Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012

electrical reliability and reduce collision risk to birds. 12 2.1 APLIC has helped fund studies on the effectiveness of different types of line marking devices in reducing bird collisions with power lines. 14 2.2 In Canada, the first reported collision victims were snow geese. 16 2.3 Researchers have studied the effects of power line collisions on vulnerable species, such as the Ludwig’s bustard of Europe, Asia, and Africa. 18 2.4 Because of the susceptibility of some endangered species, such as the whooping crane, power lines in these species’ ranges require careful evaluation and routing. 19 2.5 APLIC, EPRI, and CEC are three organizations that provide some funding for research on avian/power line interactions. 20 3.1 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is the legal cornerstone of bird protection in the United States, protecting more than 1,000 North American bird species such as this cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum). 22 FIGURE PAGE SAMPLE vi | Illustrations i l l u s t r at i o n s FIGURE PAGE 3.2 Habitat Conservation Plans help landowners incorporate conservation measures for species, such as the wood stork (Mycteria americana), into their development plans. 23 3.3 Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are protected by both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Canada’s equivalent, the Migratory Birds Convention Act. 24 3.4 Most songbirds, such as these horned larks (Eremophilia alpestris), are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 26 3.5 Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 27 4.1 Collision risk is highly variable among species, with heavy-bodied birds, such as this common loon (Gavia immer), being more vulnerable because they cannot readily maneuver. 31 4.2 Because of their higher reproductive rates, common bird species are generally at less risk of population effects from power line collisions. 32 4.3 The United States’ population of endangered whooping cranes has had such significant mortality from natural causes that additional power line collision mortality is now viewed as a threat to the species. 34 4.4 Whooping crane migration corridor in North America (2005 data from Stehn and Wassenich 2007). 35 4.5 Collision mortality has occurred with the expansion of the reintroduced population of the endangered California condor. 35 4.6 Wing loading and aspect ratio, among other factors, influence susceptibility to collisions (after Bevanger 1998). 36 4.7 Birds with high wing loading, such as swans, are more susceptible to collisions. 37 4.8 Flocking species, such as these snow geese, can be more vulnerable to collisions. 38 4.9 Aerial hunters that forage in flight within a couple hundred meters (several hundred feet) of the ground, such as swallows, can become collision victims. 39 4.10 Swans’ poor frontal vision, along with their large size, increases their susceptibility to collisions. 40 4.11 Because they are nearsighted and fly at high speeds, mergansers may be unable to readily detect small diameter wires as they approach them. 41 4.12 Some juvenile birds, such as sandhill cranes, collide with power lines more frequently than their adult counterparts. 42 4.13 Endangered Newell’s shearwater mortalities at a Kauai power line were mostly non-breeding adult and subadult birds. 42 4.14 Gulls (pictured) and waterfowl tend to make feeding flights at dusk and dawn, when reduced light increases collision risk. 43 SAMPLE Illustrations | vii i l l u s t r at i o n s FIGURE PAGE 4.15 Power lines located between the foraging and roosting sites of wading birds, such as this white ibis (Eudocimus albus), may result in higher collision risk. 45 4.16 Research conflicts on whether or not overhead wires within a single habitat, such as this wetland, are more likely to cause collisions than those between two habitats. 45 4.17 Power lines crossing agricultural fields with seasonally attractive crops or residue can contribute to collision risk for some flocking species, such as cranes, waterfowl, songbirds, and these trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator). 47 4.18 Birds usually initiate migration in favorable weather conditions, but when they encounter inclement weather they may decrease their flight altitude, which increases collision risk when power lines are present. 49 4.19 Orientation of power lines parallel to ridges or narrow, low altitude flyways presents a lower risk of collision than perpendicular orientation. 51 5.1 Opportunities and strategies for minimizing collision risks. 54 5.2 The Bird Strike Indicator, a tool used to detect bird strikes with power lines, can be installed from a bucket truck or helicopter. 57 5.3 Reducing collisions in wooded areas. A tree line or other obvious obstacle at the appropriate height warns birds to gain altitude, which results in birds flying over the power line screened by the trees (after Thompson 1978). 59 5.4 Habitat modifications, such as cooperative programs to encourage earlier plowing of grain stubble, which is attractive to migrating sandhill cranes, may help to reduce collision risk. 60 5.5 Removing shield wires can reduce bird collisions but leaves the lines unprotected from lightning strikes and jeopardizes service reliability. 61 5.6 Buried power lines may be a solution to bird collisions in some instances, but can cost from 3 to 20 times more than overhead lines and have other environmental impacts. 63 5.7 Conceptual model of avian collision risk assessment. 65 5.8 Schematic of the terminology used when planning new transmission lines. 67 5.9 Potential collision risk (A) has been reduced (B) when bird-use areas are on the same side of the line (modified from Thompson 1978). 68 5.10 Routing with respect to local topographic features (after Thompson 1978). 69 5.11 Reducing collisions by clustering lines in one right-of-way (after Thompson 1978). 70 SAMPLE viii | Illustrations i l l u s t r at i o n s 5.12 Collision risks for separate (A) and clustered (B) lines (after Thompson 1978). 71 5.13 Public participation programs may provide information through a public relations campaign, but they also go further to engage the public in discussions and decision making (after EEI 2001). 72 6.1 Studies at the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge show that the line marking devices tested work well for most species, the exception being the American coot, which is more vulnerable to collisions because it primarily flies at night. 79 6.2 A helicopter crew installing line marking devices on a power line. 81 6.3 Positioning of line marking devices on the central portion of two shield wires on transmission lines (after Eskom Transmission [South Africa] 2009). 83 6.4 Positioning of line marking devices on one shield wire or staggered on two parallel shield wires. 83 6.5 Line marking devices staggered on a distribution line. 83 6.6 When a device is added to a power line, it may add to the loading of the line, which further increases under icy or windy conditions and may also cause problems for deicing operations. 84 6.7 Power structures and line markers can become targets for vandalism and a detriment to service reliability. Public participation and outreach programs, like this hotline, may reduce vandalism. 85 6.8 Aerial marker spheres, also known as aviation balls, were designed to make power lines more visible to aircraft operators. 86 6.9 Aerial marker spheres in use on a power line above a wetland habitat. 86 6.10 Spiral vibration dampers act to reduce line vibration, and they also make power lines more visible to birds. 88 6.11 The Bird-Flight™ Diverter is a spiral device made of PVC. 89 6.12 Bird-Flight™ Diverters installed on a distribution line. 89 6.13 The Swan-Flight™ Diverter is a double-ended spiral device. 91 6.14 Swan-Flight™ Diverters installed on the phase conductors of a distribution line. 92 6.15 Examples of suspended devices (swinging and fixed). 94 6.16 The FireFly™ FF (left) has a swinging tag for use in light winds and the FireFly™ HW (right) has a fixed tag to withstand higher, sustained winds. 95 6.17 BirdMark BM-AG (After Glow) in daylight (left) and darkness (right). 96 6.18 Hanging strips of neoprene, such as this Spanish-made Baliza Avifauna, are being used as line marking devices in Europe and South Africa. 97 FIGURE PAGE SAMPLE Illustrations | ix i l l u s t r at i o n s 6.19 Baliza Avifauna installed on a power line in Europe. 97 6.20 The Avifaune Spiral is commonly used in France and other parts of Europe. 98 6.21 Avifaune Spirals installed. 98 6.22 The Mace Bird Lite is a spiral device with a central fluorescent tube that is illuminated by the ambient electrical field. 98 6.23 The RIBE line marking device is available as a swinging triangular tag or as a series of black-and-white, rigid plastic pieces that swing (pictured). 99 6.24 The Inotec BFD 88, a South African device, is a reflective stainless steel sphere reported to be visible from all angles and in low-light conditions. 99 6.25 Tree wire on all three phases of a distribution line marked with suspended devices. 100 6.26 Tree wire (right of pole) and standard wire (left of pole) on a distribution line. 101 6.27 Collision-electrocutions cause an electrical short, like this one caused by tree branches, and can kill two or three birds in a flock even if only one bird makes phase-to-phase contact. 101 6.28 Tree wire on the top phase conductor of a two-phase distribution line (vertical configuration) with line marking devices. 102 7.1 Utility employee training should include the reasons and methods for reporting bird mortalities, nest management protocols, proper disposal of carcasses, applicable regulations, and the consequences of non-compliance. 104 7.2 An Avian Protection Plan may include opportunities to enhance avian populations or habitat with nesting structures, habitat restoration, or other projects. 107 7.3 Raising public awareness about avian collisions and the utility’s commitment to avian protection can increase support for an Avian Protection Plan. 108 7.4 Integrating an Avian Protection Plan into an electric utility’s operations will help the utility meet demands for reliable, cost-efficient, and environmentally compatible power delivery while protecting and enhancing bird populations. 110 B.1 Classes used to describe birds’ approach, crossing, and departure altitudes in collision studies on transmission lines (after James and Haak 1979). 139 FIGURE PAGE SAMPLE x | Tables ta b l e s 1.1 Quick guide to the Collision Manual. 3 1.2 Voltage classifications in North America. 4 4.1 Typical evidence of bird injuries or mortalities from power line collisions. 30 4.2 Average distance of collision mortalities from nearest water body. 46 6.1 Summary of data on line marking devices available in the United States. 76 6.2 Distance of collision mortalities from the nearest pole (parallel to distribution lines in the right-of-way). 82 6.3 Spacing and positioning for aerial marker spheres (aviation balls). 86 6.4 Representative studies for aerial marker spheres (aviation balls). 87 6.5 Spacing and positioning for spiral vibration dampers (SVDs). 88 6.6 Representative studies for spiral vibration dampers (SVDs). 88 6.7 Spacing and positioning for Bird-Flight Diverters (BFDs). 90 6.8 Representative studies for Bird-Flight Diverters (BFDs). 91 6.9 Spacing and positioning for Swan-Flight Diverters (SFDs). 92 6.10 Representative studies for Swan-Flight Diverters (SFDs). 93 6.11 Spacing and positioning for general designs of suspended devices. 