Carrol Henderson comments on EAW
Here are some of the misperceptions I found in the EAW that warrant scrutiny:
Page 39, EAW. Third paragraph:
"Other than protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protects all native, nongame bird species in the United States, the Great Blue Heron is not a federally or state protected species..." Wrong!
CORRECTION: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act includes protections for 1,093 birds of the United States, including both migratory game and nongame birds. These birds ARE federally protected by codified federal laws: 16 U.S.C. Sections 703-708 and 710-712.
Birds ARE protected in Minnesota. "Protected birds" means all birds except unprotected birds. English sparrow, starling, cormorant, common pigeon, and Eurasian collared dove, mute swan, chukar partridge, and quail other than bobwhites."
Page 40. EAW. 2nd paragraph:
“Professional conservation surveys from the MNDNR, bird conservation groups, and volunteer observers show that GBH has breeding activity in 13 of 18 townships in Olmsted County. GBH breeding is reported and mapped in 83 of 87 Minnesota Counties.” Wrong! See below.
Page 51. 4th paragraph. Item d.
“According to the Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas, Great Blue Herons are locally common wading birds with breeding behavior or nesting sites in 13 of 18 Townships in Olmsted County.” Wrong! See below.
“The GBH was documented in every county in Minnesota during the MNBBA surveys. While GBH breeding locations ("probable" and "confirmed"--blue dots in Figure 5) appear to be relatively sparse compared with observations of individual GBH (green dots in Figure 5), it is important to note that the MNBBA surveys consisted of 10 minute point counts to document presence of all bird species, and did not include any focused searches for nests or nesting colonies of GBH or any other species. It is also important to note that the MNBBA surveys were conducted exclusively during the breeding season, hence all of the observations of individual birds (green dots) are indicative of likely breeding activity in the vicinity of the observation.” Wrong!
This is in direct contradiction to the guidelines provided in the GBH report provided by the MNBBA (Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas) for proper and accurate interpretation of atlas results. That guidance is provided below. This appears to be a direct and intentional effort to distort credible data from the agencies that carried out the surveys and present a biased and fraudulent portrayal of the status of great blue herons in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas was a collaborative effort by Audubon MN, the Natural Resources Research Institute, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Ornithologists' Union. The atlas was based on surveys done from 2009 through 2013. The results were published in 2014. Within the MNBBA overview for the Great Blue Heron account, page 4, fourth paragraph, it states:
Great Blue Herons can travel far from the breeding colony to their primary foraging territories. Collectively, several studies have reported the mean distance traveled from 2.3 to 5.6 km. others have reported that the birds range within 30 km. of the colony, although most birds remain within 3 km. (Venneseland and Butler 2011; Custer and Galli 2002). As a result, unless birds are seen on the nest, other observations cannot reasonably be assumed to indicate possible or probable breeding status.
NATURAL RESOURCES RESOURCE INSTITUTE, DULUTH, COMMENTS ON THE MNBBA DATA. On July 23, I received this comment from the professional ornithologist who coordinated surveys carried out as part of the MN Breeding Bird Atlas:
MNBBA never said anything about the bird having breeding or nesting activity in 13 of 18 townships in Olmsted County. In fact, there is a statement in the text - "As a result, unless birds are seen on the nest, other observations cannot be reasonably be assumed to indicate possible or probably breeding states." Hence these "observations" in Olmsted County were just that-observations of birds, so the statement is false because there is no inference to breeding activity.
Also the statement about 2,443 townships in MN were sampled has little reference to Great Blue Herons because it is well-known that the species is not sampled effectively by the point counts used to sample the townships. In addition, detection of any Great Blue Herons using point counts were simply observations and not of birds on the nest. Therefore no breeding activity can be associated with these observations. As stated in the MNBBA. Great Blue Herons are known to range within 30 km of the colony site.
The MNBBA did not state that the Great Blue Heron was ubiquitous.
The EAW preparers erroneously state "GBH breeding is reported and mapped in 83 of 87 Minnesota Counties." Yet, the MNBBA clearly states that - "The birds were reported in all 87 Minnesota counties and were confirmed breeding in 47 counties."
The Conservation Section on the Great Blue Heron stated the following- "The biggest concerns for the future of the species are the protection of wetlands and the availability of secure nesting sites."
Finally, it would appear that whoever wrote these statements was not very familiar with herons nor with birds in general.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS REGARDING THE MINNESOTA BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DATA (FIGURE 6)
Page 10, Blueline-Xenops Blue Heron Rookery Report, second paragraph
The most comprehensive database on GBH rookeries in Minnesota comes from the 2014, when the MNDNR's Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) program conducted focused, state-wide surveys for GBH nesting locations in Minnesota and published a Great Blue Heron breeding map for the entire state (Figure 6). During this survey effort, the MNDNR identified breeding GBH colonies in all but four Minnesota Counties. Wrong!
Today (July 23, 2021) I received this note from an ornithologist in the Minnesota Biological Survey regarding the map (Figure 6) claiming to be sites of Great Blue Heron rookeries in Minnesota attributed to the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) staff. The map actually portrays locations of great blue heron sightings, including foraging sites, without reference to whether or not they were actually rookery sites. As the maps imply on the MBS website, this is a summary of breeding bird sightings in Minnesota, not sites of breeding bird colonies.
Regarding the reference to MBS and GBH colonies, I know of no basis for that. Here is a paragraph copied from the DNR website, MBS bird maps section (“About the bird maps”).
What records are included?
Only MBS bird survey records are mapped. A record is one or more individuals, observed (seen or heard) at a specific location.
- Breeding evidence for the mapped records ranges from breeding season observations (bird in suitable nesting or foraging habitat during the breeding season) to confirmed nesting.
- In some cases mapped observations include foraging birds away from nesting sites (e.g., raptors perched in a tree, pelicans on a lake, herons or kingfishers at the edge of a wetland, swallows flying low over a field, etc.)
- Most locations of records are accurate to within 400 meters (¼ mile) or less. A few survey locations represent lists of species recorded only to the township level (36 square miles) – mapped to the center of a township.”
In other words, the MBS maps, like those from the MNBBA, represent multiple levels of breeding evidence – not just confirmed nesting. As for actual nesting colonies in Olmsted and Fillmore, I don’t know anything about those. It is not MBS.
It would appear that this is a most unfortunate and deliberate effort by the developers to misuse and distort biological data from public and private agencies and conservation organizations to achieve their own selfish goals. I feel that this information soils the entire EAW in a manner that their biased arguments cannot be trusted and that requiring an EIS is the most appropriate way to proceed.
Thank you!
Carrol Henderson
Biography:
Since 1977, Carrol Henderson is recognized for his accomplishments in developing and implementing a statewide program for nongame wildlife conservation in Minnesota that has received national and international recognition. He studied zoology, botany, and physics at Iowa State and received a master’s degree in ecology and wildlife management from the University of Georgia in 1970. During his service in charge of the Nongame Wildlife Program he initiated projects for the reintroduction of Trumpeter Swans, River Otters, and collaborated on the reintroduction of Peregrine Falcons, conservation of Bluebirds, research on Bald Eagle lead poisoning, and contaminant studies on Common Loons resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Carrol is the author or coauthor of 13 books which have sold over 300,000 copies. All the royalties from his DNR books have gone to the Nongame Wildlife Program.
Great Blue Heron photo by Carrol Henderson