Meet Chip Northrup—An Articulate and Energetic Opponent of Fracking
James “Chip” Northrup
When I first began writing about the anti-fracking movement in New York, I was told I must interview James “Chip” Northrup, a Texas oil-investor-turned-anti-fracker with a home in Cooperstown, New York, and another in Dallas, Texas. “Chip,” I was told, had an insider’s knowledge of the industry and was a frequent speaker on the subject in local forums as well as in national and international media.
I found out that he was about to lecture in an Upper New York State village on a mind-deadening topic—decoding the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) 1,500 plus pages of guidelines for the industry. This was in October 2011, when the DEC's public hearings on the “Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (SGEIS) were about to begin and community members and activists needed briefing on how to comment. Few in New York could do better than Northrup.
He walked in early at the little café where I was to interview him over dinner before the talk—tall, lean, a boyish face under a thatch of pale blond hair. As another reporter wrote recently, he looked “like the kind of guy you’d get from central casting if you were trying to make a Western movie.” The Texas drawl fit the package and under level blue eyes he had a smile that kept appearing as he spoke. Behind that charm was a caustic, take-no prisoners attitude about the industry and its proponents, and detailed knowledge about things I’d had no inkling about—set-backs of gas wells from houses, well casings, “frackonomics” and details about corruption within New York’s DEC.
The following interview is drawn from conversations I've had with Northrup between October 2011 and January 2013.
Q. You’ve compared fracking with a bomb. Can you comment?
A. When you take the amount of energy involved in a shale frack, it’s the equivalent of a thermobaric bomb. In 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission actually exploded a nuclear bomb in the Mancos Shale in Rulison, Colorado. It made a big hole in the shale but the gas was too radioactive to sell and they closed the hole up. Ironically, the shale is radioactive itself. That’s how you find shale on a well log, you’re looking for radioactivity. And what comes back up in the fracking flowback is radioactive because it’s coming back from the shale.
Q. How would fracking disrupt daily life if it happened in New York State?
A. The first things that arrive are the land men. They come in and they sign mineral leases with landowners. And they try to sign them as cheaply as they can and with terms as onerously favorable to the gas industry as possible. So the land grab is the first disruptor. That’s where the scamming starts. It’s very disruptive to the town, the people’s lives, thousands of bad leases have been in litigation in New York State. The brilliance of [Matt Damon’s film] Promised Land is it focuses on the land men, the first aspect of the activity.
The second thing is the seismic crews. They go in and “shoot seismic.” That means they set off dynamite in the ground to record the sound waves from the strata when they’re looking for the shale. There are no regulations in NY State for seismic testing. You can shoot seismic blasts anywhere. Let me back up and say there are no regulations for land men, either, in New York. There are no standards at all, no licensing. They don’t even have to record the leases they sign. They’ll sign up the mineral lease and it’ll be kept a secret.
The third thing you see are the trucks. They build the roads out to the well pad. They travel in convoys. There are thousands of them. They just tear the roads and the whole place up. There are no state standards in New York for that kind of activity. The state has no way to cover the damages they’ll do to state roads, because New York is one of the few places on the planet that does not tax gas at the wellhead.
A town or a county can recover damages that the convoys do to roads. They can’t recover the damages done to cars, to windshields and axles. But they have to enact road use agreements. If they don’t do this they won’t recover the damage to the roads.
The next activity is the drilling and the fracking of the well itself. If you live near one of these well pads it’s gonna basically ruin the value of your farm or house. It doesn’t go on forever but it goes on long enough to ruin the value. If you’re in the process of refinancing or just living there, it’ll ruin the property. If you’re unfortunate, it’ll crater your mortgage, or if you’d need to sell the house, you can’t sell it.
Setback is the distance of the drilling rig from the house, 500 feet. There is no setback in New York from a warehouse or a school or daycare center or hospital or a filling station. If the house is uninhabited or under construction there is no set back of a shale gas well in New York State. Zero. It could be ten feet.
Q. Even at 500 feet, could you compare that with Texas?
A. In Texas the setbacks are done by towns. They are municipal setbacks.
The standard setback is about a thousand feet. But let me get to the real punch-line here. The setback is from the drilling rig. But on each of these sites there are open pits, compressors, generators, gas processing plants, trucks and there are no setbacks from any of that from a house. The rig has to be 500 feet away, but an open pit or a generator could be right next to your house or a church or a daycare center. There’s no setback of any of the industrial infrastructure, which remains after the drilling has ended.
The other thing is getting rid of the toxic radioactive flowback. But by now, how much else do you really want to know to say, “Umm, I don’t think I like that.”
Q. What would fracking do to Cooperstown?
A. It would completely ruin Cooperstown’s economy, which is based on tourism and health care. It would be the end of Cooperstown. Which is why the village of Cooperstown, which is in the Town of Otsego, was the first township to have banned shale-gas drilling. [The organizers] looked at this—Julie Huntsman was the leader—and they said, ‘This would ruin this place." Then other towns followed.
Here’s the catch, the big trade-off. If the surface value is worth more than the mineral rights—that is, the built environment, businesses, the organic farms, the vineyards, the houses—then there’s absolutely no reason to be shooting up the place with shale gas wells. It’s just a given you’re going to ruin the surface rights, the built environment, the water supply.
If on the other hand the value of the surface rights and the water is basically useless, then you have an economic argument in favor of gas well drilling. It’s why you see gas wells and oil wells out in West Texas where there are no farms, houses, nothing. But these shale gas wells are not compatible with most land uses in a place like New York State, and that’s the biggest understatement of this interview.
Q. I was particularly struck by your remarks to an interviewer a year ago about well casings. Can you comment?
A. When you understand how a well is constructed, it’s very simple. The casing is the steel tubing in the well that transports the gas up to the surface. But that is not the problem. The odds of the steel casing bursting or leaking is pretty low initially. Over time, since it’s a ferrous metal, it’ll all rust out and leak. But initially that’s not a big problem. What is the problem, then? The problem is, is that the steel tubing is surrounded by cement, not concrete, not reinforced concrete. Raw cement without aggregate, the closest approximation would be plaster. So what does the plaster do? It’s not gonna support the steel any more than the steel can support itself. All it does is, it plugs the hole up. You pour plaster down and it has the effect of holding the steel tubing upright and also plugs the hole. But the cement as it cures, it shrinks and it does not stick to the side of the well bore. And it allows gas to vent up inside the well bore. Not in the steel casing but between the cement and the well bore. Gas is coming up those well bores into groundwater. I’ll repeat that: gas is coming up into the groundwater and that’s why you get it coming up. The DEC says, we’ll make you have two casings or three casings. That’s not the problem. This leaking or venting is going on outside the casings. You could put in seven casings but the leak would still be happening outside the casings.
Q. Could you also comment on well failure?
A. About 5 percent fail almost immediately. But the real problem is not that they fail catastrophically like the BP Gulf disaster, but they deteriorate rapidly and start venting gas up into the groundwater. They can build them really well but they don’t age well. They never were designed to last long and the reason why is, these shale wells only have an economic life of four or five years. Why would you build something to last 50 or 100 years if it’s only going to be productive four or five years?
Q. Is the four to five year life invariable for all fracking?
A. They can re-frack them [the wells] and extend their productive life, but it doesn’t always work. They can run it out for ten years but under few circumstances much more than that. If they had to last 100 years they’d have to use stainless steel. But now, whatever’s on sale in China, they stick in the ground.
Q. I attended a conference recently where a woman from Cabot Oil & Gas said, “Oh, we’ve taken care of that. We’re making better cement.”
A. Whenever you raise an issue they’ll say ‘We’re working on this.’ But let’s address this. They do have better cement. They put plasticizers in to keep it from having this problem. But they cannot keep the cement from pulling away from the well bore. Think about what the well bore is like. It’s drilled with grease, with drilling mud. When you’re finished drilling the well, you basically have just a big greasy hole in the ground. There’s no disclosure of what they put in drilling mud, which is used to cool the drill bits, and bring cuttings back up. So now you have this big greasy hole in the rock that can go on for miles. So now the cement has to stick to every square inch of the surface of that greasy rock, and they have to do that down to the angstrom level. A methane molecule is only 3.8 angstroms wide. (An angstrom is one ten-millionth of a millimeter). If you have a crack of five angstroms [in the cement] and it’s gonna vent gas. Remember, gas is lighter than air. It’s like helium. It’s not whether or not it will leak, it’s how much, how soon.
Q. You've talked about “frackonomics” in your writing and in your previous interviews. Could you talk about it briefly here?
A. The expert on this is really Deborah Rogers. Art Berman has also commented on this extensively. But frackonomics is very simple. It is very very easy to mislead the public, politicians and investors. It’s because the initial production, the gas produced immediately, can be extraordinarily high, it’s called the “IP” or initial production, it can be eye-popping. But the production declines very very quickly. What happens is, it gives unscrupulous operators like Chesapeake the opportunity to mislead people about how productive an area is going to be. It happens every time a new field is opened up. It’s always overstated initially. There’ll be a rush, and then most of the area that’s defined—like the Marcellus—is not going to be economically productive. It’s almost a guarantee that it’s going to be hyped. And everybody knows this and they forget it about every time there’s a new field.
Q. If the Marcellus is slated to be unprofitable, why would companies start drilling in New York State?
A. Well, they will not. This is a kind of real irony. The Marcellus in New York State is dry gas, it’s methane. It doesn’t have much ethane, propane or butane. Those “liquids” command higher prices. The price of methane is depressed, there isn’t much incentive to go for more dry gas in New York State. Drilling has been cut back by more than 50 percent in New York State because those are dry Marcellus Shale wells. They’re pulling rigs out of that area by the border. So why would you go prospect, what would be the rush, just on the other side of the state line? The short answer is: there is none. And based on the geology, the area north of the border is going to be less lucrative than south, where they’re pulling rigs out.
So what’s the rush of getting the regulations when they’re not gonna come knocking at the door.
