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.”