94 6.12 Representative studies for general designs of suspended devices. 95 6.13 Spacing and positioning for FireFlys. 96 6.14 Representative studies for FireFlys. 96 6.15 Spacing and positioning for BirdMark BM-AG. 97 B.1 Summary of considerations and issues for designing site-specific collision monitoring. 137 TABLE PAGE SAMPLE Abstract | xi a b s t ra c t PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS MANUAL Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines (Colli- sion Manual) was first published by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and Edison Electric Institute (EEI) in 1994 under the title Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines. The 2012 edition of this manual provides electric utilities, wildlife agencies, and other stakeholders with guidance for reducing bird collisions with power lines based on the most current information. This is especially important given the need to reduce bird injury and mortality from collisions, comply with bird protection laws, and enhance the reliability of electrical energy delivery. PROGRESS IN DEALING WITH COLLISION ISSUES In the United States, most studies of bird collisions have occurred since the late 1970s. These studies described the problem and led to a growing awareness among stakeholders. In 1989, APLIC was founded to address whooping crane (Grus americana) collisions with power lines. APLIC published its first Collision Manual in 1994 to summarize the knowledge of bird collisions with power lines at that time. National and international collab- oration on bird/power line interactions has since grown. Research today includes studies on collision reduction, monitoring systems, and standardization of collision mortality data collection. Future priorities include improv- ing the comparability of studies, testing and documenting line marker efficacy, and refin- ing remote collision detection devices. As power line infrastructure expands to meet the growing demand for electricity, the collision risk to avian species also seems likely to increase. Yet, this risk may be reduced by assessing potential avian impacts during line siting and routing, improving line mark- ing devices, standardizing study methods, and increasing awareness. AVIAN REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE In the United States, three federal laws protect almost all native avian species and prohibit taking (killing or injuring) them even if the act was unintended and occurred as a result of otherwise legal activities. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703- 712) protects 1,007 (2012) North American migratory bird species (50 CFR 10.13). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) provides additional protection for these two species. The Endan- gered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1555) provides protection to federally listed species (designated as threatened or endangered) and to their critical habitat. Utilities in the United States should work with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state wildlife agencies to identify permits and procedures that may be required. In Canada, two laws protect avian species by prohibiting take. The Migratory Birds Convention Act protects most species of migratory birds in Canada. The Canadian Species at Risk Act provides for the protec- tion and recovery of threatened and endan- gered species. Additional protection for species at risk has been developed by the provincial governments, such as the Alberta Wildlife Act. Utilities in Canada should work with the Canadian Wildlife Service and provincial wildlife agencies to identify permits and procedures that may be required. UNDERSTANDING BIRD COLLISIONS Understanding the nature of bird collisions is essential for minimizing them. Bird collisions with power lines result from a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and engineering factors. Biological characteristics include body size, weight, maneuverability, flight behavior, vision, age, sex, health, time of day, season, habitat, and habitat use. Environmental conditions include land uses, weather, visibili- ty, lighting, and sudden disturbances. SAMPLE xii | Abstract a b s t ra c t Engineering aspects include size of lines, line placement, line orientation, line configuration, structure type, and sometimes obstruction lighting under Federal Aviation Administra- tion rules. It is difficult to extrapolate collision risk from one power line study and apply or compare it with other studies because of site- specific conditions and the lack of standard study methods, which result in variability of reported mortality rates. Species of birds reported to be susceptible to collisions generally have a large body size, long wing span, heavy body, and poor maneuverability. Examples include species of loons, storks, grebes, waterfowl, and some species of hawks and eagles. Flight behavior and other biologi- cal attributes contribute to species risk. Individual losses from collision mortality are unlikely to affect large and robust pop- ulations. However, for species that are rare or endangered, the loss of a few or even one individual may impact a local population or the overall population’s viability. MINIMIZING COLLISION RISKS Engineers and biologists can work together to identify and address collision issues when modifying existing lines or planning new lines. Early consideration of risk factors may reduce the need for costly modifications later. In addition, while a utility is taking steps to minimize collision risk, a proactive public participation program can address social issues by building positive relationships, increasing public knowledge, identifying and responding to public concerns early, and promoting responsible behavior (e.g., discour- aging vandalism of line marking devices). When modifying existing lines, study options include collision monitoring, line modification studies, and avian risk assess- ment. Line modifications must be carefully evaluated to identify, quantify, and balance the existing risks with the potential effectiveness and risks posed by the alternatives. Risk reduction options include line marking, man- aging surrounding lands, removing the shield wire, changing the size or configuration of wires, rerouting the line, and burying lines. Typically, the first options are line marking and managing surrounding lands because the remaining options are seldom feasible. When planning new lines, three study options can be used to identify the optimal route: spatial analysis using GIS, field assess- ment, and avian risk assessment. Risk reduc- tion options could include line placement, orientation, and configuration relative to biological and environmental factors. LINE MARKING DEVICES Studies suggest that most bird collisions occur with the shield wire, which is the small- est diameter and highest wire on a transmis- sion line. Many studies of lines with high collision rates indicate that collision risk can be lowered by 50% to 80% when these lines are marked, though the most recent study published at this writing demonstrated only a 9.6% reduction (Barrientos 2012). However, recommendations for which device is the most effective and standard spacing are not possible due to differences in study designs and site-specific conditions. As a result of these differences, reduction rates may not be replicable from one line or study to another. Since 1994, line marking devices have been further developed in North America, Europe, and South Africa. Advances in aerial marker spheres, spirals, and suspended devices include changes to design, colors, attachments, and materials in an effort to improve effectiveness and durability and to reduce possible damage to lines. AVIAN PROTECTION PLANS In 2005, APLIC and the USFWS announced their jointly developed Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (Guidelines). An Avian Protection SAMPLE Abstract | xiii a b s t ra c t Plan (APP) is a voluntary, utility-specific plan for reducing the risks to birds and system reliability that result from avian interactions with electric utility facilities. An APP provides the framework necessary for implementing a program to reduce bird mortalities, document utility actions, improve service reliability, and comply with bird protection laws. The Guidelines are intended to help utilities craft their own APPs for managing avian/power line issues that are particular to their location and operations. SAMPLE T H I S PA G E I N T E N T I O N A L LY L E F T B L A N K SAMPLE Foreword | xv f o r e w o r d A vian interactions with power lines, including collisions, electrocutions, and nesting have been documented since the early 1900s. Collisions with tele- graph lines were first reported in 1876. However, it was not until the 1970s that biologists, engineers, resource agencies, and conservationists began to realize the extent of these interactions. It was then that they began investigating and addressing collision issues. We commend this early professional leader- ship in tackling a complex issue and building a foundation of credibility and cooperation that characterizes the relationship between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Avian Power Line Interaction Com- mittee (APLIC) today. In December 1983, an ad hoc group began to address whooping crane (Grus americana) collisions with power lines in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. This work led to the 1989 founding of APLIC and the publi- cation of Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: State of the Art in 1994 (Collision Manual), which became the companion of Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: State of the Art in 1981 (Electrocution Manual). The 1994 Collision Manual brought together what was known about collision mitigation and presented research protocols for studying problem lines. It focused on standardizing these protocols so that data from various studies might be comparable and applicable to the issues experienced by electric utilities nationwide. This theme is carried forth and expanded upon in this 2012 revision. Today electric utilities across North America recognize that bird/power line interactions may create operational risks, health and safety concerns, and avian injuries or mortalities, all of which reduce electrical reliability and increase a utility’s liability. The USFWS is responsible for conserving and protecting United States trust resources covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act. It is within this potentially adversarial framework that the longstanding collaborative partnership between industry and agency has emerged. With this edition of the Collision Manual (now titled Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines) along with the 2006 Electrocution Manual, the 2005 Avian Protection Plan Guidelines, and Edison Electric Institute’s 2001 Introduction to Public Participation, utilities have a toolbox of the latest technology, science, expertise, and field experience. APLIC and the USFWS hope you will use this edition of the Collision Manual, along with its companion documents, to help implement avian protection plans, conserve protected birds, and improve electrical system reliability. Jerome Ford USFWS, Assistant Director Migratory Bird Program Dave Bouchard APLIC, Immediate Past Chair Peggy Jelen APLIC, Chair SAMPLE xvi | Acknowledgements a c k n ow l e d g e m e n t s APLIC wishes to express appreciation to the following individuals and organizations for contributing their time, resources, and expertise to making the 2012 edition of this manual possible. PROJECT LEADERS Dave Bouchard Project Manager, Lead Editor American Electric Power Misti Schriner Project Manager, Science Editor Western Area Power Administration Karen C. Hill Project Manager, Technical Editor-Writer Normandeau Associates, Inc. James R. Newman Lead Author, Technical Reviewer Normandeau Associates, Inc. CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS Mike Best Technical Reviewer Pacific Gas and Electric Jenny Carter Editor Normandeau Associates, Inc. Peter Colverson Contributing Author Normandeau Associates, Inc. Kara Donohue Contributing Author, Technical Reviewer Southern California Edison Haley Edwards Contributing Author, Technical Reviewer Puget Sound Energy Greg Forcey Contributing Author Normandeau Associates, Inc. Caleb Gordon Technical Contributor Normandeau Associates, Inc. Nikki Heck Contributing Author, Technical Reviewer AltaLink Sherry Liguori Technical Reviewer PacifiCorp Albert M. Manville, II Contributing Author, Technical Reviewer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Susan Marynowski Contributing Editor Rocky Plettner Technical Reviewer Nebraska Public Power District Von Pope Technical Reviewer Chelan County Public Utility Dennis Rankin Contributing Author USDA Rural Utilities Service Tom Stehn Technical Reviewer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ret.) Natalie Turley Contributing Author, Technical Reviewer Idaho Power Company Mel Walters Contributing Author, Technical Reviewer Puget Sound Energy Ondine Wells Contributing Author Normandeau Associates, Inc. SAMPLE Acknowledgements | xvii a c k n ow l e d g e m e n t s SPECIAL THANKS APLIC recognizes those who pioneered research in avian collisions with power lines and those whose contributions made the 1994 edition of this manual possible: Carroll Belser, Bill Bolin, Wendy M. Brown, Jim Burruss, Edward Colson, Alan Ansel, Bob Turner, Jim Lewis, Rod Drewien, Sidney A. Gauthreaux, Jr., Franz Koops, John Ledger, A. Dean Miller, Judith H. Montgomery, Maurice Murphy, Dan Pearson, Leroy Sanchez, Frank Schlicht, Dick Thorsell, Pete Quincy, Phil Havens, Frank Moseley, Mark Czaplewski, Sheila Byrne, Jerry Roppe, Jerry Martinez, Joel Mazelis, and Echo Films’ Morley Nelson, Norman Nelson, and Tyler Nelson. The vision, effort, and energy of each of these individuals con- tinue to contribute to the growing under- standing of this complicated issue. APLIC also wishes to thank the following individuals for their service during the pro- duction of this edition of the manual: Brad Loveless, Dave Bouchard, and Peggy Jelen for serving as Chair of APLIC and Rick Loughery for serving as the Edison Electric Institute Liaison to APLIC. ADDITIONAL THANKS Additional content was provided by Michelle Turner with the Canadian Electricity Associ- ation. Additional technical review was pro- vided by the following engineers: Artis Karnei (American Electric Power), Chuck Wright (PacifiCorp), Bard Jackson (USDA Rural Utilities Service), and Wayne Galli (Clean Line Energy Partners). CONTRIBUTING LITERATURE A diverse collection of literature was used in the research to prepare this manual. APLIC acknowledges the great contribution that this body of literature made. This literature is included in Appendix A. Literature Cited and Bibliography. This manual was funded by the Edison Electric Institute and the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. SAMPLE xviii | Acknowledgements a c k n ow l e d g e m e n t s APLIC COLLISION SUBCOMMITTEE The APLIC Collision Subcommittee deserves special recognition for their dedication to avian collision research and protection efforts and for their review and guidance in creating the 2012 edition of this manual. Sarah Ball Edison Electric Institute Mike Best Pacific Gas and Electric Dave Bouchard American Electric Power Jim Candler Georgia Power Company Amy Dierolf Progress Energy Kara Donohue Southern California Edison Haley Edwards Puget Sound Energy Jodie Gless Florida Power & Light Donald Harron AltaLink Nikki Heck AltaLink Peggy Jelen Arizona Public Service Brendon Jones AltaLink Carl Keller Bonneville Power Administration Sherry Liguori PacifiCorp Jim Lindsay Florida Power & Light Rick Loughery Edison Electric Institute Brad Loveless Westar Energy Al Manville U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sam Milodragovich Northwestern Energy Chuck Partridge Pacific Gas and Electric Mike Pehosh National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Rocky Plettner Nebraska Public Power District Von Pope Chelan County Public Utility District Dennis Rankin USDA Rural Utilities Service John Rasmussen AltaLink Misti Schriner Western Area Power Administration Tom Stehn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ret.) Natalie Turley Idaho Power Company Mel Walters Puget Sound Energy SAMPLE ick Thorsell had a lifetime devotion to birds and was one of the founders of APLIC. He brought electric utili- ties, government agencies, and environmental groups together to work in cooperation to study and mitigate bird deaths from power line collisions and electrocutions. Dick came to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) in 1970 after serving as the Executive Director of the Stony Brook–Millstone Watershed Association in New Jersey. Dick was the producer of films on utility/natural resource issues, including Silver Wires, Golden Wings. The film featured Morley Nelson’s work on understanding and reducing raptor electrocutions. It brought awareness of electrocution issues to electric utilities and credibility to the industry for its efforts to address the problem. Dick was a WWII Navy veteran, and in 1953 he graduated from Lehigh University with a B.A. in Conservation. During the summer of 1950, he took a job as a Ranger Naturalist for the U.S. National Park Service. In 1954, as a graduate student, he travelled to Bermuda to help determine what was destroying nests of the Bermuda petrel, or cahow (Petrodroma cahow), a bird that until 1951 was thought to have been extinct for more than 300 years. During 47 days of field observations he conceived a way to reduce nest predation of the cahow by the more aggressive white-tailed tropic bird (Phaethon lepturus), known in the islands as the longtail. His solution was credited as one of the most critical developments in the cahow’s recovery and conservation. In 1988, Dick was honored by the Raptor Research Foundation for his pioneering efforts in raptor protection: “All who appreciate the flight, spirit, and symbolism of the golden eagle are in your debt; and those who know you well enough understand that having hundreds, if not thousands of living eagles to your credit, is sufficient personal award for your accomplishments.” Dick received APLIC’s Morley Nelson Award in 2009 to acknowledge his efforts in pioneering avian/power line conservation and his dedication to developing and maintaining positive partnerships among the key interests in avian/power line issues. Dick retired from EEI in1991 and pur- sued his personal interests while remaining ever ready to advise the industry on develop- ing issues and to keep us on track. this publication is dedicated to the memory of Richard “Dick” S. Thorsell (April 11, 1927 – April 15, 2012) D SAMPLE T H I S PA G E I N T E N T I O N A L LY L E F T B L A N K SAMPLE Introduction | 1 1c h a p t e r 1 Introduction Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines (Colli- sion Manual) was first published by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) in 1994, under the title Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines, as a comprehensive review of avian collisions with power lines (collisions) and recommendations for minimizing them. Since 1994, the understanding of bird colli- sions and the methods for reducing them has grown (e.g., Bevanger 1994, 1998; Janss 2000; Rubolini et al. 2005; and Jenkins et al. 2010). Collisions with power lines cannot be elimi- nated, but they can be reduced. This edition of the manual builds upon the foundation of the 1994 Collision Manual using the research and experience gained through the years since its original publication. Power lines are an integral part of the modern landscape. Estimates of the number of miles of transmission lines in the United States range from 862,000 kilometers (km) (535,622 miles [mi]) (J. Goodrich-Mahoney, EPRI, pers. comm.) to 1,024,534 km (636,616 mi) (EEI 2010) based on 2009 and 2010 data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and other sources. For distribution lines, the number of miles is less certain, but it is about five to six times that of transmission lines based on two large company systems (D. Bouchard, pers. comm.). Some bird species that are active in the vicinity of power lines are more susceptible to collision and electrocution risk than others. The risks and reduction measures for bird electrocutions are addressed in the publication Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006). Power lines are only one of numerous anthropogenic causes of bird collision mor- Some birds flying in the vicinity of power lines may be susceptible to collision. While power lines are only one of numerous causes of bird injury and mortality, collisions with power lines can be reduced. This chapter introduces the problem of bird collisions, defines the categories and configurations of power lines, and presents the biological, engineering, economic, and social and cultural perspectives on bird/power line collisions. IN THIS CHAPTER Purpose and Scope of the Manual Reader Guide to the Manual Overview of Power Lines Perspectives for Dealing with Bird Collisions chapter 1 | Introduction | 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE MANUAL SAMPLE 12 | chapter 1 tality. Others include tall buildings, windows, vehicles, communication towers, airplanes, and wind turbines (Avery et al. 1980; Erick- son et al. 2005). Estimates of bird collision mortality vary widely because of differences in mortality monitoring and extrapolations of those data. Based on reviews, Erickson et al. (2005) estimated that buildings and windows account for most bird collision mortality in the United States, followed by power lines, automobiles, communication towers, and wind turbines. This manual only addresses bird collisions with power lines. Interactions between birds and power lines are a complex mixture of biological, environ- mental, and engineering factors. Electric utility stakeholders need to understand the nature of bird interactions with power lines when siting, routing, and designing power lines and deter- mining mortality reduction measures. This is especially true given the need to reduce bird collisions, comply with bird protection laws, and enhance reliable electrical energy delivery. This manual was developed for electric utilities, wildlife agencies, and other stake- holders and is based on what is known to date about collisions. It is intended to provide this audience with: • An overview of power lines and perspec- tives on dealing with avian/power line collisions (Chapter 1) • A summary of current knowledge, litera- ture, and field experience related to avian collisions with power lines and the factors that influence them (Chapters 2 and 4) • A discussion of the laws, regulations, and the operational implications of avian collisions (Chapter 3) • A review and discussion of current prac- tices for planning, management options, study design, and devices used to minimize avian collisions with power lines (Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Appendix B) • An overview for developing an Avian Protection Plan (Chapter 7) • A compilation of collision literature spanning several decades (Appendix A) • A glossary of collision terms and resources for further information (Appendices C and E) FIGURE 1.1: The highest wire on a transmission line is the shield wire, which can be difficult for birds, especially flocking birds such as waterfowl, to see. © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE Introduction | 3 • Chapter 1. Introduction • Chapter 2. Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues • Chapter 3. Avian Regulations and Compliance • Chapter 4. Understanding Bird Collisions • Chapter 5. Minimizing Collision Risks • Chapter 6. Line Marking to Reduce Collisions • Chapter 7. Avian Protection Plans • Appendix A. Literature Cited and Bibliography • Appendix B. Designing Site-Specific Studies for Collision Monitoring • Appendix C. Glossary • Appendix D. Acronyms • Appendix E. Resources Table 1.1 provides a quick guide to common collision topics in this manual. Readers can also search the electronic version (a CD is included) for specific keywords. This manual consists of the following chapters and appendices. Subject Chapter(s) Power lines, voltage, and the electric power system 1 Perspective of power line engineers 1, 4, 5, 6 Perspective of biologists 1, 4, 5, Appendix B Perspective of the public and other stakeholders 1, 5, 6, 7 Advantages and disadvantages of underground power lines 1, 5 History of bird collisions and mitigation 2, 6, Appendix A Current state of knowledge related to bird collisions 2, 4, 5, Appendix A Funding organizations for collision research 2, Appendix E Study methods and options 2, 4, 5, Appendix B Strategies and approaches to address bird collisions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 Laws and policies governing birds and bird mortality 3 Permits related to bird laws and policies 3 Factors that contribute to collisions 4 Variability in reported collision mortality rates 4 Significance of mortality for bird populations 4 Scientific methods to assess risk and impacts 4, 5, Appendix B Methods for reducing bird collisions on an existing power line 5, 6 Methods for routing and designing a new power line while minimizing bird collisions 5, 6 Benefits of public participation 5, 7 Legal issues and other considerations for line marking 6 Effectiveness of line marking devices 6 How to develop a voluntary, utility-specific Avian Protection Plan 7 TABLE 1.1: Quick guide to the Collision Manual. READER GUIDE TO THE MANUAL SAMPLE TRANSMISSION VERSUS DISTRIBUTION LINES Power lines are rated and categorized, in part, by the level of electrical voltage they carry. Because the amount of electricity is large, voltage is usually specified as kilovolts (kV) where 1 kV is equal to 1,000 volts (V). In a power system, from the power generation facility to the customer (Figure 1.2), four voltage classifications are used: power source, transmission, distribution, and utilization (Table 1.2). Although there are exceptions to 14 | chapter 1 these voltage classifications, they hold in gen- eral and will be used this way in this manual. Voltage classification also depends on the purpose a power line serves. Transmission lines (≥60 to 765 kV) are used to transmit large blocks of electricity from the power generation facility to the load centers (communities). Within load centers, the high voltage of trans- mission lines is reduced at substations and then delivered via distribution lines (2.4 to 60 kV) for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The distribution voltages are again stepped down to the lower voltages for the end user (120 to 600 V) usually by pole- and pad-mounted transformers. Both transmission and distribution lines are power lines, a term used throughout this manual (Figure 1.3). OVERVIEW OF POWER LINES Distribution Substation Transformer Towers Poles Transmission Substation Power Generation Facility High Voltage Transmission Lines Distribution Lines FIGURE 1.2: Schematic of the electric power system from the generation facility to the customer (modified from Rural Utilities Service). Classification Voltage Power Generation Facility 12 V to 22 kV Transmission 60 to 765 kV* Distribution 2.4 to 60 kV Utilization 120 to 600 V * This is the typical range for transmission; however, there are exceptions. TABLE 1.2: Voltage classifications in North America. FIGURE 1.3: Transmission lines (left) and distribution lines (right). © JERRY LIGUORI (LEFT) AND DAVE BOUCHARD, AEP (RIGHT) SAMPLE Introduction | 5 FIGURE 1.4: Height comparison of transmission (typically 18.3 to 58 m [60 to 190 ft] tall) (A) and distribution structures (typically 6.4 to 14.6 m [21 to 48 ft] tall) (B). POWER LINE CONFIGURATION Power lines may be energized (carrying electric- ity) or non-energized (grounded). Energized lines are called phase conductors. Distribu- tion lines may have one, two, or three phase conductors per circuit. Alternating current (AC) transmission lines always have three phases per circuit, and structures may carry multiple circuits. For example, a three-phase, double-circuit line would have six phase con- ductors. Phase conductors may be configured horizontally or vertically on the tower or pole (Figure 1.5). High voltage transmission lines may be bundled, which means two to six lines per phase are placed in close proximity to each other instead of using only one line per phase (Figure 1.6). Distribution lines may also be installed on transmission structures below the transmission lines; this is referred to as a distribution underbuild (Figure 1.7). A. Horizontal Configuration on a Typical 115 kV Wood H-Frame Structure Front View Side View Front View Side View B. Vertical Configuration on Typical 115 kV Structure Phase Conductors Phase Conductors Shield Wires Shield Wires Energized Grounded FIGURE 1.5: Horizontal (A) and vertical (B) transmission line configurations. 45.7 m (150 ft) 12.2 m (40 ft) A B SAMPLENon-energized conductors are at ground potential or zero voltage potential. There are two kinds of non-energized conductors: shield wire (also called static wire or overhead ground wire) and neutral wire. Shield wires are installed above the phase conductors on transmission lines to protect them from lightning (Figure 1.8). Static elec- tricity from the shield wire is taken to earth (ground) by grounding conductors. In a low lightning area, some transmission lines with lower voltages (e.g., 69 kV) may not have a shield wire. Shield wires are the lines most 16 | chapter 1 FIGURE 1.6: Bundled phase conductors on a three-phase, single-circuit, 138-kV transmission line. FIGURE 1.7: Distribution underbuild on a double-circuit transmission line. associated with bird collisions on transmis- sion lines because they are the highest wire and are smaller in diameter (1 to 1.3 centimeters [cm]; 0.4 to 0.5 inches [in])1 than phase con- ductors (2.5 to 5 cm [1 to 2 in]; bundled lines are multiples of these), making them more difficult to see (e.g., Savereno et al. 1996). When birds are flying at the elevation of shield wires or gaining altitude to avoid the more visible phase conductors, the potential for collision with the shield wire increases. For more infor- mation on how power line configuration affects collision risk, see Chapters 4 and 5. 1 Measurements are provided first in metric, then in English form. Bundled Phase Conductors Shield Wire © DAVE BOUCHARD, AEP © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE The neutral wire, with regional excep- tions, is installed below or parallel to the phase conductors on a distri- bution line (Figure 1.9) and carries return cur- rent, which is taken safely to ground via grounding conductors. In high lightning areas there are exceptions where the neutral is also used as a shield wire on a distribution line. Introduction | 7 FIGURE 1.8: Shield wires are the highest wires on a transmission line. FIGURE 1.9: The neutral wire is usually positioned below the phase conductors on a distribution line. Shield Wires Insulator Phase Conductors Phase Conductors Crossarm Insulator Neutral wire © JERRY LIGUORI © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE 18 | chapter 1 High Voltage: Alternating Current versus Direct Current Alternating current (AC) transmission and distribution systems are the world’s most prevalent type of line. AC transmission systems consist of three phases, each phase consists of 1 to 6 wires (two or more is a bun- dle). Three phases make a circuit, and a line may have more than one circuit. AC phases may be arranged either horizontally or vertically. As voltage increases, loss over distance decreases, but at some distance high voltage direct current (HVDC) becomes more efficient than high voltage alternating current (HVAC). HVDC transmission systems have a growing presence in the United States and the world. They are most effective in transmitting electricity long distances at high voltages (400 to 600 kV in North America and up to 800 kV in other countries). HVDC structure design is similar to HVAC designs, but with two poles instead of three phases (Figure 1.10). HVDC is transmitted on two bundled conductors known as positive and negative poles. The poles are spaced at least 9.1 meters (m) (30 feet [ft]) apart and are always arranged horizontally. Both systems require shield wires for lightning protec- tion. Most importantly, both systems have the same cautions for attaching collision-preventive devices, i.e., these devices may be applied to shield wires, but are not always compatible with energized lines ≥150 kV or as manufacturers have otherwise demonstrated. FIGURE 1.10: Typical high voltage direct current transmission line structures. Shield wire Monopole Structure Lattice Structure Shield Wire Conductor Bundle 120-160' 120-200' Conductor Bundle Energized Grounded SAMPLE MEETING ELECTRICAL POWER DEMANDS (LOAD REQUIREMENTS) A power line’s voltage, configuration, conduc- tor spacing, location, and structure type are determined by the present and anticipated power demands or load requirements the line will serve. Because electric utilities are required by law to provide reliable electrical service, they plan, fund, and build new power lines. If enough power is available in an area, then building new distribution lines can sometimes meet the increasing demand. Alternatively or additionally, transmission lines can be built to Introduction | 9 bring power to the load center from distant power generation facilities. Transmission line corridors are deter- mined by the location of power generation facilities and substations in relation to load centers. Within the corridor, the preferred and alternative routes are determined, among other things, by rights-of-way (ROWs) avail- ability, land use patterns, potential environ- mental impacts, terrain, archeological sites, proximity to habitable dwellings, and cross- ings over water, highways, and other power lines (see Planning New Power Lines in Chapter 5 for a discussion and illustration of the planning process). Different ROW widths are required for different transmission line voltage ratings; these are generally determined by state statutes and the National Electrical Safety Code. ROW widths are also a function of structure height, span length, the conductor height above ground, and the low point of the conductor. ROW widths for transmission lines will vary from 15.2 m (50 ft) to more than 60.9 m (200 ft). Because ROWs are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, Overhead versus Underground Power Lines Electric utilities install power lines either overhead or underground depending upon numerous considerations. Some key factors include customer needs, costs, code require- ments, terrain, voltage, and technological and environmental restrictions. Cost is a major concern as electric utilities have mandates to serve customers with high quality, reliable electric service at the lowest cost possible. Power lines, particularly residential dis- tribution lines, are installed underground in many areas throughout the country where it has been found technically and financially feasible to do so. However, at transmission voltages, there are many more areas where installing lines underground is not feasible (see Burying Power Lines on page 62). It becomes more practical to build them overhead as the voltage of the line increases. Therefore, the focus of this man- ual is to provide guidance for addressing issues associated with reducing collision risks on overhead power lines. Transmission Lines and Renewable Energy Current renewable energy mandates are leading to the development of wind, solar, and other renewable sources. Because these renewable energy sources are typically remote, new transmission lines are often needed to connect them to the grid and carry electricity to load centers. SAMPLE it is a common practice to increase the volt- age levels of lines in existing ROWs when statutes and safety allow. As voltages increase, the amount of power that can be transmitted 110 | chapter 1 increases by a greater multiple.2 Transmission voltages for carrying electricity long distances are generally in the range of 115 to 765 kV in the United States. FIGURE 1.11: Biologists gather data to assess the risk of bird collisions. 2 The carrying capacity of a line increases at a greater rate than the increase in voltage, i.e., one 765-kV circuit = three 500-kV circuits = six 345-kV circuits. Another advantage of higher voltage is that the voltage drop or loss over distance decreases as the voltage increases. PERSPECTIVES FOR DEALING WITH BIRD COLLISIONS A single approach is rarely successful in solv- ing a complicated, multi-faceted issue such as bird collisions with power lines. An integrat- ed approach that considers the biological, environmental, engineering, economic, and social and cultural perspectives of collisions is needed. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES Biologists generally focus on gathering data to better understand the problem and creat- ing solutions to minimize collision risk. Util- ity biologists and/or their consultants may be responsible for site evaluation studies and collision studies (see Chapters 5 and 6 and Appendix B). Site evaluation studies deter- mine baseline avian and habitat conditions and assess the possible collision risks to birds following power line construction. Collision studies can help determine reliable mortality rates and quantify the effectiveness of mea- sures taken to minimize collisions. Collecting high quality data is critical for collision studies. Utilities should plan their studies carefully, using methods and metrics that can be replicated to gather and analyze data. The data should be sufficient for use in estimating the likelihood of collisions and for measuring the effectiveness of collision reduction efforts. In addition, methods must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the species and site-specific conditions being studied and applied consistently throughout a study and between studies (Bevanger 1999; Barrientos et al. 2011). In most cases, the approach to these studies is based on type of information needed to make management decisions, determine if line modifications are effective, and/or identify areas of bird activity and high collision risk. In some cases, wildlife agencies may recom- mend specific studies or protocols, and it is advisable to obtain their comments on a study design. Utilities and their consultants should also consider peer review by independent sci- entists for the study findings, since the results may undergo rigorous legal cross-examination if the issue is litigated. Publication in a refer- eed scientific journal is encouraged because it makes the data more widely available and contributes to a greater resource pool for the development of study design methods. © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE Introduction | 11 ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE Engineering research, development, and design are essential in the integrated approach to preventing or minimizing bird/power line collisions. Utility engineers should work with biologists early in the design and routing process to identify the key collision issues (see Chapter 4) and to develop feasible collision reduction strategies when modifying existing lines and planning new lines (see Chapters 5 and 6). Early sci- ence-based site evaluations and avian risk assessments can be part of improving route selection and line configurations to minimize collision problems. This can reduce or elimi- nate the need for costly modifications after construction. Design decisions also include other factors such as cost, routing through public or private land, crew availability, and material availability; as a result, a less favor- able design for avian interactions may need to be used. FIGURE 1.12: Engineers work with biologists to reduce risk through appropriate design and routing of power facilities. ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE No integrated approach would be complete without considering the economics of con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a power line. The cost for bird friendly power lines and configurations needs to be included during the design phase and route selection. A cost benefit analysis of appropriate collision minimization designs and mitigation can be performed. The later in the process that a biological or engineering solution is initiated, the more difficult, time-consuming, and costly it can become. Since electrical reliability is mandated by utility commissions, avoiding power outages, including those caused by birds, is a priority for electric utilities. Early planning can help meet requirements for reli- ability, regulatory compliance, efficiency, public acceptance, and cost-effectiveness. © USDA/ARS SAMPLESOCIAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES In addition to cost and power reliability, the public may have concerns about power line design and placement, including esthetics, environmental effects, wildlife, and safety. Vandalism is also a persistent problem. Elec- trical components and line marking devices on power lines can become targets. Engaging the public may make it easier for a utility to meet the requirements of providing reliable electricity while reducing risks to birds. It can also reduce delays and costs associated with controversy and litigation (EEI 2001). Utilities and their consultants can use a variety of public participation tools to engage the public (see Chapter 5 and Appendix E). Used effectively, these tools can build positive relationships, increase public knowledge, identify and respond to public concerns early, and promote responsible behavior (e.g., discouraging vandalism of line marking devices). 112 | chapter 1 FIGURE 1.13: Engaging the public may help a utility meet requirements for electrical reliability and reduce collision risk to birds. © USFWS SAMPLE Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues | 13 2c h a p t e r 2 Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues UNITED STATES The first reported bird collision with overhead lines in the United States was documented in 1876 (Coues 1876); numerous bird carcasses, mostly horned larks (Eremophilia alpestris), were reported during one week in a 5.8-kilometer (km) (3-mile [mi]) section of an overhead telegraph line between Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Denver, Colorado. Coues indicated that such collisions had already been reported in Europe, although no references were given. Another early report of collisions with electric wires in the United States was documented in 1904 (Emerson 1904). Emerson reported that shorebirds, as well as a black rail (Lateral- lus jamaicensis), collided with electrical wires over a salt marsh and evaporation ponds in the San Francisco Bay area. Avery et al. (1980) provides an annotated bibliography of other early power line collision literature. Most collision studies have been published since the late 1970s and have led to a growing awareness among stakeholders. During the 1970s, Bonneville Power Administration conducted studies on reducing collisions with power lines (Lee and Meyer 1977; James and Haak 1980; and Beaulaurier 1981). Lee and Meyer (1977) proposed using devices such as image intensifiers for nocturnal observation and collision detectors that would measure the number of bird strikes on wires. They also suggested using thermal imaging, a rela- tively new technique at the time, to view birds and bats flying near power lines and wind turbines. Lee and his colleagues set a new scientific standard for studies of the interac- tion between birds in flight and power lines. In 1978 bird/power line issues were addressed at a national conference sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Much progress has been made since the 1970s in understanding and addressing bird collisions with power lines. This chapter recalls the conferences and studies that have occurred in North America and internationally. The major avian power line research organizations are introduced, along with future research priorities. IN THIS CHAPTER North America International Future Research Priorities chapter 2 | Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues | 13 NORTH AMERICA SAMPLE 214 | chapter 2 the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (Avery 1978).3 This conference was followed by a 1978 meeting at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) in Washington, D.C. There, EEI and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) discussed a research program on bird/power line interactions. EPRI funded an assessment of completed, ongoing, and planned research; an analysis of future research needs regarding the impact of power lines on birds in flight; and a series of studies aimed at developing different methods for measuring the impact of power lines on birds in flight. In 1989, a group of biologists represent- ing a wide range of utility interests, together with representatives from the USFWS and the National Audubon Society, formed the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC).4 APLIC, in cooperation with the USFWS, funded a study on the effectiveness of different types of line markers in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Such a study was needed because aerial marker spheres were commonly recommended for power lines where bird collision potential existed, although there were no data that established their effectiveness. Further details can be found in Brown and Drewien (1995). APLIC and EPRI were also instrumental in developing and providing funding for an international conference on bird interactions with utility structures (Miami, September 1992). The proceedings of that workshop included papers and case studies by researchers from various utilities and universities in the United States, Canada, South Africa, and India, and other organizations and agencies including the USFWS, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Navy. 3 Avery 1978 is the citation for the USFWS version of the proceedings; the original proceedings were documented by Oak Ridge Associated Universities. This reference will be noted as Avery 1978 in this document. 