Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Managing Transmission Lines for Wildlife Enhancement

Keith E. Hanson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) December 1988, 14 (12) 302-304; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1988.14.12.302
Keith E. Hanson
Minnesota Power, 30 West Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Minnesota Power implemented a wildlife management plan in 1975 as a method to control undesirable vegetation on its transmission rights-of-way system. Selective and special vegetation management practices are being utilized to address regional environmental issues and reduce long-term vegetation control expenditures.

Minnesota Power (MP) is an investor owned utility located in north central and northeastern Minnesota. Our transmission system involves approximately 2,015 miles or 27,200 acres which are located in mature aspen/birch, spruce/fir and northern hardwood forests. These forest types provide an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of wildlife habitat and our wildlife management plan helps to fulfill two of our corporate responsibilities: 1) to provide reliable energy safely, efficiently and at reasonable rates, and 2) to respect and protect the quality of land, air and water by operating in harmony with local, state and national environmental objectives. Although utility rights-of-way improve wildlife habitat by creating forest openings, there are other management practices that can further meet the multiple needs of our wildlife species.

Prior to 1975 MP vegetation management’s objective was to eradicate all vegetation except for grasses and herbaceous cover types within the limits of the rights-of-way. This was accomplished by nonselective aerial and ground chemical applications.

Our vegetation management philosophy changed dramatically in the early 1970’s. Environmental issues prompted the state of Minnesota to require permits for new transmission facilities. In order to meet expanding electrical demands of the taconite industry, additional generation and transmission facilities were necessary. As a result of the state permitting process, we were required to address vegetation maintenance as part of our construction permits.

In 1975 Minnesota Power implemented a formal wildlife management plan for its transmission line rights-of-way system. The plan was developed in cooperation with three regional wildlife managers from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and five county wildlife managers. The plan is based on selective treatment (eradication of tall growing species) and is designed to improve wildlife habitat primarily for the white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse and woodcock. General and Special Management Practices are involved.

General management practices

In an attempt to develop habitat diversity and to meet the multiple needs of the various wildlife species in our area, the maintenance objective for the majority of our transmission rights-of-way system is to maintain the central one-third area of the right-of-way in a grassy-herbaceous type of cover. The outer two-thirds of the right-of-way will be managed to encourage the development of a variety of herbs, shrubs and low-growing trees which have potential value as wildlife food and/or cover. This objective is met through selective high-volume foliar chemical applications. Selective backpack foliar and basal applications are performed once the tree densities have been reduced.

Special management practices

The following specific management practices will be carried out in a further attempt to meet the multiple needs of the major wildlife species. These areas are identified by the state/county wildlife managers, and special management practices agreeable to both parties are developed.

Deer yarding areas

In areas where the rights-of-way lie near known or potential deer wintering yarding areas, a greater portion of the right-of-way than the center one-third will be maintained in a grassy herbaceous cover type in order to maximize the quantity of grasses, sedges and other herbaceous foods for early spring grazing. This is accomplished primarily with nonselective chemical applications.

Areas of the rights-of-way that pass in close proximity to deer yards will be maintained entirely in shrubs and other young tree shoots in order to maximize the quantity of winter browse food. Mechanical and chemical means are used to encourage this type of growth.

Water fowl nesting areas

In areas where the rights-of-way cross major streams and marshes, waterfowl food and nesting cover will be developed and maintained. Where deemed advisable, seeding of desirable grass-clover mixtures will be done in an area up to 300 feet on both sides of the water area.

In areas where the rights-of-way intersect small streams or intermittent waterways, a brushy cover of alder and other shrubs will be maintained across the entire right-of-way to provide food and cover for ruffed grouse and woodcock. Selective basal applications are utilized to encourage this type of growth. When natural vegetation does not provide an adequate “screen”, supplemental plantings of slow-growing conifers and low-growing deciduous trees and shrubs are considered.

Wildlife travel lanes

Vegetative cover across the entire right-of-way will be maintained at known wildlife crossings and at selected locations to obstruct visual sight paths down the right-of-way. Selective basal applications are used to develop these areas. When natural vegetation does not provide an adquate “screen”, supplemental plantings of slow-growing conifers and low-growing deciduous trees and shrubs are considered.

Nesting sites

Our transmission structures also serve as ideal nesting locations for osprey. Annually we encounter approximately 150 nests on our facilities. Activities near these nests are coordinated, if possible, to avoid working in these areas when the osprey are nesting.

In addition to osprey nests, two pairs of bald eagles have nested on our structures the past three years. Maintenance activities in these areas are scheduled between October and February to avoid distrupting the breeding and raising of the young.

When osprey nests pose a problem for our facilities, they are removed from our structures and nesting platforms are erected next to the old nests. Sticks from the old nests are nailed to the top of the platform to encourage the ospreys to nest on the platform. This has been very successful.

Minnesota Power has been involved with an osprey relocation program the past five years. The young osprey are removed from nests which have multiple young when they are about six weeks old. At least one chick is always left in the nest. About 80 young osprey have been relocated to various parts of Minnesota.

Economics

A cost-effective wildlife management plan was one of our initial concerns. It was our opinion in 1975 that to reduce costs, medium/heavy tree density had to be reduced. We were also hopeful that if tree density could be reduced our treatment cycles could be increased beyond 4-5 years.

As indicated in Figure 1, for the period 1977-1988, medium/heavy tree density has decreased from approximately 80% to 20%, and cost/acre from $188/acre to $108/acre. Cycle lengths for the same period have increased from 4-5 years to 7-8 years.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Annual comparison of medium/heavy tree density and cost/acre. 1977-1988.

Figure 1 also shows that from 1981-1985 cost/acre fluctuated at a relatively high level even though medium/heavy tree densities continued to fall. It is our opinion that costs remained high because we restricted maintenance activities to the months of June through August. Once we allowed our contractors the flexibility to schedule maintenance work within a broader time frame, costs began to drop significantly.

Selective treatment has played an integral part in developing our wildlife management plan and in reducing vegetation maintenance expenditures. Table 1 summarizes the results of selective versus nonselective treatment between first and second cycles. Selective treatment has been more effective in reducing medium/heavy tree densities and costs than nonselective treatment.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Summary of results for selective vs. nonselective treatment

Conclusion

Implementing a wildlife management approach to vegetation management has been very beneficial to Minnesota Power. Vegetation maintenance expenditures have been reduced 40% and the quality of wildlife habitat on our rights-of-way has been improving. Our wildlife management plan helps us meet corporate objectives and fosters good working relationships with state/local governmental agencies and the general public.

Footnotes

  • 1. 1. Presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Arboriculture in Vancouver, B.C. in August 1988.

  • © 1988, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 14, Issue 12
December 1988
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Managing Transmission Lines for Wildlife Enhancement
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Managing Transmission Lines for Wildlife Enhancement
Keith E. Hanson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1988, 14 (12) 302-304; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1988.14.12.302

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Managing Transmission Lines for Wildlife Enhancement
Keith E. Hanson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1988, 14 (12) 302-304; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1988.14.12.302
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • General management practices
    • Special management practices
    • Deer yarding areas
    • Water fowl nesting areas
    • Wildlife travel lanes
    • Nesting sites
    • Economics
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire