The Pantanal (a large wetland biome) concentrates the greatest cumulative susceptibility due to the high number of species vulnerable to electrocution (i.e. We applied this framework to Brazil, identifying 283 species that face a risk of electrocution, of which 38 were classified as higher risk, mostly raptors (76%). Here, we developed a framework to model the risk of bird electrocution as an interaction between the species‐specific exposure to power lines (pole density within a species distribution range) and susceptibility (morphological and behavioral traits associated with electrocution hazards). Generating information over large scales without resorting to local mortality data can be useful for the development of regional management strategies, particularly in countries where electrocution is poorly documented. However, there is a general lack of knowledge on the risk of bird electrocution, especially in developing countries. Besides impacts on bird populations, electrocutions cause power outages, resulting in damage to power line network integrity. ![]() Fish and Wildlife Service set consistent and transparent standards for identifying poles to count as compensatory mitigation credit using our proposed definition of a high-risk power pole.Įlectrocution on power lines is an important human‐related cause of bird mortality and an important conservation issue worldwide. To avoid that negative outcome, we recommend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could be forced to limit future permit authorizations until bald or golden eagles can recover from incorrectly calculated conservation benefits. In the long-term, if compensatory mitigation intended to achieve management objectives falls short of its assumed conservation value, the U.S. We estimate that the conservation benefit of retrofitting a high-risk pole is at least 5.25 times greater than the benefit of retrofitting a low-risk pole. We define high-risk poles in the context of compensatory mitigation as poles in high-quality bald or golden eagle habitat with a relative risk index ≥0.40 based on number of phases, number of jumper wires, and presence of pole grounding. Fish and Wildlife Service could fall short of its intended value and be unable to meet management objectives. We assert that, in the absence of a common definition of high-risk power poles applied uniformly across the landscape, mitigation approved by the U.S. To illustrate the importance of accurately identifying and retrofitting high-risk poles, we compare conservation benefits among three retrofitting project scenarios: a) high-risk poles only, b) a circuit of both low- and high-risk poles, and c) low-risk poles only. Regulators, permit holders, electric utilities, and consultants lack an objective and repeatable method for discriminating between high-risk and low-risk power poles. Fish and Wildlife Service to achieve their management objectives of species stability and persistence. ![]() Compensatory mitigation, through retrofitting high-risk power poles to reduce electrocutions, can be used to offset negative effects, enabling the U.S. In the United States, the bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus and golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos are federally managed to ensure the species are stable or increasing while allowing for potentially negative effects from anthropogenic sources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |