BLM LIBRARY

88053002

BLM/AK/ST-00/0 1 3+6760+020

U. S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Proceedings of the National
Petroleum Reserve - Alaska
Raptor Disturbance and Mitigation

QL

696

.F3

N25

1999

February 2-3, 1999
Fairbanks, Alaska

Cover photos:

Top: Peregrine Falcon

Center: Rough-legged Hawk

Bottom: Bluffs along the Colville River, Alaska

n 8022*

| DENVER, COLORADO 8l

I

1

Proceedings of the

National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska

Raptor Disturbance and

Mitigation Workshop

February 2-3, 1999
Fairbanks, Alaska

Edited by David A. Yokel
BLM Northern Field Office

U. S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Northern Field Office

1150 University Avenue

Fairbanks, Alaska 99709

AJ BUM LtBfWfY , F3

<J? "■ FEDERAL CENTER ynni

P.O. BOX 25G47

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Purpose 1

Agenda 1

Attendees „ l

Preliminary Information 3

Raptor Use of the Colville River 3

Raptor Use of the NPR-A, and Human Impacts to Raptors on the North Slope 4

The BLM's Plan and Record of Decision for NE NPR-A 5

Literature Review „ 6

Likely Future Impacts to Raptors in the NPR-A 8

Development of Mitigation Measures 9

Population Objective 9

Mitigation and Residual Impacts 10

Impacts to Raptor Behavior through Disturbance 10

Impacts to Raptor Habitat 14

Impacts to Raptor Populations through Increased Mortality 16

Summary of Recommended Stipulations, Educational Efforts and Residual Impacts ..16

Stipulations 16

Education 17

Residual Impacts 18

Colville River Basin-wide Protection 18

Future Raptor Studies Needed 18

Suggested References 20

List of Acronyms 22

Appendix A: Stipulations Directly Related to Raptor Protection (as numbered in ROD) . 23
Appendix B: Recommended Conduct near Possible Nests of Eagles, Hawks and

Falcons, NPR-A 25

Appendix C: Panel's Letter to the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management

in Alaska 26

Figures

Figure 1. The National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska, with the Northeast Planning Area

and the Colville River Special Area 2

Figure 2. The Colville River Raptor, Passerine and Moose Land Use Emphasis Area 7

I
I
I
I
I

I

I

I

D
1
I
I
1
I
I
I

1

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

In August 1998, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) completed a Final Integrated Ac-
tivity Plan /Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Northeast National Petroleum
Reserve - Alaska (NE NPR-A). A Record of
Decision (ROD) for the plan was issued in
October 1998. That decision included a state-
ment saying BLM would develop, in coopera-
tion with adjacent landowners, a Colville
River Management Plan to address subsis-
tence, wildlife, recreation, paleontology and
other issues. Prior to beginning this plan, the
BLM would conduct a raptor workshop to
consider not only oil and gas development,
on which the EIS focused, but also the entire
spectrum of activities in NE NPR-A that may
affect raptor population status or trends. The
intent of the workshop would be to empanel
nationally recognized experts in raptor man-
agement to review the scientific literature on
disturbance to raptors and identify potential
additional mitigation measures. Any such
measures that result from this workshop and
are accepted by the BLM would be immedi-
ately relevant to the area of NE NPR-A, and
they would serve as a framework for raptor
protection in all of the Colville River Special
Area (CRSA) as well as guidance for raptor
protection throughout the NPR-A (Figure 1).

Agenda

I. Purpose of workshop. (Dave Yokel) See
above.

II. Overview of raptor use of the NPR-A.
(Ted Swem and Bob Ritchie)

This presentation focused on NE NPRA
and the CRSA. It established why this area
is important to raptors, and in what stages
of the life cycle. The potential adverse
impacts of human activities to raptors and
their habitat were described.

III. Overview of the BLM's ROD for NE
NPR-A EIS. (Dave Yokel)

This presentation covered the plans for
oil/gas lease sales and all current stipula-
tions relevant to raptor conservation.

IV. Literature review.

Panelists reviewed past studies of raptor
disturbance and applied them to the situ-
ation in NE NPR-A.

V. Impacts to the NPR-A's raptor popula-
tions.

The panel discussed impacts likely to af-
fect raptors in the NPR-A, despite restric-
tions and stipulations applied through the
ROD. The panelists addressed the diffi-
culty in quantifying these impacts.

VI. Formulate additional stipulations.
The panel suggested additional stipula-
tions or restrictions on authorized activi-
ties that could be implemented to provide
additional protection to raptors while still
allowing those other activities.

VII. Analysis of residual impacts.

The panel assessed residual impacts and
environmental risks that would remain af-
ter implementing existing and new stipu-
lations and restrictions.

VIII. Additional Raptor Studies Needed.

A program of study that would be neces-
sary to assess the future health of raptor
populations in the NPR-A and the efficacy
of management efforts directed at raptor
conservation was described.

Attendees

Panel Members:
Skip Ambrose, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS)
Jim Bednarz, Arkansas State University
Mike Kochert, U.S. Geological Survey, Snake

River Field Station
Bob Ritchie; ABR, Inc.
Ted Swem, USFWS

<o

fD

n

H

o

H3

<

M

/— •

m

^

s

<

fD

2

m

P

-!

1/3

U

T5

3

f|)

UJ

Q

*- '

pa

Tl

ru

>

H

O

fO
SB

fD

3

5s)

rn

ua

fl)

N

<

CD

>

UJ

1*1

7T

SU

§

rf

5T

<~1-

?

fD

z

o

1-1

rr

P1

ro

BJ

►a

era

>

1-1
fD

pi

f4^\ NPR-A, Northeast Planning Area,

^|i[»^K and Colville River Special Area

Reserve - Alaska Bn&wji

,' P

ff-f

W

^V-j

; | Colville River Special Area

7

"CHv-

-A )

J i,

;/n

J/w

i > ■■"' •- f -■' Us uw v *

r /,

M

Kmm/M

100 Kilometers

\ I

i

/ c

^<Sr^

Robert Suydam, North Slope Borough
(NSB), Department of Wildlife Manage-
ment

Kim Titus, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG)

Clayton White, Brigham Young University

BLM Staff:

Herb Brownell, facilitator

Dan Gullickson, support

Sharon Wilson, support

Dave Yokel, workshop organizer

Audience:

Andrew Cassel, TV Fox 7 Prime News
Ross Coen, Northern Alaska

Environmental Center
Mark Hanley, Anadarko Petroleum

Corporation
Mike Joyce, ARCO
Philip Martin, USFWS
John Wright, ADFG

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

Raptor Use of the Colville River
(Ted Swem)

The North Slope of Alaska is an area compa-
rable in size to the state of Idaho, but includes
only eight villages totaling about 6500 resi-
dents. The North Slope can be divided into
three physiographic provinces: the arctic
coastal plain, the northernmost, is very flat and
characterized by a lot of standing surface wa-
ter; the foothills province is rolling terrain char-
acterized by fairly continuous tussock-sedge
and dwarf-shrub tundra; and the Brooks Range
is the southernmost and mountainous.

The Colville River, which makes up much of
the eastern boundary of the NPR-A, rises in
the Brooks Range and crosses through the
other two provinces on its way to the Beau-
fort Sea. It is the North Slope's largest river
both in terms of length and "total watershed
area. For most of its length, the Colville bi-
sects the foothills province, affecting the for-

mation of the landscape in its vicinity. The
meandering river and its oxbows create cliffs
and huge expanses of gravel and sand allu-
vium in an otherwise nearly continuous land-
scape of tussock tundra. Medium-height
shrub communities exist on cliff tops and in
stringers down the sides. Tall shrubs (willows
and alders) grow along alluvial areas. The in-
creased diversity of habitat types created by
the river results in an increased diversity and
abundance of bird species around the river
and its associated ponds and shrubs. Of spe-
cial note are several species of passerines, but
ptarmigan, waterfowl, jaegers, plovers and
other shorebirds are also present.

The character of the bluffs changes through-
out the river 's length. At the upriver end there
are many rocky outcrops and ledges, but each
is small with room for only one pair of nest-
ing raptors. These outcrops are typically sepa-
rated by several miles. Bluffs remain as iso-
lated outcrops all the way to Umiat, but after
Killik Bend they exist as series of cliffs on both
sides of the river. Some are large enough for
several pairs of raptors of different species. A
significant change in the terrain occurs near
Umiat. Downstream of there the bluffs occur
only on the left bank (left-hand side when fac-
ing downstream), become largely unconsoli-
dated dirt, are much longer and higher, and
are steep-faced with triangular-peaked tops.
Here the raptors nest on the tops and along
ridges forming the triangular peaks; the steep
bluff faces have no ledges or other suitable
nesting platforms. Farther downriver, trian-
gular peaks become smaller and almost dis-
appear into a vertical face. At Ocean Point,
the height of bluffs decreases to become un-
suitable as cliff -nesting habitat.

Overall, the cliffs of the Colville River support
a phenomenal concentration of nesting rap-
tors. Studies of these populations began in
1952 and continued intermittently until 1978,
after which they were conducted annually.
The species of, note are the arctic peregrine
falcon (about 60-65 pairs), gyrfalcon (highly
variable numbers of 8-26 pairs) and rough-
legged hawk (about 100 pairs). This diverse

and high-density community of raptors is
matched at few other places on earth. Clearly,
this area is of global importance to raptor con-
servation.

Peregrine falcons prey on most species of mi-
gratory birds in the area. As a result they were
affected by pesticides, especially DDT, when
it was used more heavily in the southern
ranges of these migrant prey species. Gyrfal-
cons select different prey, including ptarmi-
gan and ground squirrels, which are resident
year-round and were never exposed to DDT.
Gyrfalcon populations never declined as did
peregrines. Similarly, rough-legged hawks
prey almost entirely on rodents, which are also
resident. However, these hawks migrate in
the non-breeding season to temperate areas
where their prey could be exposed to pesti-
cides. Nonetheless, their population along the
Colville River did not suffer the declines ob-
served in peregrine falcons.

About three-quarters of gyrfalcons nest under
overhangs, because they begin egg-laying
during cold weather in April or May and need
the thermal protection. Such cliffs are rela-
tively rare on the Colville. Rough-legged
hawks initiate laying near the end of May, nest
on open, rocky bluff faces, and build nests of
sticks. Peregrine falcons lay their eggs in the
beginning of June and nest in the open, often
on bare dirt, but occasionally may use aban-
doned rough-legged hawk nests.

The abundance and diversity of nesting rap-
tors along the Colville is limited by suitable
nesting sites and availability of prey. Basically,
wherever there is a cliff with an appropriate
substrate, there will be one or more raptor
nests. The spacing between nests is related to
the species involved. Generally, individuals
are more tolerant of close nesting proximity
with heterospecifics than with conspecifics.

Do these monitoring surveys cause distur-
bance reactions by raptors that decrease their
reproductive success? Data for rough-legged
hawks has been examined to address this by

comparing nests that were visited on both the
first and second trip of the year with those
visited only on the second trip. There was no
statistically significant difference, but there
was a slight trend suggesting that disturbed
nests were less successful. However, this
monitoring program usually involved at most
a single disturbance per nest per year, nests
were never disturbed for more than 70-80 min-
utes, and no monitoring was done in inclem-
ent weather. Disturbances that are repeated,
of longer duration, during adverse weather,
late in the nesting cycle, or of multiple events
would be more harmful.

One significant cause of nest failure results
when cliff faces slough off, which sometimes
destroys nests. About one-fourth of the nest
failures observed during surveys were due to
such cliff erosion. Would extraction of gravel
from the river bed for development make this
situation worse?

As the number of peregrines has increased
over the last 25 years, this species is ranging
farther out for prey, with incidental observa-
tions suggesting out to at least six miles on
both sides of the river. In earlier surveys, fe-
males remained at the nest. Now females are
hunting more. Frequently, during the entire
length of the biologist's nest visit, the male per-
egrine won't be seen and sometimes there are
no adults. The average number of young
fledged per nest has decreased, which may re-
flect a depressed prey base due to increased
numbers of foraging falcons.

Raptor Use of the NPR-A, and
Human Impacts to Raptors on the
North Slope (Bob Ritchie)

Outside of the Colville River corridor, raptor
densities in the NPR-A are much lower. How-
ever, this is a vast area and overall it still con-
tains a significant number of birds. The coastal
plain, being very flat, has very little habitat
for cliff-nesting raptors, although occasional
pingos (dome-shaped rises caused by below-

ground frost action) may attract them. Snow
in early summer may also discourage raptors
from nesting. In the few locations where riv-
ers create sandy bluffs of sufficient height,
some golden eagles, rough-legged hawks and
peregrine falcons may nest. The coastal plain
is much better known for its use by waterfowl
and shorebird species.

Farther south, in the northern foothills prov-
ince with its vast expanses of tussock tundra
habitat, there are no rock outcrops and again
very little cliff-nesting habitat. This area is
used by golden eagles, mostly subadults, that
are not breeding. Yet in some areas, rivers (e.g.
Ikpikpuk River) create low bluffs in mud and
silt, and provide nesting habitat for peregrines
and golden eagles. In some areas of stabilized
sand dunes, bluffs are 75 to 100 feet high. The
only exposed rocks are at the heads of creeks
where some gyrfalcons and golden eagles may
be found.

In the southern foothills, raptor cliff-nesting
habitat in the form of river bluffs is more abun-
dant. Peregrine falcon density has greatly in-
creased in this region over the last 20 years.
In the mountains of the Brooks Range, golden
eagles enter the picture as a dominant breed-
ing species. Finally, an unusual habitat occurs
in rare instances in mountain river valleys,
where groves of poplars provide a very lim-
ited substrate in which some gyrfalcons use
stick nests of other species.

Impacts that humans have on raptors can at
times be positive, especially when humans
create nesting habitat where it is otherwise
absent. On the coastal plain in areas of cur-
rent development, some raptors now nest on
buildings and pipelines. However, along with
these artificial nesting substrates come new
dangers, such as collisions with vehicles or
power lines, and incineration in flare pits.
Some mortality from these causes, although
only a few cases, has been documented in the
Prudhoe Bay oil fields. .:Vt

Loss of habitat that will occur with oil and gas

development is another negative impact.
Long-term habitat change occurs when gravel
is placed on top of tundra for drilling and
building pads. Flooding along some roads
causes impoundments on one side and dry-
ing of the tundra on the other. Roads also
cause dust that affects vegetation. These types
of habitat changes can reduce or alter the prey
base. Also, predation on raptor nests may in-
crease as gulls, foxes and bears are attracted
to areas of human development.

Perhaps the most serious impact to raptors
would be disturbance causing nest abandon-
ment or failure, and possibly reduced
reoccupancy of sites in following years. Ac-
tivities of seismic, geological and maintenance
crews, depending on when they occur, can
disturb raptors. Subsistence and recreational
users can have the same effects. There has
been increased traffic (rafts, jetboats and air-
boats) on the rivers. Increased human pres-
ence may lead to illegal shooting of raptors,
but there has been no evidence of this along
the Colville River. Finally, low-flying aircraft
are known to cause disturbance at nests.

The BLM's Plan and Record of
Decision for NE NPR-A
(Dave Yokel)

The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act
of 1976 (NPRPA) gave the Secretary of the In-
terior the authority to designate special areas
within the NPR-A to protect certain surface
resources during petroleum exploration. One
of the three areas designated the following
year was the Colville River Special Area, noted
for its importance to cliff-nesting raptors.

In 1997, the BLM announced it would develop
a plan to allow oil and gas lease sales in NE
NPR-A, an area of about 4.6 million acres,
bounded on the east by the Colville River.
Approximately one-thirdof the CRSA (the
lowest reaches) is within this planning area.
The ROD for this plan states that all of the
area along the Colville River within the NE

NPR-A (including cliff-nesting habitat) will be
offered for petroleum leases.

During the planning effort, a "land use em-
phasis area" (LUEA) was described for that
area most important to raptors: the Colville
River and two of its tributaries, the
Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk Rivers (Figure
2). This LUEA extended one mile from the
river bluffs or banks, except that it extended
only from the left bank in the case of the
Colville River. The Colville River's bed and
the lands extending out from the right bank
are owned by the State of Alaska or the Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). Another
LUEA was described extending one-half mile
from the right bank of the Ikpikpuk River (Fig-
ure 2). This area was meant to protect subsis-
tence activities, but its associated development
restrictions would indirectly benefit raptors.
Under the stipulations set forth in the ROD,
permanent oil and gas facilities will be pro-
hibited within these two LUEAs.

Other stipulations prohibit pesticide use
throughout NE NPRA and restrict aircraft and
motorized ground-vehicle use near most cliff-
nesting habitat. Appendix A presents the com-
plete wording of stipulations in the ROD that
are directly related to raptor protection. In
addition, the CRSA is to be expanded to in-
clude the Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk Riv-
ers, and permanent roads connecting any part
of the NE NPR-A to a road system outside NE
NPR-A are prohibited.

These decisions represent mitigation that arose
during the EIS process to protect raptors from
human activities the BLM will permit in NE
NPR-A. The remainder of this workshop
should explore the need for, and describe,
additional mitigation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

During this portion of the discussion, it was
envisioned that panel members would review
relevant studies from outside the NPR-A for

types of disturbances to raptors, impacts of
those disturbances, types of mitigation ap-
plied, and results of that mitigation. The pur-
pose for this is that very little such study has
been done within the NPR-A (e.g. Haugh,
1982). From there the panel would have de-
termined which of these studies, in whole or
in part, were relevant to the situation in the
NPR-A. This would be the basis for suggest-
ing necessary, effective mitigation measures
for the impacts that could be expected.

However, few appropriate data have ever
been collected under circumstances ecologi-
cally similar to the NPR-A and the discussion
that ensued did not follow this model. Rather
than stating explicitly the knowledge gained
from individual past studies, the available in-
formation was implicit in recommendations
made by panelists later in the agenda. The
main two points made from review of past
studies were that raptor reproduction can be
depressed by either disturbance in the vicin-
ity of nests or by the reduction of foraging
habitat. There was also discussion about
whether foraging habitat closer to nests was
of greater value than that farther away. There
were no specific studies to reference for this,
but optimal foraging theory clearly demon-
strates that profitability of food increases with
decreased energy expended for travel to for-
aging sites or for transport of prey (Orians and
Pearson, 1979). Hegner (1982) provides some
tests of this theory with data on an avian spe-
cies. The basic principles and predictions of
central-place foraging theory should also ap-
ply to raptors and thus it follows that forag-
ing habitats closer to nests are of greater value
to raptors than those of equal prey value far-
ther from nests.

Those publications and reports that were ref-
erenced by panelists are included with a more
complete list under "Suggested References"
below. Many of these are from Alaska out-
side of the NPR-A, with several more from
western Canada, Idaho, New, Mexico and
other areas in the Lower 48 states.

i -'••:, . , -•

Colville Riwer Raptor, Passerine and
Moose Land Use Emphasis Area

^Colville River SpeciaTArea |^

/yJ'^^"iTjH^~7'r-7- gg? ■■-•' .■-:■-—-■ y 7 7 7 s s s -/;

N

30

60 Kilometers A

Figure 2. The Colville River Raptor, Passerine and Moose Land Use Emphasis Area.

LIKELY FUTURE IMPACTS TO
RAPTORS IN THE NPR-A

Of all current or possible future human activi-
ties in the NPR-A, oil and gas exploration and
development may have the greatest potential
for impacting raptors and other surface re-
sources. For this reason, these activities were
given the greatest attention in the NE NPR-A
EIS. They again received considerable effort
in this workshop, but it was recognized that
several other potentially adverse activities also
occur. Panelists tried to develop a compre-
hensive list of potentially adverse activities:

- geological surveys by helicopter (summer)

- archaeological surveys, by boat or
helicopter

- biological surveys, by boat or helicopter

- paleontological surveys, by boat or
helicopter

- sand and gravel extraction

- guided hunting

- guided recreation (boating, ecotours, etc.)

- non-guided hunting, whether recreational
or for subsistence

- non-guided recreation

- recreational flying of small fixed-wing
aircraft

•■• falconry

When these activities occur on BLM-adminis-
tered lands, the BLM has authority to permit
the first seven activities listed above or is co-
operatively involved when surveys are done
by other agencies. In either case, the BLM may
apply restrictions on how they are conducted.
However, the BLM has no authority to man-
age the last four activities on the list. Recre-
ational flying, or any other aircraft use not
associated with a BLM permit for land use, is
regulated by the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration. Falconry and non-guided hunting are
regulated by the Alaska Board of Game and
the Federal Subsistence Board, but these regu-
lations concern harvest limits and do not ad-
dress their disturbance to raptors.

In addition, where the Colville River is the
boundary of the NPR-A, the legal boundary

8

is the highest high-water mark on the left
bank. The river itself and most or all of the
gravel or sand bars along it are outside BLM-
administered lands (owned by the State of
Alaska or ASRC) and beyond BLM authority.
Any research survey, guided hunting or
guided recreation by boat along the river could
potentially occur without requiring a BLM
permit as long as the use did not extend above
the highest high-water mark on the left bank.
Nevertheless, these uses could still have im-
pacts on raptors nesting on the cliffs above.

With the above list of activities, and then in-
cluding oil and gas exploration and develop-
ment, the panel developed a list of all impacts
to raptors or their habitat that might occur.
The list was divided into higher and lower
priority for panel discussion based primarily
on the relative potential for adverse impact to
raptors, and secondarily on the ability of the
panel to suggest some effective, additional
mitigation. Since raptors are dependent on
these cliff habitats in the NPR-A only during
the breeding season, and most raptors migrate
south for the remainder of each year, most of
the impacts below would affect raptor popu-
lations through reduced reproductive success.
However, a few could influence adult survival.

Higher priority:

Impacts to raptor behavior through distur-
bance:

- aircraft of all types

- research survey activity (geology, archae-
ology, paleontology, biology) on foot near
or under bluffs

- recreational boating, backpacking or camp-
ing near nests

- hunters camping and scouting for game on
cliff tops

- longer-term camping associated with re-
search surveys

- construction activities

- hazardous materials clean-up activities

- road development indirectly increases dis-
turbance through greater access for people

0

I

Lower priority:

Impacts to raptor behavior through distur-
bance:

- human presence at developed facilities that
have created raptor nesting habitat

- seismic exploration in the vicinity of nests

Impacts to raptor habitat:

- covering habitat with sand or gravel for
pads or roads

- erosion of nest bluffs due to sand or gravel
mining

- contaminants, e.g. oil spills, old barrel
caches

- seismic exploration trails and ice road con-
struction: physical impacts to vegetation
and soils, possibly affecting prey base

- facility development resulting in increased
perches or nest sites

Impacts to raptor populations through in-
creased mortality:

- illegal shooting or capture of raptors

- increased predator populations (gulls/
foxes /bears) attracted to human garbage

- hazards to raptors at developed facilities,
e.g. trash, accidents with power lines or ve-
hicles

DEVELOPMENT OF
MITIGATION MEASURES

Population Objective

The panel felt uncomfortable with suggesting
additional restrictions on human activities
without having a stated objective for the rap-
tor populations that are meant to benefit from
these measures. They asked the BLM what
that objective was.

The fiscal year 1981 Appropriations Act for the
Department of the Interior directs the Secre-
tary of the Interior to provide maximum pro-
tection of surface resources during petroleum
exploration and development within any of
the NPR-A's three special areas. To do this,

the Secretary is directed to apply any condi-
tions, restrictions and prohibitions deemed
necessary or appropriate to mitigate reason-
able, foreseeable and significantly adverse ef-
fects. The Secretary signed a ROD for NE
NPR-A, implementing all manners of protec-
tion that were deemed necessary and appro-
priate as a result of the EIS process. However,
the Secretary also directed the BLM to hold a
workshop of raptor experts to see if there
should be any additional protection for rap-
tors, and to develop a cooperative plan for the
Colville River Special Area. The Secretary has
delegated to BLM his authority for choosing
additional protection recommended during
this workshop. The panel was encouraged to
set its own objective for raptor populations
and then suggest adequate protection to meet
that objective. It would then be up to the BLM
to decide on the use of any suggested mitiga-
tion in light of management, legal and politi-
cal constraints.

The BLM is primarily tasked with habitat
management rather than population manage-
ment, and as a result does not have clearly
defined population goals for any animal spe-
cies. The objectives of maintaining healthy or
sustainable populations can be found in some
of the relevant laws that provide the BLM's
mandate. The Endangered Species Act pro-
vides very clear direction to the BLM for spe-
cies listed, so the agency's objective for spe-
cies that have not been listed (or recently
delisted as with the Arctic Peregrine Falcon)
is to conserve their populations to at least a
level at which no reasonable petition could be
submitted to have them listed as threatened
or endangered.

The panelists agreed that merely maintaining
raptor populations above the listing level was
not adequate. However, there was some de-
bate about whether they, as scientists, should
be involved in setting population goals. This
might involve more advocacy than science.
Nonetheless, conversation continued toward
an objective for raptor populations along the
Colville River. The Snake River Birds of Prey

9

Management Plan (USDOI, BLM, 1995), with
its habitat and population conservation, pro-
tection and enhancement goals, was suggested
as a good example of what could be done for
the NPR-A.

Could the Colville raptor populations be re-
duced from what they are now and still be
considered satisfactory? If the population is
either reproducing at some level or is recruit-
ing from other areas, would that be adequate?
If population levels decline, is the population
as healthy? Is it going to be as resistant to dis-
turbance? What is the lowest number of per-
egrines for a viable population? The panel-
ists did not think it possible to provide scien-
tific evidence that guarantees all of their sup-
positions. They could provide a few studies
and expert opinions, but where would the
burden of proof be? The panel wasn't even
sure that with major funding and studies the
answers could be obtained.

Despite these uncertainties, the panel agreed
on an objective to guide their efforts in devel-
oping mitigation measures in addition to those
the BLM established in the ROD. The panel's
stated objective for Colville River raptor popu-
lations was to maintain current, documented
population and productivity levels. This objec-
tive would require that no downward trend
from the current population levels should oc-
cur as a result of activities permitted by the
BLM or from other activities on BLM-admin-
istered or surrounding lands.

Mitigation and Residual Impacts

Impacts to Raptor Behavior through
Disturbance:

Disturbance of nesting raptors can have seri-
ous adverse impacts on reproductive success.
Every time a disturbed adult leaves the nest,
it causes an impact. The adult expends en-
ergy that could otherwise be used in mainte-
nance of itself or in the care of young. Nest-
lings are left unprotected from the weather
and predators. These impacts are cumulative,

and can result in higher mortality of young
raptors or even complete nest failure.

The reactions of raptors to human disturbance
varies within and among species. Some indi-
vidual birds react to none but the closest dis-
turbances and others may habituate to distur-
bance. Along the Colville River, rough-legged
hawks generally display more vocal distress
in reaction to disturbance than peregrines or
gyrfalcons. Disturbed gyrfalcons may fly up
to three miles away from the nest. The per-
manent impacts of these reactions are not
quantitatively known, nor is it known if such
impacts are significant at the population level.
Generally, the worse the weather, the less the
reaction by a disturbed bird. Conversely, the
worse the weather, the more danger to eggs
or young birds whose parent leaves the nest,
allowing them to chill.

Many studies have documented disturbance
by aircraft, and all types of aircraft cause some
level of disturbance. Overall, aircraft repre-
sent a major problem, but the BLM's stipula-
tion requiring aircraft to maintain an altitude
of at least 1500 feet above ground level (AGL)
when within one-half mile of cliffs identified
as raptor nesting sites is probably adequate.
The problems associated with this stipulation
are: ensuring that pilots understand AGL
means above nest level, not above the river;
how to enforce this stipulation; and how to
get voluntary compliance from those pilots/
aircraft not associated with a BLM permit for
land use. The BLM should pursue strategies
to alleviate these problems, including some
form of education for the general flying
public.

A different problem, and perhaps one that is
more tractable, is disturbance by humans on
foot, whether walking on or under a bluff, or
at a campsite in close proximity to a bluff. This
includes hunters, recreational users and all
types of resource inventory or research activ-
ity conducted on foot. For example, an un-
knowing or unscrupulous photographer may
climb a bluff and take photos of a screaming

10

adult raptor for several hours on a bad-
weather day, keeping the adult off the nest.
Geologists visit bluffs to gather samples from
visible rock strata; some are considerate of the
raptors' needs and some are not. The Ocean
Point dinosaur excavation operation is sched-
uled earlier each year. The attitude of the
project leader toward nesting raptors differs
from person to person, and the present leader
seems to put excavation first and is second-
arily concerned with possible impacts. Re-
gardless of the reason for human presence, the
commonality is that these impacts are caused
by raptors reacting to human presence, usu-
ally over the short term.