4 Founding APLIC utility members included Bonneville Power Administration, Edison Electric Institute, Central and South West Services (currently American Electric Power), Florida Power & Light Company, Houston Lighting and Power Company (currently CenterPoint), Nebraska Public Power District, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pacific Power & Light Company (currently Pacifi- Corp), Public Service Company of Colorado (currently Xcel Energy), San Luis Rural Electric Cooperatives, Southern California Edison Company, and Virginia Power (currently Dominion). A list of current APLIC members can be found at www.aplic.org. FIGURE 2.1: APLIC has helped fund studies on the effectiveness of different types of line marking devices in reducing bird collisions with power lines. © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues | 15 • Corona Testing Devices Used to Mitigate Bird Collisions (EDM 2004). • Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (Dorin and Spiegel 2005) • Preventing Raptor Electrocutions in an Urban Environment (Dwyer and Mannan 2007) • Evaluating and Reducing Avian Collisions with Distribution Power Lines at Cosumnes River Preserve (Yee 2007) • Bird Strike Indicator Field Deployment at the Audubon National Wildlife Refuge in North Dakota (Pandey et al. 2008) • Raptor and Corvid Response to Power Distribution Line Perch Deterrents in Utah (Prather and Messmer 2010) • Evaluating Diverter Effectiveness in Reducing Avian Collisions with Distribution Lines at San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Merced County, California (Ventana Wildlife Society 2009) • Contemporary Knowledge and Research Needs Regarding the Potential Effects of Tall Structures on Sage-grouse (UWIN Cooperative 2010) • Protocol for Investigating the Effects of Tall Structures on Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) Within Designated or Proposed Energy Corridors (UWIN 2011) • Line Marking Study near Coleharbor, ND, 2006-2008 (WAPA 2011) In 1994, APLIC published Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines (APLIC 1994) to compile the research on bird collision issues to date. Since then, research and reviews of this issue have continued. In 1999, EPRI held a workshop sponsored by APLIC and EEI entitled Avian Interactions with Utility and Communication Structures, which included papers and discussions on the bird collision issues these two industries face (see EPRI 2001). Every three to four years since 1976, electric utilities and utility organiza- tions including EEI, EPRI, and APLIC help sponsor the International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. This symposium often includes papers on bird collisions. APLIC also con- ducts avian protection workshops at its semi-annual business meetings and at other times through the year upon request (see www.aplic.org for information on upcoming workshops). Since the early 2000s, the California Ener- gy Commission (CEC) has sponsored a large number of research projects including identi- fication of research needs on avian collisions with power lines in California: A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Power Lines in California (Hunting 2002). CEC also has a searchable database on avian collision literature, An Annotated Bibliography of Avian Interactions with Utility Structures (CEC 2011). Other CEC, APLIC, and EPRI sponsored studies include: • Human-related Causes of Raptor Mortality in Western Montana: Things are not Always as They Seem (Olson 2001) • Bird Strike Indicator/Bird Activity Monitor and Field Assessment of Avian Fatalities (EPRI 2003) • Raptor and Raven Electrocutions in Northwestern Mexico (Cartron et al. 2004) Bibliographies of Collision Literature Appendix A of this manual includes the literature cited and a bibliography of collision literature. An annotated bibliography of early collision literature was provided by Avery et al. (1980). In addition, the California Energy Com- mission hosts a searchable database on collisions: On-Line Annotated Bibliography of Avian Interactions with Utility Structures (CEC 2011). SAMPLE CANADA The first reported bird collision in Canada was published by Blokpoel and Hatch (1976) after several thousand snow geese (Chen caerulescens) were flushed by an aircraft into a transmission line. The geese had been feeding on a stubble field near Winnipeg, Manitoba. Between 25 and 75 geese were reportedly injured or killed after striking the wires. Since then, there have been few published accounts of bird collisions in Canada. In 1997, the Blue Jay published a discussion on birds and power line risk (Curtis 1997). Other accounts can be found in proceedings from the Canadian hosted 5th and 7th International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management in Quebec (1993) and Alberta (2000). In 2007, a study on using a landscape-scale model to predict the risk of collisions in Alberta was completed (Heck 2007; Quinn et al. 2011). It examined the practicality of using GIS spatial modeling to predict areas with elevated collision frequency across large, existing electric service territories. 216 | chapter 2 Bird/power line interaction knowledge is growing in Canada and more emphasis is being placed on identifying the root cause in relation to a utility’s reliability issues. The cause of many outages has been identified as a direct result of wildlife interactions, including birds. Many utilities are also installing line marking devices in areas where collisions have been reported or suspected. Depending on the species, collisions with power lines may be violations of federal and provincial wildlife laws (see Chapter 3) and can result in penalties. Most bird species present in Canada are migratory and are very often the same species present in the United States and subject to many of the same collision risks, which stem from the same biological, environmental, and engineering factors outlined in Chapter 4. Although Canada has wildlife laws in place, as of 2011 there is not a Canadian organization addressing the management of bird interactions with power lines; so Canadi- an companies have turned to American utili- ties for support by joining APLIC. In 2012, the first APLIC workshop in Canada was held in Banff. Electric utility representatives, consultants, contractors, and government regulators from across the country attended. In addition to legal requirements and due diligence, Canadian companies have recognized that bird collisions need to be minimized for environmental, public relations, and public health reasons. Through increased manage- ment of avian collision issues, companies have been better able to demonstrate to utility staff, regulators, and the public, their commit- ment to reducing utility impacts on birds. MEXICO In Mexico, the USFWS has been working with officials of the Mexican government through the Trilateral Committee of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the FIGURE 2.2: In Canada, the first reported collision victims were snow geese. © DAVE MANKE, USFWS SAMPLE Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues | 17 Important collision research has been con- ducted in Europe, Asia, and Africa. In 2003, BirdLife International prepared the guide Protecting Birds from Power Lines: A practical guide on the risks to birds from electricity transmission facilities and how to minimize any such adverse effect (BirdLife International 2003). It reviewed the risks from power lines, including collisions, and recommended standards to protect birds, siting considerations, use of underground power lines, hiding or obscuring power lines against more prominent landscape features, and the use of line marking devices. In 2007, BirdLife International developed a policy position statement on the risks to birds from transmission lines (BirdLife International 2007). In 2009, the Council of Europe issued Follow-up Recommendation No 110, 2004 (Schuerenberg et al. 2009) on minimizing adverse effects of power lines on birds. It reviews standards and retrofitting methods and provides an exhaustive list of actions taken by 26 European countries. In 2011, the United Nations Environ- ment Programme (UNEP) for the African- Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) released a Review of the Conflict between Migratory Birds and Electricity Power Grids in the African- Eurasian Region (CMS 2011a) and the Guide- lines for Mitigating Conflict between Migratory Birds and Electricity Power Grids (CMS 2011b). CMS (2011a) provides a summary of colli- sion issues and hot spots in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Also in 2011, the Budapest Decla- ration on Bird Protection and Power Lines (MME 2011) was adopted by the participants of the Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico, Partners in Flight, and the National Wind Coordinat- ing Collaborative to help Mexico better address avian collision and electrocution issues. These efforts are also tied to Mexico’s land-based wind energy development, which includes power line issues (R. Villegas- Patraca, pers. comm.; A. Manville, pers. comm.; Mexico Institute of Ecology and USFWS, unpubl. reports, respectively). INTERNATIONAL Budapest Conference, Power Lines and Bird Mortality in Europe. The declaration aims for all new construction of power poles to be bird-safe by 2016 and all dangerous poles to be retrofitted by 2020. The conference was attended by 123 participants from 29 Euro- pean and Central Asian countries, the Euro- pean Commission, UNEP AWEA, six energy and utility companies, experts, businesses, and non-government organizations. In Asia, the risk of bird collisions with power lines is being recognized as more studies are conducted on bird electrocutions associated with new power line structures. For example, in Mongolia, while performing a review of raptor electrocutions on new con- crete poles with metal crossarms, researchers found that Pallas’ sandgrouse (Syrrhaptes para- doxus) were killed after colliding with power lines during an unusual seasonal relocation (Gombobaatar et al. 2010). In Uzbekistan, systematic collision moni- toring using standard protocols has not been conducted and therefore reported mortalities can only be considered anecdotal. However, these observations have shown that certain species are more susceptible to collisions and/ or electrocutions. It is known that during spring and autumn migration, medium and large size birds collide with or are electrocut- ed on the power lines, which include rare and declining species like the steppe eagle (Aquila nipalensis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), short-toed eagle (Circaetus gallicus), and Saker falcon (Falco cherrug) (Abdunazarov 1987; Shernazarov and Lanovenko 1994). SAMPLE In Kazakhstan, researchers found 409 bird carcasses of 34 different species during a 2006 sur- vey of power line mortality. Many deaths were due to electrocutions and 44% were raptors. Deaths due to collisions were also noted (Lasch et al. 2010). The great bustard (Otis tarda), which once ranged from Manchuria to Portu- gal, is now extirpated or endangered across much of the conti- nent because of habitat loss, disease, and mortality from power line collisions (Janss and Ferrer 2000; Garcia-Montijanoi et al. 2002; Alonso and Martin 2005). It is one of the world’s heaviest flying birds with a maximum weight of 21 kilograms (46 pounds). As a result, great bustards maneuver slowly in flight and are not able to avoid wires spotted at the last moment. Collisions have been observed by researchers in Mongolia (Kessler 2007). The research group notes that great bustard collisions with power lines are a common occurrence in developed Western Europe and are becoming more frequent in China. In South Africa, The Endangered Wildlife Trust has a Wildlife & Energy Program that coordinates and sponsors research on bird/power line interactions (EWT 2011) (see Appendix E). This includes a study on the vision characteristics of the Ludwig’s bustard (Neotis ludwigii) and blue crane (Anthropoides paradiseus) with respect to their ability to see power lines while in flight and how to reduce the collision risk for these species. It also includes a range-wide study of the collision rates of the Ludwig’s bustard.5 In Kenya, a 2009 risk assessment of bird interactions with electrical infrastructure identified several sites of high collision risk to birds of conservation concern. These species included the grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum), lesser flamingo (Phoeniconaias minor), white stork (Ciconia ciconia), secretary- bird (Sagittarius serpentarius), and a number of vultures and raptors (Smallie and Virani 2010). 218 | chapter 2 5 The range of the Ludwig’s bustard includes Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and South Africa. FIGURE 2.3: Researchers have studied the effects of power line collisions on vulnerable species, such as the Ludwig’s bustard of Europe, Asia, and Africa. © HANS HILLEWAERT/CC-BY-SA-3.0 SAMPLE As more power lines are built across the land- scape, collision risk is anticipated to increase. Yet, this risk may be offset through assessment of potential avian impacts during siting and route selection, improved line marking devices and study methods, and increased awareness among stakeholders. With the continued growth in power line mileage, more collision research is needed. Because of the susceptibility of some endangered species, such as the whoop- ing crane (Grus americana) and California con- dor (Gymnogyps californianus), power lines in these species’ ranges will require careful evaluation and routing in addition to line marking devices and/or other collision reduction measures. National and international collaboration on bird/utility interactions has increased marked- ly since the late 1990s. Guidelines for the development of Avian Protection Plans are a Progress in Dealing with Collision Issues | 19 product of this collaboration (see Chapter 7). Electric utilities are increasingly adopting avian protection policies, plans, and conser- vation measures, and APLIC will continue to provide guidance on bird collision issues. Cooperation in addressing collision issues will continue between electric utilities and wildlife agencies. This relationship will advance the collision risk reduction measures discussed in this manual (see Chapters 5 and 6). Regional and species-specific studies of collision mortality and methods for minimiz- ing collisions would be especially helpful. At this time there is no organized attempt to understand the extent and magnitude of collision mortality from power lines. Current knowledge of collisions is geographically, regionally, and site biased because most studies have been conducted on lines with known collision problems. In addition, avian/power line collision risk is not uniformly distributed because it is highly dependent on species and habitat variables. Bevanger (1999) recommend- ed several areas of investigation that combine well-planned observational studies with experimental studies rather than non-standard- ized collision records that cannot be scientifi- cally or statistically compared. Recent studies on the effectiveness of line markers (e.g., Yee 2008 and Murphy et al. 2009) follow these recommendations. Standardized protocols for monitoring mortality at communication towers (e.g., Manville 2002, 2009b; Gehring et al. 2009) and wind turbines (e.g., CalWEA 2011) could also provide models that could be adapted for power line mortality assessments. The effectiveness of line marking devices needs further study. In particular, more research is required to determine the device and spacing best suited to different environ- mental conditions and species. Except for studies sponsored by the CEC and APLIC (e.g., Ventana Wildlife Society 2009; Yee 2008; WAPA 2011) relatively few systematic studies have looked at the comparative effectiveness FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES FIGURE 2.4: Because of the susceptibility of some endangered species, such as the whooping crane, power lines in these species’ ranges require careful evaluation and routing. © LAURA C. WILLIAMS SAMPLE 220 | chapter 2 Funding Organizations for Collision Research APLIC, EPRI, and CEC are three organizations that provide some funding for research on avian/power line interactions (see Appendix E). The USFWS conducts limited primary research and funds state research through Section 6 Endangered Species Act grants. APLIC funds research projects that further the knowledge of avian/power line interactions including: of different line marking devices. Barrientos et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of line marking studies, discussed the limita- tions, and provided recommendations for more scientifically rigorous evaluations. In addition, no systematic comparison of the effectiveness of these devices with different species, in different habitats, or in different weather conditions has been conducted. As new styles of line markers continue to be developed and existing markers are modified, associated effectiveness testing will be needed. FIGURE 2.5: APLIC, EPRI, and CEC are three organizations that provide some funding for research on avian/power line interactions. • Assessments of collision and/or electrocution rates associated with power lines • Risk assessments to identify factors contributing to collisions and electrocution mortality risks for different species • Evaluations of impacts of power line construction on bird species EPRI’s research priorities emphasize information and monitoring systems that will improve under- standing of and mitigating for avian interactions with utility facilities. These include the Bird Activity Monitoring System and avian vision studies that may help develop more effective collision prevention devices. The CEC (Hunting 2002) identified a number of research priorities that still apply today and need to be considered to better understand avian collisions with power lines. These include: • Standardizing mortality estimation • Testing and documenting the efficacy of line marking devices • Testing and documenting the efficacy and limitations of remote collision detection devices • Determining collision risk levels associated with potential high avian-use habitats • Monitoring and reporting over the long term © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE Avian Regulations and Compliance | 21 3c h a p t e r 3 Avian Regulations and Compliance UNITED STATES Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–712) is the legal cornerstone of migratory bird conservation and protection in the United States. It is a strict liability statute, meaning that proof of intent is not required in the prosecution of a taking (injuring or killing) violation. Most actions that result in taking or possessing a protected species, its nest, parts, and/or eggs are violations. The MBTA states: “Unless and except as permitted by regulations...it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill... possess, offer for sale, sell...purchase...ship, export, import...transport or cause to be transported...any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product ...composed in whole or in part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof....” Generally speaking, the MBTA protects the majority of birds that nest in North America (50 CFR 10.13). As of 2012 there were 1,007 bird species on the list of migratory bird species protected under the MBTA. The list includes waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, wading birds, raptors, and songbirds. The 1972 MBTA amendment extended protec- tion to birds of prey—eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls—and to corvids, such as crows and ravens. However, the MBTA does not protect non-migratory upland game birds (such as grouse and quail) or introduced species such as house (English) sparrows (Passer domesticus), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeons (common/feral pigeons, Columba livia), monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus), and 121 other less commonly encountered species that have been excluded from protec- tion by the MBTA (USFWS 2005a [70 Fed. Reg. 49, 15 March 2005]). Most native North American birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additional statutes provide further protection for bald and golden eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus and Aquila chrysaetos) and birds that are threatened or endangered. This chapter describes United States’ and Canada’s federal regulations that protect these birds, their habitat, and the corresponding conservation and permitting measures. IN THIS CHAPTER Overview of Existing Laws and Policies Permit Requirements chapter 3 | Avian Regulations and Compliance | 21 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LAWS AND POLICIES SAMPLE 322 | chapter 3 An individual, which can mean a corpora- tion or other organization, who violates the MBTA may be fined up to $15,000 and/or imprisoned for up to six months for a misde- meanor conviction. An individual who know- ingly takes any migratory bird with the intent to sell, offer to sell, barter, or offer to barter such bird or who knowingly sells, offers for sale, barters, or offers to barter any migratory bird is subject to a felony violation with fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years. The MBTA has no provision for permitting incidental or accidental take. Federal agencies taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations are directed by Executive Order 13186 (3 CFR 2001; Office of the President 2001. [66 Fed. Reg. 11, 17 January 2001]) to develop and implement a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. This includes federal agencies’ power line infrastructure-related collisions and electrocu- tions of protected birds. To date (2012), MOUs have been signed by the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, U.S. For- est Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service/Bureau of Ocean Energy Manage- ment, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with others under development. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668–668d) provides additional protection to these eagle species. If a proposed project or action would occur in areas where nesting, feeding, or roosting eagles occur, then utilities may need to take additional conservation measures to achieve compliance with the BGEPA. The BGEPA prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by per- mit ([16 USC 668(a)]. Take under this statute is defined as “to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poi- son, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb” (50 CFR 22.3). Programmatic take is defined as “take that (1) is recurring, but not caused solely by indirect effects, and (2) occurs over the long-term and/or in a loca- tion or locations that cannot be specifically identified” (50 CFR 22.26). Disturb is defined as “to agitate, or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is like- ly to cause, based on the best scientific infor- mation available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.3). Violators may be fined up FIGURE 3.1: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is the legal cornerstone of bird protection in the United States, protecting more than 1,000 North American bird species such as this cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum). © BILL THOMPSON, USFWS SAMPLE Avian Regulations and Compliance | 23 the USFWS will not authorize take for golden eagles east of approximately 100° west longitude, except for take of nests for safety emergency situations (USFWS 2009a). Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) protects the United States’ native plants and animals that are in danger of becoming extinct and may also protect their habitats. Federal agencies are directed to use their authority to conserve listed and candidate6 species and to ensure that their actions do not further jeopardize these species or adversely modify designated critical habitat for them. The law is admin- istered by the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the NMFS oversees endangered marine life. These two agencies work with other agencies to plan or modify federal projects to minimize project impacts on listed species and their habitats. Protection is also gained through USFWS’ financial and technical assistance partnerships with states, tribes, and private landowners. Section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful for a person to take a listed species. Take under the ESA is defined as “...to harass,7 harm, 8 pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The ESA authorizes the USFWS to issue Incidental Take Permits (ITP) for take resulting from otherwise legal activity. Section 10 of the ESA allows Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) for the con- to $100,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. Individuals with subsequent convic- tions or who commit intentional takes face penalties of up to $250,000 and/or two years imprisonment. The BGEPA has been amended to provide a permit for non-purposeful take, including take resulting in disturbance and limited take resulting in mortality that may occur as a result of otherwise lawful activities, provided the breeding populations are stable or increasing. Because there are no breeding populations in the eastern United States that can sustain take, 6 Candidate species are those in decline which may be added to the list of threatened and endangered species in the near future. 7 Harass is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission, which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly impair normal behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). 8 Harm is defined as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation when it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). FIGURE 3.2: Habitat Conservation Plans help landowners incorporate conservation measures for species, such as the wood stork (Mycteria americana), into their development plans. © NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC. SAMPLE struction and management of facilities, e.g., transmission lines, on private lands that are used by endangered species. These plans help landowners incorporate conservation measures into their land and/or water development plans. Landowners who develop and implement HCPs can also receive ITPs that allow their activities to proceed with authorization for limited take. State Policies and Regulations States have additional bird protection regulations. A utility should consult with its respective state wildlife agency to determine whether more regulations apply and if permits are required. 324 | chapter 3 CANADA Migratory Birds Convention Act The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) of 1917 and amended 1994 (1994, c.22) is Canada’s equivalent of the United States’ MBTA (1918), which provides legal protection for migratory birds. One notable exception is raptors, which are protected by provincial and territorial wildlife acts instead of MBCA. The MBCA satisfies the terms of the Migratory Birds Convention of 1916, when both countries recognized concerns about overhunting waterfowl and shorebirds. The MBCA recognizes three classifications of protected birds: migratory game birds, migra- tory insectivorous birds, and migratory non- game birds. It further lists them by family and gives examples. In Canada, the MBCA is administered by the Wildlife Enforcement Division of Environment Canada in cooperation with provincial and territorial governments. Enforcement of the Act is made in concert with the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and provin- cial and territorial enforcement authorities. The MBCA and its associated regulations state that “No person shall hunt a migratory bird except under authority of a permit,” and “Subject to subsection 5(9), no person shall (a) disturb, destroy, or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird, or (b) have in his possession a live migratory bird, or a carcass, skin, nest or egg of a migratory bird.” Individuals, which includes corporations, who violate the MBCA and associated regulations may be subject to a fine of up to $300,000 and/or six months imprisonment. Upon summary conviction or upon indict- ment, fines of up to $1,000,000 and/or two years imprisonment may be applied. FIGURE 3.3: Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are protected by both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Canada’s equivalent, the Migratory Birds Convention Act. © JERRY LIGUORI SAMPLE Avian Regulations and Compliance | 25 Species at Risk Act The Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) was enacted in 2003. The objective of SARA is to protect native species from extinction, ensure measures are taken for the recovery of threatened or endangered species, and encourage best management practices for maintaining healthy populations. SARA adopted the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as an advisory body to assess potentially at-risk wildlife species, identify existing and potential threats to the species, and classify the status of the species (i.e., extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, of special concern, or not currently at risk). Established in 1977, COSEWIC is an inde- pendent committee of wildlife experts and scientists from federal, provincial and territor- ial governments, universities, and non-govern- ment organizations that uses the best available science to support its recommendations. Under SARA, the government of Canada will take COSEWIC’s designations into consider- ation when establishing the legal list of wildlife species at risk (COSEWIC 2009). SARA states that “No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpat- ed species, an endangered species or a threat- ened species.” However, SARA does make allowance for the incidental take of animals through the issuance of permits (similar to the ESA in the United States). Provincial Policy and Regulations Federal and provincial governments have worked together to develop complementary policy and programs to protect species at risk. For example, the Alberta Wildlife Act and Regulations seek to protect wildlife whereby “a person shall not hunt wildlife unless the person holds a licence authorizing 9 The term “house” includes artificial structures such as bird boxes and nesting platforms. the person, or is authorized by or under a licence, to hunt wildlife of that kind.” The legislation also states that “a person shall not wilfully molest, disturb or destroy a house, 9 nest or den of prescribed wildlife” where wildlife is defined as “big game, birds of prey, fur bearing animals, migratory game birds, non game animals, non-licence animals and upland game birds.” Similarly, other provinces have enacted legislation for the protection of wildlife, including birds. INTERNATIONAL POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS Since 2000, there has been an increasing international awareness of the issue of bird collisions for certain species. International conventions and policies (see CMS 2011a) that are relevant to bird collisions include: • Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, List of Wetlands of International Importance • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) • MOU on the Convention of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia • MOU on the Conservation and Management of the Middle-European Population of the Great Bustard • Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) • Various European Union Directives These agreements have resulted in research, reviews, and guidance on bird collisions that may provide some further insight into bird collisions. SAMPLE UNITED STATES Federal and state permits may be required for activities that may affect species protected by the MBTA, BGEPA, ESA, or state laws. For species protected by the MBTA, utilities are encouraged to contact their regional USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Office and their state wildlife agency to identify permit require- ments and, if necessary, obtain permit appli- cations. For species protected by the ESA and BGEPA, utilities must contact their USFWS Ecological Services field office. Migratory Bird Permits Migratory bird permits are issued by the regional USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Offices. Permits are issued for falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collection, reha- bilitation, conservation education, migratory game bird propagation, salvage, take of depre- dating birds, taxidermy, waterfowl sale and disposal, and special purpose. Annual report- ing to the USFWS is required as a condition of each permit. Policy for migratory bird permits is developed by the Division of Migratory Bird Management. The regula- tions governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR part 13, General Permit Procedures, and 50 CFR part 21, Migratory Bird Permits. In 2003, the USFWS issued a memoran- dum clarifying the definition of take under the MBTA as it applies to active nests (nests con- taining eggs or young). Under the MBTA, the collection, possession, and transfer of inactive bird nests requires a permit, but the destruc- tion of nests that do not contain eggs or birds is permissible. This does not apply to eagles or species listed by the ESA, whose active and inactive nests are protected. The memo also stated that the USFWS may issue permits for the removal of occupied nests when public safety is at risk (see 50 CFR 21.27). Bald and Golden Eagle Permits BGEPA permits are administered by the regional USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Offices in coordination with the Division of Migratory Bird Management’s Washington, D.C. office and the local Ecological Services field office where an eagle take might occur. Under BGEPA (50 CFR parts 22.26 and 22.27), the USFWS can issue permits to take bald eagles and golden eagles or their nests, where the taking is associated with, but not the purpose of, the activity and cannot practica- bly be avoided. Permits may be authorized for non-purposeful take, which includes take result- ing in disturbance or limited take resulting in mor- tality provided the breeding