Snowed

Posted on February 4, 2011 by admin

Lesser Goldfinch, Austin, Texas, by Ted Lee Eubanks

Snow, like in-laws, should only be experienced in brief, cautionary interludes. I do not want to live with snow, nor recognize its permanent residency as a possibility. Children along the Texas coast grow to adulthood without seeing, touching, or slushing through snow. They are the better for it.

Last night it snowed. In Austin. We are better prepared for tsunamis and earthquakes. A few years ago I spent several hours stalled on the runway at the local airport because of snow. At that time (I doubt that much has changed) Austin Bergstrom maintained one deicer, and the one truck had been quickly drained of fluid. Someone drove to San Antonio to buy more, so we waited, in the snow, for his return with a few cases. I am still curious why San Antonio stocks more deicer than us.

My yard birds also appear nonplussed by the snow. Why migrate? Stay at home and avoid the risks of flying, at night, to a city with no deicer.

This morning my feeders were chock-a-block with the fluttering hordes. There are only four teats on a cow, and a set number of openings in a feeder. Birds burn vital energy in what seems to me to be a superfluous activity – snapping at each other for a few moments at the trough.

What gives with teats, anyway? Mares have two, cows have four, and sows can have from six to thirty? And what about Pig Spit, the Swine that Shines? I wonder if Pit Spit can be used as deicer?

Today I counted yard birds. I operate a suite of feeders, although most attract the same generic birds. A few great-tailed grackles parade under the feeders, and orange-crowned and myrtle warblers restrict themselves to the peanut butter suet cake. Other than that, the crowd is as discriminating and organized as a Black Friday sale at Walmart. Birds break over the feeders, jousting for each peanut kernel or sunflower heart. There is no “share and share alike” ethic among these tenants.

Not that many years ago the mix (birds, not seeds) at my feeders would have been starkly different. White-winged doves now dominate in body mass, and lesser goldfinches in shear numbers. I remember when white-wings were a species of concern in Texas, with Texas Parks and Wildlife snatching up tracks of land along the Rio Grande to save the dove from extirpation. Now I see thousands every day in a sky that held none before.

Lesser goldfinches, Austin, Texas, by Ted Lee Eubanks

Lesser goldfinches are even more recently arrived in the neighborhood. Although lessers have always been within a few miles of my home, until a few years ago I only attracted Americans to my feeders. Now lesser is a permanent resident, and for the past several days well over 100 have been ensconced in the yard.

Other southwestern birds, also within a few miles of my home, have yet to venture in my direction. Western scrub-jays, common within a few minutes of here, are absent. We have blue jays. Bewick’s wren is as close to me as the jay, but I only see Carolina. Red-bellied woodpecker here, golden-fronted there. Downy here, ladder-backed there.

Why? Just what is this Berlin Wall for birds, dividing east from west? Why do some, like lesser goldfinch, escape, while others are content to remain?

Here is another example. I enjoyed Paul Hess’s recent article on the spread of the Eurasian collared-dove. Notice Austin, my home, on the eBird distribution map. Travis County is at the heart of the collared-dove distribution in Texas. Except in my yard. No collared-doves here. In fact, I do not recall ever seeing them here, even though I walk several miles daily in central Austin. Why?

Pine Warbler by Ted Lee Eubanks

Range maps and eBird are rough cuts, Yellowpages with names and no addresses. Yes, there are Eurasian collared-doves in the county, but their distribution is disjunct and inconsistent. Like my goldfinches, though, they are likely moving, shifting, as I write. Birds are constantly testing the edges, waiting for that Steve McQueen moment when they can leap the security fence.

We patch birders witness these small shifts, these micro movements. My unremarkable urban yard is a stage where life is played out under my constant gaze. The pine warbler chasing insects in the ivy under the feeders is applauded, even though a walk-on. Lesser goldfinches are the chorus, filling the yard with their flutey songs even when the snow dampens all sound. A female Cooper’s hawk, returning to the neighborhood each winter for a decade, provides the thrill, the blood lust. Life in the city is still writ large, a gripping drama even when shoe-horned into a small, snow-dusted space.

