Wildlife mitigation, a cornerstone practice for many rural electric cooperatives, can meaningfully and economically reduce wildfire ignition risk when strategically implemented. Wildfires ignited by power lines can cause extensive property damage and loss of human life, and are a pressing concern for electric utilities serving fire-prone areas. Cooperatives are adapting to compounding fire risks by developing Wildfire Mitigation Plans that focus resources on the most fire-prone and damage-susceptible areas in their service territories. Recent research makes a compelling case that wildlife electrocutions are more common than outage records might suggest. Any electrocution involves one or more thermal events that could ignite a wildfire via a smoldering carcass or expulsion fuse operation. Avian Protection Plans are used to reduce the risks of bird electrocutions on overhead power lines. Synergies between Wildfire Mitigation Plans and Avian Protection Plans facilitate strategic wildlife mitigation that reduces wildfire risk, improves reliability, enhances regulatory compliance, and generates positive stakeholder engagement. Electrocution risk analyses can identify specific poles in high wildfire areas where wildlife ignition risk is 5–8 times greater than normal. Mitigation strategies that cooperatives have used for decades to reduce raptor electrocutions can be applied in high fire areas to reduce ignition risk by a wide suite of small and large species. In certain cases, high risk pole mitigation can be subsidized by third party conservation grants. Focused wildlife mitigation is an important strategy that uses proven tactics and familiar materials to help harden the system against wildfire ignition risk at a manageable cost.

Many power pylons in raptor habitat pose high electrocution risk to raptors, which can be mitigated with insulation products. Retrofitting may require a service outage and can be expensive; labor costs are often far greater than materials. Because concrete, steel and, wood pylons often last for 50 years or more, utilities that select high quality raptor mitigation products receive much greater yield on their investment. To maximize mitigation success, utility engineers should consider specific environmental stresses that may affect product longevity and effectiveness in their service area. IEEE 1656–2010 – IEEE Guide (DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.5722090)40 for Testing the Electrical, Mechanical, and Durability Performance of Wildlife Protective Devices on Overhead Power Distribution Systems Rated up to 38 kV recommends a sequence of test procedures designed to ensure that products will not compromise system performance and that products will be effective and durable despite long-term exposure to UV, high winds, and/or salt fog. A growing number of vendors have performed IEEE 1656 testing, which facilitates direct comparison between competing products; however, test reports must be carefully reviewed because not all vendors have strictly followed IEEE guidance. Field implementation is a key determinant of project success, therefore linemen should have an opportunity to test candidate products in real-world situations and assess whether they are easy to install within utility safety and work practices and are compatible with the system. The goal of wildlife mitigation product selection is to identify an optimal suite of products that will: a) minimize the possibility of an animal electrocution or related outage; b) provide a long service life; and c) be readily adopted by field staff.

In the United States, the bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus and golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the species are stable or increasing while allowing for potentially negative effects from anthropogenic sources. Compensatory mitigation, through retrofitting high-risk power poles to reduce electrocutions, can be used to offset negative effects, enabling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to achieve their management objectives of species stability and persistence. Regulators, permit holders, electric utilities, and consultants lack an objective and repeatable method for discriminating between high-risk and low-risk power poles. To illustrate the importance of accurately identifying and retrofitting high-risk poles, we compare conservation benefits among three retrofitting project scenarios: 1) high-risk poles only, 2) a circuit of both low- and high-risk poles, and 3) low-risk poles only. We assert that, in the absence of a common definition of high-risk power poles applied uniformly across the landscape, mitigation approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could fall short of its intended value and be unable to meet management objectives. We define high-risk poles in the context of compensatory mitigation as poles in high-quality bald or golden eagle habitat with a relative risk index > 0.40 based on number of phases, number of jumper wires, and presence of pole grounding. We estimate that the conservation benefit of retrofitting a high-risk pole is at least 5.25 times greater than the benefit of retrofitting a low-risk pole. In the long-term, if compensatory mitigation intended to achieve management objectives falls short of its assumed conservation value, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could be forced to limit future permit authorizations until bald or golden eagles can recover from incorrectly calculated conservation benefits. To avoid that negative outcome, we recommend that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set consistent and transparent standards for identifying poles to count as compensatory mitigation credit using our proposed definition of a high-risk power pole.

From 2002 to 2003, the Colorado Rural Electric Association (CREA ) led the development of avian protection plans (APPs) with avian risk assessments (ARA s) for 21 cooperatives, two municipal utilities, and the Public Service Company of Colorado (now known as Xcel Energy). Making use of the best mapping and data collection tools of the day, these documents offered guidance on avian management and mitigation to improve avian safety and system reliability. These tailored APPs leveraged shared and utilityspecific content to meet the unique needs of each utility, while remaining affordable to small providers. The CREA project leveraged available efficiencies to deliver 24 utilityspecific APPs at a far lower cost than would have been possible had each APP been developed separately. Due to this large-scale, visionary effort, the vast majority of Colorado's power lines are covered by an APP. To our knowledge, no group of independent utilities had developed tailored APPs for more than a decade after the CREA project.

Avian electrocutions on power poles (hereafter, poles) are a global conservation concern, particularly for large-bodied species like Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). Retrofitting poles through increasing clearances (separation) between components, adding insulation to components, or adding redirection materials like perch discouragers reduces risk, but electrocutions may occur even on retrofitted poles. We evaluated 52 retrofitted poles where 56 birds, including 17 Golden Eagles, were electrocuted after retrofitting. We used burns on pole equipment and carcasses to identify precise pole-top locations where electrocutions occurred, and we identified three categories of retrofitting errors: product design, mitigation plan, and application. Product design errors (n = 9 poles, 6 Golden Eagles) occurred when products did not sufficiently cover energized equipment. Mitigation plan errors (n = 30 poles, 6 Golden Eagles) occurred when retrofitting plans did not include coverage of all energized components on a pole. Application errors (n = 13 poles, 5 Golden Eagles) occurred when the correct products were installed incorrectly. Retrofitting mistakes were identified in this study retroactively when avian electrocutions occurred on poles described as retrofitted. This is typical of how retrofitting mistakes are identified by the electric industry, which can lead to expensive duplicate efforts, and ongoing avian electrocutions. These can be avoided if retrofitting is done correctly initially. This study provides insight to electric utility personnel and wildlife managers interested in proactively evaluating the thoroughness of retrofitting, facilitating immediate identification and correction of retrofitting errors, increasing cost effectiveness, and reducing avian electrocution mortality.

ABSTRACT Raptor and corvid electrocutions cause continental conservation concerns for breeding, migrating, and wintering birds. Although concerns are widespread, mitigation is implemented primarily at local scales of individual electric utilities. By not considering landscape‐scale patterns, conservation strategies may fail to focus mitigation where efforts are needed most. To enable resource managers to consider electrocution risk at larger scales, we developed a regional model of distribution power pole (pole) density in a grid of 1‐km 2 cells throughout Colorado and Wyoming. To do so, we obtained data on pole locations from a sample of electric utilities covering 31% of Colorado and Wyoming, and developed a predictive model of poles throughout the remainder of the 2 states. Pole density was influenced by road lengths, number of oil and gas wells, slope, development, and land cover. Poles were densest in areas with high road lengths, high numbers of wells, and relatively flat terrain, and in areas developed for agriculture or human residences. When model predictions are viewed together with species‐specific habitat maps, locations where high pole densities overlap habitat suggest areas where mitigating electrocution risk could be prioritized. Communication between resource managers and local utilities could then clarify the poles that caused the highest risk to raptors from electrocution. Thus, the model provides a framework for systematic spatial prioritization in support of regional conservation planning to minimize electrocution of raptors and corvids. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

In 2002 and 2003, the Colorado Rural Electric Association (CREA) led the development of Avian Protection Plans (APPs) with Avian Risk Assessments (ARAs) for 21 cooperatives, two municipal utilities, and Public Service of Colorado. These "tailored" APPs leveraged shared and utilityspecific content to meet the specific needs of each utility, while remaining affordable to small providers. The documents offered guidance on avian management and mitigation to improve avian safety and system reliability, and made use of the best mapping and data collection tools of the day. In 2014, the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) contracted EDM International, Inc (EDM) to develop tailored APPs on behalf of 19 member utilities. The UAMPS project used CartoPac Mobile software for field data collection. CartoPac incorporated EDM's project-specific user interface to calculate relative pole hazard in real time, based on key input variables described in the peerreviewed literature, CartoPac also captured pole locations and recorded structure-specific retrofit recommendations. The project achieved significant cost savings by sharing relevant document content, streamlining project management, field work efficiencies, and using the CartoPac platform for mobile data collection. The savings made the benefits of a comprehensive and innovative APP accessible even to small utilities, and provided utility-specific guidance for each operator. These 19 tailored APPs should improve system reliability and reduce violations of federal avian protections laws. The tailored APP approach, with mobile field data collection for the ARA, is a potential template for statewide or regional groups of rural electric cooperatives or other small electricity providers.