The only thing driving this is politics at this point. Much more so than any need to prospect for gas. Cuomo is being pushed into permitting shale gas wells when such wells are uneconomic to drill. The prospects for the Utica are no better in New York than the Marcellus. And like the Marcellus, the Utica is likely dry in New York, based on results form test wells. So we are left with pressure from gas lobbyists as the driver.
Q. Before Governor Cuomo allows fracking, the DEC has to draft regulations. Then Cuomo approves them. Could you talk about the DEC?
A. In most states there’s a state agency for minerals management for issuing gas-well permits and regulating drilling. And there’s a totally distinct and autonomous environmental agency which has oversight over gas wells. So if there’s a problem you complain to the environmental agency, which is autonomous from the minerals management agency. In New York it’s the same agency. Meaning the DEC acts as both the minerals management agency and the environmental agency. As a practical matter, the environmental function gets compromised.
When you go to the DEC to talk about oil and gas or fracking, you know who you see, or talk to? You call up and say, “I want to talk about the regs—because I’ve done this!—You don’t meet with a chemist or an epidemiologist or a toxicologist, a hydrologist or an environmentalist. If you go high up on the chain, you meet with the head of well permitting! You go there, you’re concerned with water pollution and air pollution and you meet with the guy who issues the permits and with his attorneys. If you’re lucky you meet with Allison Crocker, y’know, big tall good looking gal. Allison Crocker is the one who Chesapeake sends their drafts to. When Chesapeake wants wording changed in the SGEIS, they go to Allison Crocker.
Q. Could you talk about the DEC’s regulations? [These “final” drafts were just issued after over three years of massive public protest about the agency’s draft guidelines. See further details here.]
A. The DEC in New York is required by law to show any scientific studies, any statistics, any studies at all, that it has used as the basis for its regulations. That’s a state law. In the SGEIS [preliminary to the final regulations] and in the proposed regulations they just issued, the DEC does not cite any studies whatsoever. No papers, no science, nothing. It has no references, no science at all. So what’s it based on? They basically just made it up with input from the gas lobbyists. Some of these regulations are literally copied verbatim from the lobbyists. They FOILED the meetings with the lobbyists [requested records under the Freedom of Information Act] and [found out that] the lobbyists were feeding them with industry wording. [See further details here.]
Q. Do you think it's likely that Cuomo will OK fracking? If so, what will happen next?
A. There’s no doubt about it. I’m sure he will. I don’t think people realize that the only difference between Cuomo and [Pennsylvania Governor] Corbett [who immediately allowed fracking in Pennsylvania in 2008] is that Cuomo’s a better actor. You can be charitable and say they’ve bought into the shale game, whatever. But they’ve just been co-opted by the gas lobbyists. When you look at what the DEC proposed as regs. and what’s missing, the fingerprints of the gas lobby are all over it. They wrote the regs.
Let me give you just one example. In the September 2011 draft of the regulations, an open pit for storing drilling mud or flow-back, the requirement was for the fluid to be at least two feet from the [top] of the pit—the distance is called the “freeboard.” And guess what the freeboard is in the new regs? Nothing. Zero You can fill the pit up to the brim. You know what would happen if it rained real hard? The gas industry wanted it to be zero. And the DEC changed it [to] zero for the people that paid them.
Q. If the DEC is just going to rubber-stamp industry anyway, why ask people to comment on the regulations?
A. The short answer is, you have to expose this corruption. In commenting, we’re given the opportunity in the hearings—three committees in the State Assembly are having hearings on these proposed regulations and that’s an opportunity to expose the corruption. That is what Tony Ingraffea and Sandra Steingraber are doing, they’re publishing their responses on the proposed fracking regulations. To the press. To journalists. That’s what I’m doing.
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
Ellen Cantarow has been a journalist for the past 35 years, and a published writer since the late 1960s. Her writing on Israel and Palestine has appeared widely for three decades, and has been anthologized. Her more recent writing on the environment, especially on the impact of fracking on grassroots communities, appears regularly at Tom Dispatch and has been reprinted at EcoWatch, CBS News, The Nation, Salon, Alternet, European Energy Review, Le Monde Diplomatique, Al-Jazeera English and many more.
By Tara Lohan
A key part of the United States' clean energy transition has started to take shape, but you may need to squint to see it. About 2,000 wind turbines could be built far offshore, in federal waters off the Atlantic Coast, in the next 10 years. And more are expected.
Threats to Birds<p>One of the gravest threats facing birds is climate change, according to Audubon, which found that rising temperatures threaten <a href="https://www.audubon.org/2019climateissue" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">nearly two-thirds of North America's bird species</a>. That's why the impending development of offshore wind is a good thing, says Shilo Felton, a field manager in the organization's Clean Energy Initiative, but it also comes with dangers to birds that need to be better studied and mitigated.</p><p>The most obvious risk comes from birds colliding with spinning turbine blades. But offshore wind developments can also displace birds from foraging or roost sites, as well as migratory pathways.</p><p>Along the Atlantic Coast four imperiled species are of top concern to conservationists: the endangered piping plover, red knot, roseate tern and black-capped petrel, which is being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act.</p><p>"Those four species are of utmost importance to make sure that we understand the impacts," says Felton. "But beyond that there are many species that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act that could potentially see more impacts from offshore wind."</p><p>Northern gannets, for example, are at risk not just for collision but <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308703197_Possible_impacts_of_offshore_wind_farms_on_seabirds_a_pilot_study_in_Northern_Gannets_in_the_southern_North_Sea" target="_blank">habitat displacement</a>.</p>
A northern gannet flying along Cape May, N.J. Ann Marie Morrison / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<p>"There's <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716303196" target="_blank">some evidence</a> that they just won't use areas where turbines are, but that also excludes them from key foraging areas," says Felton. Researchers are still studying what this may mean for the birds. But a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141113620305304" target="_blank">study</a> published in December 2020 conducted at Bass Rock, Scotland — home to the world's largest northern gannet colony — found that wind developments could reduce their growth rate, though not enough to cause a population decline.</p><p>Other birds, such as great cormorants and European shags, are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716303196" target="_blank">attracted to wind developments</a> and use the infrastructure to rest while opening up new foraging areas farther from shore.</p><p>"There's plenty of potential for a bird to use a wind farm and still to avoid the turbines themselves," says Felton.</p><p>Birds like pelicans, however, are less versatile in their movements and are at particular risk of collision because of their flight pattern, she says.</p><p>But how disruptive or dangerous offshore turbines will be along the East Coast isn't yet known.</p><p>Federal and state agencies, along with nongovernmental organizations, says Felton, have done good research to try to better understand those potential impacts. "But these are all theoretical, because we don't have a lot of offshore wind yet in the United States."</p>
Threats to Ocean Life<p>Birds aren't the only wildlife of concern. More development in ocean waters could affect a litany of marine species, some of which are already facing other pressures from overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction and climate change.</p><p>Scientists have found that marine mammals like whales and dolphins could be disturbed by the jarring sounds of construction, especially if pile driving is used to hammer the steel turbine platform into the seafloor.</p><p>The noises, though short-lived, could impede communication between animals, divert them from migration routes or cause them to seek less suitable areas for feeding or breeding. Research from Europe found that harbor porpoises, seals and dolphins may avoid development areas during construction. In most, but <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045101" target="_blank">not all cases</a>, the animals were believed to have returned to the area following construction.</p><p>The biggest concern for conservation groups in the United States is the critically endangered North American right whale. There are fewer than 400 remaining, and the species' habitat overlaps with a number of planned wind development areas along the East Coast.</p><p>"Offshore wind is in no way the cause of the challenges the whales face, but it's going to be another pressure point," says John Rogers, senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists.</p><p>Researchers aren't sure how right whales will respond to the noise from pile driving.</p><p>"But we are concerned, based on what we know about how whales react to other noise sources, that they may avoid [wind development] areas," says Kershaw.</p><p>And if that displacement causes them to miss out on important food resources, it could be dangerous for a species already on the brink.</p><p>There are a few other potential threats, too.</p><p>Ships associated with the development — more plentiful during construction — also pose a danger. In the past few years cargo ships, fishing boats and other vessels have caused half of all deaths of North Atlantic right whales.</p>
A juvenile right whale breaches against the backdrop of a ship near the St. Johns River entrance. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission / NOAA Research Permit #775-1600-10<p>And after construction, the noise from the spinning turbines will be present in the water at low decibels. "We don't quite know how the great whales will react to those sounds," says Jeremy Firestone, the director of the Center for Research in Wind at the University of Delaware.</p><p>Other marine mammals may also perceive the noise, but at low decibels it's unlikely to be an impediment, <a href="http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v309/p279-295/" target="_blank">research has found</a>.</p><p>And it's possible that wind development could help some ocean life. Turbine foundations can attract fish and invertebrates for whom hard substrates create habitat complexity — known as the "reef effect," according to researchers from the University of Rhode Island's <a href="https://dosits.org/animals/effects-of-sound/anthropogenic-sources/wind-turbine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Discovery of Sound in the Sea</a> program. Exclusion of commercial fishing nearby may also help shelter fish and protect marine mammals from entanglements in fishing gear.</p>
Ensuring Safe Development<p>Despite the potential dangers, researchers have gathered a few best practices to help diminish and possibly eliminate some risks.</p><p>When it comes to ship strikes, the easiest thing is to slow boats down, mandating a speed of <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/vessel-speed-limits-sought-protect-endangered-north-atlantic-right-whales-2020-08-06/" target="_blank">10 knots</a> in wind development areas, and using visual and acoustic monitoring for whales.</p><p>Adjusting operations to reduce boat trips between the shore and the wind development will also help. A new series of service operating vessels can allow maintenance staff to spent multiple days onsite, says Kershaw, cutting down on boat traffic.</p><p>For construction noise concerns, developers can avoid pile driving during times of the year when whales are present. And, depending on the marine environment, developers could use "quiet foundations" that don't require pile driving. These include gravity-based or suction caisson platforms.</p><p>Floating turbines are also used in deep water, where they're effectively anchored in place — although that poses its own potential danger. "We have concerns that marine debris could potentially become entangled around the mooring cables of the floating arrays and pose a secondarily entanglement risk to some species," says Felton, who thinks more research should be conducted before those become operational in U.S. waters — a process that's already underway in Maine, where a <a href="https://composites.umaine.edu/2020/08/05/diamond-offshore-wind-rwe-renewables-join-the-university-of-maine-to-lead-development-of-maine-floating-offshore-wind-demonstration-project/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">demonstration project is being built</a>.</p><p>If loud noises are unavoidable during construction, noise-reducing technologies such as bubble curtains can help dampen the sound. And scheduling adjacent projects to conduct similar work at the same time could limit the duration of disturbances.</p>
The foundation installation of the off shore wind farm Sandbank using a bubble curtain. Vattenfall / Ulrich Wirrwa / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<p>Once turbines become operational, reducing the amount of light on wind platforms or using flashing lights could help deter some seabirds, NRDC <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/harnessing-wind-advance-wind-power-offshore-ib.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">researchers reported</a>. And scientists are exploring using ultrasonic noises and ultraviolet lighting to keep bats away. "Feathering," or shutting down the turbine blades during key migration times, could also help prevent fatalities.</p><p>"We need to make sure that offshore wind is the best steward it can be of the marine ecosystem, because we want and expect it to be a significant part of the clean energy picture in some parts of the country," says Rogers. "We also have to recognize that we're going to learn by doing, and that some of these things we're going to figure out best once we have more turbines in the water."</p><p>That's why environmental groups say it's important to establish baseline information on species before projects begin, and then require developers to conduct monitoring during construction and for years after projects are operational.</p><p>Employing an "adaptive management framework" will ensure that developers can adjust their management practices as they go when new information becomes available, and that those best practices are incorporated into the requirements for future projects.</p>
Putting Research Into Action<p>Advancing these conversations at the federal level during the Trump administration, though, has been slow going.</p><p>"We didn't really have any productive discussions with the administration in the last four years," says Kershaw.</p><p>And when it comes to birds, Felton says the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's recently completed "draft cumulative environmental impact statement" covering offshore wind developments had a lot of good environmental research, but little focus on birds.</p><p>"Part of that comes from the current administration's interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act," she says.</p><p>President Trump has been hostile to both wind energy <em>and</em> birds, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/05/climate/trump-migratory-bird-protections.html" target="_blank">and finished gutting the Migratory Bird Treaty Act</a> in his administration's the final days, removing penalties for companies whose operations kill migratory birds.</p><p>There's hope that the Biden administration will take a different approach. But where the federal government has been lacking lately, Kershaw says, they've seen states step up.</p><p>New York, for example, has established an <a href="https://www.nyetwg.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Environmental Technical Working Group</a> composed of stakeholders to advise on environmentally responsible development of offshore wind.</p><p>The group is led by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, but it isn't limited to the Empire State. It's regional in focus and includes representatives from wind developers with leases between Massachusetts and North Carolina; state agencies from Massachusetts to Virginia; federal agencies; and science-based environmental NGOs.</p><p>New York's latest solicitation for clean energy projects includes up to 2,500 megawatts of offshore wind and <a href="https://www.nyetwg.com/announcements" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">requires developers</a> to contribute at least $10,000 per megawatt for regional monitoring of fisheries and other wildlife.</p><p>Environmental groups have also worked directly with developers, including an agreement with Vineyard Wind — an 800-megawatt project off the Massachusetts coast that could be the first utility-scale wind development in federal waters — to help protect North Atlantic right whales.</p><p>The agreement includes no pile driving from Jan. 1 to April 30, ceasing activities at other times when whales are visually or acoustically identified in the area, speed restrictions on vessels, and the use of noise reduction technology, such as a bubble curtain during pile driving.</p><p>"The developers signed the agreement with us, and then they incorporated, most, if not all of those measures into the federal permitting documents," says Kershaw. "The developers really did a lot of bottom up work to make sure that they were being very protective of right whales."</p><p>Environmental groups are in talks with other developers on agreements too, but Felton wants to see best practices being mandated at the federal level.</p><p>"It's the sort of a role that should be being played by the federal government, and without that it makes the permitting and regulation process less stable and less transparent," she says." And that in turn slows down the build out of projects, which is also bad for birds because it doesn't help us address and mitigate for climate change."</p><p>Kershaw agrees there's a lot more work to be done, especially at the federal level, but thinks we're moving in the right direction.</p><p>"I think the work that's been done so far in the United States has really laid the groundwork for advancing this in the right way and in a way that's protective of species and the environment," she says. "At the same time, it's important that offshore wind does advance quickly. We really need it to help us combat the worst effects of climate change."</p><p><em><a href="https://therevelator.org/author/taralohan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tara Lohan</a> is deputy editor of The Revelator and has worked for more than a decade as a digital editor and environmental journalist focused on the intersections of energy, water and climate. Her work has been published by The Nation, American Prospect, High Country News, Grist, Pacific Standard and others. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis.</em></p><p><em style="">Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/offshore-wind-wildlife" target="_blank" style="">The Revelator</a>. </em></p>
- U.S. Offshore Wind Power Blown on Course - EcoWatch ›
- How Renewable Energy Could Power Your State - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Frank La Sorte and Kyle Horton
Millions of birds travel between their breeding and wintering grounds during spring and autumn migration, creating one of the greatest spectacles of the natural world. These journeys often span incredible distances. For example, the Blackpoll warbler, which weighs less than half an ounce, may travel up to 1,500 miles between its nesting grounds in Canada and its wintering grounds in the Caribbean and South America.
