Energy Production and Birds: American Bird Conservancy Policy on
Energy Production and Use
DRAFT January 11, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of This Document ......................................................................................................................... 5 ABC Policy Summary ................................................................................................................................. 6
A Quick Summary of ABC’s Energy Policies ........................................................................................... 6 Energy Conservation ................................................................................................................................ 6 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Coal Extraction and Use .......................................................................................................................... 6 Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction .............................................................................................................. 6 Onshore Oil and Gas Extraction .............................................................................................................. 7 Gas and Oil Fracking ............................................................................................................................... 7 Fossil Fuel Power Plants ......................................................................................................................... 7 Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Wind Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Solar Energy ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Hydroelectric Power ................................................................................................................................. 8 Biofuels ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Transmission of Energy ............................................................................................................................ 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Coal Extraction....................................................................................................................................... 10 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Mountaintop Removal ........................................................................................................................ 11 Habitat Loss ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Contamination from Mining Waste .................................................................................................... 12 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Reclamation of mined lands ............................................................................................................ 12 Mountaintop Removal .................................................................................................................... 13 Contamination from Mining Waste ................................................................................................ 13
Oil and Gas Extraction ........................................................................................................................... 13 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Offshore drilling and platforms .......................................................................................................... 14
Offshore Platform Solutions ........................................................................................................... 14 Onshore .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Onshore Exploration ....................................................................................................................... 15 Noise and Disturbance .................................................................................................................... 15 Fragmentation ................................................................................................................................. 15 Collisions ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Flares ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Habitat Loss .................................................................................................................................... 16 Water Supply and Contamination ................................................................................................... 16 Air Contamination .......................................................................................................................... 17 Onshore Exploration and Production Solutions .............................................................................. 17
Spills ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Waterways and Ocean ..................................................................................................................... 18 On Land .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Spill Solutions ................................................................................................................................. 18
Tar Sands ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Shale Oil ................................................................................................................................................. 20
Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Water Supply and Contamination ...................................................................................................... 21 Waste Disposal ................................................................................................................................... 22 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Power plants ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Collisions with smokestacks .............................................................................................................. 22 Acid rain ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Contamination .................................................................................................................................... 23 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Acid Rain Solutions ........................................................................................................................ 23 Other Contaminants ........................................................................................................................ 23 Smokestack Collisions .................................................................................................................... 23
Climate Change ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Mitigation Solutions ........................................................................................................................... 24
Avoided Deforestation .................................................................................................................... 24 Carbon Capture and Sequestration .................................................................................................. 24
Nuclear Energy.......................................................................................................................................... 24 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Uranium Mining ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Cooling Tower Collisions ....................................................................................................................... 25 Cooling Ponds ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Solutions ................................................................................................................................................. 25 Fusion Energy......................................................................................................................................... 26
Renewable energy ..................................................................................................................................... 26 Wind Energy ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Solar Energy ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Effects on Birds .................................................................................................................................. 27 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Hydroelectric Power ............................................................................................................................... 27 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Habitat Loss ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Biofuels ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Corn .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Sugar Cane ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Cellulosic Ethanol .............................................................................................................................. 29 Palm Oil ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Wave Energy ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 31
Tidal Power ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 31
Ocean Thermal Energy ........................................................................................................................... 32 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Geothermal ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Transmission of Energy ............................................................................................................................ 32 Power Lines ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Electrocution ...................................................................................................................................... 33
Collision ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Habitat Loss ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Pipelines ................................................................................................................................................. 35 Solutions ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 35 Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................... 36 Produce and Use Energy Wisely ............................................................................................................ 36
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 37 Appendix I: Fun Facts .............................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix II: Policy Recommendations Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ................ 48 Appendix III: Keystone XL Tar Sands Oil Pipeline .............................................................................. 50
Habitat Loss ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Water Supply and Contamination ........................................................................................................... 50 Solutions ................................................................................................................................................. 51
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT The effects of energy production and use on birds and on bird conservation are myriad and
multifold. This document presents a summary of issues related to each form of energy now in
use, its impacts on birds, and ABC’s policies towards addressing those issues and ameliorating
their effects on birds. This document can serve as a starting point providing guidelines as to how
ABC should address these conservation issues.
In its present status, this document should be considered an internal ABC assessment of policy
options, and not a public document. Before this document could be released as a public
document, it would require extensive review by staff and board as well as additional work in
shoring up its source information. For example, some information presented here is widely
recognized by ABC and other bird conservationists, but may not be recognized or considered
valid by the energy industry or public in general. Therefore, those points will need further
background information and source citations before they can be released and accepted by the
public.
Because the document is long, it has been structured for ease of use. A summary of general
policy recommendations is given in the section immediately following this one. The body of the
document is then divided further into sections providing background and detail on the rationale
for the policy recommendations. Additional, more detailed policy recommendations are made for
some of the issues not given in the summary. Finally, the appendices include some very specific
policy statements for very specific issues. For example, although there are policy
recommendations for pipelines in general in the body of the document, Appendix II has policy
statements specific to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Finally, ABC already has some policy statements for energy-related issues, statements that are
much more detailed than what is presented in this document, particularly for wind energy and for
climate change (in preparation). Therefore, this document provides only a very brief summary of
ABC policy for those issues. For further information, refer to those policy statements.
Comment [DW1]: Although there is some overlap, many of the things that need to be discussed
in a climate change policy document have nothing to do directly with energy, things such as building of
seawalls against sea level rise, assisted translocation
of species to help them adapt to climate change, captive breeding, monoculture/non-native forestry
plantings to sequester carbon, etc.
Therefore, I would make the climate change policy document a separate paper.
ABC POLICY SUMMARY This section summarizes ABC’s overall policies on energy production and use. Further
information is available for each of the subsections in this section elsewhere in this document. In
addition, some specific policy recommendations for specific cases are presented in Appendices II
and following.
A QUICK SUMMARY OF ABC’S ENERGY POLICIES Energy development, production, and use can and should be done in a thoughtful way so as to
not harm birds.
ENERGY CONSERVATION ABC recognizes that the most rapid, cost effective, and efficient way to reduce the effects of all
forms of energy production and use on birds is to use less energy. This can address all of the
conservation problems associated with both non-renewable and renewable forms of energy
production at once and at all levels.
CLIMATE CHANGE ABC fully supports legislative efforts, in the US and elsewhere, to control greenhouse gas
emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. ABC also supports the development of all
potential sources of renewable energy in ways that are not detrimental to bird conservation.
COAL EXTRACTION AND USE Mountaintop removal mining should be curtailed; and coal strip mining in ABC’s Globally
Important Bird Areas should not occur without replacement with similar habitat of at least equal
conservation value at a 2:1 ratio. Great care should be taken to avoid contamination or other
damage to water supplies by heavy metals or other compounds or by naturally-occurring
radioactive elements. Reclamation of mined lands should be required to restore reclaimed lands
to the pre-mined state; that is, if previously forested, the lands should be returned to forest, if
previously grassland, to grassland. All revegetation of reclaimed lands should be done with
native plant species. Mining waste contaminants should be stabilized, stored, or treated on site.
OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION Oil spills from offshore petroleum production can be disastrous to birds. Therefore, leasing of
areas for drilling must be carefully considered to ensure that the development and production
minimizes risk to birds or bird habitat. Leases should not be granted until a full risk assessment is
completed and demonstrates a low level of risk. Likewise, authorities need to ensure that
adequate and appropriate spill prevention and control technologies are in place before drilling
commences and throughout production.
Comment [GF2]: I agree with Darin here. David’s single sentence is so general as to not be
worth including by itself. So, a bit more fleshing
out. Maybe also encourage science whose results will make all energy more efficient and
implementation of newest technologies of this sort.
Comment [DW3R2]: This was actually intended
to be a bit tongue-in-cheek: we have this 50-page document here that jabbers on and on, but basically,
our energy policy can be boiled down into these 20
words (could be 18—DY added “can and” that I didn’t have in there and don’t think are necessary).
So maybe this section should be retitled “ABC’s
Energy Policies Boiled Down to 20 Words.”
Or maybe it should be placed above the “ABC POLICY SUMMARY” section and titled “ABC
Energy Philosophy”?
Flaring of gaseous combustibles should be discouraged at all times. During migration seasons,
from March through May and August through October each year, flaring should not be
permitted.
Platform lighting should be used that omits the red spectrum to avoid attracting birds and causing
bird collisions.
ONSHORE OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION Reserve pits and evaporation pits must be fenced and covered, as already required in some states,
to ensure that waterbirds birds do not inadvertently land in them or any birds or other wildlife
attempts to drink from them. The pits should be maintained to ensure that materials do not leak,
run off, or blow into any water sources.
After well completion, immediate removal of the drilling fluids is necessary. The materials in the
pits should be appropriately treated and reused, or stabilized through solidification and burial, or
stored (perhaps through reinjection into a well) to ensure that none of the materials can further
contaminate water, air, or land. An alternative to the use of earthen reserve pits is closed-loop
drilling systems using steel tanks to hold the drilling muds and cuttings.
Especially in wooded or forested regions, road corridors for oil and gas exploration and
production should be routed to avoid fragmenting the habitat. This can include routing to avoid
forest patches altogether, or following previously-opened disturbance lines and paths such as
roads or power line or pipeline corridors.
Lighting on drilling derricks should be downward-directed and omit the red spectrum as a way to
avoid bird collisions. Flaring of gas or other combustibles should not be allowed.
Once exploration sites are no longer used or production systems are established, remaining lands
should be restored completely to their previous habitat state, using native vegetation.
Hydrological systems should likewise be restored to provide the same drainage patterns as
previously.
GAS AND OIL FRACKING Besides the issues otherwise involved in gas and oil drilling (see above), hydraulic fracturing
(“fracking”) has an additional issue. Petroleum distillates used in hydraulic fracturing pose a
potential threat to the nation’s water supplies and dependent wildlife, but those risks have not yet
been adequately studied or addressed by federal and state regulators. Drillers should be required
to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act when using hydraulic fracturing. These companies
should also be required to disclose publicly the chemicals they use hydraulic fracturing in every
well.
FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS Power plants should use smokestack scrubbers to remove acid rain-producing compounds and
heavy metals from their emissions. This can be encouraged by building on the successful sulfur
dioxide capped emissions trading scheme. On smokestacks, power plants should use appropriate
lighting to avoid causing bird collisions.
NUCLEAR ENERGY Uranium mines should be held to the same standards for managing tailings and leachates and for
mined land reclamation as other mines (see section on coal mining, above). On cooling towers,
nuclear power plants should use appropriate lighting to avoid causing bird collisions.
WIND ENERGY For ABC’s wind energy policies, please refer to the wind power policy documents.
SOLAR ENERGY Distributed solar energy production, that is, solar panels on roofs of buildings near where the
energy is to be used, is the preferred method of solar energy production and should be
encouraged over large-scale solar collection. At large scale solar energy production facilities,
collision and incineration issues should be addressed for all installations. Collectors should be
developed or placed so that their reflective surfaces are not seen by birds as spaces they can fly
through.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER If reservoirs are to be constructed, they should be sited to minimize habitat loss, and mitigation
should made, possibly by improving riparian or bottomland habitat at nearby sites.
BIOFUELS Because of the low energy output per unit of energy input, production of ethanol from corn
should be replaced by production of cellulosic ethanol crops using native plants. Large-scale
monocultures of any biofuel production feedstock crop should be avoided, to allow a diverse
landscape and habitat for birds.
TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY For power lines, APLIC guidelines should be followed. All new construction should be built and
all already-existing power poles should be retrofitted to the extent that the protection of birds
from electrocution and collision is guaranteed.
Where possible, transmission cables should be laid underground as the safest means of avoiding
bird losses. Where not possible, existing power poles of dangerous types should be replaced by
low risk power poles with suspended insulators.
Power lines should be diverted from areas where large numbers of birds regularly fly through at
a low altitude (coastlines, topographical bottlenecks, wetlands, breeding colonies), and also from
IBAs that contain species highly susceptible of suffer from electrocution and collision against
cables. If power lines are nonetheless built in these areas, they should be marked to reduce bird
collisions, using state of the art technology.
For pipelines, corridors should always be restored to the appropriate and pre-existing habitat,
using the appropriate native vegetation. Introduced vegetation should not be used.
In wooded or forested regions, pipeline corridors should be routed to avoid fragmenting the
habitat. This can include routing to avoid forest patches altogether, or following previously-
opened disturbance lines and paths such as roads or previous power line or pipeline corridors.
Pipeline access points and installations such as pumping stations should also be placed to reduce
habitat fragmentation and loss.
INTRODUCTION Energy production is, of course, a necessity of modern life, with a great many benefits, but also
some drawbacks. Some of these drawbacks relate specifically to conservation and to
conservation of birds. Depending on the form and location of energy production , some of these
are:
Contamination of earth, water, or air
Collisions with towers, wind turbines, or power lines
Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and encroachment on protected areas
Climate change, including shifting rainfall patterns, sea level increases, and habitat
alteration
This document will provide an overview of energy issues relating to birds. Each energy source is
treated separately, along with the threats to birds posed. Solutions or recommendations for
addressing each of the threats is also presented. Some issues, such as energy transmission, which
are general issues for many forms of energy, are discussed in the following section.
FOSSIL FUELS
COAL EXTRACTION
Overview Without proper care, coal mining (both surface and subsurface) can destroy land and habitat and
pollute water. When coal is then burned to produce energy, it gives off carbon dioxide, the main
greenhouse gas that is linked with global warming (Solomon et al. 2009, National Research
Council 2010). Burning coal also produces emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
mercury (Pavlish et al. 2003) that can pollute the air and water (Streets and Waldhoff 2000,
Yokoyama et al. 2000, Hutson et al. 2008). In addition, transporting mined coal sometimes
requires the construction of roads, railroads, pipelines and other facilities, and the consumption
of fuel to move them (Chadwick et al. 1986). Power plants themselves disrupt the environment,
and the transmission lines that move the electricity also have impacts (Vajjhala and Fischbeck
2007).
The United States has the world’s largest known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons
(Libbin and Boehlje 1977, Schmidt 1979, Thomas 1992). This is enough coal to last
approximately 236 years at today’s level of use (Zimmerman 1977, Hayes 1979, R. Schmidt
1979). It takes roughly one ton of coal to provide on US house with electricity for two months, or
approximately 2,000 kilowatt hours of electricity (Turvey and Nobay 1965, Barnes et al. 1981).
Coal is also the cheapest source of power, at an average of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (Donn
Dears 2012). Unfortunately, at present it is also one of the single largest contributors to global
warming (Hulme 2009, Oreskes 2010, Pielke 2010). In 2009 there were roughly 600 coal-fired
power plants operating in the United States (SourceWatch 2012), emitting approximately 25% of
global CO2 output every year (ScienceDaily 2007). Coal is mined in 27 states with Wyoming
mines producing the most coal, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Montana,
and Texas (National Mining Association 2011). Coal is mainly found in three large regions; the
Appalachian Coal Region (37% of total US coal production), the Interior Coal Region (14% of
production), and Western Coal Region (48%), which includes the Powder River Basin (US
Energy Information Administration 2006; Figure 1). The Western Region produces the greatest
amount of coal
Figure 1. Potential coal in the United States (US Geological Survey).
Generally, regulations to reduce impacts on birds or other wildlife have not had a significant
effect on the ability to produce coal.
Mountaintop Removal The Appalachian region is one of the most biodiverse parts of the country and an important
habitat to many migratory birds including warblers and vireos. In this region, mountaintop
mining and valley fills have substantially altered the forest and aquatic biota of the region
(Slonecker and Benger 2001, Wickham et al. 2007). Mountaintop removal of coal and valley fill
operations in the Appalachian region have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of mature
deciduous forests that are bird habitats (Sovacool 2009, Palmer et al. 2010).
Habitat Loss Since the late 1970s, coal companies have mined more than one million acres in seven
Appalachian coal states. Although closed mine lands were reclaimed in accordance with state
and federal laws, most of these previously-forested acres were planted to grasses to create
pastures, as the most expedient reclamation solution. This eliminates habitat for species such as
the Cerulean Warbler that need blocks of unbroken forest. North American Breeding Bird
Survey data for Cerulean Warbler show a population decline of 3.0% decline per year since 1966
(Sauer et al. 2011) and surface mining is one possible cause for the species decline (Palmer et al.
2010). Loss of forest habitat from mining operations may have resulted in loss of approximately
191,722 Cerulean Warblers (Bohall Wood et al. 2006, Sovacool 2009). The Louisiana
Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo are
also being threatened by removal of forest habitat (Fox 1999, Villard et al. 1999, Donovan et al.
2002).
Both open-pit/strip mining and deep-rock mining produce large amounts of mining waste in the
form of tailings. These tailings must be stored, at least until they can reclaimed, and therefore
usually damage or cover habitat. Although tailings can and are reclaimed, as in areas that are
mined, in many cases they are not restored to forest, but instead to grassland, a habitat not useful
for the species originally occupying the sites.
In the West, coal mining can affect non-forested habitats. For example, in the Powder River
Basin of Wyoming, although mines are fewer than in Appalachia, they are larger, and have
caused significant loss of grassland habitats, in the same way as Appalachian coal mines have,
eliminating habitat for declining grassland birds. Mineland recovery in these areas can also open
up habitats for invasive plants, such as cheatgrass.
Contamination from Mining Waste Mining waste does not just occupy space. It may also produce acidic (usually from sulfur
compounds present in the rock) or otherwise toxic leachate, often in forms that are very
persistent, such as with heavy metals. These contaminants may enter groundwater or surface
waters directly through leaching or indirectly through dust deposition into aquatic systems and
be picked up by birds, causing death or morbidity. Acidification of streams and lakes reduces
their productivity of invertebrates and fish, reducing food sources for birds. In some areas, for
example in parts of North Dakota, naturally-occurring radioactive elements can also contaminate
mine waste.
Solutions In selected instances, wildlife concerns have been addressed to limit the mining of coal reserves
or the manner in which coal is mined. For example, in southern Wyoming, mine plans have had
to be adapted for the protection of raptor habitat, especially that related to nesting areas for
Golden Eagles (Phillips et al. 1984). In North Dakota, mining is being restricted in wooded
draws, a scarce bird habitat (Höök and Aleklett 2009).
Protection for birds from coal extraction is based primarily on a federal provision (US Fish and
Wildlife Service) which states that an operation must: “…to the extent possible using the best
technology currently available, minimize disturbances and adverse impacts of the operation on
fish, wildlife, and related environmental values (which has been understood to mean habitat for
birds and other wildlife), and achieve enhancement of such resources where practicable.”
Reclamation of mined lands
Because reclaimed mined lands are often reseeded in nonnative grasses, recovered lands are
often not suitable for the bird communities that existed before the mining. Although it is more
expensive to recover mined lands with trees rather than grass, to maintain and recover the bird
populations, as well as other diversity at these mining sites, it is necessary to make the
investment in complete recovery of the mined lands. This will benefit not only birds such as the
Cerulean Warbler, but all biodiversity of the region. All reclamation efforts in the Appalachians
should follow the forest reclamation approach developed by the Appalachian Regional
Reforestation Initiative (ARRI). An operator must always select native plant species on
reclaimed areas based on their nutritional value and their value as cover, and must distribute
these species to optimize habitat (Holl 2002). At recovered minelands in other regions of the
country, the minelands should be returned to the same type of habitat as was present before the
mining occurred. Where cropland is to be established after mining, fields are to be interspersed
with trees, hedges, or fence rows (Hofmann and Ries 1988, Shrestha and Lal 2006).
Minelands that have been inappropriately recovered, for example, minelands in Appalachia that
have been “recovered” to grassland where the original habitat was forested, should be addressed
a second time and lands returned to the appropriate, original habitat type.
Mountaintop Removal
This mining technique should be curtailed. Efforts should be made to clarify the definition of
“fill material” under the Clean Water Act and prevent mountaintop mining waste from being
dumped into nearby valleys.
Contamination from Mining Waste
Contamination from mining waste should be contained on site, and either stabilized, stored or
treated to make it harmless to birds or anything else in the environment.
OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION
Overview The US will become the world's top producer of oil by 2020, a net
exporter of oil around 2030 and nearly self-sufficient in energy by
2035, according to a new report from the International Energy
Agency.
Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2012
Statistics from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the agency that tracks energy-
related data, show the consumption of energy from oil and gas resources in the United States is
outpacing domestic production (Annual Energy Outlook 2012). The current domestic supply of
crude oil is approximately 5.5 million barrels per day, while consumption of crude oil is in
excess of 20 million barrels per day; a domestic production shortfall of 14.5 million barrels per
day (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 2012). In short, America does not
possess excess crude oil production capacity to meet the nation’s oil and gas needs.
Current natural gas consumption is greater than domestic production, yet the natural gas
domestic production shortfall is not as large as that for crude oil. While production of natural gas
is expected to grow over the next 15 years, consumption is expected to grow at a faster rate
(ExxonMobil 2012). Predictions indicate a domestic production shortfall of approximately 7
TCF/year by 2030 (ALL Consulting 2007).
The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) national assessment of oil and gas resources
estimates the current oil and gas resources of the United States to be 47.3 billion barrels of oil,
622 TCF of total natural gas, and 11.4 billion barrels of natural gas liquids (ALL Consulting
2007). Analysis of oil and gas fields with the highest known reserves indicates these fields are
concentrated in five regions: California, the Rocky Mountain States, the south-central United
States, Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Natural gas production and use have many of the same problems as oil but gas is considered a
potential bridge fuel to a low carbon economy because it is cleaner burning than its hydrocarbon
rivals coal and oil. Natural gas combustion emits about two-thirds less carbon dioxide than coal
Comment [DE4]: GENERAL COMMENTS
1. There are many conservation issues associated
with oil and gas extraction (“o&g”). Among these
are use of water, fluid spills, treatment and disposal of drilling fluids, storage ponds, disposal of drilling
cuttings, air pollution, fugitive emission of methane,
contamination of water supplies caused by poor well construction. The “big scare” has been possible
contamination of the water table due to the migration
of drilling fluids and gas caused by high pressure fracturing (“fracking”).
2. These are legitimate concerns (not including the migration of fluids and gas due to fracking).
However, almost all of these concerns can be
minimized, if not eliminated, if the process is done correctly. This will happen and is happening
through the effects of industry best practices, good
and tough regulation and amply funded state regulatory agencies. The remaining concerns I have
here are with regard to air pollution and fugitive
methane emission (leaks), both of which are being addressed by the industry and regulatory agencies.
3. A side comment: There will always be the occasional bad actor and accidents. That’s why
tough regulations and regulatory agencies are
required. However, the effects of an accident differ colossally between onshore and offshore o&g.
Contrast the BP incident with the blow out of a
Marcellus Shale well, which has happened. When the Marcellus Shale blew out (operators lost flow
control), there was a pretty big flare, but no injuries
or deaths and no ground or water pollution. I personally feel that deep water and, especially,
Arctic o&g is too environmentally dangerous to
conduct. My hope (dream) is that the rapid growth of onshore o&g (largely from shale deposits) in the
U. S. and elsewhere will substantially reduce
deepwater o&g and stop Arctic o&g.
4. The one general conservation issue that best practices and regulation cannot solve is habitat loss,
or more generally stated, the physical effects of the
construction and mere presence of o&g infrastructure (drilling pads, treatment plants, roads,
pipelines).
5. The Nature Conservancy of Pennsylvania is
studying the effect of o&g (also wind and biofuel)
development on habitat in Pennsylvania. The first report, entitled Pennsylvania Energy Impacts
Assessment , is available on the TNCPA website. It
is worth a read.
6. So, where does this lead me with regard to what
ABC’s position should be regard o&g? First, I think ABC should narrow its focus to: a. direct effects on
birds, and b. habitat effects.
7. The oil and gas statistics used in the draft are out
of date. The rapid growth of shale oil and gas in the
U. S. has transformed the industry.
8.The growth in shale o&g has been made possible
by combining two technologies: horizontal drilling and high pressure fracturing. There are horizontal ...
and one-quarter less than oil when consumed in a typical electric power plant, and emits less
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides than coal or oil (Jaramillo et al. 2007).
Some shale deposits, including the Marcellus Shale in the Eastern US, Eagle Ford Shale in
Texas, and Bakken formation in North Dakota, contain reserves of natural gas or oil that cannot
be exploited using conventional drilling methods and therefore employ hydraulic fracturing
(fracking) as a means of recovery (Kargbo et al. 2010). Hydraulic fracturing involves drilling a
deep well vertically into the reservoir formation and then turning it horizontally into the deposit;
sand, water, and chemicals are injected into the rock layer, creating cracks that allow the gas or
oil to seep out so it can be recovered (Kargbo et al. 2010). These cracks can extend as much as a
few hundred meters into the rock from the injection well.
Offshore drilling and platforms There are >7,500 active offshore oil and gas drilling leases on the Outer Continental Shelf along
the US coast, with about 4,500 of these in the Gulf of Mexico, accounting for 30% of the
nation’s energy supply including 35% of our natural gas (National Energy Technology
Laboratory 2005). These drilling facilities are major industrial facilities, having tremendous
impacts on the ocean floor, water and air quality, and fragile marine ecosystems (Wiese et al.
2001, Holdway 2002). In addition, oil spills from offshore drilling can be especially hazardous,
because the oil can spread widely and travel great distances, to have impacts on birds over great
areas (for example, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010; for more on spills, see that section
below). Offshore oil spills are therefore much more hazardous to birds than are onshore spills.
In addition, offshore oil platforms pose a serious threat to millions of migrating birds due to the
use of rig lighting (Wiese et al. 2001, Montevecchi 2006). White lights on oil and gas platforms
cause an estimated 200,000 bird deaths per year (Montevecchi 2006). Migrating songbirds are
drawn to the light, and, once in the glare, become disoriented (Russell 2005, Montevecchi 2006).
Some birds circle in confusion before crashing into the platform or falling from the sky,
exhausted. Even birds not attracted by lights may be killed in collisions platform superstructure
(Russell 2005), which may extend significantly above water level. In the Gulf of Mexico, such
collisions tend to occur in the south-bound fall migration, because birds are over the platforms
during darkness at that season (Russell 2005).
Birds may also benefit from platforms, especially trans-Gulf migrants crossing the Gulf of
Mexico, which may sometimes use the platforms as stepping stones. Fatigued birds sometimes
use platforms as resting sites, and after a period of recovery may resume their migration. Some
may even use the platforms as foraging sites before resuming their flight (Russell 2005). The
platforms may also serve positive effects for Peregrine Falcons, which have been observed to use
the platforms as hunting sites from which to take migrating birds (Russell 2005).
In some production systems, flammable gases may be produced as an unwanted byproduct of oil
production. These gases are sometimes burned off in flares, which are sometimes very large,
unconfined flames. As a light source, these flares may attract birds, which, venturing too close,
can be incinerated.