Posted in bird conservation, Birding | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Boors (Good Birds and Bad Behavior)

Posted on January 25, 2011 by admin

High Island Scout's Woods during a fallout

Texbirds has buzzed the past several days with blabbing about boors, rare birds, and birding decorum. These are tedious arguments, recycled controversies like listing, collecting, and murderous cats. These debates back stroke through an ocean of regurgitated didacticism, each side quick to float the same fictive belly board used the last lap around this pool.

One Texbirder stated that “there is a big difference between doing what humans do (observation trails, visitor centers, walking in the woods, setting up a scope, etc.) and humans imitating what birds do (pishing and playback).” Another responded that “a little common sense in the field will certainly make the observation of rare species less stressful for the observers, and I’ll bet that the bird could care less.” A good friend commented that bird stress is “being on the Guadalupe Delta or similar with many 10-12 gauge shotguns blasting from all areas 360 degrees around you whilst roaring a background of multiple airboats roaring crush reeds and marshes full of rails, sparrows, wrens and other wildlife,” while another noted that “playing recorded calls and songs or pishing is more of a matter of potential for abuse from gross over use.” One made the simple point that “playbacks really get to me.

That last point gets to me. All are commenting on various aspects of carrying capacity, or how much of us can birds or birders stand in one place. Most commentators, without knowing it, are concerned with social rather than ecological disturbance. Ecological carrying capacity is an issue that I face in my business, such as when we contemplate the path of a physical trail. Do we allow a boardwalk near a Lake Huron beach with Houghton’s goldenrod? What about conducting a morning bird walk near a nesting Connecticut warbler? Would we organize a group circling a wet meadow, hoping to pen a hapless yellow rail? Would we ride a rail buggy, startle a snowy owl from its perch to get a flight shot, or tramp through a protected area hoping to startle an out-of-place yellow-faced grassquit?

Ecological carrying capacity is the easiest to address. Quantify the impacts, and regulate the effects. The use of tapes (which now, of course, are digital) within a wildlife refuge is forbidden. Access to sensitive areas is often restricted. Consider these National Park Service rules for Yellowstone:

It is illegal to willfully remain near or approach wildlife, including birds, within ANY distance that disturbs or displaces the animal.

In a similar vein, here are the germane snippets from the ABA code of ethics:

To avoid stressing birds or exposing them to danger, exercise restraint and caution during observation, photography, sound recording, or filming.

Limit the use of recordings and other methods of attracting birds, and never use such methods in heavily birded areas, or for attracting any species that is Threatened, Endangered, or of Special Concern, or is rare in your local area…

Practice common courtesy in contacts with other people. Your exemplary behavior will generate goodwill with birders and non-birders alike.

Research about birding impacts on birds is still incomplete, but there have been a number of studies of outdoor recreations published in the past decade or so that may serve as analogies. Here are links to a few published recently.

Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human disturbance along recreational trails

Winter tourism increases stress hormone levels in the Capercaillie Tetrao urogallusNegative effects of tourism in a Brazilian Atlantic forest National Park

Negative effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife

Practices, needs, and attitudes of bird-watching tourists in Australia

Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas

Mountain Biking Trail Use Affects Reproductive Success of Nesting Golden-cheeked Warblers

Sound the stressor: how Hoatzins (Ophistocomus hoazin) react to ecoturist conversation

Impacts of birdwatching on human and avian communities

As Sekercioglu notes in the above paper,

…there are few well-designed, long-term studies of bird disturbance by birdwatchers and other nature observers…and a review of 27 studies on the effects of wildlife observation and photography on birds reported negative effects on birds in 19 of the studies, even though most of these may be due to photography rather than birdwatching.

But what if the animal being disturbed is another birder? The general consensus is that low-density, low-impact birding has little affect on birds. There are other stones that break those bones. But what about the impact on birders?

My experience is that people often feel crowded well before wildlife. Yellowstone is used as an example of a park beyond its carrying capacity, but in truth the crowding is limited to the areas that have been developed and enhanced for visitation. Most Yellowstone visitors are not hiking grizzly country.

The same is true for birders. Most stay within the areas that are easily accessed (even by auto along tour loops), and that have been enhanced for birding (observation platforms, feeders, water features). I suspect that most birders visiting Santa Ana NWR, for example, have never actually hiked the entire refuge. Most would prefer sitting on a bench by the visitors’ center, waiting for the birds to come to them.

How birders behave in these areas of dense public use, therefore, is seen and experienced by the others who are crowded into the same small space. Birders are the ones that feel crowded along the Magee Marsh boardwalk during spring migration, or in the bleachers at High Island. And what attracts birders to a single spot more readily than a rarity?

I doubt that anyone would have given the RV park outside of Bentsen-Rio Grande SP a second look if not for the recent black-vented oriole. Birders there crowded each other as well as the RV residents with predictable results. The birding lists erupted in a flurry of complaints and counter complaints, but could anyone have been surprised? If you live in an area where these rarities appear with some regularity, like South Texas, you have witnessed the same birder tsunami wash over these refuges and sanctuaries countless times. Birders rush en masse to the most recent foundling, hell-bent on seeing what they believe they have a right to see.

My right to see a bird, like your right, is squat. Our rights to see or watch are, in many cases, subordinate to the rights of a landholder. If a private landowner does not wish to share the birds on his or her land with us, we have no recourse. Public land, fortunately, is a different matter. Yet even within public lands our activities are regulated by the respective land manager. If the resource agency decides that tapes are not allowed within a park or refuge, then we have no choice but to follow their wishes.

But what about public land where activities such as taping are allowed? If the ecological impacts are negligible, and the resource manager approves, shouldn’t birders accept the open invitation and do whatever it takes to see the bird, to perfect their right?

Let’s discuss another right, as in right from wrong. Aldo Leopold wrote the following:

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

I do not see how a tour leader boom-boxing their way through a tropical forest, bound to show clients some obscure ant-pitta, is preserving the beauty of the biotic community. The natural world includes sound, so how are we preserving the beauty of natural sound by spreading our own digitized cacophony? If our actions cause a bird to flee, how have we preserved the stability of the biotic community? I don’t care if the bird is harmed, or if the birders who failed to see the bird are angered. I do care if our presence, even for a moment, upsets the integrity and stability of a community that owes me nothing.

There are hunters who stalk deer armed only with a bow and arrow, and there are those who wait for Bambi to saunter over to a mechanical feeder. There are trout fishermen who follow stocking trucks, and those that tie their own flies and practice catch and release. In every wildlife-oriented recreation there is a universe between the getting and the act of getting.

Theodore Roosevelt and others founded the Boone and Crockett Club, one of the nation’s first conservation organizations, in part to promote fair chase and a hunting ethic. ABA has done the same for birding, but from time-to-time it is important to remind birders of these tenets. Ethics are principles, not laws. Ethics are adopted by choice, not fiat. ABA has offered its suggestions as to how birders should approach and practice the recreation, and I find merit in them.

I would suggest only one addition. Boone and Crockett’s Fair Chase principles include the following:

Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.

Restated for our purposes, I would add the following to the ABA Code of Ethics:

Behave in a way that will bring credit to the birder, to the bird, and to the environment.

Ted Lee Eubanks
28 Jan 2011

Posted in bird conservation, Birding | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Birds in the Bellies of the Beast

Posted on January 3, 2011 by admin

Blackbirds falling from the sky in Arkansas…
Carcasses of migratory birds washing up on the shores of the Great Lakes…
Feathers of woodland birds found in tiger shark bellies…

Huh?

I can go along with hail storms, lightening strikes, firework distress, and birds raining from the Arkansas sky. I do understand the effects of avian botulism on birds transiting the Great Lakes. But woodland birds in the bellies of sharks? Ben Raines, reporter for Alabama’s Press-Register, reports that

feathers of woodland birds found in tiger shark bellies this fall bolster the theory that the Gulf’s offshore oil and gas platforms pose a fatal danger to migrating birds, according to scientists from the Dauphin Island Sea Lab.

Growing up on the Gulf, I have seen massive wash-ups of migrant birds grounded (or ditched) during late spring cold fronts. If you are a Gulf coast birder, you know the natural risks these trans-Gulf migrants face. But oil platforms are not natural, and tanagers are not normal table fare for tiger sharks. What gives?

The map above shows the oil rigs and pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. To the east you see the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout. In spring and fall migrant birds in the hundreds of millions cross the Gulf as they travel between northern woodland breeding grounds and the southern tropics. Normally, trailing winds buoy the migrants, and propel them across the Gulf without loss of life or wing. At times, though, particularly in spring, migrants that departed land with a tail wind are suddenly confronted with powerful frontal systems mid-flight. Buffeted by headwinds and exhausted by the exertion, these migrants are in peril. If they make the coast before losing all strength, they will pitch into the first tree, bush, or shrub they encounter (a classic coastal fallout or grounding). However, often the migrants are simply too far at sea to make land. They look for any opportunity to land, rest, and restore.

