DPW038539P_-_Specification_-_WSMR_Avian_Protection_Plan_187-375.pdf

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 10-16

10.4.3 Engineering Considerations

Given current pressures to ensure electrical reliability and minimize regulatory scrutiny, it is important to complete due diligence in an attempt to minimize avian collision risks with overhead lines. Therefore, it is beneficial to implement solutions with a proven track record or thoroughly test potential products and approaches before implementing them on critical facilities and, thereby, reduce the potential for forced or scheduled outages.

Prior to installing diverters, a structural analysis on the line where marking is proposed should be performed. If the static wire or structures cannot safely support the additional load plus appropriate safety factors for all design conditions, then alternate solutions must be evaluated. Alternate solutions may consist of reducing the number of diverters or delaying installation until that particular segment of line is rebuilt (for routine replacement or capacity upgrade) (Figure 10-21).

Worker safety also is considered when selecting methods of access to the site and installation If worker safety cannot be maintained, then diverters are not installed until that particular segment of line is rebuilt (for routine replacement or capacity upgrade).

Advances in collision mitigation are ongoing, and include new products, product deployment strategies, and species of concern. WSMR personnel should periodically review new technologies and strategies to ensure that the most effective strategies are selected if collision risks are identified and devices are deployed.

Figure 10-21. Installing SFDs with a helicopter.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-1

11.0 NEST MANAGEMENT

Migratory birds and their nests are protected as described in Section 6.6.2.2

Migratory Birds. Before taking any action involving a nest, refer to the WSMR nest management procedures flowchart (Figure 6-2) and contact the Environmental Division.

Chapter 6.0 Management Procedures and WSMR Reporting Systems details WSMR’s regulatory processes and internal reporting requirements. This chapter describes how to manage nesting problems only after the regulatory requirements have been met.

11.1 Introduction

Nests located on power poles, particularly smaller distribution lines, cause a number of problems for utilities and for birds. Nest material, debris, excrement, and prey items can cause power outages, flashovers, equipment contamination, pole fires, bird electrocutions, and loss of eggs or young (Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2). Some birds, including Chihuahuan Ravens, may build nests with conductive materials, such as fence wire, which increases the risk of a fire or outage. Outside the nesting season, nests deteriorate and storms may blow them off the unity structures. As deteriorating nests collapse, the debris also may cause outages.

Figure 11-1. Problem Red-tailed Hawk nest on an unprotected distribution line.

Figure 11-2. Problem Osprey nest on a distribution line.

Unfortunately, nest removal typically does not solve the problem because many species will rebuild at the same location. However, the use of artificial nest platforms along with nest relocation may effectively mitigates nesting problems on power line structures for some species. Stick deflectors (refer to Section 11.3 Stick Deflectors) can be used to further discourage nesting on problem structures.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-2

Nesting issues on larger transmission structures include contamination of insulating strings, nesting debris flashovers, and outages (Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4).

Although these photos reflect use of steel lattice structures by nesting birds, the same issues and resolutions would apply to wood transmission and distribution structures.

Relocating a nest to a different part of a structure that mimics the original site is one method used to move birds away from a critical area, particularly for the larger transmission structures. Cover-up materials should be installed on insulators or conductors to provide additional protection. These two methods, combined with perch management in areas of concern, can minimize operational issues and adverse impacts to birds.

Figure 11-3. Bald Eagle nest on a transmission line structure.

Figure 11-4. Bald Eagle nest and debris on a transmission line structure.

When nesting birds are present on utility structures, line access for maintenance can be restricted. Birds can be aggressive when defending their territory or nest (Figure 11-5) and may try to drive away workers. With their sharp beaks and talons, raptors can inflict serious injuries. It is also important to note that eagles have an elevated layer of protection making it a federal violation to even disturb eagles or their nests (without a permit).

11.2 Nest Platforms

Raptors often have a strong attachment to their nest sites and can be prevalent on power line structures. They will attempt to re-nest at sites where they successfully raised young in the past and these nests can become quite large as new nesting

Figure 11-5. Raptor chick defending itself in a nest.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-3

material is added each year. Managing nests on utility structures is preferable to removing nests, as these birds likely will attempt to reinitiate nesting on the same or nearby structures.

Some raptor species are more problematic than others. For Osprey, constructing artificial nest platforms followed by nest relocation is the best method for such problem nests, but it is important to implement relocations carefully. If a nesting platform is rejected and results in nest failure, Ospreys may spend the remainder of the season building frustration nests on nearby poles (Figure 11-6). These frustration nests may lead to multiple outages. The following information describes how to successfully install nest platforms.

If nest platforms are used, they may be installed either on an existing structure (Figure 11-7) or a non-energized pole set specifically for a platform (Figure 11-8).

Installing a platform on a non-energized surrogate pole is preferable because it eliminates problems associated with falling nesting material. However, certain situations prevent the use of a surrogate pole for a nest structure installation. Under the scenario where installing a nesting platform on a utility structure is the only option, energized equipment on the nest pole must be covered and retrofitted to minimize electrocution risk to nesting birds and minimize the potential for line outages from falling nest materials or bird contamination (i.e., excrement).

Figure 11-7. Nesting platform above a retrofitted single-phase pole.

Figure 11-8 Nesting platform on a surrogate pole.

Figure 11-6. Osprey frustration nest.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-4

Figure 11-9 delineates a pole-top extension with an osprey nesting platform attached and in use by nesting birds. Under all scenarios, the WSMR engineering division must approve the nesting platform design along with the weight of the platform under wet conditions. If the platform is on an energized pole, all electrical and safety clearances should be addressed.

Additionally, all exposed hardware and equipment in the vicinity of a nest should be retrofitted to keep young birds from becoming electrocuted when learning to fly. Young raptors often make short perch-to-perch flights before they become adept at flying. An electrocution Risk Assessment of poles should be performed near the nesting platform, with the nearest poles taking priority. Other at-risk configurations in favorable habitat also should be reviewed with the Environmental Division’s input.

If nearby poles need to be retrofitted due to possible electrocutions, insulation or using cover-up materials is the preferred method over the use of perch discouragers or isolation. Perch discouragers (Figure 11-10) make it easier for birds to accumulate sticks, particularly on single-crossarm configurations.

Figure 11-10. Red-tailed Hawk nest on a pole fitted with perch discouragers.

Figure 11-9. Osprey nesting on platform attached to pole-top extension.

Perch Discouragers

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-5

Numerous platform designs are available, depending on the bird species. For Osprey, platforms should be large enough (48 by 48 inches) to allow birds to continue adding nesting material in future years (Figure 11-11). Smaller platforms (36 by 36 inches) can be used for buteos such as Red-tailed Hawks. Larger birds, such as Golden Eagles, require larger platforms (60 by 60 inches) (Figure 11-12).

Figure 11-11. Osprey platform with an elevated perch on a surrogate pole.

Figure 11-12. Eagle nesting platform on a transmission lattice tower.

Nest platforms can be purchased (Figure 11-13) or constructed with readily available materials (Figure 11-14). These figures provide examples of readily available platforms designed for use by Osprey, which could be used for other species, such as buteos. However, platform design and size should take into account the target species.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-6

Figure 11-13. Manufactured Aluma-Form Osprey nesting platform.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-7

Figure 11-14. Osprey Nest Platform.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-8

Platforms should be designed so the nesting material does not blow off in strong winds. This can be accomplished by installing small vertical pegs (Figure 11-15) or by building a lip around the edge of the platform.

When an artificial platform is installed, it should be well supported and nesting material added to entice birds to use the platform. The sticks and their arrangement should emulate the species for which the platform is designed. This will focus returning birds on the artificial nest, and not on the original structure.

The best practice is to relocate the existing nest to the new platform. This approach may require the applicable federal and state permits (refer to Chapter 5.0 Permit Compliance). If it is not feasible to relocate an existing nest, personnel can weave willow branches (2 to 4 feet long; ¼ to ¾ inch in diameter) around the bolts at the perimeter of the nest platform to construct an outer "fence." Then lay sticks over the fence with the butts along the inside of the fence. The small ends of the sticks should extend beyond the outside of the structure, and sticks should be placed around the fence creating a bushy wreath. After the first layer is laid, begin a second layer of sticks in the opposite direction. As more sticks are added, they will extend toward the center of the nest, and sticks can be pushed into the previous layers, locking the structure. Tying some of the larger sticks to the base of the platform also will protect the nest in high winds. The nest can be built on the ground and tied down with wire so it doesn't fall as the pole is being raised.

Any lashing material used should be trimmed so that birds cannot become entangled in any loose ends. Installing a single artificial perch on the platform perpendicular to the prevailing spring wind is recommended. Poles can be wrapped with a 5-foot predator guard wrapped around the pole to deter raccoons and other mammals

Figure 11-15. Raptor platform with pegs.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-9

from accessing nests; however, this is not an option when poles must be climbed by linemen.

Nest relocations should be timed to avoid the critical period just before egg laying. Disturbing birds during this time may result in breeding failure. Likewise, ROW and maintenance activities should be scheduled to avoid the breeding season so nesting birds are not disturbed. The Environmental Division can provide guidance on these critical time periods. If a nest relocation is required at an active nest, eggs can become nonviable if exposed to severe weather (e.g., rain, cold, heat) for more than 15 minutes. Additionally, federal and state permits apply to this type of activity (refer to Chapter 5.0 Permit Compliance) and proposed nest relocations should be discussed in detail with the Environmental Division.

When a non-energized surrogate pole is installed, the nest platform should be at least as high as the old nest. Installation of nesting platforms must consider the surrounding habitat, and the Environmental Division must be consulted for guidance on how far a platform can be set from an existing nest location. It is best to keep the platform near the existing nest site. The pole with the original nest should be fitted with stick deflectors to discourage the birds from seeking out the original location (refer to Section 11.3 Stick Deflectors), and other energized components should be covered appropriately to eliminate hazards to birds.

When a nest is relocated on an existing structure, platforms for raptors should be placed on the pole top, if possible (Figure 11-16). It may be possible to relocate nests for non-raptors beneath the crossarms (Figure 11-17).

Figure 11-16. Raptor platform on pole top.

Figure 11-17. Raven platform below crossarms.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-10

As part of the permit process, platform installation is coordinated with the USFWS, where applicable (refer to Chapter 5.0 Permit Compliance). WSMR personnel or contractors may handle a nest only if directed to do so by the Environmental Division.

Parasites and diseases can be transmitted through contact with nests; therefore, personnel must wear disposable gloves or use an inverted plastic bag to handle nests.

Paper breathing filters also are recommended because dried bird feces may be dispersed into the air when a nest is moved (refer to Section 6.6.3 Nest Removal, Relocation, and Destruction).

11.3 Stick Deflectors

When a nest is relocated, the original nest pole should be fitted with stick deflectors to discourage re-nesting at the original location. Stick deflectors can be purchased (Figure 11-18 and Table 11-1) or constructed with readily available materials such as plastic pipe (Figure 11-19). Stick deflectors should be designed so the nesting material bounces off the structure when dropped. For this to be effective, jumpers should be placed under the crossarms to make it more difficult for birds to lodge nesting material along the jumpers. Stick deflectors should be installed close enough to the crossarms to deter birds from nesting under the deflectors, without compromising electrical clearances.

Figure 11-18. Stick deflector to keep nesting materials from attaching to the structure.

Figure 11-19. Stick deflector to keep nesting materials from attaching to the crossarm.

Stick deflectors should be securely attached to the utility structure and WSMR

DPW engineering must approve of the stick deflector design along with all electrical and safety clearances. Stick deflectors should be monitored during the nesting season;

sticks that have defeated the deflector should be removed immediately. Additionally, all exposed hardware and equipment on the pole should be retrofitted to protect birds from becoming electrocuted.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 11-11

Table 11-1. Nest deflector manufacturers.

MANUFACTURER PHONE WEBSITE

Kaddas 1-801-972-5400 www.kaddas.com

Power Line Sentry 1-970-599-1050 www.PowerLineSentry.com

11.4 Alternative Construction

Poles with multiple crossarms (e.g., deadend and double deadend configurations) are often attractive to birds for nesting. Alternative framing techniques can be used in new construction to reduce these nesting opportunities.

Constructing new distribution power lines with armless vertical construction makes it difficult for nesting materials to lodge on a structure. Where crossarms are required, use of a single crossarm can eliminate a place for birds to nest. This can be accomplished by the use of a single crossarm made of specially engineered (and stronger) materials, which may eliminate the need for multiple crossarms and braces (Figure 11-20 and Figure 11-21).

Figure 11-20. Fiberglass deadend single crossarm.

Figure 11-21. Apitong (hardwood) double deadend single crossarm.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 12-1

12.0 AVIAN STREAMERS

A bird “streamer” is a long stream of excrement released by large birds and may not cause bird injury or mortality but may create a maintenance issue. Outages can result when birds foul equipment, and streamer-related outages occur when a streamer bridges the gap between energized and grounded portions of a structure. Streamer outages are usually a localized problem.

To minimize streamer outages, key areas on specific structures can be fitted with perch discouragers or cover-up materials. However, perch discouragers should not be deployed over all horizontal surfaces on a structure because doing so may force the birds intent on perching to find a method of defeating the perch discouragers. Attempts at total exclusion of birds from structures tend not to be successful (Lammers and Collopy 2005). Rather, perch discouragers should be deployed selectively to manage perching and move birds to more attractive perch areas with low streamer-related risks.

Perch discouragers should be arranged to exclude perching directly above insulators or energized equipment and should extend 3 feet in all horizontal directions.

Installation of insulating or cover-up materials should then extend 3 feet beyond the areas targeted for available perches.

A variety of perch discouragers are available from a number of manufacturers.

Perch discouragers include high-density polyethylene (HDPE) cones designed to enclose the end of lattice arms (Figure 12-1), bird spikes that can be installed on lattice or wood arms (Figure 12-2), and pole-top devices to deter perching on the top of steel or wood poles (Figure 12-3).

Figure 12-1. HDPE cones deployed on the arms of a lattice transmission structure (Zena Design).

Figure 12-2. HDPE spikes deployed on the arms of a lattice transmission structure (Mission Engineering).

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 12-2

Figure 12-3. Pole caps designed to be deployed on steel (gray cap) or wood (brown cap) poles (Kaddas).

Cover-up materials to minimize effects from bird streamers on primary conductors include conductor covers for both tangent structures and double deadened structures on transmission voltages (Figure 12-4 and Figure 12-5).

Figure 12-4. Conductor cover on center phase (TE Connectivity).

Figure 12-5. Jumper cover for double deadend transmission structure (TE Connectivity).

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 12-3

Table 12-1 delineates the available manufacturers for perch discouragers and select cover-up materials. Transmission line applications may be customized, based on the specific need.

Table 12-1. Perch discourager and cover-up material manufacturers.