Offshore Platform Solutions
Because oil spills can have widespread effects on birds and on their habitats, permitting of
offshore drilling must carefully take into account the areas where drilling is allowed to ensure
that potential spills do not have catastrophic effects on known Important Bird Areas or offshore
roosting areas. Leasing, exploration, and development and production of oil and gas from the
outer continental shelf should not be allowed without adequate scientific and environmental
information to ensure the level of protection needed for the conservation of the natural resources
of the nation’s waters and coastal areas, and until appropriate spill prevention and control
methods are ensured to be in place. For policy recommendations specifically relating to and
deriving from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, see Appendix II.
Because any light sources, including flares, will attract birds, during migration flares can bring
birds in to platforms. Bird entering the flare or the heated air above it can be killed or injured,
and unable to complete their migration. Offshore platforms should not be allowed to flare gas or
other combustibles, or if it is necessary, should not be allowed during migration seasons, that is,
from March through May and August through October each year.
Finally, ABC urges the oil and gas industry to use available lights that omit the red spectrum as a
way to avoid future bird collisions.
Onshore Exploration is the process by which companies seek oil or gas-producing geologic formations;
production is the process by which oil or gas is obtained once discovered. Each has different
effects and risks for birds.
Onshore Exploration
Exploration for oil and gas resources often requires construction of access roads. Especially in
forested areas, such roads can open corridors, causing fragmentation of habitat. The road corridor
can allow a pathway for the entry to the forest of invasive species and open/edge species. Such
corridors are widely recognized as entry ways for cowbirds into the interior of forests, where the
cowbirds can have significant impact on birds such as Wood Thrush and Ovenbird. The corridors
also provide pathways for the entry and travel of predators such as raccoons and cats, which can
have significant impact on nesting birds.
Noise and Disturbance
Construction of wells and operation of sometimes noisy facilities such as pumping stations and
gas compression stations on pipelines can disturb potentially sensitive birds (for example, see All
About Birds) , such as colonial-nesting or lekking birds, as well as some raptors, resulting in the
abandonment of nest areas or lek sites or the disruption of normal nesting behaviors, which could
result in some local population-level effects. Some species may become habituated and return to
normal behaviors, while others may leave the area for the duration of operations. Construction of
onshore wells and associated facilities, and of the onshore portions of offshore wells, may affect
birds in a similar manner.
Fragmentation
As with exploration, production of oil and gas often requires construction of roads, drilling pads,
storage areas, and collecting pipelines and corridors. These constructions can all cause
fragmentation of habitat, with the same effects on birds as mentioned above.
Collisions
During production, most onshore oil and gas installations are low profile. However, during
drilling, large derricks are typically used, and because drilling work is often round-the-clock,
Comment [DE5]: Disturbances of threatened species such as Sage Grouse. Best dealt with on a
species by species basis.
usually very strongly lighted. As with offshore platforms, this lighting may attract migrating
birds, causing collisions.
Flares
As described above for offshore platforms, onshore drilling and productions systems also
sometimes use flares to get rid of unwanted combustible gases. These flares can cause the same
problems for birds as in offshore platforms.
Habitat Loss
Drilling often requires an extensive complex of drilling pads and equipment and pipe storage
area, roads, pipelines, impoundments, processing plants, dormitories, gravel mines, solid waste
disposal sites, airports, etc. Even with improved technologies, the industrial complex needed to
produce and transport oil could mean the unavoidable loss of nesting, brood-rearing and feeding
habitats for birds. Although in some cases these facilities are removed and reclaimed once
drilling has been completed, usually some permanent habitat loss remains. These may include
areas under roads required to maintain and service the well or pipeline, but may also include
habitat loss from disturbance of adjacent habitats from altered surface and subsurface hydrology,
reduction of habitat quality because of the establishment of non-native vegetation, and
fragmentation of some habitats because of siting of pipelines, access roads, and utility corridors.
Water Supply and Contamination
Indirect effects of oil and gas drilling and production, such as altered water drainage, water
depletion in lakes and rivers, and dust deposition, may extend far beyond the immediate
“footprint” of an oilfield.
In addition, earthen pits, also known as reserve pits, excavated adjacent to drilling rigs are
commonly used for the disposal of drilling muds and well cuttings in natural gas or oil fields.
The contents of reserve pits depend on the type of drilling mud used, the formation drilled, and
other chemicals added to the mud circulation system during the drilling process. If the reserve pit
contains oil or oil-based products, the pit can entrap and kill migratory birds and other wildlife
(Maki 1992, Stephenson 1997). During the drilling process, reserve pits probably do not attract
aquatic migratory birds due to human activity and noise. However, once the drilling rig and other
equipment are removed from the well pad, the reserve pit is attractive to birds, especially
waterbirds such as ducks, because they can be mistaken for bodies of water (Stephenson 1997).
Insects entrapped in reserve pit fluids also attract songbirds, bats, amphibians, and small
mammals. Birds landing in the pits can become oiled, entrapping the birds until they die from
exposure and exhaustion. Birds can also fall into oil-covered reserve pits when they approach the
pit to drink. Following well completion, reserve pits are often left in place after the drilling rig
and other equipment are removed from the site. Reserve pit fluids are allowed to dry and the
remaining solids are encapsulated with a synthetic liner and buried in place. Depending on state
regulations, oil operators are allowed from 30 days to one year after well completion to close a
reserve pit. The longer the reserve pit is left on site, the greater the probability that aquatic birds
will land on the pit. If the reserve pit contains oil, condensates, or other hydrocarbons or
hydraulic fracturing fluids (see below), the risk of bird mortality is very high. For example, oil
pits where slurry is disposed of at energy facilities kill an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 birds per
year (US Fish and Wildlife Service).
Comment [DE6]: Flaring- In some situations, flaring cannot be avoided. This will occur during
completion of a well. It should be of short time duration. Continuous flaring should be prohibited.
Comment [DE7]: Storage ponds-all need to be covered (I am not sure of the state of regulations across the country on this).
The fracking process consumes huge amounts of water; 9,000 to 29,000 cubic meters of water
may be required for fracturing a single well (Kargbo et al. 2010, Gregory et al. 2011). This could
cause problems with the sustainability of water resources and add to consumption pressures on
supplies in more arid areas (Nicot and Scanlon 2012). The hazards associated with chemicals
added to fracking fluids are very poorly understood. At least 260 chemicals are known to be
present in around 197 fracking fluid products and some of these are known to be toxic,
carcinogenic and mutagenic (Finkel and Law 2011, C. Schmidt 2011). These chemicals can
contaminate groundwater due to failure of the integrity of the well bore and migration of
contaminants. Between 15–80% of injected fracturing fluid returns to the surface with the rest
remaining underground (US Environmental Protection Agency). This water contains fracturing
additives and their transformation products. Substances dissolved from the shale formation
during fracturing may include heavy metals, hydrocarbons and naturally occurring radioactive
elements (National Toxics Network, Australia).
Air Contamination
The vapor that rises from “evaporation pits” where fracking wastewater is often stored has been
recorded as containing the potent carcinogen benzene. Leaks in gas wells and pipelines may also
contribute to air pollution and to greenhouse gas emissions. Large numbers of vehicle
movements and the operation of generating plants can also cause significant air pollution with
acid gases, hydrocarbons and fine particulates.
Onshore Exploration and Production Solutions
Especially in wooded or forested regions, road corridors for exploration and production should
be routed to avoid fragmenting the habitat. This can include routing to avoid forest patches
altogether, or following previously-opened disturbance lines and paths such as roads or power
line or pipeline corridors. Exploration roads that may not be needed once the exploration phase
has concluded should be closed and restored to the previous state using native vegetation.
Best noise-reduction technologies should be used in all phases of exploration, drilling, and
production.
Lighting on drilling derricks should be downward-directed and omit the red spectrum as a way to
avoid bird collisions. Flaring of gas or other combustibles should not be allowed.
Once exploration sites are no longer used or production systems are established, remaining lands
should be restored completely to their previous habitat state, using native vegetation.
Hydrological systems should likewise be restored to provide the same drainage patterns as
previously.
Reserve pits and evaporation pits must be fenced and covered, as already required in some states,
to ensure that waterbirds birds do not inadvertently land in them or any birds or other wildlife
attempts to drink from them. The pits should be maintained to ensure that materials do not leak,
run off, or blow into any water sources.
Immediate removal of the drilling fluids after well completion is the key to preventing wildlife
mortality in reserve pits. Once use of the pits has been completed, the materials in the pits should
be appropriately treated and reused, or stabilized through solidification and burial, or stored
(perhaps through reinjection into a well) to insure that none of the materials can further
contaminate water, air, or land. An alternative to the use of earthen reserve pits is closed-loop
drilling systems using steel tanks to hold the drilling muds and cuttings.
Comment [DE8]: Habitat effects can be minimized by selective placement of drill pads, road and pipelines. Roads and pipelines should share
rights of way, where possible.
Certain environmentally critical areas should not be
disturbed. However, the key here will be to identify
these areas. A starting point would be wetlands.
Regional o&g plans should be employed to avoid
critical areas and minimize the “foot print” of o&g.
Restoration of drill sites and pipeline corridors
should be done with habitat objectives in mind. Current regulations are defective in this regard.
Petroleum distillates used in hydraulic fracturing may pose a serious threat to the nation’s water
supplies and dependent wildlife, but those risks have been largely ignored by federal and state
regulators. Drillers should be required to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act when using
hydraulic fracturing. These companies should also be required to disclose publicly the chemicals
they use hydraulic fracturing in every well. Federal and state agencies overseeing hydraulic
fracturing should also insist that their personnel be properly informed about existing law.
Spills
Waterways and Ocean
Oil spills may lead to direct bird mortality or morbidity, resulting from oiling of birds’ feathers,
reducing their abilities to maintain warmth and dryness, and making them incapable of flying.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 killed an estimated 225,000 birds (Piatt and Ford 1996), and
the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in 2010 may have killed as many as 82,000 birds in the Gulf
of Mexico (Center for Biological Diversity 2011). Oiled birds also often ingest toxic compounds
as they attempt to preen oil or processing wastes from their feathers, or predators including
raptors such as Peregrine Falcons may ingest the toxic compounds from eating oiled birds. These
contaminants may have acute or chronic toxic effects, reducing survival, growth, and
reproduction. In addition, oil spills can wreak havoc on coastal wildlife habitat, destroying
critical wetlands, estuaries and beaches used for nesting, feeding or resting (Goldsworthy et al.
2000, Peterson et al. 2003, The Environment Report).
On Land
Oil spills on land do not usually spread or travel as they do in water, usually restricting the spill
to a much smaller area of impact, and often being easier to clean up as long as they have not
reached any aquatic systems. However, accidental releases of oil, drilling and production wastes,
and processing wastes, may nonetheless expose birds and their habitats to contaminants that may
adversely affect growth, reproduction, and survival. Exposure to the released materials may
result in acute or chronic toxic effects, reducing survival, growth, and reproduction. Local or
regional population-level effects may result if, following ingestion of contaminated food or
incidental ingestion of contaminated media (food, sediments, or soil), reproduction is affected
(e.g., reduced egg production and increased malformations of embryos).
Spill Solutions
Prevention of spills is the best solution. However, because spills will occur, it is always
necessary to have spill control in place: spill control and cleanup plan and equipment ready,
personnel trained to respond. For at-sea spills, cleanup equipment should be prepositioned at
each site. Because onshore spills, especially those not entering aquatic systems, generally
disperse much more slowly, prepositioned spill control and cleanup equipment is not generally as
necessary. The public should have access to emergency response plans for spills and be able to
review and comment on them.
Once spills occur, response should be immediate.
TAR SANDS
Overview Oil (tar) sands, a mixture of sand, bitumen, and water can be mined or the oil can be extracted in
situ using thermal recovery techniques (US Department of the Interior). This oil exists in huge
quantities (trillions of barrels) particularly in Alberta, Canada, and in Venezuela, but requires
special treatment to recover (Demaison 1977, Head et al. 2003). Net energy recovery is
considerably less than from conventional drilled oil wells (Mossop 1980, Butler 1991); e.g., the
amount of natural gas required to process a barrel of oil from Canadian oil sands (Söderbergh et
al. 2007) can heat the average American home for 4-days (Energy and Capital).
Open pit tar sands oil development creates habitat fragmentation, toxic waste holding ponds, air
and water pollution, upgraders and refineries, and pipelines spreading far beyond the extraction
site (Environment Canada).
In the US, the federal government has been working with several major oil companies since the
1930s to demonstrate possible production of US oil sands deposits (Innes and Fear 1967,
Probstein and Hicks 1990). Unlike the Canadian deposits, tapping the US reserves is hampered
by a number of obstacles, including remote and difficult topography, scattered reserves, and lack
of available water (Miller and Misra 1982); only modest amounts are currently being produced in
Utah and California (Hein 2006).
Figure 2. Tar (oil) sand deposits in the United States (from Congressional Research Service).
Solutions ABC believes that for further tar sands development it would be necessary for the federal
government to require establishment of biodiversity offsets for all oil sands development to
compensate the impacts to all habitat types. To ensure a net positive environmental benefit and
address existing cumulative effects, offsets should be established with a 3:1 offset ratio: three
acres of land should be conserved or restored for every acre of new disturbance that occurs.
In addition, Congress should propose a new, transparent and risk-averse security program that
ensures the government collects financial security equivalent to the total liabilities created by oil
sands extraction. This new program should be tasked with measuring and mapping the quantity
and quality of groundwater and surface/groundwater interactions to determine both the short and
long-term sustainable yield of non-saline groundwater. New sites should not be approved until
the operation adopts a proven technology that eliminates the creation of sludge ponds / wet
tailings. In the interim, all current mines must be required to conform to the new tailings rules.
Finally, mine applications that propose the storage of tailings under end pit lakes as their
reclamation strategy should not be approved. Existing operations with approved end pit lake
plans should be modified to eliminate the need for end pit lakes as long-term storage sites for
toxic tailings waste.
SHALE OIL
Overview Shale oil is a potential energy source but it has not proven to be economical (US Department of
Energy). The finished products are limited to primarily diesel and jet fuel (Congressional
Research Service). In addition, shale oil production poses almost all of the same problems as
extraction from oil sands (Kothari et al. 2008).
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 identified oil shale as a strategically important domestic resource
and directed the Department of Interior (DOI) to promote commercial development (Energy
Policy Act of 2005). Since then, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has awarded six test
leases for oil research, development and demonstration. The ongoing program will confirm
whether an economically significant shale oil volume can be extracted under current operating
conditions. BLM has published a final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) in
which approximately two million acres of oil shale lands (out of approximately 3.54 million
acres total) are identified as potentially available for commercial leasing (US Bureau of Land
Management). However, in 2012 Department of the Interior proposed reducing the number of
acres available for leasing by more than half (US BLM news release).
The Green River oil shale formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is estimated to hold the
equivalent of 1.38 trillion barrels of oil (see map of most geologically prospective oil shale
resources within the Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming).
.
Figure 3. Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources within the Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming (from Congressional Research Service).
Oil shale production faces some unique technological challenges. The organic compound that is
the fuel source, kerogen, occurs in the shale as a solid and is not free to flow like crude
petroleum (Goth et al. 1988). The shale must be heated or retorted at >900° F to extract
petroleum-like distillates and release the hydrocarbons (Campbell et al. 1980, Wallman 1981).
Two basic retorting processes have been used, above-ground retorting and in situ retorting. The
above-ground retort is typically a large cylindrical vessel based on rotary kiln ovens used in
cement manufacturing and now used by Canada’s oil sands industry. The in situ process involves
mining an underground chamber that functions as a retort (US Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory).
Water Supply and Contamination A plentiful water supply is considered necessary for above-ground retorting. Apart from the
problem of sustaining controlled combustion underground, in situ retorting may cause
groundwater contamination (Parker et al. 1977, Wallman 1981).
Depending on the depth of the oil shale and the extraction methods used, demands on water
resources may vary considerably. Utah’s shallower oil shale may be more suited to conventional
open-pit or underground mining, and processing by above-ground retorting, whereas Colorado’s
deeper shale may require in situ extraction. The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Petroleum Reserves expects that oil shale development will require extensive quantities of water
for mine and plant operations, reclamation, supporting infrastructure, and associated economic
growth (Congressional Research Service). In the western US oil shale area, water could be drawn
from the Colorado River Basin or purchased from existing reservoirs, but this would put greater
stress on limited freshwater aquatic resources.
Water produced in association with shale oil extraction (including oil and gas) typically contains
high levels of contaminants, and it usually must be treated before it can be safely used or
discharged. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is planning
to regulate, under the Clean Water Act, how drillers dispose of the millions of gallons of
wastewater created by shale gas production and expects to begin a rulemaking process in 2014.
Waste Disposal Above-ground retorting also depends on underground or open-pit mining to excavate the shale.
The expended shale that remains after retorting presents a disposal problem. In the case of open-
pit mining, overburden rock must be removed and set aside to expose the shale. This produces
many of the same problems as mine tailings from coal mining or other mining, and such sites
must be reclaimed.
Solutions Based on the current information and existing technologies, ABC believes proceeding with oil
shale development would be inadvisable given the significant impacts on water resources and the
environment. Any further exploration should begin with an analysis of potential impacts to water
users, groundwater, and sensitive protected species.
POWER PLANTS Non-nuclear power plants burn fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, or fuels from sources
such as tar sands and oil shales) to produce electricity. Besides the indirect effects of burning
fossil fuels such as production of CO2, which contributes to global climate change, these power
plants may have other effects on birds, either directly or indirectly. (For additional discussion of
the effects of burning fossil fuels on global climate change, see that section, below; for
information on the effects on birds caused by nuclear power plants, also see that section, below.)
Collisions with smokestacks Some fossil fuel power plants have very tall smokestacks. During daylight hours, these
smokestacks rarely pose a collision danger, but when lighted at night during migration seasons
they may attract birds into the lighted area, birds which then risk collision and death with the
structure. With steady-burning, white lights migrating songbirds are drawn to the light, and, once
in the glare, become disoriented, circling in confusion before colliding with the stack or falling
from the sky, exhausted.
Acid rain Acid rain occurs when sulfur and nitrogen compounds, produced from impurities in the fossil
fuel energy source, rise into the atmosphere and combine with water to then fall to the earth as
rain, snow, mist, and fog (Likens et al. 1979, Schindler 1988, Likens et al. 1996). Ecologists,
biologists, and ornithologists have shown that the acid rain partly formed from power plant
pollution destroys nesting sites for birds, advances stages of forest dieback (especially at higher
elevations where conditions are more conducive to acid rain formation), thins forest canopies,
lessens the amount of available food, alters habitat, and degrades soil (Overrein et al. 1980,
Likens et al. 1996). Acid rain produces greatest problems in the northeastern US, where locally
produced acid rain is increased by acid rain drifting from the Midwest following prevailing
weather patterns (US Geological Survey).
Several studies show acid rain induced significant impacts on the reproduction and population
size of piscivorous birds, forest birds, and insectivorous and granivorous birds (Alvo et al. 1988,
Graveland 1990, Hames et al. 2002, Hames et al. 2006). After taking into account and adjusting
for soil and vegetation, habitat alteration, population density, and vegetation cover, an extensive
study estimated that acid rain annually reduced the population of Wood Thrushes in the United
States by 2–5% (Hames et al. 2002). Acid rain reduces calcium in forest soils and streams
(Likens et al. 1996, Yanai et al. 2005), thereby reducing food sources such as snails and other
invertebrates many songbirds require to lay eggs and grow. Negative effects of acid rain
demonstrate soil calcium may be limiting Ovenbird reproduction (Keller 2012, Pabian and
Brittingham 2011, Pabian and Brittingham 2012). Acid rain may be contributing to declines in
many neotropical migrant songbirds by reducing soil calcium and important invertebrate prey
items birds depend on.
Contamination Another impurity often emitted into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels is mercury,
which is distributed and returns to earth in precipitation, eventually accumulating therefore in
streams and especially lakes, where, through biological magnification, it can be concentrated in
fish and invertebrates taken up by birds. Multiple studies have confirmed that mercury can be
lethal at even relatively low doses to avian fauna (Scheuhammer 1987, Wolfe et al. 1998, Henny
et al. 2002, Evers et al. 2005, Scheuhammer et al. 2007).
Other heavy metals may also be present in fossil fuels and emitted by power plants. Heavy metal
accumulation in passerine bird species has also been found in zones surrounding coal-fired
power plants (Klein and Russell 1973, Keegan et al. 2006).
Solutions
Acid Rain Solutions
Title IV of The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-549) went a long way in
addressing acid rain by creating a system of tradable “allowances.” This system provides an
economic mechanism by which emitters of sulfur dioxide (SO2), a common impurity produced
when burning fossil fuels, can determine the most cost-effective way to meet reduction
requirements. However, because acid rain continues to be a problem, ABC supports further
efforts to reduce sulfur and nitrogen emissions, such as requiring energy producers to clean
smoke stacks by using enhanced scrubber technology which trap pollutants before they are
released into the atmosphere.
Other Contaminants
Smokestack scrubbers should also be required and used to remove heavy metal contaminants
such as mercury from power plant emissions. EPA issued new rules in 2011 to limit smokestack
mercury emissions (Los Angeles Times).
Smokestack Collisions
Lighting should downward-directed and lights should be used that omit the red spectrum to avoid
attracting birds and causing bird collisions.
CLIMATE CHANGE The issue of global climate change and its effect on conservation of birds, although it is directly
related to energy production and consumption, is a large one worthy of its own policy statement.
Therefore, it will not be addressed in detail here. Burning of fossil fuels of course gives off
carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that is linked with global warming (Pielke 2010). Much
of bird conservation must be addressed by managing adaptation to climate change. This
document will not deal with that issue, but instead with climate change mitigation.
Mitigation Solutions
Avoided Deforestation
When trees are cut greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere; roughly 20% of annual
emissions of such heat-trapping gases result from deforestation and forest degradation. Avoided
deforestation is the concept where countries are paid to prevent deforestation that would
otherwise occur (Ebeling and Yasué 2008). Funds come from industrialized countries seeking to
meet emissions commitments under international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol et seq. and
international frameworks such as REDD+. The idea is attractive because it can help fight climate
change at a low cost while improving living standards for some of the world’s poorest people,
safeguarding biodiversity, including avifaunal diversity, and preserving other ecosystem services
(Ebeling and Yasué 2008). A number of prominent conservation biologists and development
agencies including the World Bank and the U.N. have already endorsed the idea; even the United
States government has voiced support for the plan (Fearnside 2001). Canada and the United
States have created extensive protected areas where forests are allowed to go through natural
succession, and thereby store maximum amounts of carbon. Additional protected areas for high-
carbon forests could be created.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
On the production side, ABC supports advancing policy solutions that would allow the world to
continue to use coal in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis, by
advancing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to help reduce carbon dioxide
emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. CCS
technology remains unproven, and needs to be shown to be an effective technology before it is
fully integrated into energy policy. The US should take the lead in evaluating CCS technology
and the economic and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and
conversion plants. If CCS technology can be shown to be viable policymakers and the public
should encourage its adoption.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
OVERVIEW Nuclear energy is produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235, is concentrated such
that nuclear fission takes place in a controlled chain reaction and creates heat, which is used to
boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine (Olander 1976). Aside from nuclear
accidents, of all energy sources, nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the
environment, especially in relation to kilowatts produced, because nuclear plants do not emit
Comment [D9]: Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Here is the rub of it all – no accidents?
harmful greenhouse gases, require a relatively small area, and effectively mitigate other impacts.
In other words, nuclear energy is the most “eco-efficient” of all energy sources because it
produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. The adverse effects
for birds resulting from uranium mining and collisions with cooling towers are usually local in
scale. The areas around nuclear power plants can provide wetlands that provide nesting areas for
waterfowl and other birds. In fact, such endangered species as Osprey, Peregrine Falcons, Bald
Eagles, Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, have found a home at nuclear power plants. Some nuclear
plants also have programs to protect species that are not endangered, such as Eastern Bluebirds,
Wood Ducks, and American Kestrels (Sovacool 2009). The downsides are that it produces waste
that is radioactive for 10,000+ years, storage solutions have yet to be developed (Pentreath
1980), economic costs are high relative to other energy alternatives, and when accidents have
happened, extensive damage to the localized environment occurs for decades.
URANIUM MINING The threat to avian wildlife from nuclear power plants can be divided into upstream and
downstream fatalities. Uranium milling and mining can poison and kill hundreds of birds per
facility per year. Indeed, in early 2008 the Cotter Corporation was fined $40,000 for the death of
40 geese and ducks at the Canyon City Uranium Mill in Colorado (Sovacool 2009, 2012). The
birds apparently ingested contaminated water at one of the settling ponds at the uranium mine
(Sovacool 2012).
COOLING TOWER COLLISIONS Like fossil-fueled power stations and wind farms, avian fauna can also collide with nuclear
power plants (Rusz et al. 1986). Three thousand birds died in two successive nights in 1982 from
collisions with smokestacks and cooling towers at Florida Power Corporation’s Crystal River
Generating Facility, likely due to exterior lighting and poor weather conditions (Maehr 1983).
COOLING PONDS The heated water in nuclear power plant cooling ponds can be attractive to birds, especially in
winter when the cooling ponds may be the only available unfrozen water. Such ponds may
provide habitat for large numbers of geese and ducks. Although this may be a benefit for birds in
harsh seasons, it may also have negative consequences by concentrating large numbers of birds,
and because cooling ponds can remain open in freezing weather, allowing waterbirds to winter
outside their normal, appropriate range.
SOLUTIONS Uranium mining should meet the same requirements as all other mining (see solutions section on
coal mining on page 12). Lighting on cooling towers and other large structures should
downward-directed and lights should be used that omit the red spectrum to avoid attracting birds
and causing bird collisions.
Comment [SH10]: Strong value judgment in favor of nuclear power. A more balanced
presentation is warranted.
Comment [DS11]: Obviously I disagree with Steve. I would rather see more nuclear plants and
fewer coal plants any day of the week.
Comment [KF12]: As someone who used to work in a nuclear power plant, I concur with Steve.
Besides potential for devastating accidents, the long-
term waste storage problem has not been solved, and the stuff is accumulating at facilities near urban areas
all over the country.
Comment [GF13]: So, in conclusion…there is no conclusion. I think David put the right caveat (aside from accidents) in so this is balanced, and
others are simply reacting because there are more
pros- than cons – by word count.
Comment [D14]: The production of energy using a nuclear power plant is minimal. The potential for a
nuclear accident is nearly impossible to determine.
Yet if a catastrophic event were to occur – as has happened in Russia and in Japan within the past few
decades – the resulting environmental devastation is
immense, tremendously expensive, and, in human terms, nearly permanent. Thus the decision to favor
nuclear power over other forms of power all swings
on your faith in society and in governments to be able to control nuclear energy and prevent accidents,
theft of nuclear material, and other low-risk but high-
impact possibilities.
Comment [DW15]: I have left the discussion notes here, but made the text a bit less favorable for
nuclear power.
However, I think much of this is looking at nuclear
power from a human health perspective. It would be pretty easy to argue that even with the waste storage
problem and Chernobyl-type accidents, going to (in
an imaginary world) 100% nuclear power would probably be better for birds—even if not necessarily
better for humans. It would leave vast areas of land
largely untouched. And if a nuclear accident left Manhattan uninhabitable by humans, I don’t think
the birds would be much affected. The Chernobyl
incident apparently created a large and completely protected wildlife area there in Ukraine. I imagine
the zone around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant
in Japan is also probably one of the largest protected areas now in Japan.
FUSION ENERGY Fusion involves the fusion of either of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium or tritium (Stacey
2010). Deuterium exists in great quantities in ordinary water, and from that perspective fusion is
theoretically an almost infinitely renewable energy resource (Stacey 2010). This is the holy grail
of ultimate energy. Fusion is the energy that powers the sun, and that is the problem. The
temperature of the sun ranges from about 10,000 degrees Celsius on its surface to an estimated
15 to 18 million degrees in the interior where fusion takes place (Stacey 2010). Containing such
a temperature on Earth in a sustainable way and harnessing the heat to somehow produce power
has so far escaped the very best scientific talent (Stacey 2010).
To date, no fusion reactor has come close to producing net output power, but the latest designs
are starting to approach this point (Stacey 2010). In the future, there may be impacts on bird
conservation, but at present there are no known effects.
RENEWABLE ENERGY Renewable energy systems include a variety of energy production methods. All of these have in
common, however, that they do not contribute to global climate change, by not contributing to
CO2 in the atmosphere because they do not burn fossil fuels. Instead, the energy comes directly
from the sun (solar energy systems) or indirectly, by harnessing wind or water movements in any
of various forms, or harvesting sun’s energy from plants or other organic matter.
One frequent criticism of all renewable energy sources is that large-scale production is viewed as
too land-intensive to be practical. Systems of harnessing solar energy, for example, can require
thousands of acres of solar-collecting space. Although this is in some sense true, nonetheless,
harnessing renewable energy may require no more and possibly less land and water than does
our current energy system.
WIND ENERGY For ABC policy on wind energy, please refer to the wind energy policy paper.
SOLAR ENERGY
Overview Solar electric systems catch the energy directly from the sun resulting in no emissions (Bull
2001). Solar energy in quantity requires huge installations and thus a large footprint on the
landscape (Mahmoud 2004). It has been estimated that an area of 60 square miles in relatively
clear central Oregon would have to be covered with solar cells in order to meet the present
electric needs of that state, although this is still a small fraction of the state, which is about
98,000 square miles. Solar power plants that concentrate sunlight in desert areas require 2,540
acres (about 4 square miles) per billion kWh, which is less land than a comparable coal or
hydropower plant requires (Sovacool 2008). The big problem, however, is how to store
significant amounts of electricity when the sun is not available to produce it; that problem
remains difficult (Mahmoud 2004).
The largest solar thermal power plant (64MW Nevada Solar One - Boulder City, Nevada) will
generate enough power to meet the electricity needs of about 40,000 households and follows in
the steps of the 354MW solar thermal power plants located in California’s Mojave Desert
(Mehos et al. 2009). While California’s solar plants have generated billions of kilowatt hours of
electricity for the past two decades, the Nevada Solar One plant will use new technologies to
capture even more energy from the sun. There are currently 3,594 square miles of federal land
awaiting permits for solar energy development (Mehos et al. 2009).
Effects on Birds The main impact of production of solar power on birds is due to the large footprint needed for
large scale energy production. In addition, some birds collide with structures that are part of, or
are associated with, the solar power system, especially solar systems that use large areas of
mirrored collectors focused on a central collecting station, as opposed to large areas of
photovoltaic panels. Researchers at the Solar One installation documented the death of 70 birds
from 26 species over a 40 week period (McCrary et al. 1986); i.e., 1.9-2.2 birds/week during the
monitoring period. Mortalities were largely a result of birds flying into the mirrored surfaces of
the solar-collecting mirrors, although there was mortality from birds flying into the highly-
concentrated solar beams (“flux”). It is unclear, however, how many birds this might affect
(State of California).
Photovoltaic panels, as are seen on rooftops, have much lower impact on birds. Although the
panels may be glass covered and therefore reflective, they are rarely placed in situations where
birds would attempt to fly through them, and they are not transparent.
Solutions Distributed solar systems (photovoltaic solar panels placed on rooftops of buildings wherever
needed rather than having large areas of solar collectors) are the preferred systems, having few
drawbacks for birds. Collectors should be developed or placed so that their reflective surfaces are
not seen by birds as spaces they can fly through. Large-scale solar collection and solar
concentration systems, which can displace or damage bird habitat, are better than fossil fuels
systems. However, collision and incineration issues should be addressed for all installations.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER
Overview Hydropower is the capture of the energy of moving water for to turn an electricity-producing
turbine. Hydroelectric generators in dams provide the biggest single source of renewable power
in the United States, roughly 7% of all electricity produced (Arvanitidits and Rosing 1970,
Turner 1999). Today’s hydropower plants generally range in size from several hundred kilowatts
to several hundred megawatts, but a few mammoth plants have capacities up to 10,000
megawatts and supply electricity to millions of people (Sims 1991).
Although hydroelectric power is generally a clean, non-polluting, environmentally friendly
source of energy, it of course has environmental costs (Sarkar and Karagöz 1995). For example,
where anadromous fish runs are involved as in the Columbia River system with its 30 dams, the
effect on fish has been disastrous (Payne et al. 2004). Hydroelectric power, if reservoirs are
involved, as is the case of most such facilities, is not a perpetually renewable energy source. All
reservoirs eventually fill with sediment, which means hydroelectric power is not truly renewable
(Annandale 2006). Some reservoirs have already filled, and many others are filling faster than
expected (Bogen and Bønsnes 2001). We are enjoying the best part of the life of huge dams. In a
few hundred years Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam will be concrete waterfalls (J. Schmidt et
al. 1998, Andrews and Pizzi 2000). Some dams, especially smaller ones, that have now outlived
their usefulness are being removed.
The chief advantage of hydro power is the elimination of the cost of fuel. Hydroelectric plants
tend to have longer lives than fuel-fired generation. Hydroelectric power facilities in the United
States generate enough power to supply 28 million households with electricity, the equivalent of
nearly 500 million barrels of oil (Arvanitidits and Rosing 1970, Sims 1991)
Habitat Loss Reservoirs can create valuable habitat for waterbirds, including ducks and herons, but also
shorebirds and marsh-dwelling birds. However, most reservoirs also cause significant loss of
riparian habitats, when river shorelines and bottomlands are flooded. Flooding these areas can
significantly affect species needing flowing waters, floodplain marshes or bogs or swampy
bottomland forests. In addition, valuable lowlands, which are usually the best farmland, are
flooded (Moog 1993). Cold waters released from their great depths by large dams can also alter
river fauna, affecting birds’ food chains.
Solutions Much of the damage caused by development of reservoirs has already occurred in the 48
contiguous US states and southern Canada, because most of the sites appropriate for
development of hydro power in these areas were already exploited in the first half of the 20th
century. Large reservoirs are still being planned and developed, however, elsewhere in the
Americas, including very large projects in Brazil and northern Canada. If reservoirs are to be
constructed, they should be sited to minimize habitat loss, and mitigation should made, possibly
by improving riparian or bottomland habitat at nearby sites.
BIOFUELS Biofuels are those which are produced from organic material. They do not contribute to long-
term increases in atmospheric CO2, because the CO2 they contain is removed each year by the
plant growth producing the feedstock for the fuel. Biofuels are considered renewable because
they can be produced each year from new plant material production, although there may be long-
term effects such as degradation and contamination of soils or depletion of fossil water supplies
that may limit the long-term renewability of biofuels at large scales.
Biofuels may be produced from a wide variety of sources, primarily corn in the US and sugar
cane in other countries, especially Brazil, but also oil palms and cellulosic ethanol crops such as
switchgrass, agricultural and forestry wastes, and garbage and sewage, among others.
One issue with biofuels in general is that much feedstock production is grown in large
monocultures of whatever species is being used. As with monocultures of any crop, these
monocultures are generally not good bird habitat, even when the plant species used are natives.
We will here discuss only the three largest biofuel feedstock crops of these and the cellulosic
ethanol crops.
Corn A significant portion of the US corn crop, 35% in 2012 (US Energy Information Administration),
is converted to ethanol for blending with gasoline to be used as a fuel for vehicles. This
production requires about 38,500 square miles of land, approximately 3.7% of US arable lands.
Production of ethanol from corn is also not highly efficient from the standpoint of energy
production. The energy output from corn ethanol production is only slightly positive, producing
only as much as 1.7 energy units for every 1 unit put into growing the crop and producing
ethanol (Shapouri et al. 2004) but possibly actually requiring net energy input, producing only
0.7 energy units for every 1 unit input (Pimentel and Patzek 2005).
The main problem facing bird conservation from this production is loss of habitat. In the US,
corn is primarily produced on lands that were originally grasslands, mainly tallgrass prairie but
also mixed grass and shortgrass prairie areas, although especially the latter regions requires
irrigation which may be obtained from aquifers or groundwater. The large proportion of the corn
crop converted to alcohol therefore represents extensive areas of grassland converted to corn
production and lost as grassland bird habitat. The high demand for corn to feed the ethanol
production plants also increases corn prices, increasing incentive for production. This in turn
encourages conversion of more lands to corn production, including areas that are marginal for
corn planting and which previously had remained in grassland and served as bird habitat.
An additional problem with corn production as a biofuel feedstock is that in some areas
significant inputs of fertilizer and use of pesticides and herbicides is required. Especially when
misused, these chemicals may affect birds directly or through contamination of soil and
groundwater.
Sugar Cane Sugar cane is used as an ethanol-production feedstock in many countries where sugar can be
grown. The largest producer of ethanol from sugar cane is Brazil, which produces sufficient
biofuel to replace 17% of the country’s gasoline. This production requires 13,900 square miles of
land, about 1% of Brazil’s arable lands. Sugar cane ethanol production is much more favorable
than for corn in terms energy production in relation to input, with an output of about 3.24 energy
units for each 1 unit put in for production (Andreoli and de Souza 2007).
Other countries in Latin America also produce ethanol from sugar cane to be used as fuel,
notably Cuba, but none on the scale of Brazil even as a proportion of their economies.
The problems facing bird conservation from the use of sugar cane as a biofuel source are the
same as those for corn: loss of habitat and potential for contamination of soil and water.
However, in Brazil (and elsewhere in the tropics) the habitat lost through conversion to sugar
cane includes areas with very high biodiversity, including a significant portion of the Atlantic
Forest, a region of high bird diversity and endemism, and where many species are now
threatened as a result of habitat loss. An important site in northeastern Brazil in Alagoas state,
Murici Ecological Station, which is home to seven bird species listed by IUCN as CR or EN, is
largely surrounded by sugar cane fields.
Cellulosic Ethanol Ethanol can also be produced from digestion of cellulose from a large number of plant sources.
This type of production is usually referred to as “cellulosic ethanol” production. Although the
production of cellulosic ethanol is still small, it has been proposed as a major source of biofuel.
One of the most frequently proposed sources of purpose-grown cellulose for production of
ethanol is switchgrass, although there are a number of other plants, usually grasses, that have
been proposed.
As with corn and sugar cane, the main problem with cellulosic ethanol feedstock production is
loss of habitat, as lands are converted from natural habitats to biofuel production. With any of the
potential sources, many thousands of square miles of arable lands would have to be converted to
production of the cellulose source plant. In addition, even where native plants are used, biofuels
feedstock crops are usually grown in large monocultures which do not form useful bird habitat.
High levels of production would also likely require inputs of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and
pesticides, potentially leading to soil and water contamination. This could be reduced, however,
if an appropriate plant species were selected, one that is resistant to pests.
An additional issue with selection of the cellulose-producing plant is that many species being
considered, such as grasses of the genus Miscanthus, are not native to the New World.
Miscanthus grasses are native to Africa; switchgrass is native to North America. As with many
introduced species, these non-native species, especially grown in large monocultures, are not
appropriate habitat for most birds, and some non-native species are invasive.
Palm Oil Palm oil can be used to produce biodiesel. Large areas in the tropics have been converted to oil
palm plantations. Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia and Malaysia, is by far the largest
producer of palm oil (83%) but palms are also planted for oil is in the New World. The majority
of the palm oil is used for food, but with a growing proportion being used for production of
biofuel. The palms are usually grown by clearing natural forests that can harbor high diversity of
birds, and are usually grown in large-scale monocultures, which do not provide a diversity of
habitat needed by the birds.
In addition, use of palm oil to produce biofuel is not efficient, and palm-oil-derived biofuels have
been ruled by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2012) to not meet renewable fuel
standards because the fuels do not produce 20% fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than
fossil fuels.
Solutions There are significant biofuel issues that should be addressed. The energy obtained by ethanol
production from corn or biodiesel production from palm oil does not produce a good return, and
alternative crops should be considered. In all cases of crop production as a feedstock for biofuels,
crops should be grown in a mixed culture landscape, rather than as a massive monoculture
(Robertson et al. 2012). Although some cellulosic ethanol feedstock crops are native plants and
in theory could be suitable habitats for birds, large monocultures dilute that possibility by having
only a single type and age stand of crop.
WAVE ENERGY
Overview Motive energy in water can be harnessed and used to generate electricity. Since water is about a
thousand times denser than air, even a moderate sea swell can yield considerable amounts of
energy.
Prototype energy-harnessing buoys, that use a permanent neodymium-iron-born magnet forced
back and forth through an electric coil by the modulation of waves are currently in use off the
coast of Oregon (Leigh et al. 1987, Brekken et al. 2009). The researchers believe such buoys
could power about 20% of Oregon’s electricity needs when fully implemented and operational.
This is currently the US’s only university research program into ocean wave energy extraction
funded from federal resources (Brekken et al. 2009). Now that the prototypes buoys have
demonstrated their potential, a study is underway to consider impacts on sea birds and marine
life from electromagnetic fields, construction, deployment, and servicing of undersea cable, etc.
(Brekken et al. 2009).
In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has put the spotlight on this potentially
valuable source of renewable energy by announcing an interim policy and inviting public
comment on how to process preliminary permit applications for ocean energy: wave, current, and
instream hydropower technologies. The Commissioners expressed interest in promoting these
technologies, but also concern about their reliability, environmental and safety implications, and
commercial viability (Cada et al. 2007, Koch 2008).
At present and with so few installations, there are no known conservation issues with birds.
TIDAL POWER
Overview Areas with a high tidal range and a special configuration of the coastline, including a narrow
estuary that can be dammed, may be converted to tidal power sites. At these sites, a set of dikes
or gates across the estuary mouth are set with turbines. As the tide rises following the low tide,
water flows inward through the turbines producing power. After high tide, the water flows
outward through the turbines, again producing power. Nine sites have been identified in the
world (Baker 1991, Garrett and Cummins 2005) as being appropriate and economical for tidal
power. Of these, four are operational and generate some electricity (O’Rourke et al. 2010).
Damming estuaries and regulating tidal flows can have considerable environmental impact. The
Bay of Fundy in eastern Canada has long been considered for a tidal power site, but developing it
would have a negative effect on the fisheries and other sea-related economic enterprises. It
would also disturb the habits of millions of shorebirds, which use the Bay of Fundy area as part
of their migration routes.
OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
Overview Within about 25° of latitude each side of the equator the surface of the ocean is warm and the
depths are cold to the extent that there is a modest temperature differential. This source of energy
can be exploited through use of a low boiling point fluid such as ammonia that at normal
atmospheric temperature of 70° F is a gas. By pumping colder water from the deep ocean to
condense the ammonia, and then allowing it to warm up and return to gas, the resulting gas
pressure can move a turbine to turn a generator. A power plant sufficient to utilize this system
would have to be very large and anchored in the deep open ocean subject to storms and
corrosion, and the amount of water that has to be moved is enormous, as the efficiency is very
low. Ocean thermal energy does not appear to have much potential as a significant energy source
at this time (Avery 1983, Takahashi and Trenka 1996), and as no plants are operating, there are
no known effects on bird conservation.
GEOTHERMAL
Overview In a few places in the world there is hot rock, steam, or very hot water close enough to the
surface so that the resource can be reached economically with a drill. Water can be pumped in
and then recovered as steam or hot water flashed to steam, which can be used to turn a turbine
producing electricity. At best, because of the scarcity of such sites, large-scale geothermal energy
can be only a minor contributor to world energy supplies (Wohletz and Heiken 1992). Small
scale, domestic geothermal systems can be used to aid in heating and cooling houses.
Other than the land physically required to operate a generation facility, there appears to be little
impact on birds although there is potential for water contamination by heavy metals from the
waste produced by facilities sited in certain areas (for example, see Desert Report December
2010).
TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY The transportation and distribution of electricity, whether from fossil fuel power plants or
renewable sources, to users mainly occurs via aboveground power lines. The transmission of
liquid or gas fossil fuels or slurries (usually ground coal or shale) is carried out using pipelines.
Coal is transported by rail.
POWER LINES
Overview Power lines have continued to increase in number and area covered across the United States,
often at the expense of wildlife. The recent increase in wind farm construction across the Great
Plains from Canada to Texas is leading to a new network of high transmission lines, some of
which are being routed through key bird habitat and migration corridors. Potential threats to the
endangered Whooping Crane by collision are of particular growing concern (CPV Renewable
Energy Company LLC). Develop of a new, “next generation” electrical grid system to improve
efficiency and redundancy of the electrical supply may also lead to increased power line
construction.
Electrocution Depending on the type of construction used, power lines may cause fatal electrocution of birds.
This usually affects large birds such as storks and raptors (Alonso et al. 1994, Savereno et al.
1996, Bevanger 1998). Electrocution risk is high with “badly engineered” medium voltage power
poles or “killer poles” (Lehman et al. 2007). For numerous medium-sized and large birds, such
as raptors, that perch, roost or nest on such power poles, such electrocutions can cause
population declines (Lehman et al. 2007). The large wingspan of the larger birds can bridge the
gap between two lines or a line and a pole, resulting in deadly electrocutions (Bevanger 1994,
1998, Lehman et al. 2007). Even smaller birds down to the size of a starling can be affected
depending on detailed construction features (Lehman et al. 2007).
Collision Also depending on the type of construction used, birds may fatally collide with power poles and
power lines (Alonso et al. 1994, Savereno et al. 1996, Bevanger 1998). Collisions with some
types of aerial wire or cable, including power lines of all voltage ranges as well as telephone
lines, can affect any flying bird. The Avian Power Line Interactions Committee (APLIC) states
that high losses are reported from lines with multi-level arrangements, and with thin and low-
hanging wires in sensitive areas, especially for rails, waders/shorebirds, cranes, waterfowl and
grouse (Janss 2000). Migrating birds flying at heights of 60-150 ft. are at considerable risk of
collision, especially at night, when flying in flocks, and for large and heavy birds of limited
maneuverability (Barrientos et al. 2011).
Millions of birds, including Bald and Golden Eagles, owls, and hawks are thought to die each
year as a result of direct collisions with the lines, which can be virtually invisible, particularly in
poor weather.
Habitat Loss Above-ground power lines can lead to the loss of useable feeding areas in staging and wintering
habitats. For example feeding arctic-breeding geese have been observed to avoid the close
vicinity of power lines in their wintering areas (Bevanger 1994). Some grassland birds, notably
grouse, avoid the “viewshed” of areas with any kind of high-rising structures, such as power line
poles or lines; that is, if the grouse can see tall structures they avoid these areas. Thus, a power
line or power tower can potentially make a very large area unsuitable for the grouse. The access
roads that usually accompany power lines can also result in habitat loss and fragmentation,
introduction of invasive plant species, introduction of illegal off-road vehicle use, and edge
effects.
Solutions Fortunately, solutions do exist to avoid or reduce bird electrocutions and collisions, and many
power companies have become willing to implement these, as a single avian electrocution
incident can disrupt electricity service for thousands of customers at a time. Moreover, in a
landmark case in 1999, the Moon Lake Electric Association of Colorado was ordered to pay
$100,000 in fines and restitution, and mandated to retrofit their lines with bird-safety devices
after being found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. This case raised awareness of the electrocution issue and sent a
strong message to utilities: the MBTA is violated if bird deaths were foreseeable, even if
unintentional. In practice, however, prosecution of every electrocution or collision is impractical,
and retrofitting every pole and line in the nation to be bird-safe is deemed too expensive by the
utility industry.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has produced a 30 minute video entitled “Raptors at
Risk,” explaining the electrocution problem and federal laws that protect birds while providing
practical information on retrofitting existing power lines and installing new equipment to prevent
bird deaths. These measures include visual markers such as colored spheres, spinning disks, and
streamers that reduce the likelihood of collisions, and spacers, insulating sheaths, and wider
separation between lines to decreases electrocution rates.
Voluntary guidelines for the siting and construction of power lines have been drawn up by FWS
to help prevent power line mortality. In 2005, an agreement was signed between FWS and the
APLIC. Under the agreement, utility companies are encouraged to develop Avian Protection
Plans that conform with the new voluntary guidelines. This agreement is significant because the
APLIC includes among its members the massive Edison Electric Institute (representing the
nation’s investor-owned electric utilities), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(which represents nearly 1,000 consumer-owned electric utilities), 23 individual electric utilities,
two federal utility agencies, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Rural Utilities
Service. The main points of the agreement are:
• Following the APLIC guidelines, existing power poles and technical structures should be
retrofitted to the extent that the protection of birds from electrocution and collision is
guaranteed.
• To protect birds from electrocution, all new power poles and technical structures on
medium voltage power poles should have a safe design for birds.
• Where possible, transmission cables should be laid underground as the safest means of
avoiding bird losses. Where not possible, existing power poles of dangerous types
should be replaced by low risk power poles with suspended insulators.
• Power lines should be diverted from areas where large numbers of birds regularly fly
through at a low altitude (coastlines, topographical bottlenecks, wetlands, breeding
colonies), and also from IBAs that contain species highly susceptible of suffer from
electrocution and collision against cables.
Operators are required to minimize some types of habitat loss, by protecting or restoring riparian
areas where power lines cross, and refraining from using persistent herbicides (Libich et al.
1984) to maintain right-of-ways cleared of vegetation. In addition, ABC believes that if power
lines will cross through areas that pose risk to birds, they should be marked with state of the art
technology to reduce collision risk to birds.
Another important way of reducing collision risk to birds from power poles is to decrease the
need for so many of them by increasing electricity production close to where the power will be
used, such as cities. This is an advantage of distributed renewable generation, such as rooftop
solar, over centralized renewable generation.
New power line corridors should also be planned to avoid areas sensitive to birds, especially
protected areas and ABC Globally Important Bird Areas.
PIPELINES For buried pipelines, the impact on birds of the pipeline is limited to the habitat above the
pipeline. (For information on the effects of spills on bird conservation, see the section on spills,
above.) The major effects on birds usually occur during the construction of the pipeline, with its
accompanying disturbance to habitat, noise, and human activity. Pipeline structures, such as
access points and pumping stations, are usually sufficiently small and widely spaced as to have
little impact on birds beyond their immediate vicinity. However, gas compression stations in
particular may have large noise impacts on the habitat (see above).
Through grassland, pasture, or cultivated areas, the habitat of a pipeline corridor may be almost
completely restored, so that the pipeline has negligible effect on birds once restoration is
complete. Pipeline corridors through forested areas usually must be maintained free of
vegetation, and therefore the pipeline corridor usually remains as an open strip through the forest
or woodland. Such open strips produce fragmentation of the forest habitat, barriers which some
birds are reluctant to cross or which disrupt the natural layout of forest bird territories. The
pipeline corridor can also allow a pathway for the entry to the forest of invasive species and
open/edge species. Pipeline corridors are widely recognized as entry ways for cowbirds into the
interior of forests, where the cowbirds can have significant impact on birds such as Wood Thrush
and Ovenbird. The corridors also provide pathways for the entry and travel of predators such as
raccoons and cats, which can have significant impact on nesting birds.
Solutions Pipeline corridors should always be restored to the appropriate and pre-existing habitat, using the
appropriate native vegetation. Introduced vegetation should not be used.
In wooded or forested regions, pipeline corridors should be routed to avoid fragmenting the
habitat. This can include routing to avoid forest patches altogether, or following previously-
opened disturbance lines and paths such as roads or previous power line or pipeline corridors.
Pipeline access points and installations such as pumping stations should also be placed to reduce
habitat fragmentation and loss.
In addition, new pipeline corridors should also be planned to avoid areas sensitive to birds,
especially protected areas and ABC Globally Important Bird Areas.
CONCLUSIONS All forms of energy production and use have impacts on the environment and bird conservation,
some greater than others. In some cases impacts can be mitigated or even eliminated.
Nonetheless, energy production and use produces many very complex situations, each of which
must be addressed separately. The following, however, are two main conclusions resulting from
the above analysis.
Comment [DE16]: Habitat effects can be minimized by selective placement of drill pads, road
and pipelines. Roads and pipelines should share
rights of way, where possible.
Comment [GF17]: This bit is a little weak. Conservation is discussed in the introduction and
wise use is a simple summary for all the paper
represents. Maybe we have some suggested policy changes?
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY The most rapid, cost effective, and efficient way to reduce the effects of energy production and
use is to use less energy. This can address all of the conservation problems associated with
energy at once and at all levels. The best way to reduce energy consumption is to use it more
efficiently. This can mean increasing vehicle fuel efficiency to reduce the need for fossil fuels for
transportation, improving household usage of energy, and a host of other energy-efficiency
efforts, a list that can go far beyond what can be included in this document. ABC should always
be supporting and encouraging all efforts to reduce the amount of energy being consumed, such
as supporting the goals of the American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy.
PRODUCE AND USE ENERGY WISELY Although the best solution is to use less energy, and the savings from energy efficiency can be
substantial, additional energy will be needed in a growing world. New energy development
should, however, be done in a thoughtful way, so that it has the least possible impact on birds
and bird conservation. Global climate change is an important, upcoming issue in bird
conservation; to avoid as much climate change as possible, appropriately sited and operated
renewable energy should be strongly encouraged. Not all production of renewable energy
however is done correctly and wisely. As with everything else, renewable energy development
needs to be done thoughtfully and in an appropriate way that does not cause harm, to birds or
anything else.
Traditional energy forms—fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro power—will however be still
necessary at least in the short-term. Where traditional forms of energy production is required, it
should likewise be developed in thoughtfully and in the most appropriate way, to ensure that no
harm is done to birds, or to anything else in the environment.
Contributing to this document: Darin Schroeder, David Wiedenfeld
LITERATURE CITED
Alonso, J. C., J. A. Alonso, and R. Muñoz-Pulido. 1994. Mitigation of bird collisions with
transmission lines through groundwire marking. Biological Conservation 67:129-134.
Alvo, R., D. J. T. Hussell, and M. Berrill. 1988. The breeding success of Common Loons (Gavia
immer) in relation to alkalinity and other lake characteristics in Ontario. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 66:746-752.
Andreoli, C., and S. P. de Souza. 2007. Sugarcane: the best alternative for converting solar and
fossil energy into ethanol. Economy & Energy
http://www.ecen.com/eee59/eee59e/sugarcane_the_best_alternative_for_converting_solar_an
d_fossil_energy_into_ethanol.htm
Andrews, E. D. and L. A. Pizzi. 2000. Origin of the Colorado River experimental flood in Grand
Canyon. Hydrological Sciences Journal 45:607-627.
Annandale, G. W. 2006. Reservoir sedimentation. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Arvanitidits, N. V. and J. Rosing. 1970. Composite representation of a multireservoir
hydroelectric power system. Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on PAS-
89:319-326.
Avery, W. H. 1983. Ocean thermal energy conversion. DOE/NBM-5007889; Other: ON:
DE85007889 United StatesOther: ON: DE85007889Thu Feb 07 04:41:15 EST 2008NTIS,
PC A02/MF A01.ERA-10-023656; EDB-85-071607English.
Baker, C. 1991. Tidal power. Energy Policy 19:792-797.
Barnes, R., R. Gillingham, and R. Hagemann. 1981. The short-run residential demand for
electricity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 63:541-552.
Barrientos, R., J. C. Alonso, C. Ponce, and C. Palacín. 2011. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of marked wire in reducing avian collisions with power lines. Conservation Biology 25:893-
903.
Barson, D., S. Bachu, and P. Esslinger. 2001. Flow systems in the Mannville Group in the east-
central Athabasca area and implications for steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)
operations for in situ bitumen production. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 49:376-
392.
Bevanger, K. 1994. Bird interactions with utility structures: collision and electrocution, causes
and mitigating measures. Ibis 136:412-425.
Bevanger, K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity
power lines: a review. Biological Conservation 86:67-76.
Bogen, J. and T. E. Bønsnes. 2001. The impact of a hydroelectric power plant on the sediment
load in downstream water bodies, Svartisen, northern Norway. Science of The Total
Environment 266:273-280.
Bohall Wood, P., S. B. Bosworth, and R. Dettmers. 2006. Cerulean Warbler abundance and
occurrence relative to large-scale edge and habitat characteristics. Condor 108:154-165.
Brekken, T. K. A., A. von Jouanne, and H. Hai Yue. 2009. Ocean wave energy overview and
research at Oregon State University. Pages 1-7 in Power Electronics and Machines in Wind
Applications, 2009. PEMWA 2009. IEEE.
Bull, S. R. 2001. Renewable energy today and tomorrow. Proceedings of the IEEE 89:1216-
1226.
Burton, I. and E. May. 2004. The adaptation deficit in water resource management. IDS Bulletin
35:31-37.
Butler, R. M. 1991. Thermal recovery of oil and bitumen. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cada, G., J. Ahlgrimm, M. Bahleda, T. Bigford, S. D. Stavrakas, D. Hall, R. Moursund, and M.
Sale. 2007. Potential impacts of hydrokinetic and wave energy conversion technologies on
aquatic environments. Fisheries 32:174-181.
Campbell, J. H., G. Gallegos, and M. Gregg. 1980. Gas evolution during oil shale pyrolysis. 2.
Kinetic and stoichiometric analysis. Fuel 59:727-732.
Chadwick, M. J., N. H. Highton, and N. Lindman. 1986. Environmental impacts of coal mining
and utilization.
Demaison, G. J. 1977. Tar sands and supergiant oil fields. AAPG Bulletin 61:1950-1961.
Donovan, T. M., C. J. Beardmore, D. N. Bonter, J. D. Brawn, R. J. Cooper, J. A. Fitzgerald, R.
Ford, S. A. Gauthreaux, T. L. George, W. C. Hunter, T. E. Martin, J. Price, K. V. Rosenberg,
P. D. Vickery, and T. B. Wigley. 2002. Priority research needs for the conservation of
Neotropical migrant landbirds. Journal of Field Ornithology 73:329-339.
Drapeau, P., A. Leduc, J.-F. Giroux, J.-P. L. Savard, Y. Bergeron, and W. L. Vickery. 2000.
Landscape-scale disturbances and changes in bird communities of boreal mixed-wood
forests. Ecological Monographs 70:423-444.
Ebeling, J. and M. Yasué. 2008. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its
potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:1917-1924.
Evers, D., N. Burgess, L. Champoux, B. Hoskins, A. Major, W. Goodale, R. Taylor, R.
Poppenga, and T. Daigle. 2005. Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater
avian communities in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:193-221.
Fearnside, P. M. 2001. Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that
divides the environmental movement. Ecological Economics 39:167-184.
Finkel, M. L. and A. Law. 2011. The rush to drill for natural gas: a public health cautionary tale.
American Journal of Public Health 101:784-785.
Fox, J. 1999. Mountaintop removal in West Virginia. Organization & Environment 12:163-183.
Garrett, C. and P. Cummins. 2005. The power potential of tidal currents in channels. Proceedings
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science 461:2563-2572.
Goldsworthy, S. D., M. Giese, R. P. Gales, N. Brothers, and J. Hamill. 2000. Effects of the Iron
Baron oil spill on Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor). II. Post-release survival of rehabilitated
oiled birds. Wildlife Research 27:573-582.
Goth, K., J. W. de Leeuw, W. Puttmann, and E. W. Tegelaar. 1988. Origin of Messel Oil Shale
kerogen. Nature 336:759-761.
Graveland, J. 1990. Effects of acid precipitation on reproduction in birds. Cellular and Molecular
Life Sciences 46:962-970.
Gregory, K. B., R. D. Vidic, and D. A. Dzombak. 2011. Water management challenges
associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements 7:181-186.
Hames, R., J. Lowe, S. Swarthout, and K. Rosenberg. 2006. Understanding the risk to
neotropical migrant bird species of multiple human-caused stressors : elucidating processes
behind the patterns. Ecology And Society 11.
Hames, R. S., K. V. Rosenberg, J. D. Lowe, S. E. Barker, and A. A. Dhondt. 2002. Adverse
effects of acid rain on the distribution of the Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina in North
America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:11235-11240.
Hayes, E. T. 1979. Energy resources available to the United States, 1985 to 2000. Science
203:233-239.
Head, I. M., D. M. Jones, and S. R. Larter. 2003. Biological activity in the deep subsurface and
the origin of heavy oil. Nature 426:344-352.
Hein, F. 2006. Heavy oil and oil (tar) sands in North America: an overview & summary of
contributions. Natural Resources Research 15:67-84.
Henny, C. J., E. F. Hill, D. J. Hoffman, M. G. Spalding, and R. A. Grove. 2002. Nineteenth
century mercury: hazard to wading birds and cormorants of the Carson River, Nevada.
Ecotoxicology 11:213-231.
Hofmann, L. and R. E. Ries. 1988. Vegetation and animal production from reclaimed mined land
pastures. Agron. J. 80:40-44.
Holdway, D. A. 2002. The acute and chronic effects of wastes associated with offshore oil and
gas production on temperate and tropical marine ecological processes. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 44:185-203.
Holl, K. D. 2002. Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the eastern
USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:960-970.
Höök, M. and K. Aleklett. 2009. Historical trends in American coal production and a possible
future outlook. International Journal of Coal Geology 78:201-216.
Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction,
and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hutson, N. D., R. Krzyzynska, and R. K. Srivastava. 2008. Simultaneous removal of SO2, NOX,
and Hg from coal flue gas using a NaClO2-enhanced wet scrubber. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 47:5825-5831.
Innes, E. D. and J. V. D. Fear. 1967. Canada’s first commercial tar sand development. 7th World
Petr. Congr., Mexico; (United States); Journal Volume: PD-13(7):Medium: X; Size: Pages:
vp.
Janss, G. F. E. 2000. Avian mortality from power lines: a morphologic approach of a species-
specific mortality. Biological Conservation 95:353-359.
Jaramillo, P., W. M. Griffin, and H. S. Matthews. 2007. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of
coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environmental Science
& Technology 41:6290-6296.
Kargbo, D. M., R. G. Wilhelm, and D. J. Campbell. 2010. Natural gas plays in the Marcellus
Shale: challenges and potential opportunities. Environmental Science & Technology
44:5679-5684.
Kean, S. 2009. Eco-alchemy in Alberta. Science 326:1052-1055.
Keegan, T. J., M. E. Farago, I. Thornton, B. Hong, R. N. Colvile, B. Pesch, P. Jakubis, and M. J.
Nieuwenhuijsen. 2006. Dispersion of As and selected heavy metals around a coal-burning
power station in central Slovakia. Science of The Total Environment 358:61-71.
Keller, R. A. 2012. Effects of Atmospheric Pollution on High-Elevation Fauna in the Southern
Appalachians. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
King, C. W. and M. E. Webber. 2008. Water intensity of transportation. Environmental Science
& Technology 42:7866-7872.
Klein, D. H. and P. Russell. 1973. Heavy metals. Fallout around a power plant. Environmental
Science & Technology 7:357-358.
Koch, L. 2008. The promise of wave energy. Environmental Law Journal 2:162-199.
Kothari, R., D. Buddhi, and R. L. Sawhney. 2008. Comparison of environmental and economic
aspects of various hydrogen production methods. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 12:553-563.
Lehman, R. N., P. L. Kennedy, and J. A. Savidge. 2007. The state of the art in raptor
electrocution research: A global review. Biological Conservation 136:159-174.
Leigh, E. G., R. T. Paine, J. F. Quinn, and T. H. Suchanek. 1987. Wave energy and intertidal
productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 84:1314-1318.
Libbin, J. D. and M. D. Boehlje. 1977. Interregional structure of the US coal economy. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 59:456-466.
Libich, S., J. C. To, R. Frank, and G. J. Sirons. 1984. Occupational exposure of herbicide
applicators to herbicides used along electric power transmission line right-of-way. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 45:56-62.
Likens, G. E., C. T. Driscoll, and D. C. Buso. 1996. Long-term effects of acid rain: response and
recovery of a forest ecosystem. Science 272:244-246.
Likens, G. E., R. F. Wright, J. N. Galloway, and T. J. Butler. 1979. Acid rain. Sci. Am.; (United
States); Journal Volume: 241:4:Medium: X; Size: Pages: 43-51.
Maehr, D. S., A. G. Spratt, D. K. Voigts. 1983. Bird casualties at a central Florida power plant.
Florida Field Naturalist 11:45-68.
Mahmoud, M. M. 2004. On the storage batteries used in solar electric power systems and
development of an algorithm for determining their ampere–hour capacity. Electric Power
Systems Research 71:85-89.
Maki, A. W. 1992. Of measured risks: The environmental impacts of the Prudhoe Bay, alaska,
oil field. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:1691-1707.
McCrary, M. D., R. L. McKernan, R. W. Schreiber, W. D. Wagner, and T. C. Sciarrotta. 1986.
Avian mortality at a solar energy power plant. Journal of Field Ornithology 57:135-141.
Mehos, M., D. Kabel, and P. Smithers. 2009. Planting the seed. Power and Energy Magazine,
IEEE 7:55-62.
Miller, J. D. and M. Misra. 1982. Hot water process development for Utah tar sands. Fuel
Processing Technology 6:27-59.
Montevecchi, W. A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. Pages 94-113 in C. Rich,
T. Longcore, editor. Ecological consequences of artificial nigh lighting. Island Press, New
York, NY.
Moog, O. 1993. Quantification of daily peak hydropower effects on aquatic fauna and
management to minimize environmental impacts. Regulated Rivers: Research &
Management 8:5-14.
Mossop, G. D. 1980. Geology of the Athabasca Oil Sands. Science 207:145-152.
Mulligan, C. N., R. N. Yong, and B. F. Gibbs. 2001. Surfactant-enhanced remediation of
contaminated soil: a review. Engineering Geology 60:371-380.
National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the science of climate change. The National
Academies Press.
Nicot, J.-P. and B. R. Scanlon. 2012. Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, US
Environmental Science & Technology 46:3580-3586.
Norton, M. R., S. J. Hannon, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. 2000. Fragments are not islands: patch
vs landscape perspectives on songbird presence and abundance in a harvested boreal forest.
Ecography 23:209-223.
O’Rourke, F., F. Boyle, and A. Reynolds. 2010. Tidal energy update 2009. Applied Energy
87:398-409.
Olander, D. R. 1976. Fundamental aspects of nuclear reactor fuel elements. TID-26711-P1
United StatesTue Feb 12 19:37:25 EST 2008Dep. NTIS $16.25.TIC; INS-08-019392; ERA-
02-000713; EDB-76-080581English.
Oreskes, N. a. E. M. C. 2010. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth
on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New York, NY.
Overrein, L. N., H. M. Seip, and A. Tollan. 1980. Acid precipitation - effects on forest and fish.
Final report of the SNSF-project 1972-1980.175 pp.
Pabian, S. E. and M. C. Brittingham. 2011. Soil calcium availability limits forest songbird
productivity and density. The Auk 128:441-447.
Pabian, S. and M. Brittingham. 2012. Soil calcium and forest birds: indirect links between
nutrient availability and community composition. Ecosystems 15:748-760.
Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, W. H. Schlesinger, K. N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.
S. Hendryx, A. D. Lemly, G. E. Likens, O. L. Loucks, M. E. Power, P. S. White, and P. R.
Wilcock. 2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327:148-149.
Parker, H. W., R. M. Bethea, N. Guven, M. N. Gazdar, and J. C. Watts. 1977. Interactions
between ground water and in situ retorted oil shale. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Pavlish, J. H., E. A. Sondreal, M. D. Mann, E. S. Olson, K. C. Galbreath, D. L. Laudal, and S. A.
Benson. 2003. Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants. Fuel
Processing Technology 82:89-165.
Payne, J. T., A. W. Wood, A. F. Hamlet, R. N. Palmer, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2004. Mitigating
the effects of climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. Climatic
Change 62:233-256.
Pentreath, R. J. 1980. Nuclear power, man and the environment. Taylor and Francis, London.