Spent birds will land on fishing boats, on cargo ships, on oil platforms when forced. The remainder fall to sea and die. Oil rigs are particularly enticing because they can be easily seen at night. Lit like Bourbon Street, these rigs advertise their availability. For most birds attracted to the lights, however, the enticement is as fatal as a moth to a candle. Migrants will begin to circle the rig, and rather than land will continue to sweep about the lights until exhausted. Spent, they fall into the Gulf and are easy pickings for the sharks.

As you see from the map, the majority of the rigs are near shore. The birds are perishing within the last 20 miles of an 800-mile journey. I suspect that the sharks have become habituated to the easy meal, like cattle egrets that fly out to the rigs each day to feed on helpless migrants or the alligators that park under trees in coastal rookeries to gulp down a few squab as they fall from the nest.

Wind turbines near Sinton, Texas

Nature isn’t kind, or forgiving, or pretty. But this isn’t nature. These birds evolved during a time when the Gulf had no such distractions. Of course many died each year during their seasonal flights. But untouched boreal forests and borderless tropical woodlands always birthed an abundance, a surplus that covered the losses. We have whittled away the forests at each end of these seasonal flights, and the remaining populations need every bird to survive. Why do we work to conserve these minuscule woodlots along the Gulf coast? Why do we ask cities such as Houston to dim their lights during migration? Why will we now ask these oil companies, already shamed by the BP fiasco, to work to reduce the mortality associated with their operations?

At every stage in the American industrialization companies and their owners have assured the public that no harm would be done. At every stage they, the companies and owners, were proven to be wrong. We now know that drilling in the Gulf is not benign. The impacts are palpable and significant. Power pushers would like to place wind turbines along the Texas coast, in some cases offshore. They will argue that their impacts are small, and that cats and buildings kill more birds than turbines. But we see the risk that comes with beacon-lit drilling platforms. What about hundreds or thousands of wind turbines flashing their presence along the Gulf coast, or Lake Erie, or the Atlantic seaboard?

For those interested, read this report titled Interactions Between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Published in 2005, this lengthy report summarizes research attempting to “quantify spring and fall trans-Gulf migrations and to evaluate the influence of offshore platforms on trans-Gulf migrating birds.” This exhaustive study describes the phenomenon of nocturnal circulation, a key finding when trying to understand how birds are disoriented by the rigs and ultimately exhausted by their profitless flights.

I am not a pollyanna. I understand the unquenchable demand for cheap energy in our country. But the present system (not remotely “free market”) front load’s profits and back end’s costs. There are thousands of miles of acidified streams in Pennsylvania, but the coal mine owners responsible are dead and gone. We cannot continue to push costs into the future, ignoring their reality while totaling profits and losses. There will be a final accounting, and I pray that the birds are not asked to shoulder the burden.

Ted Lee Eubanks
3 Jan 2011

Posted in bird conservation | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

IBAs and MOUs

Posted on December 21, 2010 by admin

Federal resources agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have committed themselves to a broad diversity of bird conservation and research programs through a series of MOUs. Among the programs that are recognized is the Important Bird Area (IBA) initiative. The agencies agree to “work collaboratively with partners to identify, restore, and conserve Important Bird Areas, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network sites, and other significant bird sites.” The following are links to copies of four of these MOUs.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service
Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Department of Defense
US Army Corps of Engineers and the National Audubon Society

Posted in bird conservation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Sad State of Texas IBAs

Posted on December 15, 2010 by admin

This evening I looked again at the Audubon website for a list of Texas Important Bird Areas (IBAs). In Texas, Audubon has designated a total of 27, far fewer than less renowned states (renowned among birders) such as Pennsylvania (86), Iowa (86), and New Jersey (123). Here is a link to the Audubon page that maps the Texas IBAs. Note that there are none in west Texas (Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains, Davis Mountains) or much north of Interstate 35 (lesser prairie-chickens, for example).

If Audubon wants to designate “important” bird areas, fine. If this designation leads to a more effective conservation, then I am all behind the effort. But what will the uninitiated take away from this shoddy effort? Is this really all of the IBAs in the state? Does this mean that everything left is a not-so-IBA?

