2011 Annual Report of the Regional Bird Monitoring Program for the Oil Sands Region

15 March 2012

Colleen Cassady St. Clair, Tom Habib, Sarina Loots,

Jeff Ball, and Cindy McCallum

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................................... 5 History of the Program ........................................................................................................ 7 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 8 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 9

Oil Sands Mine Operators ........................................................................... 9 Ponds and Survey Stations ....................................................................... 10 Pond Inventories ...................................................................................... 11 Operator-specific monitoring methods .................................................... 11 Mortality Searches ................................................................................... 13 Incidental Observations ........................................................................... 13 Safety and Operational Constraints ......................................................... 13

Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 14 Pond Characteristics ................................................................................. 14 Weather .................................................................................................... 14

Monitoring objectives 1 and 2: Flyovers and contacts of birds at process-affected, reference and compensation ponds ...................................................................... 14

Recoveries from mortality searches ......................................................... 16 Monitoring objective 3: Develop [and refine] a standardized monitoring program to provide comparable data across ponds, sites, seasons and years ..................... 17 Monitoring objective 4: Species at Risk .............................................................. 22 Monitoring objective 5: Recommendations ......................................................... 23

Program Implementation ......................................................................... 23 Data Collection ........................................................................................ 23 Data Inclusion .......................................................................................... 24 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 25 Data Reporting ......................................................................................... 26

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 27 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 27 References ........................................................................................................................ 28 Tables ............................................................................................................................... 29 Figures .............................................................................................................................. 91 List of Appendices

Appendix A – Regional Map ............................................................................. 128 Appendix B – Pond Maps .................................................................................. 131 Appendix C – Metrics by Pond .......................................................................... 144 Appendix D – Weather data (available only on the website) ................... 105 pages Appendix E – Raw data (available only on the website) .......................... 681 pages

2

Executive Summary

In 2011, the provincial department of Alberta Environment obliged industrial operators in the oil sands region to participate in a standardized monitoring program to record the number of birds that flew over, landed on, and died in tailings ponds created by the mining process. Five operators who are responsible for monitoring 48 process-affected water ponds in the region participated in the program. In addition to the process-affected ponds, observers monitored an additional 10 ponds containing freshwater and classified as reference (naturally occurring) or compensation (built to create fish habitat). At each pond, observation of live birds consisted of scan samples of 30 minutes duration (at between one and four stations for large ponds) or 10 minutes (at one station for small ponds). Each scan recorded the number of birds seen flying over, landed on, or heard within 500 m of the monitoring station. Every process-affected pond was monitored once daily. Searches for dead birds were conducted by foot (shorelines) or boat (inaccessible areas) twice weekly. The monitoring program began in mid April 2011 and continued until the end of October. Among all 58 monitored ponds, a total of 44,687 individuals of 88 species or species groups were detected by all methods. Ducks were detected most often, but geese, shorebirds, and gulls were also abundant. Among the detections of landed birds on process-affected water ponds (i.e., contacts) and using full species designations (i.e., without use of species groups), 3,565 individuals of 94 species were recorded. Within the category of contacts, total detections by each operator ranged from 19 to over 1,000 individuals. Several species of moderate concern were recorded. Four species at risk were recorded at multiple sites and / or via more than 10 individuals: horned grebe, green-winged teal, northern pintail, and lesser scaup. Systematic mortality searches logged almost 5000 hours among four active operators and recorded 70 dead birds, most of them ducks. Among the birds that could be identified, green-winged teal was the most abundant species (10 individuals). Substantial variation in bird detections was apparent among operators. Whereas U of A observers detected an average of over 50 individuals per hour, Imperial, Shell and Suncor clustered around 10 individuals per hour, and CNRL and Syncrude approached zero. Large variation also occurred among operators in the number of individuals recorded for particular species, including several species at risk (e.g., barn swallow, horned grebe, lesser scaup) and particularly common species (e.g., common raven, mallard). Some of these differences would be accounted for by more extensive survey effort by some observers and some might be accounted for by actual variation in bird presence among sites. Substantial remaining variation appears to be due to unintended inter-observer variation. In 2011, the migratory seasons were divided arbitrarily into Spring (<July 15) and Fall (>July 14). Shortening the monitoring period by ending earlier in Spring or beginning later in Fall had a lesser effect on the proportion of detections recorded for individuals than for species or species groups. Predictably, rare species showed larger proportionate differences in detections in response to shortened monitoring periods than did common species. Species-specific frequency histograms of detections confirmed that the relative

3

migratory chronology in the oil sands region is consistent with published guides making it possible to tailor monitoring effort in future to the species and periods of maximum interest. The report concludes with 11 recommendations designed to improve the rigour and comparability of the 2012 monitoring plan. The report is supported by three tables, seven figures, and five appendices. Data were collected by five oil sands operators, two government departments, and numerous individuals associated with the Research on Avian Protection Project at the University of Alberta. Although the U of A team lead the development of this report, all parties contributed to its design and refinement.

4

Definitions of Terms

5% Bin A bin is a specified proportion of a data set. A 5% bin simply means dividing a dataset equally into 20 parts, each of which comprises 5% of the whole data set.

Adaptive Management A style of resource management that uses an iterative cycle of innovation, monitoring, and adjustment to learn how natural systems function while identifying the best practices to optimize long-term management outcomes.

Census A survey or count of birds at a pond.

Comparison pond A pond surveyed by both industry and U of A observers in order to assess inter-observer variation.

Compensation pond A water-body created by industry and connected to fish-bearing streams to compensate for the presumed loss of fish habitat.

Contact The presence of a bird on a pond. Including birds landed on the pond, diving under the water surface, foraging in the water, mating on the water, and birds on the vegetation on the pond.

Deterrent An instrument stationed beside or on a tailings pond to deter birds. In the oil sands these include both audio deterrents (e.g. propane cannons, phoenix wailers, speaker systems associated with visual deterrents, LRAD speaker systems) and visual deterrents (e.g. human effigies, peregrine effigies, lasers).

Emergent vegetation Residual vegetation on tailings ponds left during the conversion of low-lying marsh/wetland areas into tailings ponds. Living vegetation in ponds is typically called ‘emergent’ if rises above the water surface (e.g., cattails), but much of the mass of this vegetation, even under natural conditions, is dormant, senescent, dead or decaying. Thus, we do not distinguish between living and dead vegetation of this sort.

Freshwater pond Ponds not involved in the waste of the bitumen mining process. These include reservoirs, compensation ponds, and natural lakes.

Flyover One or more birds flying over a pond during an observation period. The term may apply to migrating flocks or individuals

5

and can include migratory flights, foraging flights, and predator evasion.

Lease site An area of publicly-owned land that is leased to private interests for a specified period of time for specified purposes and subject to regulatory approval.

Metrics A set of numbers that give information about a particular process or activity (www.dictionary.cambridge.org)

Phylogeny A method of categorizing organisms based on their degree of relatedness, which may be measured by similar form (morphology), genetic similarity, and other characteristics. The phylogeny of birds can be found at: http://www.thewildclassroom.com/biodiversity/birds/aviantopics/birdsystematics.html

Process-affected pond A tailings pond which is at present or has in the past been used for a storage site for the solid and liquid waste by-products of the bitumen mining process.

Process-affected water The liquid part of tailings ponds. Most of the time the surface is a combination of water and chemicals used in the mining process to extract bitumen from sand (solvents). Occasionally the liquid tailings include bitumen, which can sit like a mat on the water where it may be blown around by the wind. Under most conditions, bitumen is heavier than water, but adhesion to gases and temperature differentials can cause it to rise to or remain on the surface of the water.

Reference pond Freshwater ponds in the oil sands area that were used in the standardized monitoring of birds in the area to survey species that may be found on ponds during migration periods.

Weedy species Species with high intrinsic rates of reproduction that are known to exploit areas disturbed by humans and their infrastructure. Such species typically increase in abundance dramatically when development occurs in formerly pristine areas. Many native species have this capacity (e.g., crows, ravens, foxes, coyotes).

6

History of the Program Waterfowl protection in the mineable oil sands region has a history that directly links to regulatory requirements under Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) and the Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act. As early as 1981, bird deterrents were established by individual operators at some sites that contained process-affected water. Since 1999, oil sands mine operators have been required to submit plans pertaining to wildlife management, including a comprehensive bird program to Alberta Environment and Water. Through adaptive management, knowledge and experience, the regulatory requirements have changed over time resulting in the requirement by the provincial regulators for a Waterfowl Protection Plan (note the term “Waterfowl” and “Bird” are used inter-changeably in the context of protection plans). Currently, updated Waterfowl Protection Plans are due at least once per 10 years corresponding to the period of EPEA approval that is issued for each oil sands mine operator. As a result of a major bird mortality event in the region in 2008, the provincial and federal regulators initiated the development of a regional bird monitoring program (RBMP) for implementation on all oil sands mining sites. The aim of the program was to ensure the availability of comparable data on bird use and mortality among sites and years. These data are essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the Waterfowl Protection Plans as well as the specific and evolving deterrent technologies used in the region. Comparable bird monitoring among sites and years is also necessary to support scientifically-defensible and transparent evaluations of the effects on birds of the oil sands mining industry as a whole. The development of the RBMP began in 2009 when Alberta Environment and Water and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) conducted site visits at each of the mining operations, recorded numerous characteristics associated with ponds and deterrent systems, and then requested independent evaluation of deterrent practices across the industry. The report, written by Colleen Cassady St. Clair and Robert A. Ronconi, was entitled Review of Alberta Environment 2009 Compliance Inspection Reports and Avian Deterrence in the Oil Sands Region and the final version was submitted to Alberta Environment in April 2010. The report contained four sections comprised by a review of the inspection reports, production of a pond inventory with a supporting database of pond and deterrent characteristics, a description of knowledge gaps in avian deterrence, and recommendations. The final section of the St. Clair and Ronconi 2010 report described the characteristics that should be contained in a monitoring program that could be standardized across the region. Alberta Environment invited Rob Ronconi to expand these recommendations to produce a first draft for a new standardized monitoring plan in late Spring 2010 and that plan was shared with operators in Fall 2010. Operators were reticent to accept this plan because of safety and operational constraints. Subsequent discussion with Alberta Environment produced a compromise solution in which

7

a. Rob Ronconi was contracted by the Oil Sands Developers Group to develop an integrated regional monitoring program

b. At the invitation of operators, consultation occurred between Rob Ronconi and both industry operators and Colleen Cassady St. Clair (via a full day meeting on March 1, 2011) to integrate the constraints perceived by industry while supporting the program goals of Alberta Environment, and

c. A revised monitoring protocol entitled Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011 was produced in time for the Spring Migration Season (draft March 16, 2011; updated April 6, 2011). This revised plan met with the approval of all parties to achieve regulatory needs, operational constraints, and scientific defensibility.

d. Operators proposed and Alberta Environment regulators agreed that Colleen Cassady St. Clair (University of Alberta) would receive, organize, securely store, and analyze the data collected under the standardized monitoring program. This role is complementary to the one Dr. St. Clair serves by leading the Research in Avian Protection Project, a research project that stemmed from the creative sentence awarded following the 2008 landing event and subsequent conviction.

In addition to the requirements outlined in The Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011, each oil sands mine operator was to comply with existing reporting mechanisms for gathering data regarding observations, injury, and mortality of birds and wildlife. These include immediate, monthly and annual reporting to ASRD as required by the Research and Collection permits obtained by each oil sands mine operator. Alberta Environment and Water requires annual reporting of recoveries and incidental observations through the annual conservation and reclamation reports submitted by each operator, each April. The report that follows is based on contact and mortality monitoring data submitted monthly by each oil sands mine operator to the University of Alberta database as well as on data gathered by the University of Alberta as part of a research project in cooperation with Imperial Oil and Shell. The University of Alberta was not conducting operational monitoring for any of the operators whose data is presented in this report. Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the program as stated in the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011 is ”to provide a robust and systematic monitoring program that documents bird interactions with liquid storage facilities at oil sands mining facilities.” The monitoring program addresses this goal with five specific objectives:

8

1. Provide an estimate of bird contacts and mortalities on ponds containing process-affected waters.

2. Provide an estimate of bird contacts on ponds containing fresh water.

3. Develop a standardized monitoring program for all oil sands mine operations to provide comparable data across ponds, sites, seasons, and years.

4. Identify species at risk that have been affected through contact on ponds containing process-affected waters.

5. Provide direction on adaptive management for long-term monitoring and bird deterrent programs.

This report provides information on observed contacts and mortalities at process-affected (Objective 1) and freshwater (Objective 2) ponds, variation in detections among operators and observers (Objective 3) and on species at risk affected through contact with process affected ponds (Objective 4). It will also, through ongoing review, discussion, and consideration of annual results with the regulators and oil sands mine operators, provide direction on adaptive management for long-term monitoring and bird deterrent programs in the region (Objective 5). Some changes to the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011 have already been drafted for the 2012 plan and additional refinement is anticipated in the years ahead. This report is the product of thousands of hours of effort by dozens of individuals who worked cooperatively and transparently to generate the first truly standardized monitoring program of the effects on birds of the mining oil sands industry in Alberta and, potentially, of any comparable industry worldwide.

Methods

Oil Sands Mine Operators The third-largest oil deposit in the world is located in the Athabasca oil sands region in northeastern Alberta, Canada, just north of the city of Fort McMurray. Oil sands mining companies currently operating in the area who participated in the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011 included Suncor Energy Inc, Syncrude Canada Ltd, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), Shell Albian, and Imperial Oil (Appendix A). Much variation exists among operators in the length of time over which mining has occurred, the spatial scale of operations, and the technologies employed to both mine the oil sands and store the process-affected water resulting from that process. As a result, there is also tremendous variation in the number and size of process-affected ponds (Appendix B). In addition, there is variation among operators in the deterrent system used to minimize interactions between birds and the process-affected water ponds.

9

All deterrent systems in the region employ both visual and acoustic deterrents, but the methods by which they are deployed are of two main types. Syncrude and Suncor developed the original deterrent systems, in which acoustic cannons were set to fire continuously at of pre-set, but varying, intervals to produce an approximately-random pattern of sound. In 2003, Shell Albian introduced a new kind of system in which marine radar is used to detect the approach of migrating birds which, in turn, triggers the deployment of both auditory (cannons and peregrine screeches) and visual (peregrine effigy) deterrents. The two newer operators (CNRL and Imperial) each use a radar-based, on-demand system, but their acoustic deterrents are based on long range acoustic devices (LRAD) and their visual deterrents include lasers. Similar systems were introduced to some ponds at Syncrude and Suncor in Fall 2011.

Ponds and Survey Stations As described in the 2011 monitoring protocol, “both process-affected and freshwater ponds were surveyed for contacts (bird landings) and flyovers. Process-affected water includes tailings and recycle water used for the processing of bitumen extraction, storm water, emergency dump ponds and any other water that may contain harmful or hazardous materials. Trace amounts of various compounds may be found in this water, but it is the residual bitumen that poses the greatest immediate risk to birds through direct contact and potential ingestion and so it is important to minimize the number of birds that come into contact with these ponds.

Process-affected ponds provide potential resting, roosting, nesting and foraging sites for birds, particularly in spring when they offer open water before other local water bodies have thawed. In spring and fall, high volumes of birds pass through this area during migration, and these are the times of greatest potential risk that the birds may land on the ponds.”

Freshwater ponds included both reference ponds and compensation ponds. Reference ponds were monitored to better understand what bird species that may be found in the area, and to evaluate what portion of birds in the area are found on process-affected ponds. Compensation ponds are areas where land is set aside and a human-made pond is created and connected to fish-bearing streams to compensate for the habitat loss to fisheries systems. They incidentally also provide habitat for migrating birds. Imperial’s Kearl Project and Shell’s Jackpine Mine each has a Compensation pond.

All process-affected ponds on all oil sands sites were surveyed by their operators. Reference ponds were chosen for their close proximity to operator sites (3 ponds used by U of A) or were contained within lease sites (operator reservoirs or compensation ponds).

The number of survey stations placed at each process-affected water pond was proportional to pond size, and located according to criteria found in Table 5.2 of the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011. Maps of each pond (as of April 15, 2011) describe the spatial characteristics of deterrents and survey locations (Appendix B). In

10

total, there were 72 stations on process-affected ponds, 10 stations on reference ponds, and 3 stations on compensation ponds (Appendix C).

Pond Inventories The frequency with which ponds were to be surveyed is described in section 5.1.2 of the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011, and is summarized below. Survey stations at process-affected ponds were monitored daily, as close as possible to sunrise and/or sunset, splitting survey time and stations between those periods. The order that stations were surveyed (route) and the time of day were alternated among successive days to avoid confounding the timing of surveys with survey locations. Survey stations on freshwater ponds were monitored twice weekly.

Operator-specific monitoring methods CNRL monitored all process-affected water ponds around its Horizon site daily from April 15th to October 31st. Mortality searches during this period were scheduled to be conducted on all process-affected water ponds twice per week. Horizon’s Compensation Lake was also monitored but not at the same frequency as had been described in the Monitoring Plan. Most of the bird sightings recorded by CNRL were recorded on the western shore of the Tailings pond while bird monitoring crews were conducting mortality searches. In May, severe wildfires in the area forced the Horizon site to close for almost 3 weeks and the Monitoring Program was suspended over this period. In August, there were errors in data recording on some of the data sheets. To maintain data integrity, these data were not submitted to the U of A and Alberta Environment. The bird monitoring crews were notified of this problem and data was recorded properly for the remainder of the year. In future, CNRL will be using electronic tablets to record data in order to minimize recording errors. At CRNL, there was some deviation from the protocol in the frequency of mortality searches. Searches of the tailings pond, especially its western side, were impeded by recurrent mechanical problems with the airboats. A misunderstanding by observers meant that dedicated mortality searches were not conducted at the other process-affected water ponds. Because all of these ponds are very small and were visited daily for observations, it is unlikely that bird mortalities there were missed. After notification of this problem in August, mortality searches were conducted twice weekly for the remainder of the year. Incidental observations showed the majority of birds on the Tailings Pond to be on the western shore.1 All 4 observations points on the Tailings Pond were located on the eastern dyke. Imperial Oil conducted contact monitoring at two freshwater bodies (fisheries compensation lake, and future external tailings area – used as a freshwater storage area in 2011) as outlined in the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011. Contact monitoring surveys were conducted in teams of two, between mid- to late-morning, for 1 Potential implications of this observation will be explored in the discussion.

11

between 45 minutes and two hours per survey, two times per week, at a minimum. The reduced effort, in comparison to other operators, was due to the fact that the Kearl Project was under construction, no oil was being produced, and therefore no process-affected ponds were on-site. Preliminary monitoring began in the late summer, 2011. Shell conducted observations at four tailings ponds on Muskeg River Mine and two tailings ponds at Jackpine Mine. For the first four months of the monitoring program, the standardized monitoring program was conducted by Shell’s bird crew, which was also responsible for hazing birds detected on the ponds. Demands for these two sets of tasks repeatedly exceeded the time available and so Shell hired Hatfield Consultants who began performing observations on August 24, 2011 and continued until October 28, 2011. Suncor Energy Inc. conducted contact and mortality monitoring as outlined in the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011. Surveys for bird contact were conducted by single observers, with two individuals working in each morning and evening shift. Contact monitoring began and ended as close as possible to local sunrise and sunset and was evenly spaced between morning and afternoon periods. As per the protocol, the order in which ponds were surveyed changed systematically each day so that the timing of monitoring varied. Although the Plan only required each survey station to be monitored once daily and freshwater ponds to be monitored twice weekly, additional available resources permitted Suncor to survey all survey stations twice daily (including freshwater ponds).2 Mortality searches were conducted on the surface and shorelines of each pond twice a week by a dedicated crew of 3 individuals. Mortality searches were conducted throughout the day from 07:00-19:00. Syncrude conducted the bird contact portion of the 2011 monitoring program with a crew of 8 individual bird watchers conducting the observations. On any given day, 4 people conducted observations for10 hours per day. Although these observers worked on their own to survey each process-affected water pond, they gathered at the end of each shift at Syncrude’s reference pond to provide ongoing mentoring and comparison of bird identification. On some occasions, poor road conditions or other safety constraints prevented surveys from being conducted. Extensive forest fires in Spring 2011 resulted in repeated orders by Sustainable Resource Development and Syncrude management for the temporary evacuation of non-essential personnel. These missing censuses were compensated for by adding an additional sample in the ensuing week.

2 The implications of this adjustment of the monitoring protocol by Suncor are that (a)

there was an opportunity to record approximately twice as many individuals in the course of each season and the entire year, (b) that a broader distribution of observation times is reported, and (c) that measures of sampling effort by approximately twice what would be expected of other operators. No effect of the protocol change is expected on (d) detection rates of birds per hour or per sampling period, (e) the number of species reported, or (f) any measure associated with mortality searches.

12

Variation in start times by operator and pond, and in detection rates are presented in the results along with the products of the monitoring program. Overall start time by operator and start time per pond by operator are presented in the results.

Mortality Searches

Surveys for bird carcasses were conducted at all process-affected pond surfaces and shorelines twice per week. These surveys were conducted at any time of day, without diverting effort away from the dawn and dusk pond inventories. Additional mortality searches were done as soon as possible (within 2 days) of storm events. Freshwater ponds were not searched for mortalities. Further details on mortality survey methodology can be found in section 5.2 of the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011. Information on the number of censuses devoted to surveying for dead birds and the rate of detections per hour are presented in the results.

Incidental Observations

In addition to recording bird contacts and mortalities observed during pond inventory monitoring surveys and mortality searches, each oil sands mine operator has policies and procedures in place to facilitate the reporting of incidental observations of birds on process-affected ponds by employees. In addition, operators are obliged to report all incidental detections of dead wildlife, including birds, found on their sites. Currently, mortality records stemming from the incidental detections at ponds or other parts of operator lease sites are not included in this report.

Safety and Operational Constraints The Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011 was developed recognizing that oil sands mine operators face several safety and operational constraints not typically encountered when monitoring wildlife in other contexts. The collection of rigorous and comparable data must not compromise safety and operational constraints. Impacts of these constraints in 2011 included:

• Observation could not occur around tailings ponds in low light conditions (i.e. during the twilight and night) when bird landings might be more likely.

• Some ponds and shorelines were inaccessible, which limits detectability of contacts and mortalities.

• The time available (up to 30 min at up to 4 sites) limits detection of birds on very large ponds.

• Ponds were sometimes inaccessible do to unforeseeable events (e.g., fires, road wash outs).

• Severe weather with heavy precipitation sometimes precluded observations or boat-based surveys.

• Dangerous wildlife sometimes precluded access to particular sites.

13

Results and Discussion The section headings below address three themes:

1. Descriptive information about ponds and weather that will facilitate interpretation of the results,

2. Results that address objectives from the 2011 monitoring program (above), and

3. Assessments of the effects of the timing of both bird migration and monitoring by people that will contribute to the refinement of the monitoring protocol.

Pond characteristics In all, 58 ponds were monitored by industry (including their contractors) and University of Alberta observers in Spring and Fall of 2011. This total included 48 monitored ponds on lease sites that contained process-affected water (Appendix C), three reference ponds (Poplar Reservoir, Ruth Lake, and Kearl Lake) that were visited only by U of A observers, and seven reference ponds located on lease sites and monitored by industry observers (one per operator plus one additional pond at Suncor and the Kearl External Tailings Area which was a reference pond in 2011). These reference ponds were comprised of built compensation lakes (CNRL, Shell, Imperial) fresh water reservoirs (Syncrude and Suncor) and reclaimed sites (Suncor’s Crane Lake). Three of the ponds (Crane Lake, Kearl Compensation Pond, Shell’s Jackpine tailings pond) were monitored over comparable time periods by both industry and U of A personnel and these are referred to hereafter as comparison ponds.

Weather 2011 was characterized by an exceptionally warm and dry early spring, which resulted in several forest fires in the oil sands region. The late spring and early summer were cool and relatively wet. Late summer and early fall were warmer than average with little precipitation (Appendix D).

Monitoring objectives 1 and 2: Flyovers and contacts of birds at process-affected, reference, and compensation ponds Among the 58 ponds monitored in 2011, a total of 44,687 individuals of 88 species or species groups were detected (Table 1, Figure 1A). This total includes records from process-affected water ponds, reference ponds, and compensation ponds by both industry and university personnel. Among the detections of landed birds on process-affected water ponds (i.e., contacts) and using full species designations (i.e., without use of species groups), 3,565 individuals of 94 species were recorded. At process-affected ponds, the most abundant species were “Unknown ducks” (>6000 individuals) followed by Canada Goose (~4300 individuals).

14

Within the duck guild and at all three pond types, 26,239 individuals were detected representing 31 species or species groups and the majority of these detections were via landings. At process-affected ponds (Figure 1B), geese were the water-associated species detected most often via fly-overs (~2500 individuals), more often recorded than unknown ducks, but the apparent dominance of geese may stem from inconsistent identification of ducks among operators (below). At both pond types, and exempting unknown ducks, mallard, American wigeon, bufflehead, common goldeneye, and unknown scaup comprised the five most abundant species, respectively, each reported with over 1000 contacts and fly-overs (Figure 1C). Like the duck guild, loons and grebes were usually detected as landed birds, particularly red-necked grebes (Figure 1E). In contrast to ducks, loons and grebes, other species were more often detected as fly-overs. These included the three most abundant goose species (Figure 1D), sandhill cranes (Figure 1J), and five species of gulls (Figure 1F). Raptors and passerines were almost always detected as fly-overs (Figure 1H and 1I). The most abundant of these, excluding unknown, were American kestrels and red-winged blackbirds, respectively. Shorebirds were most often identified as “unknown sandpiper” or “unknown shorebird,” which were approximately equally split between detections via landings and fly-overs (Figure 1G). When shorebirds were identified to species, they had usually landed.

Process-affected ponds For the process-affected ponds, we separated observations by operator. Again we reported all observations (Tables 1A, 1B and 2) and only those that were water-associated (Tables 1D, 1F, 1H and 1J). On monitoring forms in 2011, observers were required to record whether or not a bird “landed”. This did not require specification of whether the bird landed on the shore of a process-affected pond (which is likely for shorebirds), on residual pond vegetation (likely for passerines and other land birds) or made contact with the pond surface (likely for waterfowl and other water-associated birds). If observers did not specify where the bird was in relation to the pond surface, (a common occurrence), and the bird was water-associated, we considered birds recorded as “landed” to have made “contact” with the process-affected pond. This information is particularly important for sensitive species such as horned grebe (Suncor), green-winged teal (U of A), lesser scaup (Suncor and U of A), and northern pintail (Suncor), in addition to some species of lesser concern such as mallard (Suncor) and “unknown duck” (mainly Suncor). Figures separate observations for water-associated vs. other birds, and detections based on landings, fly-overs, or acoustic cues, but it is difficult to determine precise counts for the all-important category of ‘contact.’ Thus, we also present this information as counts (Table 2). Of the approximately 12,000 contacts observed by Suncor, 91% of them were recorded on two small, low-risk process-affected ponds (PAW pond and INK pond) on which resident waterfowl were found throughout the monitoring season.

15

Reference ponds To assess the total species complement in the area, U of A observers monitored 6 reference ponds on 2 or more occasions during the 2011 monitoring program. Three sites were monitored twice for species surveys (Kearl Lake, Isidore Lake, and Athabasca River), and three sites were monitored consistently throughout spring and fall migration (Crane Lake, Poplar Reservoir, and Ruth Lake). One of these, Crane Lake, was also monitored by Suncor observers, creating one of the only three comparable ponds where inter-observer variation could be assessed (see Section 5.5, “Variation Among Sites and Observers”, below). Syncrude observers monitored their freshwater pond Mildred Lake Reservoir as their reference pond.

Compensation ponds Compensation ponds were monitored at Kearl (by both Imperial and U of A observers) and Jackpine (U of A only). At these sites, U of A observers made particular effort to record all species observed, including those on the periphery of the pond. These more comprehensive observations may be valuable to the assessment of the sites as compensatory habitat. Owing partly to fewer sites and observation periods at these compensation ponds, many of the species detected at reference and process-affected water ponds were not observed. As more data accumulate, important information will be contained in the differing species compositions of process-affected ponds, reference ponds, and compensation ponds.

Recoveries from Mortality Searches The number of mortality surveys conducted on process-affected water ponds and the number of hours spent surveying varied dramatically among operators, mainly as a function of the number and size of process-affected water ponds (Appendix B and C, Figure 7A). For the largest operator, Syncrude, the number of hours spent surveying for dead birds exceeded 3000 during which a total of 10 dead birds were recovered. Suncor spent approximately 1500 h conducting mortality surveys and reported 35 dead birds. Suncor reported six additional birds from process-affected water ponds that were collected incidentally and deemed 27 birds that were highly decomposed (out of the total of 41 birds) to be from the previous year (J. Martin, personal communication), suggesting that 14 birds that were recovered during the 2011 mortality searches died that year. Shell spent about 200 hours surveying and reported 23 dead birds. CNRL also spent about 200 hours surveying and reported no dead birds. Imperial did not report mortality surveys, presumably because their mine was not yet in production. By number, “unknown” and “unknown duck” were the most frequently reported mortality type (Figure 7B). The maximum number of individuals recovered for a single species was 10 for the entire 2011 season. A few species of special concern were

16

recovered including green-winged teal (10 individuals), American white pelican (2 individuals), and lesser scaup (2 individuals). Because of the large variation in the size and number of ponds, mortality counts do not accurately describe potential differences among sites in the vulnerability of birds to mortality. A better measure may be the rate at which dead birds were recovered as a function of search time, even though there remains potential differences in searching efficacy. Measured as detections per 100 hours of search time, variation among operators ranged from less than one detection (Syncrude) to 12 individuals (Shell; Figure 7C). Mallards were the most readily detected species at Shell (1.8 per 100 hours), but least detected at Syncrude (< 1 per 1000 hours). Clearly, detecting dead birds is an extremely labour-intensive activity. A portion of the dead birds found on site were not the result of mortality searches, but incidental observations made by other operations individuals. Only Syncrude provided data for these incidental mortalities across entire lease sites, which revealed that the 10 birds recovered during mortality searches represented only 33% of all the dead birds found on the lease site. The other 20 dead birds were reported incidentally by site workers, but only one of these was a water-associated bird. Over 60% of the total bird mortalities recorded by Syncrude during the 2011 monitoring season were represented by corvids, which seem to be especially prone to electrocution when they are attracted to mining operations. Suncor reported incidental mortalities of birds in tailings ponds (6) in addition to those that were detected via mortality searches (35). If only 14 of the mortalities occurred during the 2011 season (above) and six of these were recovered incidentally, the remaining eight birds represents 57% of the 2011 mortalities associated with tailings ponds that were recovered during mortality searches. Current information does not permit a robust assessment of the accuracy of mortality searches to determine the number of birds that die in tailings ponds.

Monitoring objective 3: Develop [and refine] a standardized monitoring program … to provide comparable data across ponds, sites, seasons, and years.

Variation in detections Observation effort was quantified as the number of visits to ponds and the number of hours spent monitoring (Figures 2A and 2B). As expected by the large variation in the number and size of process-affected water ponds, there were dramatic differences among operators in both metrics. Imperial’s Kearl site reported the longest average observation duration, almost 2 hours, perhaps because its observers targeted mainly the Kearl Compensation pond with few visits in this pre-production year. At the other sites, average visit length was 30 minutes or more, as would be expected from the monitoring protocol. The number of visits made to sites was dramatically higher at Suncor, over 11 000, than at the other sites. Except for Imperial’s Kearl project, each of the other operators made over 1000 observation visits to ponds.

17

The proportion of visits with no detections recorded approached 100% at each of CNRL and Syncrude (Figure 2C). That proportion was about 80% at each of Shell and Suncor. Imperial observers saw no birds on less than 30% of their visits and U of A observers detected no birds on only 12% of their visits. The relative infrequency of visits without detections for U of A observers is expected for at least three reasons: (1) a higher proportion of their observations occurred at reference ponds where bird abundance is higher, (2) one of the two process-affected ponds they monitored (at Shell’s Jackpine Mine) contained emergent vegetation, which attracted birds throughout the season, and (3) they had greater opportunity for detections. Detection opportunity was increased by their use of high-powered spotting scopes, recording of birds based on sound cues alone, and use of an observation radius limited only by detection. The increased detectability of birds was an important and intended component of the U of A protocol, but it limits the comparisons of effort that can be made among observers. In contrast to the U of A observers, a lower proportion of site visits without detection would be expected for Imperial observers, because they were mainly monitoring their compensation pond and a reference pond (i.e., a future process-affected water pond that was not yet in production and contained no deterrents). As for other comparisons among observers, it is impossible to know the extent to which differences in detectability owing to equipment, training, experience, or aptitude might have contributed to differences among sites. Such comparisons can be approximated only at the three ponds (Crane Lake, Kearl Compensation pond, Jackpine ETF) that were monitored during 2011 by both industry and U of A observers. The number of individuals detected in each visit varied among sites as an approximate inverse of the proportion of visits without detections (Figure 2). On average, fewer than one bird was detected per visit by each of CNRL and Syncrude, 3 or 4 by Suncor and Shell, respectively, and about 15 by Imperial. U of A detected an average of 26 individuals per visit. When expressed as detections per hour, U of A observers detected an average of over 50 individuals, Imperial, Shell and Suncor clustered around 10, and CNRL and Syncrude approached zero. All pond types are lumped for each of these sums and rates. Some of the detections of rare or unexpected species on or over process-affected water were highly concentrated at particular lease sites. Examples of these species in the spring (Table 1C and 1E) include horned grebe (>90% at Suncor), snow goose (100% at Shell), green-winged teal (>70% by U of A), barn swallows (>80% at Suncor), magpies, ravens, and robins (all > 90% at Suncor), and common grackle (>95% at Suncor). Examples of these species in the fall (Table 1B and E) include horned grebe (100% Suncor), trumpeter swan (100% at CNRL), red-necked phalarope (100% U of A), black tern (100% at Suncor), American kestrel (100% at Shell), barn swallow (100% at Suncor), American pipit (>99% at Shell), red-winged blackbird (100% at Suncor), Brewer’s blackbird (100% at Suncor), common grackle (100% at Suncor), and white-winged crossbill (100% at Shell). Because lease sites occur over a wide region with substantial differences in topography, vegetation, hydrology, soil types, and pond characteristics, it is difficult to know whether site-specific concentrations in species observations stemmed from actual differences in

18

species distributions or from differences in identification accuracy among observers. For example, both U of A and Shell observers monitored Shell’s Jackpine Mine site, but U of A observers recorded over 70% of the green-winged teal observations, whereas the Shell observers recorded less than 1% of green-winged teal observations. Abundant floating vegetation at the newly-flooded Jackpine site might explain some of the difference. Nonetheless, inter-observer variation is expected even among highly skilled observers (see information below concerning Objective 3). At process-affected ponds, the recording and identification of some species that are typically abundant near human infrastructure varied unexpectedly among lease sites (Tables 1C and 1E). For example, common ravens were recorded often only at Shell and Suncor, and both black-billed magpies and red-winged blackbirds only at Suncor. However, all four species are likely to be abundant in the vicinity of ponds. Similarly, over 80% of the mallards reported were recorded at Suncor, but Suncor also reported the highest number of unknown ducks (42%), which makes it difficult to know whether mallards along with other ducks were actually more abundant there or if other species were more likely to be assumed to be mallards at that site. We examined differences in the three pairs of sites (hereafter ‘comparison ponds’), Crane Lake, Jackpine Mine’s External Tailings Facility, and Kearl Compensation pond. Dividing the ponds by type makes it possible to assess inter-observer variation directly (Figure 3), with the caveat that differences can be caused by many factors, including better equipment, use of sound cues, and larger search radii of U of A observers (above) and by more frequent visits of longer duration by industry. Multiple sources of variation should bear on interpretations of differences below. We examined differences between teams in the number of visits to ponds (Figure 3A), the durations of visits (Figure 3B), the total number of detections of water-associated birds (Figure 3C), the hourly rate at which those birds were detected (Figure 3D), and the number of water-associated birds that was detected per visit (Figure 3E). Comparisons between observation teams at these three sites revealed that industry observers visited sites more often than U of A observers; up to seven times more often at Crane Lake (Figure 3A). This difference is expected owing to the obligation for industry to monitor its ponds daily. Visit lengths were of comparable duration between the two sets of observers at Crane Lake and the Jackpine Mine site, but they were much longer by industry at Imperial’s Kearl Compensation pond. The number of detections of water-associated birds varied dramatically among sites, but also among observers. Whereas industry observers detected more birds than U of A observers (as would be expected by their more frequent visits), at each of Crane Lake and Kearl Compensation pond, industry observers detected dramatically fewer birds at the Jackpine mine site (Figure 3C). Some of this difference may be caused by the fact that the Shell Bird Crew had simultaneous responsibilities to haze landed birds and so relied on the observations of the U of A team (S. Loots, personal observation). However, a smaller number or duration of visits could not explain differences in detection rates for which U of A observers recorded between 85% and 7 times more more water-associated birds per hour than industry observers (Figure 3D). These differences were apparent whether all or only landed birds were included and for both small (e.g., Crane Lake) and large (e.g., Jackpine Mine) ponds

19

(Figure 3D). The magnitude of this difference declined when rates were compared as the number of detections per visit, but only at Kearl Compensation pond (Figure 3E), which suggests that increasing visit duration (Figure 3A) can increase detections even in the absence of other protocol changes. Beyond the information on inter-observer variation contained in the comparison sites, evidence of additional unintended variation in monitoring results is provided by the identify of individual species recorded at different sites. Table 1 provides several examples of unexpected differences of this type. A few of these differences are summarized below:

• Suncor identified almost all their scaup as lesser or greater but the distinction between the two is notoriously difficult and requires good light and close proximity.

• Syncrude observed 1000 cliff swallows but no other swallow species, making it likely that all swallows were assumed to be cliff swallows. At the same time, the 126 records of barn swallows by Suncor is surprising. Because the latter are a species of special concern, accurate identification is especially important.

• There was dramatic variation among observers in the recording of corvids (see section 5.2, Flyovers and Contacts).

Variation in monitoring start times As part of Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011, operators were encouraged to spread their observations through the periods in which crews were able to access tailings ponds, to target dawn and dusk for observations, and to alternate the order with which they monitored ponds to avoid a systematic confound in detections between site and time. Accordingly, there was substantial breadth to the distribution of start times for all observers (Figure 4A). Among observers, observations by U of A exhibited more spread than those of other observer teams, partly because they sought to quantify differences in detection as a function of time and broke their observation periods into 5 blocks ranging from dawn to dusk. Syncrude observers exhibited the earliest observation periods with the narrowest distribution; virtually all occurred between 500 h and 1200 h. By contrast, Suncor and CNRL observations exhibited greater spread and many occurred after 1200 h; Shell and Imperial were intermediate. Within operators, average start times varied among ponds by as little as 2 hours (Shell, Syncrude) and by as much as 7 hours (CNRL; Figure 4B). When examined as a continuous function of time with a smoothing function (i.e. a non-linear, best-fit relationship), there was little evidence that the detections varied as a function of time since sunrise (Figure 5A). At only one site, Suncor, was there evidence of a pronounced peak in detections by hour. This apparent effect may be a consequence of overlap between the first and second observation periods in each day. As described above, Suncor conducted observations at each pond twice each day to make use of the large crew size it had anticipated needing to complete the monitoring program.

20

The effect of time of day on detections was similar when they were plotted as a rate (Figure 5) with only a slightly higher rate in the period described as late morning for all operators combined. At individual sites, the tendency for detection rate to peak in the late morning was apparent at CNRL, Shell, Syncrude and by U of A observers (Figure 5D). Maximum detection rate was slightly higher in the afternoon at Imperial and in the early morning at Suncor. Variation in detection rates among operators was generally several times greater than differences among time periods within operators. The most pronounced peak in late morning detections was reported by U of A observers (Figure 5E)

Variation in migration chronology and length of the monitoring period We estimated the effects of shortening the monitoring period in both spring and fall by calculating the number of individuals and species that would have been detected if monitoring had ended on earlier dates (Spring) or begun on later dates (Fall). To do this, we used the actual number of detections before July 15 as the denominator (i.e., 100%) for Spring and the number of detections after July 14th as the denominator in Fall. Then we identified the date on which each of 80, 85, 90, and 95% of individuals and species would have been detected for each season (Table 3). For all calculations, the term species refers also to species groups. The goal of this effort was to support optimization of monitoring duration to maximize detections while minimizing costs. In other words, if these calculations demonstrated that large changes in monitoring duration produced only small changes in the number of species detected, it would be logical to consider shortening the monitoring periods. The effect of changing monitoring dates generally had a larger effect on the number of species than on the number of individuals detected in both seasons. For example, when the number of individuals was reduced to 80%, the number of species was reduced to 41% and 52% in the spring and fall, respectively (Tables 3A and 2B). However, the pattern was reversed within species, particularly for rare species. This effect is illustrated well for horned grebes; if the dates that achieved 80% of the total detection had been used to end monitoring in Spring and begin it in Fall, the number of horned grebes detected would have been only 57% and 14% of the actual detections for that species in spring and fall, respectively (Table 3C). To provide a visual representation of migratory timing for each species, we calculated frequency histograms of all detections in the 2011 season (Figure 6). These patterns were similar to those found in field guides and can be used in subsequent years for three purposes. First, they will demonstrate the species that are most likely to exhibit large effects of changes to the timing of monitoring. Second, they could assist in the identification of birds on lease sites by providing a means of assessing the relative probability of seeing similar-looking species on different dates. Third, these histograms, updated annually, will provide a risk profile for the species that are most likely to encounter severe weather in early spring (e.g., canvasback, Barrow’s goldeneye, some mallards) or late fall (e.g., common merganser, lesser scaup, bufflehead), which appears to be associated with large landing events by birds in the oil sands and elsewhere.

21

Monitoring objective 4: Species at Risk We derived the risk status for each of the species detected during the 2011 monitoring season from federal and provincial listings (Tables 1 and 2). Federal listings under the Species At Risk Act (SARA) rank from “Endangered” to “Threatened” to “Special Concern.” The rusty blackbird and the yellow rail are listed federally under SARA as “Special Concern.” The rest of the species in the “some concern” category receive this status from provincial listings, and are all listed as “Sensitive” to human activities or natural events. Alberta rankings range from “At Risk” (of extinction), to “May Be At Risk” (of extinction), to “Sensitive” (to human activities or natural events), to “Secure” (General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010, unpublished report). The “Sensitive” listing is defined as “Any species that is not at risk of extinction or extirpation but may require special attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk” (General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010, unpublished report). During spring migration (prior to July 15), we positively identified 99 bird species (Table 1A) in the total sample of 58 ponds, which included process-affected water, reference, and compensation ponds. Twenty of those species are of “some concern,” and may have made contact with the pond surface, made contact with the pond shore, made contact with the pond vegetation, flown over the pond, or were identified by sound only. During fall migration (after July 14), 102 bird species were positively identified (Table 1B). Twenty-one of those species are of “some concern.” This set of observations includes all of the individuals described as species at risk that were recorded with our protocols in the oil sands region in 2011, but for many individuals (i.e., those detected at reference ponds, those detected as fly-overs or by sound) it does not indicate contact with process-affected water or any other evidence of direct anthropogenic threat. Species at the highest risk (category 3 in Table 1) are likely to attract particular attention, even if they are not detected as landed birds on process-affected water ponds. One peregrine falcon was observed by Shell in fall migration (Table 1B) and it was presumably of the subspecies found in Alberta, P. f. anatum, which is most at risk nationally. This species was labeled as “high concern” in Table 1B, corresponding to its status as “Threatened” under SARA and “At Risk” in Alberta. Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), a species of “moderate concern” (Tables 1A and 1B) was recorded with surprisingly high frequency (153 individuals in spring and 339 in Fall). This species is listed as “Threatened” by the Committee for the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the federal body that informs species to be listed under SARA (Species at Risk Act, Public Registry). Currently the Barn Swallow has no official listing under SARA, but it is listed in Alberta as “Sensitive” in 2010 (General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2010, unpublished report). Because barn swallows can be confused with tree swallows (above), this sighting should be interpreted cautiously and verified next year. Whooping cranes (Grus americana), which are listed as “Endangered” under SARA and “At Risk” in Alberta have frequently been named in the popular media as a species at potential risk from oil sands development, but no individuals were detected by any method at any of the monitored sites in 2011.

22

Sixteen species at risk with a designation of 2 or 3 (above) were detected as landed birds on process-affected water ponds (Table 2). Such birds are considered to have “contacted” the products of oil sands operations, which has potential legal ramifications. Of these sixteen species, only four were detected at more than one site and / or via more than 10 individuals: horned grebe, northern pintail, green-winged teal, and lesser scaup.

Monitoring objective 5: Recommendations

Program Implementation 1. Create and maintain a structured program to assess inter-observer variation.

An ideal way to partition variation to sites and observers would be to have a single observation team travel to each of the sites and conduct observations on the same days as operator-based crews. Data should be collected and recorded with a double-blind method (neither team should know what the other has detected while conducting observations). Comparisons after each observation session is complete would facilitate learning by both industrial observers and the team tasked with visiting all sites to enhance standardization and best practices in future. This approach was proposed in the automated monitoring prospectus of April 2011, which resulted in invitations by Shell and Imperial to conduct ongoing observations on their lease sites. At least two, but ideally three or four, visits to each of the active operators should be conducted by a single observation team in each of spring and fall migration in 2012. That team could be comprised of U of A, consulting, or industry biologists or some combination, as long as team members are consistent within a season. As the monitoring program and its methods are refined in successive years, fewer visits will be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of inter-observer variation.

2. Create a more extensive training course, including a field component, for all

observers contributing to the monitoring program that is maintained and refined among years. This standardization is essential to maintaining data quality through time and will allow the monitoring information to inform objectives beyond the protection of birds in the oil sands region. Training and standardization of observation should occur as an ongoing objective within and among seasons. Excellent training resources are available at diverse websites and can be downloaded as apps on tablets or phones for use in the field. Sources of this information is available on the RAPP websites.

Data Collection 3. Enter data electronically in the field using a database form that has been

programmed with drop down menus to standardize place and species names, and to prevent erroneous ranges of values. Use of a common data entry platform will save enormous amounts of time in the entering and grooming of data and support the development of automated self-updating data queries by industry and others. The form could additionally provide flags for sensitive data, such as records for species of

23

special concern, so that observers can make extra effort to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data collected. Hundreds of hours in 2011 were devoted to data entry, data checking, and data correction which delayed data compilation by months. Comprehensive field training of effective and accurate use of electronic forms is essential to their success. Training and assistance in equipment purchase and operation is available from the RAPP researchers.

4. Determine the accuracy of mortality searches and develop automated methods for mortality monitoring. Accuracy could be assessed by measuring the recovery by ‘blind’ observers of a known number of bird carcasses during the 2012 season. We agreed at the January meeting that the current mortality searches should continue for one additional year. Use of the existing protocol would verify the small number of mortalities recorded in the 2011 season and demonstrate the rate at which known deposits are recovered. The design of the double-blind test is beyond the scope of this report, but it should be resolved in time for implementation in both Spring and Fall, 2012. Ideally, it would include at least two deposits of birds from a helicopter per season at each of the operations. Such a test is essential to gain public confidence that estimates of mortality are accurate and that the current length of time devoted to searching can be reduced. In addition to being labour-intensive, boat-based searches convey significant expense to operators and risk to workers. Automation of mortality monitoring might be supported with HD videography from military-grade, remote-controlled helicopters, high-resolution photography from shore-based stations, and other untested, but plausible, uses of existing technology.

5. Expand species records to include all avian species. The prevalence of common ‘weedy’ species such as crows, ravens, magpies, robins, and red-winged blackbirds is indicative of other ecological conditions that affect bird communities. Corvids in particular are opportunistic scavengers whose abundance typically increases in human-dominated landscapes. Similarly, observers should be trained to detect species of concern and other species of interest by ear for more comprehensive monitoring of reference ponds. Some species (e.g., Sora) are seldom seen, but they are easily recognized by sound and are likely to colonize compensation ponds as vegetation around them matures. Accurate detection of these and other sensitive species that are best detected by ear will provide important information about the rate of ecological restoration at such sites. On-going refinements to the data forms should make data entry as consistent and efficient as possible for recording these additional species and contexts and observers should be trained to recognize the potential indicator species. Many changes to the electronic data form have already been made and suggestions for additional changes are welcomed from all users.

Data Inclusion 6. Add information about incidental mortalities should be included in the annual

report of the monitoring program. Evaluating the danger to birds posed by tailings ponds in this report is based almost entirely on the number of mortalities reported from the twice-weekly surveys. Evaluating the utility of this survey as well as the magnitude of its results requires comparison with the number and location of birds

24

recovered incidentally on lease sites. Incidental mortalities should be recorded as part of this program and its reports in future. Operators should report the date, time, and specific location of the recovery of all avian recoveries on lease sites. Employees that recover and record incidental mortalities should be encouraged to include additional information about spatial and temporal circumstances and heralded for their efforts. Drawing on the insights of thousands of employees will speed development of best practices for bird protection in the industry and will minimize cost:benefit ratios of mitigation research and implementation.

Data Analysis 7. Refine the descriptive analyses in the annual report to support comparisons

among years. The descriptive analyses in this report should be assessed and evaluated for their utility in future. Some data summaries might be reduced and others expanded. A pre-defined set of descriptive analyses will improve the efficiency of data collection and report preparation. Coordination with others conducting regional monitoring is desirable. A consistent and well-maintained set of summary data will provide an invaluable resource for industry, government, and concerned citizens. Whereas many of these individuals currently rely mainly on speculation, summary data will foster discussion of avian issues in the oil sands region from a position of shared evidence-based knowledge. Ideally, this monitoring program will be refined in successive years to automate several aspects of data collection, recording, analyses and interpretation, which will further reduce its cost: benefit ratio.

8. Use refined monitoring data to achieve the highest possible accuracy. In addition to refined descriptive analyses, data should be examined analytically to identify the spatial and temporal variables associated with rates of bird visitation. Robust analyses of this type will require greater consistency of data collection than could be achieved this year, but some preliminary analyses could position the program to achieve higher rates of accuracy in future. For example, measures of abundance should incorporate detection limitations and these might be focused on the U of A observations which occurred over larger spatial scales and with the benefit of laser range finders.

9. Plan comparisons of deterrent efficacy with comprehensive assessments of ecological effects. With more consistent data, it will be possible to evaluate the efficacy of deterrents, a problem that has been much discussed over the past 30 years. Less attention has been given to the financial and ecological costs of alternative forms of deterrents. For example, CNRL reported few landings and mortalities of birds in 2011 and it uses the most invasive form of deterrence, a long-range acoustic device (LRAD) that produces 156 dB at source. Three other operators, Imperial, Total, and Suncor, have also purchased LRAD-based deterrent systems. The effects of this sound stimulus on the surrounding ecosystems are entirely unmeasured. Planned measures of deterrent efficacy should incorporate measures of unintended collateral effects.

25

10. Supplement observational data of landings with consistent and comprehensive information about migratory pressure. As feared by some industry representatives at the beginning of the 2011 season, it is difficult to quantify the number of birds flying over lease sites, and even ponds, by observation alone. Yet such counts are essential to interpret variation in the number of landed birds and mortalities in process-affected ponds. Radar provides a better means of obtaining this information, if it can be compared among lease sites. As of Spring 2012, every operator uses radar to deploy its deterrents at one or more of its tailings ponds and radar detections of birds should be converted to daily counts of birds and bird flocks (which cannot necessarily be distinguished). Conversion of radar records to bird counts is not trivial and existing software for commercial deterrent systems does not do this automatically. Providing this information could take several forms:

• Operators could work with deterrent system providers to adapt proprietary software for this purpose as an alternative to the current system, which incurs additional costs of money or time to secure interpreted recordings of radar data.

• Operators could store radar files and then apply 3rd party software to the files. The Research on Avian Protection Project (RAPP) uses an open source program, RadR, to convert radar detections to counts. It is a pattern-recognition algorithm tailored to migratory birds and it will support any radar type. Additional programs for pattern recognition are available as both open-source and proprietary software.

• Operators could invite RAPP researchers to install their own mobile radar on lease sites temporarily and potentially in combination with visits by the standardization teams (above) to count samples of birds at its site. RAPP will be conducting similar counts in the vicinity of lease sites and building a calibration tool using radar records at Shell; a similar calibration tool could be built for other operators with the benefit of higher accuracy of comparisons afforded by positioning the radar in the most effective locations.

Data Reporting 11. Make monitoring information publicly available. The standardized monitoring

program adopted for birds in the oil sands region in 2011 could do much to improve the protection of wildlife and the confidence of the public, both from the information it provides and from the cooperative, transparent way of collecting environmental information it illustrates. As soon as possible, these reports should be available on a publicly-accessible data portal in the year of their collection. The section on data analysis (above) described the value of data summaries in this context. However, with refinement, the raw data might also be logged on a public site shortly after collection, as occurs with a number of other environmental monitoring datasets. Because of the novelty of its origin and development, the products of the initial year or two of monitoring could support a publication in the peer-reviewed literature, a concept we would like to discuss further with operators.

26

Conclusions The execution of the Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan for 2011 was not without its challenges. Numerous ideas for refinement are contained in the recommendations above and supported by the nature of the results presented. Additional recommendations for the 2012 season are invited from all interested readers for consideration by the team tasked with refining and implementing that plan. That team is the same one that created this report; a conglomerate of government, industry, and academic individuals with a common responsibility to protect birds in the oil sands region. Despite their common purpose, the group is too new and too diverse even to have a name. That fact alone describes the most important success of the 2011 monitoring program. In the 30-odd years since industrial operations began in the region, this is the first time that operators have attempted to use a common method for measuring contact with tailings ponds by birds, it is the first time they have shared the results of their observations with one another and with academic researchers, and it is the first time they have committed to successive improvements in the accuracy and consistency of data collection in each subsequent season. Concomitant with those procedural and cultural changes, was the development of a data set that describes a rich assemblage of birds in the oil sands region, documented landings on process-affected water by dozens of species and thousands of individuals, with a total mortality count, stemming from thousands of hours of searching, that numbers fewer than 100 birds. The ratio of birds known to have landed on tailings ponds to the number that were recovered during mortality searches is 50:1, but the estimated number of landings is based on only a portion of pond areas and a single half-hour sampling period per day. Thus, it is likely that tens of thousands of birds actually landed on process-affected water ponds. The relative infrequency of detected mortalities suggests that landing on tailings ponds is rarely lethal for birds. More data will be needed to know the generality of this result.

Acknowledgements The 2011 monitoring season required innovation, flexibility, hard work and persistence by many individuals. We are especially grateful for the insightful impetus to create a standardized protocol by Michael Aiton, the capable and comprehensive work by Rob Ronconi to draft and refine the plan, and the many insightful suggestions received from individuals employed by oil sands operators and government ministries, both provincial and federal. Much of the work performed by U of A students and employees was made possible by the concurrent opportunity afforded by the creative sentence drafted jointly by the Crown prosecutors and defense council resulting from the R. vs. Syncrude conviction of 2010. Tim Lewyk donated campground space that made possible the monitoring of reference sites by the U of A observers. We deeply appreciate the support of numerous other individuals in the government, industry, and private sectors of the oil sands region, who lent expertise, equipment, advice, and tolerance when each was needed most.

27

References Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species

2010. <http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/Default.aspx>. Posted March 31, 2011. Accessed January 9, 2012.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000. ISBN No. 0-7785-1821-3 (On-line Edition). <http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies/documents/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies-2000.pdf>. Accessed January 9, 2012.

Government of Canada. Species at Risk Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca Modified 01/11/2010. Accessed January 9, 2012.

28

Table 1. Number of individuals counted at ponds by five industry-based monitoring groups and by the University of Alberta (UA). Total detections are differentiated based on whether individuals were observed or heard, seen over the water, or landed or presumed to have landed and include those with location not specified. Observer totals combine detection types. Species name is to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Group reflects a functional organization based on habit rather than phylogeny. Status represents a homogenization of the three species at risk designations used in Canada (see report text); 0=no risk level assigned, 1=no concern, 2=some concern, 3=moderate concern, 4=high concern, blank=unknown species.

This table has 10 panels, labelled from A to J, presenting seasonal surveys by pond type (reference or process-affected or combined) and/or species group (water-associated only or all birds included) as summarized in the table below. Reference ponds include compensation lakes on lease sites as well as natural and semi-natural water-bodies that do not contain process-affected water.

Panel Species Group Detection Types Season Pond Type

A All Observed or heard Spring Combined

B All Observed or heard Fall Combined

C All Observed or heard Spring Process-affected

D Water-associated Observed or heard (In vicinity); Over water (or not specified); Landed

Spring Process-affected

E All Observed or heard Fall Process-affected

F Water-associated Observed or heard (In vicinity); Over water (or not specified); Landed

Fall Process-affected

G All Observed or heard Spring Reference

H Water-associated Observed or heard (In vicinity); Over water (or not specified); Landed

Spring Reference

I All Observed or heard Fall Reference

J Water-associated Observed or heard (In vicinity); Over water (or not specified); Landed

Fall Reference

29

A. All species detected at both pond types combined, spring surveys. Spring

Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA Unknown a Unknown other 91 0 91 0 0 41 23 0 27

1 Gavia immer Common Loon loon/grebe 416 0 416 0 22 0 254 13 127 1 Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Podicipedidae Unknown Grebe loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe loon/grebe 566 0 566 0 0 0 268 0 298 2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 113 0 113 0 0 0 98 5 10 1 Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe loon/grebe 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 Pelecanus

erythrorhynchos American White Pelican

other 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1

1 Phalacrocorax auritus

Double-crested Cormorant

other 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Ardeidae Unknown Heron other 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron other 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane other 246 2 248 0 1 4 2 0 241 Cygnus spp. Unknown Swan other 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan other 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Chen caerulescens Snow Goose goose 850 0 850 0 0 850 0 0 0 1 Branta canadensis Canada Goose goose 1996 2 1998 33 348 138 69 0 1410 Anatinae Unknown Duck duck 1763 1 1764 4 103 47 744 305 561 Anatinae Unknown

Dabbling Duck duck 26 0 26 0 0 1 0 0 25

1 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard duck 1374 5 1379 15 69 160 857 34 244 1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 58 0 58 0 0 0 51 0 7 2 Anas crecca Green-winged Teal duck 410 0 410 0 0 2 102 2 304 1 Anas americana American Wigeon duck 338 1 339 0 5 0 141 18 175 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail duck 96 0 96 0 14 53 2 2 25

30

Spring Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler duck 276 1 277 0 45 6 94 1 131 1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal duck 35 0 35 0 4 0 21 0 10 1 Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck duck 57 0 57 0 0 0 34 2 21 Aythya spp. Unknown Diving

Duck duck 31 0 31 0 0 0 2 0 29

1 Aythya valisineria Canvasback duck 423 0 423 0 0 16 165 0 242 1 Aythya americana Redhead duck 47 0 47 0 0 2 26 0 19 1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck duck 296 0 296 0 6 0 64 2 224 Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup duck 1134 0 1134 0 0 35 52 6 1041 1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 144 0 144 0 0 0 141 1 2 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 631 0 631 0 0 39 320 13 259 Anatinae Unknown Eider duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Melanitta spp. Unknown Scoter duck 8 1 9 0 0 1 8 0 0 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged

Scoter duck 8 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 4

1 Melanitta perspicillata

Surf Scoter duck 37 0 37 0 0 2 0 3 32

1 Bucephala islandica Barrow's Goldeneye

duck 28 0 28 0 0 0 28 0 0

1 Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye

duck 968 0 968 12 61 0 788 13 94

1 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead duck 646 1 647 19 31 1 490 8 98 1 Mergus merganser Common

Merganser duck 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 8

1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser

duck 28 0 28 0 2 0 0 0 26

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 230 1 231 0 0 0 40 34 157

2 Porzana carolina Sora shorebird 19 16 35 0 0 0 6 0 29

31

Spring Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

2 Coturnicops noveboracensis

Yellow Rail shorebird 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Fulica americana American Coot duck 80 1 81 0 0 4 39 0 38 Charadriinae Unknown Plover shorebird 21 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 Charadrius vociferus Killdeer shorebird 128 3 131 0 10 7 17 6 91 1 Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied

Plover shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 3

1 Pluvialis dominica American Golden Plover

shorebird 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1

1 Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs shorebird 15 0 15 0 3 0 4 2 6 1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs shorebird 116 0 116 0 10 0 32 5 69 Scolopacinae Unknown

Sandpiper shorebird 267 0 267 0 1 0 108 0 158

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper shorebird 15 0 15 0 0 0 1 5 9 1 Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope shorebird 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Limnodromus

griseus Short-billed Dowitcher

shorebird 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

1 Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe shorebird 14 1 15 0 0 0 1 0 14 1 Calidris pusilla Semipalmated

Sandpiper shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

1 Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Bartramia

longicauda Upland Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 845 2 847 0 0 14 419 83 331 1 Leucophaeus

pipixcan Franklin's Gull gull/tern 47 0 47 1 0 0 0 30 16

32

Spring Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull gull/tern 270 1 271 0 30 0 69 0 172

1 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull gull/tern 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 45 0 45 0 0 5 7 15 18 1 Larus californicus California Gull gull/tern 10 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 7 1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 106 0 106 0 68 0 15 0 23 2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 216 0 216 0 0 0 214 0 2 Raptor b Unknown Raptor raptor 9 0 9 0 0 0 6 0 3

2 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Haliaeetus

leucocephalus Bald Eagle raptor 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1

2 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier raptor 20 1 21 0 0 0 1 0 20 1 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk raptor 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 Pandion haliaetus Osprey raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Passeriformes c Unknown

Passerine passerine 734 2 736 0 0 0 325 0 411

Tetraoninae Unknown Grouse passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Tympanuchus

phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse

passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker passerine 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 Tyrannidae Unknown

Flycatcher passerine 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0

Hirundininae Unknown Swallow passerine 99 0 99 0 0 0 99 0 0 1 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow passerine 354 2 356 0 0 0 183 0 173 1 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow passerine 32 0 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 1 Stelgidopteryx

serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow

passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

33

Spring Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Cliff Swallow passerine 1060 0 1060 0 0 6 0 1053 1

3 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow passerine 153 0 153 0 0 0 126 0 27 1 Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Perisoreus

canadensis Gray Jay passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

1 Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie

passerine 27 0 27 0 0 0 26 1 0

1 Corvus brachyrhynchos

American Crow passerine 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

1 Corvus corax Common Raven passerine 27 0 27 2 0 0 25 0 0 1 Poecile atricapillus Black-capped

Chickadee passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

1 Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Turdus migratorius American Robin passerine 81 0 81 0 0 0 79 0 2 1 Bombycilla

cedrorum Cedar Waxwing passerine 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 0

0 Sturnus vulgaris European Starling passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Parulidae Unknown Warbler passerine 18 0 18 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 Mniotilta varia Black-and-white

Warbler passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped Warlber

passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler passerine 17 2 19 0 0 0 16 0 3 1 Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Parkesia

noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush

passerine 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1

2 Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat

passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

34

Spring Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Emberizidae Unknown Sparrow passerine 129 0 129 0 0 0 105 1 23 1 Passerculus

sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow passerine 7 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 Spizella pallida Clay-colored

Sparrow passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 Zonotrichia albicollis

White-throated Sparrow

passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Plectrophenax

nivalis Snow Bunting passerine 33 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 33

Icteridae Unknown Blackbird

passerine 103 0 103 0 0 0 103 0 0

1 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Yellow-headed Blackbird

passerine 7 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 4

1 Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird

passerine 1536 2 1538 0 0 1 1295 33 209

2 Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Euphagus

cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird passerine 16 0 16 0 0 0 16 0 0

1 Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird

passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle passerine 178 0 178 0 0 0 175 0 3 a Unknown had no group or taxonomic information provided. b Raptor includes Accipitridae, Falconinae, and Strigidae. c Passerine includes Passeriformes and passerine-like birds.

35

B. All species detected at both pond types combined, fall surveys. Fall

Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA Unknown a Unknown other 382 0 382 0 0 169 197 0 16

1 Gavia immer Common Loon loon/grebe 235 0 235 0 5 0 182 6 42 Podicipedidae Unknown Grebe loon/grebe 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe loon/grebe 140 0 140 0 5 0 95 0 40 2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 222 0 222 0 0 0 222 0 0 2 Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe loon/grebe 11 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 Tachybaptus

dominicus Least Grebe loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

2 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

American White Pelican

other 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 Phalacrocorax auritus

Double-crested Cormorant

other 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

Ardeidae Unknown Heron other 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 Botaurus

lentiginosus American Bittern other 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

2 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron other 7 0 7 0 2 0 1 3 1 2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane other 69 0 69 0 42 0 0 2 25 1 Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan other 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan other 7 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 Anserinae Unknown Goose goose 334 0 334 0 0 230 0 0 104 1 Anser albifrons Greater White-

fronted Goose goose 630 0 630 0 0 600 1 0 29

1 Chen caerulescens Snow Goose goose 420 0 420 0 0 277 0 0 143 1 Branta canadensis Canada Goose goose 5651 1 5652 708 565 1517 723 5 2134 Anatinae Unknown Duck duck 6838 3 6841 28 89 16 5856 38 814

36

Fall Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Anatinae Unknown Dabbling Duck

duck 110 0 110 0 0 0 0 0 110

1 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard duck 1702 1 1703 1 14 2 1564 8 114 1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 286 0 286 0 0 0 260 0 26 Anas spp. Unknown Teal duck 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 Anas crecca Green-winged Teal duck 248 2 250 0 0 28 49 0 173 1 Anas americana American Wigeon duck 2171 0 2171 0 0 0 2128 16 27 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail duck 331 0 331 0 6 2 322 0 1 1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler duck 307 0 307 0 26 0 271 4 6 1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal duck 161 0 161 0 4 0 144 2 11 1 Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal duck 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck duck 58 0 58 0 0 1 47 0 10 Aythya spp. Unknown Diving

Duck duck 454 0 454 0 0 0 13 0 441

1 Aythya valisineria Canvasback duck 520 0 520 0 0 0 515 0 5 1 Aythya americana Redhead duck 51 0 51 0 0 0 29 4 18 1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck duck 283 0 283 0 0 0 102 0 181 Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup duck 393 0 393 0 0 0 0 0 393 1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 763 0 763 0 0 11 751 1 0 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged

Scoter duck 40 0 40 2 0 0 1 0 37

1 Melanitta perspicillata

Surf Scoter duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed Duck duck 11 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 Bucephala clangula Common

Goldeneye duck 906 1 907 0 47 0 742 0 118

1 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead duck 1597 0 1597 0 60 0 1378 0 159

37

Fall Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Mergus spp. Unknown Merganser

duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Mergus merganser Common Merganser

duck 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12

1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser

duck 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 899 5 904 0 0 55 86 357 406

2 Porzana carolina Sora shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Fulica americana American Coot duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Charadriinae Unknown Plover shorebird 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 Charadrius

semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover

shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

1 Charadrius vociferus Killdeer shorebird 109 0 109 0 7 38 29 0 35 1 Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied

Plover shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 Pluvialis dominica American Golden Plover

shorebird 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0

Tringa spp. Unknown Yellowlegs

shorebird 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 50

1 Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs

shorebird 45 1 46 0 5 0 29 0 12

1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs shorebird 225 1 226 0 1 0 187 6 32 Scolopacinae Unknown

Sandpiper shorebird 1065 2 1067 0 0 29 314 0 724

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper shorebird 16 0 16 0 0 0 12 4 0 1 Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper shorebird 192 0 192 0 0 0 59 1 132 0 Tringa incana Wandering Tattler shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

38

Fall Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Phalaropodinae Unknown Phalarope

shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope shorebird 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked

Phalarope shorebird 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16

Scolopacinae Unknown dowitcher

shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 Limnodromus griseus

Short-billed Dowitcher

shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2

1 Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper shorebird 10 0 10 0 0 3 1 0 6 1 Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 550 3 553 0 0 6 458 38 51 1 Leucophaeus

pipixcan Franklin's Gull gull/tern 15 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull gull/tern 82 0 82 0 58 0 14 0 10

1 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull gull/tern 11 0 11 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 4 0 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 Larus californicus California Gull gull/tern 50 0 50 0 1 1 35 0 13 Sterninae Unknown Tern gull/tern 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 65 0 65 0 46 0 12 1 6 2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 106 0 106 0 0 0 101 0 5 Raptor b Unknown Raptor raptor 20 0 20 0 0 2 2 0 16

2 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Haliaeetus

leucocephalus Bald Eagle raptor 5 1 6 0 1 1 2 0 2

2 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier raptor 25 0 25 0 0 1 2 0 22

39

Fall Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk raptor 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Buteo lagopus Rough-legged

Hawk raptor 9 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0

2 Falco sparverius American Kestrel raptor 188 1 189 0 0 2 187 0 0 0 Falco columbarius Merlin raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon raptor 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Passeriformes c Unknown

Passerine passerine 1684 2 1686 0 0 18 50 55 1563

Tetraoninae Unknown Grouse passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker passerine 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 Dryocopus pileatus Pileated

Woodpecker passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

2 Contopus sordidulus Western Wood-Pewee

passerine 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0

1 Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark passerine 13 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 Hirundininae Unknown Swallow passerine 257 0 257 0 0 3 116 0 138 1 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow passerine 89 0 89 0 0 0 61 0 28 1 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Petrochelidon

pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow passerine 169 1 170 0 0 5 44 0 121

3 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow passerine 339 0 339 0 0 0 339 0 0 1 Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Perisoreus

canadensis Gray Jay passerine 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

1 Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie

passerine 56 0 56 0 0 1 51 0 4

40

Fall Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Corvus brachyrhynchos

American Crow passerine 26 0 26 0 0 18 8 0 0

1 Corvus corax Common Raven passerine 492 6 498 0 0 117 380 0 1 1 Poecile atricapillus Black-capped

Chickadee passerine 23 0 23 0 0 0 23 0 0

1 Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Turdus migratorius American Robin passerine 45 0 45 0 0 0 45 0 0 1 Anthus rubescens American Pipit passerine 263 0 263 0 0 262 1 0 0 1 Bombycilla

cedrorum Cedar Waxwing passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Setophaga castanea Bay-breasted

Warbler passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Emberizidae Unknown Sparrow passerine 70 0 70 0 0 0 69 0 1 1 Passerculus

sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow passerine 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

1 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow passerine 18 0 18 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 Plectrophenax

nivalis Snow Bunting passerine 395 0 395 0 0 249 20 0 126

Icteridae Unknown Blackbird

passerine 26 0 26 0 0 0 21 0 5

1 Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird

passerine 441 0 441 0 0 30 409 0 2

2 Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird passerine 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 Euphagus

cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird passerine 24 0 24 0 0 0 24 0 0

1 Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle passerine 13 0 13 0 0 0 13 0 0

41

Fall Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Loxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill

passerine 12 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0

1 Pinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 a Unknown had no group or taxonomic information provided. b Raptor includes Accipitridae, Falconinae, and Strigidae. c Passerine includes Passeriformes and passerine-like birds.

42

C. All species detected at process-affected ponds, spring surveys. Spring migrants near process-affected ponds

Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA Unknown a Unknown other 72 0 72 0 0 41 18 0 13 1 Gavia immer Common Loon loon/grebe 199 0 199 0 0 0 199 0 0 1 Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Podicipedidae Unknown Grebe loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Podiceps

grisegena Red-necked Grebe

loon/grebe 11 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 0

2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 93 0 93 0 0 0 86 3 4 1 Podiceps

nigricollis Eared Grebe loon/grebe 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7

2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane other 10 1 11 0 1 4 2 0 4 Cygnus spp. Unknown Swan other 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 Chen

caerulescens Snow Goose goose 850 0 850 0 0 850 0 0 0

1 Branta canadensis

Canada Goose goose 948 2 950 33 143 138 61 0 575

Anatinae Unknown Duck duck 1365 0 1365 4 100 47 554 292 368 Anatinae Unknown

Dabbling Duck duck 13 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 12

1 Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck 1066 5 1071 15 15 160 792 7 82

1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 52 0 52 0 0 0 47 0 5 2 Anas crecca Green-winged

Teal duck 347 0 347 0 0 2 97 0 248

1 Anas americana American Wigeon duck 70 0 70 0 0 0 41 0 29 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail duck 72 0 72 0 0 53 0 0 19 1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler duck 184 1 185 0 1 6 86 0 92 1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal duck 28 0 28 0 0 0 20 0 8 1 Oxyura Ruddy Duck duck 35 0 35 0 0 0 25 0 10

43

Spring migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

jamaicensis Aythya spp. Unknown Diving

Duck duck 10 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 8

1 Aythya valisineria Canvasback duck 44 0 44 0 0 16 26 0 2 1 Aythya americana Redhead duck 5 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked

Duck duck 75 0 75 0 0 0 57 2 16

Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup duck 198 0 198 0 0 35 21 4 138 1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 115 0 115 0 0 0 115 0 0 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 364 0 364 0 0 39 181 4 140 Anatinae Unknown Eider duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Melanitta spp. Unknown Scoter duck 8 1 9 0 0 1 8 0 0 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged

Scoter duck 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

1 Melanitta perspicillata

Surf Scoter duck 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

1 Bucephala islandica

Barrow's Goldeneye

duck 22 0 22 0 0 0 22 0 0

1 Bucephala clangula

Common Goldeneye

duck 733 0 733 12 0 0 718 1 2

1 Bucephala albeola

Bufflehead duck 502 1 503 19 0 1 479 0 4

1 Mergus merganser

Common Merganser

duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser

duck 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 200 0 200 0 0 0 39 22 139

2 Porzana carolina Sora shorebird 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Fulica americana American Coot duck 11 0 11 0 0 4 0 0 7

44

Spring migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Charadriinae Unknown Plover shorebird 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 Charadrius

vociferus Killdeer shorebird 51 1 52 0 0 7 17 0 28

1 Pluvialis squatarola

Black-bellied Plover

shorebird 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 Pluvialis dominica

American Golden Plover

shorebird 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1

1 Tringa melanoleuca

Greater Yellowlegs

shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 1

1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs shorebird 96 0 96 0 10 0 32 0 54 Scolopacinae Unknown

Sandpiper shorebird 197 0 197 0 0 0 107 0 90

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

shorebird 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Phalaropus

tricolor Wilson's Phalarope

shorebird 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 Limnodromus griseus

Short-billed Dowitcher

shorebird 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

1 Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Snipe shorebird 10 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 10

1 Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper

shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

1 Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Bartramia

longicauda Upland Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 557 1 558 0 0 14 339 19 186 1 Leucophaeus

pipixcan Franklin's Gull gull/tern 17 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 16

45

Spring migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull gull/tern 76 1 77 0 14 0 30 0 33

1 Larus delawarensis

Ring-billed Gull gull/tern 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7

0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 14 0 14 0 0 5 7 0 2 1 Larus californicus California Gull gull/tern 8 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 7 1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 46 0 46 0 40 0 3 0 3 2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 13 0 13 0 0 0 11 0 2 Raptor b Unknown Raptor raptor 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Haliaeetus

leucocephalus Bald Eagle raptor 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

2 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier raptor 6 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk raptor 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 Pandion haliaetus Osprey raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Passeriformes c Unknown

Passerine passerine 500 1 501 0 0 0 170 0 331

2 Tympanuchus phasianellus

Sharp-tailed Grouse

passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker passerine 7 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 Tyrannidae Unknown

Flycatcher passerine 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0

Hirundininae Unknown Swallow

passerine 96 0 96 0 0 0 96 0 0

1 Tachycineta bicolor

Tree Swallow passerine 131 0 131 0 0 0 57 0 74

1 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow passerine 16 0 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 Stelgidopteryx

serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow

passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Cliff Swallow passerine 7 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 1

46

Spring migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

3 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow passerine 151 0 151 0 0 0 126 0 25 1 Cyanocitta

cristata Blue Jay passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

1 Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie

passerine 26 0 26 0 0 0 26 0 0

1 Corvus corax Common Raven passerine 27 0 27 2 0 0 25 0 0 1 Turdus

migratorius American Robin passerine 19 0 19 0 0 0 19 0 0

1 Bombycilla cedrorum

Cedar Waxwing passerine 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 0

Emberizidae Unknown Sparrow

passerine 84 0 84 0 0 0 63 0 21

1 Passerculus sandwichensis

Savannah Sparrow

passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Melospiza melodia

Song Sparrow passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

1 Melospiza georgiana

Swamp Sparrow passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Plectrophenax nivalis

Snow Bunting passerine 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

Icteridae Unknown Blackbird

passerine 84 0 84 0 0 0 84 0 0

1 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Yellow-headed Blackbird

passerine 6 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 4

1 Agelaius phoeniceus

Red-winged Blackbird

passerine 477 0 477 0 0 1 395 0 81

2 Euphagus carolinus

Rusty Blackbird passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brewer's Blackbird

passerine 14 0 14 0 0 0 14 0 0

1 Molothrus ater Brown-headed passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

47

Spring migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Cowbird 1 Quiscalus

quiscula Common Grackle passerine 101 0 101 0 0 0 100 0 1

a Unknown had no group or taxonomic information provided. b Raptor includes Accipitridae, Falconinae, and Strigidae. c Passerine includes Passeriformes and passerine-like birds.

48

D. Water-associated species detected at process-affected ponds, spring surveys Status Species name Common

name Group In

vicinity Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Unknown Unknown other 72 45 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 Gavia immer Common

Loon loon/grebe 199 199 84 0 0 0 84 0 0

1 Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon loon/grebe 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Podicipedidae Unknown

Grebe loon/grebe 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0

1 Podiceps grisegena

Red-necked Grebe

loon/grebe 11 11 11 0 0 0 11 0 0

2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 93 93 93 0 0 0 86 3 4 1 Podiceps

nigricollis Eared Grebe loon/grebe 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7

2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane

other 11 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Cygnus spp. Unknown Swan

other 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Chen caerulescens

Snow Goose goose 850 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Branta canadensis

Canada Goose

goose 950 533 85 19 50 5 8 0 3

Anatinae Unknown Duck

duck 1365 1307 937 4 100 9 466 212 146

Anatinae Unknown Dabbling Duck

duck 13 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 10

1 Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck 1071 944 845 15 4 3 760 7 56

1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 52 52 52 0 0 0 47 0 5 2 Anas crecca Green-

winged Teal duck 347 346 323 0 0 0 96 0 227

49

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Anas americana American Wigeon

duck 70 70 70 0 0 0 41 0 29

2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail

duck 72 22 14 0 0 0 0 0 14

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler

duck 185 184 154 0 0 0 86 0 68

1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal

duck 28 28 28 0 0 0 20 0 8

1 Oxyura jamaicensis

Ruddy Duck duck 35 35 35 0 0 0 25 0 10

Aythya spp. Unknown Diving Duck

duck 10 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 8

1 Aythya valisineria

Canvasback duck 44 32 24 0 0 2 20 0 2

1 Aythya americana

Redhead duck 5 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck

duck 75 75 75 0 0 0 57 2 16

Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup

duck 198 168 143 0 0 0 21 4 118

1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 115 115 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 364 329 276 0 0 4 181 4 87 Anatinae Unknown

Eider duck 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

Melanitta spp. Unknown Scoter

duck 9 8 8 0 0 0 8 0 0

2 Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter

duck 4 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

1 Melanitta perspicillata

Surf Scoter duck 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Bucephala islandica

Barrow's Goldeneye

duck 22 17 17 0 0 0 17 0 0

1 Bucephala clangula

Common Goldeneye

duck 733 733 719 12 0 0 704 1 2

1 Bucephala albeola

Bufflehead duck 503 502 499 19 0 0 477 0 3

1 Mergus merganser

Common Merganser

duck 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser

duck 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 200 198 84 0 0 0 39 22 23

2 Porzana carolina

Sora shorebird 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Fulica americana

American Coot

duck 11 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7

Charadriinae Unknown Plover

shorebird 16 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

1 Charadrius vociferus

Killdeer shorebird 52 44 31 0 0 0 15 0 16

1 Pluvialis squatarola

Black-bellied Plover

shorebird 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 Pluvialis dominica

American Golden Plover

shorebird 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 1

1 Tringa melanoleuca

Greater Yellowlegs

shorebird 5 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs

shorebird 96 96 81 0 10 0 30 0 41

Scolopacinae Unknown Sandpiper

shorebird 197 197 153 0 0 0 99 0 54

51

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

shorebird 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

1 Actitis macularius

Spotted Sandpiper

shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Phalaropus tricolor

Wilson's Phalarope

shorebird 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 Limnodromus griseus