Blackpoll warbler. PJTurgeon / Wikipedia<p>We used this information to determine how the number of migratory bird species varies based on each city's level of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/light-pollution" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">light pollution</a> – brightening of the night sky caused by artificial light sources, such as buildings and streetlights. We also explored how species numbers vary based on the quantity of tree canopy cover and impervious surface, such as concrete and asphalt, within each city. Our findings show that cities can help migrating birds by planting more trees and reducing light pollution, especially during spring and autumn migration.</p>
Declining Bird Populations<p>Urban areas contain numerous dangers for migratory birds. The biggest threat is the risk of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1" target="_blank">colliding with buildings or communication towers</a>. Many migratory bird populations have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313" target="_blank">declined over the past 50 years</a>, and it is possible that light pollution from cities is contributing to these losses.</p><p>Scientists widely agree that light pollution can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708574114" target="_blank">severely disorient migratory birds</a> and make it hard for them to navigate. Studies have shown that birds will cluster around brightly lit structures, much like insects flying around a porch light at night. Cities are the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2029" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">primary source of light pollution for migratory birds</a>, and these species tend to be more abundant within cities <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13792" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">during migration</a>, especially in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103892" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">city parks</a>.</p>
Composite image of the continental U.S. at night from satellite photos. NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using Suomi NPP VIIRS data from Miguel Román, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
The Power of Citizen Science<p>It's not easy to observe and document bird migration, especially for species that migrate at night. The main challenge is that many of these species are very small, which limits scientists' ability to use electronic tracking devices.</p><p>With the growth of the internet and other information technologies, new data resources are becoming available that are making it possible to overcome some of these challenges. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07106-5" target="_blank">Citizen science initiatives</a> in which volunteers use online portals to enter their observations of the natural world have become an important resource for researchers.</p><p>One such initiative, <a href="https://ebird.org/home" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">eBird</a>, allows bird-watchers around the globe to share their observations from any location and time. This has produced one of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04632" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">largest ecological citizen-science databases in the world</a>. To date, eBird contains over 922 million bird observations compiled by over 617,000 participants.</p>
Light Pollution Both Attracts and Repels Migratory Birds<p>Migratory bird species have evolved to use certain migration routes and types of habitat, such as forests, grasslands or marshes. While humans may enjoy seeing migratory birds appear in urban areas, it's generally not good for bird populations. In addition to the many hazards that exist in urban areas, cities typically lack the food resources and cover that birds need during migration or when raising their young. As scientists, we're concerned when we see evidence that migratory birds are being drawn away from their traditional migration routes and natural habitats.</p><p>Through our analysis of eBird data, we found that cities contained the greatest numbers of migratory bird species during spring and autumn migration. Higher levels of light pollution were associated with more species during migration – evidence that light pollution attracts migratory birds to cities across the U.S. This is cause for concern, as it shows that the influence of light pollution on migratory behavior is strong enough to increase the number of species that would normally be found in urban areas.</p><p>In contrast, we found that higher levels of light pollution were associated with fewer migratory bird species during the summer and winter. This is likely due to the scarcity of suitable habitat in cities, such as large forest patches, in combination with the adverse affects of light pollution on bird behavior and health. In addition, during these seasons, migratory birds are active only during the day and their populations are largely stationary, creating few opportunities for light pollution to attract them to urban areas.</p>
Trees and Pavement<p>We found that tree canopy cover was associated with more migratory bird species during spring migration and the summer. Trees provide important habitat for migratory birds during migration and the breeding season, so the presence of trees can have a strong effect on the number of migratory bird species that occur in cities.</p><p>Finally, we found that higher levels of impervious surface were associated with more migratory bird species during the winter. This result is somewhat surprising. It could be a product of the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/heatislands" target="_blank">urban heat island effect</a> – the fact that structures and paved surfaces in cities absorb and reemit more of the sun's heat than natural surfaces. Replacing vegetation with buildings, roads and parking lots can therefore make cities significantly warmer than surrounding lands. This effect could reduce cold stress on birds and increase food resources, such as insect populations, during the winter.</p><p>Our research adds to our understanding of how conditions in cities can both help and hurt migratory bird populations. We hope that our findings will inform urban planning initiatives and strategies to reduce the harmful effects of cities on migratory birds through such measures as <a href="https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/index.cfm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">planting more trees</a> and initiating <a href="https://aeroecolab.com/uslights" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lights-out programs</a>. Efforts to make it easier for migratory birds to complete their incredible journeys will help maintain their populations into the future.</p><p><em><span style="background-color: initial;"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/frank-la-sorte-1191494" target="_blank">Frank La Sorte</a> is a r</span>esearch associate at the </em><em>Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kyle-horton-1191498" target="_blank">Kyle Horton</a> is an assistant professor of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology at the Colorado State University.</em></p><p><em></em><em>Disclosure statement: Frank La Sorte receives funding from The Wolf Creek Charitable Foundation and the National Science Foundation (DBI-1939187). K</em><em>yle Horton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/cities-can-help-migrating-birds-on-their-way-by-planting-more-trees-and-turning-lights-off-at-night-152573" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>
By Lynne Peeples
Editor's note: This story is part of a nine-month investigation of drinking water contamination across the U.S. The series is supported by funding from the Park Foundation and Water Foundation. Read the launch story, "Thirsting for Solutions," here.
In late September 2020, officials in Wrangell, Alaska, warned residents who were elderly, pregnant or had health problems to avoid drinking the city's tap water — unless they could filter it on their own.
Unintended Consequences<p>Chemists first discovered disinfection by-products in treated drinking water in the 1970s. The trihalomethanes they found, they determined, had resulted from the reaction of chlorine with natural organic matter. Since then, scientists have identified more than 700 additional disinfection by-products. "And those only represent a portion. We still don't know half of them," says Richardson, whose lab has identified hundreds of disinfection by-products. </p>
What’s Regulated and What’s Not?<p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently regulates 11 disinfection by-products — including a handful of trihalomethanes (THM) and haloacetic acids (HAA). While these represent only a small fraction of all disinfection by-products, EPA aims to use their presence to indicate the presence of other disinfection by-products. "The general idea is if you control THMs and HAAs, you implicitly or by default control everything else as well," says Korshin.</p><p>EPA also requires drinking water facilities to use techniques to reduce the concentration of organic materials before applying disinfectants, and regulates the quantity of disinfectants that systems use. These rules ultimately can help control levels of disinfection by-products in drinking water.</p>
Click the image for an interactive version of this chart on the Environmental Working Group website.<p>Still, some scientists and advocates argue that current regulations do not go far enough to protect the public. Many question whether the government is regulating the right disinfection by-products, and if water systems are doing enough to reduce disinfection by-products. EPA is now seeking public input as it considers potential revisions to regulations, including the possibility of regulating additional by-products. The agency held a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview/potential-revisions-microbial-and-disinfection-byproducts-rules" target="_blank">two-day public meeting</a> in October 2020 and plans to hold additional public meetings throughout 2021.</p><p>When EPA set regulations on disinfection by-products between the 1970s and early 2000s, the agency, as well as the scientific community, was primarily focused on by-products of reactions between organics and chlorine — historically the most common drinking water disinfectant. But the science has become increasingly clear that these chlorinated chemicals represent a fraction of the by-product problem.</p><p>For example, bromide or iodide can get caught up in the reaction, too. This is common where seawater penetrates a drinking water source. By itself, bromide is innocuous, says Korshin. "But it is extremely [reactive] with organics," he says. "As bromide levels increase with normal treatment, then concentrations of brominated disinfection by-products will increase quite rapidly."</p><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15487777/" target="_blank">Emerging</a> <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b05440" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">data</a> indicate that brominated and iodinated by-products are potentially more harmful than the regulated by-products.</p><p>Almost half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of either the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, where saltwater intrusion can be a problem for drinking water supplies. "In the U.S., the rule of thumb is the closer to the sea, the more bromide you have," says Korshin, noting there are also places where bromide naturally leaches out from the soil. Still, some coastal areas tend to be spared. For example, the city of Seattle's water comes from the mountains, never making contact with seawater and tending to pick up minimal organic matter.</p><p>Hazardous disinfection by-products can also be an issue with desalination for drinking water. "As <a href="https://ensia.com/features/can-saltwater-quench-our-growing-thirst/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">desalination</a> practices become more economical, then the issue of controlling bromide becomes quite important," adds Korshin.</p>
Other Hot Spots<p>Coastal areas represent just one type of hot spot for disinfection by-products. Agricultural regions tend to send organic matter — such as fertilizer and animal waste — into waterways. Areas with warmer climates generally have higher levels of natural organic matter. And nearly any urban area can be prone to stormwater runoff or combined sewer overflows, which can contain rainwater as well as untreated human waste, industrial wastewater, hazardous materials and organic debris. These events are especially common along the East Coast, notes Sydney Evans, a science analyst with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG, a collaborator on <a href="https://ensia.com/ensia-collections/troubled-waters/" target="_blank">this reporting project</a>).</p><p>The only drinking water sources that might be altogether free of disinfection by-products, suggests Richardson, are private wells that are not treated with disinfectants. She used to drink water from her own well. "It was always cold, coming from great depth through clay and granite," she says. "It was fabulous."</p><p>Today, Richardson gets her water from a city system that uses chloramine.</p>
