A Window into Declining Bird Populations

The National Audubon Society recently released a comprehensive Climate Report summarizing 30 years of data including citizen-scientist observations from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, and eBird. Included in the list are 314 bird species (more than half of all 588 North American bird species!) predicted to go extinct by the end of the century if we don’t prioritize conservation in future industry regulations and land/water management decisions.

Sadly, over 25% of United States bird species have declined to such an extent they are officially listed as being of conservation concern. In addition to habitat loss and predation by outdoor cats, one of the primary causes of bird deaths is one that many people would never think of - window collisions. Birds don’t recognize transparent glass as a solid object so instead of avoiding it, they attempt to fly directly towards reflected habitat, or through the invisible surface. Although accurate quantification is difficult, it’s estimated that 300 million to 1 billion birds are killed annually by window collisions in North America alone. 

For many reasons migratory birds are especially vulnerable to anthropogenic forces. In particular, they depend on multiple habitats including their breeding and overwintering habitats and that which lies along their entire migration route.  Habitat loss is considered the primary cause of bird population declines, but one could easily make the case that building large glass structures in the middle of a migration path would also qualify as habitat loss. It’s estimated that 5% (1 in 20!) of fall migratory birds meet their deaths by colliding into one of our windows. This is a tragically large number. The thing about migratory birds is that many of them travel by night or at high elevations so we don’t even see them. Here is an example of a NEXRAD imaging photo capturing bird migration.

 
In addition to the increase in densities, migratory birds navigate towards light and are thus attracted to our lit windows. This is why programs such as “Lights Out” have been so effective.  FLAP (Fatal Light Awareness Program),  Chicago Bird Collisions Monitor, and other Audubon Lights Out programs in North America.

THE PROBLEMS
The primary factors leading to high numbers of bird-window collisions (BWC) are:

• Tunneling: the effect created by glass-faced buildings coupled with interiorly lit objects (Klem et al., 2009 and Martin, 2011).
• Transparency: birds cannot detect the presence of glass and attempt to fly through (Johnson and Hudson, 1976).
• Reflectivity: glass reflects habitat and open space causing collisions (Banks, 1976)
• Adjacent habitat: attracts birds and is reflected in buildings (Gelb and Delacretaz, 2006).
• Migration: increases the number of birds which pass through an area exponentially, particularly birds that are not adapted for urban buildings (Codoner, 1995 and Collins et al., 2008).

THE SOLUTIONS
Based on count data, it’s actually thought that majority of total bird window collisions occur at people’s homes. You might not think that bird-safing your windows at home or at your work-place will make much of a difference, but you very well could save dozens of birds by doing so. There are a number of different things you can do to your windows to prevent bird strikes.

In addition, these are 3 simple practices that will reduce risks at home:

• Move feeders close to your windows — 1.5 feet or closer. From this distance, birds won’t be able to build up enough momentum to hurt themselves if they do fly against the glass.
• Close curtain and blinds when possible to break up the illusion of clear passage or reflected habitat.
• Move houseplants away from windows. Birds may view them as refuges and try to perch on them.

Here is a recent National Geographic article “How Better Glass can Save Hundreds of Millions of Birds per Year,” which discusses some of the past and current research being done.

THE CASE OF THE MINNEAPOLIS VIKINGS STADIUM

If you are like me one year ago, you are not aware of the severity of the bird-window collisions problem. I became deeply involved with this issue when I started volunteering as the Conservation Chair for the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis and learned about the plans for the new Vikings stadium located in the center of the Mississippi River Flyway (the largest migratory flyway in North America, through which approximately 50% of all N. American birds pass).

This stadium is a $1.024 billion dollar project, nearly half of which is public money. Allocation of this large pool of resources towards the stadium was an issue of controversy to begin with, but public discontent skyrocketed when the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority (MSFA) settled on a design featuring 200,000 sq. ft. of highly reflective glass in the middle of the country's largest migratory flyway – placing them in violation of several Minnesota laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, the Endangered Species Act, and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.

For less than 0.1% of the cost of the stadium, the MSFA could have opted for "fritted glass", used in the Dallas Cowboys stadium and the Javits Center in NYC.  It’s barely visible to the human eye, particularly at a distance, but the benefits are huge.

This type of glass was originally designed for energy conservation, but has the added benefit of reducing transparency and reflection just enough that birds can see it and avoid deadly collisions. This would have created a win-win-win situation in which there are countless fewer bird deaths, an unobstructed view for stadium-goers, and fewer Minneapolis taxpayer dollars spent on heating and cooling the building. However, despite nearly 100,000 public signatures, unanimous resolutions by the Minneapolis and St. Paul City Councils, the efforts of many expert scientists and conservationists requesting the use of bird safe and energy efficient glass in the stadium, the MSFA and Governor Dayton have refused to budge on this issue. Although the Michele Kelm-Helgen at the MSFA has come out with a series of contradictory and easily refutable arguments, it’s clear that the decision to use the reflective glass is only a matter of aesthetic preference.