MANUFACTURER MATERIAL PHONE WEBSITE

Kaddas PVC 1-801-972-5400 www.kaddas.com

Mission Engineering

HDPE +27 11 334-0882 www.mission-eng.co.za

Power Line Sentry

Electrical

PVC

1-970-599-1050 www.PowerLineSentry.com

TE Connectivity Polymer 1-336-689-7348 www.te.com

Zena Design Polyethylene 1-970-663-3980 www.zenadesign.com/ PVC=polyvinyl chloride; HDPE=high-density polyethylene

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 13-1

13.0 AVIAN POLLUTION

When bird feces build up on the insulators from repeated defecation, it undermines the insulating qualities and increases the risk of a phase-to-ground flashover across the surface of the insulator string, particularly with wet conditions. As with bird streamers, bird pollution typically is a localized problem.

If fecal contamination is caused by a large bird (e.g., raptor) nesting on a transmission structure, WSMR may explore the possibility of relocating the nest to a different part of the structure that mimics the original nest site location (refer to Chapter 11.0 Nest Management). This approach would require the Environmental Division coordinating with the appropriate regulatory agencies and obtaining the applicable permits for nest relocation, as discussed in Chapter 5.0 Permit Compliance.

If smaller bird use of a structure is resulting in fecal contamination, cover-up materials may be employed over insulators or conductors or other key areas of specific structures. These areas can be fitted with shields or barriers to divert avian excrement away from the insulators and energized conductors. Generally, shields or barrier materials can be custom fitted to the specific structure configuration to reduce fecal contamination, as shown in Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2.

Figure 13-1. Lattice structure with contamination shields (Zena).

Figure 13-2. Fecal contamination insulated barrier (TE Connectivity).

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 13-2

Table 13-1 lists two manufacturers for these types of shields or barrier materials that can be applied.

Table 13-1. Shield and barrier manufacturers.

MANUFACTURER MATERIAL PHONE WEBSITE

TE Connectivity Polymer 1-336-689-7348 www.te.com

Zena Design Polyethylene 1-970-663-3980 www.zenadesign.com/

Perch management (see Section 8.14 Perch Management) also can be a tool to assist in moving birds away from specific areas of a structure.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-1

14.0 RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

NOTE: The procedures and approaches described herein are the Intellectual Property of EDM International, Inc.

The most cost-effective approach to reducing avian mortality is to focus remedial efforts on areas that pose the greatest risks to birds (APLIC and USFWS 2005).

Because it is not feasible to inspect every electric distribution pole or line span within WSMR, a Risk Assessment was conducted for both the avian electrocution risk and collision risk in targeted areas.

EDM International, Inc. conducted the initial field Risk Assessment at WSMR in November 2012, developed the Draft APP document in April 2013, and finalized the APP submittal in February 2014. This APP provides WSMR with a detailed and thorough starting point to incrementally reduce the avian electrocution risks across the WSMR facility and a dynamic short- and long-term planning tool that can be updated as the APP process evolves.

As part of the field Risk Assessment and in support of this APP effort, EDM surveyed for both avian electrocution and collision risks at WSMR. No collision risks were identified specific to WSMR during field surveys in November 2012. However, collision risk factors for birds and power lines have been retained in the WSMR APP for potential future use and reference. As discussed in Section 3.3 Collisions, bird collision risks vary and future habitat changes (e.g., increase in expanse and depth of regional playas) could modify the variables associated with birds and potential line collision risks.

Therefore, lines bisecting habitats attractive to birds could potentially increase the collision risk in specific areas of WSMR with changes in environmental conditions.

The following summaries focus on the processes used by EDM to record potential electrocution risks on the WSMR power infrastructure. Figure 14-1 depicts the overall Risk Assessment process. The following sections outline how the Risk Assessment was developed and implemented. Chapter 15.0 Results for WSMR Electrocution Analysis summarizes the results from the field Risk Assessment review and the patterns observed.

14.1 Overall Approach

A Risk Assessment involves identifying areas where poles and line spans may pose a relatively high risk to birds. After identifying high-risk bird use areas, risk priorities are then assigned to specific pole configurations and line spans in order to develop electrocution and/or collision retrofitting recommendations.

Developing a Risk Assessment requires integrating detailed knowledge of the types of at-risk structures and line locations (relative to bird use areas) with information on the habitats used by at-risk bird species combined with a number of other site-specific variables. The strategy to rank habitats is key because geographic location, landscape features, and the associated habitats are as important as the utility pole configurations and span locations in determining the risks of avian interactions with power lines (APLIC, 2006, 2012; Mañosa 2001).

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-2

Figure 14-1. Risk assessment flowchart.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-3

For example, nesting activity is associated with high quality habitat; therefore, structures located near known raptor nests are assigned a higher priority for raptor protection (Platt 2005) when assessing electrocution risks. The same principle applies to areas such as water bird nesting concentrations or concentrated bird foraging.

14.1.1 Identifying At-Risk Bird Species

The first step in assessing the electrocution risk on a system is to determine “at-risk” bird species within an area. About 290 avian species occur at WSMR (WSMR 2013). These species and associated concerns are defined and discussed in Chapter 3.0 Avian Interactions and in Chapter 4.0 Bird Species Susceptible to Utility Interactions and detailed in Table 4-1. Delineating at-risk bird species also was determined by reviewing historic bird electrocution data for WSMR.

14.1.2 Map Development

Risk assessment field maps were created using ESRI’s ArcMap 10.1. WSMR distribution poles, locations of known bird electrocutions, and land cover types were plotted over base layers to define target survey areas for a follow-up field review. Base layers included aerial imagery and quarter quadrangle boundaries. Roads were labeled on the aerial imagery. Data layers mapped for the Risk Assessment review encompassed:

Quarter-quadrangle boundaries (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation

Service)

Landcover (playa, outcrop/talus, and wetlands) – WSMR

Aerial Imagery – Bing (through ArcMap)

WSMR System Data (substations, distribution poles, transformers) – WSMR

Known Bird Electrocutions – WSMR

An example map is depicted in Figure 14-2.

A total of 271 maps were printed by USGS quarter-quadrangle and a desktop review was performed by EDM biologists to identify target survey areas for the field portion of the Risk Assessment. The maps were used to examine pole/line locations, relative to surrounding habitat types and bird use areas. Of the 271 maps produced, 106 maps contained facilities that warranted some level of field review as part of the APP’s Risk Assessment.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-4

Figure 14-2. Sample map generated for the field survey effort. This map shows roads, power poles, existing buildings, historic bird electrocutions, habitat features, unexploded ordinance area (off limits to surveys), and playas.

14.1.3 Field Assessment

Following the desktop review, EDM performed field surveys in order to inspect the identified areas of concern. As part of the Risk Assessment methodology, specific poles and line spans located in these bird use areas or in/near high-quality habitats were sampled or field checked. The Risk Assessment primarily entailed viewing structures or line spans relative to habitats and known or presumed bird use areas (e.g., nests, concentration areas, foraging zones). Sites of historic mortalities also were examined. Because WSMR offers a wide variety of habitat types across the landscape, habitat features and bird sign were integral in delineating where the Risk Assessment was conducted. Approximately 80% of the WSMR electrical grid was visited during the field surveys.

WSMR is in the process of plotting all their power line structures and incorporating these data into the facility’s GIS. EDM used the available GIS data to conduct the field Risk Assessment. When warranted, EDM plotted and mapped missing poles examined during the November 2012 field Risk Assessment that are not part of the current GIS database. Many of these poles were located in restricted areas (e.g., unexploded ordinance zones). The missing poles examined during the field review were then manually incorporated into the GIS files for the APP. However, it is important to state that power line structures not examined during the field Risk Assessment can still

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-5

be ranked by WSMR personnel during APP implementation. The same approach and reasoning can be applied to these unseen or unmapped areas, focusing on the associated habitat types, pole configurations, and other variables discussed below. In other words, the APP approach and data matrix can be extrapolated to assign risk factors and retrofit prioritization rankings to any areas not seen or not assessed during the November 2012 field review by following the Risk Assessment methodology.

14.2 Electrocution Risk Assessment

The following process-based approach was used to determine electrocution risk and delineate the appropriate retrofit prioritizations, using field observations and a decision flowchart.

14.2.1 Pole-Risk Classification

The first step was to identify utility configurations that comprise the greatest electrocution risk to the targeted bird species. Research on bird electrocutions has shown certain power line configurations are more lethal to birds than other configurations. This is especially true when mortality rates are adjusted for structure frequency. For example, three-phase tangent structures may be responsible for the same number of electrocutions as three-phase transformer banks. However, because three-phase transformer banks occur less frequently than tangent structures, their adjusted lethality is significantly higher. Determining at-risk structures was accomplished by examining historical patterns and the WSMR bird electrocution data followed by conducting site-specific field examinations based on the initial system review.

To facilitate consistent communication, pole configuration codes are based on the national Rural Electric Association (REA) Bulletin 50-3 Construction Drawings. A Configuration Guide for structures recorded during the field review is listed in Appendix H.

Field data were recorded on standard data sheets (see Appendix I). These formed the basis of the project data matrix used for recording and tracking. When retrofitting measures were recommended, a pole number or area number was recorded for the pole or series of poles of concern and retrofitting options were then identified.

Field data for the electrocution Risk Assessment included:

Assigned map number for each structure or area Photograph number Configuration of the primary unit(s) Existing equipment associated with each pole:

• Transformer

• Regulator

• Recloser

• Capacitor

• Cutout

• Switch

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-6

• Arrester

• Pothead

• Jumper Wires

• Pole-top Ground

• Grounded Metal Bracket

• Fiberglass Brackets

Biological habitats and land use Topography and aspect Sign of bird use (e.g., whitewash, castings, prey remains, feathers, and bones) Any indications of previous bird fatalities associated with a structure (including species identification and approximate age, if known) Bird species observed in and near the structure, and the behavior of these birds (e.g., perched, flying, foraging).

Any unusual field observation or anomaly.

After recording a pole, a ranking of High, Medium, Low, or No risk was assigned to each pole or area. The ranking was determined by first assigning a general pole configuration risk. The following utility primary configurations were used:

High-Risk Configuration

Three-phase flat-top (four wires on the crossarm) Three-phase double deadend horizontal Three-phase angle horizontal Ground Banks Steel poles Three-phase vertical with older bonded hardware and limited clearances

Medium-Risk Configuration

Three-phase flat-top (three wires on the crossarm) with neutral on the pole top

Three-phase flat-top (three wires on crossarm) with neutral lower on the pole

Three-phase tangent poles with three wires on the crossarm Three-phase deadend with neutral lower on the pole

Low-Risk Configuration

Three-phase tangent structures with the center phase ridge-pinned Three-phase tangent structures with two crossarms and three phases split between these two crossarms (one phase on top arm and two phases on bottom arm)

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-7

No-Risk Configuration Three-phase tangent structure with 60 inches horizontal separation Three-phase vertical structures with 40 inches vertical separation and

60 inches horizontal separation between phase-to-ground Single-phase wood structure with no pole-top grounds

These units formed the starting point and the associated electrocution risk was then modified based upon other pieces of equipment. As these base configurations became more complicated, their risk increased. In cases where retrofitting measures already existed, the risk decreased. The calculation of electrocution risks is outlined in Figure 14-3, Figure 14-4, and Figure 14-5 for single-phase, two-phase, three-phase, and transmission line configurations, respectively. These flowcharts assign an overall electrocution risk to structure configurations based on a number of factors. The next step was to incorporate the poles’ surrounding habitats.

14.2.2 Habitat Classification

Bird habitat comprises an important component of assessing avian risk near power lines. As discussed in Section 3.1 Line Electrocutions, numerous factors contribute to avian electrocution risk. In the field, it is important to look for and record signs of bird use and then evaluate the broader general habitat. Specific habitat within 100 yards of a pole should be further evaluated.

When possible, poles were field checked to identify “preferred perches,” with an emphasis on three-phase lines. Since the purpose of still-hunting is to perch on the highest point with the best view of the countryside, raptors will select certain poles for perching over others. These preferred perches offer the best vantage point and, if unprotected, are more likely to be involved in electrocutions.

Habitat values were recorded, including vegetation, presence of roads or other human disturbance, vantage point (i.e., high, medium, or low), prey species present, and signs of avian use (e.g., whitewash, castings, prey remains, feathers, nest, bird fatalities, live bird sightings).

In general, the highest value was given to poles in remote areas with native vegetation or in areas of limited human influences. Poles exhibiting signs of bird use and those providing a commanding view (high aspect) are typically considered to be valued as perch sites over other poles. However, at WSMR, this varied. Poles in higher topographical areas were typically located within the creosote bush community and had little bird sign or in the pinyon pine and juniper woodlands that offered natural perch sites. Therefore, more value was placed on habitats exhibiting a greater degree of bird sign and poles in open habitats with few natural perches. The habitats that typically exhibited a greater amount of raptor sign included grasslands, some playas, wetlands, four-wing saltbush community, mesquite community, and dune habitats.

The lowest value was given to spans and poles in more disturbed habitats with little or no native vegetation, poles in areas of high human use, and low-aspect poles.

Figure 14-6 outlines the process followed when assessing habitat types for avian electrocution risk.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-8

Figure 14-3. Configuration risk level for single-phase structures.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-9

Figure 14-4. Configuration risk level for two-phase structures.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-10

Figure 14-5. Configuration risk level for three-phase structures.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-11

Figure 14-6. Habitat value level.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-12

14.2.3 Identifying At-Risk Bird Species

The first step in assessing the electrocution risk on a system is to determine “at-risk” bird species within an area. A number of avian species both breed and winter at WSMR. These species and associated concerns are defined and discussed in Chapter 3.0 Avian Interactions and in Chapter 4.0 Bird Species Susceptible to Utility Interactions and detailed in Table 4-1. Delineating at-risk bird species also was determined by reviewing historic bird electrocution data for WSMR.

Because WSMR contains a mosaic of high-value habitats for raptor use, has limited public access, and a wide suite of high-risk distribution poles, it was determined that four prioritization categories should be applied during the field Risk Assessment.

The Risk Assessment results are presented in the data matrix contained in Appendix J.

The assigned retrofitting priorities are as follows. The process for determining retrofit priorities is shown in Figure 14-7.

Electrocution Retrofitting Priority 1 – Highest-risk Pole Electrocution Retrofitting Priority 2 – High-risk Pole Electrocution Retrofitting Priority 3 – Medium-risk Pole Electrocution Retrofitting Priority 4 – Medium-risk Pole Electrocution Retrofitting Priority 0 – No retrofit recommended

Structures with reduced clearances and located in habitats containing significant bird sign or historic bird fatalities were assigned a Priority 1 (Highest Risk). Structures with reduced clearances and considered to be high-risk poles but were located in habitats exhibiting less bird sign or structures that were not as high a risk but located in good to excellent habitat were assigned a Priority 2 (High Risk).

Structures with reduced clearance, but located in lower quality habitat, were assigned a Priority 3 (Medium Risk). Although these structure types may be potentially lethal, they did not show signs of heavy raptor usage or were typically located near roads or other human-related areas. Low-risk structures in high-quality habitat also were assigned a medium retrofitting priority due to the potential high frequency of bird use.

The Priority 4 (Low Risk) was assigned to potentially hazardous structure types located in more disturbed areas with low raptor use (e.g., degraded habitat, disturbed areas, areas with high levels of human activity). The Priority 4 category could be addressed as part of WSMR’s long-term maintenance plan.

In general the habitat value was used to modify the configuration risk. In good habitat the configuration risks remain the same value. In excellent habitat the configurations are elevated one class. In degraded habitat the configuration risk is demoted one class.

Some areas that contain a number of different pole configurations (e.g., restricted facilities) were assigned one priority ranking (example P2) to address equipment poles located within these areas of sub-optimal habitat. However, non-equipment poles within this same area would warrant a lower retrofitting priority (example P3). When planning retrofits for these areas, the higher risk poles could be prioritized over the lower risk poles, accordingly.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-13

Figure 14-7. Calculating retrofit priority.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 14-14

Retrofit recommendations were made based on a number of factors. These factors included the variables discussed above in conjunction with discussions with WSMR engineering to determine what approaches have historically worked well and other approaches that have not worked well due to WSMR’s climate and environmental conditions. Also, since structure retrofitting typically has a variety of options to choose from, WSMR provided input on preferred retrofit approaches (e.g., installation of an extension link on deadend structures instead of a deadend cover, removing bonding and grounding instead of installing cover-up materials). The results of these discussions were incorporated into the data matrix contained in Appendix J.

14.2.4 Electrocution Risk Assessment Summary

Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1981 states: “correcting 2% of all structures can eliminate 95% of all eagle electrocutions.” Even though the authors of this statement acknowledge this is likely optimistic, it does illustrate the importance of assessing the variables of pole configuration and habitat associations to optimize both proactive line design and reactive retrofitting approaches.

The WSMR APP provides an approach to identify potentially hazardous pole configurations within WSMR and can be used as a tool in operational and facility planning into the future. Since, an effective avian protection program includes both proactive and reactive approaches to bird fatalities, using these prioritization processes can facilitate operational and maintenance planning. It is important to note there is flexibility on how to approach retrofitting. WSMR has the option to balance the costs of labor vs. materials to determine the best retrofit approach. There also is flexibility in the approach to prioritizing these retrofits. A retrofit approach may include a combination of Priority 1, 2, 3, and 4 poles, if travel time to an area is a significant factor, or WSMR may choose to focus on a specific prioritization category or Mission schedule. In some cases rebuilding structures may be preferable to retrofitting the existing structures, if lines are deteriorating and scheduled for replacement. How this APP is implemented is the prerogative of WSMR, based on a number of factors (e.g., DOD policy, Mission schedule, geographic location, budget, and retrofitting preferences).

If additional bird mortalities are recorded, retrofit information should be applied in a holistic, proactive approach. Similar pole configurations in similar habitats associated with future bird mortalities pose a similar risk. It may, therefore, be prudent to retrofit several structures, if a bird fatality occurs. Furthermore, as stated in Section 6.3 Corrective Measures, WSMR intends to prioritize the remediation of hazardous poles in areas of good eagle habitat or in areas where eagles are known to occur.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-1

15.0 RESULTS FOR WSMR ELECTROCUTION ANALYSIS

The results from the avian field Risk Assessment conducted at WSMR

November 2012 are presented and discussed relative to both the positive practices observed at WSMR and the patterns that should be addressed to reduce avian electrocution risk on WSMR’s electrical infrastructure. The intent of the “pattern analysis” is to identify approaches that should be modified relative to both new pole/line construction and retrofitting existing structures.

Since the most cost-effective way to reduce avian mortality is to focus remedial efforts on areas posing the greatest risks to birds (APLIC and USFWS 2005), the WSMR APP methods involved identifying areas where poles and line spans posed a relatively high risk to birds. Because it was not feasible to inspect every electric pole or line span within WSMR, EDM delineated target areas to examine in the field based on an initial GIS-based compilation and review. The field surveys subsequently integrated detailed knowledge of at-risk structures and line locations (relative to bird use areas) with information on the habitats and behaviors of at-risk bird species. Risk priorities were then assigned to specific pole configurations and line spans to develop electrocution retrofitting recommendations. Detailed methodology is located in Chapter 14.0 Risk Assessment Protocol.

Although the 2012 field surveys reflect a static point in time, the field sampling results provide information on both the operational patterns observed and the site-specific locations that warrant retrofitting, allowing WSMR to use the APP as both a dynamic short- and long-term planning tool and model. This model can be applied to other areas within WSMR, as missions change, bird use expands or contracts, new lines are built or rebuilt, and WSMR construction standards evolve.

15.1 Approach

As stated, Chapter 14.0 Risk Assessment Protocol details the field survey methodologies used for the avian electrocution and collision Risk Assessment evaluations. Because no power lines were identified within WSMR that present an important collision risk to birds, the following assessments focus on the electrocution Risk Assessment. EDM recorded general practices or patterns that increase avian electrocution risks within WSMR and mapped site-specific at-risk structure and area locations. In the following report sections, positive practices observed are emphasized with white arrows and negative practices are emphasized with red arrows.

To facilitate consistent communication, pole configuration codes are based on the national Rural Electric Association (REA) Bulletin 50-3 Construction Drawings.

However, because there are unique configurations specific to WSMR, additional configuration codes were developed during the November 2012 field review, accordingly. Appendix H contains a photo reference guide for these unusual or complex structure types.

The same configuration codes are used in the data matrix for the electrocution review located in Appendix J, which provides detailed summaries of each survey site or area. EDM also provided WSMR the associated geodatabase that contains feature classes for: (1) electrocution structures (i.e., individual structures) and (2) electrocution

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-2

areas (groups of structures with like characteristics), delineating where pole- or area-specific retrofits are recommended. Together, Appendix H Appendix J, and the geodatabase provide a template on how retrofitting measures can be implemented within WSMR.

15.2 Survey Results

EDM collected field data on 1,047 poles and areas at WSMR (652 poles and

395 areas) (see Appendix J). The most common configurations encountered requiring remediation were C9-1 OHN, C7 OHN, C8 OHN, and C9 OHN (Appendix H).

15.3 Positive Practices

WSMR has de-energized some lines that are not currently being used for missions. This approach has reduced bird electrocution risk across the facility, system wide. However, because missions change, the intent of the WSMR APP is to proactively retrofit at-risk structures and implement new construction practices to incrementally make structures safer for perching birds.

WSMR has initiated the use of avian-friendly construction practices for new pole construction. Figure 15-1 provides an example of a deadend equipment pole constructed to avian-friendly standards with good coverage of the potential contact points. The only remaining exposed areas are the cutout locking horns that can result in phase-to-phase contact when a bird attempts to land on the lower kicker arm between the cutouts. This issue and possible resolutions are discussed below in greater detail.

However, new construction at WSMR is not consistent, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 15.4 Distribution Voltage Electrocution Risk.

Caution: Raptor protection measures using the term “insulation” are not designed to protect linemen. Many products are not rated for the full line voltage and are designed to protect birds from incidental contact only. The engineering standards department must review and approve all raptor protection products and deployment applications prior to personnel in the field using raptor protection equipment.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-3

Figure 15-1. Equipment pole with good coverup and extension link in center phase. Cutout locking horns still exposed (see Figure 8-58).

Other examples of positive practices on different pole configurations include

Figure 15-2, which shows complete coverage of the jumper wires and pin insulation with no gaps in material, the use of fiberglass strain rods for the grounded guy wires in proximity to energized conductors and the installation of the extension link in the center phase. A more detailed photo of adequately covered pin insulators with covered wrap ties are shown in Figure 15-3.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-4

Figure 15-2. Double deadend with covered jumpers, covered pin insulators, and extension links on center phases.

Figure 15-3. Covered pin insulators in conjunction with covered jumper wires.

Figure 15-4 depicts adequate spacing between the groundwire and the bracket hardware. Historically, WSMR has used wood molding over pole groundwires that provide some insulating properties, particularly on structures with minimal distance to energized conductors. However, new construction practices are not consistent, as discussed in the subsequent sections. Figure 15-5 provides an example of groundwire molding made of polymer materials that are more durable than wood when exposed to wind and UV light.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-5

Figure 15-4. Bracket hardware not bonded and wood groundwire molding is present on some structures but can deteriorate quickly.

Figure 15-5. Groundwire molding made of a polymer is more durable.

WSMR has a number of single- and three-phase steel structures scattered across the facility.

Figure 15-6 shows a correct approach to install a conductor cover on the energized conductor on a single-phase pole. However, the three-phase steel structures are discussed below, given they typically lacked sufficient cover up. Additionally, it was noted during the field Risk Assessment that a number of conductor covers had broken or dislodged on several structures. Potential options for resolving this issue are discussed below, as well.

Figure 15-6. Good coverup of energized conductor on single-phase steel pole.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-6

Switches are particularly problematic, given the limited clearances and retrofit approaches can interfere with switch operation (see Section 8.13 Three-phase Switchgear). Therefore, switch installation is key. WSMR has incorporated the use of underarm switches on some poles (Figure 15-7), which minimizes the electrocution risk to perching birds.

Figure 15-7. Use of underarm switches minimizes electrocution risk to perching birds. Good example of insulated jumper wires.

Other equipment, such as capacitors, reclosers, and regulators, also can be a high risk to perching birds. Many of these devices can be ordered with coverup already provided, as shown in Figure 15-8. Some of this coverup at WSMR is starting to degrade and should be replaced. When seen, it was recorded, accordingly.

MAY 2014 AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN 15-7

Figure 15-8. Equipment can be ordered with applicable covers. Capacitor bank with bushing covers and insulated wires; jumper wires…