Toxic Treadmill<p>Most community water systems in the U.S. use chlorine for disinfection in their treatment plant. Because disinfectants are needed to prevent bacteria growth as the water travels to the homes at the ends of the distribution lines, sometimes a second round of disinfection is also added in the pipes.</p><p>Here, systems usually opt for either chlorine or chloramine. "Chloramination is more long-lasting and does not form as many disinfection by-products through the system," says Steve Via, director of federal relations at the American Water Works Association. "Some studies show that chloramination may be more protective against organisms that inhabit biofilms such as Legionella."</p>
Alternative Approaches<p>When he moved to the U.S. from Germany, Prasse says he immediately noticed the bad taste of the water. "You can taste the chlorine here. That's not the case in Germany," he says.</p><p>In his home country, water systems use chlorine — if at all — at lower concentrations and at the very end of treatment. In the Netherlands, <a href="https://dwes.copernicus.org/articles/2/1/2009/dwes-2-1-2009.pdf" target="_blank">chlorine isn't used at all</a> as the risks are considered to outweigh the benefits, says Prasse. He notes the challenge in making a convincing connection between exposure to low concentrations of disinfection by-products and health effects, such as cancer, that can occur decades later. In contrast, exposure to a pathogen can make someone sick very quickly.</p><p>But many countries in Europe have not waited for proof and have taken a precautionary approach to reduce potential risk. The emphasis there is on alternative approaches for primary disinfection such as ozone or <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/eco-friendly-way-disinfect-water-using-light/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ultraviolet light</a>. Reverse osmosis is among the "high-end" options, used to remove organic and inorganics from the water. While expensive, says Prasse, the method of forcing water through a semipermeable membrane is growing in popularity for systems that want to reuse wastewater for drinking water purposes.</p><p>Remucal notes that some treatment technologies may be good at removing a particular type of contaminant while being ineffective at removing another. "We need to think about the whole soup when we think about treatment," she says. What's more, Remucal explains, the mixture of contaminants may impact the body differently than any one chemical on its own. </p><p>Richardson's preferred treatment method is filtering the water with granulated activated carbon, followed by a low dose of chlorine.</p><p>Granulated activated carbon is essentially the same stuff that's in a household filter. (EWG recommends that consumers use a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/reviewed-disinfection-byproducts.php#:~:text=EWG%20recommends%20using%20a%20home,as%20trihalomethanes%20and%20haloacetic%20acids." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">countertop carbon filter</a> to reduce levels of disinfection by-products.) While such a filter "would remove disinfection by-products after they're formed, in the plant they remove precursors before they form by-products," explains Richardson. She coauthored a <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b00023" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2019 paper</a> that concluded the treatment method is effective in reducing a wide range of regulated and unregulated disinfection by-products.</p><br>
Greater Cincinnati Water Works installed a granulated activated carbon system in 1992, and is still one of relatively few full-scale plants that uses the technology. Courtesy of Greater Cincinnati Water Works.<p>Despite the technology and its benefits being known for decades, relatively few full-scale plants use granulated active carbon. They often cite its high cost, Richardson says. "They say that, but the city of Cincinnati [Ohio] has not gone bankrupt using it," she says. "So, I'm not buying that argument anymore."</p><p>Greater Cincinnati Water Works installed a granulated activated carbon system in 1992. On a video call in December, Jeff Swertfeger, the superintendent of Greater Cincinnati Water Works, poured grains of what looks like black sand out of a glass tube and into his hand. It was actually crushed coal that has been baked in a furnace. Under a microscope, each grain looks like a sponge, said Swertfeger. When water passes over the carbon grains, he explained, open tunnels and pores provide extensive surface area to absorb contaminants.</p><p>While the granulated activated carbon initially was installed to address chemical spills and other industrial contamination concerns in the Ohio River, Cincinnati's main drinking water source, Swertfeger notes that the substance has turned out to "remove a lot of other stuff, too," including <a href="https://ensia.com/features/drinking-water-contamination-pfas-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PFAS</a> and disinfection by-product precursors.</p><p>"We use about one-third the amount of chlorine as we did before. It smells and tastes a lot better," he says. "The use of granulated activated carbon has resulted in lower disinfection by-products across the board."</p><p>Richardson is optimistic about being able to reduce risks from disinfection by-products in the future. "If we're smart, we can still kill those pathogens and lower our chemical disinfection by-product exposure at the same time," she says.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://ensia.com/features/drinking-water-disinfection-byproducts-pathogens/" target="_blank">Ensia</a>. </em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2649953730#/" target="_self"></a></p>
- Most Meat Will Be Plant-Based or Lab-Grown in 20 Years, Analysts ... ›
- Lab-Grown Meat Debate Overlooks Cows' Range of Use Worldwide ... ›
- Will Plant-Based Meat Become the New Fast Food? - EcoWatch ›
One city in New Zealand knows what its priorities are.
Dunedin, the second largest city on New Zealand's South Island, has closed a popular road to protect a mother sea lion and her pup, The Guardian reported.