We no longer live in a time when aesthetic preference is justification for the deaths of many thousands of protected animals. As society continues to grow and develop, there are many arising challenges for which this choice is not so clear. For example, the development of wind and solar power has many environmental benefits, but also contributes to the deaths of migratory birds. These choices are more difficult for whatever the choice, there is a high cost. For the Vikings stadium, and other buildings like it, this tradeoff does not exist. When the money is available (or the ROI is high, as is often the case), the ONLY acceptable option is to create structures to be as environmentally friendly as possible.

For more on the stadium and links to articles on bird window collisions, visit the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/birdsafestadium

Watch this informative video produced by Jim Gambone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngvN7oHhHwY

Listen to this radio interview with activist Jim Gambone:
http://www.kfai.org/northern-sun-news/playlists/20141023

For more on Bird Conservation in the United States, check out this comprehensive yet concise report, "The State of the Birds".

References:

Banks, R. C. 1976. Reflective plate glass - a hazard to migrating birds. BioScience 26(6):414.

Codoner, N. A. 1995. Mortality of Connecticut birds on roads and at buildings. Connecticut Warbler 15(3):89-98.

Collins, K. A. and D. J. Horn. 2008. published abstract. Bird-window collisions and factors influencing their frequency at Millikin University in Decatur, Illinois. Bird-window collisions and factors influencing their frequency at Millikin University in Decatur, Illinois 101(supplement):50.

Evans-Ogden, L.J., 2002. Summary Report on the Bird Friendly Building Program: Effect of Light Reduction on Collision of Migratory Birds. Special Report for the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) (available from FLAP). 29 pages.

Hager, Stephen B., Bradley J. Cosentino and Kelly J. McKay, 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. J. Field Ornithol. 83(2) 203-211.

Harden, J. 2002. An overview of anthropogenic causes of avian mortality. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 25(1):4-11.

Johnson, R. E. and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101(4):606-620.

Klem, D. Jr., D. C. Keck, K. L. Marty, A. J. Miller Ball, E. E. Niciu, C. T. Platt. 2004. Effects of window angling, feeder placement, and scavengers on avian mortality at plate glass. Wilson Bulletin 116(1):69-73.

Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P.G. Saenger, 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(1): 126-134.

Klem, D. Jr. 2009. Preventing Bird-Window Collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(2):314–321.

Ley, H.W. 2006. Experimental examination of the perceptibility of patented bird- protecting glass to a sample of Central European perching birds. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, unpublished report [English translation available from ABC].

Loss, Scott R., Tom Will, Sara S. Loss and Peter P. Marra, 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13- 090.1

Martin, G.R. 2011. Understanding bird collisions with man-made objects: a sensory ecology approach. Ibis 153:239-54.

Sloan, Allison, 2007. Migratory bird mortality at the World Trade Center and World Financial Center, 1997-2001: A deadly mix of lights and glass. Transactions of the Linnaean Society of NY 10:183-204.

Ode to Green Roofs

The other day I was visiting the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. Both Elise and I are big fans of the museum, and one big reason is because environmental stewardship is a key element of the Academy, featured prominently throughout.

Especially on the roof, which may in fact be the most famous aspect of this extraordinary museum.

This is because the Academy has installed a very prominent, very elaborate, and very wonderful green roof.

Now please excuse me while I rave for the next few minutes about green roofs.


In case you are unfamiliar with green roofs, please do yourself a favor and try to find one nearby to go visit (San Francisco provides an interactive map). We encourage you to dig deeper on the web to learn more about them. They are awesome. And they are essentially just what they sound like.

Green roofs are building tops featuring vegetation that is typically integrated into the physical infrastructure of the roofing. Several American cities have gained prominence for their leadership in promoting green roofs; Chicago was long considered a leader, installing a green roof on its city hall. However, Washington DC has now claimed the top spot, in total roof square footage, through a recent green roof building boom.

Allow me to enumerate some of their benefits:

- They can provide much needed habitat, especially in dense cities, for a variety of species, particularly migratory birds and native flora and fauna

- They act as green stormwater infrastructure, helping slow (and filter) rain runoff and reducing the strain on sewers by capturing a portion of rain that falls on them

- They help save building owners and occupants money in a number of ways, by lengthening the life of the roof, providing insulation from extreme heat or cold (and reducing cooling and heating costs), increasing the marketability of the building and the real estate surrounding it, and potentially reducing fees or building review time according to local regulations

- They reduce the Urban Heat Island effect, a city phenomenon which causes temperatures in cities to be hotter than average, by replacing the dark and heat-absorbant surface typical of most roofs with vegetation and through the effects of evaporation and dew collection

- They can serve as much-needed space to garden and grow food, becoming components of urban agriculture (don't even get me started on this--another topic for another day!)