Peterson, C. H., S. D. Rice, J. W. Short, D. Esler, J. L. Bodkin, B. E. Ballachey, and D. B. Irons.
2003. Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Science 302:2082-2086.
Phillips, R. L., T. P. McEneaney, and A. E. Beske. 1984. Population densities of breeding
Golden Eagles in Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:269-273.
Piatt, J. F., and R. G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill?
American Fisheries Society Symposium 18: 712-719.
Pimentel, D. and T. Patzek. 2005. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood;
biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14:65-76.
Pielke, R., Jr. 2010. The climate fix: what scientists and politicians won’t tell you about global
warming. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Probstein, R. F. and R. E. Hicks. 1990. Synthetic fuels. Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY.
Robertson, B. A., R. A. Rice, T. S. Sillett, C. A. Ribic, B. A. Babcock, D. A. Landis, J. R.
Herkert, R. J. Fletcher Jr., J. J. Fontaine, P. J. Doran, and D. W. Schemske. 2012. Are
agrofuels a conservation threat or opportunity for grassland birds in the United States?
Condor 114: 679–688.
Russell, R. W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in
the northern Gulf of Mexico: final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 348
pp.
Rusz, P. J., H. H. Prince, R. D. Rusz, and G. A. Dawson. 1986. Bird collisions with transmission
lines near a power plant cooling pond. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:441-444.
Sarkar, A. U. and S. Karagöz. 1995. Sustainable development of hydroelectric power. Energy
20:977-981.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966 - 2010. Version
12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Savereno, A. J., L. A. Savereno, R. Boettcher, and S. M. Haig. 1996. Avian behavior and
mortality at power lines in coastal South Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:636-648.
Scheuhammer, A. M. 1987. The chronic toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and lead in
birds: A review. Environmental Pollution 46:263-295.
Scheuhammer, A. M., M. W. Meyer, M. B. Sandheinrich, and M. W. Murray. 2007. Effects of
environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. AMBIO: A
Journal of the Human Environment 36:12-19.
Schindler, D. W. 1988. Effects of acid rain on freshwater ecosystems. Science 239:149-157.
Schindler, D. W. and P. G. Lee. 2010. Comprehensive conservation planning to protect
biodiversity and ecosystem services in Canadian boreal regions under a warming climate and
increasing exploitation. Biological Conservation 143:1571-1586.
Schmidt, C. W. 2011. Blind rush? shale gas boom proceeds amid human health questions.
Environ Health Perspect 119.
Schmidt, J. C., R. H. Webb, R. A. Valdez, G. R. Marzolf, and L. E. Stevens. 1998. Science and
values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon. BioScience 48:735-747.
Schmidt, R. A. 1979. Coal in America: an encyclopedia of reserves, production, and use. Coal
Week / McGraw-Hill Puiblications Co., New York.
Schmiegelow, F. K. A. and M. Mönkkönen. 2002. Habitat loss and fragmentation in dynamic
landscapes: avian perspectives from the boreal forest. Ecological Applications 12:375-389.
Shapouri, H., J. Duffield, and A. J. Mcaloon. 2004. The 2001 net energy balance of corn-ethanol.
in Agriculture as a producer and consumer of energy. Arlington, VA.
Shrestha, R. K. and R. Lal. 2006. Ecosystem carbon budgeting and soil carbon sequestration in
reclaimed mine soil. Environment International 32:781-796.
Sims, G. P. 1991. Hydroelectric energy. Energy Policy 19:776-786.
Slonecker, E. T. and M. J. Benger. 2001. Remote sensing and mountaintop mining. Remote
Sensing Reviews 20:293-322.
Söderbergh, B., F. Robelius, and K. Aleklett. 2007. A crash programme scenario for the
Canadian oil sands industry. Energy Policy 35:1931-1947.
Solomon, S., G.-K. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein. 2009. Irreversible climate change
due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
106:1704-1709.
Sovacool, B. K. 2008. The dirty energy dilemma: what’s blocking clean power in the United
States. Praeger, New York, NY.
Sovacool, B. K. 2009. Contextualizing avian mortality: a preliminary appraisal of bird and bat
fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity. Energy Policy 37:2241-2248.
Sovacool, B. K. 2012. The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update. Renewable Energy.
Stacey, W. M. 2010a. Basic properties. Pages 13-28 Fusion. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
KGaA.
Stacey, W. M. 2010. Fusion. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of oil and other surface-active organic pollutants on aquatic birds.
Environmental Conservation 24:121-129.
Streets, D. G. and S. T. Waldhoff. 2000. Present and future emissions of air pollutants in China:
SO2, NOx, and CO. Atmospheric Environment 34:363-374.
Takahashi, P. and A. Trenka. 1996. Ocean thermal energy conversion. Fuel and Energy
Abstracts 37:201-201.
Thomas, L. 1992. A handbook on practical coal geology.
Turner, J. A. 1999. A realizable renewable energy future. Science 285:687-689.
Turvey, R. and A. R. Nobay. 1965. On measuring energy consumption. The Economic Journal
75:787-793.
Vajjhala, S. P. and P. S. Fischbeck. 2007. Quantifying siting difficulty: A case study of US
transmission line siting. Energy Policy 35:650-671.
Villard, M.-A., M. K. Trzcinski, and G. Merriam. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds:
relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy.
Conservation Biology 13:774-783.
Wallman, P. H., P. W. Tamm, and B. G. Spars. 1981. Oil shale, tar sands, and related materials.
American Chemical Society.
Wickham, J., K. Riitters, T. Wade, M. Coan, and C. Homer. 2007. The effect of Appalachian
mountaintop mining on interior forest. Landscape Ecology 22:179-187.
Wiese, F. K., W. A. Montevecchi, G. K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A. W. Diamond, and J. Linke.
2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 42:1285-1290.
Wilson, S. B. and R. A. Brown. 1989. In situ bioreclamation: a cost-effective technology to
remediate subsurface organic contamination. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation
9:173-179.
Wohletz, K. and G. Heiken. 1992. Volcanology and geothermal energy.
Wolfe, M. F., S. Schwarzbach, and R. A. Sulaiman. 1998. Effects of mercury on wildlife: a
comprehensive review. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:146-160.
Yanai, R. D., J. D. Blum, S. P. Hamburg, M. A. Arthur, C. A. Nezat, and T. G. Siccama. 2005.
New insights into calcium depletion in northeastern forests. Journal of Forestry 103:14-20.
Yokoyama, T., K. Asakura, H. Matsuda, S. Ito, and N. Noda. 2000. Mercury emissions from a
coal-fired power plant in Japan. Science of The Total Environment 259:97-103.
Zimmerman, M. B. 1977. Modeling depletion in a mineral industry: the case of coal. Bell Journal
of Economics 8:41-65.
APPENDIX I: FUN FACTS
• Heating and cooling account for half a typical home’s energy consumption. Stopping
drafts can save 30%.
• Electric lights use 20% of the world’s electricity, which yields nearly half as much
pollution as all the cars on the road.
• The latest LED lights use 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs.
• Cuba is the first country to have entirely phased out incandescent lighting.
• New refrigerators use 40% less energy than ten year old models.
• In the US most of our personal carbon footprint comes from food and transportation.
Buying locally produced food saves energy, taking public transportation saves
money, an average of $8368 a year.
• The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the
amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.
• Tropical oceans absorb 560 trillion gigajoules (GJ) of solar energy each year, equivalent
to 1,600 times the world’s annual energy use.
• The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more
than 16 billion GJ of electricity - more than one and one-half times the electricity
consumed in the United States in 2000.
APPENDIX II: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING
FROM THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, American Bird
Conservancy believes Congress should act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from
permitting oil and gas development activities in specified parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
Planning Area, the Straits of Florida Planning Area, and the South Atlantic Planning Area, where
any oil spill would have particularly catastrophic impact on known Important Bird Areas, unless:
(1) comprehensive environmental studies and risk assessments have been completed; and
(2) the Secretary has certified to the Congress that specified environmental information has
been obtained which adequately enables the Secretary to implement Federal stewardship
of the environment with a minimal level of uncertainty.
ABC asserts that the Secretary of the Interior, assigned the primary responsibility for the proper
stewardship of the Nation’s public lands and outer continental shelf, is required to provide
adequate environmental analysis under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et
seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and other federal
laws, and that before such lands are leased to develop oil and gas resources the Secretary must
fully act to protect the marine, coastal, bird habitat, and human environments of coastal states.
Furthermore, we believe the citizens of coastal states are entitled to have an adequate body of
scientific and environmental information, with a minimal level of uncertainty, before such
leasing and development are carried out.
ABC specifically urges the administration and Congress act immediately to prohibit preleasing,
leasing, exploration, and development and production of oil and gas from the outer continental
shelf without adequate scientific and environmental information does not provide the level of
protection needed for the conservation of the natural resources of the nation's coastal areas.
Specifically, ABC urges the Secretary should be prohibited from conducting any preleasing
activities, hold any lease sale, or approve or permit any exploration, production, or drilling
activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) in any area
described above unless:
(1) all assessments, studies, and research required for such area have been completed;
(2) all such assessments, studies, and research have been peer reviewed, by qualified
scientists not employed by the federal government, and
(3) the Secretary has transmitted to the Congress a report, certifying that the available
physical oceanographic, ecological, and socioeconomic information, and other
environmental, endangered and threatened species, birds of conservation concern and
marine mammal information, is adequate to enable the Secretary to carry out his
responsibilities in such area under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and other
federal laws, with a minimal level of uncertainty, with respect to all preleasing activities,
leasing, and exploration, production, and drilling activities.
ABC also urges the Secretary to establish a task force comprised of federal, state, academic and
nongovernmental organization participants that will regularly meet to request additional studies
and surveys as needed to minimize the uncertainty about the effects of preleasing, leasing, and
exploration activities.
APPENDIX III: KEYSTONE XL TAR SANDS OIL PIPELINE The proposed 1,700 mile, $7 billion pipeline would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries
in Texas, entering in Montana and passing to north-central Kansas, then directly south to the
coast of east Texas, the first primary access to an international shipping port. The project is
currently undergoing environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the National Interest Determination, and requires a final decision via a Presidential
Permit by the end of 2013.
HABITAT LOSS In Alberta, the development of tar sands oil that would be carried by the Keystone XL pipeline is
destroying habitat for waterfowl and songbirds that come from all over the Americas to nest in
the boreal forest (Schindler and Lee 2010). Each year 22–170 million birds breed in 35 million
acres of boreal forest with the potential for tar sands oil development (Drapeau et al. 2000,
Norton et al. 2000, Schmiegelow and Mönkkönen 2002). In addition, the pipeline route carries it
through significant grassland areas across the western Great Plains, and the entire pipeline route
will have to be reclaimed.
Surface disturbance is another major issue. The oil sands industry practice leaves land in its
disturbed state and left to re-vegetate naturally. Operators, however, are responsible over the
long term to restore the land to its previous potential. New reclamation regulations were
instigated in 2011 (Government of Alberta), but it is not known yet how well they will work.
Previous experience, for example, ABC’s work with the Appalachian Regional Restoration
Initiative (ARRI) in recovering coal-mined lands, has demonstrated the difficulties and
roadblocks in this solution.
WATER SUPPLY AND CONTAMINATION Water supply and waste water disposal are among the most serious concerns because of heavy
use of water to extract bitumen from the sands (Miller and Misra 1982, Burton and May 2004,
Hein 2006, Söderbergh et al. 2007, King and Webber 2008). For an oil sands mining operation,
about 12 barrels of water are used for each barrel of bitumen produced (Pembina Institute,
Canada). Concerns often arise over the inadequate flow of rivers to maintain healthy ecosystems
and meet future needs of the oil sands industry (Burton and May 2004, King and Webber 2008).
Additionally, mining operations impact freshwater aquifers by drawing down water to prevent
pit flooding (Barson et al. 2001). The freshwater used for in situ operations is needed to generate
steam, separate bitumen from the sand, hydro-transport the bitumen slurry, and upgrade the
bitumen to a light crude (Barson et al. 2001). To minimize the use of new freshwater supplies,
some operators use saline water from deeper underground aquifers (Water Matters Society of
Alberta). The use of saline water, however, generates huge volumes of solid waste tailings which
have posed serious disposal problems. Wastewater tailings (a slurry of bitumen, sand, silt, and
fine clay particles) are disposed in large ponds until the residue is used to fill mined-out pits
(Kean 2009). The principal environmental threat is the migration of tailings to a groundwater
system and leaks that might contaminate the soil and surface water (Wilson and Brown 1989,
Mulligan et al. 2001).
The pipeline itself of course poses all of the threats and hazards of other pipelines, including the
need for reclamation of the pipeline corridor following laying of the pipeline, and the poptential
for leaks and spills during operation. This could be especially significant for the Keystone XL
pipeline, as its route is planned to cross the Nebraska Sand Hills and the area of the Ogalalla
Aquifer, both areas of high environmental sensitivity.
SOLUTIONS ABC recommends that the Keystone XL pipeline route be altered to avoid the most sensitive
habitats. ABC also recommends that reclamation of the pipeline corridor be done to return the
corridor to its original habitat, using appropriate native species. Comment [GF18]: Hard for me to conclude anything from this regarding birds. Is this a bird
problem or a general environmental one?
Comment [DW19R18]: Seems to me to be a general environmental problem. All of the issues
mentioned here are also mentioned elsewhere,
relating to pipelines and mining. I suppose this is intended for ABC to have a policy statement ready in
case anyone asks us about the Keystone XL pipeline.
But I don’t know what our specific policy for the Keystone XL Pipeline would be, beyond “Energy
development, production, and use can and should be
done in a thoughtful way so as to not harm birds.”