Marcus Jones
City Manager, City of Norfolk
1101 City Hall Building
810 Union Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
January 28, 2013
Dear Mr. Jones,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet and discuss with us beneficial
solutions to the issues concerning airport safety and the eagles residing at Norfolk Botanical
Garden (NBG).
Eagle On Alliance (EOA) is part of a network of thousands and thousands of citizens in the
City of Norfolk, across the Commonwealth, across the region and around the world. The
NBG Eagles became one of the most watched and loved nesting pair of bald eagles in the
world. This citizen’s network is credited with bringing attention and thousands of dollars in
grants to the Garden and many, many visitors to the City thus providing a positive economic
impact on Norfolk. Eagle On Alliance is a 785-member world-wide group dedicated to
researching solutions to this issue that serves both the best interests of the NBG bald eagles
and preserves airport safety. The research included in this presentation is the result of the
hard work and dedication of EOA.
It is the belief of EOA, that when the City of Norfolk supported the request to remove the
eagles’ nests and harass the eagles, the City may not have realized the full impact this would
have on thousands and thousands of people. It also may not have known the full economic
impact this decision regarding the eagles would have on NBG as well. The press coverage
the City of Norfolk has received because of this decision has not been positive towards any
of the parties involved.
After spending countless hours conducting research, speaking with wildlife biologists,
environmental lawyers, officials of the state and federal wildlife agencies and local officials,
and after reviewing over 2,000 pages of documents received as a result of our Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests to Norfolk International Airport (ORF), EOA believes we
have found more constructive solutions to the situation.
Through this extensive research, as presented in the attached binder, you can see that the
issue is not about “dangerous eagles”. While we understand and respect the importance of
passenger safety at ORF, and of course the safety of the eagles, we have found that the
chance of an eagle strike at ORF is .00000438356. As an enclosed report shows, in the 22
years of record keeping for bird strikes, the American Bald Eagle only makes up .001 of a
percentage point in all bird strike records in the United States. The fact remains, that other
types of wildlife such as gulls and geese, present a much greater risk to ORF’s passengers
than eagles.
In addition, documentation received through our FOIA requests to ORF shows that the
underlying issue is budgetary and insufficient wildlife mitigation efforts by ORF. Reports
show that although the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-APHIS)
recommended a larger budget for mitigation efforts, ORF’s management questioned the
estimate, and requested a budget for half of the amount recommended.
Documentation shows that a USDA staff person only works 60 hours a month at the airport
which includes airport services and now NBG services. This equates to less than three hours
a day. ORF has stated that they have other staff members to assist with mitigation, but ORF
staff members only provide mitigation services as a “collateral” duty. And wildlife
mitigation does not appear as a “line item” on ORF’s annual budget.
From the very beginning, NBG Eagle advocates asked the City to delay requesting a permit
for nest removal to form a committee to study all other mitigation options. One request that
was repeatedly mentioned during discussion, emails and public comments was the use of
Avian Radar Systems to assist with all wildlife strikes at ORF. While ORF’s Executive
Director Wayne Shank indicated to The Virginian-Pilot that the airport had looked into this
as an option for airport safety, he also added that radar is a tool that would not have avoided
the death of two eagles in 2011. We strongly disagree.
In the binder, you will find that all research we conducted shows that Avian Radar, while
relatively new technology, is already making an impact in the reduction of bird strikes at
private, commercial and military airports. In fact, the FAA has endorsed the use of Avian
Radar Systems to the point that they are offering AIP grant funds to Part 139 airports. ORF
is a Part 139 airport and would be eligible for these grants. While Mr. Shank said that the
death of the two eagles wouldn’t have been prevented, our research shows that the death of
the NBG female eagle (“Mom Norfolk”) could have been prevented by either proper
mitigation efforts or through an Avian Radar system.
Airport tower reports that we have included today show that the airplane pilot that landed on
“Mom Norfolk” reported to air traffic control that two eagles were seen eating a fish on the
end of the runway. Instead of telling the pilot to fly over while the eagles were dispersed, no
word of caution was received from the tower and the pilot proceeded to land on the female
eagle. The strike report states that pilots were not warned of wildlife in the vicinity. The
male eagle, fortunately, flew off. But sadly, the female eagle was killed, causing damage to
the landing gear when she rose to get out of the way.
If Avian Radar had been in place, an alarm would have alerted air traffic control and the
incoming flight of the presence of the eagles in the vicinity. Avian Radar systems can track
the movement of almost all wildlife in air space both vertically and horizontally.
While the events that occurred on April 26, 2011 were unfortunate, what is even more
troubling is that the NBG eagles have become a scapegoat for improper mitigation efforts at
ORF. The picture presented by ORF to wildlife agencies and the City of Norfolk indicated
that the eagles at NBG had suddenly become an emergency threat to life and property even
though the eagles have nested at the Garden for more than ten years. US Fish and Wildlife
Services and the USDA convinced City of Norfolk officials that they had no choice but to
support the next step of nest removal as the way to solve the problem. The FAA merely
recommended removal. Scare tactics were used to convince the City Manager’s Office that
there was no choice but to remove the nests.
As our research shows, there actually was another option that could have been included in the
City of Norfolk’s application for a nest removal permit and something that could have been
addressed by USFWS and the USDA if any research had been done by the city prior to
applying for the permit. Federal Register document dated September 11, 2009, US
Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22, Eagle Permits;
“Take Necessary to Protect Interests in Particular Localities; Final Rule” indicates that
through these rules, the City of Norfolk could have asked for the permit to allow the USFWS
and USDA to relocate the nest to an alternate location or provide a substitute nest in a safe
area of the eagles’ territory and attract the eagles to those safer locations.
On page 44, Section 22.27, Removal of Eagles Nests, (a) (2), it states “Where practicable and
biologically warranted, the permit may require a nest to be relocated, or a substitute nest
provided, in a suitable site within the same territory to provide a viable nesting option for
eagles within that territory, unless such relocation would create a threat to safety. However,
we may issue permits to remove nests that we determine cannot or should not be relocated.”
In discussions with Eliza Savage, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service at the Department of Interior in Arlington, Virginia, who is the
Department’s contact for this document, she stated that the option of nest relocation was
indeed a possibility for the NBG eagles. Her office is well aware of the NBG eagles and the
efforts of Eagle On Alliance. She advised that we indeed ask the City of Norfolk why this
provision was not included in the original nest removal permit application.
Ms. Savage also suggested we contact Sarah Nystrom in the Region 5 office of USFWS in
Hadley, Massachusetts, the office that issued Norfolk’s nest removal permit. Ms. Nystrom is
also well aware of the plight of the eagles at NBG and was quite helpful in addressing this
issue. She advised that normally the relocation efforts are begun ahead of actual nest
removal but that it is not too late to put plans into place. She is looking into procedures and
the need for additional permits. We believe this plan may provide a solution for the airport,
the eagles, NBG and the City of Norfolk.
We would like to join the City Manager’s Office to make a formal announcement that a
resolution has been presented. In addition, this solution will allow more time for ORF and
the City of Norfolk to research Avian Radar systems – a much better alternative for
protecting our passengers and all of the wildlife surrounding ORF.
We hope that you will consider this as one of the options as we move forward. We are ready
to partner with your office on a more sensible solution and tell the thousands of supporters
and the media that the City of Norfolk will, indeed, do the right thing.
Again, please accept this letter as an official request from Eagle On Alliance that the City of
Norfolk revoke the USFWS Eagle Nest Removal permit and delay by one year any further
removal of nests and any further harassment of the NBG eagles. At some point, there has to
be a realization that both man and Mother Nature can coexist side by side. The challenges of
wildlife existing near airports have been solved by many other communities by using some of
the recommendations we have listed. Let’s solve those challenges in Norfolk, too.
Sincerely,
Carol F. Senechal
Founder, Eagle On Alliance
Tommy Smigiel
City of Norfolk Councilman, Ward 5