- They help clean the air, by absorbing carbon dioxide and noxious gases as well as filtering smaller dust particles and airborne pollutants

- They provide additional amenity space, can serve as educational forums, help suppress fire, and even reduce electromagnetic radiation!

- And they are gorgeous! (Don't underestimate biophilia!)

Green roofs always send a shiver of inspiration through me. And as you can tell, they tie into a number of other ecological topics. Providing an excellent segue into our next (several) blog posts...

World of Water: The First Trickle

Hi everyone, and thanks for visiting our blog!

I want to discuss a subject that is very near and dear to me, especially as I write this in the middle of 2014 in California. Yes, I'm talking about water, or as we are currently experiencing, the apparent lack thereof.

President Obama speaking in the parched Central Valley of California

There are so many things I want to say about water in California, and so many angles to this subject, that it is hard to know where to begin. Suffice to say, this will be one of many posts I compose on water.

One important consideration is the fact that much ink has been spilled and many tongues have wagged dry discussing the state of water in the Golden State. And for good reason. California is the most populous state in the U.S. with an economy that would be in the top ten of the world if counted independently, and much of this economy depends on water. Not only the billions of dollars generated by our agriculture industry, but other key sectors like the tech of Silicon Valley.

Thus, I won't profess to be an expert on water or the first to provide insight on the subject. Perhaps one of the greatest benefits I can provide is to point readers in the direction of smarter minds as I attempt to stand on the shoulders of giants and holler loud about the current crisis we face. Read brilliant books like Cadillac Dessert by Marc Reisner, or if you're feeling a little less ambitious watch the cinematic version; heck, re-watch the Jack Nicholson classic Chinatown with a close eye on the politics of water that course throughout the plot.

Jack Nicholson in Chinatown

There are plenty of great websites and resources to learn about the current state of water affairs, from essential information provided by the state's Department of Water Resources to the think tank The Pacific Institute to Wholly H2O.

Water is a topic that can lead to some very heated debates, particularly in California. I don't mind wading into that fray and tackling some contentious issues, but before I do, I think I'll close this initial discourse on H2O with a fairly non-controversial idea: water conservation. Particularly in the midst of a drought, one of the most effective tactics is to reduce water consumption. This approach, known also as demand reduction, can be applied to other sectors, such as energy, and is both extremely cost-effective and ecological.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to write an article for SPUR on leading water conservation strategies being employed in the Bay Area by water agencies and public utilities, which I wanted to share. Enjoy, and let me know what you think!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Last but not least, a water tip: related to the aforementioned SPUR article, I'd like to offer a suggestion for folks to reduce their water consumption. Many cities and water districts offer water audits or surveys, in which a specially trained agent comes to a person's house or apartment and comprehensively inspects the home. They look at all water-using appliances, check for leaks, make sure everything is running optimally, and then make suggestions based on their findings, provide tips, and sometimes even hand out free devices or rebates. So if you pay a water bill, call your water provider and ask if they provide this service, which is usually free of charge!

Soft and Deadly Plastic

The Plastic Problem

If you are reading this you probably already recycle, but it is easy to become partially blinded to all the sources of plastic waste and forget that the majority of our plastic cannot actually be recycled into the same products. Recycling might lessen the impact of the waste that we create but it does not, by any means, obliterate it. To make a plastic bottle or a plastic bag, new plastic must be synthesized. In addition, recycling is inefficient and depends on the demand for lower quality plastics. That this demand is not always met, is just another reason to be conscientious of the amount of plastics we consume in the first place. Although there is much to say about plastic in general, this post is going to be about one of the most common yet problematic and confusing types of plastic – soft plastics.

Soft plastics are also known as low-density polyethylene (LDPE) classified by the Society of the Plastics Industry code #4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene They are the plastics that can be easily scrunched into a ball or crumpled when crushed by hand and include plastic retail bags, packaging, shrink wrap, and squeezable plastic bottles.

Global plastic production has increased from 5 million tons in the 1950s to over 250 million tons in 2006. Just in the form of trash bags alone, it was estimated that there were 980,000 tons of plastic generated in 2010. The amount of plastic bags (not categorized as trash bags) was estimated to be a wopping 4 million tons! (U.S. EPA, MSW report, 2010)

Now, unfortunately, a lot of this plastic has found its way to the wrong places and is having severe and detrimental effects on the environment and wildlife. In the Southern Ocean, plastic debris increased 100 times during the early 1990s (Copello & Quintara, Mar Poll Bull, 2003). Off Japan’s coast, floating particles of plastic debris increased 10-fold in 10 years from the 1970s through 1980s, and then 10-fold again every 2-3 years in the 1990s (Ogi & Fukimot, Fisheries Bulletin, 2000). It is estimated that approximately 80% of marine plastic waste comes from land-based sources (litter, industrial discharges, and garbage management) and approximately 20% comes from ocean-based sources (commercial fishing vessels, cargo ships, and pleasure cruise ships). Individuals of at least 267 species (invertebrates, fish, turtles, seabirds, mammals) have been found dead due to entanglement by marine plastics and the carcasses of 187 species have been found whose death was attributed to ingestion of these plastics (JGB Derraik, Marine Poll Bull, 2002).

The images of fur seals brought to their death struggling to get out of a mass of plastic, and bird carcasses filled completely with assorted plastics, are probably burned into your minds as well. Plastic litter is a problem for many reasons, and if you are reading this, you probably do not need to be convinced of this fact. I recently moved from Bloomington, IN (which recycles soft plastics) to Minneapolis, MN (which does not) and every time I have to throw away a piece of plastic into the garbage, these images flash into my mind. Not that by throwing my plastic bag into a recycling bin versus a trash bin makes it so much less likely to end up in the stomach of a whale, but this is how I feel. I want to modify my behavior to limit my consumption of soft plastics and to find the best ways to dispose of the ones I cannot escape (not truly inescapable, but linked to products I am at this point unwilling to give up)

Recycling (and reducing) soft plastics

If you are like me, there is still comfort in tossing something into a recycling bin, but for plastic bags this can cause problems at the recycling center as they often get caught in the sorting machinery, causing delays, breaking equipment, and ultimately increasing the cost of recycling. The process of recycling soft plastic will vary depending on your city's recycling program, so it is important to check! Recycling soft plastics is inefficient, which is why the majority of cities don’t do it at all. If you are in one of these cities, the best you can do is:

1. Limit your contribution to the soft plastic waste

2. Save your soft plastics and bring them to your local grocery store, Target, Walmart, or other.

***You can check the closest location to you by entering your zip code at this site http://www.plasticfilmrecycling.org/s01/s01dropoff.html.

In these containers you can recycle all #4 plastics, including these items:

- Furniture and Electronic wrap

- Retail and Plastic bags labeled #2 and #4

- Zip Close Food Storage bags (clean and dry)

- Plastic cereal box liners (if it tears like paper do not include)

- Plastic shipping envelopes, including Tyvek ®, bubble wrap and air pillows (Remove labels and/or deflate)

- Case wrap (e.g., snacks, water bottles)

In terms of reducing your consumption of plastics, there are a multitude of ways that you can do this - part of it is just paying more attention. It is easy to get into habits while forgetting that there are new ways to minimize your negative impact. For example, there is a clear movement to reduce the use of plastic grocery bags. However, in the supermarkets I’m always surprised to see all the people with their canvas bags, filling their carts full of produce with each item wrapped in its own plastic bag.

Some Tips

1. For produce or items in bulk, consider using washable cloth bags or dog poop bags made of cornstarch which are easily composted (Arm & Hammer makes some).

2. Avoid extra packaging by buying non-perishable products in large sizes whenever possible (a one-pound box uses less packaging, and therefore results in less waste, than two half-pound boxes).

3. Buy larger sized household products for things you use regularly like laundry soap, shampoo, dry pet food and kitty litter.

4. Stay away from products packaged in single serving food items such as microwave dinners, soups, and beverages.

5. Buy concentrates when possible because that is a lot of weight and space that is not being packaged and shipped by the manufacturer. *Juice bought in concentrate form uses up to 36% less packaging and costs 41% less than juice in plastic jugs.

6. Pick the product with the least packaging.

7. Buy the bread in the paper bag, not the plastic one

8. Buy cereal in bulk when you can bring your own container and avoid the plastic insert

But I am just one person….

A few months ago I found myself at the post office with a cardboard box full of milk cartons that I had been saving for one year and was shipping to a TetraPak recycling facility in Nebraska. After paying the $28 for shipping and walked out, I noticed the parking lot dumpster filled with cardboard boxes. At that moment I felt, what is the point? Yesterday I picked up a plastic bag in the park, filled with empty miniature liquor bottles and soda cans. I took it to the recycling can and carefully sorted everything into the appropriate bins. When I finally lifted the lid of the garbage can to dispose of the few non-recyclables, I saw that it was filled with mostly bottles and cans. These moments are challenging, but it is important to remember that this is how the majority of change occurs, through the cumulative actions of many individuals. 

And every little bit helps. The plastic that you save could even mean a few more happy elderly seals.