Identifying Priority Mitigation Areas for Human–Osprey Conflict

Authors

Natasha K. Murphy, Mississippi State UniversityFollow
Melanie R. Boudreau, Mississippi State University
Brian S. Dorr, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, MississippiFollow
Kate Slankard, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Scott A. Rush, Mississippi State University

ORCID IDs

Murphy http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5534-9746

Boudreau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6280-5598

Rush http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5920-7768

Document Type

Article

Date of this Version

2024

Citation

Journal of Wildlife Management (2024) 2024: e22540

doi: 10.1002/jwmg.22540

Comments

United States government work

Abstract

Raptor nests on human‐built structures represent a significant source of conflict, as they can result in bird mortality, fires, or power outages due to falling nest materials or animals connecting with energized conductors. Power companies typically try to mitigate these conflicts to avoid service disruptions. Performing mitigation measures across all potentially problematic power infrastructure is generally not a practical solution given logistical, time, or budgetary constraints. Therefore, there is a need for quantitative, landscapescale tools to identify conflict risk and prioritize mitigation. We examined the influence of habitat and transmission infrastructure distribution on the potential risk of osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nesting‐infrastructure conflict in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power service area within Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia, USA, using osprey nesting and conflict records from 1990–2020. We modeled risk using a 3‐stage approach, which intersected a nesting habitat suitability model and density of infrastructure to evaluate the potential risk of conflict. Habitat suitability was greater on or near open water and closer to developed areas. Transmission line density was low (0.14 ± 0.29 lines/km²) and heterogenous across the service area with more lines within urban centers and near power facilities. Integrating habitat suitability and transmission infrastructure information revealed that very low and low‐risk areas comprised 99% of the service area. Less than 1% comprised 1,113.7 km² of moderate and 82.2 km² of high or very high Journal of risk, mostly concentrated along major rivers and lakes, and around urban centers. Risk was more prevalent in the northeastern portion of the service area. This work presents a top‐down approach to mitigating osprey–power infrastructure conflict, which allows for the prioritization of mitigation actions and can facilitate long‐term coexistence with this protected species.