGE 46W our,RAI MN, PLANING PER LA.SCARE M. 13LACKRIVER TRACT B: MOA fLAN- 1991 RENTON,WA 140 120 100- aoo 60 0 a--- L. ao o 4. V. 0 ±s 1"+.10.4t,44.0t efitia lettA EMI 1.1 AMMO. 5 W 7TH AVELAICHANL &OMR AMA *FT PON PARKING AREA SAWING E PAA]HG ARA- PL nNnNG— Ft AWN&PFR . a' v».. 16R][Y RANRK-RFC I ANA AAPn Pt AN LANDSCAPE PLAN DLACKRIVER TRACT B: CURRENT PLAN -1998 t'NNIt)rt WA FORESTED SLOPED BANK Z-' 1 T?o r' :Q 1Y. QUARRY 3ir YR e qs'; ". i ..,!N„tz ?.........4.t...- 1,1. . - ,...ii, ...,a,1..„. M `FP . 20 ACRES io1d3 0 Frii • . + ON." fl75ACRESOQ y3 W c9'4004D'V'g'il.:.:._. - 00'.%..- erovip:41 1 7„,..- ti. .41,.sgp...iwl..1-.i. - t, z • tip, ` k°o., t• 3° b'e 0. % 9 `, .. o fi): .e..,4...—i 1. 0.,§ 9s c, 9.5 ACRES ROAD Es Wrrp w r. r . — ' t''-._ ri+%.x w r Y P r. y7 J; df `% 'lit; s . e E_- '1 0., ;II' ..-.-. ...5 :.-- S)vim:.•.,=i 1 BLACKRIVER Corporate Park p_'' p I.,' RENTON,WASHINGTON n\, 0';t e 0 f5 }`i i FIRST CITY .LOUITIES i,z. tL.sd O.iFJ1Of MORTIM'UT NC. 1 ' r - Mc vy• - Cf to 1 A:' '' ,ram- Q t . Vv 1 . 1 il ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN - 1986 e,' • I a, ec20 I- r: i 0i (1 FORESTED SLOPED BANK Dbo QUARRY 52.55 ACRES 10J Ara) 0k4P aleop404›.2 , 0 ttet, o qE? 4. 17 5 ACRES Q c t..&^ c, r‘ 111 Ss I. ; :o ^ - CITES I1 ;7. 9.5 ACRES t 11 On ri LI METRO WETLAND e zf HABITAT AREA J11. :10: 14;LI Ii% , : BLACKRIVBR tea i Corporate Park r 4'' y-°e p NI RENTON,WASHINGTON s t,n.. ". CITY .,.. 4• fit' • al° e . v Q ' MOA PLAN- 199 I -92 1 ' ° o.+'' %y FORESTED SLOPED BANK QUARRY z„,"" e--. 66.75 ACRES r 0 IV ..f _,- -TY .. e`'S, t,„,,. e-O7.5 ACRES 6/lite: s'AlL 3r16 , •' E •1 Q i" S ,.., te •••''',- 111‘ 6. s 12.27ACRES r 9.5 ACRES ROAD--" L .....--:::,,,.„ es i ,,/ fury: Fri Of : METRO WETLAND It t. ` r r .•) .. .N. HABITAT AREA 1 r e .. te.c it i r`t'.':-11 : ' rg1 f .: say,} . L.- v .4 a 1 i'` - BLACKRIVER Corporate Park 1 ,C:lips' p'Z' t RENTON,WASHINGTON P`; L_ MST CRY Maurtcs i \ v S,! uww. NORTHWESTa.nar ro.r esT c r s 3.t ':k RUSH wino A r.ro na NC. Ay SS 'yA'o.._ - 4 .N ; AFG':; 1 I .i 1 R Ii t.. It . ''. M'.w.s S1LJ1IIJI11 `""'- 4.. 4. . - I I'.a°tea CURRENT MASTER PLAN - 1998 r'' FORESTED SLOPED BANK APPROXIMATE COLONY NEST LOCATIONS e 1; I » . U-1t :' 111111111111 IIIIMIll' ' 61 v 111JJJ r i I ',41"E its Tgacteal 111111r111P i• • \k.fir`METRO WETLAND tip y' . -HABITAT AREA I 1 aip J1 - Cli S.. tat11'rr ', -- I1 eiY .+ ,q a \j ESJ Y -,• BLACKRIVBR at SS . 7. : c-, Corporate Park C. Imin yq4°z' `coot REN70N,WASHINGTON Cr', \ ' a- t'1 e ;S t9s rear auTes irtV. LESSOR PCUONO/ MORt.RTST NO tt .;,,Me •' _ V___- iti R Row II Rt0.16, NO js NAM t + CURRENT PLAN I998 b t ld^ fir-. _..--- It . , ,.„1,Ia.,, ..• t.,160i..'t: -° -„t:. - 4',.'' •-, J.,01,- 7 ''. I. .7 ....... 44 f,.; P .,,, .,':;.;•!..:,.: iVii';• '' 7.. ..•.. ll- i 4,.1')''' 4' ' A' '-- iii, '''.:. :.il ^ i '''.1...•• '..:.1 1.: -,•,-''''‘41," -1,- - • '•I r. i!,-;,.' ''.'•i.r-,,,a.`-'7'-'. -• ... ;al iik!/,''.;*-:'. y,...1:74-4f.,.:.:', i. .„,i• tie '• :loti.,, -+' . -''' Y -2i„. ;„.,:,,,,,i,,,P.4 „.,,,,,;,ii t ,. -'-..4."' , i'..•4 ' 7, 2174' ,7• ' . ."4. : 1‘. 4...,,,,. '...'1 etri,. ern.,,A. • i...* - A' .. is.r.y..,. 4.. 4.-v.. , : ,- -re • ' - '1 '• c''• ..•• e\ 4,..440.4 ILI.. . 4! •',4 , 4 •''' .‘•`;,' "4011.!* . ir. Ar. -, •• . . ilv,,,-.t. ,‘,,' ,,: :41.,...,..4...'" i . • -, ,..,;.;,•,.; - ,:, ;• ,.-,..litits - .1, • ' - - i . ,.:,--#,..-- h.0. , - . „4,•4.-,'' !, ilt; '44, ,,6/ or • e 74, . .".,''''• :•; g.-' . .: ' 2, SIP•4,• •,Alot.'i• •• -....- ;'.• •., .A o,,,,,.. . , i . 4`,„*. ,.t. '. -...,, ,... . -' .,i.--,:--.'" •.. 4,:.‹.-'-,..\,‘..r- -,....-- .. ...'•- 114/Flait: i.,,"„i ,4.,-0,;• ,r -4° .-'' •,' -‘'•'.. - 4 4'; • '4.‘0.):'-• .0)/ItpiP •4 ', -1..!:' 4",... 4 it..,d. ,4„:- .--,,•. ' • - `,.,. 'lull"'e' 1, ,g'' . 4:.•• - •••t.;. ‘ . ; --ItYti . .4/i•':".'''•,'•r ..,,''''q' :1„Iri., . • •••4' e 'e .- ' '' 7+ " 1:1'*' 777- r". 7 ! 8g4-; 7.7 lit 71,`,.'. '.'7;. 7'.'"•*7.,, • 4., .1.1 to.. '••..•" . 'Jib.•1,1,4VV 4‘.:i 7- ' 77 7 7.7 7 .7 dr 'IVI• '' r Or , '' i', ''..,--. f,.. ,;4$..1, v.,. ..!, -Z,.'. "': e "" •,. ,':0, 2',.. A7,.;,'.2 i'." '1-' ri'''./ ,. '',:..,.`:: ''.',*;-• .17.-t ‘ 4'''' "..,. e")117-..; N.:- v• i-- . s' , , t'...J - 71.'• - u .«,'t - •;„: ''' .,-- 1 f'-: . • '',„-• .0' ' .1 ....-'.. • -A'. I" .."...`• x-.',•--, -1- .,. ; 4,-.,r-,,•••,7...!...."..-....I.V.,.-i•- 7, • , -,..: ,, ..,.....,0.4". . 7 `77 li'7747; ' s,i,-,4. ''' •, : ,, 7 - i, 74‘,I' f-', 4,te-- -''' r. .. ''''; ..it'',..A! 10. 1*.7. 4",./,:,' S t.... .;i4C'' , ,".•,,V,7, •• ,'',, r..'•. .4*.-. i'"- , ,iiI •Nt,ii, • • .54.. ' ‘' •4'•fr' ''•; V''t We'l;-....: ,-. - •.' , . ...1..-‘ ': '"'a, :6.' 1 1:' - ?"' . 10'10 ,,, '., .1 ' _,... 41'. tsp..?.., .',"A4c.,,4.. 1INP ' 11 j.,,,i; i .'' , ,,, L° ',-4. ,'•.4,: :' ,110,, -•'. -.;••• iI*; ' .; 1.v.,1,••• '4% - --12., 1. '''''' ,o,' 4:.' . ,.,..rt, 1-4 - t'-..-., '.• q ,T):, a\.c."',,, , ,•F.* V. . ..1 , • -.. 4,-,. .: . ,, .k.1,'-`t',.eet..,,,) ,-..; •'..- .-.,N..e2,-.1 11-1:1:1'4,;. \-;,- . 4°' .ee' '.' 1:::- 4'-' ''''''';: . c.'‘ ' ale Ii .....„,' "..‘',-`, : • .. L.; - ': . 4114,. ..' '."...,1, :''' . ,,,,,,, ,-- "... --, ', '' ' - . :-'‘ re . 2,.-f•-91.0* ; . $ : ''', Ir'-'. ''. 4., . , 1 .7 ' % , '..,'It% . 7-, f 41444 ''''''.6' %.1;,L,`,„4 11;4 il",,,t..,..--dtel -440 ,.1'.4 '•• .•-• .„1„'-;47'.'t...•t• ' , 1 '"(,•,7,t1)' . '':'.i;.3. 7.' f.."' re'P•. '. • . lig i .. -,'I.3.-, :4',P..•.... • * .... '•.•t:• P . It • • •.e• ;‘,.., ''': P\ 4Y* P'a" y...11, - ..-.•-,-, 40f-, .f.• - ' - 1'V , .. ,,,,t •a: '77i•'•-t; i' ', '':::•-•-'-"',,, ' # •, . •:'•,..!.14,, ,404.i.:::.,,.,..,,r,-, , , .:,. _ 114, .. --,-,-.-:Aps.,,,:it. ., . , -- -.,.* - . .s.„,ci. "4, '.4 ', * 1. -;•,•:,,t 45 ..tr.• a,„" 4r'ir,4' , ' -.14‘, ,'... • ..',.... ,, . 4: 4INK: ; I 4.'• ,n„, L• i,...47, z...•,'" _ ''''..:,,,,,. 7...;44, 1.•: 01i•'...›.•C.'4 •••c. 4**1 4'•., : it,' • : ....• .•••0‘,7 1' ' • V't.,'.1„"4I •.1 4..k .• .4, Irs..- 4.0,, •. . ... 1, . *•'.•.*' ..f. 1 - -- ^II_ -T., ' ,e-1, cri so''' * ' I la. . - .,, •'.1,-.•' .•,,', -'1. 1. •4 014le" V'T..,-. N, '. ' 0.': s •,,, n 4,? 0,--,`4. . • :,/,..0,„,s4; ., ..,', . • ,.1.• ' .„?. •,,. ,....e4.,.. - 4,, ,s.„:. 2;;',011 . . • , , . ... lit..•,.' .. ft• . j.'!;z„.., '';„,,..•--*':-.,-- :.:‘'''4.'', ;:...1.., i. ' '''',' . ' ' . . .' cr : :A"4,....;41411! .k''''A . Ill...,';' 'r,2. * . ' •'''''''' '....'" .- .- - ' .. -e1,. • N 1 , • , .% ,,, '.' • S.'k ' . ' i 4•,,,ii43;,:?` '.",. 440,- C. 410 -?,*A,1,1,• ..,,,, , , -- ,, ,.. , ; 1:,. ,4,›' ••• .%41 - t; ' 1; . 1 .:-''''''''';'''' l' VI_ fl.ry' :. ' .',:1."1 V'f,,:,:....' .,, ' 41 , •`.''1,,,,....' t%V. ; ''''i .'' ' .. '''' .,'' 14. 011 • 7'9. 4r.,. 4' li,t,,,,, . . - •• ,,,.. . -i, ,....-4„ - ...„.....t .. iii..,,..,• ,, • . ,.,.. •.,,. •L -, . ;•,• . ...4!3-• 7 ' it. ..,:! '',:,,..,.."*."'.,"-• '" - •'.;','N' ._,., 147.• /,•7 o' . • ',• 4L i 4.•„,-.., p, ....,/ '4, ; .... .,.1 : -. ._•1 ...Akar .,„.....;.Am.::.;.. ,.,..'-.V.,..,r . . ...: .,;, -., .;:!,..', w, . e /.:-. .16„..* ..,..,..x-, , ,4? f..,'. .. •.. : i.:i. •«:• • i - ',•• - 4 ' .-(••''.-.• .• , -• riie -. ' Z. . , ''lie/ ... ...:::'. . -...fx "... '' ' 1;j1.44,, A.,„,,r,s• '..!,,s rlz,4,s •Ir'.•:•.• t-,,. . -.,,,,, ,i..; ,• .: s..,. .,,,,.: ''4.\\ -, ./.-:-•-•‘' •-•,‘••, 4 .''-' . 4‘' ' ' C ktl: 4' ."''' '' . "*., '1' ' j' 0.4%'.** '''!•,":-. ' .4'.., • *-''',,t.' ''' •'' •1•';' ••' \ •"';'- <'''- *•' \''''.. - \/•<.i''' ii 1- '• C - 9 . J•• •. ''%•,ji1, 17 • •t". i/'• ' ' ,." ' i•z . , •,,..,, , .; '''••• .' ''''.'* .'.-''.''''...:?;!‘ k '*... . .';'• •. ,V,•,. , '\'<-:;'•,-„% :'.. ii, ;'-I -t A.' ',••'''' •• i.i..;•A04;,‘, •' :•/ 's'.. ••-• •". :'•/'• ‘‘ t.0 ''e -;i'.1:.• 1 6401,. 'r°"1- .."'''',10‘;‘.: 1 ,..;•;- , ;,.. '.,;-'. .'b' :,,,,,, d-Alit - •„,-- p ,k ,., . .of-(it,,,,,f, rA.,.4. '• ,' 4•-.. \<,-..\-• • s.mr.,,, -I • hpite' ' ,' *,,A:.' 1 1 . , _..47 Pibi, ... .••1 .!,.,..,a. ....4. ,. • ..,•, 14 .%'''' .•' ' ' V' •...• 4 ' '''' . - "!' ,fr•-• • /- ",, ' '.. .. .. '."4": ""'::o t.'-fs•'. .,..'''' Y'•,,0;4,„ki:%", 1' ":[.'', ,',• -• :, 0,15`,Ii, •-•''•'>,‘ • ‘‘. f• 4:i. .%r '4.,...: *.i.4'',... v, . . .,.. ......., 46 fi,.-"1. 41\1 • .`;;••• I- .7• :' .\.'4.A...A..‘.. -.. ... ii. k er s•.... : 7. ..,,, P.:•,. I 14,.‘•I' '..•'• . , . ,.. iv . ..,..,..,. ...,.... ..., •;,„..„ ..,..,.,..,, ,,.... , . .:,• ,... . . .n.,...,......., ...,..:„ , ..„-..,...„ ....,,,.„.. .., -..,-:,,c, 4- 7''..\\.„ „.1,";*;•.: 1 f; 1 t-4.,i' .," 4''.2.-*4,46 .- •`,,,, ''• -#. "."..,'',li-•:4, -"„' - ' :....: tiz.: 4! ''''' . . . . • -•." -„.• ifs. ' '' ia. •'.-,,.dt.1;•1:"..41'4". .•;;; F., AI,'1,r7 • ',.'-.'. .,,-, •, ' '0,14r7 -'•-•!)' „.• - Aiw •;,..•.: • ••.•.... -. , :-,L'`.'‘7-_.!,,, .. , • ' '. . . •:,! -...,.„•.% . i 4„. ...,•.....,...,,.. a;•,---,.:xv.x.N.., ‘, \. i.,....,....., *;: i.::'ii:. .- ...., • 4 t' 414C.'?. 4 le ..'''' '42':•:;&' 4 .'.' ,,,', j.' .,•, 1.0,-, ,;,4'.'•.:' ''',Q.-'•rC 7''.'''t''''-'4.'‘..t4-'7. ; • 7 '...4", `‘..., 4 A: . '''' '''''.•%,.:4-4 .‘.. ''' '''• e.',', ''''...• .--H:-. 1 gld 31•.r'•41 `',.4. -,.. '' 14,..-.9- . .*:- ' ii(4.''' - ,.2t'4,1 3 -.''?A'' r,,. ''''- :..4 ' ''''' 4.4'4.' ,. , t•'t.4i • . '*•',.- ,Ar2. 1.:•:•.1'' ..'.4".:'' ';' :;:::::42;'•4' s'' s : ''' \• . 4;'; .i'...v.:-.-.-.--- . -....- .„4,,,.. ,w.,•.,... ';,., .„ ..; -'.:,.4'.1.-.zt.,,I...e4,-,•. -.4r,s,- , i A.N..1Y- , t., .. , . 1,.....• , '4'/I' ..• .7' 0..4 -r - . „„ fi. . •41tar ....4-,,„.7„... ,,..., „,,, Iiiik.i• .;,;:, i-. ,s‘'. I".,,`, - .4'-.' dr,,,tr, .. . ..„ , . .,..tje t ,c , '', ,• •;.' It-, ;'• if_„' „,,,..; "- . ft,t, .4-1".1 ' lr.* r..,--._,-....,....ite-4.v.•, , t.'i ,,,. * re', --'.. '. te;.' 4. I 'l'I'c'• il '1,,,..f, ' -5'' 1114petcel. ' e.,,, ,..e. • •-• . •tvw. „„,.. - ..,-,,,,b,_ :.• -,% , f';'.':) '•.,,,„,,, ,"-\ ,,. 144-.,4k ' • '''.,. ., '. ' I, ,,l, It•4 t , ve''' '‘.... 4.r.:V.• Ir.,, .,:, . ., ,,.„,,, 2 .... 4.7-.•r•t* * • 4 ,* '`" • '" • 0 . ''',,X- ..••3'44e " '' •.`,..4 it: lt,".: .s''' '' 4, 0"'1. ',?'";':; ' .•' ' '* --41` t ''''' ''U.7.- S,'-'. 0^.... , >,•.. , .,-y•rt,,i` c; „.„4,.!,, „„;..,,,,t.4 .,,...4k,,d..4.* _ . c.c.:,...ht. •!1,....,..4-.;:-;,?,,l,-.;:, ,;ii.,., -;r •,,, *:^,', .,..„ Itz,10,V,,,-,„;1„114..„1!,‘ , ",.40i,- ••• •- ' ',,, •; iloill'' .P. '..' .7• ' 4 ,' ' .;„ i:.:77 e!,‘,T. . .-.1-t, A .1, 1., . 4-- - 't, i,..,`,.. :.*'... ''''.,„-i:'; , ' *1',, t,,,r.t 'L 1`,.,. 2.‘yfrg.- ,,,`;‘'''‘ IF:".'i;" .;!:.. .,t'.14 '''•ki.T4 1'44• .:-•7;'''''. ... k. 4'N'I';''- '.\•• 4.4.," 4!'' . ..,.. 4'' . '''AA •":". 4'.,4, :-4...I,* "i."•'.1k ;:•,-./1%;,‘".*:•;!'''. .4''''' 1' %,' ..., ,: '.. r' ...''•,:':04? , 44. 1; -,14.-47ML,•,',.'' •,:i*"• 46: 14'.. , ,:7-,•,•; "'''','r",,,y• .• ,• ,N4'•1.Z.i,t--*k.'4,;',;.".•V - 4 . -.. -1, ,,,,',..i; :.:. 4 ;', 5- ' . ..z:.'-1,. f'. 4* ',„ -47,,,.' - , ' .'''••;SF3'.,, •u-44-:,,,:.- s...,_ ,..,, i, . ,,.;;.':',.. ',... -._.*:.'11....•:4Vir...,,':A.-.',,t.l. 1.0.1.;- ',,,,'...,1-..4- '' ,,,,...1, 1/.' r ' 6,... •' .414.,,......4.!'.. 164- -‘,„.... ,..,...-...i.k.-5„.4;,Vt„ c'41,42.t .i. .fk'.•-?:', ,,.',..--.: -.'''''• i .if 4 Y.,,,.,ek i'f=": ?.,4"-f!''..1',2.. '. 't.:. '.44%, ''';`../',.-..•'' - t. ,''' P' ' '4..,,.:41",'... t . (If„, .'‘,:i.,' ..,..?'-.7' olk.",.. .• ','*.,,, ' v-.'„.,-..... . ..,...,-,. '.;,', .4,4411.11,',. ..'- i.,, ''^-•,., l'-z "0 • i; -,•,+ -, '- 21.V6. ta••-','AZ' ! ,- -•iii, ,,,.';..*•., /°.*''''' ,In'.1.''',...' '' 4'' .1 it, 'k,,,- i:',..7., •: :- 744"4„4. .- ' , '' . ' ''.7.I*41'•../4 '. .' 4'''.-.4 •. 1,,,,;, ".--1.,, , 7,.:'' ,..,,,. .,:,1k,.,,••,,,; ••,--4 .p1 ,, •.."---f,4. .." 4,-.;.•, e, - t ,, ,-: , :V.; ..,.., 0..., f, ,. -,it- •4.%.„: . '1•.' „,. .;*••• ' . •, , A; ,,,,:,'- 1 • ,.. ' , 1!-Y' f;.."0.,: '-'i` - ,'''•:,',-.'•.1'-i..i.";.'•,' ';!••-:,-.1;.'*,- '''-::4.••.-, .,.• t..--.14"41n z'--- A4t,,„:".,:.;;'- '..‘' I •; 6.7. ••• .*',..%:•.'.:.'4,,'',4.• r -:,-,1.'.4., ,'"" l'Igir, ••-•-) t." • ' Y;i• ' e„,.... .:,-..,.•'‘,, ..,;..,;.". . 7 Y., "/ V,':-*•;-1(41r ••;' '0..''' s'd.,' •.. '. .:.V•2 ., ..4.tij,••a -...t%.414$•,--,* 'T..V ''.-'..,..?...,k4;‘,11.• '''.'s'' ' •' . ,....4 t •"I•••• ..",%!•`•:• 1"„' --,,',:''' . ,••,',.e"%;', `,...,..;-'0.,• - _,•-••'1,4 '.,"1!' , •.;'. .4.4.„,,,•1"04°.. ' ...7._ '' . ., , 4 •„...,'. '' 14,,'.., 1,,;, • 1.•.. t ..,0" -, ": '. 44 ...'''' ' on,n':,.. t..4„.., ,.. ..4,. ,r; ,... . ' 7.P1,..... ;ear ' •IP1,...,04,y.,.,„.1,,,,,....' .,,,,.r„,,..:,k4y, f,?.!,,.i _4;-,dribi, -",, •:,•,..tAiro: .,,L.. ',...„, .,....;..,,....,-.!.„. r'•• •••", ..4.r .• 4 . • 41.,4*6.4. , 4, -s••' . 0. .• 4 4 rti 9.i;-,,, •'' ..''t,17•V",--.7.,'•Z/•*,:rok.l'•.”'I•.?''Z'''7. - :".41-4•0,, - -7 .• :.Alk, i WI--.• 'NA.' ,4,;:i ' J I Y '' u--,,,k4.ttoo .J..',.. . ,, ',. .. , ' . • ... ;!`,". 7.7.,-„:,., ' ,,,.." ,i-„,i; ,- 41.1 .';';''' ,'v,.-,, -;.... , f....1..•‘:- ,..,... • ... % '4 0 i., '10, ...,` ::'n',, x : '',' .',, : -,' '-- ' ''. . ‘ *' 4 1,- •”. ,.,'.-1.''l X,. ' .. , ,., V.t.f,,,,...%,0• 1, 4,- w ..,:: ...'ett 1". . fr',"ii., -4, '..•"4:I' 0,''L ' . ••'.....,'-' * 4,-. *' ; "". -, ' i.: '- i,;4:.;• : .•- fof ,. 41 -,..I .,;',. 4", 444.4t 4 4 -:.. . ' ., .;., tiii44../ . , .,7,' .,., „ ,:...•....,-•.;•..., J• ' ' ‘-4;.;•••7!'' L.,: e,-,,;41.'-.:./...„ .,-.--i.; ,t-',...,,,.„-,:,`. :,: ....,...... ' '*,,,....-•1 ...-', ' L.?., r..-. ' ,:i',..„,: '..',.. ':., - . f#:W44';'.1•:;,'''': t., 2'. iN!‘.‘,.. 4** 7L7.,1. ,,,: . ili 4; i..A, '..,. •,, .. ,.‘,.., 4,. I-4•, ....i .-:.!- -..i.41.,- -. .--,:',, 4'. :i•Iks4,* i.47.s-,;•;-...•.- . ,i ,.,,:.Y-4.• "-i-',p,7%,...,,, ..:,,-)i,..:..,.,- 4. ...-1..,4","''.tz:...*. • ''', , •.V. -'i 411...,,,';..:,;\, ).,V. "•=„` sc It ,v_- 2, • . •Ts . -.•-,),eG • . • „., . .-. . -: . . - •• ,•--, - i..i, .,• •:,...:. -., im. 4.-" ' ' 4 - •'! AW ••••‘•• .4,.i:„ 4: "n4 14:4 .41"ik:. '4,':' , t. . . •7-, 1- ",F;','.....4.-,-,,-.'•• -'4,-; .....- , ..-., --,. .4.- I . t„-. ,„•, pis;‘, k,,,.)'5,..,,,,,, ,-....,. ...... • it,:,:' ,--4.-. ' :,,..;" , ...i :.44.". - '','..L...'.',',,, .,-' ': , :,-• ' ' ' .-. '...„.::... 4., ‘1:,;tf,;gi •.- ...44,. !...,;e .,.......... .., ... .A-..7-;L ',..",%,...' f.4` '-.--,.. ; .'s 4..:...,!.,, . t - • r• .. illi. ' 'ifr 1.- vei.,,,,,,f, ••••• • .4... '• :, +0-1 v.,--..,- • ., •= ,,, -... . - • ..1C', ,'- ,:. : : •• ' . ,, ..:. -.,;,:<+:-....;•,. • .,:',".•.....: ,' - .,.(!,.,,i . --„," • ,:, 4,4!°„,..001".„&„,,i',,,i. "'',' i",:.*, i .4P . ,, ,.-.1 s, 4.. 7••••••.4's,4'.;... - , ft. '74%i..d. 'i' ••``.''''''''`'''''41;i4'41;;',4 Ct-•:7 '. !•2 A r,:'-•', '* 2k•4' '...' . .' . t .i4'; 4*. it•,. '41: .t.....7:'..!...,•. ` 4...i'''-''' •:•-:. ..:: - ..' • --‘:,,,,4 -'Sf-''''..,..--. . . :'.. • -`144-,,4, ',•-'..A• ..1 •.:4'12 '•':*4 -:-•--"- ..!;••- t., ',•''' '.-c.4 7c " • . ' C', '. ..?:';',...4' • ''' ' -.^.. ' ' “••• ......:'''..,,,14.,-'- :3 10111k. •t 1"lor , ' ,4. e. ,.e '‘,,elk , •, II 41 '•' ' ' '" . * •' • ..;•• '44 i'•• • • . Olt '-, ''' : ' ... ',0'.f.g..-;,., -s- " ' •'-', •I *'. ,,. .. -7'...' • i ,'," i 1..i I.,)",-'.0 . A t,,..' .:4 4:-::•.. ••,t i it,,,,...- ,,y• •,,,,,-- ,,,. ,,,ri ' . ...'";%. ;",4 , .- ,,...''.-• •,-tit ,. ,. ., . r a" ., . •... .' 01,,4,*. P- $ ,'5"., ; k...... 0, !, ,-.. , 40,....-„-, , A,.'," '-''', ." ...;... a .4,,,, .4 -,...„-.''Ai,I .'• #„A.'A)st,":4°' -:tk.' ''., ..,-tii\?-'? ' i.:`",;• -•:'.' ' .. t''It\1\-,,, .. - ,0i,' - '' ,-./,,,'1.: 4' 1.4„! . 11-.S. !.'14:1111 ,It4:76e-, isfi,i'',,V.-,...- '.jss.„ ,„„,,.. ..i....;04 '•"7.'1,-.•-:.-41";,.--7;.'"...,,,,,4„.,' '..• ., :4 "9'. r'''A,,`',, i' 4,-,, t4.4, i .,,r1,7*;,:i.,:42: 1`;,,i'',.;2'e:',.:1,`:,...„,,'.1 -1*-..- i.,.. 4;J.,., L.,.d',.,,.;' ., it. 1.,..t.,,, , ip' 4,_•. i,,* _ k,•t, ' .74,04. t, •N.,, , 2 ,., 6,, 9: 'r'''' l',„. 0,• '' • •-"IWt:01474k,AF'4,444.•%/,..,..'''e,,', :' mit. . y .r.,: q?,,. 1, -.0,,,. ... ,, ''. ., .4.,,,.;.., - , •,t,-?-4 , 4, - wrt-,(•,; -`1,,,,... . ,i„.,....ii,. * ! -„, . 401.7'fl..,' '44'17,4-• t'' . , ' 4: ..'i' •:• •40i .":,' -'4.'' .,! 4•14' iii0)..* ' ' '' ;$. 1•100c•Atc..•.' -.t. 'r•,'-iritf", 47. •, . ' 4 At-I; .c-.. . 4 ,•,.4esT-.-1.,, 4 . °' ' ,,,,* ., 7 , ,I •-.. .., It. ., ,,:,...1* 2,..,„,. ._--,.... ... . 1 ., ... .„2., _.,46 f 4,...ZP IP-,.g. ...,- „s•. 14 ,i. -... ....•,• ..----.., -. A%- • . - ...)-,..„...N.It, -0,. , .,„,;_„.„. ,. ,, ,,. .tt,,„ •,- ,..•f:„-i ,.• ! . ... ...,..er:-f.. J.,... 44' - '• 0.0' ».,--.. Ir.. ' '_,.'; . &-r. !Pr-, ' -*. ".; ', . . 1,‘....r...,4. ,.--., . if.V',. . '..!II'', 4,•. i'rfAtir''77.••' •A?4 '''. • ''' rrt -•r, .1 ' 4 '- •' '' v. . , . , .,,,,,,,,,,,,, --: A441(4'01, -..:,.,r, „4-.„„1„..4.4.,.-4,3,,,k..,,), .-!..,,.,..7,,,,..0 • a, •,' .+",, 4.,,," '7'0._-0 •-, 'I'- • .),14,,,-,_„4* ;'-,,,.., ,,,, ``. ,,s I"I•'•• ' 7,4'.4,, 4 4 k*,....;):at. . 4.164.: .'..: fi.' " ., 1-, ''.' P.,•,:e;.›.1.,,.;',' t.,..t.,.,-.•: '.,.....•, 4.. . .1%,:. 7 .-6,-::. •-• . .1'44,.,,Ii-Ifi..t,,,, : , --.1.,::4., :.,, ' ' . 401,:,,,e. .,4„-..71/ ...;4,..--,k':?•• ".„ r k . , . ,. '; ,• -.-'''f. 04•-••_,I• .• '''',... . ,••.,7 .•. f-f-ttryoe-• ,.--..,-•,....•‹••• ...-• •-•.. - > '„,, 8,.'-' •• - • .; -- : --a. 4.1....4.1 •',- . .4.:•` • -4 I 4. .. n,..!...., •..., . . .„,,., , •sr,144.7, p,,rt),.,•,.t. 0 k 4- • • .t• . ' • '',"".• 4..-,', T•4, ••"/ I. i ' AI ' ' 1,1,., • ,. - • , •,,, ;74 e, , 6 -' 4- 4 •,. i. . ; - ... ,.. - 1. ,t ...t.' ' '• . . ... ; 4*.' . '-- 4 ',V'' . . ". '''. :".i '. ...' ... t' li,C., ' '',.."'..--' '.''. ' ,...,..•4''4-ks.'',,'''' i ,,,,,,,,,,„ .";.'' .'i.':'.A. 0, • . .2 • ii- -' '-..". ! `.4.'''', .0v* 1 , .-- 4 • cr i• *:. •..'. ' o, .. j, ' • ...,441, *.,,..,..,,, .4..,5.4.,, • i,,..,,'" .:,,..-".;•r,, ,,,,..,,:,- ,,7',#*•,,e,?•.(;‘,,, . -(...,..„,„,, ',, i,'',,} -I . ........;,, o 'C':., • ''.1.4-;. 1.„,'‘;,';40e""" • .tN Its. ,, ‘.. a`-...r... . *., .., .,, ': : - ' ,- . '•, -. 1.1111,.. 4 fee ItrP et".1'.t... 'At' ..).•' 4, 'it''.-A., l''''''',, ",1 J.,`' 1 4.-, . • ..... '' ''' - . I''' . MZ'''..-. , ..,61, d,•,: , :,,,*•• 4%,,"•-, -;,. " 'I ', ,' '. . . i. -4..t.:1, r:i. 34..' ..-•,,,, _-... ,4.='...k`.. ' .,..,... 7.i.,',.i-ii, k:".".• . . . ., '41rw , - r• . '.1.or- .. ''.''' .-,' ..' I'Y':-•-cc. „L.• -.,'• ..'' ''' ;„, ',,i) -, ,' , • 4 ', .i.:47,f.‘1, -• 'A 4,44,4, '7, ..:. k., .. . ,41_.k.;..*. 4'• • .• „4„... iyik ,,,-,.,,,-;‘,,,,,.. .:,,:...A.,.,.., , ,-- ..,,4•,-..i.',..:-.,, : i. ,,.,_ -4,---.4-,i,-,:,,..,,.. 1....-..,-, -- .• -...,,,,:,...4-.',..i.,,, ,4...-_ . - ..e p itk.c i - - • r , „, , „,. ..,,,, , , , :. , •..„,-..." 4 4..1 ••,,1 • ..*,'",, 4.. •-• 6*. ;17 C,;,.".4.'‘'..4,7•444. • kkill'. Ir *-• •,, 1 .4„. -Ie.',L;',.e, , •,‘• *; or).',..,, - F"- -44.3,R7‘-'-';" ..--;'4- 4, •'••iv:,f• ,i'i tr.. ., '. • .",,,NN"--.'"' .,;,- • - ...•.,A4' '' -.-!,. t;-; Alt,:,...1.t.• . - . ',' /* '1,1,r'.• St:i,,4;...,;,, i,,, ...47, *.I .‘"` ,• e.,`; i ...,, i,:..,' / I 7 I !•'''. ''. '• ' )1/41VriVi7f tit'• 417i' 4- y„....'w -04:74 •Ci _L„;,),,c,- 4-,--;1?• . ...,-?.. *...t.•Al.: . y,•ti4„ 4 .-S,, .ae, 1,11 ,2. ' A .. '...,,! ,4:411;...w. „..i.,..7,w......R. • • . , •r „,,,, •-, ' .,,i,,,.. ,..„'.. i • V,, 01` r, 4 4 1.14'i- T. ...•.'r.,,./. 1.-, :14....•••• • . •;,/iv pr. *• ; t; . 4v 4,.:.„;..y „A ••••,;--„,, ., ,..,-..i.,, ...4......; ,,,,,,,y. ,...4,,,,.. 4. • . . •st.i....1. , Le.. , / i • , .N 1.."' • I....t110..' '*,;.„„*..,..: ".44., .;•••-• .... ... 0.,,,,,,,,74, ,.- ... ,,,-,,,,,',:,,,,, so. • s .."....,i2f 4,04;11'91',. ',..:„1.--,q1 ,,,'..*::4.;-.,''''. ., ..''7- `..N. ' 4'7 .i.. '`., t..... ' N.., 44,,,, • • ''''''.A4 •,../*,',, ,t4-4 -41,-, ..••• iv. ,..o-1•0A - .0. -- •., , 'ott ..Aritt-,'•',0-'s,i-,‘.,. • ,•%-/C.: 01 ..„;-;'-%. „.; ,4,..',„ .:. , ; ..'-.-. . 1.-• pitIrt 4..-.. '„'-::,-' .<,-. 1 .. i'.';;.. 4 -;, 0.:-.gx,1/4., t,,Anti.,,,,-::;. , ., -..4,v-,410,k, '.. 7,..?„.--;.,, ';-:,-. ., ,-:...--,..;...;x1::17,...,_ "`r:' :..'4 ,:.•••••,, A, '',17,k,,'•:.'•'-', -I,' f .. • 1.:,• • .itt 'L , •. 1••••, • „ „.1 ' .111.4„›,i,'1,,C. itilki ,°', 41 , . ..,V. 4.''...- :-''' ip.'.-1. 1. ' , 4 4.1 :Le. . ... . ,so - -41,7---.:4744 .: ei,),-,,,. 4,,s N.,,,,... , . • . ..... ,. ..,,,,..,.A:t :,1',,t,,,..,„,/,.?..ift ,,,,.,.,....i, .- !...,.t,;;;.,.., - ) ....... ,,?f,r.v.,- ,;,•,,;„..:,,- . , ..i.- ,.. ,.,7:.,. ., _....._,„„*..., „ 1 .', -/ . .. • •At,'. , i',7:'. t. " .' 7L ••'''.,',,,.' ' .• af,..'..,...,,,,-- .e.,, .1,.i-: :',. /.1,::Nir.4. .--,:'- :-, '-e.,„•:..f,•41,:-. ,,,,, , .-.' .. ij.•=7 4.4.4,. ,i•'.4T.; IS t,„1,01: l, , N,40, v` 1 A .. 77,... 4.0, ,,,,-'.....r. . .t.4:17'4r. , "..?4•4-..",- .--.., 7°vv.":• . .., -",...,,,, -.el' ..z.-.,p,....‘;,.....;•,,,....•,,t„..,•,, •".. ,,,,,....„,,„,,00, 0,74. I, ",', 1t;‘ --. ,„,Jo. '1_.„Viril010 k'4 7 ":‘ 'AP .' \ 1#144 %.... 4 .ecr•-* r- ••,..'4:A11461Pg'''; ''''.• '1.- 4.T. -..,!'i 4 .,;,.1---.'-e:-',.-44:11,*.•.-,1*..- .. ...."'_! =,-,,ve4-;4• ..-,AP-7"7:4'",*••. 17 it Nit- '' . 7"' .7'" t4...-. •"`•- ". • • '. 7'. • . ' i ...\;•• '4,1,4' • ., 4. , „ 4..",:.' 4, : 4- 14,,,,* , z,,..,A. 1'. 7;:*7' 5-4; 7:.':: 477'4.: 7-..71 ' .':'71i.'.-' '): 5:71"74; 1;);.' fk:41 0,",4..110 "'" , ,,40 1 4- r ...,' ,. .•-kriAT *''',4..41 0";••••,"iV...*1/-Nt •••‘• ;' , '•*0.r ' '''•,--'"''-',..'‘, 0•°.! '`'N't,4, • '-aript'i;144' 1. ''•:'s 4%irip, e4 4. •••' i• ‘ ''4 .4- '•i1,4'• 4 -..4. 0, 'T4'..... •AVA 2 ..N.s .41.., 4,;-..,t' ' ' 4 4.":-.' .." '''''"- ,..-0,'.,...4....- ` '. 'IF'. . •''- . ,.. .o'.• Ws 1 I ',Li I*/.-°-, • If, 5f1. '''./, '.1` itir.,1' 4 „'il-r. °.."-,.., '..114- -ir t1,-" .*;'r‘' ; ;' 4 It0..''''iti'P' f.,11.' t;'''.'ISL';'''':" .. • "VT 4C4L.1,". ' ''',k4;‘,t • 1. .r:::. *'., '%' e 0'7",;,'ir,,i.:A%3.C:...&.4 r Y t',c' s . '14: . --"".40 , ...,e' ' '''...0 As.-': : 'it-'. r•••• .. w't*".`4:41 .**-- • -,:ViRs. .'";•;,`.'.:''-•.o. i'-• .• :-'4 AI: , .''' 1 A . •.t'Adr. ' 4-..11.- .`,..•%,,,,::r;• ''. ,,,,...„•• ' . , A- '. •.,,,...$.0",- 14.4e•••,''' ..*••,40""':-Wi.. ''`'' ''.'• :'-• "'' tlfs••";'''''* '"f J.-Q.."'; i :: • : P. ' 4k, ,. .. '.., ..-;A:..1....-!.17.4-.''''.',.'-;vir, ' 4.-,.. , ,,,..- ,-i- ':,s...„,,,, ..,,,,,v,•-•,...,,,,, ', ,,,,, ...,.....„ ., .-7-.,:.„v.,., .. A., '''''.0.,-,s. 01_4_4_,*•Mitt, j I .,pc,,,„. .." c,,, „•••,,re.,;',,• t" - ,,,,„4.,,..,rd.• , :.* 4 .„ ' .4,-;`,: . ..64.' -:....;,..* • ...f:i'.,..,''•'1',,',V,,,F, 7,0,-.' -, ... .e r,?", i,r• .', ."4 4.!itt wpt.'At,..F- ' ,. t s.:t 751.tp ererf 4 .*:;;...;',j7t,:.....'W'' :,'Wekis .',:;.-*.4''- ':'4.. :-' . ,L.':-74'..,,,,,n•l',..4';';','.•-;•'4.4:47.,;*•*".7.'" ' • - ,'.'Or' -'4- .... - '7 e'.'/Ip ' ,_4; Quill 111 LI t.N4:•'•-°. 4i.,;,,,i.,•.' s ' ,; T4,.41(ii:... ,..,,,, 4 ,,-'.,.?),:•..- Vei.-,•..z.tztik:-..-zg.•- '",?:?,.,.,* -'.. '. '!-•• ••-.'•1_,!:`47•• . ° Li] „?... •. i ,.• - ., •-.., 1.... ' ', A ..-,' .1t ''`'# '' , . ‘. ,ff. ''‘'44,,,t,•..1t.''''„ k...- 14.-...,..•*.f.,•"•.-1;...i(,..;e4 '"•%,71•)"• .•,.„4 • .- 4:-'- • Ir. -,..,„, -- 4..,' ./ 9,:``' . -',r.':;''i ' -, i. ° 4"-,'",. . t2. p e,- .4,. ,.:4P' ,:-.,-... '-. 4-7, -,•:-tw' -.-ti- .,-,,,,i- , .. ; .---, L. IT'v•-'4`.4'/, -..,,'‘..., .•„'.:,;• •-•-': i••••:;-.0° .7".-L'^ P.'!. 'IL I"V . i,,,f A,.‘,.. .,,..`,„1.-:,4-i.i,...„.----,,4 it: -,. --.- • or,: ,,.4'04;!?,'"''.,,.:., ',..i.i.',,, t'.--..-‘ . -' ',- - , , .• A 41-' .*-,'-, ,,! . . :-•'• 4,4r.q.,%, n. 4..f'''-' •,',Z.i.. V 1.,- ., ., sk....t:,•!"."..,-A. iis4^•"' ' 'r• l• qp.• . .' .-j '• ' •-''''''• 14," f.. 7 11, .4'4,,i,.. . , .4,..,,,c,,, ...4, ,, , 1,-.•::,;,,,:,4i, M.',,',V0-. ‘t .1.0tr,.,, ,,s ,„ i ''''V.- - ''''''''' ' ''''>'2.-.'•-v-::, s'', ' '7' 4.. 4- ..>.:- -. . , 7N,. %,-.4.,.' '•,':f.-,0'..,. .: :- .',.. IT* •;.i, ,w4.• -.,, ,,.- el- 4$...‘', '....,•;:. 4,,, ...-, .. 4-,L, 7,...41,,,...,;:,,t,,,,t- . -,-:AI;:. ,.....i.',:.'''.:..'• ,v1.: •• 4 '-- . ....; 'ik- .`i-4, • . a.: - • ' . ' 4 1,i.4:.?,..& r, . ...iN.,. ':....';' ,' -'. ' .',.4 • 4 :.•,'1*.' ' i % "‘ •c:' irk:: ...•.,,:,i;:%.•-I-..,::::,,..„. , :,,:, : 1 I II of '' . i •- -eg-,*•••--"••--. Je t'.' ;.?.. '.., f.'",...:4. '-' ---,,,-t•-2. •'.. •.• -,--',: a 'a:,ti A $.',44,kv-., '-,,,,„,,•:.i7., i$-..,;,- .. 4 '. . ';',,„it'A: w.zt ',N••-, ;.-.• ..0.- .;• ,„,, .s.'- . .., . . 0. , 4, nr s 4 ., •-; • \•. .i,•,• , ,..,...• ..1,-fir, is„ ''• • , - . •-••t•-„. •••; v,i, , 1-, ,•-_,, , 4" c. ..e... i vo.:.•+.s.' •‘,.,-,;. - ....t! , E • - . 404 ,-- ..;.- .- ),e . ,,;.- ..„,..,44,0. ,,4,,,,, -. 1,-;_erl 1,0,4,,,.., „ f...i:.,,,s. ,,,..,„,, 4,,,,,....„,, ,,„, • „„i,,,,,,,, . i,44,-;,„•.: ,ir,..1..,-.• - c.-, ... .- , A 4' ',,,I V. ..." '.,v ( '64it.. ;•"','t••..' - ..* 1,27..4,e. 0.1$. 2`.4444,• '••.:•• '•,i,,•-••• ,,••.‘ •Nuk,'4*t `;', 7* '*4 , * ' • 2 . .`,...4*,S,,,,..,, 4 ......12..1,4.1 4 , i,,,.., ,,n '-.. I .....I... . '.. A ctr.?•,,i A 131,:kfirtt i gi'' 4•'' •:te'.•, A. , y•.',;:kii•;,.-'7.„,,,Al• ;-' 4•••-'•••,;".;!•,•;;;;!,, •:•'?:•, X',. - . '•,• I '..."-•/!;',t V'.•Y•,,•::•,-i-...•:',•'' , • „,Ae -.--440' ••,-, ,'..L,..-•-'' -..• •.. 4 s .-• • r.::,./.4, 5:ig'21,-*; ..,..,tty,....,.. ,,,,p 4., . • . ...e, -1,..r. •oi....,,,,e.4:...,, aidik, .,..4 ''''':',.i 7rc,:', 7%;".:7-76' ''''''7-.1•4-''-'-7- . .,":.," t..- 1--• ` 4"" .,'',,-P1f A:4......4,1,1,. .,-, .. ,-. • r ton,,,,,F.44, .s• - c... '''Al,""-;,1-•': '-' '••' '‘ :•'•..'''” 2'. '' ,j44,N4e.....•44••••, e• 1,,,•„,1'.' l• Z ":4,'; ,•"4.9.:2-teeekti6A4k-r 1 . ' 4, -.„\ ii,-,... -..,?..t.1'4 ,, 1,14' , •• : .• '' ''• - '''' -r ...-• -- . , .,;.•:-.04 to.' ... 4, 1. ,i,,,.. . .,,,,..„.4-.,,,,,,, ,..,,_ . 4 44 U*1 04 1,,,,yailfr-1,Z1et_ 7 . 47 ., t. 7.7%,,,, VIIIiti: 1. t.... '1.1'-,I,A:0........( ,....", . •••. i....47 V zt, .., ''. .:-,,, *, 0.4diere;„.: k K'',,, N"' rr~r! % i 38"Cdf"CON Woo le)"Co 1 ON\-VoOp."' i , 1 s 2ooT5 EX SEC 4,.\ 2' 34 W...0E ` 2ca'AL E. o•coTr woo0Z • .•cc7TTouwooD ."' a-rroNw000 moo` s 0I CoT"f QWoOD r Nw000 4v^/N.L.De 2 1 LY: OLP4; / \ ry 1 •>, 1 za c roNw000 40 7554" co i ToN WOOD N` w'\--' - J 30''A Ec ilt . ti OOnE N / 133. _ 0.‘• 0 T,:iiihr12° 0t . ; n 7 59 S 8t. E t 0 0 0 n O 23"ALDEF Lir N,,__i- 1 7 (Li,j.., ksr 3o ALOCP 14"ALDER tu' ye/ T W I1J (DO" COTfo N..\/OO D ti r >icer cofrroN W Co--- 41 V JX IX/. TW IIJ C0170m ./OOD ti i' 2 G }' /ii.; _'iv L9/ y hr GJ w I v Gj 40. .,- ..7- el P: r ` bk.n r 5o" MAPLE 9 g4/ i / , 1,7 1 J k" 07 077) 3 tom 1 5' I O z N 03 5 ti b 49 co r-) ...,\ ),.- \'''' fil 0 I _____„/ ji Cj/i/ r/ h Vv.c gz 0°'0.° 3S V 7 I 8 2 h/ / 4 c)1AME.T=K r1ON`.iovu VV I-TH I"6l.LIE- HE RON N EST v V Q 4.5 0lAMGTEh, Go 1 TON - .. iiM y i woos WITH P .uE 11\ / / S 4- OIAt r__TE A, O Co-r rotiw000or_ LiiJG / HERoN N6T tpo , 3 Ix 4- 8.9 T. P. O. D. PARCEL C t 00, I JTHEAST CORNER OF 1 0,(/ ACT 26, RENTON SHORELANDS JD SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS) 1958. v 7-oo Q, V oN J ORDIN/2`( 1 11 t 1 0 VIr T6R rIIV E u)I v 1k i 0 0 0 6V)\ \71.- I. \0: o• !\ ry cli 0 rirzI ti 4 SEC. 13- 23- 4 S. E. 1/4 SEC. 13- 23- 4 I 10' DRA1NAc.E D1?C. I 1 E.E iE TJT -T"C KING GOu.1-f,( DRNINA.CAE.\OIS'iZIcG NO. 1 1 UNDER NPPL;IC..A-TIot.1\No 25\ A.NO -To -'`•( of RE •1TO1.1 LI10ER 1PPl_ILA-rlo Nca. ZT1 583 . 15• U_Bill-r( CSE1-/1Et OF "..\/nsIAIf,.C Ta.1 -T'CC-1 t N 88° 15' 00 W K. C. A. S. I I lax x s_ IN8815'00"W 414.27' I iIk A x x% IF '00"W 74.7 N•4'00'00"W 173.10 t J L,i 2 WIlicx< >rc x x ric ric t T Y^• r' S00 00'00"W x xx x xx AP4 09 17 W 'xx t x x w i x ftx x xxx x t 1 x xx 8 xx0/ 0 #) ' NOSOi'4Q 1 l f X///," i i5 .50 i/ x xxTU . ii x/ 0 t ..)? t 3xl ' x x x S x# CITY OF A = 13'43'43" xx x I x RENTON 1 1 R = 490.00' x N' OPEN SPACE ;, I 1 T = 58.99' i x xxx i l i f j x ' 0'/ x x U L = 117.41' ow\x , / sA LAT 3 ;x 1 xx R z. '' LOT 3 I M 1171 \ x N v / 4IbM S23 ' 4,"E x p3333pp x " 4"• / x / 105.71 11 3t.86'Zxxi x x ' i t N48'09'1 9*E F` 220o li CfixLx, 5663.65CE o x x`\,1 6• `- 11 I; /' /O1 I /1<s x I x F,IfR = 238. 3 x T = 142. 6' a 1 gEx xx i I tt t -) 'ac) 7) x,\_f 'x^(:x.X?,A = 22'11'26" I •••• 7 R - 460.00' : ' 1 3 x) :"rit T = 90.21' I ._- I u i) L = 178.16' i A = 82'19'28" Q LOT 2 R = 25.00' w_ r i T = 21.86' 3,TZ L = 35.92' ift,• Sl6'31'94 W v, o = ot'34'o0\ OF TREES ON SITE 158 R = 580.00' is' t'cx,.,$ c T = 7.93' ik OF TREES TO PRESERVE 127 L = 15.85' 60'12'11" o,1i OF TREES TO RELOCATE 0 R 47:52' a r Cc") # OF TREES TO REMOVE 31 417: a, \A = 23'32'28i 8 A R = 580.00' T 120 86' Rifie/L = 238.SO' NO TH TREE INVENTORY Jinn' 1 RA KENNETH J. RAEDEKE, Ph.D. EDUCATION: Ph.D. 1979 Wildlife Ecology University of Washington Dissertation: Population Dynamics and Socioecology of the Guanaco of Magallanes, Chile. B.S. 1970 Wildlife Ecology University of Montana PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: July 1985- Research Associate Professor present College of Forest Resources University of Washington, Seattle 1983-1984 Affiliate Associate Professor 1983-1985 Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts July 1980- Research Assistant Professor June 1985 College of Forest Resources University of Washington, Seattle June 1979- Research Associate June 1980 College of Forest Resources University of Washington, Seattle September 1975- Graduate Research Assistant June 1979 Wildlife Sciences Group College of Forest Resources University of Washington, Seattle s RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 Northeast 63rd St. Seattle, WA 98115 206) 525-8122 xti, (3 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (continued): May-Sept 1976 Wildlife Biologist Marine Mammal Division National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandpoint, Seattle, Washington 1972-1975 Wildlife Biologist Chilean National Forest Corporation Punta Arenas Magallanes, Chile Summer 1974 Wildlife Consultant National Parks Development Program Food and Agriculture Organization United Nations Santiago, Chile 1971 Research Associate College of Forest Resources University of Washington, Seattle 1967-1970 Research Assistant School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula Summers Research Assistant 1968 - 1970 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Auke Bay Biological Laboratory, Alaska HONORS AND AWARDS: 1984 Who's Who in Science and Technology 1978 W. W. Stout Fellow, University of Washington 1975 R. D. Merrill Fellow, University of Washington 1970 B.S. with Honors, University of Montana 1968 Presidents Scholar, University of Montana 1967 Presidents Scholar, University of Montana Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 2 Kenneth J. Raedeke PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: American Society of Mammalogists Ecological Society of America Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society The Wildlife Society Xi Sigma Pi Society for Conservation Biology PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Past Vice President, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society Panel Member, National Wetland Policy Forum Panel Member, King County Environmental Policy Review Commission Member, National Research and Science Advisory Board, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Invited Participant, White House Regional Forum on Technology for a Sustainable Future Member, Wildlife Management Advisory Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife RESEARCH INTERESTS: Population Dynamics Ungulate Ecology Conservation of Endangered Species Biometrics/biostatistics Ecology of Wetlands GRADUATE STUDENT THESES SUPERVISED: McCorquodale, S. 1985. The ecology of elk (Gervus elaphus) in the shrub-steppe of Washington. Masters thesis. 127 pp. Merrill, E. 1987. Population dynamics and habitat ecology of elk in the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone. Doctoral dissertation. 246 pp. Paige, D. 1988. Factors affecting the population structure and dynamics of Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelson') in the Cedar River Watershed, Washington. Doctoral dissertation. 158 pp. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 3 Kenneth J. Raedeke GRADUATE STUDENT THESES SUPERVISED (continued): Czech, B. 1988. The impact of recreational traffic on elk in the volcanic blast zone of Mt. St. Helens. Masters thesis. 74 pp. Kunz, C. 1989. The dynamics of an intensively harvested Columbian black-tailed deer population (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) on Indian Island Naval Base. Masters thesis. 76 pp. Becker, J. 1989. Forage enhancement in the Pacific Northwest: improving elk habitat and forest regeneration. Masters thesis. 55 pp. Bary Pereda, S. 1990. Influence of nest-site characteristics on the reproductive success of Magellanic penguins. Masters thesis. 49 pp. Reuling, M. 1991. Elephant use of the Marang Forest Reserve in northern Tanzania. Masters thesis. 82 pp. Welch, S. 1991 . Human disturbance and habitat use patterns of the mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) on White Chuck Mountain, Washington. Masters thesis. 101 pp. Gilbert, B. 1992. Long term population dynamics of a black-tailed deer herd on commercial forestland in western Washington. Masters thesis. 125 pp. Svendsen, C. 1992. Ecological relationships between elk and deer: behavior and plant-herbivore interactions. Doctoral dissertation. 171 pp. Lenz, M. 1993. Mule deer habitat effectiveness modeling: a validation study on the Lake Chelan winter range, Washington. Masters thesis. 63 pp. Hansen, C. 1993. Habitat use by Roosevelt elk in relation to roads on the Olympic Peninsula. Masters thesis. 84 pp. Hart, G. 1996. Ecology of a non-migratory elk herd on the Dungeness/ Greywolf river drainage. Masters thesis. 73 pp. PUBLICATIONS: Raedeke, L. and K. Raedeke. 1974. Monte Balmaceda. Editorial Don Bosco, Punta Arenas, Chile. 42 pp. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 4 Kenneth J. Raedeke PUBLICATIONS (continued): Raedeke, K. 1977. The immobilization of the guanaco. Annales de Ia Instituto de Ia Patagonia 7:185-189. Raedeke, K. 1978. El Guanaco de Magallanes: Distribucion, ecologia, y dinamica de la poblacion. Pub. Tech. No. 4, Corporacion Nacional Forestal, Santiago, Chile. 182 pp. Taber, R. and K. Raedeke. 1979. Population dynamics. Pages 98-106 in R.D. Teague and E. Decker, editors. Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society, Washington D.C. 280 pp. Raedeke, K. and R. Taber. 1979. Mechanisms of population regulation in western Washington forests for Cervus and Odocoileous. Trans. International Congress of Game Biologists 14(1982):69-79. Raedeke, K. 1980. Food habits of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) of Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Turrialba 30(2):177-181. Taber, R., S. West, and K. Raedeke. 1980. Some cumulative effects of forest management on wildlife. Pages 51-66 in Cumulative Effects of Forest Management on California Watersheds. Special Pub. 3268, Div. Agric. Sci., University Calif., Berkeley. 109 pp. Taber, R., D. Manuwal, S. West, K. Raedeke, and D. de Calesta. 1981 . Wildlife management in the mesic-temperate forest of Washington and Oregon. Pages 575-587, Proc. Div. I, XVII IUFRO World Congress, Kyoto, Japan. Taber, R., K. Raedeke, and D. McCaughran. 1982. Chapter 6. Population Characteristics. Pages 279-298 in D. McCabe, editor. The Elk of North America. The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington D.C. Raedeke, K. 1982. Habitat utilization by the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) and sheep on common range, Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Turrialba 32(3):309-314. Smith, C. and K. Raedeke. 1982. Groups size and movements of a dispersed, low density goat population with comments on inbreeding and human impacts. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 3:54- 67. Miller, S., J. Rottmann, K. Raedeke, and R. Taber. 1983. Endangered mammals of Chile: Status and conservation. Biological Conservation 25(4):335-352. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 5 Kenneth J. Raedeke PUBLICATIONS (continued): Simonetti, J., A. Poiani, and K. Raedeke. 1983. Food habits of Dusicyon griseus in northern Chile. J. Mamm. 65(3):515-517. Simonetti, J., A. Poiani, and K. Raedeke. 1984. Oryzomys longicaudatus Bennett 1832) en Sierra las Tapias, norte de Chile. Neotropica 83:17-18. Raedeke, K. and R. Taber. 1985. Do cougars reduce hunter harvest of black- tailed deer in Washington State? Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin 22:49-50. Raedeke, K. and R. Taber. 1985. Black-tailed deer population regulation through antlerless hunts in Western Washington. Pages 139-147 in S.L.. Beasom and S. F. Roberson, editors. Game Harvest Management. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, Texas. 374 pp. Raedeke, K. and J. Lehmkuhl. 1986. Chapter 53. A simulation procedure for modeling the relationships between wildlife and forest management. Pages 377-381 in J. Verner et al., editors. Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. McCorquodale, S., K. Raedeke, and R. Taber. 1986. Elk habitat use patterns in the shrub-steppe of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4):664-669. Raedeke, K., E. Merrill, and S. McCorquodale. 1986. Estimates of intrinsic growth rates in three elk populations in Washington. Pages 235-244 in Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop Proceedings, Coos Bay, Oregon. Merrill, E., K. Raedeke, K. Knutson, and R. Taber. 1986. Elk recolonization and population dynamics in the northwest portion of the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone. Pages 359-368 in S.A.C. Keller, editor. Symposium Proceedings, Mt. St. Helens, 5 years later. Eastern Washington University Press, Cheney, Washington. 442 pp. Milligan, D., and K. Raedeke. 1986. Incorporation of a wetland into an urban residential development. Pages 162-171 in K. Stenberg and W. Shaw, editors. Wildlife Conservation and New Residential Developments. University of Arizona. 203 pp. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 6 Kenneth J. Raedeke PUBLICATIONS (continued): Raedeke, K. 1987. Incentives to preserve wetlands: An overview. Pages 213- 216 in P. Dyer, editor. Northwest wetlands: What are they? For whom? For what? Institute for Environmental Studies, University Washington, Seattle. 291 pp. Raedeke, K. and J. Simonetti. 1987. El guanaco: Estado actual y oportunidades de manejo. Flora, Fauna, y Areas Silvestres. 2(5):22-25. Taber, R. and K. Raedeke. 1987. The Management of Cervus in North America. Pages 568-577 in C. Wemmer. Biology and management of Cervidae. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington DC. 577 pp. Raedeke, K., and J. Simonetti. 1988. Food habits of the Lama guanicoe in the Atacama desert of northern Chile. Journal of Mammalogy. 69(1):198-201 . Raedeke, K. (ed). 1988. Riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. Contribution 59, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 277 pp. Rochelle, J., L. Hicks, and K. Raedeke. 1988. Management opportunities for wildlife in riparian areas. Pages 135-138 in K. Raedeke, editor. Riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. Contribution 59, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 277 pp. Raedeke, K., R. Taber, and D. Paige. 1988. Ecology of large mammals in riparian systems of Pacific Northwest forests. Pages 113-132 in K. Raedeke, editor. Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions. Contribution 59, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 277 pp. Czech, B., and K. Raedeke. 1988. The impact of recreational vehicular travel on elk in the blast zone of Mt. St. Helens. Pages 55-67 in Proceedings of the Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop, Wenatchee, WA. 249 pp. Merrill, E., and K. Raedeke. 1988. Forest Succession and elk harvest strategies at Mt. St. Helens. Pages 198-202 in Proceedings of the Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop, Wenatchee, WA. 249 pp. Raedeke, K. 1989. Forest management and wildlife in the Pacific Northwest: a review. Northwest Environmental Journal. 4(2):263-279. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 7 Kenneth J. Raedeke PUBLICATIONS (continued): McCorquodale, S., K. Raedeke, and R. Taber. 1989. Movements and home range of elk in the shrub-steppe of Washington. Northwest Science 63(1):29-34. Raedeke, K., E. Salo, and J. Hulsey. 1989. Effects of slash burning on productivity of fish and wildlife. Pages 113-125 in D.P. Hanley, J.L. Kammenga, and C.D. Oliver, editors. The burning decision: Regional perspectives on slash. Contribution 66, Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 374 pp. Raedeke, K. 1990. Integrating deer and timber management. Prespectives on Economics and the Environment 4(2):8-9. Paige, D., K. Raedeke, and R. Taber. 1991 . Biology of a colonizing, unharvested population of elk in western Washington. Paper 12 in R. Brown, editor. The biology of deer. Springer-Verlag, New York. 596 pp. Raedeke, K. 1991 . Population dynamics and estimation of maximum sustained yield (MSY) in a black-tailed deer population. Paper 24 in R. Brown, editor. The biology of deer. Springer-Verlag, New York. 596 pp. Raedeke, K., and C. Kunz. 1991 . Variation in conception dates in black-tailed deer in western Washington. Paper 83 in R. Brown, editor. The biology of deer. Springer-Verlag, New York. 596 pp. Hanley, D., D. Baumgartner, and K. Raedeke. 1992. Coastal Douglas-fir forests and wildlife. Gilbert, B., and K. Raedeke. 1992. Winter habitat selection of mountain goats in the North Tolt and Mine Creek drainages of the north central Cascades. North. Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 8:305-324. Stabins, H., and K. Raedeke. 1992. Status of great blue heron nesting colonies in King County, Washington. Northwest Science. 66(2):126. Milligan Raedeke, D. and K. Raedeke. 1994. Wildlife habitat design in urban forest landscapes. Pages 139-149 in G. Bradley, editor. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 8 Kenneth J. Raedeke PUBLICATIONS (continued): Merrill, E., A. Callahan-Olson, K. Raedeke, R. Taber, and R. Anderson. 1995. Elk (Cervus elaphus rooseveltt) dietary composition and quality in the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone. Northwest Science. 69(1):9-17. Becker, J., T. Quinn, and K. Raedeke. 1996. Seeding herbs to enhance cervid forage and reforestation in Pacific Northwest conifer forests: a review. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 3(2/3):29-44. Millspaugh, J., G. Brundige, K. Raedeke, and C. Willmott. 1998. Summer diurnal bed sites of elk in the Northern Great Plains. American Midland Naturalist 139:133-140. Raedeke, K. 1998. Deer. World Book Encyclopedia 4:82-86. Simonetti, J., O. Komar, and K. Raedeke. In press. Anotaciones sobre las ayes de Sierra Las Tapias y Isla Pan de Azucar, Norte de Chile. Museo Nacional de Historica Natural, Santiago. Brown, G., T. Herrera, and K. Raedeke. In review. Incorporating ecological use values into landscape management benefit-cost analyses through valuation of deer and elk hunting. Submitted to Forest Science. Gilbert, B., and K. Raedeke. In review. Adjustment of deer population reconstruction estimates with harvest age structure. Submitted to Journal of Wildlife Management. Millspaugh, J., M. Coleman, K. Raedeke, G. Brundige, and P. Bauman. In review. Capture-related stress of Rocky Moountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsons) in the Northern Great Plains. Submitted to Journal of Wildlife Diseases. Millspaugh, J., B. Kernohan, G. Brundige, K. Raedeke, and R. Gitzen. In review. Simulated home range comparisons: sizes, spatial relations, and sample size effects. Submitted to Journal of Wildlife Management. PRESENTATIONS AND SYMPOSIA: 1975 (Raedeke, K.) The biology and population dynamics of the guanaco of southern Chile. Invited presentation. Second International Vicuna Conference, Arica, Chile. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 9 Kenneth J. Raedeke PRESENTATIONS AND SYMPOSIA (continued): 1977 (Raedeke, K.) The reproductive biology of the guanaco. 57th Annual Conf., American Society of Mammalogists, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 1978 (Raedeke, K.) The effects of man-made impoundments on adjacent deer winter range. Northwest Section, The Wildlife Society, Vancouver, British Columbia. 1978 (Raedeke, K.) Competition and ungulate population dynamics in Southern Patagonia. Invited presentation. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Tacoma, Washington. 1979 (Raedeke, K.) Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in ungulates. 59th. Annual Conf., American Society of Mammalogists, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon. 1980 (Raedeke, K., R. Taber, and R. Lee) Costs and benefits of wildlife conservation in developing countries. Proceeding of International Seminar on Wildlife Management in Developing countries. Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan. 1982 (Raedeke, K. and D. Milligan) Effectiveness of regulated hunting in controlling deer populations. Northwest Section, The Wildlife Society, Juneau, Alaska. 1984 (Raedeke, K.) The potential of either-sex deer seasons in regulation of deer populations in western Washington. Northwest Section, The Wildlife Society, Penticton, B.C. Canada. 1986 (Raedeke, K.) Estimates of intrinsic growth rates in three elk populations in Washington. Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop, Coos Bay, Oregon. 1987 (Raedeke, K., and R. Everitt) Estimation of sustained harvest rates for deer in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society and The Wildlife Society. Seattle, Washington. 1987 (Raedeke, K.) Regulation of deer populations through sport hunting. Invited presentation. Workshop on deer management in British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Surrey, B.C. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 10 Kenneth J. Raedeke PRESENTATIONS AND SYMPOSIA (continued): 1988 (Raedeke, K.) Monitoring influences of water level changes on wetlands in the Chester Morse Lake Basin. EPA Conference on Wetlands Research in Washington State. EPA Region X, Seattle, Washington. 1988 (Raedeke, K., and E. Salo) Effects of slash burning on productivity of fish and wildlife. Invited presentation. The Burning Decision: A Regional Symposium on Slash. College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 1988 (Raedeke, K.) Large mammals studies and license planning. Invited presentation, and session moderator. Environmental Strategies and Planning Techniques Symposium, Northwest Small Hydroelectric Association, Seattle, Washington. 1990 (Raedeke, K.) Population dynamics and estimation of maximum sustained yield (MSY) in a black-tailed deer population. International Biology of Deer Symposium. Abstracts P9. Mississippi State University. 1990 (Raedeke, K., and C. Kunz) Variation in conception dates in black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) in western Washington. International Biology of Deer Symposium. Abstracts P35. Mississippi State University. 1990 (Paige, D., K. Raedeke, and R. Taber) Biology of a colonizing, unharvested population of elk (Cervus elaphus) in western Washington. International Biology of Deer Symposium. Abstracts No. 4. Mississippi State University. 1991 (Ewing, K. and K. Raedeke) Vegetation succession of a freshwater deltaic sedge community after alteration of pool-level fluctuation for water storage. Abstract 27.9, Ecological Society of America, San Antonio, Texas. 1992 (Gilbert, B. and K. Raedeke) Winter habitat selection by mountain goats in the north central Cascades. North American Wild Sheep and Goat Council, Cody, Wyoming. 1993 (Raedeke, K. and B. Gilbert) Mountain goat habitat use on winter range in North Fork Tolt Basin. Wildlife Society - Washington and British Columbia, Semiahmoo, Washington. 1993 (Raedeke, K. and D. Milligan) Wildlife habitat in urban forest landscapes. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 11 Kenneth J. Raedeke PRESENTATIONS AND SYMPOSIA (continued): 1995 (Millspaugh, J., G. Brundige, J. Jenks, B. Kernohan, and K. Raedeke) Home range and herd organization of elk in Custer State Park, South Dakota. 57th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Detroit, Michigan. 1996 (Millspaugh, J., B. Kernohan, G. Brundige, and K. Raedeke) A spatial comparison of adaptive kernel, harmonic mean and minimum convex polygon home range estimators. The Wildlife Society, Cincinnati, Ohio. UNPUBLISHED REPORTS: Terry, C., C. Nellis, and K. Raedeke. 1971. Mammals other than deer. Biotic Survey of Ross Lake Basin, Vol. 1 , Appendix G. Institute of Forest Products, University of Washington. 25 pp. Richter, K., K. Raedeke, and C. Nellis. 1971 . Summer distribution of deer marked in the Ross Lake area of Canada. Biotic Survey of Ross Lake Basin, Vol 1 ., Appendix F. Institute of Forest Products, University of Washington. 16 pp. Raedeke, K., C. Nellis, K. Richter, and C. Terry. 1971 . Deer populations and range survey. Biotic Survey of Ross Lake Basin, Vol I., Appendix E. Institute of Forest Products, University of Washington. 31 pp. Raedeke, K. 1974. Biologia y manejo del guanaco. Corporacion Nacional Forestal, Santiago, Chile. 21 pp. Taber, R. and K. Raedeke. 1975. The Biotic Survey of Ross Lake Basin. Vol. 5. Center for Ecosystems Studies, University of Washington. 115 pp. Taber, R. and K. Raedeke. 1980. The black-tailed deer of the Olympic National Forest. Report to U.S. Forest Service, Olympia, Washington. 90 pp. Taber, R. and K. Raedeke. 1980. The Roosevelt elk of the Olympic National Forest. Report to U.S. Forest Service, Olympia, Washington. 109 pp. Raedeke, K. and R. Taber. 1981. Enhancement of wildlife habitat on rights-of- way through application of sewage sludge. Center for Ecosystem Studies, University of Washington. 25 pp. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 12 Kenneth J. Raedeke UNPUBLISHED REPORTS (continued): Raedeke, K. 1981 . Assessment of deer populations and deer harvests on the Kapowsin Tree Farm. Wildlife Sciences Group, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 27 pp. Taber, R., K. Raedeke, and D. Paige. 1982. Wildlife-forest interactions. Mt. St. Helens Blast Zone. Final report to Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, Washington. 29 pp. Raedeke, K., D. Paige, E. Merrill, and R. Taber. 1982. Elk populations, Mt. St. Helens blast zone. Final Report to The Weyerhaeuser Company, Centralia, Washington. 33 pp. Fox, J. and K. Raedeke. 1982. Mountain goat ecology on Cleveland Peninsula, Alaska, 1980-81 . Final Report to U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Contact PNW-81-181-AO#1 . 32 pp. Taber, R. and K. Raedeke. 1982. Old-growth forest habitats: A problem analysis and study plan. Final Rept. to U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Expt. Sta., Contract PNW-81-190. 155 pp. Raedeke, K. and R. Taber. 1983. Snowmobiles and wildlife in Washington State. Final rept. to Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 193 pp. Raedeke, K. and R. Taber. 1983. Deer populations on Naval Submarine Base Bangor. Final Rept to U.S. Navy, Contract NOO406-82-M-C646. 106 pp. Fox, J., K. Raedeke, and R. Taber. 1983. Off-road vehicles and wildlife in Washington State. A preliminary survey. Final report to Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Olympia, Washington. 102 pp. Zarnowitz, J., and K. Raedeke. 1984. Winter predation on coho fingerlings by birds and mammals in relation to pond characteristics. Final report to Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 34 pp. Raedeke, K., and C. Lee, and M. Reed. 1984. Deer harvests and population status; Subase Bangor and Indian Island. Final Report to U.S. Navy, Bremerton, Washington. 37 pp. Raedeke, K. and J. Simonetti (eds). 1984. Sierra las Tapias, coastal northern Chile as a Guanaco reserve: preliminary biological survey. College of Forest Resources, Wildlife Sciences Group. 50 pp. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 13 Kenneth J. Raedeke UNPUBLISHED REPORTS (continued): Raedeke, K. and J. Lehmkuhl. 1984. Elk populations of Mount Rainier National Park. Status of range outside of the park. Final report to U.S. National Park Service. Contract CX-9000-3-E004. Merrill, E., L. Knutson, B. Biswell, K. Raedeke and R. Taber. 1985. Mt. St. Helens Cooperative Elk Study Progress Report 1981-1984. Wildlife Biology Group. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 55 pp. Raedeke, K., S. West, and J. Simonetti. 1985. Transmission of sludge-borne parasites to free-living mammals. Final rept. to METRO. 7 pp. Raedeke, K., and D. Paige. 1987. Elk populations in the Cedar River Watershed. Final Rpt. to Seattle Water Dept., College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 53 pp. Merrill, E., K. Raedeke, and R. Taber. 1988. The population dynamics and habitat ecology of elk in the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 185 pp. Raedeke, K. and D. Major. 1989. Winter distribution and habitat use by deer in the Bear Creek drainage. Final Rpt. to Washington Dept. Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 29 pp. Welch, S., and K. Raedeke. 1990. Status of the mountain goat population on White Chuck Mountain, North Cascades, Washington. Final Rpt. to Washington Dept. Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 56 pp. Raedeke, K., et al. 1997. Ecology of mule deer on the Yakima Training Center. Doc. No. 9000-051-700. Report to the U.S. Army. RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS: 1980 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). Rights-of-way, sludge and wildlife. 1980-86 St. Regis Paper Company. Ungulate population assessment in damage areas. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 14 Kenneth J. Raedeke RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS (continued): 1980-83 U.S. Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Habitat selection by mountain goats on the Cleveland Peninsula. 1981-82 U.S. Forest Service. Old-growth wildlife problem analysis. (Co-P.I. with Taber) 1981-82 Bonneville Power Administration. Effects of different management strategies on rights-of-way habitat for wildlife. (Co. P.I. with Taber) 1982-86 The Weyerhaeuser Company, Western Forestry Research Center, Elk population distribution and movements on Mt. St. Helens. (Co- P.I. with Taber) 1982-84 U.S. Navy. Deer and bird population studies on Bangor Sub-base. Co-P.I. with Taber) 1983 Washington State Parks. Interaction of snowmobiles and wildlife. Co-P.I. with Taber) 1983 Washington State Dept. of Fisheries. Predation on coho fingerlings. Co-P.I. with Taber) 1983 Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation. Interaction of ORV's and wildlife. (Co-P.I. with Taber) 1983 U.S. Forest Service. PNW Station. Old-growth forest community studies: mammals. (Co-P.I. with S.D. West) 1983-86 Washington Forest Protection Association. Elk populations on Mt. St. Helens. (Co-P.I. with Taber) 1983-84 National Park Service. Elk habitat surrounding Mt. Rainier National Park. 1983-84 U.S. Navy. Assessment of deer management on Subase Bangor and Indian Island. 1983-86 Washington Dept. of Game. Elk populations on Mt. St. Helens. (Co- P.I. with Taber) 1986-87 Seattle Water Dept. Elk populations of the Cedar River Watershed. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 15 Kenneth J. Raedeke RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS (continued): 1986-88 Foundation for North American Wild Sheep. Habitat use by re- introduced bighorn sheep, Southern California. 1986-90 Champion International and Washington Dept. Wildlife. Assessment of deer and elk populations, Kapowsin Tree Farm. 1987-89 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Evaluation of elk forage enhancement practices. 1987-96 Seattle Water Dept. Wetlands monitoring, Chester-Morse lake system, Cedar River Watershed. 1987-88 Washington Dept. of Transportation. Evaluation of wetlands created for mitigation. (Co-RI. with Richard Horner, Civil Engr.) 1987-90 Tacoma City Light in Cooperation with Washington Dept. of Wildlife and US Forest Service. Mountain goats and hydro-power on Mt. Baker. 1989 Washington Dept. of Wildlife and US Forest Service. Deer habitat use in Bear Creek Drainage. 1988-91 Dept. of Natural Resources. Ambient Monitoring of streams in Washington State. 1990 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Casebook studies of streamside management in Washington. 1990 Washington Dept. of Wildlife and US Forest Service. Mountain goat status in North Cascades. 1990-91 US Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. Evaluation of young growth forests for wildlife. With Ebasco Environmental, Bellevue, WA. 1992-93 Washington Department of Wildlife. An evaluation of monitoring techniques for black-tailed deer in western Washington. 1994-95 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Evaluation of the status of the Dungeness elk herd. Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 16 Kenneth J. Raedeke RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS (continued): 1995-97 South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Evaluation of elk habitat selection and human activities in Custer State Park. 1996 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Evaluation of the capture related stress in elk. 1997-99 South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Evaluation of bighorn sheep populations in Custer State Park. FOREIGN TRAVEL: Mexico, Canada, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivian, Brazil, Argentina, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Japan. LANGUAGES: Spanish, German 8/98 Raedeke Associates, Inc. Page 17 Kenneth J. Raedeke qg- ItD, pwD 6 rOt CITY C 7 RENTON i Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 29, 2001 Allen Wyttenback LPN Architects and Planners 3003 80th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Subject: Oakesdale Center Phase II at Blackriver Corporate Park File No. LUA98-110 and LUA98-075 Dear Allen: Thank you for your January 12`h letter apprising us of the construction status for the Oakesdale Center, Blackriver Corporate Park. The remaining work as described in your letter appears to comply with the limitations imposed by the Hearing Examiner's conditions of site approval for the project. The City appreciates your continued effort to minimize site disturbances during the last phase of the project construction. If you have any questions regarding the completion of this project development, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Lesley Nishi Senior Planner cc: Jennifer Henning 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Architecture and Planning, Inc..-- Royce A. Berg,Principal 3003 80th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040-2915 (206) 230-6648 Fax (206) 230-6647 January 12, 2001 Ms. Lesley Nishihira DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Development Services Division- Development/Planning cr_ ,^r=RENTON City of Renton JAN 1 6 2000 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED RE: Construction after January 15, 2001 File Nos.: LUA98-110, ADD and LUA98-075, SA-H Oakesdale Center Phase II at Blackriver Corporate Park Renton, WA Dear Lesley, The construction of Oakesdale Center, Phase II, is nearing completion. Per hearing examiner's conditions of site approval, all "major outdoor construction", defined by MOA as preloading, grading, foundations, structural steel, installation of dryvit panels, roofing, and hardscape", has been completed prior to January 15, 2001. The work remaining for project completion includes painting exterior accent colors and entries, completion of landscape planting, interior finish work, and minor site clean-up. Substantial completion will be on or about the first week of March, weather permitting. As defined in the attached letter from the contractor, Foushee and Associates, the equipment required to complete the above tasks are small and quiet. As we have done throughout the construction of both Phase I and Phase II, the project team will continue to minimize site disturbances during this, the last phase of project construction. We thank the City of Renton for its help and assistance during the development of Oakesdale Center, Blackriver Corporate Park. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please give our office a call. Respectfully,I 1 Allen C. Wyttenbach Project Architect TRANSMITTED VIA FAX AND MAIL enclosures cc: Jennifer Toth Henning - Development Services Division, City of Renton Dean Erickson - TriMet Development LLC Ted Shultz - T.M. Shultz Associates Inc. John Hall- Foushee and Associates Royce Berg- LPN Architects and Planners GENERAL CONTRACTORS BIM POUSHEE AND ASSOC/ATES,INC 3260-118TH AVE.S.E. P.O.BOX 3767 BELLEVUE,WA 98009-3767 425/746-1000 www.loushee.com January 11, 2001 Allen Wyttenbach 111:5LPNArchitecture &Planning300380thAve. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 L jAN 1 2 2001 Re: Oakesdale Center Phase II & Powell Ave. Bldg. LPN Architects & Planners Dear Allen: As we discussed at our on site construction meeting last week, we have collected data on pieces of equipment that may be on the site past the January 15th 2001 date. This equipment will be required due to weather conditions, which have not allowed certain items if work to proceed at the previously anticipated rate. Although the overall project is on or ahead of schedule there are a few items of work, which have been impacted by weather. We have listed below and attached a copy of the equipment that will be on site after the January 15th date. Foushee & Associates: Forklift - Rubber tires, limited use on site for clean up of site and removal of waste materials. This lift will be used for moving new construction materials into the building. These materials will consist of interior finish materials. This piece of equipment will be used primarily on the south side of the buildings. Lundeen Simonson Painting: Manlift - Rubber tires, used to final paint the accent colors which allows the lift to be turned off for extended periods of time while accent paint is being cut in. Majority of the work is on the south, east and west sides of the buildings which are the sides away from the native vegetation area. TrueGreen Landcare: Tractor Loader -This small rubber tire front-end loader will be used by the landscaper to distribute trees around the site. The distribution of the remaining trees will be south of the new buildings, which should minimize any impact to the north of the buildings. The time frame for this installation will be limited. Seattle:206/621-8219 FAX:425/746-3737 CC01-FO-US-HA-C15800 G:UOBS\00 jobs100-012-01\D.Architect Correspond\Letters\Jan 15 Itr.doc January 10, 2000 Allen Wyttenbach Page 2. The equipment listed above is the only equipment that will be used with the exception of . normal pickup trucks and an occasional delivery truck, which is similar to the normal and intended use of the property once the project is complete. We trust this information is useful to you and if you require any additional information please let us know Sincerely, John Hall Project Manager JH-1:st cc: Dean Erickson Tri Met Development Ted Schultz Schultz and Associates Skip Steinback Foush6e and Associates G:UOBS100 Jobe\00.012-011D./Mehitect CofresponftgttarsUan 15 Itr.doc 1_ , n.,_ 'InIL. 4G.J 1°-1.0 J(_.,( r .U-+/III_{ r tc)7T-• 3C' f lin SPECIFICATIORS . Engine Cummins 489.9 Diesel o°78 HP(67 kW)Q 2500 RPM(U/Min) Torque rating 184lb.ft.(250 Nm)g 1200 RPM r' i' Load retinas are in Cummins,48T3.9 Turbo Dieseln,omy compliance tawith 110 HP(82 2600 RPMASMBMax.-tar Torque ating2833 lb.ft (397 Nei @ 1600 RPMstxt+tllty requirements 3 for rough terrain10,1 m> forklift-h.Cab meera I'atlBYrtlselon AMCS B66.84092 Powershift,3-speed forward and reverse. 8 mj POPS requirements.Axles and Brakes Fall time planetary 4-wheel drive with wbeel 20' /`!, end wet disc brakes. 6.'m) f.';':i Boom 15' T>?lescopic 3-atage welded box section 4.6 m) i' conaaructlon using high strength low alloy steeL Replaceable high denairy sear pads,to limitto' f'Z• ,r. friction,with wear indicators.3,0 ml a ' L,.Operating Specs t.5 m> w Cj PAI Max lift capacity 6000 tbs.(2720 kg) l a C Lift height 36'1"(11 m)o^ Max reach below de o FT a;::'. •t:_ +:`r..._ O O grade 3' ( (I OkgCurbweight18,786 lbs. 86280 3.'3, i A E Hydraulic oil capacity 38 gal.(144 liters) 1.0 m) r Fuel tank capacity 24 gal_(8i liters) 22's" 15'i a Standard tires 13.0 x 24,12 ply6.0 m) 10'( 4 6 m) tY ( 3,1 m) Frame tilt to left or right 10 e 5,5 m) (3,7 m) (2,4 m) Standard Equipment TRAIL Attach oyster', Automatic fait leveling system ar Frame leveling H D Load tickling valves on frame level, attachment tilt,ttxtend and lift cylinders Oscillating rear axle F B 2-wheel,4-wheel and crab ateering Hydraulically actuated wet disc brakes Emergency brake with transmission p znoart declutch feature FOPS operator cab I Deluxe suspension seat with seat belt Dimensions Joystick control, A Len 1ea fork, Horn and backup alarm211"(5359 rem) S.Width Qauttti and sarnlztg lights C. Height 87"(2494 mm) 12 V eleetz ical system 100'(Z640 men)Lockable doors and coversD. Wheelbase l l3"(2870 mm)Entine block heaverE, Ground clearance 16.5"(419 tern) Re view mirrorsETread ,82"(2083 min) G. Turning clearance 18'9'(4,2 re)Options H. Max reach from front tires to Auxiliary hydraulics 24"(809 min)load center 22'6"(6,8 re)Enclosed all weather cab Light package Attachments Standard carriages; 48'(1,22 m), B0-(1,52 in)and 72'.(1,83 re) I y 10°side tilt carriages: 48'(1,22 m), 60'(1,52 re)and 7'2"(1,83 in) is t46°swing carriages: 52"(1,32 m) and 7r(1,s3 rat) 7riY Tra . 48'(1,22 re)Daifet furiesC IIr1'/a i7/a#ae 60"(1,62m)Weber forks 02,..,RIVII.NW Cc-.-r 48'(1,22 m)block forks 369 W. Wes em Avenue We alBZRvl niX altor110.0910ro Min aract>rt.00•45 •12'(3,7 m)this/boom Port Washlvton, Wl53074 USA. aAMYTllr;tKI'tZWr*MCI THY ONLY WAEAANTY Utility bucket and concretebucket Tel. (262)284.5577 far: 62'!28B B931 urvraDLs 11/3oUR ...13 AD w rr WOW-NW leWallsoanl handlerAPPuc.aLt TO A fkitymj'1&I PROWL,'At+D sus WNW rnk-internalicvsU.eom WE 1ua NO arlIER artarrAnt fl.r1ladtp OR I14-*Lleo hydraulic earth auger moat 'Au came 91JT1Wl W.maafen lot. 4414 Urr,o IA Wu. JAN-09-2001 10:12 4252754735 97%P.OJ, i ... +cam cc v+ +' + . 1 VVJI ILL rll 1L fIJJ VI.11""1 1 LJ IGJ I'-IO J I J I r.CJJ/tJCi lAll-dfIUNDEEN 7303 222nd St.B.E.,0202 MoNsoN Inc, oodin 2I8666 WA 98072 wa c LUNDiS1 caea Pz FAX(426)402.0556 Oft GCB t22s4a January 8. 2001 FUUSHEiE & ASSOCIATES. INC. P.O. BOX 3767 Bellevue WA 98009 423/746-1000 Fax: 746.3737 Attn: John/Nigel Alta. Skip (on site) 425-2354473 (job site tax) RE:OA1K:F.SDALE CENTER As per United Rentals the decibles are 107 for the lift on this project-sec attached handwritten sheet. If wc:would have"summertime"weather we could have the lift ofithe job by February 28. 200 Because .1f the time of year we are doing the project(rain, fog, etc.)— I estimate having the tiff on the job until March 3I. 200I, Vaughn L. Lundeen r'+b r r r.Erb/aid b .5'(S( N.07/08WIrvaiarass%.. WA 17LtirdULI Ulsb rG reet S.E, #202 OR it 122S49 i!A 98072 5 6 -- Fax facsimile thsmittai i;'1 v1 Fax: c!'/ Date: r- 6"- t PaoosInd.cow sheeta?,ji- r t Q As Requested 0 For Your Information 0 Please Reply omments: ite4/ Jo not receive all the pages of this FAX, please call (425)402-8855. Thank you. TQOZ:CO 1f ! I 1-1,,J1 IL-G. `'1111J 1-IJJUt.1I-11 GJ IGJ (4b JS e( ( r. 'r/eta K-Y h6ckEiy OUnitedRents vUnh.d Mrtc b ssw'32ND Ave,ra rr:81+t WA 99C3: i. .`• y._il'._?ALP) 14M E2)`1'77 j K 1425)112N7544 J ry stio r/2-4-6 d rr- t.. S d 7 6717 Yy r.,„r twit VE-j et AO Ida TOOa:CO tfj r fLJ '-1 V ,. I. I CJLri flu Sea.ttIe Couvtruction Branch TRUGREEN Landcat A P.O. Rot G 13ur1en, WA 98166 Phone: (206) 246-O066 Fax; (206)24,1.4637 January 9, 2001 Washington Cont:ractorn LScen. e RTRt;1GR1.f.0023f. John Hall Foushee & Associates PO Box 3767 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Oakcsdale II Dear John: Per your request, we are sending this letter to advise you that we will be using a Kubota 420 this next week on the above referenced site. This is pending your approval of additional.work --- requested. This piece of equipment is needed to move trees into place. We have the following information on this piece of equipment: Fuel Required.—Diesel Rubber Tires Decibel Level —Waiting for fax from factory. This machine is a 1.999 model and complies with all current regulations and guidelines. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, TruGreen Land.Care d(,f.A, l .' u_. _ bill Drea, Project Mam3ger Landscape Construction 'Branch Attachment Re Tnu_nn__nnn. TOTAL P.03 HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT October 19, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Friends of the Black River Appeal of ERC's Determination for Black River Corporate Park File No.: LUA98-110,AAD APPLICANT: LPN Architects&Planners Black River Corporate Park,Tract B File No.: LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To develop 12.53 acre site with five buildings totaling 148,834 square feet. SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Request additional mitigation measures be imposed by ERC PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES: APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the September 1, 1998 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 1, 1998,at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Aerial photograph(appellant) proof of posting and publication,and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Aerial photograph with concentric Exhibit No. 4: Overlay of old and new site plans circles Exhibit No. 5: Cross-section Exhibit No.6: 1986 Master Plan Exhibit No.7: Memorandum of Agreement Exhibit No.8: 1998 Master Plan Exhibit No.9: Heron colony nest locations Exhibit No. 10: Aerial photograph dated 9/97 Exhibit No. 11: Island diagram Exhibit No. 12: Tree location map Exhibit No. 13: Dr. Raedeke Resume Exhibit No. 14: Great Blue Heron Assessment Exhibit No. 15: Carlson&McLean 1996 Study Exhibit No. 16: Colony life graph Exhibit No. 17: Five pages of photographs Exhibit No. 18: Photo of nests Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 2 Parties present: Representing Friends of the Black River Jerry Holmes 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98055 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Representing Black River Corporate Park Amy Kosterlitz 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1097 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Jennifer Henning,Project Manager,Development Services Division,City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055,stated that the site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City of Renton on an undeveloped 12.5 acre parcel. The site is surrounded by the King County Metro Regional Wastewater Treatment facility on the southwest,office buildings on the east,and permanent open space of approximately 120 acres to the north and northwest of the site. A portion of the open space consists of the City's flood control project. The proposal is for the development of five one and two-story structures totaling 148,834 square feet. There is a.07 acre Category 3 wetland located on the southeast portion of the site which would be filled in. Other wetland areas on site would be preserved. There is a heron rookery located on an island in the P-1 basin and in the riparian forest to the north of the site in the City's open space. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street,using existing curb cuts. Surface parking of approximately 600 stalls is provided. The buildings would be tilt-up concrete structures of 20 to 30 feet in height. There would be no drilling for their construction. Non-glare glass or tinted glass would be used. The lighting proposed on the site would be focused and directed to prevent spill-over onto adjacent sites. Minimum separation between the nearest building and the heron rookery is at least 540 feet. There is a wetpond being constructed for water quality purposes which would be within 500 feet of the heron rookery. A total of 31 trees would be cleared from the site. Split-rail fencing will be installed along the east boundary to define the wetland buffer edge. Chain link fencing will be installed along the wetpond area on the north portion of the site to prevent human intrusion. Extensive landscaping is also proposed. About 70 percent of the developed area and 58 percent of the total site would be covered with impervious surface. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 3 The ERC did not impose any additional setbacks or limit site construction to specific times of the year because the heron rookery is large and thriving. The land uses in the surrounding area include quarry blasting, concrete recycling,regional waste treatment plant,building construction,a railroad,vehicle traffic,and recreational trail. Several previous environmental studies and mitigation measures were included in this project. Because of this, few mitigation measure were placed on the project. The tract for this project had a previous site plan approved by the Hearing Examiner in January 1992. A Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)was approved by the City of Renton,citizen and environmental groups, and the owner. The previously approved plan also included an adjacent tract which has since been purchased by the City of Renton as permanent open space. Discussion was held among the parties regarding the applicability of the prior Memorandum of Agreement. The Hearing Examiner concluded that he did not have the jurisdiction to determine its applicability and that the only thing under review at this time is the current site plan. The new site plan recognizes physical changes in the site over the last seven years and includes the maturing of trees that were planted earlier. The trees now range in height from 72 feet to 126 feet. Jerry Holmes spoke on behalf of appellants. He explained activities of appellants such as flora and fauna surveys,removal of non-invasive plant species,planting of native plants, installation of bird houses and conducting field trips. This heron colony is the largest in King County and several hundred people a year view its activities. There is great concern over the impact of this proposal on the colony. He cited portions of the City's environmental ordinance relating to responsibility of the City. Appellants believe ERC should have required two additional mitigation measures for this project. First,to extend the buffer from the heron colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The buffer should be measured from the nearest nest,not the center of the island. Second,that applicant should limit the time for all heavy construction on the entire project from June 15 to January 15. This limitation is necessary in order to protect the colony from serious disturbance during the heron breeding season. He cited other projects in King County which were placed under construction time limits in order to protect bird species. The State of Washington places similar restrictions on developments near bald eagle nests. Mr. Holmes reviewed the environmental check list,visual assessment of the heron colony,the tree height screening report and the ERC staff report,and cited what appellants felt were flaws in those documents. Donald Norman, 2112 NW 199th, Shoreline,Washington 98177, stated his credentials as a wildlife biologist. He first visited the subject site in 1988 and as recently as yesterday. He confirmed mitigation measures appellant is requesting,and stated it is standard practice to enforce timing restrictions. Indications are that herons arrive at the site as early as late December and the early January restriction is warranted. There are still herons just barely ready to fledge on the nest now,but the majority are out of the colony by the end of July. The issue of disturbance which is underlying the distance from the colony has been brought up in many other instances of development. Dr.Norman disagreed with the information presented by the ERC regarding items such as visual flight patterns of the herons,the visual barrier in March from the site to the heron colony, majority of nesting from the island rather than in the riparian forest. He explained the relationship of existing development and when herons move into an area, as opposed to when there is an existing colony and development then comes in. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 4 He further responded that this colony is flourishing and appears to have been able to withstand large amounts of bald eagle predation which is devastating other colonies in the region. Because of that this colony may have larger regional significance than the other colonies in the area. In 1991 the colony was abandoned because of bald eagle predation but has since come back. People shooting herons and trees being harvested nearby have caused other colonies to be abandoned. Some species of trees are more susceptible to degradation over time by the herons and loss of trees may cause abandonment also. He also stated that the additional tree height from the early 1990's is not a significant factor as trees are expected to grow. The longevity of the existing Lombardy poplars is unknown,but they will probably need to be trimmed or come down to protect buildings in wind storms as they are not native trees. Dee Boersma, 311 S King Street, Seattle, Washington 98144,stated her credentials as a zoologist and ornithologist. Her main concern in this proceeding is conservation biology. Habitat is being lost as the last of the undeveloped land is being developed,particularly in urban areas. The studies that were done 5 to 7 years ago may not be relevant,and this particular area has actually become richer during that time and more important because of the losses. She stated that scientists cannot tell exactly how close one can go without losing the rookery. If the developers are convinced that there will be no harm to this colony, she suggested they bear the cost of restoring it,not the public. Kate Stenberg,King County Wildlife Program, 810 Third Avenue,#350, Seattle, Washington 98104, stated her credentials in wildlife management and land use planning. She explained that the herons are an interjurisdictional issue because although these herons live in Renton,they feed in habitats in King County and are enjoyed by King County residents. There are several large heronries which have disappeared in recent years and no corresponding increase in the existing rookeries. She discussed a Kenmore rookery regarding development limits and its nearby fire station,police station and park&ride lot noises. She stated that the herons moved in with the developments already in place,as opposed to development after a rookery is established. Seasonal construction limits are a standard practice in King County and they are in place mainly for noise disturbance. A City of Renton Comprehensive Plan policy states that the City shall identify unique and significant wildlife habitat as defined by Washington State Habitat& Species Project and ensure that buildings,roads and other features are located on less sensitive portions of the site. This policy refers to the priority species listing that the State of Washington has put together and the great blue heron is listed as a priority species. Robert Butler, 824 Ladimer Street,New Westminster,British Columbia B3L4W4, stated his credentials as a biologist and ornithologist. He explained that the great blue heron resides here in Puget Sound and western Washington and along the coast to the southern coast of Alaska,and it is estimated there are 9000 of this species. In Canada in 1997 this species was given federal jurisdiction as an endangered species,or a vulnerable species. It is based on the decline of the great blue heron in British Columbia, or an annual decline of 5%. Heron colonies have also disappeared in recent years. He cited instances where because of construction noises the colonies were abandoned. He further stated it is important to move the construction time level in order to minimize the uncertainty on the abandonment of the colony. Ted Mallory, 7524 S. 135th, Seattle, Washington,98178, stated that he is located one mile north of the rookery and has a spotting scope in the window where he has watched herons on a daily basis for the past 10 years. He felt that construction timing should really not be a significant impact on developer as he has from July to Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 5 January for six years to construct, and that the developer could develop the buildings farthest away first, with the closest buildings being built during the restricted construction time. Chris Peterson, 8050 35th Avenue NE, Seattle,Washington 98115,director of Seattle Audubon Society, cited a large store in north Seattle which recently had been abandoned and which had been a lively area of woods and wetlands. Now there is only a small,neglected wetland with a large empty store and parking lot. Questioned if that could happen at Black River Corporate Park,and that the land and the species it supports would end up paying the cost. The health of the land and the welfare of future generations of humans and animals who will live here should be considered. Helen Ross, 8050 35th Avenue NE, Seattle,Washington 98115,conservation coordinator for Seattle Audubon Society,was an original signer of MOA and it is their position that the terms of the MOA are still in effect even though the Hearing Examiner will not be ruling on the MOA as it relates to this application. She stated that setback distances and construction seasons still must be applied to this project. Ed Newbold,4972 17th Avenue S, Seattle,Washington 98108, stated that as a wildlife artist he receives many requests for herons in the landscape because it is such a signature bird in the northwest. He stated it makes sense to measure the distance from the closest nesting tree to the construction site. Larry Warren,appearing on behalf of the City of Renton, gave a history of the City's participation in the earlier MOA and the City's interest in this area. He stated that SEPA is only one area of policy that the City has to consider. Development,tax and other policies must be balanced with SEPA. Based on all information given to it,the ERC then makes a determination. Further consideration must be given to the law as respects SEPA and what mitigation conditions can be imposed by the City. Amy Kosterlitz,attorney for applicant herein, stated that the applicant believes it has gone more than half way and more than City policies require in contributing open space and riparian habitat for the heron. Applicant believes that the best available science for protection of the heron rookery will demonstrate that the ERC's decision was correct. Also, ERC did not err in its decision based on the City's CP which has designated this area as an employment area. Applicant has also followed the policy that says"encourage the preservation and enlargement of existing habitat areas through development incentives". Royce Berg,LPN Architects, 1535 Fourth Avenue S, Suite D, Seattle,Washington 98134,applicant representative herein,described the site plan as proposed and compared it to earlier site plan to show changes in growth of vegetation and down-sizing of original project. Explained the timing and construction techniques required for the construction phases. Theresa Hanson,P.O. Box 7208,Tacoma,Washington 98407,testified on behalf of the applicant. As the natural resource ecologist for this project, she visited the site in early spring to look at screening between the rookery and the development site. In 1986 applicant planted hundreds of poplars and conifer trees. In addition there are naturally growing alder and black cottonwood trees on the site. Her review was completed in March 1998 and was prior to trees leafing out so that herons were present and visible during nesting season. Stated that only visual corridor to the herons as you walk across site or along the existing sidewalk on southwestern boundary of site is a 30 foot gap in the trees. Returned to site in July and trees are no longer visible on Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 6 sidewalk or along visual corridor near building B because of tree growth. There will be additional trees planted in the wetpond areas for further visual buffering. Ken Raedeke, 5711 NE 63rd, Seattle, Washington 98115,testified on behalf of the applicant. He listed his credentials as a wildlife biologist. He described the regulatory status regarding great blue heron, stating that it is a protected non-game species in Washington and is also a priority habitat species under a criteria during its vulnerable breeding time. It is protected from hunting and any other forms of direct harm and it is illegal to knowingly destroy an active heron nest. Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife has no authority to regulate it in other than the specific protection of the animal. He described current status of heron in the Puget Sound region and in Canada. He stated that U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service recently reported that the number of confirmed nest sites for the great blue heron was 21 and two probable colonies and 63 additional probable colonies in King County. Much speculation as to why this number is increasing. Cited studies that it is not the width of the buffer as much as the conditions such as vegetative screening,and that the herons can habituate to disturbance and do well next to developments. Concluded that the 500 foot buffer was more than adequate, based on data presented. It is substantially the same that was previously agreed to and approved by the Department of Wildlife. The buffer is essentially what is there now and the colony is highly habituated to human disturbance. Regarding the construction time restriction, it has been observed that when an adequate buffer is provided,that limitation on construction time is not needed. Trudy Thomas. 2350 Eaglemont Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368, one of the appellants herein, questioned Dr. Raedeke regarding the nest locations of this particular rookery and his monitoring of such. On cross-examination by Mr.Malphrus,Dr. Raedeke responded regarding the number of abandoned nests in Puget Sound and some of the reasons given for the abandonment. Suzanne Krom,4715-1/2 36th Avenue SW, Seattle,Washington 98126,a representative for Citizens for Renton Wildlife's Preservation, stated it is their position that the MOA still applies to this project. They further support the protections for the heron colony as previously testified to, specifically to impose the construction season limit from January 15 to July 31,and the buffer at 660 feet or as recommended by the experts. Ms. Krom further stated that she has been monitoring this colony closely for nine years and introduced a photograph taken of the main colony in March 1998 showing the density of nests. From her observation over the years, she believes 90 to 95 percent of the herons nest on the island,not in the riparian forest. Bruce Harpham, 2518 S 361st Street,Federal Way,Washington 98003, president of Rainier Audubon Society, stated that he is not a scientist,but a citizen activist concerned with future generations. He was frustrated that the City and applicant were joined together and that citizens were the adversaries. Also pointed out that the money spent on protecting these sites was not only from the City of Renton,but also from King County residents,making this a regional issue. Dr. Butler reiterated appellants' position that the new noises from the construction should be phased such that it has little or no impact on the colony. The size and possible significance of the colony warrants timing and buffer constraints. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 7 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. Closing arguments were to be presented to the Examiner in written form by all parties. The hearing closed at 5:05 p.m. MINUTES: SITE PLAN The following minutes are a summary of the September 29, 1998 site plan hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 29, 1998,at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the site plan: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood detail map application, proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Site plan Exhibit No.4: Landscape plan Exhibit No. 5: Zoning map Exhibit No. 6: Elevation Drawing-Building A Exhibit No. 7: Elevation Drawing-Buildings B&C Exhibit No. 8: Elevation Drawing-Building D Exhibit No. 9: Elevation Drawing-Building E The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager, Development Services,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The project site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City on a currently undeveloped 12.5 acre site which is comprised of three parcels,Lots 1,2 and 3 of the former Tract B of the Black River Corporate Park. Surrounding the site is the King County Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant on the southwest, office buildings on the east,open space to the north, a portion of which is the P-1 detention pond for flood control. The site is zoned Commercial Office(CO)and is designated Employment Area Valley in the Comprehensive Plan(CP). The site is bounded by Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 7th Street and Naches Avenue. This proposal consists of five structures totaling 148,834 square feet constructed of tilt-up concrete panels with tinted glass. Three of the structures would be one story in height and two would be two stories. The ultimate use for these structures is intended to be commercial office,business service,research and development, assembly and related activities as allowed in the zone. Access to the site is from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. There are existing curb cuts from both streets. Perimeter surface parking is proposed for 597 vehicles. There are adequate public services and utilities to serve this site. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 8 The construction is scheduled to occur in three phases over a six-year period. The applicant is requesting a two year extension of the six-year phasing plan if they can show substantial progress and can show good cause. In the first two-year period a minimum of one building would be constructed. The second phase includes commencement of 3 of the 5 buildings. Phase three includes the six year period and all the buildings could be built. There is a 0.07 acre Category III wetland on the southeast portion which would be filled under the proposal. There are two Category II wetlands adjacent to the site which require buffering setbacks and fencing. There is a heron rookery located to the north/northwest of the site in the P-1 basin and riparian forest in the City of Renton open space. The northwest facade of designated Building C would be located approximately 540 feet from the nearest tree in the heron rookery. Building B in the north central portion of the site would be located approximately 605 feet, and the north corner of Building A would be located approximately 740 feet from the nearest tree in the rookery. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated. There were many mitigation measures inherent in the project. There has been much public comment on this project as well as a SEPA appeal filed and heard previously. A mitigation measure required by the ERC was lighting in the parking area is to be focused and directed to prevent glare or spill-over light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. This proposal meets the Employment Area Valley CP policies pertaining to public access to public areas and shorelines. There will be physical restrictions to the wetlands through split rail and chain link fencing, plantings and a wetpond system. Approximately 16 percent of this site would remain undeveloped and would be natural area habitat buffer. This proposal is compatible with the CP and zoning policies regarding office park development in this area. It meets the code setback requirements,as well as those for height and lot coverage, landscaping and pedestrian connections. The proposed 597 parking stalls is within the range required. Joint use parking is also achieved in this proposal. About 70 percent of the developable area of the site and 58 percent of the overall site would be covered with impervious surface. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to establish a native growth protection easement at the north corner of the site. This would extend from the north edge of the wetpond north to the property corner and would include the habitat buffer area. Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to two conditions: (1)comply with ERC mitigation measures for fire mitigation fee and site lighting; and(2)establish a native growth protection easement extending from the north edge of the wetpond,north to and including the habitat buffer area. The only disturbance to be allowed in this area would be deposit of dead and downed material from other portions of the site to enhance the wildlife habitat, or any routine maintenance that is needed to access the wetpond. Amy Kosterlitz, Suite 902,Waterfront Place, 1011 Western Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98144, applicant attorney herein,expressed her concern that this hearing be limited only to the site plan and not ground already covered by the SEPA appeal hearing. She further stated that it is the applicant's intention, if this site plan is approved as proposed,to go with the current site plan approval rather than a prior site plan approval. Royce Berg,LPN Architects, 1535 4th Avenue S,#D, Seattle,Washington 98134,applicant architect, stated that CC&R's were recorded with the short plat for mutual access,egress,utility easements and maintenance of Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 9 the wetpond area. The buildings have been located on a fill area which came out of the excavated P-1 channel. All perimeter trees on the site will be left,with only those in the center being removed. The phasing of the buildings relates to marketability and at this point it is not possible to know when and which buildings will be first. The construction schedule is also difficult to anticipate,with the possibility that it may take from 10 to 12 months for total construction time. He further stated that they are proposing to take the outfall for the wetpond to the north because it goes into a drainage swale that runs east and west and ties up to other adjacent properties. Harold Hagenson, 2009 Minor Avenue East, Seattle, Washington 98102,civil engineer for applicant herein, described the wetpond and the overall drainage plan. The volume of the wetpond itself is about two and a half times as large as required under the current drainage code. The wetpond will have generally about 3 to 5 feet of standing water in it throughout the year. The concept is that as water from the first flush storms,which typically carry the greatest loads of pollution,pass into the wetpond,the large volume of water acts as a settling pond so that the sediments and pollution generally will fall out in the bottom of the pond. There are also some very natural aquatic flora which will be planted around the perimeter of the pond which will reduce some of the other heavy metals that will be generated from the parking lot area. The discharge from the pond will be directly to the P-1 channel via a facility to the north. Detention is provided by means of compensation off-site. Lauchlin Bethune, 19428 66th Avenue S,#Q-106,Kent,Washington 98032, landscape architect for applicant herein, described the types of landscaping for the site. Ornamental landscape around the buildings will be done in traditional methods with irrigation and soil and maintained in traditional methods. Existing street trees along Oakesdale and 7th will be maintained. The remainder of the site perimeter will be environmentally constructed to include no mulches,no fertilizers and no pesticides, and thus no maintenance practices. Inside this perimeter there is about a 10 foot landscape buffer which will be densely planted with conifers, deciduous trees and thorny shrubs and trees. Around the wetpond there will be a cyclone fence to eliminate pedestrian traffic. The wetpond will be planted with native vegetation. Further dense landscaping will be placed along the back northern part of the site to screen the rookery. The existing habitat debris piles that were left from the original land clearing will also remain. There was discussion regarding efforts to prevent fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides from entering the wetpond. It was generally agreed that there is no practical technology to remove pesticides and herbicides from the stream. Kate Stenberg, King County Wildlife Program, 810 Third Avenue,#350, Seattle, Washington 98104, stated that she supported the lower building heights,as well as the additional conifers to be planted. Regarding the shielded lighting, she suggested that the building lighting be included as well as the parking lots. She further stated that the fencing should be extended along the north,west and east sides of the site. The planned picnic areas should also be fenced to prevent people from extending into the open space and habitat areas. She also recommended that native plants be used as much as possible throughout the site. Estella Leopold. 5608 17th Avenue NE, Seattle,Washington 98105, gave her credentials as a botanist. She stated her concern that the buffer between Building C and Wetland 1 as planned at 30 feet is not sufficient and is not permitted by the Forest Practices Act. With this development there will be maintenance of formal landscapes with pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers,and the 30 foot buffer will not be sufficient to protect the wetland from pollution. She also pointed out that in the urban area of Greater Seattle this is the largest grove Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 10 of mature cottonwoods remaining. Big groves are needed because of the possible destruction by herons over the long term. (The preceding testimony by Ms. Leopold was given at the 9/1/98 appeal hearing,but was intended for the site plan portion of the proceedings.) The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak,and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:20 a.m. SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION 1.The appellant,Friends of Black River,represented by Tom Malphrus,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS-M)issued for a proposed development located at the northwest corner of the City adjacent to a heron rookery. The DNS-M was issued for a Site Plan,the City's public review process for projects of a certain size. Friends of Black River(hereinafter appellant) is a group of individuals interested in preserving the riparian forest and its breeding, resident heron colony located on City-owned property north or northwest of the subject site. 2.The appeal was filed in a timely manner on July 6, 1998. The subject proposal was subjected to the City's ordinary SEPA review process. The City has a three-person body,the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)which serves as its "responsible official"for making environmental determinations. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued its original Determination of Significance- Mitigated for the project on June 16, 1998. During the review process the City determined that certain conditions should be imposed as mitigation. Those conditions are not at issue. Instead the appellants have challenged the DNS-M alleging that additional conditions are required to preserve the heron rookery adjacent to the subject site. 3.The hearing was originally scheduled for July 14, 1998 but the underlying applicant asked for additional time to respond to the appeal issues and assemble witnesses. 4.The underlying proposal,the Site Plan Approval Permit,would allow phased development of the applicant's site with five(5)buildings. The phases were not defined other than suggesting a certain number of buildings would be erected over the next eight years,but the order of construction remains undetermined. 5.The subject site is approximately 12.53 acres in area. The site is a generally level, irregularly shaped parcel. The applicant proposes erecting five buildings. Three buildings will be one story while the other two buildings would be two stories. There will be surface parking around the buildings for 597 parking stalls. 6.A wetpond system will be installed at the northwest corner of the site. It will be maintained only infrequently. The wetpond will be bound on the north or northwest by habitat buffer area. This buffer area will also continue around the north side of the site. Natural and planted vegetation is located along the western and northwest margin of the site. Some of these trees were planted in the last several years to screen the subject site from the heron rookery. These trees are predominantly deciduous trees and predominantly located on the western boundary of the site. The "line of trees" as it is identified in many contexts is a row of Lombardy poplars located along the westernmost boundary of the property. Conifers are located slightly east of it. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 11 7.The appellants are most concerned with the heron rookery which is located generally north of the subject site. The heron rookery is mainly concentrated in trees located north of Proposed Building B, a building located in the center of the western portion of the subject site. It appears that the heron have concentrated nest building in a few of the trees located on an island in what is commonly called the P-1 forebay pond. Other nests are located off the island in a riparian forest that arcs around the north side of the island stretching east to west. Most of the heron are concentrated on the island and in trees directly north of the island. 8.The appeal raises two issues. It states: We believe the ERC in issuing its Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated should have required the following additional mitigation measures: The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the setback distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The setback is necessary in order to decrease the risk of abandonment of the heron colony. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The applicant shall limit all heavy construction on the project to a period from June 15 to January 15. The limitation is necessary in order to protect the heron colony from serious disturbance during the heron-breeding season. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). 9.The appeal goes on: "The ERC addresses these measures in their staff report and determines that these mitigation measures are not necessary to protect the Black River Heron Colony. However,the ERC provides no scientific evidence to support their claim. We will provide expert testimony in support of these mitigation measures." 10. It would appear that the ERC based their decision on the existing vegetative screening and not any conclusive scientific evidence that they had before them. In addition,vegetative screening that has been planted in the last several years has matured and creates a barrier between the location of the 20-to 30-foot high proposed buildings,preventing spill-over light from penetrating the rookery." The heron rookery is surrounded by a second growth deciduous forest,and is separated from the site by a drainage channel,and dense tree cover including cottonwood,alder trees,and a row of Lombardy poplar(Populas nigra)trees. A Tree Height and Screening Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting(March 1998) is provided as part of the project application. According to the report, sight lines from the proposed buildings to the heron rookery would be limited, and the rookery would be visible only from Building B,through a 30-foot wide 'gap' created by shorter trees. Proposed Building B would be two-stories in height(approximately 28 feet tall)and would be located directly in line and south of the heron rookery. The proposed structure would block views to the rookery from all of the other proposed buildings on Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 12 the site. Available views to the heron rookery from Building B are expected to be reduced each year over the next six years,as the shorter alder and cottonwood trees increase in height, and block the gap." Establishing time periods for the use of heavy equipment for the entire site for outside of the time period from January 15th through June 30th is not supported. The MOA applying to the previous approved project established a specific construction zone within a 700 foot radius of the heron rookery)and time period(January 15th through June 15th). Since the time the MOA was approved by all parties,site conditions have changed, substantial vegetation has been planted and has matured. This vegetation provides a significant visual and physical barrier benefiting the heronry. Vegetation provides for noise deflection and absorption. In addition,the ambient noise in the area of the project site includes industrial operations(Metro Treatment Plant),concrete recycling,truck and vehicular traffic,quarrying,railroad operation,construction of warehouses,bridges and road improvements. Additional noise impacts from construction of the proposal would be short-term in nature,and would not require mitigation. Only the construction of about one-half of the area of the wetponds and a small area(less than 500 square feet)of the circulation drive on the north side of Building C would occur within the 500-foot radius of the heronry. Existing and proposed natural vegetative buffers,dead and downed material(stumps,etc.), ornamental landscaping,and wetponds would preclude human intrusion into the heronry. No further mitigation would be required." 11. The City owns approximately 100 acres of open space north,east and west of the subject site. It acquired portions of the property by dedication from the applicant as well as by purchasing tracts from the applicant. Its most recent acquisition is of some wetland acreage north and east of the subject site. The applicant and City allege that this acreage was sold below cost but no evidence was submitted supporting this. The City suggests that the transfers should be considered as part of past mitigation. Some transfers did offset storm drainage detention requirements. 12. The heronry appears to have between 50 to 70 nesting pairs. It is considered the largest heronry in King County. 13. The heron engage in a behavior pattern that begins around the middle of January and ends the middle of July. This behavior includes courtship,mating,nest building,egg laying,hatching and fledging of the young. Time periods vary from year to year with the birds arriving earlier some years and fledging later in others. This year fledging was apparently still occurring in August. 14. The applicant proposes using auger cast pile installation to reduce the noise that might be associated with construction. The tilt-up construction is also relatively quiet. The construction period includes 3- month preload and surcharge to settle the soils for foundation work,then 7 to 9 months for construction. 15. Buildings range from approximately 540 feet from the rookery to about 900 feet. The wetpond,the closest of the man-made features and construction alterations,would be just under 500 feet. 16. Approximately 31 trees would be cleared. Some woody construction debris would be placed north of the wetpond for habitat enhancement. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 13 17. Some of the activities that occur or have occurred in the area are blasting at a quarry northwest of the heronry,the Metro plant expansion,concrete recycling center northwest of the site,the construction of Naches Avenue,the operation of the railroad and the bird watchers visiting the trail. Most, if not all,of these sources are more than 1,000 feet from the heronry. 18. Both the appellants and the City with the applicant presented expert witnesses. The nature of the presentations differed but both sides demonstrated points that favored their respective positions. Heron flushed. Heron did not flush. Nests were abandoned,nests were not abandoned. Habitual loud noises don't necessarily affect the birds. Noises that are out of the normal course of events affect the birds. The birds abandon eggs. The birds don't abandon nests further into the nesting season. The studies relied on by both parties show flushing varied in different studies. Different events did or did not cause flushing. Some nest sites have been abandoned. It appears that conclusions for the reasons for such abandonment fall on both natural abandonment and some form of adverse external force. The applicant's expert draws some conclusions about causes or casts doubt on supposed causes but there is no evidence of what did or did not cause some abandonment other than his stated theories. 19. The issue of whether the heron eventually or naturally destroy their nesting tree or trees and how soon it may occur is not relevant at this time. 20. A review of the number of heron colonies in King County which shows them increasing demonstrates the absolute change is small,although the number of heron might be increasing. The number of colonies increased in the last 10 years from approximately 7 colonies to 10 colonies, a change of 3. 21. The heron are classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as a "priority species" due to their"vulnerable aggregations." This means that since they tend to nest together,any danger to a colony could mean a loss of a number of birds rather than just a nesting pair. 22. A review of the record bears out the fact that the ERC did not have evidence of the nature provided at the appeal hearing. The ERC had the applicant's application which included the Environmental Checklist,a Visual Assessment Heron Rookery(flight pattern study)and a Tree Height Screening Report(tree height study). Neither addresses any of the issues of heron sensitivity to disturbance. No particular evidence regarding heron behavior was submitted which supports the ERC's decision. The tree study indirectly deals with visual intrusions. 23. As noted,most of the evidence submitted at the hearing was not available when the ERC held its review. 24. The conclusions drawn that colonies successfully nested even after flushing don't demonstrate how they would react to repeated exposure to intrusions that caused flushing. It merely shows that flushing occurred,the distances it occurred. It does not say if flushing behaviors or noises continued, say for an entire construction season,day after day,that nesting would not be affected. 25. The scientists or experts most directly involved in heron studies and behavior appear to reach different conclusions than the applicant's expert who only peripherally studies bird or heron behaviors. His review was more of an analysis of past studies and making an assessment based on re-reading those studies and doing a risk assessment on the chance for the colony thriving. There is no way to tell if the literature review was thorough,but some reports of heron behavior were apparently omitted. In any event, as noted the science is still in its infancy and disparate conclusions are certainly possible. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 14 26. The following is an excerpt from the "Limitations" section of the applicant's expert's report: The determination of ecological system classifications,functions,values, and boundaries is an inexact science,and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore,conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities." 27. There is a heron rookery in the vicinity of the Whidbey Island Naval Station where the heron apparently are not affected by the jet planes,but do flush when humans are moving or visible. The record does not establish if the herons adopted the site after the jet noises were established. 28. King County observes a window until July 31 for certain activities around the Kenmore heron rookery. 29. Construction windows are employed around eagle and redtail hawk nests and recently near an osprey nest. Similar construction windows are observed routinely for salmon spawning waters. 30. The ERC failed to note that heron are an indicator species and that the State has suggested guidelines including buffer distances and construction windows. 31. The one-day flight study conducted in 1997 is not representative of daily activity at the site but states that heron don't fly over Tract B. Other witnesses report the heron do fly over the tract. 32. Cottonwoods do not leaf out until early April and therefore do not provide a visual screen during the earlier phases of nesting. In March the heron were visible from the site even through the trees. The flight pattern is not necessarily relevant to their nesting or disturbance. Most of the nests are on the island and not well screened in the further removed riparian woods. A thin row of trees and those with no leaves provide little noise insulation. 33. The poplars at the southern end of the western property line vary between 72 and 81 feet tall. They are between 78 and 90 feet in the central western section and about 80 feet in the northern portion of the western section. Conifers exist east of these trees but they begin after a gap. There is a 30 foot gap in the tree buffer that provides a line of sight view from the island trees to the northwest corner of Building B and the southeast corner of Building A. Building B would block Building A if it were constructed first. This "tree height report"notes that trees are dynamic and both grow and fall. 34. The heron have been observed flushing or moving away when large groups of people are out on the trail observing them. The trail is over 500 feet away. The heron will establish their own "personal space" and flush if it appears violated. In some situations heron will set up a colony in an urban area in which disturbances already exist. They can become habituated to the existing "urban" noises and conditions. Because in the past this colony has not been pushed by close-in urban factors,their acclimatization during January through July is speculative. No one can assess their behavior with surety. It appears that reactions may be more a factor of the change in types of noise disturbances- new or novel noises to which they have not been accustomed which might cause the flushing behavior bulldozers,etc.). 35. Some studies have shown that heron may not always abandon a colony site but their reproductive productivity has declined. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 15 36. Unlike applicant's expert,most of the other experts admitted no one knows how close activity could occur or what windows are necessary and what the reaction of the heron would be. This seems more realistic an assessment than a conclusion(based on risk assessment)that there is a 100%chance of the heronry thriving if there is a 450 foot buffer. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the ERC,the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2.The Determination of Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is reversed. 3.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason as a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4.An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway,at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. 2) Significance involves context and intensity. . .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. . .The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5.Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782) Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-1 10,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 16 6.It appears that the study of heron behavior is of relatively recent origin. A review of the record seems to demonstrate a certain lack of consistency on the part of the heron in their reaction to noises or disturbance at differing distances. But why should more be expected. They are birds,wildlife, and they don't necessarily react in ways which can be predicted. It is not as if one could sit down with them and discuss the proposed changes to their locale. One cannot suggest to them that unlike the eagle attacks, these changes in the nearby open space and fields and new noises and intrusions are not intended to be provocative or predatory. 7.It appears that in drafting the original MOA,the parties attempted to use the best science in regards to protecting the heronry from impacts. It also appears that the MOA was an attempt by the parties to reach a reasonable,balanced accord that would permit development while attempting with best guesses, to limit impacts to the heron. 8.It is not clear that the science has changed since the drafting of the MOA as that there seems to be one differing interpretation. We are still dealing with flighty birds and no one is entirely certain what ruffles their feathers. It would appear that during certain stages such as courtship they may not put up with the types of disturbances associated with construction. 9.As for the guiding science to use,there are established guidelines that apparently are used by the county,the state and federal governments. It also appears to be the standard used internationally. It was arrived at after a variety of studies. It was now challenged at this hearing as based on either flawed or anecdotal studies. The science may be wrong,but one hearing in the City of Renton cannot set aside what it seems that a consensus of experts have suggested is best. In any event the science that was good enough to solidify a meeting of the minds the last time(in the Memorandum of Agreement) is the science that seems appropriate this time,too. 10. Pains were taken to demonstrate that the City was not only attempting to protect the heron by purchasing the acreage almost surrounding the subject site,but also the unique riparian ecosystem. The land and trees would also serve to shelter the heron in the future if the island trees or other pressures forced them northward. But it appears the main thrust,effort and expenditure was directed at preserving the heron. In order to not thwart those efforts,taking some additional precautions would not be unreasonable. 11. For the ERC to totally ignore both seasonable constraints and buffer zones shows that they did not fully consider their actions. While experts may have reached differing conclusions or recommendations at the public hearing,the ERC was not privy to these scientific discussions and differences when they made their decision. The ERC made it based on a vegetative screening which does not buffer sound very effectively and one currently comprised mainly of deciduous trees which are bare for a good portion of the mating and early nesting period. The ERC also looked at the less intense development pattern now proposed. Less intense development does not avoid the construction disturbances and the loss of vegetative cover over approximately 13 acres immediately in the vicinity of the rookery. The ERC even referenced the MOA in declining to impose a construction window. The science in the MOA and record developed previously showed buffers and seasonal windows were appropriate. 12. The ERC decision was clearly erroneous given the record they had when they made their decision. State agencies,county agencies,federal and even Canadian agencies all appeared to have reasoned that both buffers and seasonal construction were not only appropriate science but necessary if the heron were to be protected in some measure. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 17 13. After reviewing the record developed as a result of the appeal, one substantially more complete than existed during the ERC review,this office is left with a split decision. It would appear that while the buffers proposed may not be perfect(if perfection could even be defined in the face of uncertainty), they are or approach adequate. It appears that the current development does approximate the distances of the previously agreed to plan. 14. This office,however, is left with the firm conviction that not respecting a seasonal construction window is clearly erroneous. If anything,the appeal record reinforces the view that in order to best protect this public resource,the best guesses that science can make are to again observe the seasonal window. As noted a number of times, such windows are now a standard construction practice when working in environmentally sensitive locales. Such windows are observed all of the time when working in and around salmon spawning creeks and rivers. Such windows are observed in areas where osprey and redtailed hawks and eagles are nesting. 15. Not only are there construction windows observed for eagles,hawks and salmon,but the City and the applicant's predecessor in interest observed a construction window for just this colony of heron when the original site plan was adopted. As a matter of fact,such a window will be observed if the current plan is rejected by either the City or the applicant and if the prior plan is still valid, as that earlier plan would be bound,presumably, by the MOA(see below). 16. There seems to be some emphasis on the prior and even recent actions of the applicant to sell or dedicate land as possibly a measure of environmental mitigation. There is even passing reference that the City "agreed to give an unquantified credit for mitigation for a later development project." This appears to miss the point-what is the impact of this development. If the selling of land or the dedication of land does not prevent environmental impacts, it is not necessarily appropriate mitigation. Any discussion of loss of development potential of land that was sold or dedicated appears irrelevant. The applicant sold land and realized a return and there is no evidence whether it gained, lost or came out neutral on such exchanges. The amount of land dedicated and purchased clearly is significant,but if the impacts of this current proposed development continue(such as noise of construction),then mitigation beyond the dedications are necessary. In arriving at the current proposal,additional lands generally at the northeast margin of the site were sold to the City. While again commendable,those lands are not really in a location to limit construction noises and visual disturbances to the rookery from most of the remaining site. The question again remains: what are the impacts of this proposal on the environment and did the ERC appropriately consider the impacts and impose appropriate mitigation. 17. As much as possible,this review was to be focused on the current proposal. It seems that all of the parties want to hearken back to the prior proposal. The ERC clearly compared the earlier proposal in deciding that this one had substantially diminished impacts. The applicant's closing argument notes that again and notes their witness testified to the substantial reduction. The fact is that some of the impacts might be reduced,but construction noise will still occur,albeit on smaller buildings but those noises will still occur. 18. The vegetative screen relied on by the ERC is mostly deciduous,meaning bare branches during the beginning of the courtship,mating period and early nesting period. The record states "vegetation provides for noise deflection and absorption"without demonstrating that fact. Studies have shown that vegetation,unless incredibly dense,has very limited noise attenuating characteristics. Leaves will be off the trees and the screening is of limited affect during the critical months. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 18 19. This office has reviewed the evidence presented. It finds that the distances proposed appear reasonable, but that intrusions should be limited during the period when the birds would tend to react, during the nesting,courtship,hatching and fledging periods. 20. The applicant's closing argument notes that the appellants'witnesses did not"undercut"the City's decision and the testimony of the applicant's witnesses. That can just as easily be turned around. The applicant's witnesses did not truly present any new evidence that would undercut the appellant's witnesses. While the burden was on the appellants,they provided sufficient evidence to meet that burden. The science was on their side. 21. The ERC's decision was clearly erroneous because they do nothing specific to protect the heron rookery. The steps are merely passive-accepting the existing screening and presuming or trusting completely in those measures. All of the literature shows the birds react in manners that humans so far cannot clearly pin down,but they do react to a variety of disturbances. Visual disturbances have flushed the birds. Construction activities appear to flush the birds. 22. The record shows that a variety of activities have occurred in the vicinity of the heronry,but since the construction of the pond itself, few such activities have been as close as those now proposed. Nor is there evidence when the heavier activities occurred;that is,did heavy construction and noises or visual activity occur during the critical periods in nesting and courtship. Might some of the heavy construction have occurred later in the dry season when much construction takes place to avoid the rainy and wet weather of the Pacific Northwest. The evidence showing activities close to other nesting areas also does not clearly disclose if the heron habituated to newer disturbances or arrived after some or most of the disturbance had occurred. 23. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. As indicated, the ERC did not have sufficient information to rule out the use of a construction window. That was clearly erroneous. The decision is therefore subject to modification by the Hearing Examiner who retains the powers of the underlying decision-maker. 24. What the appellants have shown is that the ERC took no particular actions to protect the herons from intrusive noises and unaccustomed activities. The ERC deferred to the existing, current conditions. There was nothing in the record they had before them that demonstrated such conditions would protect sensitive, easily disturbed heron. The prior MOA,a deliberately crafted agreement, shows the ERC, the City and the applicant knew heron were flighty. 25. This office heard from a number of experts. One a heron expert,another who did a thorough literature review. One concludes conservative action,the other no additional action. A thorough review of the record shows that"no additional protections"underestimates almost completely the fact that most of the studies show the birds do react to intrusions although not necessarily or only intense intrusions. 26. But there is also no arguing with the narrow choices the heron appear to have made. They seem to prefer the island tree or trees. Again,maybe this can best be understood by admitting humans don't understand heron "thinking." Scientists can't predict their reactions nor direct them to move north into the forest. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 19 27. No one has defined why they have stayed in the few island trees predominantly. Do they prefer the water view? Do they prefer the open space to see approaching danger? Do they just prefer those hardy older trees? Are they attracted by a scent of their past nesting use? Do they prefer the more open tree canopy of the older trees? It appears science does not know those answers. Just because the habitat of the riparian forest has been preserved and younger, less damaged trees exist back there does not mean the heron will immediately retreat there. The ERC believed that the change in plans and less intense development and the existing vegetative buffer eliminated any need for additional measures to protect the heron. The record does not bear that out. 28. The applicant argues that they have done enough and anything more is unreasonable in light of the record. The applicant's arguments only go so far. In discussing the various Comprehensive Plan policies they state on Page 13, first paragraph, "The development incentive here is minor by comparison-to allow a minimal amount of development on the last available tract of land in the original Blackriver ownership." Development is not halted by this decision or the imposition of a construction window. By allowing development but timing it,the applicant and hopefully,the appellants,can both achieve the various environmental and development policies of the City. It is the imposition of reasonable conditions "which strikes a balance between the City's environmental protection and economic development policies" (Applicants' close at Page 13). 29. By using a seasonal window,the applicant minimizes the probable impact of scaring the heron and develops its site. The applicant has already proposed a rather lengthy phasing of their project over eight years. It is a project which is not overwhelmingly large and could be accomplished in a much faster time frame. The current proposal which may be constructed over eight years, in fact, actually follows a previously approved site plan by the applicant or predecessor in interest that has been lying fallow for approximately eight years. Will the proposed construction timing limitation unreasonably thwart the applicant's plans? Clearly,working around the nesting season will limit the applicant's unfettered ability to do anything at any time. The limitation on major outdoor construction and not internal construction activities is not unreasonable. The condition seems both reasonable and achievable. 30. The decision of the ERC is modified. There should be a condition which limits the construction to a period that minimizes interference with the heron mating and nesting cycle between January 15 and June 15. The MOA provides a good frame of reference and should be used as a model for the fleshing out of the construction window and what is permitted. 31. In addition, in order to introduce new disturbances into the area in an orderly manner and to help habituate the heron to the coming changes,the applicant should phase its project by constructing Buildings D and E at the beginning of the project. The wetpond and supporting facilities may be coordinated with the early development. 32. This office understands that the applicant may have a valid site plan which might be more intense and less respectful toward the heronry,but it is a site plan that still includes the construction window and buffers as well as other environmental safeguards that were not raised by these appellants. (There is no determination by the City that the prior approved site plan is still viable.) If the applicant wishes to pursue that site plan,they appear to be constrained by the very time limits and distances they now object to. Clearly,the various parties agree that the older site plan is not better vis-a-vis the heronry, but conditions amicably agreed to by the parties,now objected to as inappropriate,would govern. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 20 DECISION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed and the following conditions imposed to mitigate the impacts of this development: 1.There shall be no outside heavy construction during the periods of January 15 through June 15,or the applicant can abide by conditions imposed which mirror those found in the MOA regarding construction periods. 2.The applicant shall phase its project by constructing Buildings D and E at the beginning of the project. The wetpond and supporting facilities may be coordinated with the early development. SITE PLAN FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The applicant,Black River Corporate Park,Tract B,filed a request for approval of a Site Plan approval for a 5-building complex to house commercial,office, service and research,development and assembly uses. 2.The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3.The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. An appeal of the DNS-M was filed by a group called Friends of Black River. That appeal was consolidated with the land use hearing for a combined hearing. The timing of the hearing was such that the appeal issues were heard on one day and the land use was heard about a month later at a second hearing. 4.The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5.The subject site is located north of the junction of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The site is west of Naches Avenue SW and east of the P-1 channel. The site is southeast of the P-1 detention pond. 6.The King County Sewage Treatment Plant(formerly Metro)is located southwest of the site across Oakesdale. A variety of office and industrial uses are located south and east of the site along the east side of Oakesdale and north and south of SW 7th Street. A City-owned open space preserve of approximately 100-plus acres is located north-northwest of the subject site and contains a remnant riparian forest and an active heron rookery. 7.The subject site as well as properties immediately west, south and east of the site are zoned CO Commercial Office). Properties along Powell Avenue SW(east of the site)and east of Powell along SW 7th are zoned IM(Medium Industrial). The treatment plant is zoned P-1 (Public Use). City owned Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 21 property encompassing the P-1 pond forebay is zoned RC (P)(Resource Conservation - public ownership). 8.The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9.The subject site was annexed to the City with a series of separate actions over a course of approximately 18 years. See Ordinances 1745, 1764, 1928 and 4040. 10. The subject site is approximately 12.53 acres. The site is an irregularly, almost pentagon-shaped parcel. The site is generally level. The site is part of a recently short platted parcel that resulted in four lots. Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be incorporated into the development. Lot 4 will be conveyed to the City. 11. The applicant proposes erecting five buildings. Three buildings will be one story or approximately 20 feet tall. Two buildings will be two stories or approximately 30 feet tall. There will be surface parking around the buildings. 12. Building A will be a one-story,rectangular building located in the west corner of the site. It will contain approximately 22,010 square feet and will have an approximate footprint of 100 by 240 feet. It will generally be oriented in an east-west axis. 13. Building B will be northeast of Building A and be aligned with it. It will also be a rectangular,two- story building with approximately 32,500 square feet. Its footprint will be approximately 90 feet wide by 185 feet long. Buildings A and B will be located on underlying Lot 1. They will also be oriented in an east-west fashion. 14. Building C will be near the northern corner of the pentagon-shaped parcel. It will be oriented at approximately 90 degrees from Buildings A and B. It will be rectangular, also. It will be two-stories tall. It will contain approximately 32,500 square feet and appears to have the same footprint and overall design as Building B. Building C will be located on Lot 3. 15. Building D is located along the south boundary of the site along Oakesdale. It is a one-story,L-shaped building. The open angle of the "L" is aimed at Oakesdale. The northwest wing of the "L"will be aligned with Building A. The other wing will be aligned with the next building,Building E. The building will be approximately 32,890 square feet. The building will be approximately 190 feet wide and 286 feet long. The building is located on Lot 2. 16. Building E is located along the eastern portion of the property. It is another L-shaped,one-story building. Its open angle will be oriented to the northeast. It is somewhat smaller than Building D, containing approximately 28,934 square feet. It will be approximately 190 feet wide by 240 feet long. Building E will be located on Lot 3 with Building C. 17. All buildings will be concrete tilt-up construction. The applicant proposes light neutral colors with accent trim and various relief details along the top of the facade,building corners and with some articulations near the entries and corners. The windows will be tinted glass and non-reflective to avoid glare or impacts on the heron rookery and other native areas. The buildings will have flat roof lines. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 22 18. The applicant proposes installing its wetpond system at the northwest corner of the site. It would be separated from the property line by a habitat buffer area. The system is designed to settle out particulates and take up any fertilizing or growth encouraging chemicals that wind up in the storm outfall. Trash enclosures would be located on both ends of the wetpond/buffer area. 19. Storm system water will be directed to the wetpond for water quality treatment. It is intended to treat water from possibly contaminated traffic surfaces and it can pick up fertilizers. The applicant proposes a system which will convey the treated water to the P-1 channel. The applicant received credit for dedicating land for the creation of the P-1 pond. The system cannot remove certain potentially harmful chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides which could enter the P-1 pond. 20. Parking will be located around the buildings on the interior of the site as well as along the perimeter of the site. In the vicinity of the wetpond/buffer area which is closest to the habitat area,parking will be located inward of the buffer area. The remaining parking will be located around each of the buildings and in a central location between Buildings A and B and Buildings D and E. Since each building will have landscaping along its respective facade,the parking will be set back from the buildings. 21. The proposal has two driveways. One driveway is located along SW 7th while the second is located along Oakesdale Avenue SW. Both driveways are located generally in the middle of the street frontage. Traffic circulation within the site will be handled by a perimeter roadway and interior circulation isles surrounding each building. Pedestrian paths will interconnect the buildings and connect to the public sidewalks. Since the subject site is three separate legal lots,cross easements for parking and circulation will be required. 22. The applicant will be providing parking for 597 vehicles which falls within the code allotted range of between 447 and 670 stalls. The applicant will be providing the 30%compact stalls allowed which is 179 stalls. 23. The proposal will generate between approximately 1,200 and 1,800 vehicle trips per day depending on how the project is viewed. As part of a larger interlinked office park or complex with other phases, lesser traffic is anticipated. Similarly,peak hour traffic would vary from between approximately 250 morning and evening trips to approximately 170 trips for the interlinked scenario. The applicant or predecessor in interest has contributed to the funding of Oakesdale and the ERC did not impose any additional transportation mitigation. 24. The site will be landscaped extensively. The wetpond is separated from the P-1 pond by a habitat buffer. Additional setbacks are observed along the north property line and the public open space. Staff has proposed creating a native growth protection easement for the north portion of Lot 1. The applicant will be providing the minimum 10 feet of landscaping along SW 7th and 15 feet instead of 10 feet along Oakesdale. Each of the buildings will be surrounded by perimeter landscaping. Courtyards will be prominent for the "L-shaped"buildings. Entries will also be defined by additional landscaping. Parking aisles will have landscaping. Landscaping and fencing will be used to keep people from straying into the heron buffer areas or into the wetland areas surrounding the site. The site will comply with the Soil Conservation Services'two-percent habitat landscaping. 25. The applicant will be filling a small,approximately 0.07 acre wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. A permit from the Army Corps will be needed. This office is not concerned with conditions the Army Corps may or may not impose on this proposal. They have separate jurisdiction. Any conditions imposed as a result of this review by the City will be imposed under City authority. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 23 26. The applicant proposed phasing the project as follows: Phase 1 is defined as the first two years of a six-year plan. During Phase 1 at least one building would be commenced. Phase 2 is defined as occurring during the first four years of the six-year plan. During Phase 2 at least three buildings would be commenced(possibly including the one building from Phase 1). Phase 3 would be the entire six- year plan. During Phase 3 the five proposed buildings would commence(including the three buildings from Phases 1 and 2). Phases 2 and 3 would follow Phase 1 but could commence concurrently with the previous phases. 27. The proposal includes approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill to be placed on the site. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a.Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b.Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c.Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d.Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e.Conservation of property values; f.Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g.Provision of adequate light and air; h.Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed site plan subject to the conditions noted below satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2.The development of the site with an office park with one and two-story structures is compatible with the goal of increasing employment generating jobs. It provides landscaping and open space on the site to merge the site with the surrounding habitat. 3.The proposed footprints and maximum two-story buildings appear to comply with the Zoning Code's setbacks and height limitations. Building Code and Fire Code compliance will be determined with the submittal and review of a building permit application. 4.As proposed and mitigated by ERC and conditions imposed by the appeal process,the impacts on surrounding uses, including the open space and heron rookery should be minimized, although all impacts cannot be removed when empty property is developed. The impact of developing the subject site on other developed properties should be minimal. There will be additional traffic but staff indicates that the surrounding roads should be able to handle the additional traffic. There will be the Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 24 temporary noise as construction proceeds,but the developed site should not create much noise or impact. The two-story,approximately 30 foot tall buildings should not adversely impact surrounding uses. It is hoped that they will not impact the heron rookery,but that cannot be guaranteed. The existing landscaping and additional plantings proposed will eventually create a better buffer between the site and the rookery. It appears as if the applicant has proposed trash areas on both ends of the wetpond area. These areas during pickup can be particularly noisy and could adversely affect the heron. They should be relocated away from their current positions. 5.The proposal appears to be well designed. The mix of one and two-story buildings and the articulated facades should provide an interesting campus when viewed from nearby streets and from within the complex. The relatively low scale of the buildings should minimize the impacts of each building on the others in the complex. The buildings are reasonably spaced and arranged to afford openness and the entry of light and air to the site. 6.The development should not adversely affect neighboring property values and development of the site will increase the tax base of the City. 7.The parking aisles,driveways and pedestrian pathways appear to provide both safe and efficient circulation to and from the site and within the site. 8.The site has adequate access to City utilities. The storm drainage system appears to be adequate and the applicant is entitled to use the storage capacity of the P-1 pond. Since the storm system cannot remove potentially harmful chemicals,the applicant should utilize best practices when using chemicals on the site, and should probably choose native landscaping materials as much as possible to minimize the need to apply chemical agents. 9.Since the site is comprised of three separate legal lots,the applicant should execute covenants that development of all three lots shall remain subject to similar design standards so that they remain a coordinated development. Further, if any one phase is developed as planned,all future development of the remaining parcels shall be bound by the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. 10. In conclusion,the applicant has done a commendable job in attempting to satisfy a variety of competing demands made by its market needs,the City and environmental interests. It has designed a project which should be an asset to the community while minimizing its impacts on the unique aspects of the surrounding natural community. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed as a result of environmental review including the conditions imposed by the ERC and as a result of the SEPA appeal. 2.The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement on Lot 1,at the north corner of the site,extending from the north edge of the wetpond north to and including the habitat buffer area. Disturbance of this area would be limited to the depositing of"dead and down"material from other portions of the site in order to enhance the wildlife habitat,or routine maintenance activity Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 25 for the wetpond. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded to run with the title for Lot 1. Recording of the easement shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the building permits. 3.The phases shall be altered as decided in the appeal process. 4.The applicant shall move the trash enclosures away from the wetpond/buffer area. 5.The applicant shall utilize best practices when using chemicals, including pesticides and herbicides on the site and shall choose native landscaping materials as much as possible to minimize the need to apply chemical agents. 6.The applicant shall provide assurances that the three separate legal lots have appropriate cross easements for parking and circulation. 7.This site plan supersedes the previous site plan. (This makes no conclusion about whether the prior site plan is or is not valid at this point.) The applicant shall have 30 days after this decision to opt for one or the other. 8.The applicant shall execute covenants that development of all three lots shall remain subject to similar design standards so that they remain a coordinated development. Further, if any one phase is developed as planned, all future development of the remaining parcels shall be bound by the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. ORDERED THIS 19th day of October, 1998. 4NA a 3 (ct,,HFREDJ. KAIUMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMI ITED THIS 19th day of October, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator South County Journal Parties of Record Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m..November 2. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 26 request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. PARTIES OF RECORD Linda Baker Cheryl White Jayne Kurzeja Jerry Holmes Kate Stenberg Linda Seagraves Tom Malphrus Kathryn Dugaw Barbara Batiuk Helen Ross Margaret Milnes David Stephens Chris Peterson Laura E. Goodell Donald Norman Range Bayer Janice Wagner Theodore Muller Connie Troyer Harold Solberg Gwen Warren Michael Magee Tim McManus Phyllis&Jerry Walsh Lauralee Smith Frank Crum Robert& Barbara Gramm Steven Hayes Don Nomura Tana Mason Susan McClellan Walter Hoffner Dennis Paulson Gerry Adams Paul Budlong Mary Marsh Ted Mallory Deney Johnson Ed Newbold Don Norman Doug Watson Mike Sato Dee Boersma Dalice Snider Beth Wieman Estella Leopold Terri-Jo Empens Anne D. Strode Bill Wilson Ken Neerdink Steve Stratis Paula Lazzarini William Combs Peggy Jordan Y.York Jim Andrews Liane Newman Len Elliott Carol Anne Engeland Brian Lumsden Joan and Carlos Cabreza Rob Butler Susan Nix Suzanne Krom Shirley Willeiksen Jeffrey Ducken Trudy Thomas Janice &Anna Mayrhofer Brian Shelton Bruce Harpham Alma Bennett Joan Silling Tom Pesek David Kappell Arlene Roth Beverly Franklin Tom & Julie Boardman Patricia Thompson Brian Gauger Chuck Lennox Amy Kosterlitz Royce Berg Theresa Hanson Ken Raedeke Hal Hagenson Lauchlin Bethune BLACKRIVER—RIVERTECH LLC j., •- •1 • •,• •d•••i , p.L, All,A.0_01...1_ .,„ ,.,CAUL,' /,,, 41., .,;,....,..._. • /4•4.. 4, 14 n, 44.:,... 2, , 1.,..- $ , 4 1., .; :lc.'..R.f.i6r--!/:-----c..41.T.„ ?ii_ig.ty.' I/ ilpio, .11%::: •";-:...717?- - ri,4:7 ;.!,,,• • 1 if ..., 1 i El. 1...4041 •frklilif - 11.,,Jt:..!....:'ic.6... sv, 44.4.;z:4; :-.0'; ',':::,.,... ma,,,- ,.., 11 v ' " "'" Lurhr, . 1.„ ... , d e. .: tr. • . -. •----.....:_ ty • ., Q. .' . c.;-;.iii-, ...,•-•:r...!-, ... ..... . ' 1„, . .,--,? 0.., • - st --.....;,:_, ,.. • 4,G..1 L•1/ . S Cl. $... 1/ 7• ••••. :•:?-:".:-- ••.-.::.-ft."1.:' ' ..l• a MO 4. 4 441; 44,:tt ‘... 1. i .17,--:1"-- 1/ 4 • *--"-: l'.f.- itc s .:::::7::'' ::: 7:.:::-," . •• -,.:,:::::.," "::.**'11 4. • r•ac• f l 4• ,,6 4" .. •"------..--Id i•• f 4 '• a; 11 .-,........_"-•-•;-• . 1.;1•, .4,-__-,. •--._.a'ia76S1 ' 1 • 2 , .1 1 060" 1 1 ATI-2 ,, -..-7 . far------7374,474...—r___.:. 9 j ' 1 sar;•%:. ;.;'':-.- 7": 4:..../. . 11,A, • t i • • . -,---,-------:;--- -----""'"T _.-:.:-- ---•---•-•- -.: ,,_ ''.!,..... ,. ... ,. i : ;..,.,4 .17 i: i t**. ,.4,„47. ' e7.. 4,-;:_. .. . • , i /V"i alz...'•• 4,4: i i• '• " s. t 1./ 4 i . 7 1 ., 0",- 1: 1 ; 1-- 1Z--'., ,. 4 i.p,---,,...\,• . , —. i .,„ IDEI:7IVai:''' . ' kl . . 1 r. i. ',r,ai.,ed„...1 CITY‘OF RENTON to,11.06Vn . ,I et.ear7'. •S'e,.*1 : \.5.;'" •.•••••••:•51.!.."._,_,:,-/_,:-.,.j 4tratall114 4 . '' 0.,7.)..„_,....... 0 • ......1,,... 2 1'--------•-••- gPAdeT4--Emu a!,:s.7.,...1, ,. ._...,• 7. ...''. I.af, -:\'`. _.0,--.;;;,-" :—..: ... .... J '"''''..!_i___,0-4—.---v \_,....14,7:1::.,' , kirill11110•1(ez, -.....t794.77.-.',-,,,,,...,4..., ,...•...- , H, 1 i-, 4 i i,-, KL*51.?..mi= ,r,:9.t.. .•,,,,, 1-- r c ,••. IMOF RcNTON 1 ex 1.• * :-.1.,,•1!!Y.OPO'N SPACE 1 .' ''ir 1 I'••••,.. _ .1M_ 4,1"P'g4,..f.;.• .,,,-C1_,• •'...' "CA/•;.'1'171'. CC 3 EC-f.,-.,•\\. ,_:1•.?"•• •\ ta , ry• • . •, •. 34,z../:CC-1 a.1 II—T w i....—1,-• .‘ •,,, ::, 1 1 s, ././..-*-P,..1•DETENTIONPOillr ....,,-#. ‘ :‘-': t t': : I4111111141111 OFF CE t.I !.....i.. t_....._..._...._: Atr 2- • itt I L...,j:. '*rr'....'. %.••••:1.11 U4 .0 Z CC 1, CC 0 1 • ' N.V.Y.M•ell. i in• • 1 1,1216-i- , ..''.'7's 1•74.••••7:" •• ••••;.' w•I NTOT0 11 TECHNIC•1,......... ' .-..". ----- 1 . .• —- • • Q._.,.y. 1 ; fi c7 a, 1" °. lc I • • a"...'' CI lA "----..- ------- ----- r. ..,,,E: 7.-°,-,7•:.•In e:::; • t. 1 7 niiipcA, ); 1 I y E c H N' CAL .i''C E N T E.R.1 .X4- CC CC CC 1•74.1.4.E11___1••• CITY OF RENTON 1 1 I, OFFICE so".Oa Fc10,4 Ant,ita9 ...,lie.7.› P:,!..%-.• .. A,. i 1 ... ,ir,• -•• . 2.••1 i :. ...,... . 1111•• ' . 4;7= • CM•41C."•-••-••••••" N. -••••-• '„...= et,,,.‘4 .....". I< •C 2 C.••1 Le 1 s, s; ••• •------'..7::-.- W•1141“/4 , le....?\ '://• /'• •..........•7r --sr-—..::..p,..4271--.:-:.—...—::. ,*". CID a' rank' i... 1110 Men : . • s. - r•• "'''' • t. ,61.1‘; 11 t...n•rrt i A' . • .71711r••••, -. -.'"•...-- _.. . , •..., . V r\-''' \1 1 ..., rj `4 1 1 , , .e".,:.::t.:..s .1 l WAS I...... i SITE OFFICE . MICHIlICTUIlft' s,, ' 1' 1 1 1 j' • .04 ! ...T.._ li '.', zt-EAR 1:412. i. 4,1t s'I •• . .31.- oftd sq..sociNo Firts.‘ I 1 1 i• STRI•• c. nie•.alwa 10.lowl• 9l t 0... •. 1404.1,.....40o,aboI. 1 : MET40 g,AI CILMES • %It;1 T E C H N I '''-' 1 '4 IJ INDUSTRIAL '•"- 01•1.6.60.las.* I I; r: ,.. to rilr- w r--,4..1-7 • N. ' OFFICE ? ".‘ •4 . se 1,1,ec.'.... s-..%•.'d ir '• 1.1 i. cc4 PARK NO.I• -z.z. a. 1; 1 • a1 1 ''l :• e.•..........i......,.... .? 1 t 4 CEN '1ER 1 —1 Cr.-.....7. D E N....T -.1,-., , _,. , to 0 ma ...orlwee 1.414 7."--......... ... ,"”"'" ..-"."--- .1..--'..f...L....... .,., ...y.• rZt. 1 ....•... . :........ s. c,,,./„.,,, 1,i-....„ „„,„...-- — ‘,1 i sf.---"" : .•• c sv, i .,....." •0•80"61e ''' ' -. .' ''''' ....,. S...-'• ,c-A, , i'a' l s, 04, t , ‘,.\ - •, i. HOTEL — 1';'•':„,.. ? e).05,0,0 17 ::\!..k I .1, ............., , ......,::-.- 1 -••,...-'6 -- ."1 r 1.111 A g,t..„ ,,, .„... ..:.-\":', •••\ ...;.,....,.„,,,,, -,,..,.. - i 'T.-•`'''‘.- Goo :::f. • i• 1.1%. iiii I'i."`.r at A • a AS'' • • • NEIBOR11000 1 eiro..----,..#4001...1054 II OLLJFIHSO I V.;°I,;1:14741111. 1:::.j1. DETAIL MAP 1/..‘•c41, 7. * . , .tr, ....,..:4: 4>....,‘°. ,/ f'. d:.' 4.. i':i7.,!,. c/..*" 1'...).' G.,/..l0.l.,'.•,.'' c.'..1'+1••,.... 0c...'1,0.,'.... r.-eL,„.,• 4,, 2.. y -, 4,).• \•..\..... 4.'..—:.,..,.' 1, 1 .......j I.„. ._.....,......._... 4..L...,i..„,4..1,.1,..;.0:/-..-..".-:_:;::..-.....,:..o,111r.. i_, 1.1,11, 4R!.s01,7°,,.•,.. R..--,7..—._-,---.-i65:•— M- 1;-.,24 O."." I'..6•. I,' I_/t_:i7O_ Z. i_ iM_.'_.•_••,:•"s lIi..t1, BNS CLEAAILGECHK. r R• O I7. 2V.R. 0., ER, TRACT B I OODDETAI'MAP iNl 2.A. t.,ce...r. t..- I s •1cr.).1e0 t - /. r jj/ r I i I 1 1 IS r-.awn on o rl,rc«` IINTO.BALM I \ 1 i aYC a. rnstt%srvws a Teas 1 0 3 I J Q I vtun t.srvcnt • l r.14eu- U W maplrNR- tt. p W Q_e tw_ 1[4_ "..f. 1 rylartt POI.. Z. CC: Iii C1 1\Trrj EC ltat!/R. r 1 1 I WV.I.tM O= WO 2.2; M> W> WCCI e' tc MAN t eii (l C 9, i r LOT 4 rJ Y Y O1l / 0 e% ,/''''' .yI , lj 1 N.I.C. _ rtzr IC F- 1 WZ a y ` j A r 1r..,ITT OF MU. m m cc t G o 4 r / r, •ENTON WO IP (w7: t T t 0' SPACE r.ntNclalloxaK a5ti• , tom. '1 j (t gurrt.vlar.rto N PM l Y G41p,1 !TLT, LO3 i IIHG A`Sy i 1ti .; ti ' •• L\/ w...lwrw..—c.r. l \ l LOT 1 {Q yt %a, r raac aAr 1d i'• ewe CJ 5, 0''rl, N' 4 N r ,., 1 rry r I Y"i':`q. IWfi i,, wh\ , fit, 61\ itiki y 10.1a t/ mro.xnwr VSW. 1 k R 4 +;N.w. O i •'I: a ascwrN OM I 0 4 I t; i t e4,/ :i- rac-.rvu+na l-w-v Q y' b.I i;e t/./- p(MSIOM .-07-!! TABULATION KNval 1-rl-f! 1 /kit 4 i i:* °off ;*':..I e vc na.ac x. ros le O. .° r (+10,. 4.16A - f., t % 1 SITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) t5 6,023 SF Q1 i u. y • LOT 2 ti. SsTOTAL BURDINC AREA t148.834 SP I1! I l I 5 BUILDING 'At 22.010 5' IE//r., t. O QI BUILDING-B. t 32.500 SF Ilea O O BUILDING• 0. t 32.Soo SF e ;ti i' o\ BUILDING b' t 32,890 SF 3d S U `'•: O \ eT/ A . / I 1.1•.a.ar BUILDING'E' t 28.934 SF J ` ` • 11jj I,jI,, c 0,, 1+ ?% cMowla toile/WI FAR. t.273 SITE PLAN PARKING 597 STALLS ro;\.\ l C ` / REGULAR -9'1 20 400 STALLS K. IA MCL 2.OVERFIANC) eiir ACCESSISIBLE B-6'v 16 118 STALLS T• Fst`-- g R PARKING RATIO 4.0 STAlLS/1000 SF sue w i rr.ww Z:EN / r/lla>\vrt-wse.e .n qM rRK OAK, NU. NNt val.! f S.In MU 71..Urrt 1 it NORM oai[: l 1p•i prawe w A-2 SITE PLAN 60' 1 o.rat: 1. T-no o o p iil g EpEj 5 __I --, :. - :- ..., .... -- -: ..... .::--- , - lit -5 pc E g [ii _ 0 e a YAM ENTRY II--U WWESTELEVATIONw <2 z mlw NOTES- O— rnT T CaNCOLOR MNEL7 DaYVR ACCENT (NTRANCE CAINISH \ NUN O uONi T. r V N PAINTED caoR vuuE1 1ANo oaYnT ECC CCwux o- t" CC CC Z b Y Y O j I Y 02m m¢ I SOUTH ELEVATION I AUCNI=ECTURE 0110/tANNINO a.it O. •last$ G wnlE w.alma ilON NIY I9o.1.V.10 Oa WO". 0 INSAMPION CAN A . ' 91E PIA.RErar 4-UT-re MAIN ENTRY EAST ELEVATION r r------- BUILDING'E' ELEVATIONS n.110.i/ELOC-E.ONO v. NORTH ELEVATION Amu NO. .w.e ,.5L1.o J. D%rt. 1-1341 CAMPY RA A-10CA ELEVATIONS 110' 1 arts: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath; deposes and states: That on the 19th day of October 1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: jK SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1Ctk. day of 04• 1998, ii\MA0*/0.a0Vili4L Notary Public ' and for the State of Washington, residing at herein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Black River Corporate Park - Appeal & Site Plan LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H,SM The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. care 8'0i 5,S ,SVv1 ukt He; J"S•L C y1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008, 52 • (425) 649-7000 December 1, 1998 ti c p OF Lj. Dean Erickson 4 OFO 0 RF Tp / G'Black River - Rivertech LLC 199 700 5th Ave Suite 6000 Seattle WA 98104 O Dear Mr. Erickson: Re: City of Renton Permit# LUA-98-075SM BLACKRIVER- RIVERTECH LLC - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit# 1998-NW-10164 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to develop 1.5 acre office park with five tilt-up buildings totaling 148,834 square feet, 597 parking spaces and 18,000 cubic yards wetland fill, has been filed with this office by the City of Renton on November 18, 1998. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period, December 09, 1998. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, S-i Al ice Kelly, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program AMK:amk SDP.DOC cc: Jana Huerter, City of Renton Fred Kaufman 1 gg8PUGZ From: Jana M Huerterr • , To: Fred Kaufman Subject: Black River Tract B Date: Thu, Aug 27, 1998 3:17PM I have received a copy of the letter to you from Ms. Krom dated 8/27. Since I will not be able to attend the hearing I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a few of her statements which I believe to be inaccurate. The first meeting that Ms. Krom refers to which occured on 6/24/97, was attended by myself, Larry and Sue as well as several from the Friends of the Black River. At that meeting we presented a conceptual site plan which was all that we had at the time, in order to get feed back from the group. We indicated that we were working with Alper to come up with a more suitable site plan and wanted their input. We did not hide the fact that the developer was Alper, nor were we in any way trying to be secretive about our meeting with the group. On 1 1/20/97 I held another meeting with a revised site plan that did not have exact measurements, although at one point during the meeting I phoned the architect (Royce Berg) and he gave me a scale for the plan. We did not have drainage info but I promised that I would get a packet of info for them that would address their concerns. On 12/2/97 packets that included the following info was sent to Ms. Krom, Gerry Adams, Bruce Harpham, and Tom Malphurus: Wetland delineation, Visual Assessment of Rookery, Current site plan with dimensions, site survey, tree survey, landscape plans, water quality and drainage narrative. I called everyone several times to get their input on the info but was unable to get any of them to respond. Also, the MOA that Ms. Krom refers to states clearly that the rookery should be considered on a habitate basis and to not focus on a single nest . Thanks Fred and sorry this is so long. Page 1 AUG 2 7 1998 BUCK (Si.. ON 11 r 3 TERFRONT PLACE • 1011 WESTERN AVENUE GORDON LLP SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104.1097 206)382-9540 • FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE WILLIAM H.BLOCK,PS. SUSAN M.RIIX1LEY PETER L.BUCK OF CouNsFE BRENT CARBON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY I.DERR PROJECT MANAGER JOEL M.GORDON BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,MCP AMY L.KOSTERLITZ COMMUNITY RELATIONS KEITH E.MOXON MARGARET E.POTTER August 26, 1998 Mr. Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 18713 102nd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of ERC Determination for Black River Corporate Park, Tract B, Phase VII Dear Mr. Malphrus: This letter is in response to your letter and proposal of additional mitigation measures to my client of August 18, 1998. As you know, my client has always been interested in pursuing a settlement with any concerned citizen or group. In that regard, copies of the project site plan and landscape plan were sent to the parties to the MOA last November and, at your request, our architect also sent you copies. Many of the types of measures you suggest have already been incorporated into the project. However, unfortunately, my client cannot agree to the additional mitigation measures suggested by your group because: they do not appear to be supported by the best available science (according to our wildlife expert); your proposal exceeds even what you previously asked for in your appeal statement; your proposal involves property not under my client's ownership and control; and the proposed measures are not economically feasible to implement. Nonetheless, we appreciate your attempt to work with my client toward potential settlement. Very truly yours, L4L L• 1.I.7/1,. Amy . osterlitz cc: Dean Erickson, Alper NW Fred J. Kauffman, Hearing Examiner/ Larry Warren, City Attorney Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning, Project Manager BG I\vOL I\DATA\W P\ALPER\L08248_ALK.DOC 981 August 18, 1998 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Amy Kosterlitz Buck&Gordon Suite 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Ave. Seattle,WA 98104-1097 Subject: Appeal of ERC Determination for Black River Corporate Park,Tract B, Phase VII Proposed Mitigation Measures In our effort to reach a settlement before the September 1, 1998 appeal hearing, we propose the following mitigation measures(see attached list and site plan). We have made every effort to consider your client's concerns while still maintaining a minimal amount of protection for the Black River Heron Colony. If your client is willing to accept these mitigation measures and is interested in reaching a settlement before the appeal hearing,please contact me as soon as possible so that we can work out the details. You can contact me at: Home: (425)277-8219 Work: (425)430-7313 Sincerely, c ,l'l Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 18713 102nd Ave. SE Renton,WA 98055 cc: (cover letter only) Dean Erickson,Alper Northwest Fred J.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner Larry Warren,City Attorney Mayor Jesse Tanner Jav Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning,Project Manager August 7, 1998 Alper Northwest 700 5th Ave., Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Dean Erickson Subject: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Letter to Larry Warren dated July 31, 1998 Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed, please find a copy of a letter that we sent to Larry Warren requesting that he contact you to determine if you are interested in discussing the issues surrounding the Black River Corporate Park Development. We believe that it is possible to come to an agreement that will accommodate both your concerns and our concerns regarding the development. We would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you or your representative to explore the possibility of reaching an agreement As you are aware,this matter is scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on September I, 1998. Time is of concern. If you are interested in discussing the possibility of reaching an agreement between our two parties, please contact me before August 17, 1998. Otherwise, we will assume that you are not interested. You can contact me directly at: Tom Malphrus 18713 102nd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98055 Phone: (425)277_8219 Sincerely, 0144—(4A44' Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton,WA 98056 cc: Fred J. Kaufman,Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning, Project Manager Royce A. Berg, Architect idwIAUG - 3 1998 Ill July 31, 1998 f}.`! '7 NER Larry Warren,City Attorney City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton,WA 98055 Subject: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Letter from Hearing Examiner dated July 16, 1998 Dear Mr. Warren: In reference to the above mentioned letter,the Friends of the Black River feel that it may be possible to work out a settlement of the appeal issues. We ask that you contact the appropriate city staff and the developer to determine if they are willing to sit down and discuss the issues. If you have any questions please contact me at. Work: 425-430-7313 Home 425-277-8219 Sincerely, 2oi 1. Tom Malphrus do Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 cc: Fred J. Kaufman,Hearing Examiner Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning,Project Manager CIT: 3F. RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner.Mayor Fred J.Kaufman July 2, 1998 Mr. Tom Malphrus Representing Friends of Black River 18713 102nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Black River Corporate Park Hearing File No. LUA98-075,SM, SA-H Dear Mr. Malphrus: As you are already aware, our hearings are routinely scheduled during the day, and the above- referenced matter has been set for Tuesday,July 14, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. The daytime hearings have not proved to be any more inconvenient for the public than the evening hearings in most cases. As this office has discussed with both you and other interested parties, there is no need for a large number of witnesses testifying to the same facts. This office would request that representatives be selected to present whatever evidence is necessary. We hope that this will not prove inconvenient for you. Sincerel Fred J. Kau an Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CIT.` 3F RENTON r rr: Mayor Jesse Tanner June 11, 1998 Tom Malphrus Representing Friends of Black River 18713 102'd Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Mr. Malphrus: The City received your letter requesting the public hearing fo the Black River Corporate Park site approval be held in the evening so that citizens with concerns can attend the hearing. As you know, this matter is currently before the Hearing Examiner, and those hearings are held during the day. The Administration and Council have not directed the Hearing Examiner in the past as to when and how his hearings should be conducted. Therefore, it continues to be the Hearing Examiner's decision as to whether or not a daytime or evening public hearing is scheduled for this matter. Sincerely, se Tanner Mayor cc:Hearing Examiner City Clerk#98033-C 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2580/FAX(425)235-2532 r. RECEIVED MAY 2 71998 RENTON CITY COUNCIL May 26, 1998 Bob Edwards,President CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council 200 Mill Ave. South MAY 2 '71998 Renton,WA 98055 RECEIVED Subject: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We request that the public hearing for the above referenced project be rescheduled to the evening so those citizens with concerns can attend the hearing. Thank you for your cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, o-yyt S;n:n 'Cor all tar ties Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River Suzanne Krom Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Helen Ross Seattle Audubon Society Cc: Jesse Tanner,Mayor City of Renton RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1998 May26, 1998 MAYORS OFFICE Bob Edwards,President Renton City Council 200 Mill Ave. South Renton,WA 98055 Subject: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park We request that the public hearing for the above referenced project be rescheduled to the evening so those citizens with concerns can attend the hearing. Thank you for your cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, crY S ;T nq 4or all ,at-•;c-S Tom Malphrus l Friends of the Black River Suzanne Krom Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Helen Ross Seattle Audubon Society qb21,;74/1/ Cc: Jesse Tanner,Mayor City of Renton r, /? 1 -1h z Jere_ nay`- 'c f nJ rA'r' , heldffY 17%S Jj / /1' _--' COUNCIL REFERRAL TO ADMINISTRATION TO: Jay Covington DATE: 6/02/98 FROM: Marilyn Petersen LOG#: 98033-C On 6/01/98, Council referred the following: Letter from Tom Malphrus, representing Friends of Black River, 18713 102nd Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98055, requested that the public hearing for the Black River Corporate Park site approval be held in the evening. Please respond by: Prepare memo to Councilmembers via Mayor. (After Mayor's approval, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return copy to you.) Prepare memo to Councilmembers via Mayor ane include attached letter with memo. After Mayor's approval, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return copy to you.) XXX Prepare letter(s)to citizen/agency and submit to Mayor for approval. (After Mayor signs off, Mayor's secretary will copy for Council and Clerk and return to you for mailing.) Schedule matter on Council committee agenda. Call Council secretary ASAP. (Copy of response to City Clerk not required.) Other PLEASE REFERENCE LOG NUMBER ON ALL LETTERS. Please complete request by 6/16/98. Thank you. Request completed on Staff time to prepare response Comments Signature Date nECEIVED MAY 2 71998 RENTON CITY COUNCIL May 26, 1998 Bob Edwards,President CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council 200 Mill Ave. South MAY 2 71998Renton,WA 98055 RECEIVED Subject: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We request that the public hearing for the above referenced project be rescheduled to the evening so those citizens with concerns can attend the hearing. Thank you for your cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, crei Wt44.11 S:fin,n cor all iart-it-S Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River Suzanne Krom Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Helen Ross Seattle Audubon Society Cc: Jesse Tanner,Mayor City of Renton REHM. al JUL 2 0 1998 MARQUESS & MARSH 7605 SOUTH 128TH ST. SEATTLE, WA 98178 fl'a 61% .'417}1"1- 0-1.4/1 -Le6 /terditi,A, ,-/171,t paperxd Mpo, fttem, (At xtc,t_mid (s) Pivn, t 'fricott4y , I *apt& LI4Att Jivtol Att, a, pod 4440- t litin de t 61A2(`• ux lave A2Spolth- 14- mioudzik, ukt/t2 \d/r-via/a 4v14r/ttvi iazthyv ee S tie mad. Antryu, AI& penvt Ike- OW dwdep-orip.a- afp,a-wi„e4-d- musr c6M :u/ t 1oo e p yikit lGu bvwdifi,Gt -Off/to,4, C A/11Mel'I Atitekat Pieieff4& ACInaole.441, Avtit 14.g Spi ( C s u C906 zLL iqoz 21511W . 1 /1/aW 71,911)1 44')/ckfiTPS 11-W 147 J.0(Y A'1471-, ZiknW(PA 2C11414-A--4 fowsoi '"'/"d e 724)-2-49--(v -xm v-rrn mm9 v Pe p 1 . , ' y- 4'J WM s r CITI 3F RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman July 16, 1998 Ms. Amy Kosterlitz 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1097 Mr. Tom Malphrus c/o Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Larry Warren Renton City Attorney 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Appeal File No. LUA98-110,AAD Dear Ms. Kosterlitz, Mr. Malphrus & Mr. Warren: This office would like to take this opportunity to encourage, as it does in appeal matters,that the parties use the additional time the continuance of the matter has permitted to attempt to reach a settlement of the appeal issues. It would appear that the last time a similar appeal had been filed, the parties did reach a mutually acceptable solution demonstrated by the original Memorandum of Agreement. This office would encourage a similar attempt to reach an agreement of some or all of the issues raised by this appeal. Thank you for your considerations in this matter. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BY ERC FOR BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK(FILE NO.LUA-98-110, AAD),AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK(LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H) Dear Party of Record: The Hearing Examiner's Office has received a request from the project applicant for a continuance of the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, July 14, 1998 at 9:00 am, in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. Since notification of the public hearing date and time has already been issued via US Mail, the South County Journal, and posted notices at the site, the Public Hearing will be opened by Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will consider continuing the hearing to a later date. The applicant, or representative(s)of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. If any member of the public is prepared to testify at the public hearing on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, and would be inconvenienced by a continuance, then the Examiner will accept their testimony and questions at that time and enter it into the record. That date of the continued public hearing has not yet been determined but it appears that the next available hearing date would be in early September. Please contact Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, at (425)430-7286 for additional information. C:\TEMP\HRGLTR.DOC BUCK & 902 WAT.Ki )N'I N1.. i • 1011 WNrreliN AveN1IH GORDON LLP SI+n'I,,,,W tann wN 96101-1097 206)182-9540 - FAI stmiu(206)626-0675 ATTOKNEYS NI'LAW A OS(Nn.IIItMiNcIIIAM tiAMI.U.W.PLALK1It WII.I.I.'M II.11.cx;K,Ill. SI,I,AN M•RIIXILEY ill-Elk I..DI Ic:K t-,,(iit:NUKI. 1aI&P.Ml1AKticIN KIT ERIIX;I 0L111IAM IAY I'.I IERR YKovel MANALiLK µail.M.L I<1RI X+K IMAt1I•r Y J. .LILJIi{JX IIST.Al(T IsMY...1,:c1N;I Iki.ITZ 1114MUNrIV I1HIATI<INs Kai II KM(M(lac IN MA Iic;A ItET E.I'(Y11 t It July 10, 1998 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner ity of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 9S055 Re: LUA-98-075, ECF, SAHSM Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VII-DNS Appeal and Site Plan Hearings Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am writing on behalf of my client, Blackriver-Rivertech Ll C.;to request a continuance of the DNS appeal hearing and sire plan hearing scheduled for next Tuesday,July 14. This request is based upon the fact that new factual issues have been raised by comment letters on the DNS and the site plan which we just received and which require that we produce additional scientific information in response. There is no way that we can produce this additional scientific information in the couple days left before the hearing. In addition, we were not aware until this week that a L)NS appeal had been filed and we need adequate time to respond to this appeal. To put this request in perspective, the applicant here has been prejudiced and sandbagged" by the opposition's submittal of letters from agencies such as the Department of Wildlife and others at the eleventh hour before the hearing, with no opportunity to respond or to find out what type of information these letters were based upon. The City gave these opponents the site plan and solicited their comments as early as last November, yet we have not gotten these specific objections and information until the last days prior to the hearing. Under the circumstances, and as the party who will be prejudiced by the lack of a continuance, we respectfully request a continuance. Very truly yours, 141Nti 6Sb/I 1/.•5 Amy L. osterlitz cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren II,:I\:11.I\DA.:'A\w°\AI.ivia\IA7IO8.AI i..1 xx De ilL. Uy: tbULK & liUI1UON LLI'20ti b2t1 Ob(b; U//1U/W1 e;Jormi,jeryartt' - ' ' eyc I is BUCKr/ & 902 WA76RPROS rrI.b,WASMINQ1ON 9B 04.1097 GORDON LLP 206)381-0540•FACSIMUe(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT I AUSON D.RIRMINOHAM SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE WILI.IAM H.BLOCK,P.S.S..ISAN M.RIDGLEY PETER L BUCK OF COUNSIIL C CARBON KITTERIDOE OLDHAM JAY P.JAY P.DERR Popici'MANM;ca JOEL M.CORDON BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,MCP AMY L.KOS ERLITZ GjMMUNrn'R .Art0NS KEIT1-I E.MOXON MARGARET E.POTTER FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL July 10, 1998 To: Company: Telephone No.; FaxNo./ Mr. Fred Kaufman City of Renton 425) 235-2500 42.5) 235-2513 Ms.Jennifer Henning City of Renton 425) 235-2500 425) 430-7300 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren City Of Renton, City Attorney (425) 255-8678 425) 255-5474 Ms.Jana Hurter Renton Planning Department (425) 235-2500 425) 430-7300 From; Amy L. Kosterlitz Number ofPages: 2 (including thin page) if you did nor receive all copies,or if any are not legible, please call Kathy at(206).382.9540. Regardhg: Blackriver Corporate Park We are transmitting the following Letter dated July 10, 1998 regarding DNS appeal hearing and site plan hearing. Continents: Original to follow via regular mail. THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, I'RIVII•FGF.O INFORMATION. IF THE READER ON'IIHIS COVER 1'AOE IS NOT TI IE ADDRLEESL•E, PLEASE tSI ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY AT 20&3829540 AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO BUCK 6,GORDON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MAIL. 'THANK YOU. 11 rrN y a <1. LL p Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman July 7, 1998 Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Appeal File No. LUA98-110,AAD Dear Friends: We received your appeal dated July 6, 1998, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall at 200 Mill Avenue South. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, t),Ar&sS- Fred J. Kaufm Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer JUL 61998 Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE It ' ,. Renton,WA 98056 425)226-0188 NOTICE OF APPEAL The Friends of the Black River appeal the environmental determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)for the Black River Corporate Park(Project No.LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM). We believe that the ERC decision was arbitrary and capricious in that it did not comply with the provisions included in,but not limited to, Section 2 of the Renton Environmental Ordinance(Chapter 6, Title 4 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton). We believe that the ERC in issuing its Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated should have required the following additional mitigation measures: The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the setback distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The setback is necessary in order to decrease the risk of abandonment of the heron colony. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The applicant shall limit all heavy construction on the project to a period from June 15 to January 15. The limitation is necessary in order to protect the heron colony from serious disturbance during the heron-breeding season. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The ERC addresses these mitigation measures in their staff report and determines that these mitigation measures are not necessary to protect the Black River Heron Colony. However, the ERC provides no scientific evidence to support their claim. We will provide expert testimony in support of these mitigation measures. The ERC in its staff report refers to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to support its decision not to require certain mitigation measures. We believe that the MOA does not apply to this project and should not be referenced in support of, or opposition to, the project. We request that the Hearing Examiner make a determination as to whether the MOA may be referenced in matters regarding this project. DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-32432 C:07-06-1998 CASHIER ID : T 13:13:00 A:07-06-1998 5007 APPEALS 8 WAIVERS 75.00 000.000.00.345.81.00.000003 TOTAL DUE 75.00 RECEIVED FROM: MALPHRUS, THOMAS CHECK 75.00 TOTAL TENDERED 75.00 CHANGE DUE 0.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT 1 10) GREAT BLUE HERON ASSESSMENT II Black River Heron Colony Renton, Washington E August 27, 1998 E RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. II II 14 10\N Report To: Mr. Dean Erickson Blackriver Rivertech, L.L.C. 700 - 5th Avenue Suite 6000 Seattle, Washington 98104 Title: Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Renton, Washington Project Number: 98044-001 Prepared By: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 206) 525-8122 Date: August 27, 1998 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 Northeast 63rc St. Seattle, WA 98115 206) 525-8122 Principals: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Dorothy A. Milligan Raedeke, M.S. Wildlife Biologist Author: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Project Personnel: Nichola K. Elston, B.S. Project Administrator RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 \ortheast 63rc St. Seattle, WA 98115 206) 525-8122 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON 2 2.1 Regulatory Status of Great Blue Herons 2 2.2 Regional Status of the Great Blue Heron Population 2 2.3 Heron Population Status in King County 3 2.4 Studies of Heron Response to Disturbance 4 2.5 Review of Status of Regional Heron Colonies 7 2.6 Studies of Nest Colony Abandonment 9 3.0 IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PLAN 13 3.1 Current Site Plan Proposal 13 3.2 History and Status of the Black River Colony 13 3.3 Black River Heron Colony Buffers 15 3.4 Construction Season Limitations 17 4.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLthb PROTECTION 20 5.0 LIMITATIONS 22 6.0 LITERATURE REVIEWED 23 FIGURES AND TABLES 30 iii 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a technical review of the status of the Black River great blue heron colony (located in the City of Renton north/northwest of Blackriver Corporate Park in approximately 100 acres of permanent City open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat), and the potential impacts to the herons associated with the current development proposal for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Tract B short plat. The review can be divided into three principal sections. The first section is a review of the status and relevant biology of the great blue heron. The second section is an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the great blue herons and heron colony, and the proposed mitigation measures for project development. The final section is a review of the more comprehensive Black River habitat-based approach to the management and preservation of wildlife resources. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 2 2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON 2.1 REGULATORY STATUS OF GREAT BLUE HERONS The great blue heron is a protected non-game species, and has been classified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a Priority Species under the Criterion 2 for species with vulnerable aggregations. In the case of the great blue heron, they are considered to be vulnerable due to their inclination to aggregate for breeding purposes (WDFW 1996). It should be noted that this classification is not based on documented population declines, but rather the heron's vulnerability due to the aggregated nature of their nest sites. As a priority non-game species, the great blue heron is protected from hunting and any other form of direct harm. It is also illegal to destroy an active heron nest. The WDFW has prepared recommended guidelines for management of the habitat priority species; however, these are recommendations only, and are not regulatory in nature. "The recommendations are intended for site-specific discussions with landowners to encourage retention and enhancement of suitable wildlife habitat. A management prescription may provide more or less habitat than what the recommendations indicate" (WDFW 1991). 2.2 REGIONAL STATUS OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON POPULATION While historically there is thought to have been a decline in heron populations starting with European settlement through the early 1900s, evidence in more recent times shows that the number of breeding great blue herons in the region is increasing. Calamkbokidis et al. (1985) compared available historical data with total nest counts conducted in 1984 in eight of the major great blue heron colonies in western Washington (Table 1), and concluded that there was no evidence that these heronries were experiencing significant declines in nest numbers over time" (page 97), and further that the numbers of nesting herons at Samish Island, Dumas Bay, Nisqually, and Totten Inlet have apparently increased over time, while nest numbers at Auburn and Long Island sites have fluctuated, but appear to be stable or possibly increasing" (page 97). Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 3 Their data, presented in Table 1, actually shows a three-fold increase in the number of heron nests in the colonies that they intensively censused as part of their study. Norman (1995) reviewed the status of over 100 heron colonies in Puget Sound area and concluded that there is no evidence to suggest there was a decline in heron numbers. In his review of the Christmas Bird Count data, he concluded (Norman 1995 and 1991) that there has been an increase in heron numbers over the past 25 years. The regional observations of Calamkbokidis et al. (1985) are consistent with population trends in great blue heron recorded across North America. Graham et al. (1996) reported a 98 percent increase in the number of active colonies and a 55 percent increase in the number of heron pairs from 1976-81 to 1986-91 as part of an intensive inventory of 1,613 heron colonies in the mid-west. Citing the results of others (e.g., 150 percent increase noted by Brechtel 1981; a 100 percent increase by Martin &Lester 1990, and an undefined increase by McCrimmon 1982), these authors concluded that "this species appears to have healthy growing populations in North America" (page 44). Butler (1997) documented a similar increase in great blue heron numbers in the major nesting colonies in British Columbia(see Figure 16, page 127 in Butler 1997) from about 25 nests in 1968 to over 650 nests in 1992. 2.3 HERON POPULATION STATUS IN KING COUNTY The heron population within the urban lands of King County is also increasing in numbers, following the general trends in North America reported by the authors cited above. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and King County do not routinely monitor great blue heron nest colonies. Hence, we complied information on the heron nest colonies from a variety of sources and intensive monitoring surveys conducted by the author (Stabins and Raedeke 1992) and in 1998 (Table 2 and Figures 1 through 5). Based on these data, we note the following population trends: the number of active nesting colonies has increased from a low of three in 1983 to about 11 by 1998 the number of active nests increased from about 40-50 in 1983 to over 180 in 1990, and an estimated 240 by 1998 based on the most recent data, all colonies that we inventoried are showing increases in number of nests (the number of active nests has increased from about 12-15 per colony to over 22 per colony) Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 4 while some colonies have been abandoned, they appear to have been re- established in nearby locations in subsequent years (e.g., Spencer Property to Redmond Town Center 3 miles south). It should be noted that these are minimum heron numbers, as other small heron nest colonies are also known to exist (e.g., two nests on the Montlake fill near the University's Urban Horticulture Center). Smith et al. (1997) mapped 21 confirmed heron nest sites, 2 additional probable nest sites, and 63 additional possible nest sites in King County. Based on this data, the nesting heron population in the urban regions of King County has increased approximately 500 to 600 percent since 1983 and 40 percent since 1990. There is some speculation that the elimination of DDT from common use, and as a result, from the aquatic ecosystems, has contributed to the recovery of the great blue heron and other species such as the bald eagle (see Calambokidis et al. 1985). DDT has been implicated as a cause of egg-shell thinning in these birds that feed on aquatic prey. Egg- shell thinning results in a decline in fledging success, as egg break before hatching. 2.4 STUDIES OF HERON RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE There have been five reported field research studies on heron response to disturbance and the effect of buffers on the rookeries. Three of the studies deal with observed flushing distances (Taylor et al. 1982, Vos et al. 1985, and Parker 1980), one deals with observed nest distributions in relation to disturbance (Wershkul et al. 1976), and one (Carlson and McLean 1996) examines the effect of buffers of varied sizes on nesting colony productivity. Flushing Studies The flushing studies were all similar in design. The authors subjected a heron nesting colony to disturbance, generally humans walking or motoring within different distances of the colony, and the herons' reactions were observed and noted. The minimal distance at which the birds flushed from the nest was then considered to be the minimum recommended buffer. Taylor et al. (1982) noted the response by herons in a nesting colony to different types of human disturbance at varying distances. Herons, they found, did not flush in response to mechanized farming within 20 meters (66 feet) if the farmers did not get off the tractor, to helicopters within 69 meters (227 feet), to human activities within 85 meters (280 feet), and to deliberate vegetation destruction within 150 meters (495 feet). A buffer of 175 meters (577 feet) was recommended as no entry zone for human activity. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 5 Vos et al. (1985) recommended a buffer of 150 meters (492 feet), which was their greatest observed flushing distance plus 50 meters for safety. They hypothesized that, while flushing from the nest is not in itself an impact on the heron, flushing could reduce fledgling production due to heat stress, increased vulnerability to predation, and increased energy expenditure of adults. There are several difficulties in using flushing studies for the consideration of buffers in general, and for the Black River colony in specific. First, Orr and Sudia (1960) conducted replicated field experiments of flushing distances in great blue herons, and found that flushing distances varied from 13 to 166 yards, and concluded that it seemed doubtful that flight distance had any promise as a quantitative basis for the study of behavior of the Great Blue Heron if these observations were a valid representation of the fixed limits for the species" (page 198). Second, Longley (1960) discussed difficulties of interpreting flushing distances relative to the behavioral patterns of the herons studied. He noted that there are differences between herons that are habituated to people and those that are not. Herons that are habituated to people are likely to flush at shorter distances (e.g. you can approach them more readily), as they are accustomed to human activities, especially mechanical activities, as opposed to humans on foot (Butler 1997, Carlson and McLean 1996). Third, the flushing studies have recorded only flushing behavior, and have not measured the actual impact, if any, of flushing on herons. That is, none of the studies noted impacts on nesting success as a result of their study (e.g., no reduction in the number of young fledged or an increase in predation as a result of adults flushed from the nests). Hence, one cannot determine the impact of flushing on the heron colonies or fledging rates. Fourth, none of the flushing studies documented any abandonment of a nesting colony or any negative impact on breeding. In all cases, the colonies were successful nesters even with the flushing of the herons from the nests. These studies recommended disturbance- free buffers during the nesting season to avoid nesting impacts even though no impacts were noted to have resulted from flushing. Finally, due to the non-replicated study design, no cause and effect relationship could be established between flushing and activity near the nest. The exception is the Orr and Sudia(1960) study which included replications, but found that there was too great a variation to draw any conclusions. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 6 Logging Disturbance A study of nest distribution in relation to logging disturbance dealt with the impacts of timber harvesting on heron colonies in Oregon (Wershkul et al. 1976). In their study, they noted a lower percentage of active nests in the disturbed colony, and noted that active nests were farther from logging disturbances than inactive nests. However, conclusions cannot readily be drawn from their data, as even they note: "..we realize that fledging rate should have been measured at more disturbed sites..." Werschkul et al. 1976:662). They had only one disturbed site and, while the fledgling rate for the disturbed site (2.20 per nest) was lower than the average for the undisturbed sites, it was within the range observed for the undisturbed sites (2.18 to 2.58 per nest). Again, it is difficult to draw inferences from a study with sample size limited to one nesting colony in the disturbed category. Response to Human and Mechanized Disturbance The most comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of human disturbance on great blue heron nesting colonies was conducted by Carlson and McLean (1996). They calculated fledging success for 19 nests with a variety of associated human disturbance and buffer conditions (from no buffer to 800 meters [2,640 feet]). Disturbance at each colony was classified as to the type of disturbance (e.g., humans on foot or mechanical activity), and ranked by degree of severity and frequency of disturbance. No correlation was determined to exist between fledging success and the size of a buffer around the colony; that is, the size of the buffer zone has no significant effect on the fledging success of the colony. They did find that colonies with frequent foot traffic in the actual colonies had lower nesting success than did colonies with no disturbance or colonies with mechanical disturbances (e.g., farming, vehicle traffic, trains, etc.). They noted that barriers such as water and fences that isolate the colony from human access increased the fledging success rate of the colony. It is significant to note that mechanical disturbance, such as construction noise, was not found to be a disturbance that affected nesting success. These results are consistent with the observations of Taylor et al. (1982) who noted that mechanized farming within 20 meters (66 feet) of the nest did not result in flushing. Based on the results of Carlson and McLean (1996) cited above, Butler(1997) concluded that large forest buffers (e.g. 250 meters [825 feet]) may not be necessary if other means of minimizing human disturbance in the colony are available. Butler (1997) and Carlson and McLean (1996) note the effective types of buffers include water barriers and vegetation such as is found on the Black River site. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 7 2.5 REVIEW OF STATUS OF REGIONAL HERON COLONIES The status of the urban rookeries in King County is summarized in Table 2, including the rookeries that have been identified as abandoned. Based on visits to these nest sites, we have developed cross-sections of the nesting colonies (Figures 1 to 5), and an assessment of their buffer conditions (Table 3 and Figure 6) As noted above, this review shows that the actual number of heron nests in King County has increased six-fold since 1983 (from 40 to about 240 nests in 1998). There has also been a steady increase in the number of heron nest colonies since 1983 (Figures 7 and 8). The status of these King County heronries and their relationship to disturbance is summarized in Table 3. The average disturbance-free buffer around the heron colonies in King County is 223 feet (67.6 meters), with no correlation between buffer width and the viability of the colony. An unpublished study of 19 urban heronries in western Washington (Jensen et al. 1990) showed the average distance of the heronries from human disturbance was 245 feet(74.5 meters), with a steady increase in the number of heron nests in these colonies. The results are also consistent with the findings of Carlson and McLean (1996), who found no correlation between buffer width and the success of the colony as measured by the production of viable fledglings. Buffers and Local Heronries The conditions that support local heron colonies are most indicative of the needs of these birds, while studies of herons from other areas under distinctly different conditions responding to different types of disturbance have less applicability. For example, Werschkul et al. (1976) studied the relationship of herons in relatively isolated forests and forest management practices in Oregon; Parker (1980) studied the responses of herons to recreational activities in riparian forests in Montana; Taylor et al. 1982) noted the responses of herons to recreational use in a park area with a habitat of mixed forest and agricultural uses. The results of these studies may not be relevant to potential disturbance associated with an urban office park screened by a substantial vegetative buffer. The relationship between existing heron colonies and development demonstrates the tolerance of these birds in urban areas. Jones and Stokes Inc. (1991), Jensen et al. (1990), Butler (1997), Carlson and McLean (1996) and others have shown that heron nesting colonies do tolerate urban disturbances, and indeed have increased in numbers within short distances of disturbance. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 8 Interpretation of such information, however, is often controversial. For example, Jones and Stokes Inc. (1991) found active, increasing colonies within 50 feet of an occupied residence. One could conclude that great blue herons can and do tolerate such a relationship. While this approach is arguable, a more conservative approach would be to use the sample of local rookeries as a sample of colonies within a "population" of colonies, and base conclusions on this sample in a statistical manner. We have converted data from Table 3 into a risk-assessment model, based on cumulative frequency analysis of buffer distances around heron colonies (Figure 9). The graph shows that over half of the heron colonies in King County have buffer distances of 200 feet (61 meters) or less, while all colonies have substantial human disturbance within 450 feet 136 meters). Based on this cumulative frequency analysis of the distance of heron colonies in King County from disturbance, one can determine the probability of a given heron colony tolerating disturbance. For example, with a 200-foot buffer, 50 percent of the colonies found adequate habitat, and at 450 feet, 100 percent of the colonies found adequate habitat. Using this analysis, we would predict that with a 450-foot buffer, one would have virtually a 100 percent chance of maintaining a viable nesting colony. In the Jensen et al. (1990) study cited earlier, the average distance to residential and commercial buildings for 19 rookeries in the Puget Sound areas was 245 feet(74.5 meters). These results are quite similar to those calculated in the present analysis. Viability of Local Heronries Bayer(1991, comment letter to the City of Renton) questioned the relevancy of a buffer analysis based on local heron colonies. He felt that none of the local colonies could be considered viable, as they were below the theoretical minimum number of fledgling per nest needed for a viable colony. He gave 2.33 (or 2.11 - 2.53) fledglings per nest as the minimum number required. There are several ways to demonstrate that his concern is unfounded. First, regardless of the theoretical threshold number calculated for other areas, the majority of the heronries in the Puget Sound area are increasing in number of nests and the number of heronries is also increasing. This would suggest that if the productivity in these heronries is below the theoretical minimum required for growth, then the calculated theoretical minimum is incorrect, or does not apply to local conditions. For example, the Black River colony had only 2.25 young/per nest in 1990 and was increasing at an annual rate of 32 percent until destroyed by eagles in 1991. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 9 Second, there are numerous studies of viable colonies below the value listed by Bayer see Pratt and Winkler 1985: 2.20 for a 13-year study; Collazo 1981, Idaho study: 2.20; English 1978: 1.96). Based on their long-term studies of great blue heron nesting colonies, Pratt and Winkler(1985) dispute the "viability estimates" of Bayer, Henny, and others. They also note the wide range of annual variation in productivity, which would suggest that any conclusions based on a single year would have little validity. Third, this viability estimate may be based on migratory heron populations, which would need to produce a much higher number of young per year to compensate for mortality of young during dispersal and migration. Krebs (1974) and Pratt (1970) concluded that starvation (mainly of fledged young) was the major cause of mortality in herons, and this would be greatest in migratory birds. Fourth, Simpson (1984) concluded that the number of young is not a reliable indicator of the status of the colony; a more important parameter is the number of pairs with fledglings, as the number of chicks relates to food source more than nesting situation. Simpson (1984) specifically noted that the number of young produced in any one year was not a key factor in colony viability Bayer (1991, comment letter to City of Renton) also suggested that the increase in the number of birds in these rookeries was due to an influx of birds from other areas. He implies that these rookeries could continue to increase even though they were not viable, based on his opinion that the habitat conditions were sub-marginal. It is not clear, however, where these additional birds would come from. Bayer (1991, comment letter) believes they come from abandoned colonies. But, based on current data, growth in the number of heron nests in the active colonies exceeds the number of nests in all abandoned colonies (increase of 98 nests, versus a maximum of 40 nests lost in abandoned colonies). At the same time, there has been a consistent increase in the number of active heronries in the region since the early 1980s. 2.6 STUDIES OF NEST COLONY ABANDONMENT There is no doubt that certain kinds of disturbance during the early nesting season can cause abandonment or nesting failure in great blue heron colonies. What is unclear is the degree and type of disturbance that is required to cause abandonment. WDFW (1991) noted that: Colonies exist at the same location for many years, but some herons may naturally relocate their colonies in response to increased predation on eggs and young by mammals or other birds, or declines in food availability (Simpson et al. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 10 1986). Heronries built in spruce or Douglas-fir trees may damage the host tree over time, which may also influence colony relocation (Julin 1986)". Intentional Disturbance There have been several intentional attempts to force abandonment of heron colonies reported. Hall (1986) reports on efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with state and local agencies, to disperse a mixed colony of herons and egrets. As he noted, "Heron-egret rookeries, not unlike large concentrations of roosting blackbird (Icteridae), can create social economic and health problems whenever a rookery is established..." (Hall 1986, page 3). He reports that "the birds successfully nested and reared young for two successive years despite repeated, costly, ineffective dispersal attempts by residents with assistance of representatives of state, county and local agencies." (Hall 1986:3). Successful dispersal in 1983 was achieved using 500 pounds of pyrotechnics (shellcrackers and cannons) and a pole-mounted 200 watt broadcast alarm unit. Harassment was spaced out over a three- week period before the start of incubation, primarily in the morning and evening, with supplement intervals of alarms and pyrotechnic blasts during the day. The dispersal operation required 170 man-hours of effort. After dispersal, many of the nesting trees in the colony were deliberately removed to prevent recolonization of the nesting colony. However, some birds returned to the area of the colony in 1985 and successfully reared young. Dusi (1979) reported on his experiences with intentional disruption of breeding colonies. He noted that "in inducing a colony to move, action should be taken during the first nest- building and egg-laying stages...Once nestlings are present, do not try to move the colony unless you plan to kill most of the adults." He documents several attempts to force abandonment of colonies by herons and egrets. Unintentional Abandonment Most other reports of heron colony abandonment are based on observations after some new development or disturbance occurs near the colony. However, in the cases reviewed, no cause-and-effect relationships have been established between colony abandonment and the particular development or disturbance. Many authors also note that colonies are often abandoned for no apparent reason (Washington Department of Wildlife 1991, Kelsall 1979, Simpson 1984, Findhlot 1984, Butler 1997, and others). In one of the most comprehensive studies of the dynamics of nest colonies, Graham et al. 1996) studied the fate of 1,614 colonies and found that 48 percent of the colonies inventoried at the start of their study were abandoned, while 67 percent of the colonies present at the end of their study had become established since the start of their study. The Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 11 average longevity of a heron colony in their study area was 9.0 years (SE= 0.41, N = 749). It may be that the actual cause of abandonment is coincidental to development or disturbance. For example, Pratt and Winkler (1985) note that many predators on heron colonies are nocturnal (great horned owls and raccoons) and are rarely observed. Such predation could be coincidental to adjacent development or disturbance, and be the real cause of abandonment. Murphy (1988) described habitat conditions in heron colonies in King County, and noted that 6 of the 13 colonies had been abandoned(see Table 4 for a description of her conclusions and observations of the authors). Contrary to the popular opinion that the abandonment of these colonies was due to housing or commercial developments, development does not seem to have played a significant role, if any, in any of these abandonments. Rather, the abandonments were caused by vandalism to the nests, human activities within the colony or directly under nests in the colony. In more recent cases, eagle predation and the destruction or loss of nest trees were the primary causes of abandonment. Also, the colonies that were abandoned were all very small (4 to 8 nests), with the exception of the Crystal Lake colony (22 nests) and the temporary abandonment of the Black River colony (39 nests) due to extensive bald eagle predation over a sustained period. Murphy (1988) also reported the Pigeon Point nesting colony to have been abandoned as a result of construction activities, when in actuality, it had relocated. Jones and Stokes Inc. (1991) reported that local residents observed the colony in the area continuously during the entire period described by Murphy. Mr. Ted Muller of the WDFW (1998, personal communication) reported partial abandonment of the Kiwanis Ravine colony in 1991 following railroad repair activities within 95 feet of the colony. He also noted on the abandonment of a single heron nest on Whidby Island when a road was constructed within 75 feet of the nest. However, in both cases other factors, such as eagle predation, that had also been reported by local residents, especially at the Kiwanis Ravine colony, were not evaluated or studied. It should be noted that there has not been a documented case of heron nest colony abandonment in King County due to passive disturbance by residential activities and/or construction. All cases of colony abandonment have resulted from sustained and persistent attacks by bald eagles and/or direct disturbance by humans in or near the colonies and/or shooting of the herons in the colony. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 12 As noted above, nesting colony abandonment is a common occurrence most likely resulting from: predation (Simpson 1974, WDW 1991, Dusi and Dusi 1968, Pratt 1970, Mark 1976, Vermeer 1973, Forbes 1989, Butler 1997), as noted in the Black River colony declines in food availability (Simpson 1984, Butler 1997) colony-caused damage to nesting trees (Julin 1986, Wiese 1978, Butler 1997) severe winters" (Krebs 1974) researchers banding birds in the nests (Simpson 1984) Any of these factors could occur coincidentally with non-critical disturbance, such as development and building construction, and yet be unnoticed at the time. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 13 3.0 IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PLAN 3.1 CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSAL The current development proposal for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Tract B short plat is for five one- and two-story commercial buildings (20 and 30 feet tall respectively). The buildings would be constructed using tilt-up concrete panels. Approximately 600 surface parking spaces would be provided; there would be no multi-story parking garage. An approximate minimum 500-foot (152 meter) buffer between the heron nests on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin and the development would be provided. The average distance from the closest building on Tract B to all the nest trees on the island and in the riparian forest mapped by Jones and Stokes (1991) is 1072 feet (325 meters), with a range of 500 to 1,275 feet. From the original boundaries of the Blackriver Corporate Park, a total of approximately 100 acres of land located immediately adjacent to the proposed development tract has been dedicated or sold to the City of Renton as permanent open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat, including Tract A, which was previously approved by the City of Renton for development under the 1991 MOA. The current development proposal with significantly less building area and height provides a substantial reduction in the potential for impacts to the heron colony when compared to the previously approved site plan (see Table 5 for a summary). As noted by Butler(pers. comm. to Ms. Kate Stenberg cited in her letter dated June 12, 1998), the current site plan might have less impact than the taller buildings previously proposed. His comments were however, based on incorrect information stating that the buffer in the current plan was smaller than the previous plan, when, in fact, it is slightly larger. 3.2 HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE BLACK RIVER COLONY The Black River great blue heron nest colony was described by Jones and Stokes (1989 and 1991) as part of the DEIS for the project. A brief summary of their report follows, with special notations of colony status since 1991. The Black River nesting colony was first observed as three nests in large cottonwood trees in 1984, at the time of construction of the P-1 Detention Basin (Van Wormer 1989). Van Wormer (1989) reported 25 nests in the three large cottonwoods on the island created in the P-1 Detention Basin during the 1989 nesting period. By 1991, the number of nests increased to 45 located in 12 different trees on the island and in the riparian forest (Jones and Stokes 1991), when the colony was ultimately fully abandoned, including the riparian forest area, due to continued attacks by bald eagles. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 14 Since the eagle attacks in 1991, the colony has recovered, and in 1998 between 55 and 65 nests have been reported (Krom 1998, comment letter to City of Renton). Nests have been observed in the three large cottonwoods on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin, and scattered throughout the riparian forest. The riparian forest trees were preferred as re- nesting sites in 1991 as they provided greater cover and protection from attacks by the bald eagles. Currently, the majority of the nests are located in the riparian forest (e.g. 26 on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin, and 30 to 39 in the riparian forest). The colony has been subjected to a variety of disturbance since it was first occupied before construction of the P-1 Detention Basin. As reported by Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1989), the colony was active when the P-1 Detention Basin was constructed within 15 meters (50 feet) of the nest trees. The Basin was constructed from April to September, 1984, including much of the nesting period. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989) report that in 1987, a large part of the riparian forest between the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the P-1 Detention Basin was cleared and partially filled. Logging activity took place from February to mid-March, within 60.6 meters (200 feet) of the colony during the period of mating and nest site selection and building. Van Wormer (1989) reported 8 nests in the colony at that time. Since 1987, the colony has been subjected to a variety of disturbances, many during the nesting season, including: construction of the METRO wastewater treatment plant within 450 meters (1,500 feet) of the nests in the riparian forest construction of Oaksdale Avenue S.W. within 303 meters (1,000 feet) of the island nest and within 162 meters (800 feet) of nests in the riparian forest construction of Naches Avenue S.W. within 136 meters (450 feet) of the closest riparian nest and within 212 meters (700 feet) of the island nests continued routine activities of the railroad within 167 meters (550 feet) of the northernmost nests in the riparian forest frequent blasting and heavy equipment activity in the Black River quarry within 333 meters (1,100 feet) of the westernmost nests in the riparian forest construction of the office building and parking lots at the northern end of Naches Avenue S.W. within 212 meters (700 feet) of the closest nest in the riparian forest and within 272 meters (900 feet) of the island nests clearing of debris and brush fields along the railroad tracks within 90 meters (300 feet) of the closest riparian nests in 1998 an open pedestrian trail on Tract A within 136 meters (450 feet) of the nests in the riparian forest and within 167 meters (550 feet) of the nests on the island Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 15 on-going vehicular traffic on Oaksdale and Naches Avenues S.W. As noted by Butler (1998, comment letter to City of Renton), these herons are likely to be acclimated to human disturbance. They have established their nests in an area with extensive on-going human disturbance, but with physical barriers that largely deter the types of direct visual disturbance caused by humans entering the colony and noted by many authors to be the principal cause of colony abandonment (see Carlson and McLean 1996). 3.3 BLACK RIVER HERON COLONY BUFFERS Existing Buffer Conditions In the original DEIS (Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1989), recommended buffers from the buildings were 600 feet (182 meters) on Tract A, and 400 feet (121 meters) on Tract B the tract currently proposed for development). All buffers in the original proposal were measured from the nests on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin where the main colony was located at that time. The smaller buffer recommended for Tract B was due to the vegetative screening provided on the Tract, whereas Tract A lacked screening vegetation and development on Tract A would be clearly visible to the nests in the riparian forest and on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989) noted that the presence of the vegetation planted in 1986 as part of the then-proposed mitigation reduced the buffer width that would be needed to protect the nests from disturbance on Tract B. The DEIS further recommended a reduction in the seasonal construction zone to 400 feet once the average vegetation height in the buffer reached 25 feet (Jones and Stokes 1991). Trees now greatly exceed that threshold of 25 feet, as they range from 72 to 126 feet in height (Henson 1998). While the final EIS, responding to expressed concerns, recommended a 600 foot (182 meter) buffer, a 500-foot (152-meter) buffer(measured from the island nests) was subsequently agreed upon by the City and the environmental groups in the 1991 MOA for both Tract A and Tract B. A reduction in the recommended buffer was warranted, it was agreed, by the availability of significant additional adjacent open space and habitat. The WDW approved of this habitat-based approach. The current development proposal again includes a 500 foot (152 meter) buffer measured from the most northerly of the proposed buildings to the nearest of the nest trees on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin (as in the 1991 MOA). The buffers to the majority of the nest sites of the main colony are actually much greater, as the more recent nests have Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 16 become established in the riparian forest west and north of the island are located at distances of 900 feet (272 meters) or more from the proposed buildings. The closest disturbance to the nests would be the highly visible and non-regulated pedestrian trail on Tract A (which is not part of the proposed development), which is about 550 feet (167 meters from the island nest colony, and within 450 feet (136 meters) of several of the nests in the riparian forest. Several individuals that commented on the current development proposal have requested a 1,000-foot (303-meter) disturbance-free zone around the nests. However, it should be noted that existing developments and active roads are already within this zone (see discussion above on disturbance): Naches Avenue S.W. to the east of the site is located within 700 feet of the nests on the island and within 450 feet of the closest nest tree in the riparian forest the three-story office building at the end of Naches Ave. S.W. is within 900 feet of the island nests and within 700 feet of the closest nest tree in the riparian forest, and the associated parking lot is between the building and the nest trees Oaksdale Avenue S.W. is located about 800 feet south and within clear view of the nests in the riparian forest the pedestrian trail in Tract A is within 550 feet of the nest trees on the island and within 450 feet of the nearest nest trees in the riparian forest Since the original 1991 site plan was approved, vegetation in the buffer area has grown to the point that the heron colony is largely screened from Tract B, even in the early mating and nest building period before spring-greenup. Henson (1998) assessed the vegetation in the buffer area on Tract B, and found that the colony was entirely screened from view in Tract B, with the exception of a narrow thirty-foot gap between shorter trees. Her survey was conducted on March 3 before the trees had leafed out in the spring. Several researchers have noted that vegetative screening reduces the need for a more extensive buffer between development and heron colonies (Parker 1980, Taylor et al. 1982, Kelsall et al. 1984, Simpson 1984). Schirato (WDW) (1991) recommended a 175- foot buffer with a 100 percent screen for a heron colony adjacent to a proposed housing development on the Kitsap Peninsula. Butler(1997) concluded that vegetative screening is an important part of an effective buffer, and further noted the results of Carlson and McLean (1996), who found that a physical barrier such as fencing or water was more important than buffer width. The current development proposal incorporates both fencing and wetpond) at the development's north perimeter, as well as the placement of dead and down" material, and would decrease impacts on the colony by eliminating human intrusions (currently uncontrolled) into the proposed buffer area. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 17 Adequacy of Proposed Buffers Our assessment of the adequacy of the proposed buffers for the Black River colony is based on regional observations of heron nesting colonies with response to local conditions and existing site conditions. Local observations are the most appropriate for determining the best indicator of the range of environmental conditions that are conducive to maintaining viable great blue heron colonies in this area. The proposed 500-foot buffer between the most northerly of the proposed buildings on Tract B and the nearest nests on the island(a proposed 1,072-foot average buffer between the buildings and nest trees in the riparian forest) should be adequate for the following reasons: the width of the buffer to the nests on the island is substantially the same as in the prior site plan approval and MOA, while the current plan is less intrusive on the colony (see Table 5) the proposed buffer provides substantially greater vegetative screening than in 1991 due to tree growth in the intervening years (see Henson 1998 describing the existing vegetation and her observation that there is only a 30-foot wide gap between shorter trees where the colony was visible from Tract B in the spring before leaf-out) the buffer width is greater than those recommendations made by biologists basing their recommendations on actual field research (see Table 6) the buffer distance is greater than the actual buffers around any of the existing colonies in King County the Black River colony is very habituated to human disturbance the proposed 500-foot buffer from the proposed development to the island nest trees is greater than the existing buffer to other existing sources of disturbance e.g., distance from existing the Tract A public pedestrian trail) because the majority of the nests are now in the riparian forest rather than on the island, the actual buffer distance,taking the full rookery into account is greater than even the MOA required, and the majority of the nests are also protected by riparian forest vegetation 3.4 CONSTRUCTION SEASON LIMITATIONS Justification for Construction Limitations Scientifically based studies of heron colony abandonment due specifically to human disturbance (as opposed to vandalism as noted by Parker 1980, Murphy 1986 and the Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 18 present authors) are generally lacking. However, studies and observations which demonstrate that heron colonies can co-exist with frequent non-severe disturbance and human activities are much more common in the literature (see the review for the Black River EIS in Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1991, WDFW 1991, Webb and Forbes 1982, and Carlson and McLean 1996, Butler 1997). WDW (1991) noted that colonies located in close proximity to existing human activities can tolerate more disturbance compared to colonies in undisturbed areas (Simpson 1984, Webb and Forbes 1982, Bowman and Siderius 1984)" No research exists that demonstrates the need for construction period limitations when an adequate buffer is provided. The researchers that made buffer recommendation (see Table 6) did not recommend an additional construction limitation zone. The exception is Parker (1980), whose actual permanent buffer recommendation was only 25 meters (82 feet), surrounded by a larger seasonal buffer. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Dunn 1986), in their comment letter to the City of Renton regarding the prior site plan, did not propose restrictions on activities outside of the buffer. WDFW (1991) published recommendations also are limited to activities within the buffer, and do not include a construction limitation outside of the buffer. Periods of Heron Nesting Vulnerability to Disturbance As stated above, we find no scientific basis for construction season limits at this colony. However, if construction season limits were warranted, they would no be for a period exceeding approximately February 1 to April 15. The period of nest building and mating through hatching, from February 1 to April 15, is when herons, if affected, would be most vulnerable to disturbance (see Figure 10). This period is based on the following: WDFW (1991) noted that"...herons are most vulnerable to disturbance early in the breeding cycle ... herons are less tolerant of disturbance during the pre-nesting courtship period and egg laying,becoming progressively less likely to abandon nests after the young have hatched (Kelsall 1989, Bowman and Siderius 1984)" Hall (1986) noted the difficulty in dispersing a heron colony once nesting had begun, and concluded that "the nesting-parental instinct is too strong if undertaken when eggs or fledglings are present in a rookery" Dusi (1979) noted that once young are in the nest, it is almost impossible to force them to abandon the colony, unless most of the adults are killed Taylor et al. (1982) noted that approximately six weeks into the breeding cycle e.g., one to two weeks after the start of egg laying and incubation), human Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 19 activity directly under the nests did not cause anything more than observation by the herons there are no verified cases of heron nest colony abandonment in King County as a result of disturbance 500 feet (152 meters) from the colony, while there are numerous examples of herons tolerating substantial disturbance close to the nests e.g., within 50 and 100 feet as noted in Table 3) The examples of abandonment in the region cited by Ted Muller(e.g., construction activity within 100 feet) are not relevant to this colony with minimum buffers 500 feet. Recommendations Regarding Construction Limitations Based on the observed existing conditions around the Black River colony and the available scientific literature, we do not consider a limitation of construction on the site necessary if the buffer incorporated in the current development proposal (500 feet to the nearest island nest tree and an average of 1,072 feet to the nearest trees in the riparian forest) is maintained. This recommendation is based on the following observations: the current development proposal includes smaller buildings that would be screened by mature vegetation that has grown significantly since the MOA and prior site plan approval there will be reduced construction noise with "tilt-up" construction techniques the nests in the colony are more dispersed and many are located further from Tract B the herons are very acclimated to existing noise and disturbance there is no evidence that construction noise is threatening for herons in King County the existing conditions include similar noise and activity in close proximity to the colony Carlson and McLean (1996) and others noted that mechanical activities did not affect heron colony productivity the large amount of available habitat (100 acres) If construction limitations are deemed necessary to protect the nesting colony, then the public access pedestrian trail on Tract A should also be closed, and all human activity within the same radius as the construction limitation zone on Tract B should be restricted. This would include bird-watching tours, and other human recreational activities. Butler 1997), Carlson and McLean (1996) and others have noted that human presence has a greater potential to impact nesting colonies than does mechanical activity. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 20 4.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION The 1991 MOA was based on a habitat approach that provides for consideration of the overall needs of the herons and other wildlife rather than the application of rigid rules applied to a single group of nest trees. This approach has been adopted by the WDFW and federal agencies as the best way to protect wildlife of special public interest(e.g., bald eagle nest sites and spotted owls). The federal government's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act allows for modification of spotted owl habitat, including nest sites, if other protections are provided on a landscape basis. For example, in a recent HCP for the central Cascades, the landowner was allowed to harvest known spotted owl nesting habitat in exchange for providing other areas of late-successional reserves and dispersal habitat for owls between other nest sites. This habitat approach is considered to provide increased protection for the owl over the long term. The state has adopted a similar program, called the Landowner Landscape Plan. The habitat approach previously adopted for Black River includes the following design elements: a 500-foot buffer from the most northerly of the proposed buildings to the nearest of the nest trees on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin retained vegetation within the buffer for screening of the development (no longer including Tract A) location of the proposed fencing and wetpond to inhibit human intrusion into the buffer area a riparian forest separated from development by the P-1 Detention Basin elimination of development proposals for 62 acres of land around the riparian forest sold by the property owner to the City of Renton as permanent open space and wildlife habitat an expanded riparian forest providing alternative nest sites and an area of younger trees for new nests that will continue to be available over time as the trees on the island die or blow down the placement of"dead and down" woody material in the buffer zone for habitat for a variety of wildlife These actions augment the habitat already provided by the City of Renton and the property owner for the herons, including: Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 21 dedication of 17.5 acres of land to the City of Renton for construction of the P-1 Detention Basin planting of vegetative screening along the margins of the P-1 Channel and Detention Basin dedication of 20.0 acres of land to the City of Renton for riparian forest wildlife habitat sale of 62.2 acres of land to the City of Renton for permanent open space and wildlife habitat The proposed habitat conditions within the entire site after development of the current proposal for Tract B is completed will greatly exceed the minimum habitat recommendations for heron nest colonies by WDFW (1991). In their habitat management guidelines, they recommend a minimum 10-acre stand of large trees buffered from disturbance. The combined 100 acres of riparian forest and retained forest stands, detention basin, open space, and buffers greatly exceeds this habitat recommendation. In addition, the habitat approach makes more sense than having an absolute buffer from specific trees, such as those on the island. Past experience has shown that nests in these trees are vulnerable to predation and the colony can and did survive and thrive in the nearby, abundant riparian forest. Norman (1995) noted that the recent increase in bald eagle numbers makes it difficult for herons to locate their colonies away from eagles, and that bald eagle predation was a primary disturbance factor in the region. Further, the island nest trees are beyond their prime age (see Plate 1) and vulnerable to storms as well as decay. As noted by Julin (1986 and Butler 1987) herons use can kill the nest trees. Thus, the future of the heronry is in the larger habitat areas provided in the younger riparian forest that is located even further from the proposed development on Tract B. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 22 5.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Blackriver Rivertech, L.L.0 and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely on the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponents and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 23 6.0 LITERATURE REVIEWED Anderson, J.. 1978. Protection and management of wading birds. National Audubon Society. Wading Birds 7:99-103. Bailey, V., and M. Terman. 1983. A comparative study of a great blue heron colony in Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 86:81-88. Bayer, R. D., and E. McMahon. 1981. Colony sizes and hatching synchrony on great blue herons in coastal Oregon. Murrelet 62(3):73-79. Beak Consultants Inc. 1987. A review of wetland and heron related issues in the Marine Drive Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Report to Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Portland, OR. 23 pp. Bechtel, S. 1981. The white pelican, double-crested cormorant and great blue heron in Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Div., Edmonton, Alberta. Bjorklund, R. 1975. On the death of a midwestern heronry. Wilson Bulletin 87(2):284- 287. Blus, L.J., and C. Henny. 1981. Suspected great blue heron population decline after a severe winter in the Columbia Basin. Murrelet 62(1):16-18. Bowman, I., and J. Siderius. 1984. Management guidelines for the protection of heroneries in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Toronto. Buckley, P., and F. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. USDI National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston. 52 pp. Burger, J. 1982. An overview of proximate factors affecting reproductive success in colonial birds: concluding remarks and summary of panel discussion. Colonial Waterbirds 5:58-65. Butler, R. 1997. The great blue heron. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Calambokidis, J., S. Speich, J. Peard, G. Steiger, J. Cubbage, D. Fry, and L. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine birds: Population health and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA tech. Memo. NOS. OMA 18. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 24 Callazo, J. 1981. Some aspects of the breeding ecology of the great blue heron sat Heyburn State Park. Northwest Science. 55(4):293-297. Carlson, B., and E. McLean. 1996. Buffer zone and disturbance types as predictors of fledging success in great blue herons,Ardea herodias. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1):124-127. Custer, T., R. Osborn, and W. Stout. 1980. Distribution, species abundance, and nest- site use of Atlantic Coast colonies of herons and their allies. The Auk 97:591- 600. Drapeau, P., R. McNeil, and J. Burton. Influences de derangement humain et de l'activite du Cormoran a aigrettes, Phalarcrocorax auritus, sur la reproduction du grand heron,Ardea herodias, aux iles de Madeleine. Canadian Field-Naturalist 98:219- 222. Dunn, E., D. Hussell, and J. Siderius. 1985. Status of the great blue heron,Ardea herodias, in Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 99(1):62-70. Dusi, J. 1979. Heron colony effects on man. Colonial Waterbirds 3:143-144. Dusi, J., and R. Dusi. 1968. Ecological factors contributing to nest failure in a heron colony. Wilson Bull. 80:458-466. English, S. 1978. Distribution and ecology of great blue heron colonies on the Willamette River, Oregon. Wading Birds 7:235-244. Ervin, K. 1991. Bald eagle menaces herons' nests. Seattle Times, Seattle, WA. Findholt, S. 1984. Status and distribution of herons, ibises, and related species in Wyoming. Colonial Waterbirds 7:55-62. Forbes, L. 1987. Predation on adult great blue herons: is it important. Colonial Waterbirds 10(1):120-122. Forbes, L. 1989. Coloniality in herons: Lack's predation hypothesis reconsidered. Colonial Waterbirds 16:53-58. Forbes, L., K. Simpson, J. Kelsall, and D. Flook. 1985. Reproductive success of great blue herons in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(5):1110-1113. Gibbs, J., S. Woodward, M. Hunter, and A. Hutchinson. 1987. Determinants of great blue heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. Auk 104:38-47. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 25 Giles, L., and D. Marshall. 1954. A large heron and egret colony on the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, Nevada. Auk 71:322-325. Governement du Quebec. 1986. Modalities dIntervesntion en Milieu Forestier. No. Pub. 3214. Graham, K., B. Collier, M. Bradstreet, and B. Collins. 1996. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) populations in Ontario: data from and insights on the use of volunteers. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1):39-44. Gray, P., J. Grier, G. Hamilton, and P. Edwards. 1980. Great blue heron colonies in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 94(2):182-184. Hall, D. 1986. Dispersal of a heron-egret rookery. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf. 2:3-6. Henson, T. 1998. Three height and screening between proposed Black River Corporate Park "Tract B"Building and the heron rookery in Renton, Washington. Report to Alper Northwest. Natural Resource Consultants, Tacoma, Washington. Henny, C., and M. Bethers. 1971. Population ecology of the great blue heron with special reference to western Oregon. Canadian Field-Naturalist 85(3):205-209. Henny, C., and J. Kurtz. 1978. Great blue herons respond to nesting habitat loss. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6(1):35-37. Jensen, K., K. Wilson, and C. Hensley. 1990. The relationship of great blue herons colony success to distance from development and the effects of screening on that relationship. Unpublished report. 16 pp. Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1989. Black River Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B. Life history and effects of human disturbance on great blue heron rookeries. City of Renton. Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1991. Status of Black River great blue heron colony as of July 9, 1991. Letter to City of Renton. Julin, K. 1986. Decline of second-growth Douglas-fir in relation to great blue heron nesting. Northwest Science. 60:201-205. Kelsall, J. and K. Simpson. 1979. A three year study of the great blue heron in southwestern British Columbia. Colonial Waterbirds 3:69-74. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 26 Kelsall, J. 1989. The great blue herons of Point Roberts: History, biology, and management. Pt. Roberts Heron Preservation Committee, Unpub. rept. 31 pp. Koonz, W., and P. Rakowski. 1985. Status of colonial waterbirds nesting in southern Manitoba. Canadian Field Naturalist 99:19-29. Krebs, J. 1978. Colonial nesting in birds, with special reference to the Ciconiiformes. Wading Birds 7:299-311. Krebs, J. 1974. Colonial nesting and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food resources in the great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Behavior 51:99-134. Longley, W. 1960. Comment on the flight distance of great blue heron. Wilson Bulletin 72:289. Markham, B. and S. Brechtel. 1978. Status and management of three colonial waterbird species in Alberta. Colonial Waterbirds 2:55-64. Martin, R. and G. Lester. 1990. Atlas of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in Louisiana 1990. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Special Pub. No. 3. McAloney, K. 1973. The breeding biology of the great blue heron on Tobacco Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 87:137-140. McCrrimmon, D. 1982. Populations of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in New York State from 1964 to 1981. Colonial Waterbirds 5:87-95. McMillan, A. 1985. Great blue herons can serve as biological indicators. Coastal Currents 10(6):6. Mark, D. 1976. An inventory of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) nesting colonies in British Columbia. Northwest Science 50:32-41. McCrimmon, D. Jr. 1982. Populations of the great blue heron (Ardea herodius) in New York State from 1964 to 1981. Colonial Waterbirds 5:87-95. Moseley, E. 1936. Blue heron colonies in northern Ohio. The Wilson Bull. 63:3-11. Murphy, M. 1988. Status of great blue heron colonies in King County, Washington. Western Birds 12:215-217. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 27 Norman, D. 1991. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in great blue herons from western Washington. Masters thesis, Western Washington Univ., Bellingham, WA. 248 pp. Norman, D. 1995. The status of great blue herons in Puget Sound: population dynamics and recruitment hypothesis. Pages 638-646 In Puget Sound Research "95 Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Ogden, J. 1978. Recent population trends of colonial wading birds on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast plains. Wading birds 7:137-153. Orr, H., and T. Sudia. 1960. Flight distance in great blue heron. Wilson Bull. 72:198 Parker, J. 1980. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in northwest Montana: nesting habitat use and the effects of human disturbance. MS thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 82 pp. Penland, S. 1987. Letter to City of Renton. Department of Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA. Dated January 30, 1987. 2 pp. Pratt, H. 1970. Breeding biology of great blue herons and common egrets in central California. The Condor 72:407-416. Pratt, H.,, and D. Winkler. 1985. Clutch size, timing of laying, and reproductive success in a colony of great blue herons and great egrets. The Auk 102:49-63. Quinney, T. 1983. Comparison of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) reproduction at Boot Island and other Nova Scotia colonies. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97(3):275- 278. Schirato, G. 1990. Letter to Kitsap County Hearing Examiner. Dated October 4, 1990. 3 pp. Schirato, G. 1990. Letter to Kitsap County Planning Dept., Dated July 11, 1990. Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Aberdeen, WA. 2 pp. Shipe, S., and W. Scott. 1981. The great blue heron in King County, Washington. Nongame Program, Washington Game Department, Seattle, WA. 33 pp. Short, H., and R. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability Index models: Great blue heron. Bio. Rept. 82(10.99), USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service,Wash. D.C. 23 pp. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 28 Simpson, K. 1984. Factors affecting reproduction in great blue herons (Ardea herodias). MSc. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Simpson, K., J. Smith, and J. Kelsall. 1987. Correlates and consequences of coloniality in great blue herons. Can. J. Zool. 65:572-577. Speich, S. 1986. Colonial waterbirds. pp. 387-405 In. Cooperider, A., R. Boyd, and H. Stuart (eds). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Service Center, Denver, Co. 858 pp. Smith, M., P. Mattacks, Jr., K. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Vol. 4 in Cassidy, K., C. Grue, M. Smith, and K. Dvornich (eds.) Washington Gap Analysis. Seattle Audubon Society Pubs. in Zoology No. 1., Seattle. 538 pp. Stabins, H., and K. Raedeke. 1992. Status of great blue heron nesting colonies in King County, Washington. Northwest Science 66(2):126. Stern, J., and R. Feins. 1991. Use of Christmas Bird Count data for monitoring marine bird populations. Pages 400-413 In Proceedings Puget Sound Research '91. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Sullivan, J., and S. Payne. 1988. Aspects of history and nesting mortality at a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony, Quentico Provincial Park, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(2):237-241. Taylor, T., M. Reshkin, and K. Brock. 1982. Recreation land use adjacent to an active heron rookery: a management study. Proc. Indiana Academy of Sciences 91:226- 236. Thompson, D. 1977. Decline in populations of colonial waterbirds within the upper floodplain of the Mississippi River. Colonial Waterbirds 1:26-37. Thompson, T. 1994. Avondale/Spencer heron colony and "Park 95" development. Letter dated Feb. 9, 1994 to Raedeke Associates, Inc. Washington Dept. Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA. Terres, J. 1980. Heron family. pp. 495, 499 In The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York, NY. Van Wormer, R. 1988. Technical report on recommended setbacks of great blue heron rookery. Independent Ecological Services, Olympia. 10 pp. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 29 Van Wormer, R. 1989. Technical report on recommended setbacks of great blue heron rookery. Independent Ecological Services, Olympia. 10 pp. Vermeer, K. 1973. Great blue heron and double-crested cormorant colonies in the Prairie Provinces. Canadian Field Naturalist 87:427-432. Vos, D., R. Ryder, and W. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1989. DRAFT Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Herons. Olympia, WA. 3 pp. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Herons. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Priority Habitats and Species List. Habitat Program, Olympia, WA. Webb, S., and S. Forbes. 1981. Colony establishment in an urban site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63:91-92. Werschkul, D., E. McMahon, and M. Leitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in Oregon. The Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662. Werschkul, D., E. McMahon, M. Leitschuh, S. English, C. Skibinski, and G. Williamson. 1977. Observations of the reproductive ecology of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in Western Oregon. The Murrelet 58:7-12. Wiese, J. 1978. Heron nest site selection and its ecological effects. Wading Birds. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 7:27-34. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 FIGURES AND TABLES 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 120 = 220'EDGE-OE 275'EDGE Of aQ 7L0 ENT DEVELOPMENT 100REDMOND TOWN CENTER1._ `: REDM HERON NE5T5 REDMOND 60 ti 12(7 CONIFERS o' - f - ALDER 6 BIG LEAF HERON NE5i5 MAPLE CANOPY 40 20 WOODEN BUILDING 1' ; i 0 3cep EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT 100'EDGE OFh DEVELOPMENT" Figure 1. ja,_,_ _____ F e-r-1?,-,-- - -- i,,,i-ittIC ---- .1_____cF-c5aa. . .K..--,--7--. =:_ip- ERaI,:E-0a--cf:zfttaAe---i-p?izKg[oE,-.ccyi- LsT-giot4-o.-:_sFd FIN 'AL"._42; PO)KEIZI f Li E3.1 .:1 .!:4.L .Ir:Z-k6-ril-:-L:.-50I‘ei: Lia:ci-rEfhggillG NI V - -- 4.7:-..c•-ee-r437?-krue topps.. i• •••• • e•v•• '..,---:•,..--,--.1,-.. N.. \\„; I i --- ' Hz 1 -et.1V10[ZE- Figure 2. r`' ,1,7 re _QEL C ti 3 w I LY` 1 0EfJGE575srT HE vJ i4 , x o unEtp 1 i , ,r - ' - , , Figure 3. 73Xle_10EICESX-11.1!.:_r a, HeR014 ROCKERY MAR;14 4i.DA ITE:r7 ateitzEcno 31-172(4---cR111"— Lor- 4, 1 I t10,11 COOT Figure 4. 2a2.PJ" 5_5a.t-_?i_- l_I_C_s1•,_1KG-_-_--_— b_-, Sf msCirelL.fey0—• sto. sVY1N: p1,_.7m0L- Faoe,.iRm T'_ aT..-...' wr._.--.._ _ S" N0w- iA•`rf3rj--------- O. P.- 0-. .• N7e•vipik. i.r11if.- ct --.- 1. /.----,)z- i,c-Tr.- S,-1-•-,.-.:I.I L._-E._...._m_ 9:--.- i•-l. p. 3tcvp0-rie..Dly.J4G1.isb.,4a r m o e - 4 iiI 7. 14.0allt4 • • f" . . ii t Figure 5. Buffers for King County Heronries 500 - 450 ..:° 400 - a 350 f` 300 - 250 CJ 200 - 150 02 10011 50 4 a 4 Heronries Figure 6. Buffer widths for King County heron colonies. Great Blue Heron Nest Colonies - King County 12 cil 10 c 8 2 U t fie_ r,_ 0... N M '1' v1 ' N co O\ O N M v1 '.0 N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O\ CA O\ CT ON ON CT O\ O, ON ON CT O'. C\ O\ ON O\ O\ O1 O\ O\ ON O'. ON O\ O\ Year Figure 7. Number of great blue heron nest colonies in King County, 1982-1998. Great Blue Heron Nests - King County 300 250 FE 50 pm r_j r 1 . 4, k'' 4,1 .e.i I z I0 N M ,t' V1 oo O\ O N M t VA 3 I3 00 00 00 00 DD W 00 00 0o a\ _ O, O, O, a, O a, Q\ O\ O\ O\ ON O1 O a\ O Q\ O Q\ a\ a\ O 4\ Q\ Year Estimate Figure 8. Number of great blue heron nests in King County colonies, 1982-1998. 100 - 90 - 80 - C co70 - a6 60 el? 50 U 20 - 10 - 0 ,F ,, .,_,.e. 0-50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Distance to Disturbance Figure 9. Cumulative frequency of distance to disturbance for King County heron colonies in 1998. Figure 10. Generalized activity patterns for great blue herons at the Black River colony. Shaded area indicates the period when herons are most vulnerable to disturbance. Jan I Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Heron Activities' Arrive at colony Nest Building/mating XXXX Egg laying(peak March 1) XXXXX)fX Incubation(25-29 days) XXXX Hatching(peak April 1) XXXXXXXXXXXXX Rearing in nest(8-9 weeks) XXXXX Fledging(peak June 1) XXXX Colony abandoned(by July 15) Herons present in pond Heron activities are based on field observations by Van Wormer(1989), Jones and Stokes (1989, 1991), and the authors. 39 Table 1. Comparison of heron colony nest counts in Western Washington from Calambokidis et al. (1985). First Count 1984 Date of First Count Samish Island 50 334 1925 March Point nd 42 No previous data West Seattle nd 16 Since 1940's Dumas Bay 5 46 1978 Peasley Canyon 0 14 First nests in 1968 Nisqually 0 53 First observed in 1977 Totten Inlet 30 75 1978 Long Island 125 128 1981 Total nests 210 692 I Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 40 Table 2. Summary of the number of status of heron nest colonies in King County since 1981. Heron Colonies 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Bear Creek 3 Black Diamond 8 I Black River 4 a 7 22 24 29 35 37 0 4 14 a >37 a 56-65 Cedarbrook 17 A A A 4 A a Crystal Lake 22 I Discovery Bay 2 2 2 u Dumas Bay 24 a 30 46 a 29 29 29 a 20 23 25 35 a a I A 2 Kiwanis Ravine 8 8 12 11 8 a a a 18 Kenmore 24 25 26 28 28 A 35 A 35 Lake Sammamish Park 7 14 21 29 29 a 34 30 17 31 a a 37 a A Mercer Slough 1 2 6 a 9 14 a 17 a >9 North Beach—Shilshoe 5 a a Peasley Canyon 15 18 10 14 a 11 11 11 a 27 30 a 28 a a 30 25 32 Phantom Lake 5 3 0 I Pigeon Point a a a 16 a 16 a A A 3 3 16 20 19 a A a . a Redmond Town Center 9 21 Seahurst Co. Park 4 I Spencer Property 6 7 17 15 A A 4 I Weowna Co.Park 4 0 3 I Yarrow Bay 2 6 6 6 A 12 15 A I Key: a=assumed active A=confirmed active I=confirmed inactive Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 41 Table 3. Summary of status and habitat conditions for urban King County heronries. Nest Colony Statusl Buffer condition Black River increasing 450 feet to pedestrian path and Naches Avenue Dumas Bay unknown 150 feet to house Kenmore increasing 100 feet to parking lot Kiwanis Park increasing 55 feet to house Lake Sammamish increasing 200 feet to boating area Mercer Slough increasing 375 feet to building Peasley Canyon increasing 275 feet to Park & Ride Pigeon Point unknown 300 feet to warehouse Redmond Towncenter increasing 10 feet to trailer 1 Based on last five years 2 Distance to nearest residential or commercial building, or other major human disturbance Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 42 Table 4. Case study of heron nest colony abandonment in King County, Washington, from Murphy 1988 and direct observations. Nest Colony Description and Comments Black Diamond' Last recorded in 1981 with 8 nests. Recorded problems with herons being shot and site vandalized. Crystal Lake' Last recorded in 1981 with 22 nests, 220 meters to disturbance, but area heavily used by local residents. Murphy (1988) reports road through area. Phantom Lake'Last recorded 1986 with 3 nests (5 maximum in 1985), Murphy 1988) reports cattail cutting, harassment by crows and high winds as cause of abandonment. Seahurst Parkl Last recorded in 1981 with 4 nests, first reported in 1978. WDW 1981) report problems with park use affecting herons. Weowna Park'Last recorded in 1988 with 3, maximum 4 in 1981, 5-7 years old in 1981. Problems noted with trails in park, and park recreational use. 1 km from Lake Sammamish colony. Yarrow Bay2 Colony was abandoned in 1992 after eagle predation and nest tree blow-down (PHS note). May have moved to Mercer Slough. Bear Creek2 Colony was abandoned in 1996 after neighbors were reported to have shot at birds in the colony. May have moved to Redmond Town Center. Black River2 Colony was temporarily abandoned in 1991 after sustained bald eagle predation. Birds moved to Cedarbrook Creek for one year. Mercer Slough2 Colony moved to different trees in early 1990's due to deterioration and death of nest tree. Murray Island2 Colony was recently largely abandoned as a result of individuals shooting the birds in the colony (pers. comm. Kate Stenberg). 1 Based on Murphy (1988). 2 Based on observations by the authors. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 43 Table 5. Summary comparison of the site plan conditions under the previously approved site plan and the currently proposed site plan relative to heron colony protection. Previously Approved Plan Current Plan Development area Tract A developed with 2 four- Tract A in City-owned open story buildings space Tract B developed with 4 four- Tract B developed with 5 one- and five-story buildings and two-story buildings Building area Tracts A and B - 754,764 Tract B - 148,834 square feet square feet Building heights 57' and 71' high 20' and 30' high Parking Spaces 1,761 parking spaces, including 597 surface parking spaces a four-story garage Surrounding open 74 acres 100 acres space and habitat Buffer along the P-1 100' buffer 100' buffer Channel Buffer from the 500' buffer 500' buffer island colony Buffer tree heights - 20' to 70' high 72' to 126' high prior plantings Dead and down Placement in the buffer area Placement in the buffer area material Wetpond Southeast corner of the Northwest corner of the development at the intersection development inhibiting access of 7th and Naches into the buffer area Fencing 6' fence along the north 6' fence along the north development boundary development boundary Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 44 Table 5. Continued. Previously Approved Plan Current Plan Construction noise Auger cast-in-place (no driven Conventional spread footings piles) pile supported and auger cast-in-place (no foundations, steel and concrete driven piles) pile supported erection, elevated P-T slabs,foundations, concrete tilt-up dryvit panels walls. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 45 Table 6. Buffer recommendations and basis for recommendations. Source/Type Buffers (in feet) Comments Research/Direct Observations: Taylor et al. 1982 577 Observations of flushing Vos et al. 1985 492 Systematic observations of flushing distance over water Parker 1980 82 Observations of flushing Literature Review: WDW 1991 management 820-980 Guidelines for forest land Schirato (WDW) 1990 175 Comments on Heron Cove Jones & Stokes Inc. 1990 250 North Miller Bay colony WDW 1989 75 Relies on Parker 1980 Shipe & Scott 1981 656 Werschkul et al. 1976 Personal Professional Opinion: Kelsall 1990 1000 Professional opinion Bayer 1990 800-1000 Professional opinion Unknown Basis: Koonz and Rakowski 1985 3,300 Markam and Brechtel 1978 1,650 Forbes et al. 1985 1,642 Quebec 1986 660 Forest management guidelines Dunn 1987 660 Penland 1986 660 Cites department policies Penland 1987 500 Reference to Pigeon Point Mathiesen and Richards 1978 330 Kitsap County 1991 350 City of Seattle 1986 200 Anderson 1978 165 Thompson (WDW) 1994 250 Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998