MANKO | GOLD | KATCHER | FOX «+ AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PRACTICE Robert D. Fox: 484-430-2312 rfox@mankogold.com ‘Admitted in PA, Nona NY October 31, 2019 Via Electronic and Regular Mail ‘New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Land Use Management Mail Code: 501-02A P.O. Box 420 401 East State Street - 7" Floor Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 Colleen Keller, Assistant Director Coastal and Inland Regulation and Urban Growth Development P.O. Box 420 401 East State Street — 7" Floor Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 402 Ory Aven, Sue 902 Bauxcrwo, PA 19004 i 486-430-5700, ra 4864305711 Diane Dow, Director ens ornso th Division of Land Use Management Mail Code: 401-078 30° P.O. Box 420 401 East State Street — 7" Floor Trenton, NJ. 08625-0420 Alison Astalos, Environmental Specialist ‘New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 420 401 East State Street ~ 7" Floor ‘Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 Re: File No, 1506-04-0180.2 CAF19001 Applicant: Vilamoura, LLC Block 69 Lots 8+8:01 Brick Township, Ocean County, New Jersey To All I. Introduction Tam writing to provide comments on the above-referenced application (the “Application”) for a permit under the New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act (“CAFRA”), N.J.S.A. 13-19-1 ef seq. and the Coastal Zone Management Rules promulgated thereunder at N.LA.C. 7:7, The applicant, Vilamoura, LLC (“Vilamoura”), proposes construction of an approximately 80 foot high restaurant and banquet facility on an existing marina property (the “Project”). Iam submitting these comments on behalf of my clients, residents who will be adversely affected by the Project, and in coordination with Save Barnegat Bay. BaACynwyo,PA | PHILADELPHIA,PA* | CHERRY Hi, NJ | NewYork, NY* | HONOLULU, HI® “ope ppomimentos 2401945 LooxOctober 31, 2019 Page 2 As a threshold matter, the Application remains incomplete, Vilamoura has failed to submit required technical reports, evaluations and plan specifications regarding impacts of the on endangered and threatened wildlife or plant species habitats, critical habitat, riparian buffers, water quality and vegetative cover. On that basis alone, the Application should be returned or denied. To the extent NIDEP instead decides to allow Vilamoura to submit the required information Vilamoura chose to omit, the public comment period should be extended for an additional time period after Vilamoura submits the mandated information to ensure that the public has been afforded due process regarding this Application, In addition to being incomplete, based on the Application as it now stands, the Project does not satisfy the substantive requirements of the CAFRA program. ‘The Project fails to meet the general standards of N.J.S.A. § 13:19-10, That section provides that a CAFRA permit may be issued “only upon a finding that the proposed development: a, Conforms with all applicable air, water and radiation emission and effluent standards and all applicable water quality criteria and air quality standards; b. Prevents air emissions and water effluents in excess of the exiting dilution, assimilative, and recovery capacities of the air and water environments at the site and within the surrounding region; ‘Would cause minimal feasible interference with the natural functioning of plant, animal, fish and human life processes at the site and within the surrounding region; d, Is located or constructed so as to neither endanger human life or property nor otherwise impair the public, health, safety or welfare; and e. Would result in minimal practicable degradation of unique or irreplaceable land types, historical or archeological areas, and existing public scenic attributes at the site and within the surrounding region N.IS.A. § 13-9-10, Vilamoura bears the burden of proving each of these elements. As set forth specifically below, Vilamoura has not, and in certain instances, cannot satisfy these statutory requirements. ‘The CAFRA regulations provide specific standards that an applicant must meet in order to fulfill CAFRA’s general statutory mandates identified above. Vilamoura has not met its burden of proof on these requirements as well. Specifically: i, The Project does not comply with the 50 foot setback requirement from coastal waters as set forth in N.J.S.A. 7:7-15.14; 2104945 docxOctober 31, 2019 Page 3 ii, iii, iv. ‘The Project is not separated from the “waterfront” by a distance equal to two times the height of the structure (for this Project calculated as 2 x 80 feet); Despite a November 14, 2018 letter from NJDEP’s Office of Land Management identifying rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat (including threatened and endangered species habitat) on the Project site, within % mile of the Project site, and within one mile of the Project site, Vilamoura did not submit the required endangered or threatened wildlife species habitat evaluation (N.J.A.C. (7:7-11.3) or impact assessment (N.J.A.C. 7:7-11.2). The Project is prohibited unless through those studies Vilamoura demonstrates “that endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species habitat would not directly or through secondary impacts on the [Project] site or in the surrounding area be adversely affected.” N.JA.C. 7:7-9.36(b). Vilamoura has offered absolutely no evidence on that issue; ‘Vilamoura also did not provide any evaluation of (a) direct or secondary impacts of the Project to critical wildlife habitat, (b) prudent or feasible alternate locations for the development to avoid impacts to critical habitat, or (c) proposed mitigation ‘measures for any impacts to critical wildlife habitat, all as required by N.J.A.C. 7:7- 9.37; Because of the potential direct and secondary impacts to endangered and threatened species and critical wildlife habitat, and the complete absence of any evaluation of those impacts in the Application, my client commissioned an evaluation by Dr. Russel DeFusco, an internationally recognized expert on endangered and threatened species and critical wildlife habitat, with special emphasis on habitat for birds. Dr, DeFusco’s report, discussed more specifically below, concludes to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the Project ‘would impair public health, safety and welfare; does not protect, but rather degrades critical and valuable habitat, including that for a variety of bird and other wildlife; and does not minimize, but rather significantly interferes with the ecological functioning of the site and the surrounding area; The Application claims that the Site contains 9.01 acres of lawfully existing impervious surface and that the Project overall will reduce that lawfully existing impervious surface on the Project site. Based on Vilamoura’s assertion that the Project will reduce impervious surface, Vilamoura contends that the Application satisfies CAFRA’s criteria relating to vegetative cover, water quality and stormwater management, However, the historic records demonstrate not only that the Project site 2104945_1.doexOctober 31, 2019 Page 4 does not have 9.01 acres of lawfully existing impervious surface and that the Project will not reduce impervious surface at the Project site, but also that Vilamoura unlawfully created additional impervious surface at the Project site that it now relies upon to avoid or minimize those very water quality, stormwater and vegetative cover requirements under CAFRA. For all of these reasons, my client respectfully requests that NJDEP return the Application as incomplete or deny this Application as non-compliant with CAFRA as currently designed. ‘The scale, location and design of the Project simply cannot satisfy the letter and intent of the CAFRA requirements and creates an extremely dangerous precedent that will result in massive potential ecologically damaging coastal development. As you aware, there is considerable public opposition to this Project, from residents, adjoining municipalities, community organizations and others. To the extent NIDEP decides to allow Vilamoura an opportunity to correct these fatal flaws in its application, I join in the request made by these other applicants for a public hearing on this Project. II. Specific Bases for Return or Denial A. The Project violates the setback requirement in N.J.A.C. 7:7-15:14 Section 7:7-15-14 of the CAFRA regulations applies to High-rise structures. High-rise structures are defined as “more than 60 feet in height as measured from existing pre-construction ground level.” N.J.A.C. 7:7-15.14(a). Vilamoura concedes that its proposed facility exceeds 60 feet in height and therefore 7:7-15.14 applies. See Vilamoura’s CAFRA Environmental Impact Statement, February 2019 (“EIS”) at p.38. The standards for High-rise structures include: High-rise structures within the view of coastal waters shall be separated from coastal waters by at least one public road or an equivalent area (at least 50 feet) physically and ually open to the public, except as provided by N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.46.! N.LA.C. 7-7:15.14(b)(1). Vilamoura concedes that the Project as proposed sits 25 feet from the bulkheaded man-made harbor. See EIS at p. 38. Vilamoura offers no explanation for why this setback requirements does not apply or why it does not disqualify its Application as a threshold matter. Instead, Vilamoura states only that the Project site is approximately 320 feet from the Barnegat Bay. Jd. But, NIDEP has already 1 7:7-9.46 applies to the Hudson River waterfront area only, 2104945 1. docxOctober 31, 2019 Page 5 stated that for purposes of the setback requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:7-15.14, “the Division considers the bulkheaded man-made harbor to be the limit of coastal waters.” See letter dated September 18, 2019 from Alison Astalos (“Astalos letter”), p. 2, €3 ‘We concur with the Division’s conclusion, Coastal waters are defined as “any tidal waters of the State and all lands lying thereunder.” N.J.A.C. 7:7-1.2(b)(2). The man-made harbor is tidal.? B, The Project also violates the setback requirement in N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.10 Section 7:7-16.10 protects scenic resources and discourages “new coastal development that is not visually compatible with existing scenic resources in terms of large-scale elements of building and site design.” ‘That is a primary objection of my clients and others — the Project is massive in height, more than double the allowable building height permitted as of right under Brick Township’s Zoning Ordinance. To curb such development, for buildings higher than 15 fect (which the Project is), the building must be separated from the “waterfront” by a “distant of equal to two times the height of the structure. .. N.J.A.C. 7:7-16,10(d)(2).”8 Since the building height for the Project is approximately 80 feet, this Section requires that the building be separated from the “waterfront” by 160 feet. ‘The building as proposed is only 25 feet from the waterfront and therefore violates Section 7:7-16.10. Vilamoura states that pursuant to Section 7:7-16.10, the appropriate waterbody to measure from is Barnegat Bay. ‘The proposed building is 320 feet trom Bamegat Bay. EIS at p.42. Vilamoura’s argument is mistaken. As stated above, NJDEP has already determined that the proper measuring point is from the bulkheaded man-made harbor. On that basis, NIDEP has determined that N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.10 applies to the Project. See, Astalos letter, p. 2, $5 Again, we concur with the Division’s conclusion. ‘The term “waterfront” (unlike the term “coastal waters”) in Section 7:7-16.10 is not defined in the CAFRA regulations. However, ‘waterfront has a common meaning, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines waterfront as “land, land with buildings, or a section of town fronting or abutting on a body of water.” Under this definition, the man-made harbor is a body of water and therefore the Project site which abuts the harbor is a waterfront. Indeed, Vilamoura describes its marina and banquet facility in exactly those terms. * Note that a “man-made lagoon” is separately defined from coastal waters and does not include a water that is bbulkheaded like the man-made harbor. See N.J.A.C. 7:7-1.5, Definition of “man-made lagoon.” 3 None ofthe exemptions to this setback requirement apply tothe Project: the Projects not along a boardwalk, i ‘not a wind turbine, does not involve a historie structure and isnot a governmental development project, 2104945 1 doexOctober 31, 2019 Page 6 Unlike other requirements discussed herein, which may require additional information, the setback requirements discussed in Section II.A and B herein disqualify the Application as designed. ‘To cure these fatal defects, the Project must be completely redesigned and then submitted as a new application, C. The Project has deleterious impacts on threatened and endangered species habitat and critical wildlife habitat protected pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.36 and N.J.A.C. 7:7-9:37 and Vilamoura has failed to provide ANY evaluation of these impacts as 11.2 and N.J.A.C, 7;7-11.3 N.J.A.C. 7:1-9:36 aims to protect endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species habitat, including “a sufficient buffer area to ensure continued survival of the population of the species as well as areas that serve an essential role as corridors for movement of endangered or threatened wildlife.” (emphasis added), N.J.A.C. 7:7-9:36(g).. The presence of endangered or threatened wildlife species habitat is identified on NIDEP’s Landscape Maps of Habitat With respect to the Project, by letter dated November 14, 2018 (Exhibit 1), NIDEP’s Office of Lands Management advised Vilamoura that threatened and endangered species habitat exist on the Project site, within % mile of the Project site and within one mile of the Project site.