Posted in bird conservation | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

American Bird Conservancy National Bird Conservation Strategy

Posted on December 15, 2010 by admin

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) recently met in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss a national bird conservation strategy. Here is the agenda from that meeting, as well as links to the presentations. Does this sound like a bird conservation strategy that meets the needs of Texas birds?

Posted in bird conservation | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Sierra Club Press Release on Border Wall

Posted on June 26, 2009 by admin

Today, 27 members of Congress urged Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to comply with all laws if she proceeds with the final approximately 40 miles of border wall construction still slated for environmentally sensitive areas in California and Texas.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 gave the Secretary of Homeland Security — an unelected official – the authority to waive any law in order to fast-track construction of infrastructure along our shared international border with Mexico. Bush administration Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff used this unprecedented authority five times, waiving more than three dozen cultural protection, religious freedom, public safety, and environmental laws.

“Ignoring laws to build walls has caused needless harm to families, communities, and wildlife,” said Michael Degnan, Sierra Club’s public lands representative. “We are heartened to hear members of Congress call on the administration to reinstate the rule of law to the borderlands, a simple act that would go a long way toward restoring responsibility to our border policy.”

In today’s letter, the 27 Representatives recognized the impacts of waiving laws at the federal, state and local levels, writing: “We believe damage that has occurred to community relationships and public lands is attributable, at least in part, to the haste with which construction has proceeded, the lack of compliance with laws and regulations, and the lack of consultation with property owners and land managers.”

In asking that the Secretary comply with all laws if additional border wall construction takes place, the members of Congress note that more “careful consideration now could save mitigation dollars later, as well as avoiding the type of impacts that will be difficult to mitigate at any cost.”

A diverse group of organizations have applauded Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) and his colleagues for taking a stand and urging action on this critical issue.

“I’ve seen nothing that even comes close to justify waiving laws in order to fast track border wall construction,” said Congressman Bob Filner. “It concerns me that this has taken place in the past and I urge Secretary Napolitano to prevent further damage to our border communities, natural resources, and fragile wildlife habitat.”

“We should not sacrifice bedrock democratic principles like ‘consent of the governed’ and ‘representative democracy’ at the altar of the border wall,” said Reverend John Fanestil of the United Methodist Church. “Kudos to legislators working to restore due process and the rule of law on the U.S.-Mexico border.”

Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr., founder and president of Border Ambassadors and executive director of the Rio Grande International Study Center, Laredo Community College, said: “For those of us who live here on the border, we feel like our part of the United States is not recognized as equal to the rest of the country. When over three dozen Congressional acts were waived, we lost the legal protections that the rest of the United States enjoys. Some call our borderlands the ‘deconstitutionalized zone.'”

“The controversy over walls and waivers is far from over, despite hundreds of damaging miles of walls already built in disregard of laws meant to safeguard our lands and resources,” said Matt Clark, southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife. “This is the time for President Obama and Secretary Napolitano to make a clear departure from the mistakes of the last administration and comply with the important laws enacted to prevent or minimize negative impacts to our wildlife and environment.”

For more information, visit http://arizona.sierraclub.org/border

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ACOE Plans to Denude Levees

Posted on June 11, 2009 by admin

According to the AP, “the Army Corps of Engineers is on a mission to chop down every tree in the country that grows within 15 feet of a levee – including oaks and sycamores in Louisiana, willows in Oklahoma and cottonwoods in California.” The story is available here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Roads to Nowhere

Posted on June 10, 2009 by admin

Last week I spent an evening in a charming little wine bar fronting on a major thoroughfare in Houston. Anyone who has visited Houston can testify as to the intensity of the traffic. As the din began to make speaking difficult at our table, I began to think about the impacts such masking noise must have on breeding birds. How can a Henslow’s Sparrow or Black-and-white Warbler be heard above such a cacophony?

Therefore I decided to see what existed in the literature about the impacts of roads and traffic on wildlife. Interestingly, I found quite a corpus of work that has been completed on this issue. Therefore I have posted links to a few of the many, many articles and papers that I found with a simple web search.
The results seem to be consistent. Yes, the noise from traffic does impact many species of breeding birds, even more significantly than do visual impacts. Therefore when we consider the impacts of roads on birds, we need to look well beyond the direct loss of habitat attributed to road building and the subsequent development that roads provoke. For some species and populations, new road construction may well become roads to nowhere.
Ted Eubanks
10 June 2009
2 Comments

Latest trinational report presents most complete picture of North American industrial pollution

Posted on June 10, 2009 by admin

Latest trinational report presents most complete picture of North American industrial pollution

Montreal, 10 June 2009—Ninety percent of the 5.5 billion kilograms of toxic pollutant releases and transfers reported in North America in 2005 can be traced to about 30 substances from 15 industrial sectors across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Taking Stock 2005, released today by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, represents the most complete picture of pollution reporting from North American industrial facilities ever assembled. Beginning this year, the CEC’s annual Taking Stock report provides a broader perspective by expanding its scope to include all data reported in 2005 to the pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTRs) of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Also new this year, the report employs air release data from the US National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for criteria air contaminants—a group of pollutants associated with issues such as smog, acid rain, and respiratory effects—and for petroleum sectors not subject to reporting under the US PRTR program.

The United States accounted for about 82 percent of all reporting facilities, Canada 12 percent, and Mexico 6 percent. The year 2005 marks the second consecutive year of mandatory Mexican PRTR reporting.

“Taking Stock 2005 presents the clearest view ever of industrial pollution in North America, and confirms the progress in pollution management that we have tracked for the past decade,” said Adrián Vázquez-Gálvez, CEC’s executive director. “However, it also reveals some major blind spots. This information is critical to government, industry, and communities, and highlights issues of comparability and areas for further action on pollution reduction to address potential environmental and human health issues.”

The report shows that the principal contributors to pollutant releases and transfers reported in each country were:

  • Oil and gas extraction activities, primary metals and wastewater treatment in Canada;
  • Metal mines, electric utilities and electrical equipment manufacturing in Mexico; and
  • Chemicals manufacturing, primary metals and mines in the United States.

An in-depth look at the North American petroleum industry in this year’s report reveals that the industry reported about 1.5 billion kilograms—or one-quarter—of the 5.5 billion kilograms of toxic pollutants reported by all sectors in 2005. The industry was also responsible for 10 percent of the 32 billion kilograms of criteria air contaminants released across North America in 2005.

Analysis of 2002–2005 reporting by Canadian and US petroleum refineries and bulk storage terminals discloses that, on average, about 7 million kilograms of carcinogens and developmental or reproductive toxicants were released annually. Most of these pollutants were released to air and water.

The perspective of this year’s report remains incomplete, however—a result of national differences in pollutant and industry sector coverage and compliance. Comparing the national petroleum industry profiles also reveals one of the most important such gaps in PRTR reporting across the three countries.

Hydrogen sulfide gas, a toxic pollutant having the smell of rotten eggs, is a common byproduct of oil and gas extraction and processing. PRTR regulations in both Canada and Mexico require hydrogen sulfide to be reported. In Canada, hydrogen sulfide from the oil and gas production sector represented over 90 percent of all toxics reported by the Canadian petroleum industry in 2005. In Mexico, however, no data on this substance were reported by the petroleum industry. In the United States, neither this pollutant nor the oil and gas production sector is subject to Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements.

The report also discusses pollutants that were transferred across national borders. The majority of these consisted of metals such as lead, zinc, copper and nickel compounds, mainly sent to recycling facilities. A small number of other chemicals, such as sulfuric acid, phosphorus, and xylenes, were also sent across borders for recycling or other treatment.

Taking Stock compiles data from the three pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTRs) in North America: Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), the United States’ Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and Mexico’s Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC).

The Taking Stock Online website allows users to further explore PRTR data for North America with customized reports by pollutant, facility, sector or geographic region. Taking Stock Online also provides interactive mapping of data search results using Google Maps, and features a North America-wide map layer displaying point-specific industrial pollutant data in Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Using the Google Earth mapping service, the CEC’s map layer displays about 35,000 North American industrial facilities that reported releases and transfers of pollutants in 2005. You can access this information at: http://www.cec.org/takingstock/MappingTool.aspx?varlan=en-US.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation
393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, Bureau 200
Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9
Tel: (514) 350-4300; Fax: (514) 350-4314
E-mail: info@cec.org
Website: http://www.cec.org

To unsubscribe from this news service, send an e-mail to: info@cec.org

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment