Importance of Power Pole Selection when Retrofitting for Eagle Compensatory Mitigation

IF 0.9 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
E. Mojica, Duncan T. Eccleston, R. Harness
{"title":"Importance of Power Pole Selection when Retrofitting for Eagle Compensatory Mitigation","authors":"E. Mojica, Duncan T. Eccleston, R. Harness","doi":"10.3996/jfwm-21-045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, the bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus and golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos are federally managed to ensure the species are stable or increasing while allowing for potentially negative effects from anthropogenic sources. Compensatory mitigation, through retrofitting high-risk power poles to reduce electrocutions, can be used to offset negative effects, enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to achieve their management objectives of species stability and persistence . Regulators, permit holders, electric utilities, and consultants lack an objective and repeatable method for discriminating between high-risk and low-risk power poles. To illustrate the importance of accurately identifying and retrofitting high-risk poles, we compare conservation benefits among three retrofitting project scenarios: a) high-risk poles only, b) a circuit of both low- and high-risk poles, and c) low-risk poles only. We assert that, in the absence of a common definition of high-risk power poles applied uniformly across the landscape, mitigation approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could fall short of its intended value and be unable to meet management objectives. We define high-risk poles in the context of compensatory mitigation as poles in high-quality bald or golden eagle habitat with a relative risk index ≥0.40 based on number of phases, number of jumper wires, and presence of pole grounding. We estimate that the conservation benefit of retrofitting a high-risk pole is at least 5.25 times greater than the benefit of retrofitting a low-risk pole. In the long-term, if compensatory mitigation intended to achieve management objectives falls short of its assumed conservation value, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could be forced to limit future permit authorizations until bald or golden eagles can recover from incorrectly calculated conservation benefits. To avoid that negative outcome, we recommend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set consistent and transparent standards for identifying poles to count as compensatory mitigation credit using our proposed definition of a high-risk power pole.","PeriodicalId":49036,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3996/jfwm-21-045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In the United States, the bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus and golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos are federally managed to ensure the species are stable or increasing while allowing for potentially negative effects from anthropogenic sources. Compensatory mitigation, through retrofitting high-risk power poles to reduce electrocutions, can be used to offset negative effects, enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to achieve their management objectives of species stability and persistence . Regulators, permit holders, electric utilities, and consultants lack an objective and repeatable method for discriminating between high-risk and low-risk power poles. To illustrate the importance of accurately identifying and retrofitting high-risk poles, we compare conservation benefits among three retrofitting project scenarios: a) high-risk poles only, b) a circuit of both low- and high-risk poles, and c) low-risk poles only. We assert that, in the absence of a common definition of high-risk power poles applied uniformly across the landscape, mitigation approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could fall short of its intended value and be unable to meet management objectives. We define high-risk poles in the context of compensatory mitigation as poles in high-quality bald or golden eagle habitat with a relative risk index ≥0.40 based on number of phases, number of jumper wires, and presence of pole grounding. We estimate that the conservation benefit of retrofitting a high-risk pole is at least 5.25 times greater than the benefit of retrofitting a low-risk pole. In the long-term, if compensatory mitigation intended to achieve management objectives falls short of its assumed conservation value, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could be forced to limit future permit authorizations until bald or golden eagles can recover from incorrectly calculated conservation benefits. To avoid that negative outcome, we recommend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set consistent and transparent standards for identifying poles to count as compensatory mitigation credit using our proposed definition of a high-risk power pole.
Eagle补偿缓解改造时选择电杆的重要性
在美国,秃鹰Haliaeetus leuccephalus和金雕Aquila chrysaetos由联邦政府管理,以确保物种稳定或增加,同时考虑到人为来源的潜在负面影响。通过改造高风险电线杆以减少触电事故,补偿性缓解措施可用于抵消负面影响,使美国鱼类和野生动物管理局能够实现物种稳定和持久性的管理目标。监管机构、许可证持有人、电力公司和顾问缺乏一种客观且可重复的方法来区分高风险和低风险的电线杆。为了说明准确识别和改造高风险电杆的重要性,我们比较了三种改造项目场景的保护效益:a)仅限高风险电杆,b)低风险和高风险电杆电路,以及c)仅限低风险电杆。我们断言,如果没有统一适用于整个景观的高风险电线杆的通用定义,美国鱼类和野生动物管理局批准的缓解措施可能达不到其预期价值,无法实现管理目标。在补偿性缓解的背景下,我们将高风险电线杆定义为高质量秃鹰或金雕栖息地的电线杆,根据相数、跳线数量和电线杆接地情况,相对风险指数≥0.40。我们估计,改造高风险电杆的保护效益至少是改造低风险电杆的5.25倍。从长远来看,如果旨在实现管理目标的补偿性缓解措施达不到其假定的保护价值,美国鱼类和野生动物管理局可能会被迫限制未来的许可授权,直到秃鹰或金雕能够从错误计算的保护效益中恢复过来。为了避免这种负面结果,我们建议美国鱼类和野生动物管理局使用我们提出的高风险电线杆的定义,制定一致和透明的标准来识别电线杆,将其视为补偿性缓解信贷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-ECOLOGY
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management encourages submission of original, high quality, English-language scientific papers on the practical application and integration of science to conservation and management of native North American fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats in the following categories: Articles, Notes, Surveys and Issues and Perspectives. Papers that do not relate directly to native North American fish, wildlife plants or their habitats may be considered if they highlight species that are closely related to, or conservation issues that are germane to, those in North America.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信