* This included, by way of example, on and off-site foraging, breeding and nesting habitat for birds that are state endangered, state threatened, of special concern and a federally listed threatened species. Asa result, N.J.A.C. 7:7-9,36(b) specifically prohibits development on the Project site: unless it can be demonstrated, through an endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species impact assessment a described at N.J.A.C. 7:7-11, that endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species would not directly or through secondary impacts on the relevant site or in the surrounding area be adversely affected. (emphasis added) N.J.A.C. 7:7-9-36(c) further states that Applicants must demonstrate compliance with the rule by conducting an endangered or threatened wildlife species impact assessment in accordance with NJAC. 7:7-11.2. “N.A.C. 7:7-7-9,36(¢)(2) allows an applicant to demonstrate thatthe proposed site is not endangered or threatened wildlife species habitat, and thatthe rule does not apply, by conducting an endangered or threatened wildlife species habitat evaluation in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:7-11.3. Vilamoura did not do that evaluation and therefore Exhibit] presumptively establishes that such habitat exists at and around the Project site 2104945_ doesOctober 31, 2019 Page 7 Vilamoura acknowledges the November 14, 2018 letter from NIDEP attached Exhibit I. EIS at pp. 25-26, Yet, Vilamoura did not conduct or submit the required habitat pact assessment. As a result, Vilamoura’s application is both incomplete and defi Instead, Vilamoura’s sole rationale for compliance with this rule is as follows: tis important to note, the Project has been limited to actively disturbed areas containing lawfully existing impervious surface and gravel areas and does not propose to impede upon and (sic) undisturbed areas that may provide a potential habitat for endangered or threatened species EIS at p. 26. Putting aside the accuracy of this statement (which is refuted below), that statement alone does not satisfy the requirement of the rule. The rule expressly states that to demonstrate compliance, an applicant shall conduct an endangered or threatened wildlife species impact assessment “in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:7-11.2.” (emphasis added) N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.36(¢)1 N.LA.C. 7:7-11.2 requires detailed evaluation and information “using accepted ecological principles and scientific literature” on “each species, and both direct and indirect impact of the proposed development shall be considered.” Vilamoura has failed to do that. Moreover, Vilamoura’s entire premise is flawed. ‘They consider only the impacts of the horizontal/surface/ground portion of the development. In fact, a major direct and secondary impact on wildlife species habitat is the height/vertical nature of this Project as described below. Vilamoura simply ignores that as well as ignoring, as required by the rule, impacts to nearby wildlife species habitat due to the height of the proposed building, Vilamoura takes a similarly dismissive approach to compliance with CAFRA’S protections for critical wildlife habitat, Separate from protecting habitat for endangered and threatened species, CAFRA protects critical wildlife habitats “known to serve an essential role in maintaining wildlife, particularly in wintering, breeding and migrating.” N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.37(a). This includes rookeries for colonial nesting birds (¢.g., herons, egrets, gulls), stopovers for migrating birds and natural corridors for wildlife measures. This rule provides that development that “would directly or through secondary impacts on the relevant site or in the surrounding region adversely affect critical habitat is discouraged. . .” (emphasis added) 1d. at 7:7-9.37(b). If such impacts exist, an applicant must demonstrate “minimal feasible interface with the habitat,” no “prudent or feasible alternate location for the development” and “appropriate mitigation measures.” [d, at 7:7-9.37(0). Once again, Vilamoura simply fails to provide any information on direct or secondary impacts to critical wildlife habitat from the Project. Vilamoura merely states: 2104945_1 docxOctober 31, 2019 Page & hhe subject parcel was not identified by the Division of | Fish and Wildlife as a critical wildlife habitat during their previous review. EIS at p. 26. But, that review took place eleven years ago for a project that was completely different — it involved only a marina upgrade, not an 80 foot high restaurant and banquet facility. Vilamoura’s conclusory assertion does not satisfy this rule, Although Vilamoura has not met, or event attempted to meet, its burden of proving that the Project satisfies CAFRA’s protections for endangered and threatened species habitat and critical wildlife habitat, my clients and Save Barnegat Bay were deeply concemed about the direct and secondary impacts of the Project on those important natural resources. For this reason, my clients retained Dr. Russ DeFusco to perform the evaluation that Vilamoura was required to perform, but chose not to. Dr. DeFusco has a PhD in environmental, population and organismic biology and a masters degree in wildlife biology. He is an internationally recognized expert in wildlife management, with a particular emphasis on birds and bird habitat. He has performed work for governments in all fifly states and all over the world and has taught these issues at the United States Air Force Academy, where he is a retired Lt. Colonel. He is also the primary developer of the model used for bird avoidance at airports. His resume is attached along with his expert report as Exhibit 2. Before turning to Dr. DeFusco’s expert conclusions, it is important to note the terms under which he undertook this assignment. Dr. DeFusco expressly agreed to perform the evaluation only with the understanding that if he found no impacts, he would so conclude. After performing his independent evaluation, Dr. DeFusco concluded to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the wildlife habitat impacts from the Project would be profound. As Dr, DeFusco’s report summarizes, his evaluation included a site visit (to the Project site and surrounding area, including sections of the nearby Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge) both during daylight and nighttime hours, and review of environmental assessments, public meeting notes, development plans, Zoning requirements, engineering diagrams and photographs Dr. DeFusco’s complete conclusions are contained in his report, but significant findings include: 1. The height of the proposed building, light emanating from the proposed building and glass at the top of the proposed building all contribute to a significant and synergistic negative impact on the local ecology; v The ecological impacts of the Project are especially acute because of its locations along the coast, in an undeveloped area and within migrating bird pattems. 2104945_} doceOctober 31, 2019 Page 9 3. The proposed building and site use of the Project support higher levels of human disturbance and are more disruptive to wildlife habitat. 4. Species impacted by the Project include nocturnal migrant Passerines, waterfowl, rails and woodpeckers. 5. Ground nesting and estuarine nesting birds such as harriers, shorebirds, waterfow! and others will be impacted as will the habitat of nearby uplands that support herons, egrets, ete. 6. There are many protected species confirmed in the area of the Project site and those species (including osprey, northern harrier, herons, hawks, egrets, tems and others) could be negatively impacted by the Project. As stated above, Dr, DeFusco’s ultimate, unequivocal conclusion is that the Project degrades critical and valuable habitat for a variety of birds and other wildlife. Significantly, Dr. DeFusco states that his conclusion applies to “not only the immediate locale, but population along the entire avion migratory corridor . ...”. Dr. DeFusco’s conclusions are unrebutted because Vilamoura has failed to offer any evidence to the contrary. ‘Vilamoura’s assertion that the Project will reduce lawfully existing impervious surface at the Project site is inaccurate and unsupported, and as a result, Villamoura’s application regarding water quality and stormwater impacts and proposed vegetative cover are deficient ‘Vilamoura states that the Project site contains 9.01 acres of lawfully existing impervious surface. EIS at pp. 27, 31. Using that acreage, Vilamoura states repeatedly that it complies with various CAFRA regulations because the Project will reduce impervious surface. EIS, pp. 33, 40, 41, The administrative record for this Project site belies Vilamoura’s assertion. First, the prior owner of the Project site applied for a CAFRA permit in 2008/2009. The NIDEP Environmental Report issued with that permit (attached as Exhibit 3) states that the legally existing impervious cover onsite was 6.23 acres. See p. 3. In fact, one of the identified conditions to the 2008/2009 CAFRA permit is that “the site has reached the maximum amount of impervious coverage allowed under the issued CAFRA permit.” Second, it is possible that the 6.23 acres of lawfully exiting impervious surface represented the lawfully existing impervious surface within the net land area of the Project site (excluding impervious surface in special areas like wetlands buffers). That is not what Exhibit 3 says, but I will assume that for argument’s sake. However, the Stormwater Management report dated November 18, 2008 submitted by the prior owner in support of the 2008/2009 CAFRA permit (Exhibit 4) states that the total impervious area on the Site, anywhere, was 328,878 2104945_1 doceOctober 31, 2019 Page 10 square fect. See p. 1. That amounts to 7.55 acres, not 9.01 acres as Vilamoura now contends. And there is no calculation of how much of that 7.55 acres was lawfully pre-existing or how much was in wetlands buffers or transition areas. As such, the best evidence is that 6.23 acres of lawfully existing impervious cover existed as of 2008/2009. Third, the 2008/2009 CAFRA permit conditions expressly state that any disturbance to wetlands transition area shall not exceed the limits shown on the approved plans. Vilamoura violated this condition, Attached as Exhibit 5 are a series of aerial views of the Project site over time, starting in 2010 and continuing until 2018. As you will see, in 2010, 2013 and 2016 a portion of the Project site was well vegetated. In 2017, the owner piled gravel on the site and then in 2018 removed all that vegetation and placed compacted gravel in the previously vegetated area, Not only is that a violation of New Jersey wetlands law,’ and CAFRA vegetative cover requirements in N.J.A.C. 7:1-16-7, but Vilamoura is now claiming that this newly graveled area is in part lawfully existing impervious surface. An Applicant cannot illegally fill an area and them attempt to rely on that illegal activity to its benefit AA final note on the compacted gravel areas. In calculating impervious surface at the Project site, as with the asphalt porous paving, Vilamoura proposed that the compacted gravel should not be treated as impervious. NIDEP said exactly the opposite in 2009: Based on submitted information and conversations with David Funz and Vincent Mazzei, the Department has concluded that the existing gravel parking areas on site are impervious. Exhibit 3. Based on the above, the impervious surface at the Project site will increase, not decrease, above that which was lawfully pre-existing. Accordingly, Vilamoura cannot conclude, without studies, that the Project site will have no impact on water quality, groundwater recharge and stormwater. See N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.3, 7:7-16:6. For example, the increased intensity of vehicle traffic at the Project site increases the risk of petroleum contaminated runoff into the adjacent ‘waters which are subject to anti-degradation requirements. Vilamoura has conducted no ‘modeling or study regarding this significant issue. In addition, Vilamoura calculates its required vegetative cover (.02 acres) based upon the assumption that there is 9.01 acres of lawfully existing impervious cover at the Project site. Without that inaccurate assumption, Vilamoura concedes that the Project requires 45 acres of tree planting, EIS at p. 32. Vilamoura’s plan does not provide that required planting, 5 There are outstanding notices of violations for this illegal wetlands filing 2104945_doosOctober 31, 2019 Page 11 I. Conclusion For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Application be returned or denied, Should Vilamoura wish to proceed, they should be required to start the process from the beginning with a compliant Application, Sincerely, Fowl dy Robert D. Fox For MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP RDF/KI Enclosures 2104945_I.dooxExhibit 1State of New Sersey MAIL CODE 501-04 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF PARKS & FORESTRY. PHILP 0. MURPHY NEW JERSEY FOREST SERVICE CATHERINE R. MCCABE Governor OFFICE OF NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT Commissioner P.O. BOX 420 SHEILAY. OLVER, ‘TRENTON, NJ 08625-0420 Li, Governor “Tel. (609) 984-1339 Fax (608) 984-0427 November 14, 2018 Michael S. Amodio Dynamic Engineering Consultants, PC 1904 Main Street Lake Como, NJ 07719 Re: Proposed Marina, Restaurant and Banquet Facility Block(s) - 69, Lot(s) 8 & 8.01 Brick Township, Ocean County Dear Mr. Amodio: ‘Thank you for your data request regarding rare species information forthe above referenced project site. Searches of the Natural Heritage Database and the Landscape Project (Version 3.3) are based on a representation of the boundaries of your project ste in our Geographic Information System (GIS). We make every effort to accurately transfer "your project bounds from the topographic map(s) submitted with the Natural Heritage Data Request Form into our Geographic Information System, We do not typically verify that your project bounds are accurate, or check them against other sources. ‘We have checked the Landscape Project habitat mapping and the Biotics Database for occurrences of any rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat on the referenced site. The Natural Heritage Database was searched for occurrences of rare plant species or ecological communities that may be on the project site. Please refer to Table I (attached) to determine if any rare plant species, ecological communities, or rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat are documented on site. A detailed report is provided for each category coded as ‘Yes" in Table | We have also checked the Landscape Project habitat mapping and Biotics Database for occurrences of rare wildlife species ‘or wildlife habitat in the immediate vicinity (within mile) of the referenced site. Additionally, the Natural Heritage ‘Database was checked for oceurrences of rare plant species or ecological communities within % mile of the site. Please rofer to Table 2 (attached) to determine if any rare plant species, ecological communities, or rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat are documented within the immediate vicinity of the site. Detailed reports are provided for all categories coded as “Yes? in Table 2. These reports may include species that have also been documented on the projec site, ‘We have also checked the Landscape Project habitat mapping and Biotics Database for all occurrences of rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat within one mile ofthe referenced site. Please refer to Table 3 (attached) to determine if eny rare wildlife species of wildlife habitat is documented within one mile of the project ste. Detailed reports are provided for each category coded as “Yes” in Table 3. These reports may include species that have also been documented on the project site. For requests submitted as part of a Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA) rule application, we report records forall rare plant species and ecological communities tracked by the Natural Heritage Program that may be on, or in the immediate vicinity of, your project site. A subset of these plant species are also covered by the FHACA rules when the records are located within one mile of the project site. One mile searches for FHACA plant species will only report precisely located ‘occurrences for those wetland plant species identified under the FHACA regulations as being critically dependent on the ‘watercourse, Please refer to Table 3 (attached) to determine if any precisely located rare wetland plant species covered by HP File No. 18-4007411-15463the FHACA rules have been documented. Detailed reports are provided for each category coded as “Yes’ in Table 3. ‘These reports may include species that have also been documented on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the projet site. ‘The Natural Heritage Program reviews its data periodically to identify priority sites for natural diversity in the State. Included as priority sites are some of the State’s best habitats for rare and endangered species and ecological communities. Please refer to Tables 1, 2 and 3 (attached) to determine if any priority sites are located on, in the immediate vicinity, or ‘within one mile of the project site. A list of rare plant species and ecological communities that have been documented from the county (or counties), referenced above, can be downloaded from http://www state.n.us/dep/parksandforests/naturaVhertage/countylishiml. If suitable habitat is present atthe project site, the species in that list have potential to be present. ‘Status and rank codes used in the tables and lists are defined in EXPLANATION OF CODES USED IN NATURAL HERITAGE Reporrs, which can be downloaded from htip://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/natural/beritage/nhpcodes 2010,pdf. Beginning May 9, 2017, the Natural Heritage Program reports for wildlife species will utilize data from Landscape Project Version 3.3. Ifyou have questions concerning the wildlife records or wildlife species mentioned inthis response, we recommend that you visit the interactive web application at the following URL, hitps:/7njdep.maps aregis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index himl?id-O26a440980524ed99b17399S3cb4d4c7, or contact the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program at (609) 292-9400. For additional information regarding any Federally listed plant or animal species, please contact the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office at http://www. fws.govinortheast/nfieldoffice/endangered/consultation.htm PLEASE SEE ‘CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NHP DATA’, which can be downloaded from bttp://orwov.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/naturaUheritage/newcaution2008.pdf. ‘Thank you for consulting the Natural Heritage Program. The attached invoice details the payment due for processing this data request. Feel free to contact us again regarding any future data requests. fase Robert J, Carica ‘Administrator NP File No, 18-4007411-15463 NHP File No. 18-4007411-15463Table 1: On Site Data Request Search Results (6 Possible Reports) Report Name Included —_ Number of Pages 1, Possibly on Project Site Based on Search of Natural Heritage Database: Rare Plant Species and Ecological Communities Currently Recorded in the ‘New Jersey Natural Heritage Database 2. Natural Heritage Priority Sites On Site 3, Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat on the Project Site Based on Search of Laadscape Project 3.3 Species Based Patches, 4, Vernal Pool Habitat on the Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3, 5, Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat on the Project Site Based on ‘Search of Landscape Project 3.3 Stream Habitat File 66. Other Animal Species On the Project Site Based on Additional Species ‘Teacked by Endangered and Nongame Species Program Wesncuay, Nove 14,2018 No O pages included No O pages included Yes 1 page(s) included No O pages included No O pages included Yes 1 page(s) included Page tof |NHP File Nos 1400741145463Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat on the Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3 Species Based Patches Class ‘Common Name Scientific Name Feature Type Rank Federal Protection State Protection Grank —Srank Status Status i Aves Bindecromed Night Nyctnrarmptcoms Forging 3 NA State Threatened G5 ‘82B,$3N Caspian Tem Hydroprogne caspia Foraging 2 NA Special Concem GS S3B,S4N Comrpon Tern Stema hirundo Foraging, 2 NA Special Concem GS S3B,S4N Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Foraging 2 NA Special Concem GS S3B,S4N Great Blue Heron ‘Ardea herodias Foraging 2 NA Special Concem GS S3B,S4N Least Tem Stemnula antillarum Foraging 4 NA State Ga SIBSIN Endangered Little Blue Heron greta caerulea Foraging 2 NA Special Concern GS S3B,83N ‘Norther Harrier ‘Circus eyaneus Breeding Sighting 4 NA State as S1B\S3N Endangered Osprey Pandion halisetus Foraging 3 NA State Threatened GS $2B,S4N Osprey Pandion halinetus Nest. 3 NA State Threatened GS S2B,S4N Snowy Egret Egretta thula Foraging 2 NA Special Concem G5, S3B,S4N Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Foraging 2 NA. Special Concem GS S3B,S3N Page of Wednesday, November 1, 2018, [NHP File No: 18-4007411-15463,Other Animal Species On the Project Site Based on Additional Species Tracked by Endangered and Nongame Species Program Scientific Name ‘Common Name Federal Protection Status State Protection Status_Grank __Srank. Invertebrate Animals Cisne uel coeseeanea [New Janey Pie Bare Tiger Bete ‘Total number of records: 1 Wednstey, Novenber 14,2018 Page of [NHP ile No: 18-4007411-15463,Table 2: Vicinity Data Request Search Results (6 possible reports) Report Name |, Immediate Vicinity ofthe Project Site Based on Search of Natural Heritage Database: Rare Plant Species and Ecological Communities Currently Recorded in the New Jersey Natural Heritage Database 2. Natural Heritage Priority Sites within the Immediate Vicinity 3, Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat Within the Immediate ty ofthe Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3 Species Based Patches 4, Vernal Pool Habitat In the Immediate Vicinity of Project Site Based (0n Search of Landscape Project 3.3 ‘5, Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat In the Immediate Vicinity of the Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3 Stream Habitat File 6. Other Animal Species Inthe Immediate Vicinity of the Project Site Based on Additional Species Tracked by Endangered and Nongame Species Program Wodnestay, Novonber 14,2018 Included No No Yes No No Yes Number of Pages O pages included O pages included 1 page(s) included O pages included O pages included 1 page(s) included Page Lo [NH Fle No: 18-4007411-15463,9¥St- (194007 81P0N 2 GAN 8102 rt qUBION epUTEN, te 1a Nes'ars $0 weadog reeds Ww z fudaoy —swyorin easy oda PaO|OOUL nvs'acs $9 ueouag persed WN z ‘surBeiog inn ena pai Among Nis'axs 50 povereanyy ams WN € 1oN SUED UoRpoR fadso Nis‘ars $0 pavoraniy ag ww. € Suieog suey warped sasdso passtimpeg Nes'ais so 28s WN Siig Bmpoasg, sek ma EH WoNRUON, Nes'aes $9 waung reeds ww z Sudeog — eoguseoenai@g —uowsH ang aT posofuspag NIS‘aIS oO IES YN * Suswoy — wnuElROR eas ‘Gel serT nesters 50 weouog reseds WN z Suey —FepORYpLY NON oma Nvs'aes $s wasw0g reads ww z Sugemog soar spe8214 sar A801 Nvs'aes 50 ween pened wn z Sufuoy ——oprmiyyruusig wa uoneD Nvs'acs $0 uno109 jeads ww z Surfeiog mdse ouBosSoupsH way ume esoopace ss, NES‘E7S: SO = Pausaeary] 21815, VN € ‘Bures0y xRIOONAKN AUBIN POUMOID-ROETE — sang woHDeIOA sm UORD=TOA pug una ais, Teepe UE, adky aamyvag sme syneeg — aE wounTo; Sse saypqeg paseg sapeds eve s90forg odeaspue] Jo youve wo paseg ays yoforg omy Jo Arua}, 23¥;pIUTUNy 20 UIBEAA FENGUH AFNPHEAA 20 S9q90dS OFNPHAA AEA.toc ‘page “erp sorst-t1PCoOratc0N ena ZEN 0 13a 6 aa 1 spuoood zo soquima exo ers eLtueo poh sung yg Ke ma, veorream nnd PUD Spouuy srougauoauy ‘SareN wR SarN SERUADS URI smIRIG UONSMOA AIS —_ STING BORDA IOI TeIIPIA resBo1g sopedg aueSu0N pur pasaduepug Aq paypeay sapedg euopippy wo paseg ang 2aforg ayp Jo Aura], ae;pouTUT] 343 UT sorsads [emuy 210Table 3: Within 1 Mile for FHACA Searches (6 possible reports) Report Name 1, Rare Plant Species Occurrences Covered by the Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rule Within One Mile of the Project Site Based on Search of Natural Heritage Database 2, Natural Heritage Priority Sites within 1 mile 3, Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat Within One Mile of the Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3 Species Based Patches 44, Vernal Poo! Habitat Within One Mile ofthe Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3, 5. Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat Within One Mile ofthe Project Site Based on Search of Landscape Project 3.3 Streamn Habitat File 6. Other Animal Species Within One Mile of the Project Site Based on Additional Species Tracked by Endangered ‘and Nongame Species Program Westend, Novertbr 14,2018, Included No ‘Yes Yes Yes ‘Number of Pages 0 pages included ‘See emailed attachments 2 page(s) included 1 page(s) included 0 pages included 1 page(s) included Page of HP FteNo: 18-4007411-15463Rare Wildlife Species or Wildlife Habitat Within One Mile of the Project Site Based on Search of ‘Landscape Project 3.3 Species Based Patches Class Common Name ScientificName ‘Feature Type Rank Federal Protection State Protection Grank ——_Srank ee ig Black-crowned Nycticorax nycticorax Foraging 3 NA ‘State Threatened GS S2B,83N ‘Night-heron Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Foraging 2 NA Special Concem GS S3B,S4N Common Tem Sterna hirundo Foraging 2 NA Special Concem G5 S3B,S4N Glossy Ibis Plegadis faleinellus Foraging 2 NA Special Concern G5 S3B,S4N Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Foraging 2 NA Special Concem GS ‘S3B,S4N Least Tern ‘Sternula antillarum Foraging 4 NA State ot SIBSIN Endangered east Tem Stemula antillarum Nesting 4 NA ‘State Ga SIB,SIN Colony Endangered Little Bue Heron Egret caerulee Foraging 2 NA Special Concem G5 ‘S3B,$3N Northem Harrier _Cireus eyaneus Breeding 4 NA State Gs S1B,S3N Sighting Endangered Osprey Pandion haliaetus Foraging 3 NA State Threatened GS S2B,S4N Osprey Pandion haliaetus Nest 3 NA ‘State Threatened GS S2B,S4N Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Nesting Area 5 Federally Listed State a SIBSIN ‘Threatened Endangered Snowy Egret Egretta thule Foraging 2 NA Special Concem G5 S3B,S4N Tricolored Heron ‘Egret tricolor Foraging 2 NA Special Concem GS S3B,S3N NN —$——— Page of Wednesday, November 14,2018 INHP Fle No:18-407411-15463Exhibit 2Evaluation of Adverse Impacts on Wildlife from the Proposed Vilamoura Development Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey Prepared by: Russell P. DeFusco, PhD, USAF (ret) BASH Incorporated 5010 Lanagan Street Colorado Springs, CO 80919 (719) 200-2252 BirdmanRuss@aol.com October 21, 2019Evaluation of Adverse Impacts on Wildlife from the Proposed Vilamoura Development Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey 4, Introduction: Vilamoura LLC has proposed constructing a restaurant and banquet hall at 29 Mantoloking Road, Brick Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The corporation would require variances to the current zoning laws as the property lies within the flood zone, and at somewhere between 78 and 84 feet (varying between the documents presented and possibly does not include the additional peak of the glass enclosure at the top of the building), would more than double the height restrictions for such developments as currently established as not to exceed 36 feet, Concern has been expressed regarding the proposed project's impacts on local wildlife populations. An evaluation of potential negative impacts on birds and other wildlife was requested and is the subject of this report. 2. Proposed Location: The proposed restaurant and banquet hall would be developed adjacent to the Barnegat Bay Marina near the westem base of the Mantoloking Bridge. The facility would be located on the western side of the Barnegat Bay that generally runs north-south and is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a thin barrier island. The inland area to the west and virtually the entire length of the barrier island to the east have been heavily built up with suburban housing and light industrial development. However, the area around the proposed site is largely undeveloped or only at relatively low density. To the north across Mantoloking Road and to the southwest, the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, surrounds much of the property. The refuge was established specifically as a significant conservation area for resident and migratory birds and as evidenced from the signs and placards placed all throughout the refuge is a source of great local pride for its success in those efforts. 3, Evaluation of Potential Wildlife Impacts. An independent review was requested to determine potential wildlife impacts of the proposed development. | was asked to perform that review and have very extensive experience in addressing wildlife and ecological issues nationwide and overseas over a period of 38 years (see attached Resume/CV). That experience includes projects in all 50 of the United States and three territories and notably, several projects in the immediate region of this project including comprehensive assessments of wildlife management plans in New Jersey at the Kane Wetland Mitigation Bank in the Meadowlands, at Joint Base McGuire- Fort Dix-Lakehurst, at the Atlantic City International Airport, at the Warren Grove AirForce Range, at the Morristown Municipal Airport, at the Atlantic City Landfill, and others. Each of these projects involved extensive coordination with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. A site visit was performed to tour the potential development property and surrounding areas to determine if the proposed action could negatively impact birds and other wildlife in the area. Observation of the property itself and the vicinity were performed during both nighttime and daylight hours in October 2019. Observations were made in various sections of the wildlife refuge to determine habitat quality and wildlife presence and abundance. Additionally, numerous documents were reviewed including environmental assessments, public meeting notes, development plans, Zoning requirements, engineering diagrams, photographs, and others. Previous experience in the local environment and review of various biological documentation allowed a perspective on bird and other wildlife presence, relative abundance, and use of the area. Concern over the potential negative impacts on wildlife and particularly for resident and migratory birds fall into several categories as further described below. a. New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:7-9.37 “Critical wildlife habitat’ defines such habitat as *...specific areas known to serve an essential role in maintaining wildlife, particularly in wintering, breeding, and migrating.” The Bamegat Bay and specifically the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge is well established as a critical stopover point for migrating birds during both spring and fall migrations and clearly meets the definition under the code. Long distance migrants require safe and often expansive refuges in order to refuel along their migratory routes and many cannot survive without such refuges. The Forsythe Refuge is particularly important in that it supports a variety of transitional habitats ranging from upland mixed forests, to riparian bottomlands, to salt marsh, to open water. As such, it supports a very rich biodiversity and large numbers of birds among other wildlife species. Human development all along the eastern seaboard has severely limited if not entirely eliminated many of the historical refuges of this nature and the remaining areas have become even more critical to the survival of many species. Birds from as far away as northern Canada to the north and from the tropics of Central and South America to the south use the Forsythe Refuge in their annual migrations. More locally, birds from Cape Cod and other parts of New England, and along Long Island may undergo over-water fall migrations and must seek landfall in suitable habitat along the coast to refuel. Sandy Hook to the north and the Forsythe Refuge are such landfall opportunitiesand it is most likely that the birds visiting these sites differ as to their specific migratory pathways. In addition to migratory birds, there are several species of resident or breeding birds that use the refuge during all seasons of the year including for wintering and breeding as defined in the New Jersey Code. Nationwide, human development in formerly natural areas has caused an estimated 25-30% reduction in species abundance amounting to over three billion birds alone that have been lost in the past 50 years (Rosenthal et al. 2019). Continued development and fragmentation of such critical habitat will certainly negatively impact the presence, diversity, and abundance of birds in the local area to add to the national totals. . Bird collisions with buildings and specifically those with windows cause the mortality of hundreds of millions of individuals annually nationwide and are well documented worldwide (Loss et al, 2014, Bracey et al. 2016, Hager et al, 2017, Seewagon and Sheppard 2017). Birds simply may not perceive reflective surfaces or may view windows as openings through which they might pass. Collisions with windows may occur at any time of day or night. Collisions with non-reflective portions of buildings are only issues for nighttime migrants and birds moving in the local area. Many birds die immediately and directly following collisions due to traumatic injury. Some fall in vegetation, water, or other locations in the vicinity of buildings and evidence of mortality is never determined. Others may become stunned and susceptible to predation, parasites, loss of condition, stress, or other mortality factors. Although it is difficult to empirically quantify losses and virtually impossible to do so before a structure is actually in place and studied, it is safe to conclude that all buildings of any height are susceptible, but taller buildings with extensive windows are most likely to cause adverse impacts. Those along migration routes, in lightly developed areas, and coastal locations are particularly vulnerable. Addition of the proposed building at its specific location will certainly have a negative impact. Light impacts on migration are well documented and can cause significant confusion, behavioral abnormalities, and other adverse impacts on nocturnal migrants (Van Doren et al. 2017, Rebke et al. 2019, Zapata et al. 2019). Direct and indirect effects of light-interrupted flight can lead to fallout in unsuitable habitat, truncated migratory flights, and other such factors that can lead to loss of individuals and altered migration patterns. Additionally, nocturnal lighting can cause otherwise diurnal species,including potential predators such as gulls, to negatively impact both migrant and resident nesting birds and their offspring. Strongly illuminated buildings in otherwise relatively dark areas, such as the proposed project, are particularly problematic. Timing of the illumination is also important as the majority of migrants take off just before sunset and peak numbers are airbome late into the evening, then tail off after midnight and generally touch down long before daylight. This timing coincides almost directly with the planned use of the proposed facility and will exert maximum influence on local bird movements. Disturbance from human activity at the proposed facility will increase dramatically from staff and patrons. Vehicular, boat, and foot traffic are projected to increase substantially over current use. Varieties of human disturbance have been implicated as significant factors in the decline of migrating, breeding, and wintering birds worldwide (Hockin et al. 1992, Pease et al. 2005, Price 2008). Birds are less likely to take refuge in areas where levels of human disturbance is increased. Nesting success is reduced or eliminated in areas of disturbance. Distance from disturbance is increased in resting, nesting, and other bird activities, limiting abundance and carrying capacity of otherwise suitable habitat. Stress, predation, and other factors will potentially decrease local bird populations if disturbance increases. Perhaps counter-intuitive to the overall negative effects on most species, there are some commensal species that benefit or thrive in areas of human disturbance. Many are non-native species including invasive plant species that may out-compete native vegetation and generally reduce habitat quality. Rodents such as invasive house mice (Mus musculus) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), native rice rats (Oryzomys palustris), and feral animals such as house cats (Felis catus) all can have direct negative effects on native bird populations, particularly breeding birds, through direct predation on adults or predation on eggs and offspring. Commensal mammals will almost certainly increase with development as they do in other such projects in the region Additionally, some human-tolerant bird species such as a variety of gulls (Laridae) and non-native European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) can have devastating effects on native species such as ground nesting estuarine species and cavity-nesting songbirds. . Species potentially impacted by the proposed facility fall into a broad range of taxa, Some species groups should not be adversely affected due to the location away from the Atlantic oceanfront. Those include seabirdsand the majority of shorebirds that might be affected in structures more closely associated with open ocean and beach environments. However, a diverse complex of other species will be affected by a variety of the factors described above. These include a wide range of nocturnal migrant Passerines (songbirds) including but not limited to warblers, finches, sparrows, chickadees, titmice, thrushes, icterids, and others that may be especially be impacted by collisions with the structure as well as illumination disrupting nocturnal migration. Non-Passerines including waterfowl, rails, woodpeckers, and others will be similarly affected. Increased human disturbance will additionally adversely affect ground nesting and estuarine nesting birds such as some sparrows, rails, harriers, shorebirds, waterfowl, and others. These effects will likely extend into nearby upland habitat as well and could affect herons, egrets, owls, raptors, and a wide variety of nesting songbirds. Protective status of birds potentially affected range from no protection to state-level considerations, to full federally-mandated protections. Non- native species such as starlings, House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), Rock Pigeons (Columba livia), and others enjoy no special protective status. However, virtually all other species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and cannot be taken without special permits and should be conserved as possible. Still others have special protective status under New Jersey state law and may be listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Special Concern. Species listed sometimes are added or removed from this list and current status may be found at hitps:/www.njfishandwildlife.com/tandespp.him. While there are certainly others that may pass through the area or are only occasional visitors, those confirmed in the immediate local area, such as in the Forsythe Refuge and Barnegat Bay and that could be negatively impacted by the proposed project include the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Northem Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (Nyctanassa violacea), Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicansis), Least Ter (Sternulla antillarum), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger), Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius lodovicianus), Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera),and Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). The above list includes those documented in previous environmental studies of the site, those listed in the nearby refuge information documents, from various literature sources, from personal interviews, and from personal observations (see also Sutton and Zappalorti 1987, USFWS 1990; 2000, Sutton and Dowdell 2008, Sewald 2019). There are also several additional species listed as those of Special Concern by the State Department of Environmental Protection and are detailed in letters to the proponents of this project that for the sake of brevity are not further listed herein. Some of the above species such as the Piping Plover are also afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but in this specific case, should not be affected by the project as it generally does not occur in the bay, though may be found nesting on sandy beaches along the Atlantic coast. g. There is significant and warranted concern over the precedent this project could set if approved as presented. Should the permitting agencies grant the variances sought, itis unlikely that they could disapprove any similar development requests in the future. Both the location and the height of the proposed facility will undoubtedly cause adverse effects on the local ecology even if only incrementally. This project in particular is of concern because of its proximity to critical habitat and because of the enormous scale of the facility when compared to existing development in the immediate area. The cumulative effect of this project, amongst others that have previously degraded the environmental quality, and prospective future projects cannot be underestimated. There is ample precedent to the contrary however as several other projects have been denied variances and some specifically for concern over avifaunal resources and general biodiversity. 4, Overall Assessment of Potential Adverse Impacts. The overall assessment of the Vilamoura LLC proposed restaurant and banquet facility is that the facility as proposed would have a significant negative impact on the local ecology. Local flora and fauna would be detrimentally affected with particular concer for resident and migratory avifauna. As explained in more detail above, there are numerous potential negative impacts that can be summarized as follows: a. Taller buildings are more susceptible to collisions than shorter ones b. Taller buildings among shorter buildings are more susceptible than those in the surrounding areaBuildings with extensive glass windows are more susceptible to collisions than those with less windows d. Illuminated buildings are more susceptible to disrupting migratory patterns and behaviors than those that are un-lighted. e. Illuminated buildings in areas that are less lighted or unlighted are more disruptive than those situated in similar lighting conditions. f. Coastal structures are more susceptible to collisions and disrupting migratory pattems than those more inland. g. Structures along leading migration lines are more disruptive and susceptible to collisions than those not along migration routes. h. Structures in less densely developed areas are more susceptible to collisions and other adverse effects than those situated amongst similar developments. i. Buildings that support higher levels of human disturbance from recreation or other activities are more disruptive to wildlife presence and abundance than those where disturbance is minimized j. Development that attracts human commensal species such as non-native rodents, bird species, feral animals, and limited native species are more disruptive to the overall ecology than those that do not attract commensal species. The proposed project development fails each and every one of these criteria from the perspective of conservation status. Further, and significantly, the synergistic effect of each of these factors will potentially greatly outweigh the cumulative effects of each of these factors individually combined, While it may not be possible to empirically determine each of these effects, it is without question that the project as. proposed would be a detriment to the local ecology. Loss of biodiversity and overall species abundance will certainly be the unintended consequences if approved as proposed . Conclusion. From the perspective of adverse environmental impacts on local birds and other wildlife and based on review of numerous environmental documents, engineering specifications, zoning rulings, extensive literature searches, personal experience, and on-site evaluation of the Vilamoura, LLC Restaurant and Banquet Hall, | cannot endorse the project as proposed. | can state unequivocally and with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the project's development would impair public health, safety, and welfare; does not protect, but rather degrades critical and valuable habitat, including that for a variety of birds and other wildlife; and does not minimize, but rather significantly interferes with the ecological functioning of the site and the surrounding region. The proposed project lies within and is surrounded bycritical habitat by any common measure including that specified in state and federal statutes. Specifically, this project would without question violate the letter and intent of the N.J.A.C. on critical wildlife habitat that states “Development that would directly or through secondary impacts on the relevant site or in the surrounding region adversely affect critical wildlife habitats is discouraged...” Conservation of species and habitat that affect not only the immediate locale, but populations along the entire avian migratory corridor that includes the site are at stake and careful consideration must be given to their protection References: Botsch, Y., T. Zulima, and J. Lukas. 2017. Experimental evidence of human recreational disturbance on bird-territory establishment. Proceedings Royal Society B. 284. Bracey, A., MA. Etterson, G.J. Niemi, and R.F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird-window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128 (2):355- 367. Hager, S.B. et al. 2017. Continent-wide analysis of how urbanization affects bird- window collision mortality in North America. Biological Conservation 212:209-215 Hockin, D. et al. 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance of birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. J. Wildlife Management 67:789-795. Loss, S.R., T. Will, S.S. Loss, and P.P. Marra. 2014. Bird-building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor 116:8-23. Pease, M.L. R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of human disturbance on the behavior of wintering ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:103-112. Price. M. 2008. The impact of human disturbance on birds: A selective review. Australian Zoologist. 34. Rebke, M., V. Dierschke, C.N. Weiner, R. Aumiiller, K. Hill, and R. Hill. 2019. Attraction of nocturnally migrating birds to artificial light: The influence of colour, intensity and blinking mode under different cloud cover conditions. Biological Conservation 233:220- 227, Rosenthal, K.V. et al. 2019. Decline of the North American Avifauna. Science. Sept 2019.Seewagon, C.L. and C. Sheppard. 2017. Bird collisions with windows: An annotated bibliography. American Bird Conservancy, Wash. D.C. Sewald, J.M. 2019. CAFRA Environmental Impact Statement for Vilamoura LLC, Proposed Marina, Restaurant & Banquet Facility. Dynamic Engineering, Lake Como, NJ. Sutton, C. and J. Dowdell. 2008. 2007 Fauna Survey: An Updated Natural History Inventory and Habitat Evaluation of the Reedy Creek Section of Metedeconk Neck, Brick Township, Ocean County, NJ. Save Barnegat Bay, Lavellete, NJ. Sutton, C.C. and R.T. Zappalorti. 1987. A Wildlife Survey and Habitat Evaluation of the Reedy Creek Area, Brick Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. Herpetological Associates, Inc. Beachwood, NJ. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Reedy Creek Additions to the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Ocean County New Jersey. US Department of Interior, Region 5, Newton Corner, MA. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Edwin B. Forsythe and Cape May National Wildlife Refuges Revised Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Executive Summary. US Department of Interior, Region 5, Hadley, MA. Van Doren, B.M. et al. 2017. High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (42):11175-11180. Zapata, M. et al. 2019. Artificial lighting at night in estuaries — Implications from individuals to ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 42:309. Attachment: Resume/CVRUSSELL P. DEFUSCO, Ph.D., Lt Col USAF (ret.) BASH Incorporated 5010 Lanagan Street Colorado Springs CO 80919 (719) 264-8420 BirdmanRuss@ol.com EDUCATION: EXPERIENC! Current 1998-2001 1994-1998 1991-1994 1989-1991 BS in Biology, United States Air Force Academy MS in Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University PhD in Environmental, Population and Organismie Biology, University of Colorado Vice President and Consultant, BASH Incorporated. Providing environmental consulting services, specializing in bird hazards, wildlife management, and environmental assessments for civil and government clients worldwide, Senior Emeritus Representative fon the Steering Committee, Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada, Qualified FAA Airport Wildlife Biologist, Providing expert testimony at local, county, state, and federal levels regarding Bird Aircraft Strike Hazards (BASH) and community planning issues. On national response team for potential Avian Influenza issues. Developed and teaches course for FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologists and airport operators through Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. Develops environmental and operational ‘management plans and consulting services in regulatory and compliance issues regarding BASH, environmental health and safety, conservation of resources, de-conflicting human and wildlife issues, compatible land use planning, construction activities, mishap investigations, bird avoidance modeling, ecological modeling, and mitigation planning, Deputy for Academic Development and Associate Professor of Biology, Department of Biology, USAF Academy. Taught a wide variety of courses such as Principles of Ecology, Vertebrate Zoology, and Senior Seminar in Biology. Served as the Director of Biological Research and Academic Development. National Collegiate Athletic Association representative for Air Force Rifle Team. Directed the $2 million USAF Bird ‘Avoidance Model project. Won the Air Force Research and Development Award Deputy for Research and Assistant Professor of Biology, Department of Biology, USAF Academy. Taught courses such as Introduction to Biology, Applied Ecology, and, Ethology. Supervised four directorates and several cadet programs. Officer in Charge of Cadet SCUBA club. Performed as adjunct to USAF Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team for worldwide programs and research, Air Force Institute of Technology Doctoral Program, University of Colorado, Boulder CO. Research and dissertation centered on modeling bird hazards to aircraft that provided the prototype United States Bird Avoidance Model (BAM). Instructor of Biology, Department of Biology, USAF Academy. Taught courses such as General Biology, Independent Study in Biology, and Field Ecology. Provided technical support for USAF BASH Team, Served as Academic Advisor-in-Charge for 28 faculty members and 1,000 cadets.1986-1989 Chief, Bird Aireraft Strike Hazard Team, HQ USAF/LEEV Environmental Division, Directorate of Engineering and Services, Bolling AFB, Washington D.C, Led BASH Team officers and provided expert assistance to organizations in every aspect of reducing bird hazards and improving fight safety. Reviewed engineering designs of aircraft components to better withstand strikes, Controlled bids on airfields and surrounding areas through sound land management practices, and managed dispersal of problem birds. Designed flight operations and modeled bird populations to minimize ‘exposure to hazardous birds while in flight. Served on Air Force Mishap Investigation Boards involving bird strike incidents that resulted in major damage, lass of aircraft, and loss of life. Expert BASH consultant to foreign governments throughout North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Wrote and reviewed Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements for construction projects and land uses, especially as related to DOD and public transportation safety 1984-1986 Aircraft Strike Hazard Team Ecologist, AF Engineering and Services Center, ‘Tyndall AFB FL. Provided onsite assistance as a recognized expert in BASH to nearly every operating U. S. Air Force Base in the world, in addition to numerous Army, Navy, Marine, NASA, FAA, and foreign installations, “Evaluated land uses such as sanitary Jandiills, agriculture, sewage ponds, parks, and industrial areas for compatibility with nearby aircraft operations. Provided management strategies and expert testimony for potential landfill conflicts with flight safety. Wrote the model BASH Plan for the USAF used at all Air Force bases worldwide as a standard for managing, documenting, and implementing BASH programs. Wrote and evaluated National Environmental Policy Act documents 1984 Undergraduate Pilot Training, 64% Student Squadron, Reese ARB TX. ‘Trained for flying in the T-37 and 7-38 jet aircraft. Experienced my frst bird strike on my first solo 137 flight, 1983-1984 Director, Human Performance Laboratory, Physical Education Instructor, and Varsity Cross Country Coach, Department of Athletics, USAF Academy. Taught a variety of physical education courses in the Athletic Department. Coached the Varsity Cross Country team. Managed the athletic rehabilitation program and performed as Director of the Stone Human Performance Laboratory. Conducted research in various physiological performance and body composition studies. 1981-1983 Air Force Institute of Technology Masters’ Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Research and thesis concentrated ‘on characterizing tightening. devices for airfield bird control to reduce bird hazards to aircraft RESEARCH: BAM Primary research interests since 1985 have been the development of a Bird Avoidance Models (BAM) for reducing bird hazards to aircraft operating in off-airfield areas (Please see yyw usshas.com for the most current BAM product). Principal investigator and developer of the model for several years including management of over $2 million in research funds. The model takes bird distribution and abundance data for many years and from numerous sources, to project four daily periods and bi-weekly hazard ratings for every square kilometer ofthe continental Unites States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. ‘This risk surface is presented in an Internet-based Geographie Information System format and can be overlaid on any of hundreds of environmental and human land uses data sets. Flight crews can choose the safest times and locations with this information, Partnered with the Dutch civil and military authorities to develop Netherlands BAM. Working to ‘expand system globally.NEXRAD Wildlife Medical Other research projects include the investigation of radars (specifically NEXRAD) for detecting airbome birds and determining hazard probabilities. This involved $1.5 million in Air Force sponsored funding. Basic research led to currently operating web-based ‘Avian Hazard Advisory System (AHAS). Completed extensive research and practical application of bid dispersal techniques, Conducted numerous studies on global bird population and distribution patterns, Researched and published studies on mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish distributions, Published research on disease organisms present as normal flora in captive iguanas, Published numerous articles and conducted seminars on wildlife hazards through safety Journals and international symposiums. Published numerous articles on hunting and wildlife management techniques. Published research on wildlife population management techniques and integrating airport wildlife management programs into Safety Management Systems (SMS) through the National Transportation Board Airport Cooperative Research Program, Conducted medical research on exercise and hypothermia induced pulmonary edema in elite athletes. Researched and developed medical standards for human body composition. REFERENCES: _ Fumished upon request. See Curriculum Vitae for further details and publication listCURRICULUM VITAE RUSSELL P. DEFUSCO, Ph.D. LIEUTENANT COLONEL, USAF (ret.) ADDRESS BASH Incorporated 5010 Lanagan Street Colorado Springs CO 80919 Phone and FAX: (719) 264-8420 E-Mail: BirdmanRuss@aol.com SUMMARY OF MILITARY CAREER Commissioning Source: USAF Academy 1981 Military Assignments: 1981-1983, 1983-1984 1984 1985-1986 1986-1989 1989-1991 1991-1994 1994-1998 1998-2001 Force Institute of Technology Master's Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO Director, Human Performance Laboratory, Physical Education Instructor, and Varsity Cross Country Coach, Department of Athletics, USAF Academy CO Undergraduate Pilot Training , 64th Student Squadron, Reese AFB TX Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Team Ecologist, AF Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB FL. Chief, Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Team, HQ USAF/LEEV Environmental Division, Directorate of Engineering and Services, Bolling AFB DC Instructor of Biology, Department of Biology, USAF Academy CO Air Force Institute of Technology Doctoral Program, University of Colorado, Boulder CO Deputy for Research and Assistant Professor of Biology, Department of Biology, USAF Academy CO Deputy for Academie Development and Asso« Department of Biology, USAF Academy CO te Professor of Biology, Professional Military Education: 1987 1996 Squadron Officer School in residence (Distinguished Graduate) ‘Air Command and Staff CollegeFORMAL EDUCATION 1981 BS Biology USAF Academy 1983 MS Wildlife Biology Colorado State University 1994 PhD Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology University of Colorado ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE Academie Rank: Associate Professor of Biology, USAF Academy ology Courses Taught: Introduction to Biology Vertebrate Zoology Principles of Ecology Applied Ecology Independent Study in Biology Ethology Senior Seminar in Biology Zoology Physical Education Courses Taught: Physical Fitness Methods SCUBA SCUBA It Pistol Basic Swimming Swimming Water Survival Weight Training Volleyball ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP Coach, USAF Academy NCAA Varsity Cross Country Team Officer-in-Charge, Cadet SCUBA Club Assistant Officer-in-Charge, Cadet Mountaineering Club Assistant Officer-in-Charge, Cadet Hunting Club Officer Representative, NCAA Cadet Rifle Team Bird Control Committe of International Bied Strike Committee Military Operations Committee of International Bird Strike Committee Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada Bird Strike Committee Europe International Bird Strike Committee ‘American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing National Association of Underwater Instructors Military Fish and Wildlife Association Southern Colorado Biological Council Beta Beta Beta Biological Honor Society Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife BiologistSTAFF ASSISTANCE VISITS AND REPORTS TO UNITED STATES MILITARY INSTALLATIONS 1984-2001, ‘Andrews Air Force Base, MD ‘Avon Park Air Force Range, FL. Bangor Air National Guard Base, ME. Barksdale Air Force Base, LA. Beale Air Force Base, CA Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX Charleston Air Force Base, SC ‘Chennault Field, LA Clovis Air Force Base, NM Columbus Air Force Base, MS Dare County Air Force/Navy Range, NC Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ Dyess Air Force Base, TX Edwards Air Force Base, CA. Eglin Air Force Base, FL Eielson Air Force Base, AK Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK England Air Force Base, LA Fairchild Air Force Base, WA FE, Warren Air Force Base, WY George Air Force Base, CA Hickam Air Force Base, HI Hill Air Force Base, UT Holloman Air Force Base/White Sands Missile Range, NM Homestead Air Force Base, FL Keesler Air Force Base, MS Kelly Air Force Base, TX Kirtland Air Force Base, NM King Salmon Air National Guard Base, AK La Junta Air Force Range Complex, CO Langley Air Force Base, VA. Laughlin Air Force Base, TX Little Rock Air Force Base, AR Loring Air Force Base, ME Luke Air Force Base, AZ MacDill Air Force Base, FL. March Air Force Base, CA Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, CA Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC McChord Air Force Base, WA ‘MoGuire AFB, NJ ‘Minot Air Force Base, ND Moody Air Force Base and Air Force Range, GA NASA Complex and Shuttle Launch Facility, Merritt Island, FL. ‘Naval Air Station Barber's Point, HI ‘Naval Air Station, Corpus Christ, TX Naval Air Station Key West, FL Nellis Air Force Base, NV Norton Air Force Base, CA, Offut Air Force Base, NEPatrick Air Force Base, FL. Peterson Air Force Base, CO Pope Air Force Base, NC Randolph Air Force Base, TX Reese Air Force Base, TX Reno Air National Guard Base, NV Scott Air Force Base, IL ‘Seymore-Johnson Air Foree Base, NC Shaw Air Force Base, SC Shemya Air Force Base, AK Sheppard Air Force Base, TX Travis Air Force Base, CA. ‘Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. United States Air Force Academy, CO Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA Westover Air Force Base, MA Wheeler Air Force Base, Hil Whiteman Air Force Base, MO Williams Air Force Base, AZ Wright-Patterson AFB, OH STAFF ASSISTANCE VISITS AND REPORTS TO UNITED STATES TERRITORIES, FOREIGN ALLIES’ AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS, FOREIGN CIVIL AND MILITARY AGENCIES. 1984-2001 ‘Anderson Air Force Base, Guam ‘Australian Civil Aviation Authority, Canberra, Australia Aviano Air Base, Italy Bangladesh Air Force Staff Bardenas Range, Spain Bitburg Air Base, Germany Cold Bay Air Force Station, Canada Clark Air Base, Philippines Decimomannu Air Base and NATO Range, Italy Hahn Air Base, Germany Howard Air Force Base, Panama Incirlik Air Base, Turkey Indian Air Force and Staff, India Israeli Air Force Bases, Staff, and Civil Aviation, Tel Aviv, Israel Kadena Air Base, Okinawa Konya Range, Turkey Kunsan Air Base, South Korea Maniago Range, Italy Misawa Air Base, Japan Naval Air Station, Keflavik, oeland (san Air Base, South Korea Ramstein Air Base, Germany Rein Main Air Base, Germany Royal Air Force Alconbury, United Kingdom Royal Air Force Bentwaters, United Kingdom Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom Royal Air Force Mildenhall, United Kingdom Royal Air Force Upper Heyford, United Kingdom Royal Australian Air Force Base, Townsville, Australia, Royal Dutch Air Force, NetherlandsSingapore Air Force Staff ‘Spagdahlem Air Base, Germany Suriname Embassy, South Anterica Suwon Air Base, South Korea Teagu Air Base, South Korea Torrejon Air Base, Spain Turkish Air Force Bases and Command Staff, Ankara, Turkey Yokota Air Base, Japan Zaragosa Air Base, Spain Zuyeibrucken Air Base, Germany OPERATIONAL BASH ASSESSMENTS AND BASH PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1986 United States Air Force Mode! BASH Plan 2001 California Air National Guard, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno 2002 Colorado Air National Guard, Buckley Air Force Base, Denver Delaware Air National Guard, New Castle County Airport, New Castle Kentucky Ait National Guard, Louisville International Airport, Louisville ‘Massachusetts Air National Guard, Otis Air National Guard Base, MA. [New York Air National Guard Stratton ANG Base, Schenectady County Airport, Scotia, Oklahoma Air National Guard, Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma City Ohio Air National Guard, Mansfield-Lahm Regional Airport, Mansfield Ohio Air National Guard, Springfield Municipal Airport, Springfield Rhode Island Air National Guard, Quonset State Airport, North Kingstown, Texas Air National Guard, Bllingion Field, Houston United States Air Force Academy, CO, Colorado Springs 2003 ‘Alaska Air National Guard, Kulis ANGB, Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage Georgia Air National Guard, Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport, Savannah Hawaii Air National Guard, Kalealoa Airport — John Rogers Field, Kalealoa ‘Michigan Air National Guard, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, MI 2004 IMlinois Air National Guard, Peoria International Airport, Peoria Indiana Air National Guard, Terte Haute International Airport ~ Hulman Field, Terre Haute ‘New York Air National Guard, Stewart International Airport, Newburgh Maine Air National Guard, Bangor International Airport, Bangor Michigan Air National Guard, W.K. Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek Mississippi Air National Guard, Jackson International Airport (Allen C. Thompson Field), Jackson Missouri Air National Guard, Saint Louis International Airport, Saint Louis Missouri Air National Guard/Cannon Range, Fort Leonard Wood Montana Air National Guard, Great Falls International Airport, Great Falls North Dakota Air National Guard, Hector International Airport, Fargo Pennsylvania Air National Guard, Harrisburg International Airport, Harrisburg, Utah Air National Guard, Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City Wisconsin Air National Guard, Dane County Regional Airport ~ Truax Field, Madison 2005 Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson International Airport, TucsonConnecticut Air National Guard, Bradley International Airport, Hartford Idaho Air National Guard, Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field), Boise Indiana Air National Guard, Fort Wayne International Airport, Fort Wayne ‘Massachusetts Air National Guard, Barnes Municipal Airport, Westfield ‘New Hampshire Air National Guard, Pease International Tradeport, Newington New Jersey Air National Guard, Atlantic City International Airport, Egg Harbor New York Air National Guard, Francis S. Gabreski Airport, Westhampton Beach North Carolina Air National Guard, Stanly County Airport, Badin Ohio Air National Guard, Rickenbacker Intemational Airport, Columbus Pennsylvania Air National Guard, Pittsburgh International Airport, Pitsburgh South Carolina Air National Guard, McEntire Air National Guard Station, Columbia ‘Tennessee Air National Guard, McGhee Tyson Airport, Knoxville West Virginia Air National Guard, Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport, Martinsburg Wisconsin Air National Guard, Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center, Camp Douglas Wyoming Air National Guard, Cheyenne Regional Airport, Cheyenne 2006 Alabama Air National Guard, Birmingham International Airport, Birmingham Alabama Air National Guard, Montgomery Regional Airport, Dannelly Field, Montgomery California Air National Guard, Moffett Federal Airfield, Mountain View Gcorgia Air National Guard/78 Air Base Wing, Robins AFB, Warner-Robins Illinois Air National Guard/375 Airlift Wing, Scott Airit Wing, Scott AFB, Saint Louis Iowa Air National Guard, Sioux Gateway Airport, Colonel Bud Day Field, Sioux City Maryland Air National Guard, Martin State Airport, Baltimore Minnesota Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, Minneapolis/St, Paul International Airport, Minneapolis Minnesota Air National Guard, Camp Ripley Army Airfield and Ranges, Camp Ripley ‘Nebraska Air National Guard, Lincoln Municipal Airport Lincoln ‘New Mexico Air National Guard/S8 Special Ops Wing, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque International Sunport "New York Air National Guard, Hancock Intemational Airport, Syracuse New York Air National Guard, Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield and Ranges, Fort Drum ‘Ohio Air National Guard, Toledo Express Airport, Swanton Oregon Air National Guard, Klamath Falls Airport, Kingsley Field, Klamath Falls Puerto Rico Air National Guard, Muniz ANGB, Luiz Munoz Marin International Airport, San Juan ‘Tennessee Air National Guard, Nashville International Airport, Nashville ‘Texas Air National Guard/37° Training Wing, Lackland AFB/Kelly Field, San Antonio Vermont Air National Guard, Burlington International Airport, Burlington Washington District of Columbia Air National Guard, Andrew's Air Force Base, MD Wisconsin Air National Guard, General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee 2007 Arizona Air National Guard/City of Phoenix, Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix California Air National Guard, Channel Islands Air Guard Station, Naval Base Ventura County, Pt Mugu Colorado Air National Guard/Peterson Air Force Base/Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs Florida Air National Guard, Jacksonville International Airport, Jacksonville Illinois Air National Guard, Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport, Springfield Kansas Air National Guard, Forbes Field, Topeka Louisiana Air National Guard/Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, New Orleans Minnesota Air National Guard, Duluth International Aigport, Duluth “Mississippi Air National Guard, Gulfport Combat Readiness Training Center, Gulfpor-Biloxi Intl Airport Mississippi Air National Guard, Camp Shelby Bombing Range and Assault Strip, Gulfport ‘Nevada Air National Guard! Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Reno North Dakota Air National Guard, Hector International Airport, Fargo ‘Texas Air National Guard/Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (Carswell Field), Fort Worth ‘West Virginia Air National Guard, Yeager Airport, Charleston2008 ‘Arkansas Air National Guard, Fort Smith Regional Airport, Fort Smith Arkansas Air National Guard/19 Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville California Air National Guard, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno Delaware Air National Guard, New Castle County Airport, New Castle Jowa Air National Guard, Des Moines International Airport, Des Moines Michigan Air National Guard, Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, Alpena County Regional Airport ‘Michigan Air National Guard, Grayling Air Gunnery Range, Alpena Michigan Air National Guard, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, MI Mississippi Air National Guard, Meridian Regional Airport (Key Field), Meridian Missouri Air National Guard, Rosecrans Memorial Airport, Saint Joseph New Jersey Air National Guard/ McGuire Air Force Base/Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station (Oklahoma Air National Guard, Tulsa International Airport, Tulsa Oregon Air National Guard, Portland International Airport, Portland Pennsylvania Air National Guard/Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Willow Grove South Carolina Air National Guard, McEntire Air National Guard Station, Columbia South Dakota Air National Guard, Sioux Falls Regional Airport (Joe Foss Field), Sioux Falls ‘Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis International Airport, Memphis. 2009 California Air National Guard, March Air Reserve Base/Southern California Logistics Airport, Victorville Georgia Air National Guard, Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport, Savannah Georgia Air National Guard/Townsend Range, Townsend Indiana Air National Guard, Atterbury Range, Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Edinburgh Indiana Air National Guard, Fort Wayne International Airport, Fort Wayne Indiana Air National Guard, Jefferson Range, Jefferson Proving Grounds, Madison Kansas Air National Guard, Smoky Hill Air National Guard Range, Salina Kentucky Air National Guard, Louisville International Airport, Louisville ‘Kentucky Air National Guard, Godman Army Airfield, Fort Knox Maine Air National Guard, Bangor International Airport, Bangor Minnesota Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, Minneapolis/St, Paul International Airport, Minneapolis Minnesota Air National Guard, Miller Army Airfield, Camp Ripley Mississippi Air National Guard, Jackson-Evers International Airport, Jackson Montana Air National Guard, Great Falls International Airport, Great Falls ‘Nebraska Air National Guard, Lincoln Municipal Airport, Lincoln ‘New York Air National Guard Stratton ANG Base, Schenectady County Airport, Scotia Ohio Air National Guard, Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, Springfield Pennsylvania Air National Guard, Harrisburg International Airport, Harrisburg Pennsylvania Air National Guard/Fort Indiantown Gap/Bollen Range, Lebanon ‘Utah Air National Guard, Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City 2010 Army Garrison Fort Leavenworth Sherman Army Airfield, Ft. Leavenworth, KS ‘Alaska Air National Guard and Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson International Airport, Tucson Colorado Air National Guard/460" Space Wing, Buckley Air Force Base, Denver Idaho Air National Guard, Boise Air Terminal (Gowen Field), Boise is Air National Guard, General Wayne Downing Peoria International Airport Peoria Massachusetts Air National Guard, Bames Municipal Airport, Westfield ‘Michigan Air National Guard, W.K. Kellogg Airport, Baile Creek New Jersey Air National Guard, Atlantic City International Airport, Beg Harbor ‘New Jersey Air National Guard, Warren Grove Air Force RangeNew York Air National Guard, Francis S. Gabreski Airport, Westhampton Beach. New York Air National Guard, Stewart International Airport, Newburgh North Carolina Air National Guard, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, Charlotte Pennsylvania Air National Guardi/Air Reserve Station, Pittsburgh International Airport, Pittsburgh Rhode Island Air National Guard, Quonset State Airport, North Kingstown West Virginia Air National Guard, Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport, Martinsburg Wisconsin Air National Guard, Dane County Regional Airport ~ Truax Field, Madison Wyoming Air National Guard, Cheyenne Regional Airport, Cheyenne 2011 Alabama Air National Guard, Montgomery Regional Airport, Dannelly Field, Montgomery Alaska Air National Guard 3" Wing/Bryant Army Airfield, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Anchorage California Air National Guard, Moffett Federal Airfild, Mountain View Hawaii Air National Guard/1S® Wing, Joint Base Pear! Harbor-Hickam, Honolulu International Airport nal Guard, Kalealoa Airport/Tohn Rogers Field, Kalealoa Havaii Air National Guard, Barking Sands Naval Air Station, Barking Sands Hawaii Air National Guard, Lihue Airport, Lihue Iowa Air National Guard, Sioux Gateway Airport, Colonel Bud Day Field, Sioux City Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii Minnesota Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Minneapolis ‘New Hampshire Air National Guard, Portsmouth (Pease) International Tradeport, Newington New York Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve, Niagara Falls Intemational Airport, Niagara Falls ‘North Carolina Air National Guard, Stanly County Airport, Badin ‘Ohio Air National Guard, Mansfield-Lahm Regional Airport, Mansfield ‘Ohio Air National Guard, Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus Ohio Air National Guard, Toledo Express Airport, Swanton Oregon Air National Guard, Klamath Falls Airport, Kingsley Field, Klamath Falls Puerto Rico Air National Guard, Muniz ANGB, Luiz Munoz Marin International Airport, San Juan Texas Air National Guard/S02 Air Base Wing, Lackland AFB/Kelly Field, San Antonio Texas Air National Guard/NASA/Coast Guard Air Station Houston, Ellington Joint Reserve Base, Houston Wisconsin Air National Guard, Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center, Camp Douglas 2012 Alabama Air National Guard, Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, Birmingham Arizona Air National Guard, Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Califomia Air National Guard, Channel Islands Air Guard Station, Naval Base Ventura County, Pt Mugu Califomia Air National Guard/USAF Reserves, March Air Reserve Base, Riverside Connecticut Air National Guard, Bradley International Airport, Hartford ‘Maryland Air National Guard, Martin State Airport, Baltimore Minnesota Air National Guard, Duluth International Airport, Duluth ‘Nevada Air National Guard/ Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Reno ‘North Dakota Air National Guard, Hector International Airport, Fargo Washington Air National Guard, Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane West Virginia Air National Guard, Yeager Airport, Charleston Wisconsin Air National Guard, General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee 2013 ‘Alaska Army National Guard, Bryant Army Airfield, Joint Base Elemendorf-Richardson, Anchorage “Arkansas Air National Guard, Fort Smith Regional Airport, Fort Smith ‘Arkansas Air National Guard/19 Airlift Wing, Litle Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville uFlorida Air National Guard, Jacksonville International Airport, Jacksonville Ilinois Air National Guard/375 Airlift Wing, Scott AFB/MidAmerica St Louis Airport, Mascoutah Kansas Air National Guard, Forbes Field, Topeka Kentucky Air National Guard, Louisville International Airport, Louisville Michigan Air National Guard, Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, Alpena County Regional Airport Michigan Air National Guard, Grayling Air Gunnery Range, Grayling, Ml Michigan Air National Guard, Selftidge Air National Guard Base, MI Mississippi Air National Guard, Gulfport Combat Readiness Training Center, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl Airport Mississippi Air National Guard, Meridian Regional Airport (Key Field), Meridian Missouri Air National Guard, Rosecrans Memorial Airport, Saint Joseph ‘New York Air National Guard, Hancock International Airport, Syracuse Unites State Army, Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield and Range Complex, Fort Drum Oklahoma Air National Guard, Tulsa International Airport, Tulsa South Carolina Air National Guard, McEntire Joint National Guard Base, Columbia Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis International Airport, Memphis 2014 (Oklahoma Air National Guard, Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma City ‘Tennessee Air National Guard, McGhee Tyson Airport, Knoxville WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, SITE VISITS, AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS. Pottstown Municipal Landfill, Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Pottstown Outer Loop Landfill and Recycling Center, Waste Management of Kentucky, Louisville Alliance Landfill and Recycling Center, Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Taylor Proposed Waller County Airport, Waller, Texas Houston Southwest Airport, Houston, Texas ‘Conway Municipal Airport, Conway, Arkansas Stillwater Community Development, Cedar Grove, Illinois Hendricks County Airpor, Indianapolis Airport Authority, Danville, Indiana Proposed Akutan Airport, AkuwAkutan, Alaska Southwest Florida International Airport, Fort Myers, Florida Kinross Gold Corporation Bird/Wildlife Management Plan, Miracunga Mine, Chile ‘Thermal 551 Community Development Jaqueline Cochran Regional Airport, Thermal, California Oasis Date Gardens Community Development/Jaqueline Cochran Regional Airport, Thermal, California ‘Mojave-Rosamond Sanitary LandfillMojave Air and Space Port, Kem County, California Six Points Road Developers, LLC/Indy Park Ride & Fly, Indianapolis, Indiana St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, Saint Petersburg, Florida EarthMark NJ Kane Wetland Mitigation Bank/Port Authority of NY & NJ, South Hackensack, New Iersey John Murtha-Fohnstown Cambria County Airport, Johnstown, Pennsylvania Independence Municipal Airport, Independence, Kansas Centennial Airport, Englewood, Colorado ‘Yeager Airport, Charleston, West Virginia Arcata Airport, Ateata/Eureka, California Navy Restoration Project/Hangar 1, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Federal Airfield, California El Paso International Airport, Texas ‘Show Low Regional Airport, Arizona Proposed North Shore Trash Transfer Station near LaGuardia Airport, Queens, New York LM. Clayton Airport, Wolf Point, Montana Sacramento International Airport, California Dallas Love Field, Dallas, Texas Bradley International Airport, Hartford, Connecticut Groton-New London Airport, New London Connecticut 2Clovis Municipal Airport, Clovis, New Mexico ‘Waco Regional Airport, Waco, Texas Lavton-Ft Sill Regional Airport, Lawton, Oklahoma ‘Albuquerque International Sunport, Albuquerque, New Mexico Southeast Texas Regional Airport, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas ‘McAllen Miller International Airport, McAllen, Texas ‘Midland International Airport, Midland, Texas ‘Yampa Valley Regional Airport, Hayden, Colorado Four Comers Regional Airport, Farmington, New Mexico Abilene Regional Airport, Abilene, Texas Santa Fe Municipal Airport, Santa Fe, New Mexico Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, California Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Meadows Field), Bakersfield, California Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, [daho Monroe Regional Airport, Monroe, Louisiana Hartford-Brainard Airport, Hartford, Connecticut "New Orleans Lakefront Airport, New Orleans, Louisiana Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport, Lubbock, Texas Easterwood Airport Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas ‘Marana Municipal Landfil, Waste Management of Arizona, Tucson Leesburg International Airport, Leesburg Florida Brownsville South Padre Island International Airport, Brownsville, Texas University of Illinois Willard Airport, Champaigr/Urbana Illinois Lone Star Executive Airport, Houston, Texas Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, Alaska Denton Municipal Airport, Denton, Texas Morristown Municipal Airport, Morristown, New Jersey Sidney Airport, Sidney, Montana Logan-Cache Airport, Logan Utah Vero Beach Airport, Vero Beach Florida Melbourne International Airport, Melbourne Florida Space Coast Regional Airport, Titusville Florida Casper/Natrona County International Airport, Casper Wyoming ‘MeKeellar-Sipes Regional Airport, Jackson Tennessee ‘Addison Airport, Addison Texas Miles City Airport (Frank Wiley Field), Miles City, Montana Waste Management Geneva Landfill, Geneva, Ohio Great Bend Municipal Airport, Great Bend, Kansas Dodge City Regional Airport, Dodge City, Kansas Conway Municipal Airport (Cantrell Field), Conway Arkansas Dallas Executive Airport, Dallas, Texas Goleta Slough Wetland Restoration Project, Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara, California Sandpoint Airport, Sandpoint, Idaho Yakutat Airport, Yakutat, Alaska Bear Lake County Airport, Montpelier, Idaho Euphrata Municipal Airport, Euphrata, Washington Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara, California Sky Harbor Waste Transfer Station, Waste Management of Arizona, Phoenix Leland Fly Fishing Ranch/Sonoma County (Schellville) Airport, California South Texas Regional Airport, Hondo, TX Athens Municipal Airport, Athens, TX Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii (in progress) US Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority, St Croix Proposed Post Oak Landfill, Seguine, Texas Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TexasWaco Municipal Landfill, Waco, Texas Daytona Beach International Airport, Daytona Beach Florida Deer Valley Waste Transfer Station, Waste Management of Arizona, Phoenix Pocatello Regional Airport, Pocatello, Idaho AIRPORT WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP ~ Course Development and. Instructor. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Daytona Beach FL. - Oct 2006 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Charlotte NC ~ May 2007 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Seattle WA — Oct 2007 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Dallas TX ~ Mar 2008 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Denver CO ~ Jul 2008 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Dallas TX ~ May 2009 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Orlando FL. ~ Jan 2010 imbry-Riddlle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Seattle WA ~ Jun 2010 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Dallas TX — Nov 2010 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Portland OR ~ Mar 2011 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Lagos, Nigeria ~ Jun 2011 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Orlando FL ~ Feb 2012 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Dallas TX ~ Jun 2012 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Center for Professional Education), Burbank CA ~ Jan 2013 West Africa Wildlife Management Workshop. Federal Aviation Administration, Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Cooperative Program. Lagos, Nigeria — June 2011 Panama Airports Wildlife Management Workshop. Autoridad Aeronautica Civil de Panama, US Trade and Development Agency, Boeing Corporation Cooperative Program, Panama City Panama ~ September 2017 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT REVIEW AND COMMENT Cape Wind Project Environmental Impact Statement, Nantucket, MA, "Navy Outlying Landing Field Environmental Impact Statement review for Congressman Walter Jones, NC‘SELECTED PUBLICATIONS DeFusco, R. 2019. Alaska/Yukon moose. Southside Neighbors, Best Version Media, April 2019:10. Defusco, R. 2019. Alaska/Yukon moose, South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media, April 2019:10, DeFusco, R. 2019. Al tagged out: Quick takes on great hunts, Western Hunter 18(2):96. DeFusco, R. 2019, Arctic Tern: worldwide wanderer, Southside Neighbors, Best Version Media. September 2019:12, DeFusco, R, 2019. Arctic Tern: worldwide wanderer. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media. September 2019:12. DeFusco, R. 2019. Autumn’s stunning display of color. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media, October 2019:14. DeFusco, R. 2019, Autumn's stunning display of color. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media. October 2019:18, DeFusco, R, 2019. Backyard birds game. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media. June 2019211 DeFusco, R. 2019. Backyard birds game. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media, June 2019:18, DeFusco, R. 2019. Bald Eagle natural history. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media. January 2019:12 DeFusco, R. 2019. Black bear natural history. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media, July 2019:12, DeFusco, R. 2019. Black bear natural history. South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media. July 2019:14, DeFusco, R.P. 2019. Living with bighorn sheep. The Bighorn. The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society Spring 2019. 44(1):16-23, DeFusco, R. 2019, Musk ox: Pleistocene relict. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media, March 2019:10- i DeFusco, R. 2019. Musk ox: Pleistocene relict. South Anchorage Hillside Li March 2019:10-11 jing. Best Version Media, DeFusco, R. 2019, Name that bird. Garden ofthe Gods Friends and Neighbors. Best Version Media, May 2019:2. DeFusco, R. 2019, Name that bird. Garden of the Gods Friends and Neighbors. Best Version Medi July 201922. ‘DeFusco, R, 2019, Name that squirrel! Garden of the Gods Friends and Neighbors, Best Version Media ‘August 201922, DeFusco, R. 2019. Name that swallow! Garden of the Gods Friends and Ne September 2019:2, bors. Best Version Media,DeFusco, R. 2019, Name those warblers. South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media. ‘October 2019:14-15, DeFusco, R. 2019. Name those warblers. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media, October 2019:10-11, DeFusco, R, 2019. Rare duck makes appearance at Potter Marsh. Southside Neighbors, Best Version Media, August 2019:12. DeFusco, R. 2019. Rare duck visits Potter Marsh, South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media, ‘August 2019:12, DeFusco, R. 2019, Stunning fall colors. Garden of the Gods Friends and Neighbors. Best Version Media, October 201955. DeFusco, R. 2019. Trumpeter swan: a conservation success story. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media. May 2019:10. DeFusco, R. 2019. Trumpeter swan: Conservation success story. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media, May 2019:10. DeFusco, R. 2018. The Common Raven; Alaska’s cunning bird. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media, August 2018:14. DeFusco, R. 2018. The Common Raven: Alasks’s cunning bitd. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best ‘Version Media. January 2018:10, DeFusco, R, 2018. Dall Sheep: Alaska’s mountain denizens. Southside Neighbors, Best Version Media, July 2018:14, DeFusco, R. 2018. Name that bird. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media, April 2018:12, DeFusco, R. 2018, Name that bid. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Medi, July 2018:14 DeFusco, R, 2018, Name that bird, South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media, March 2018:12. DeFusco, R. 2018. Name that raptor. South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media, May 2018:12 DeFusco, R. 2018. Name that bird, Southside Neighbors. Best Version Medi, October 2018:9, DeFusco, R. 2018. Name that bird. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media, October 2018:13. DeFusco, R. 2018, Name that bit Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media, November 2018:12. DeF.usco, R. 2018. Name that bird. South Anchorage Hillside Li 2018:12. 1g Best Version Media. November DeFusco, R. 2018, Name that bird. Southside Neighbors. Best Version Media. September 2018: DeFusco, R. 2017. Name that duck, South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media, November 2017:12, DeFusco, RP. 2018. Perseverance pays off. The Bighorn The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society. Summer 2018, 42(2):8-13, 16DeFusco, R.P. 2018. Rock mountain (goat) high. The Bighorn. The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, ‘Winter 2018, 42(4):38-46, DeFusco, R. 2017, All tagged out: Quick takes on great hunts, Elk Hunter Magazine 6(2):96, DeFusco, R. 2017. All tagged out: Quick takes on great hunts. Elk Hunter Magazine 7(1):96 DeFusco, R. 2017. Autumn’s stunning display of color. South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version ‘Media. September 2017:11 DeFusco, R. 2017. Dall sheep: Alaska's mountain denizens. South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media. May 201710. DeFusco, R. 2017. Name that bird, South Anchorage Hillside Living. Best Version Media. October 2017:12, DeFusco, R. 2017. Ptarmigan: Alaska’s bird. South Anchorage Hillside Living, Best Version Media. February 2017:10. DeFusco, R. 2016. Musings of moose, Eastmans’ Hunting Journal 29(158):16-19, DeFusco, R. P. 2016, Some historical background on mandatory strike reporting. Bird Strike committee USA Bird Strike Buzz 3(1):11-13. DeFusco, R. 2016, Suceessful trophy hunters. Eastmans’ Hunting Journal 29(155):104, DeFusco, R.P., ET. Unangst, T-R. Cooley, and J.M. Landry. 2015. ACRP Report 145: Applying an SMS ‘Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, ‘Washington, DC. DeFusco, R. 2015. Alaskan mammoths ancient and modern. Western Hunter 14(1):32-36, DeFusco, R. 2014. Alaskan mammoths. Bastmans’ Hunting Journal 27(144):16-19. DeFusco, R. 2017. All tagged out: Quick takes on great hunts. Elk Hunter Magazine 14(2):97, DeFusco, R. 2015, All tagged out: Quick takes on great hunts. Western Hunter 14(3):97. DeFusco, R. 2015. Successful trophy hunters. Eastman” Hunting Journal 28(10):97, DeFusco, R.2013. Timber rams and wildfires. Eastmans’ Hunting Joumal 26(139):46-48, DeFusco, RP. and E.T. Unangst. 2013. ACRP Synthesis Report 39: Airport Wildlife Population ‘Management. A Synthesis of Airport Practice. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. DeFusco, R, 2012. High arctic adventures. Western Hunter 11(4:50-53 DeFusco, R. 2011. Goats aren’t for sissies! Western Hunter 10(4):10-15, DeFusco, R. 2010, Westem turkey trifecta. Merriam’s turkey: feathered big game. Westem Hunter 9(4):44- 46, Eschenfelder, P. and R. DeFusco. 2010. Bird strike mitigation beyond the airport, Flight Safety Foundation/AeroSafety World 5(7):44-47. ”DeFusco, R. 2009. Hunting opportunities on military lands, Western Hunter 8(2):33, DeFusco, R-P. 2009. Life and death wildlife management: BASH 101, Western Hunter 8(1):28-33, DeFusco, R.P, 2009. Op Ed, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Aviation Wildlife Mitigation Newsletter 3 (1)3, 6 DeFusco, R. 2008. How close is too close? Eastmans’ Hunting Journal 21(110):14-19, Shamoun-Baranes, J, W, Bouten, L. Buurma, R. DeFusco, A. Dekker, H. Sierdsema, F, Sluiter, J. van Belle, H. van Gasteren, and E. van Loon. 2008. Avian information systems: Developing web-based Bird Avoidance Models. Journal of Ecology and Society 13 (2):38. DeFusco, R. 2008, Foul weather bucks. Eastmans’ Hunting Journal 21(105):52-55. DeFusco, RP., K.M. Mieczkowski, and C.J. Quillen, 2007. A successful case study; the bird control program of Waste Management Outer Loop Recycling and Disposal Facility, Louisville, Kentucky. Proc. Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada 9, Kingston, Ontario, DeFusco, R. 2007. One year, two great hunts. Eastmans” Hunting Journal Online Stories. http://www.eastmans.comvonlinestory php requesteddate70507, DeFusco, R. 2006, Principles for pursuing pronghoms, Western Hunter $(3):12-19, DeFusco, R. 2005, A whole lot of bull! Western Hunter 4(3):20-23, DeFusco, R.P., MJ. Hovan, J.T. Harper, and K.A. Heppard. 2005. North American Bird Strike Advisory ‘System: Strategic Plan, Proc. Bird Strike Committee Canada 5, Vancouver, British Columbia, DeFusco, RP., MJ. Hovan, J.T. Harper, and KA. Heppard. 2005, North American Bird Strike Advisory System Strategic Plan. US Air Force Institute for Information Technology Applications, US Air Force Academy CO.31pp. DeFusco, RP. and W. Rube. 2004. BAM comes to Alaska. Flying Safety Magazine 60(9):4-7. DeFusco, RP. 2003. Avoiding birds in the 21* century. Flying Safety Magazine $9(9):16.17, Burnham, B.R., DAH, Atchley, RP. DeFusco, J, Fowler, M.J. Darling and F.J. Angulo. 2002. The use of enrofloxacin to prevent shedding of Salmonella from green iguanas, Jguana iguana, Joumal of Herpe Med Surg 12(2):10-13. DeFusco, R.P. and A.A. Sandrock. 2001. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles ofthe United States Air Force Academy. Beermann, T, M. Bobo and RP. DeFusco, 2001. Enhancements to the United States Bird Avoidance Model (US BAM). Proc. Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada 3. Calgary, Alberta Canada, DeFusco, RP. 2000. Current status of the USAF Bird Avoidance Model (BAM). Proc. International Bird Strike Committee Meetings 25 (WP-0S6):51-55. DeFusco, R.P. 1999. The United States bird avoidance model (BAM). Pp. 241-243 in: Y. Leshem, Y. Mandelik, J. Shamoun-Baranes (eds. International Seminar on Birds and Flight Safety in the Middle East, Tel Aviv, IseaelBurnham, B.R., D.H. Atchley, R.P. DeFusco, K.E, Ferris, J.C. Zicarelli, LH. Lee and F.J. Angulo, 1998, Prevalence of fecal shedding of Salmonella organisins among captive green iguanas and potential public health implications. Joummal ofthe American Veterinary Medical Association 213(1):48-50. DeFusco, RP. 1998. A bird avoidance model for the US Air Force. USAPA Discovery 98-03:1-2 DeFusco, R-P. 1998. Introducing the new BAM. Flying Safety Magazine $4(3):4-5, i Force bird avoidance model, Proc, Vertebrate Pest Conference 18:59-60. DeFusco, RP. 1998. The U.S. Costa Mesa CA, DeFusco, R.P. 1998. USAF Academy bird avoidance program. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 69(9):928. DeFusco, R.P. and R.A. Turner. 1998, Dodging feathered bullets, The Combat Edge 6(11):19-20. Finch, HJ.,J.8. Kent and R.P, DeFusco, 1997, Ponderosa pine - scrub oak forest. J. of Field Ornithology 674}: DeFusco, R.P. 1996. Using geographic information systems to model bitd distributions and populations on ‘continental scale, Proc. International Bird Strike Committee Meetings 23 (WPS2):463-S01. Finch, H.J, .S. Kent, R.P. DeFusco and J.W. Weissmann, 1996, Ponderosa pine ~ serub oak forest. J. of Field Omithology 67(4):59. DeFusco, RP., H.S, Finch, and J.W. Weissmann, 1995, Ponderosa pine ~ scrub oak forest J of Field ‘Ornithology 67(4):15, DeFusco, R.P. 1994. Environmental Factors Influencing Turkey Vulture Distribution and Abundance: A. Geographic Information System Application Study. PhD Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, DeFusco, RP. 1994. Environmental factors influencing Turkey Vulture distribution and abundance: a GIS application study. Proc. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference/National Military FFish and Wildlife Association Meetings, Anchorage AK. DeFusco, RP.,D. Chiszar and H.M. Smith. 1994, Geographical distribution. Lyochlorophus vernalis ‘lanchardi (Smooth Green Snake). Herpetological Review 25:77 Chiszar, D., HIM, Smith and R.P, DeFusco. 1993, Crotalus viridis viridis (Prairie Rattlesnake) diet. Herpetological Review 24:106, DeFusco, RP, 1993, Modeling bird hazards to aircraft a geographic information system application study. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing $9(10):1481-1487. DeFusco, R-P., D. Chiszar and HM, Smith, 1993. Geographical distribution. Sceloporus undulatus erythrocheilus (Red-lipped Plateau Lizard), Herpetological Review 24(4):155, Coomber, PK., 8. Kent, R.P, DeFusco and I.W. Obringer. 1992. Ponderosa pine - scrub oak forest, Journal of Field Ornithology 63(1):73. DeFusco, R.P. 1992. Ponderosa pine ~ scrub oak forest. Journal of Field Omithology 63(1):17. -Hammershock, D.M. and RP. DeFusco. 1992. Ultrasonics as a method of bird control. Proc. Bird Strike ‘Committee Europe Meetings 21: Working Paper #39, 19Coomiber, PK. and R.P. DeFusco. 1991. Ponderosa pine - scrub oak forest. journal of Field Ornithology 62(1):56-57. DeFusco, R.P., R.L. Dogan and R.L. Merritt, 1989. Bird strikes to U.S, Air Force aircraft 1987. Proc. Conference on Aerospace Transparent Materials and Enclosures. Wright Research and Development Center WRDC-TR-89-4044:834-844, DeFusco, RP. 1988. United States Air Force bird strike summary (1986-1987). Proc. Bird Strike ‘Committee Europe Meetings 19:385-397. DeFusco, R-P. and LF. Cassell. 1988. Birds ofthe United States Air Force Academy. Department of Biology, USAF Academy, CO. 29pp. DeFusco, RP. and R.A. Turner. 1988. Dodging feathered bullets. Approach 33:50-52. Ferraro, E.R and RP. DeFusco. 1987. The Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) program. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 3:20-21 DeFusco, R.P., R:P. Larkin and D.B. Quine, 1986, Bird hazard warning using Next Generation Weather Radar, Pros. Bird Strike Committee Europe Meetings 18:135-148, DeFusco, R.P. and R.A. Turner. 1986. Dodging feathered bullets. Combat Crew 36:11-12, DeFusco, R.P. and R.A. Turner, 1986. Dodging feathered bullets. Air Force Flying Safety Magazine 42:24- 25. DeFusco, RP. and R.A. Turner. 1986. Dodging feathered bullets. TAC Attack. 26:26-27, ‘Thompson, M.M,, RP. DeFusco and T.J. Will, 1986. U.S, Air Force Bird Strikes 1983-1985, Proc. Bird Strike Committee Europe Mectings 18:149-159. ‘Thompson, M. Journal 4:2-6, , RP, DeFusco and T.J. Will, 1986, 1985 Bird Strike Report. The Air Force Safety DeFusco, RP. 1985, Feathered foes. TAC Attack $:4-6. DeFusco, R.P. and J.G, Nagy, 1983. Frightening Devices For Airfield Bird Control. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Project 904, Denver Wildlife Research Center. 78pp. DeFusco, R.P. 1980, Birds of the United States Air Force Academy. Department of Biology, USAF ‘Academy CO. 96pp. PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS DeFusco, RP and E:T Unangst, 2016. Integrating wildlife hazard management into airport safety management systems, Proc. Bird Strike Committee USA Conference. Chicago, IL. August 8-11. Unangst, E.T. and R.P DeFusco. 2014. Lethal wildlife management on airports: tools and techniques from 'ACRP Synthesis 39, Proc. Bird Strike Committee North America Conference. Atlanta, GA. August 11-14. Anderson, M.E, RL. Merrit, end RP, DeFusco. 2014. Wildlife Photography Techniques, Bird Strike ‘Committee North America Conference. Atlanta, GA. August 11-14. 20