Two forms of action should be taken to resolve
the problem: 1) establish camps where they
will not disturb raptors, and 2) limit the visits
by humans to cliffs with nest sites. Panelists
suggested and then discussed several differ-
ent possibilities for managing camps. Encour-
age recreational users and hunters to use
gravel bars for camping, rather than cliff tops.
Require camp placement on the opposite side
of the river from bluffs. Downstream of
Umiat, allow camping on the right bank only.
Direct people to designated campsites away
from bluffs. Require a minimum distance be-
tween camps and nest sites; distances dis-
cussed were 1000, 800, 500, 200 and 150 meters.

Camping on the top of bluffs would probably
occur only rarely, because for the most part
people would prefer gravel bars due to ease
of access from boats and desire to avoid in-
sects. Whatever use of bluffs that does occur
by recreational users or hunters could not be
mitigated with stipulations, because these are
not likely to be activities the BLM can regu-
late. However, the BLM could develop some
educational material to try to influence these
activities.

There are several factors that are important in
determining where it may be appropriate to
camp. If a cliff is very tali; raptors near its top
may not be disturbed by campers below. With
shorter cliffs, disturbance is more likely.

Where the river is narrow, a camp across the
river from a nest site is more likely to cause
disturbance than if the river is wider.

To require campers to remain across the river
from bluffs, or to allow camping only in des-
ignated areas might preclude camping in
many of the choice spots or cause boaters to
travel excessive distances between camps in
some river reaches. Requiring camps to re-
main a long distance (800-1000 m) from nest
sites might cause some of the same problems.
It would also be ineffective if some campers
aren't aware of where nests are located. For
these reasons it would be more reasonable to
stipulate only that camps remain some dis-
tance less than 800 m from cliffs.

Raptor biologists have camped along the
Colville River as close as 200 meters from nests
without disturbing birds. Response to distur-
bance varies from raptor pair to raptor pair.
Also, the birds may adapt to campers; after
all, some peregrines live in large cities. Ur-
ban populations of peregrines, however, have
poorer productivity and may not represent
viable populations. The successful peregrine
populations in England are not urban, but they
do see many more people than those on the
Colville River. So populations can certainly
adapt to humans over time, but probably the
existing population goes extinct when humans
move in, and eventually is replaced by colo-
nizers that are more tolerant of human activi-
ties. Under current use levels along the
Colville River, a stipulated distance of 150
meters may be adequate to protect some rap-
tor pairs. If visitation increases in the future,
however, the distance restriction would prob-
ably need to be increased. It would likely be
difficult to implement such an increase in the
future.

After considerable discussion, it was decided
that a 150- or 200-meter setback for camps was
probably not adequate. Because the available
literature suggests that 500 m is the distance
where disturbance drops off significantly in
most situations, the following stipulation was

11

recommended: Campsites are to be located
>500 m from any raptor nest site.

For longer-term camping that occurs within
one mile of raptor nests, such as that associ-
ated with resource inventory or research ac-
tivities, the impacts would vary depending on
the size of the camp, number of people in-
volved, and the nature of their activities. It
was recommended to use the same stipula-
tion, but with a possibility for exceptions (ei-
ther increased or decreased distance) on a
case-by-case basis. In addition, these work
parties would be required to follow the "code
of conduct" (see Appendix B).

The issue of regulating campsite locations
brings up a question for the Colville River, the
bed of which is outside of the NPR-A. Can
the BLM do anything about research or other
camps on state or private land? Perhaps this
issue could be resolved through cooperative
management of the area.

Despite the stipulation restricting campsite
location, there would still be residual impacts
for which we do not currently have adequate
knowledge to predict or quantify. These
would involve the attraction of predators to
raptor nests and reduced but still present dis-
turbance effects.

With the issue of campsite locations resolved,
the next impact to address is the approach to
cliffs by people on foot. The intent is to mini-
mize the number of cliffs visited each sum-
mer and the number of visits per cliff. Because
people on foot are such a significant distur-
bance factor, a substantial effort to reduce this
impact is needed. The question remains
though, as to what restriction is both reason-
able and enforceable? There are often gaps
between stipulations and enforcement.

For example, geologists may collect samples
of rocks from cliffs, and there may be several
companies and, agencies involved in such
work. However, there is presently no limit to
the number of such groups per year, the num-

ber of people in them, nor the number of re-
peated visits to cliffs by them. If the different
entities could share the samples and informa-
tion collected with one another, they would
need to intrude on any particular nest site only
once. But private companies may not see this
as reasonable because of their efforts to keep
data confidential from one another to main-
tain a competitive edge.

The panel discussed trying to limit the num-
ber of people in any one party, but did not feel
comfortable in developing a stipulation to
address this. They did develop three other
stipulations to apply to work parties that re-
quire access to cliffs where raptors may nest.
First, all permitted activities would be re-
quired to submit for approval an operational
plan that would include dates, locations and
schedule of visits to cliff sites, when dates are
from April 15 through August 15 (March 15
through August 15 when gyrfalcon nests are
involved). The purpose of this would be to
allow the BLM to stipulate changes to mini-
mize impacts to cliff-nesting raptors by re-
peated visits.

Second, as a general rule, the cumulative num-
ber of visits per nesting season from April 15
through August 15 (March 15 through August
15 when gyrfalcon nests are involved) to any
cliff would be limited to three by all permit-
ted entities. A visit is defined as each day in
which work is done at or near a cliff, whether
the duration of work is minutes or hours. The
work could involve excavation or collection
of fossils or artifacts, collection of rock
samples, or any other permitted activity. The
BLM could maintain the flexibility to negoti-
ate the number of visits if the detailed opera-
tional plan explained that there would be no
other way to accomplish the necessary work.
This cumulative number would not include
visits by agency personnel or activities not
regulated by BLM, so the total number of vis-
its per season could end up being much higher,
perhaps as many as 12. However, all visits by
permittees and agency personnel should be
coordinated and shared to the maximum ex-
tent possible to reduce impacts.

12

Finally, the BLM in consultation with the
USFWS would develop a "code of conduct"
as a stipulation and educational tool that ex-
plains how to visit cliffs while protecting rap-
tors. This code of conduct should explain
when there might be exceptions to distance
rules, or emergency situations when rules can
be stretched. A draft outline of precautionary
measures related to human activity near nests
that could serve as a basis for developing a
current set of guidelines is provided in Ap-
pendix B. The BLM would incorporate these
guidelines for operating around cliffs or nests
in the NPR-A into all permits. It would pro-
vide a general standard of behavior for all visi-
tors and users of the NPR-A, but would be
especially critical in the CRSA. Permits would
state that failure to follow these guidelines
may result in permit cancellation or denial of
the permit in the following year. These guide-
lines should also be adhered to by agency per-
sonnel and could be provided to recreational
users, hunters or others that may use the area
for activities not regulated by the BLM.

Even with these restrictions on cliff visits in
place, there would remain some nest distur-
bance. Decreased rates of food provision to
young or increased chilling of eggs or young
could still cause lower productivity at some
sites or even nest abandonment, but these
impacts should be minimal.

Although surveys of raptor populations by
biologists are necessary to measure popula-
tion health, they, too, may cause an impact on
those same raptor populations. It would not
be prudent to halt these studies, but there are
ways that their effects can be mitigated. First,
raptor biologists must coordinate their activi-
ties with the USFWS, BLM, ADFG and NSB.
The purpose of this is to ensure that biologists
eliminate redundant efforts and thus mini-
mize their impacts by doing no more moni-
toring than necessary. Second, agency biolo-
gists must follow the code of conduct during
cliff visits. Third, biologists should generally
follow the restriction on campsite placement,
but with exceptions when necessary to con-

duct certain studies. There may be residual
impacts associated with these studies, such as
lower productivity or even nest abandonment,
but it is expected that these would remain
negligible. Biologists should conduct a con-
trolled study of disturbance levels and the re-
sultant number of abandoned nests or young
fledged, to determine the effects of distur-
bance from research and monitoring.

Construction activities, whether developing
facilities or building roads, can cause very se-
rious disturbance effects, both during con-
struction and afterward as a result of increased
human presence. For this reason the panel rec-
ommended increasing the buffer in which per-
manent oil and gas facilities are prohibited
from \ mile to one mile along the Ikpikpuk
River from the mouth of the Titaluk River to
the point upstream where the Ikpikpuk River
is no longer the western border of the NE
NPR-A. In addition, each nest site found
within NE NPR-A, but outside any develop-
ment setback, should be considered for its own
one-mile-radius setback buffer if development
is proposed nearby. This protection should
be applied on a case-by-case basis, with input
from a biologist knowledgeable of the habits
and behavior of raptors. The level of protec-
tion needed may vary with topography, veg-
etation and the sensitivity of individual birds
to human activity. If it is decided by the BLM
that no setback area be established for a nest
site, construction within one mile of that nest
should be prohibited from April 15 through
August 15, except beginning March 15 in the
case of a gyrfalcon nest. Off-road foot traffic
within one mile of nests should be prohibited
during the same period, both during and af-
ter construction, with case-by-case exceptions
for essential activities. With these stipulations
the only residual impact of construction would
be the associated habitat loss or alteration (see
Impacts to Raptor Habitat section) and the
possibility of bird strikes by vehicles.

Hazardous materials or solid waste clean-up
activities are very similar to construction ac-
tivities in their disturbance effects on nesting

13

raptors, but are sometimes different in their
urgency. Emergency clean-up may be a nec-
essary disturbance of raptors, but is mitigated
under existing spill plans. However, the
cleanup of old drum sites, military sites, etc.,
should be planned with nesting raptors in
mind. If occurring within one mile of raptor
nests, clean-up activities should be prohibited
from April 15 through August 15, except be-
ginning March 15 in the case of a gyrfalcon
nest. With this stipulation, the residual im-
pact would be the same as that for construc-
tion: the associated habitat loss or alteration.

If facility development results in the creation
of raptor nesting habitat (possibly a positive
impact; see next section), it may place raptors
in situations of disturbance by human activ-
ity (potentially an adverse impact). No miti-
gation is offered for this possibility.

The final impact to raptor behavior through
disturbance considered by the panel was seis-
mic exploration in the vicinity of nests. The
panel determined that this activity was al-
ready adequately mitigated in the ROD, ex-
cept that the stipulation presented for the
Colville River area should be applied to rap-
tor nests throughout the planning area and all
of the NPR-A.

Impacts to Raptor Habitat:

In the foreseeable future for NE NPR-A, cov-
ering habitat with sand and gravel for con-
struction pads, drilling pads or roads will im-
pact a small fraction of the area. The panel
initially concluded that this amount of loss of
raptor foraging habitat may be negligible.
However, the CRSA was identified over 20
years ago as a truly unique area, and most
panelists felt that a more conservative stance
than the one-mile setbacks in the EIS was war-
ranted. In addition, some areas or habitat
types are more valuable to raptors than oth-
ers. It is reasonable to assume that habitat
closer to nests is more important, because the
cost of ranging' farther out for prey is more
expensive in terms of energetics and time off
the nest. Also, there are some habitat types

that produce relatively higher densities of prey
species than others.

The panel acknowledged that current infor-
mation on the foraging habits of the raptors
and habitat types along the Colville River and
throughout NE NPR-A is not adequate to
reach any definitive resolution. It would be
ideal to study and map the habitat and use by
raptors of the whole region. That way we
could better understand the ecosystem and
make recommendations for the best placemen fc
of any development. We need to study pairs
of raptors and see what areas they use, since
they may not always use areas that biologists
hypothesize to be the best foraging habitat.
Perhaps studies of prey use would also add
to our knowledge. At the Snake River Birds
of Prey National Conservation Area in Idaho,
biologists refined foraging area boundaries as
their knowledge grew. The BLM may want
to take a similar step-wise process in the
CRSA, using the best science available at each
step and then continually monitoring to as-
sess the decisions made. For the CRSA,
heavily populated by raptors, this means man-
aging for maximum protection, or with intense
scrutiny, until more details are known about
populations and their use of the area. During
this study period, petroleum exploration and
development could occur, but with conserva-
tive management in order to minimize im-
pacts to raptors.

To protect nest sites and the more important
foraging areas throughout NE NPR-A other
than along the Colville River, the prohibition
on construction within one mile of any nest
site (see above) should be implemented, as
warranted on a case-by-case basis. Another
protection for the long term would be to re-
quire that upon abandonment of structures
within the CRSA, all structures be removed
without exception and the sites be rehabili-
tated. The current stipulations in the EIS
would make structure removal at the discre-
tion of the BLM. If future data show that im-
portant foraging areas extend beyond the
CRSA, or cover less area than the CRSA, the

14

boundaries for application of this stipulation
could be adjusted. However, this installation
removal would be at an expense to the envi-
ronment from the massive amount of fuel
needed for the heavy equipment required to
do the work. The panel decided that if a wider
setback for development were applied along
the Colville River, this removal requirement
would be unnecessary.

It was proposed that the BLM increase the no
permanent facilities area to two miles along the
Colville River. This would improve the prob-
ability of protecting the foraging habitat and
of meeting the panel's proposed population
objectives. There was some debate as to
whether this extended prohibition would im-
prove protection for raptors. Some panelists
thought that in certain circumstances, activi-
ties could occur within the two-mile zone and
not affect individual raptor nests or a signifi-
cant amount of foraging habitat. Even if ef-
fects occur, it may be too difficult to scientifi-
cally demonstrate them and thus show there
cannot be some facilities without impacts.
Others agreed with these arguments in part,
but countered that it is due to our currently
incomplete knowledge that a two-mile setback
is justified. The width could be reduced in
the future if justified when more complete
knowledge is gained. A consensus was
reached that a two-mile setback along the
Colville River is the best way to balance these
issues in the near term, pending adequate fur-
ther study. This was recommended as a stipu-
lation, and the panel included it as the first of
four major points to result from the workshop
in a letter to the BLM's State Director for
Alaska (Appendix C).

In addition, and again considering the current
lack of adecjuate knowledge, the panel encour-
aged the BLM to require developers to make
all reasonable and practicable efforts to locate
facilities outside the CRSA. If necessary to
construct within the CRSA, site selection
should generally, be located as distant from,
raptor nests as feasible, but consistent with the
following, final restriction. Within 15 miles

of nest sites, the BLM should prohibit alter-
ation of limited, high-quality habitat that
could detrimentally and significantly reduce
prey availability Of particular concern are
ponds, lakes, wetlands and riparian habitats.
This last restriction would not preclude con-
struction, but only shift it on the landscape.
The CRSA is suggested as a starting point for
these stipulations. Raptor experts should re-
view the original rationale for its designated
boundaries, and the areas adjacent to the
CRSA, regardless of ownership, should be
studied to determine their importance as rap-
tor foraging habitat.

The source of sand and gravel for construc-
tion is also of concern. The extraction of these
materials from active river channels in the vi-
cinity of nest bluffs may increase the natural
rate of bluff erosion (Woodward-Clyde Con-
sultants, 1980a), which is already a significant
factor in raptor nest failure. The BLM should
prohibit removal of sand and gravel from cliffs
and the channel below. Any extraction from
an active channel within the vicinity of a bluff
should be permitted only if a prior hydrologi-
cal study indicates no potential impact to the
bluff. Because the Colville River is mostly
outside BLM jurisdiction, this is another area
that requires cooperative management.

Seismic exploration, overland moves and ice
road construction may cause physical impacts
to vegetation and soils that may result in prey
base declines, although perhaps only minor
and short-term declines. For the most part
these activities are adequately mitigated un-
der the ROD, but the restriction recommended
for construction within 15 miles of nest sites
(see above) should also be applied here. If so,
the residual impacts from these activities
should be only minor prey-base changes.
Current knowledge is not adequate to quan-
tify these changes.

Facility development may result in increased
perches and nest sites, which increase the area
of suitable habitat for raptors. This may lead
to increased raptor populations in the area

15

overall, if those populations are in fact lim-
ited by nesting support structures and not by
prey populations. In this case the impact on
raptors would be a positive one, and would
not require mitigation.

Impacts to Raptor Populations through
Increased Mortality:

Some panelists working in other areas of
Alaska or other states have experienced in-
stances of illegal shooting of raptors. Despite
regular monitoring by biologists, there is no
evidence that direct shooting of raptors occurs
along the Colville River, suggesting that it
would be even more unlikely elsewhere in the
NPR-A. Nonetheless, the BLM should work
in conjunction with the USFWS to educate the
public on the reasons, both legal and conser-
vation oriented, for not killing raptors.

The construction of facilities for human habi-
tation can often result in increased populations
.of animals (e.g. gulls, foxes and bears) that
may prey on raptor eggs, nestlings or even
adults. These predator increases are caused
by attraction to human garbage or direct feed-
ing. Both of these problems are addressed in
the ROD, but it is important that the two rel-
evant stipulations be implemented as written.
This has not always been the case at other
North Slope facilities.

Facility development can also present new
hazards to raptors through accidents with
power lines, vehicles or trash. When a bird
moves in to use habitat that has been created
through development, the bird is for the most
part on its own. Two exceptions would be the
protection of nests and the construction of
power lines so as to prevent electrocution.

Summary of Recommended
Stipulations, Educational Efforts
and Residual Impacts

Stipulations:'

Campsites shall be located >500 m from any

raptor nest site.

All authorized users shall submit for approval
an operational plan that include dates, loca-
tions and schedule of visits to cliff sites, when
dates are between April 15 and August 15
(March 15 through August 15 when gyrfalcon
nests are involved).

The cumulative number of visits to any cliff
per nesting season (April 15 through August
15, except beginning March 15 when gyrfal-
con nests are involved) by all authorized us-
ers shall be limited to three. Exceptions may
be granted if a detailed operations plan docu-
ments why the necessary work can be done
no other way.

All authorized users shall follow the guide-
lines provided by the BLM for conduct around
raptor nest sites. Failure to follow these guide-
lines may result in permit cancellation or de-
nial of the permit in the following year.

Raptor biologists must coordinate their activi-
ties with the BLM, USFWS, ADFG and NSB;
follow the guidelines for conduct near raptor
nests; and follow the above restrictions on
campsite placement with exceptions when
necesary to conduct certain studies.

Permanent oil and gas facilities are prohibited
within one mile of the Ikpikpuk River from
the mouth of the Titaluk River to the point
upstream where the Ikpikpuk River is no longer
the western border of the NE NPR-A.

On a case-by case basis, permanent oil and gas
facilities may be prohibited within one mile of
any raptor nest site found within NE NPR-A,
but outside any other development setback.
This protection should be applied on a case-
by-case basis with input from a biologist
knowledgeable of the habits arid behavior of
raptors. The level of protection needed may
vary with topography, vegetation and the sen-
sitivity of individual birds to human activity.

If construction or non-emergency hazardous
materials or solid waste clean-up efforts are
permitted within one mile of raptor nests,

16

these activities shall be prohibited during the
period April 15 through August 15, except be-
ginning March 15 when gyrfalcon nests are
involved. Off-road foot traffic shall be prohib-
ited within one mile of nests during the same
period, both during and after construction or
cleanup, with case-by-case exceptions for es-
sential activities.

Permanent oil and gas facilities shall be pro-
hibited within two miles of the bluffs along
the Colville River.

All reasonable and practicable efforts shall be
made to locate permanent facilities outside the
CRSA. If necessary to construct within the
CRSA, site selection should generally be lo-
cated as distant from raptor nests as feasible,
but consistent with the following: Within 15
miles of nest sites, alteration of limited, high-
quality habitat that could detrimentally and
significantly reduce prey availability shall be
prohibited. Of particular concern are ponds,
lakes, wetlands and riparian habitats.

Outside the Colville River Raptor, Passrine
and Moose LUEA, motorized ground- vehicle
use for seismic exploration or overland moves
shall be minimized within one mile of any rap-
tor nest from April 15 through August 15, ex-
cept beginning March 15 in the vicinity of gy-
rfalcon nests. Such use shall be prohibited
within 5 mile of nests during the same period,
unless authorized by the BLM. The BLM shall
consult with the USFWS to plan travel routes
to minimize disturbance to raptors.

The removal of sand and gravel from cliffs shall
be prohibited. Any extraction from an active
channel shall be prohibited unless preceded by
a hydrological study, approved by the BLM, that
indicates no impact to river bluffs.

If a raptor builds a nest on a human-constructed
facility, that nest shall be protected from destruc-
tion throughout that nesting season.

If seismic exploration, overland moves or ice
road construction occurs within 15 miles of a

raptor nest site within the CRSA, alteration of
limited high-quality habitat that could detri-
mentally and significantly reduce prey avail-
ability shall be prohibited. Of particular con-
cern are ponds, lakes, wetlands and riparian
habitats.

Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
authorized officer, power lines shall be con-
structed in accordance with standards out-
lined in "Suggested Practices for Raptor Pro-
tection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in
1996" (APLIC, 1996). The holder shall assume
the burden and expense of proving that pole
designs not shown in the above publication
are "raptor safe." Such proof shall be provided
by a raptor expert approved by the authorized
officer. The BLM reserves the right to require
modifications or additions to all power line
structures, should they be necessary to ensure
the safety of large perching birds. Such modi-
fications and /or additions shall be made by
the holder without liability or expense to the
United States.

Education:

The BLM should:

- work in conjunction with the USFWS to
educate the public on the reasons, both
legal and conservation oriented, for not
killing raptors.

- ensure that pilots understand AGL means
above nest level (top of bluffs), not above
the river.

- pursue strategies to ensure compliance
with the aircraft restrictions by autho-
rized users and to inform the general fly-
ing public of why they should want to
comply.

- develop educational material to influence
hunters and recreational users of the
Colville River area to follow the same
guidelines provided, to authorized users
for conduct around raptor nest sites.

17

Residual Impacts:

Implementation of all the above stipulations
and educational efforts would reduce the ad-
verse impacts of human activities on nesting
raptors in the NPR-A, but there would remain
residual impacts that cannot currently be pre-
dicted or quantified for lack of adequate
knowledge. These would involve reduced but
still present disturbance effects, the attraction
of predators to raptor nests, the possibility of
bird strikes by vehicles or other accidents at
facilities, and prey-base changes. Besides di-
rect mortality in some cases, these could lead
to decreased rates of food provision to young
or increased chilling of eggs or young, caus-
ing lower productivity at some sites or even
nest abandonment. To answer some of the
remaining questions on disturbance impacts,
biologists should conduct a controlled study
on the effects of disturbance levels on the num-
ber of abandoned nests or young fledged.

COLVILLE RIVER BASIN-WIDE
PROTECTION

The previous summary of residual impacts re-
fers only to those impacts from authorized ac-
tivities on BLM-administered lands. The
panel remained very concerned that most of
the Colville River bed and right bank, and the
foraging habitat south and east of there, may
not have similar protection for raptors because
it is owned and managed by the State of
Alaska or Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
They thought that since the Colville River ba-
sin is critical to raptors on Alaska's North
Slope and is globally important as well, the
BLM needs to make some effort to ensure that
the state and ASRC side is protected in the
same manner as the BLM side. This is just as
critical as the buffers recommended for BLM
lands, and might be accomplished through a
Memorandum of Understanding, a land ex-
change, or some other instrument. The
Colville River Management Plan, called for in
the ROD and intended to be developed in co-
operation with adjacent landowners, could
lead to that kind of protection.

The panel concluded that the best way to guar-
antee long-term protection of raptors along the
Colville River would be a land exchange
wherein the BLM would obtain those lands
along the river's right bank, and then apply
to them the same stipulations for raptor pro-
tection as in the NPR-A. They suggested that
there were other federal lands on Alaska's
North Slope that were of greater economic
value and that the state and ASRC might be
willing to exchange lands along the Colville
River for them. The panel agreed to include
this issue in the letter they would present to
the BLM's State Director for Alaska (Appen-
dix C).

FUTURE RAPTOR STUDIES
NEEDED

The ROD states that monitoring will be un-
dertaken to determine the status of various
resources, ensure compliance with and en-
forcement of plan decisions, and measure the
effectiveness of protective measures. A Re-
search and Monitoring Team, including rep-
resentatives from federal, state and NSB agen-
cies, the oil industry, environmental groups
and academia, would be established to help
guide this effort. Little other guidance was
included in the EIS or ROD to demonstrate a
comprehensive plan for monitoring.

The panel feared that this might go the way
of other plans, calling for monitoring but ulti-
mately failing to implement a program that
would adequately answer the important man-
agement questions that arise. In past cases this
has been caused by both incomplete planning
at the outset and insuf ficient funding for moni-
toring during plan implementation. The panel
wanted to take this opportunity to remind the
BLM of its responsibility in this very impor-
tant arena. They also developed the follow-
ing list of monitoring and research needs to
provide the BLM and the future Research and
Monitoring Team with general directions rel-
evant to raptors.

18

Monitoring Needs:

- raptor nesting population trends

- reproductive success & productivity

- inventory of raptors throughout the NPR-A

- prey base population levels

- level of different human uses in the area

- assess stipulation compliance by autho-
rized users

- implementation monitoring, i.e, were the
decisions in the ROD implemented as
planned?

Research Needs:

- home range size for gyrfalcons, peregrines,
rough-legged hawks

- raptor habitat map of planning area; de-
termination of habitat types

- use of various prey species by the differ-
ent raptor species

- controlled experiments: impacts of facili-
ties closer to nest (Is the two-mile setback
necessary?); simulated camping (Is the 500
m setback optimal?); other disturbances

19

SUGGESTED REFERENCES

Amaral, M. 1982. Recommended restrictions
for protection of Peregrine Falcons in Alaska
- a summary of opinions. In: W.M. Ladd and
RE Schempf (eds). Proc. Symp. and Workshop
Raptor Manage, and Biol, in Alaska and West-
ern Canada. USFWS, FWS/AK/PROC-82.
Anchorage, AK. 335 p.

Asherin, DA. and D.N. Gladwin, eds. 1988.
Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on
fish and wildlife: a research needs workshop.
USFWS, National Ecology Research Center,
Fort Collins, CO. NERC 88-23. 90 pp.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
(APLIC). 1996. Suggested practices for rap-
tor protection on power lines: The state of the
art in 1996. Edison Electric Institutes /Raptor
Research Foundation, Washington DC

Awbrey, F.T. and A.E. Bowles. 1990. The ef-
fects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on rap-
tors: a preliminary model and a synthesis of
the literature on disturbance. NSBIT Techni-
cal Operating Report No. 12. Prepared for the
U.S. Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

Bednarz, J.C. 1984. The effect of mining and
blasting on breeding Prairie Falcon (Falco
mexicanus) occupancy in the Caballo Moun-
tains, New Mexico. Raptor Research 18:16-19.

Capodice, J. 1976. Sagwon Bluffs Peregrine
Falcon habitat management plan. BLM,
Fairbanks, AK 53 p.

Ellis, D.H.; C.H. Ellis, and D.P. Mindell. 1991.
Raptor responses to low-level jet aircraft and
sonic booms. Environmental Pollution 74: 53-83.

Fyfe, R.W and R.R. Olendorff. 1976. Minimiz-
ing the dangers of nesting studies to raptors
and other sensitive species. Can. Wildl. Serv.,
Occasional Paper No. 23.

Haugh, J.R. 1982. Responses of raptors to ex-
ploration and construction activities in the

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. In:
W.M. Ladd and P.F. Schempf (eds). Proc.
Symp. and Workshop Raptor Manage, and
Biol, in Alaska and Western Canada. USFWS.
FWS/AK/PROC-82. Anchorage, 335 p.

Hayden, T.J. and J.C. Bednarz. 1991. The Los
Medanos Cooperative Raptor Research &
Management Program, Final Report 1988-
1990. Unpubl. report supported by DOE, BLM,
Univ. New Mexico and Hawk Mountain Sanc-
tuary Association. Contract No. 59-WRK-
90469-SD.

Hegner, R.E. 1982. Central place foraging in
the White-fronted Bee-eater. Anim. Behav.
30:953-963.

Knight, R.L. and S.A. Temple. 1995. Wildlife
and recreationists: coexistence through man-
agement. Pp. 327-333 In: R.L. Knight and K.J.
Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists:
coexistence through research and manage-
ment. Island Press, Covelo, Calif. 372 pp.

Marzluff, J.M.; B.A. Kimsey, L.S. Schueck, M.E.
McFadzen, M.S. Vekasy and J.C. Bednarz.
1997. The influence of habitat, prey abun-
dance, sex, and breeding success on the rang-
ing behavior of Prairie Falcons. Condor 99:567-
584.

Meese, R.J. and Mark Fuller. 1989. Distribu-
tion and behavior of passerines around per-
egrine (Falco peregrinus) eyries in western
Greenland. Ibis 131:27-32.

Morehouse, T.A.; R.A. Childers and L.E.
Leask. 1978. Fish and wildlife protection in the
planning and construction of the Trans- Alaska
Oil Pipeline. USFWS, FWS/OBS-78/70: 1-131.

Mossop, D.; W. Nelson, A. Nelson and R.
Hayes. 1978. Birds of prey and the Dempster
Highway Transportation Corridor. Confiden-
tial Rep. to Yukon Wildl. Branch, Yukon Terri-
tory. 48 p.

20

Nelson, R.W. 1979. An assessment of the im-
pact of northern activities upon certain rap-
tors. Unpubl. rep. Prep, for Foothills Pipelines
(Yukon) Ltd. 93 p.

Olsen, J. and P. Olsen. 1978. Alleviating the
impact of human disturbance on the breed-
ing Peregrine Falcon. 1. Ornithologists.
Corella 2: 1-7.

Olsen, J. and P. Olsen. 1980. Alleviating the
impact of human disturbance on the breed-
ing Peregrine Falcon. Public and recreational
lands. Corella 4:54-57.

Orians, G.H. and N.E. Pearson. 1979. On the
theory of central place foraging, pp. 154-177
In: D.J. Horn, R.D. Mitchell and G.E. Stairs
(eds). Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio
State Univ. Press: Columbus, Ohio.

Piatt, J.B. 1975. A study of diurnal raptors that
nest on the Yukon-North Slope, with special
emphasis on the behavior of Gyrfalcons dur-
ing experimental overflights by aircraft. Chap-
ter 2 In: Ornithological studies conducted in
the area of the proposed gas pipeline route:
Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory and
Alaska, 1974. Can. Arctic Gas Study, Ltd. Biol.
Rep. Ser. Vol. 30.

Postovit, H.R. and B.C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts
and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-208 In
Natl. Wildl. Fed. Raptor Manage. Tech.
Manual, Sci. Tech. Ser. No. 10.

Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Rec-
ommendations for protecting raptors from
human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Soci-
ety Bulletin 25(3): 634-638.

Roseneau, D.G.; C.E. Tull and R.W. Nelson.
1981. Protection strategies for Peregrine Fal-
cons and other raptors along the planned
Northwest Alaska gas pipeline route. Vol. I.
Unpubl. rep. Prepared for Northwest Alaska
Pipeline Company. 218 p.

Ritchie, R.J. 1987. Response of adult Peregrine
Falcons to experimental and other distur-
bances along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Sys-
tem, Sagavanirktok River, Alaska, 1985, 1986.
Unpubl. report for Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company, Anchorage, AK; prepared by
Alaska Biological Research (ABR), Fairbanks,
AK. 91 p. + appendices.

Ritchie, R.J.; S.M. Murphy and M.D. Smith.
1998. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus
anatum) surveys and noise monitoring in
Yukon MO As 1-5 and along the Tanana River,
Alaska, 1995-1997. A compilation of final an-
nual reports, 1995-1997. Prepared for the U.S.
Air Force Research Laboratory, Alaska Coop-
erative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and
the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit.

Swem, T. 1996. Aspects of the breeding biol- .
ogy of Rough-legged Hawks along the
Colville River, Alaska. M.S. Thesis. Boise State
Univ., Boise, ID. 78 pp.

Suter, G.W and J.L. Jones. 1981. Criteria for
Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and Prai-
rie Falcon nest site protection. Raptor Res.
15:12-18.

USDOI. 1996. Effects of military training and
fire in the Snake River Birds of Prey National
Conservation Area. BLM/IDARNG Research
Project Final Report. USGS-BRD. Snake River
Field Station, Boise, Idaho. 130 pp.

USDOI, BLM. 1995. Snake River Birds of Prey
National Conservation Area - Management
Plan. Bruneau Resource Area, Lower Snake
River District Office. Boise, Idaho, iv + 170 pp.

Weir, D.N. 1982. Cliff nesting raptors of the
Kisaralik River, western Alaska, pp 138-152 In
W.N. Ladd and RE Schempf (eds.) Proc. Symp.
& Workshop on raptor management in Alaska
and western Canada. USFWS. FWS/AK/
PROC-82. Anchorage, AK. 335 pp.

21

Weir, D.N. 1988. Impact of prolonged surface
mining on numbers of Alaskan predators. In
B. Clark (ed.) Proceedings of an advanced
policy workshop on environmental manage-
ment and impact assessment. Centre for En-
vironmental Management and Planning. Ab-
erdeen Univ., Aberdeen, Scotland.

White, CM. and S.K. Sherrod. 1973. Advan-
tages and disadvantages of the use of
rotorwinged aircraft in raptor surveys. Rap-
tor Research 7:97-104.

Windsor, J. 1977. The response of Peregrine
Falcons to aircraft and human disturbance.
Can. Wildl. Serv., Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
Investigation, Ottawa, Ontario. 87 p.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980a. Gravel
removal studies in arctic and subarctic flood-
plains in Alaska - Technical Report. USFWS.
FWS/OBS-80-08. Anchorage, Alaska, xxiii +
403 pp.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980b. Gravel
removal studies in arctic and subarctic flood-
plains in Alaska - Guidelines Manual. USFWS.
FWS/OBS-80-09. Anchorage, Alaska. 169 pp.

Additional reference source:

Raptor Information System

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem

Science Center
Snake River Field Station
970 Lusk Street
Boise, ID 83706
(208)426-5218
http: / / www.ris.idbsu.edu
library@eagle.idbsu.edu

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADFG - Alaska Department of Fish and
Game

AGL - Above Ground Level

ASRC - Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

CRSA - Colville River Special Area

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

LUEA - Land Use Emphasis Area

NE NPR-A - Northeast portion (plan-
ning area) of the NPR-A

NPR-A - National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska

NPRPA - Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act of 1976

NSB - North Slope Borough

ROD - Record of Decision
(for NE NPR-A EIS)

USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

22

APPENDIX A

Stipulations Directly Related to Raptor Protection

(as numbered in ROD)

Taken from the Northeast National
Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Integrated
Activity Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement Record of Decision (ROD),
October 1998

Permanent oil and gas facilities (definition):
Production facilities, pipelines, roads, air-
strips, production pads, docks and other bot-
tom-founded structures, seawater-treatment
plants, and any other structure associated with
an oil and gas operation that occupies land
for more than one winter season. It does not
include material sites or seasonal facilities
such as ice roads and ice pads.

24. The following restrictions apply to over-
land moves, seismic work,. and any simi-
lar use of heavy equipment (other than
actual excavations as part of construction)
on unroaded surfaces during the winter
season:

b. Motorized ground-vehicle use will
be minimized within the Colville
River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose
Area LUEA from April 15 through
August 5, with the exception that
use will be minimized in the vicin-
ity of gyrfalcon nests beginning
March 15. Such use will remain \
mile away from known raptor-nest-
ing sites, unless authorized by the
AO. The BLM shall consult with
FWS to plan travel routes to mini-
mize disturbance to raptors.

39. Permanent oil and gas facilities, including
roads, airstrips, and pipelines, are prohib-
ited within and adjacent to the
waterbodies listed below at the distances
identified to protect fish and raptor habi-
tat, cultural and paleontological resources,
and subsistence and other resource values.
Setbacks include the bed of the waterbody

and are measured from the bank's high-
est high water mark.

a. Ikpikpuk River: a \ -mile setback
from the bank of the Ikpikpuk River
within the planning area (fish, rap-
tors, subsistence, cultural, and pa-
leontological resources),
f . Colville River: a 1-mile setback from
the western bluff (or bank if there
is no bluff) of the Colville River ex-
tending the length of the river as de-
scribed in the Colville River Raptor,
Passerine, and Moose LUEA. This
restriction does not apply within \\
mile of the Umiat airstrip (fish, rap-
tor, passerine, moose, paleontologi-
cal, subsistence, scenic, and recre-
ational resources),
h. Kikiakrorak River: a 1-mile setback
from each bluff (or bank if there is
no bluff) of the Kikiakrorak River
downstream from T.2 N, R. 4 W.,
Umiat Meridian (raptor, passerine,
and moose resources),
i. Kogosukruk River: a 1-mile setback
from each bluff (or bank if there is
no bluff) of the Kogosukruk River
(including the four tributaries off
the southern bank) downstream
from T.2 N., R.3W., Umiat Meridian
(raptor, passerine, and moose re-
sources).
Oil a case-by-case basis, essential pipeline and
road crossings will be permitted, in consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal, State, and NSB
regulatory and resource agencies, through set-
back areas in those instances where no other
suitable sites are available. Stream crossings
will be sited perpendicular to the main chan-
nel flow; lake crossings will be at the narrow-
est point. Pipeline and road crossings are pro-
hibited in the setback around Teshekpuk Lake,
with no exceptions. Road crossings are pro-
hibited in the setback adjacent to the Colville
River with no exceptions.

23

56. Aircraft shall maintain an altitude of at least
1,500 feet AGL when within \ mile of cliffs
identified as raptor nesting sites from
April 15 through August 5, unless doing
so would endanger human life or violate
safe flying practices. Aircraft shall main-
tain an altitude of 1,500 feet AGL when
within | mile of known gyrf alcon nest sites
from March 15 to April 15. Permittees shall
obtain information from BLM necessary
to plan flight routes near gyrfalcon nests.

71. Use of pesticides without the specific au-
thority of the AO is prohibited.

24

APPENDIX B

Recommended Conduct near Possible Nests of

Eagles, Hawks and Falcons, NPR-A

Taken from the Raptor Project, NPR-A,
USFWS, late 1970s

Cliffs, outcrops, and high soil banks are criti-
cal to nesting birds of prey. Treat all of these
habitats as possible raptor nesting areas; ap-
proach them with great care. If your work
must entail visiting or approaching these habi-
tats, follow these suggestions:

I. Ground Parties

A. APPROACH CLIFFS FROM THE MOST
VISIBLE AVENUE (beginning at approxi-
mately one mile), and talk or make noise (not
excessive) so that birds may hear and see you
at a distance.

B. If a raptor nest is located, DO NOT VISIT
THE NEST SITE; besides disturbing birds or
damaging the nest, your activity could guide
predators to the area.

C. If raptors are occupying cliffs which you
must visit, refrain from lengthy stays; your
presence can affect feeding schedules, incu-
bation, and increase egg and young loss due
to exposure. Allow your schedule to be flex-
ible, visiting cliffs only on good weather days,
or IF CLOSE WORK IS NECESSARY, CON-
DUCT YOUR WORK AFTER AUGUST 1.

D. Do not camp within one mile of possible
nesting areas.

II. Boating

A. DO NOT LAND AT THE BASE OF
CLIFFS. Follow instructions described herein.

B. RESTRICT THE USE OF MOTORS IN
CLIFF AREAS, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE
COLVILLE RIVER.

III. Aircraft

A. AVOID LOW FLIGHTS (less than 500') in
regions of cliffs. If weather permits, fly at 1500'
and away from these areas; avoid the use of
the Colville River as a flight corridor.

B. If a cliff must be approached, do so along a
visible path - NEVER APPROACH FROM A
BLIND SIDE OR FROM BEHIND - reducing
chances for surprise encounters with nesting
birds.

C. IF RAPTORS ARE OBSERVED, CUT
YOUR VISIT SHORT; do not take numerous
passes (more than three) in front of cliff areas.

D. DO NOT LAND ON TOP OF CLIFFS, since
activities above sites appear to be more harm-
ful than those below. Land approximately one
mile from the base of cliffs.

Finally, SCREAMING ADULT BIRDS ARE
ADEQUATE PROOF OF YOUR DISTUR-
BANCE. Attempts to photograph, climb to
nests, or otherwise negligently harass nesting
birds of prey are not in the best interests of
these species. In the cases of the PEREGRINE
FALCON and GOLDEN EAGLE, SUCH AC-
TIVITIES ARE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (16 USC
688 cc) and THE BALD EAGLE ACT (16 USC
668), respectively. Furthermore, AIRCRAFT
HARASSMENT OF ANY OF THESE SPECIES
IS A VIOLATION OF THE AIRBORNE
HUNTING ACT (16 USC 742 j-1).

In summary, key points to remember are:

1. AVOID CLIFF AREAS WHENEVER POS-
SIBLE.

2. CONDUCT SURVEYS AT KNOWN NEST-
ING AREAS AFTER AUGUST 1.

3. IF BIRDS OF PREY ARE LOCATED, BE
CAUTIOUS IN YOUR APPROACH AND
QUICK IN YOUR WORK.

4. LEAVE AN AREA IMMEDIATELY IF DIS-
TURBANCE IS APPARENT.

25

APPENDIX C

Panel's Letter to the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management

in Alaska

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

NORTHERN ALASKA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

101 12th Avenue, Box 19, Room 110

Fairbanks, AK 99701

May 18, 1999

Sally Wisely

Acting Alaska State Director
Bureau of Land Management
222 West 7th Avenue, #13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599

Dear Ms. Wisely:

On behalf of the participants of the Raptor Disturbance and Mitigation Workshop for the Na-
tional Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, I am writing this letter to summarize and reiterate the major
recommendations for raptor management we developed at the workshop. As stated in the
draft workshop proceedings, we were to present a resolution on long-term management of
raptors along the Colville River to the Alaska Bureau of Land Management State Director.

In the Record of Decision for the Integrated Activity Plan /Environmental Impact Statement
for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the BLM was directed to conduct a
workshop of Raptor experts to review scientific literature on disturbance to raptors and iden-
tify potential additional mitigation measures relative to the Colville River. The workshop was
convened in Fairbanks on February 2-3, 1999, and eight individuals with extensive experience
in raptor research, management, and conservation attended. We reviewed specific protection
measures for nesting raptors recommended by BLM, and also reviewed previous Acts, Public
Laws, and Rule-makings relative to the Colville River area. We offer the following comments.

The Colville River has long been recognized as one of the most ecologically unique areas for
nesting raptors in North America, comparable to the BLM's Snake River Birds of Prey Na-
tional Conservation Area. Nowhere else in the Nearctic, and probably in the entire circumpo-
lar Arctic, can one find such a diversity and density of nesting raptors. Alaska is the only state
with Arctic Peregrine Falcons, Gyrfalcons, and Rough-legged Hawks, and the Colville River
has the highest concentration of these species anywhere in the state. All of the recognition
given this area in previous legislation is warranted. Unfortunately, we believe the proposed
Activity Plan provides only minimum protection to this truly unique and ecologically impor-
tant area.

The intent of the National Petroleum Reserve Protection Act of 1976 was to allow for develop-
ment of petroleum resources while providing protection for three unique ecological areas: the
Utukok River Uplands, the Teshekpuk Lake area, and the Colville River area. Language within
this Act and implementing regulations states: "All activities, including but not limited to pe-

26

r

troleum exploration, within these special areas shall be conducted in a manner which will
assure maximum protection of the resource values to the extent consistent with the require-
ments of the Act" (FR Vol.42, No.107). The Final EIS for Oil and Gas Leasing in NPR-A (1983)
further states: "The Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate additional special
areas calling for extraordinary protection of surface values within them" (emphasis added).

The major points generated from the workshop and discussed in the draft workshop proceed-
ings dealt with 1) the no-development buffer along the Colville River, 2) the need to extend
protection and management to the east bank of the Colville, 3) the need to continue the long-
term Raptor monitoring effort, and 4) the need for the BLM to develop a management plan for
the Colville River Special Area. The plan needs to address the entire river basin, including the
east side of the river, and it needs to include a research and monitoring plan for raptors in the
Special Area.

The proposed one-mile no-development buffer along the Colville River may not be adequate,
and a minimum two-mile buffer should be used until more is known about the breeding ecol-
ogy of the nesting raptors along the Colville River. One of the most salient points to come out
of the workshop was how little is known about these arctic-nesting species. Habitat require-
ments (especially related to foraging areas) and sensitivity to disturbance are virtually un-
known, particularly for Gyrfalcons and Rough-legged Hawks. The proposed one-mile pro-
tected area ("No Permanent Oil and Gas Facilities") along the west bank of the river may
provide protection for nest sites of these species, but no consideration is given to total habitat
requirements, which includes both nest sites and foraging areas. The long-term viability of
these populations depends upon maintaining suitable, undisturbed nest sites as well as qual-
ity foraging habitat.

We recommend that the BLM actively pursue measures necessary to protect the east side of
the Colville River, and that these measures become part of the Management Plan. As you are
aware, federal land is limited to the left (westerly) side of the downriver portion of the Colville
River. Previous legislation suggested that conservation easements, land exchanges, agreements
with other land owners, or other appropriate measures should be undertaken to protect habi-
tat on the right (easterly) side of the river. Much of the land on the right side is owned by the
State of Alaska and Native corporations. As recognized in previous legislation, these lands are
equally important to nesting raptors, and we urge you to pursue appropriate arrangements to
protect these lands.

During the comment period for this EIS, the BLM received several letters from agencies, orga-
nizations, and individuals knowledgeable about the Colville River and raptors. Recommen-
dations in letters from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Raptor Research Foundation, and 38 rap-
tor experts were remarkably similar, and much like the recommendations of this panel: we all
believe that development of a long-term management plan for the Colville River basin identi-
fying raptors as a priority planning resource is essential and long overdue. Further, we all
believe that a one-mile buffer may not be an adequate buffer for raptors nesting along the
Colville River, and, in the absence of data, management of this area should be conservative.
Not one letter from a raptor expert supported the one-mile buffer zone; each recommended a
larger zone.

It is our opinion that the proposed Activity Plan and recommended protection measures for
raptors along the Colville River provide neither "maximum protection" nor "extraordinary

27

protection" for this truly unique and ecologically important area. We request that you recon-
sider the current one-mile protected area along the west bank of the Colville River. Until we
know more about these northern-nesting species, and until a management plan for the Colville
River Special Area is completed, we should take every precaution to insure that our actions are
not detrimental to the well-being of raptors along the Colville River.

In the leasing, exploration, and development of NPR-A, we strongly urge you to include pro-
visions that provide BLM the flexibility to establish buffer zones along the Colville River as
deemed appropriate following development of a management plan for the Colville River Spe-
cial Area. We believe a provisional buffer zone of two miles or more may be appropriate along
the Colville River; however, until we know more about the nesting requirement of these arctic-
nesting species, we should allow for flexibility in future management decisions. All potential
lessees should be aware of this possibility.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist BLM in managing and protecting the resources of the
Colville River Special Area, and we appreciate your consideration of our recommendations
for this truly special area. We would be happy to discuss our views in more detail and assist in
any way possible.

Sincerely,

Skip Ambrose

Workshop Panel Representative

Raptor Workshop Panel:

Mr. Skip Ambrose, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dr. Clayton M. White, Brigham Young University

Mr. Michael Kochert, Biological Resources Division, USGS

Mr. Bob Ritchie, ABR, Inc.

Dr. James Bednarz, Arkansas State University

Dr. Kim Titus, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Mr. Ted Swem, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mr. Robert Suydam, Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope Borough

cc: Raptor Workshop Panel

Robert Schneider, Northern Field Manager, BLM Fairbanks
Dave Yokel, Biologist, Northern Field Office, BLM Fairbanks

28

DQ 50, 3T-1S0A
ER FEDERAL OEM
^ P.O. BOX 25047"
DENVER, COLORADO

2f

o

0"i

150ABLDG.50

;

: ...

tyre -

\ -

QL 696 ,P3 N25 1999

Ppe0tro?PingSD0f the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

0

-. _