This note is intended to provide information for consideration by the LMA board as

they decide how to proceed with improvements to the ENA. I offer no

recommendations, only information.

It would be a bit unusual for the eagles to be back so soon, but if it turns out that a

mated pair has returned we have three options.

OPTION A

Put the project on hold once again until the eagles leave. This approach is safe, but

would add yet another long delay to getting anything at all accomplished.

OPTION B

Proceed as planned, but relocate the initial observation area to a location 330’ from

the nest, with the intent of adding a second observation area at the presently

planned location once the eagles leave. This approach also is safe, and would add

very little to the cost of the project. One downside is that the temporary observation

area would have to be very close to David Jacaruso’s back yard in order to preserve

a good line of sight to the eagles nest.

OPTION C

Proceed exactly as planned and as quickly as possible, relying on Al Begazo’s

counsel to Russ Hoffman that written eagle protection guidelines are not meant to

apply to a situation like ours, and that we can proceed with our plans based on

common sense avoidance of activities that visibly agitate the eagles. Mr. Begazo is

a senior Fish and Wildlife Service officer. I believe he outranks Chance Steed, the

person who placed a stop work order during construction of the ENA drainage

system. Mr. Begzo also informs us that the month of January is the time when

eagles are most sensitive to activity … it is then that they are completing courtship

and sitting on eggs. If Option C is selected, Chance Steed may be asked by

adjacent homeowners to issue another stop work order. Chance would then have to

work it out with Mr. Begazo. I see no possibility of a fine being issued. Also, a timely

stop work order would be difficult to achieve, since the work can be done so rapidly.

……………………………………………………………

The board should also be aware that the eagles present in the ENA last year

continued with their activities with bulldozers operating within 100 ft. of their nest,

and while a neighboring house was being re-roofed. It is unlikely that these birds

would be bothered by the very low impact activity associated with constructing a

Eagle Protection Guidelines, which makes it clear that guideline buffer distances

guidelines are just that … guidelines.

The impact of human activity on nesting bald eagles

During the breeding season, bald eagles are sensitive to a variety of human activities.

However, not all bald eagle pairs react to human activities in the same way. Some pairs

nest successfully just dozens of yards from human activity, while others abandon nest

sites in response to activities much farther away. This variability may be related to a

number of factors, including visibility, duration, noise levels, extent of the area affected

by the activity, prior experiences with humans, and tolerance of the individual nesting

pair..

The height of the nest above the ground may also ameliorate effects of human activities;

eagles at higher nests may be less prone to disturbance. In addition to the physical

features of the landscape and nest site, the appropriate size for the distance buffer may

vary according to the historical tolerances of eagles to human activities in particular

localities, and may also depend on the location of the nest in relation to feeding and

roosting areas.

Larry Fleming