Short-billed Dowitcher

shorebird 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

1 Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Snipe

shorebird 11 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper

shorebird 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

1 Calidris minutilla

Least Sandpiper

shorebird 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper

shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

2 Bartramia longicauda

Upland Sandpiper

shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Larinae Unknown Gull

gull/tern 558 361 132 0 0 1 41 17 73

1 Leucophaeus pipixcan

Franklin's Gull

gull/tern 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull

gull/tern 77 74 17 0 12 0 1 0 4

1 Larus delawarensis

Ring-billed Gull

gull/tern 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 Larus argentatus

Herring Gull gull/tern 14 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Larus californicus

California Gull

gull/tern 8 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

1 Sterna hirundo Common gull/tern 46 45 41 0 40 0 1 0 0

52

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Tern 2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pandion

haliaetus Osprey raptor 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

53

E. All species detected at process-affected ponds, fall surveys Fall migrants near process-affected ponds

Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA Unknown a Unknown other 222 0 222 0 0 169 39 0 14 1 Gavia immer Common Loon loon/grebe 42 0 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 217 0 217 0 0 0 217 0 0 2 Podilymbus

podiceps Pied-billed Grebe loon/grebe 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Phalacrocorax auritus

Double-crested Cormorant

other 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

Ardeidae Unknown Heron other 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Botaurus

lentiginosus American Bittern other 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane other 11 0 11 0 9 0 0 2 0 1 Cygnus

columbianus Tundra Swan other 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

2 Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan other 7 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 Anserinae Unknown Goose goose 284 0 284 0 0 230 0 0 54 1 Anser albifrons Greater White-

fronted Goose goose 601 0 601 0 0 600 1 0 0

1 Chen caerulescens Snow Goose goose 277 0 277 0 0 277 0 0 0 1 Branta canadensis Canada Goose goose 3413 0 3413 708 321 1517 518 5 344 Anatinae Unknown Duck duck 896 0 896 28 89 16 683 37 43 Anatinae Unknown

Dabbling Duck duck 26 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26

1 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard duck 1402 0 1402 1 2 2 1374 7 16 1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 176 0 176 0 0 0 176 0 0 2 Anas crecca Green-winged

Teal duck 227 1 228 0 0 28 29 0 171

1 Anas americana American Wigeon duck 1922 0 1922 0 0 0 1918 4 0 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail duck 205 0 205 0 0 2 202 0 1

54

Fall migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler duck 273 0 273 0 23 0 242 4 4 1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal duck 115 0 115 0 0 0 113 2 0 1 Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal duck 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck duck 11 0 11 0 0 1 10 0 0 Aythya spp. Unknown Diving

Duck duck 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1

1 Aythya valisineria Canvasback duck 168 0 168 0 0 0 168 0 0 1 Aythya americana Redhead duck 17 0 17 0 0 0 13 4 0 1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked

Duck duck 102 0 102 0 0 0 102 0 0

1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 639 0 639 0 0 11 627 1 0 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged

Scoter duck 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0

1 Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye

duck 696 1 697 0 0 0 697 0 0

1 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead duck 1059 0 1059 0 0 0 1059 0 0 Charadriiformes Unknown

Shorebird shorebird 818 4 822 0 0 55 83 356 328

2 Porzana carolina Sora shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Charadriinae Unknown Plover shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 Charadrius

vociferus Killdeer shorebird 88 0 88 0 0 38 29 0 21

1 Pluvialis squatarola

Black-bellied Plover

shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 Pluvialis dominica American Golden Plover

shorebird 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0

Tringa spp. Unknown Yellowlegs

shorebird 41 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 41

1 Tringa Greater shorebird 30 0 30 0 0 0 29 0 1

55

Fall migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

melanoleuca Yellowlegs 1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs shorebird 212 1 213 0 0 0 187 6 20 Scolopacinae Unknown

Sandpiper shorebird 906 1 907 0 0 29 312 0 566

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

shorebird 15 0 15 0 0 0 11 4 0

1 Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper shorebird 169 0 169 0 0 0 59 0 110 Phalaropodinae Unknown

Phalarope shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope

shorebird 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16

Scolopacinae Unknown dowitcher

shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 Limnodromus griseus

Short-billed Dowitcher

shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2

1 Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe shorebird 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper shorebird 10 0 10 0 0 3 1 0 6 1 Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 Calidris melanotos Pectoral

Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 521 3 524 0 0 6 454 26 38 1 Leucophaeus

pipixcan Franklin's Gull gull/tern 15 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull gull/tern 38 0 38 0 24 0 14 0 0

1 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull gull/tern 10 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 Larus californicus California Gull gull/tern 41 0 41 0 0 1 35 0 5 Sterninae Unknown Tern gull/tern 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0

56

Fall migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 Raptor b Unknown Raptor raptor 9 0 9 0 0 2 1 0 6 2 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Haliaeetus

leucocephalus Bald Eagle raptor 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

2 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier raptor 9 0 9 0 0 1 2 0 6 1 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk raptor 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Buteo lagopus Rough-legged

Hawk raptor 9 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0

2 Falco sparverius American Kestrel raptor 188 1 189 0 0 2 187 0 0 0 Falco columbarius Merlin raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon raptor 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Passeriformes c Unknown

Passerine passerine 450 1 451 0 0 18 33 55 345

1 Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Contopus

sordidulus Western Wood-Pewee

passerine 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0

1 Eremophila alpestris

Horned Lark passerine 13 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0

Hirundininae Unknown Swallow

passerine 162 0 162 0 0 3 116 0 43

1 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow passerine 71 0 71 0 0 0 55 0 16 1 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 Petrochelidon

pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow passerine 47 0 47 0 0 5 42 0 0

3 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow passerine 339 0 339 0 0 0 339 0 0 1 Pica hudsonia Black-billed

Magpie passerine 50 0 50 0 0 1 49 0 0

1 Corvus American Crow passerine 26 0 26 0 0 18 8 0 0

57

Fall migrants near process-affected ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

brachyrhynchos 1 Corvus corax Common Raven passerine 489 6 495 0 0 117 377 0 1 1 Turdus migratorius American Robin passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Anthus rubescens American Pipit passerine 263 0 263 0 0 262 1 0 0 1 Bombycilla

cedrorum Cedar Waxwing passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

2 Setophaga castanea Bay-breasted Warbler

passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Emberizidae Unknown Sparrow

passerine 63 0 63 0 0 0 63 0 0

1 Passerculus sandwichensis

Savannah Sparrow

passerine 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

1 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow passerine 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 Plectrophenax

nivalis Snow Bunting passerine 319 0 319 0 0 249 20 0 50

Icteridae Unknown Blackbird

passerine 17 0 17 0 0 0 17 0 0

1 Agelaius phoeniceus

Red-winged Blackbird

passerine 121 0 121 0 0 30 91 0 0

1 Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brewer's Blackbird

passerine 22 0 22 0 0 0 22 0 0

1 Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle passerine 13 0 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 Loxia leucoptera White-winged

Crossbill passerine 12 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0

a Unknown had no group or taxonomic information provided. b Raptor includes Accipitridae, Falconinae, and Strigidae. c Passerine includes Passeriformes and passerine-like birds.

58

F. Water-associated species detected at process-affected ponds, fall surveys Status Species name Common

name Group In

vicinity Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

Unknown Unknown other 222 52 5 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 Gavia immer Common

Loon loon/grebe 42 42 34 0 0 0 34 0 0

2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe

loon/grebe 217 217 65 0 0 0 65 0 0

2 Podilymbus podiceps

Pied-billed Grebe

loon/grebe 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Phalacrocorax auritus

Double-crested Cormorant

other 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ardeidae Unknown Heron

other 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Botaurus lentiginosus

American Bittern

other 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane

other 11 11 2 0 0 0 0 2 0

1 Cygnus columbianus

Tundra Swan

other 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Cygnus buccinator

Trumpeter Swan

other 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anserinae Unknown Goose

goose 284 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted Goose

goose 601 158 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 Chen caerulescens

Snow Goose

goose 277 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Branta Canada goose 3413 2077 267 0 71 0 191 5 0

59

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

canadensis Goose Anatinae Unknown

Duck duck 896 873 643 0 24 0 548 34 37

Anatinae Unknown Dabbling Duck

duck 26 26 16 0 0 0 0 0 16

1 Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck 1402 1398 1392 0 0 0 1369 7 16

1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 176 176 176 0 0 0 176 0 0 2 Anas crecca Green-

winged Teal

duck 228 199 190 0 0 0 29 0 161

1 Anas americana American Wigeon

duck 1922 1922 1904 0 0 0 1900 4 0

2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail

duck 205 203 54 0 0 0 53 0 1

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler

duck 273 273 273 0 23 0 242 4 4

1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal

duck 115 115 115 0 0 0 113 2 0

1 Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal

duck 4 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

1 Oxyura jamaicensis

Ruddy Duck

duck 11 10 10 0 0 0 10 0 0

Aythya spp. Unknown Diving Duck

duck 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1

1 Aythya valisineria

Canvasback duck 168 168 168 0 0 0 168 0 0

1 Aythya Redhead duck 17 17 16 0 0 0 12 4 0

60

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

americana 1 Aythya collaris Ring-

necked Duck

duck 102 102 102 0 0 0 102 0 0

1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup

duck 6 6 6 0 0 0 6 0 0

2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup

duck 639 635 628 0 0 0 627 1 0

2 Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter

duck 3 3 3 2 0 0 1 0 0

1 Bucephala clangula

Common Goldeneye

duck 697 696 673 0 0 0 673 0 0

1 Bucephala albeola

Bufflehead duck 1059 1059 1057 0 0 0 1057 0 0

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 822 765 417 0 0 0 27 349 41

2 Porzana carolina

Sora shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Charadriinae Unknown Plover

shorebird 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

1 Charadrius vociferus

Killdeer shorebird 88 66 30 0 0 4 12 0 14

1 Pluvialis squatarola

Black-bellied Plover

shorebird 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Pluvialis dominica

American Golden Plover

shorebird 10 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 0

Tringa spp. Unknown Yellowlegs

shorebird 41 41 41 0 0 0 0 0 41

61

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Tringa melanoleuca

Greater Yellowlegs

shorebird 30 30 30 0 0 0 29 0 1

1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs

shorebird 213 212 203 0 0 0 179 6 18

Scolopacinae Unknown Sandpiper

shorebird 907 892 447 0 0 9 195 0 243

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

shorebird 15 15 15 0 0 0 11 4 0

1 Actitis macularius

Spotted Sandpiper

shorebird 169 168 166 0 0 0 56 0 110

Phalaropodinae Unknown Phalarope

shorebird 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Phalaropus lobatus

Red-necked Phalarope

shorebird 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 16

Scolopacinae Unknown dowitcher

shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 Limnodromus griseus

Short-billed Dowitcher

shorebird 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Snipe

shorebird 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 Calidris minutilla

Least Sandpiper

shorebird 10 7 4 0 0 0 1 0 3

1 Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper

shorebird 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

1 Calidris melanotos

Pectoral Sandpiper

shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Larinae Unknown Gull

gull/tern 524 458 63 0 0 0 8 26 29

1 Leucophaeus pipixcan

Franklin's Gull

gull/tern 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Chroicocephalus Bonaparte's gull/tern 38 38 27 0 24 0 3 0 0

62

Status Species name Common name

Group In vicinity

Over pond

Landing CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

philadelphia Gull 1 Larus

delawarensis Ring-billed Gull

gull/tern 10 8 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

0 Larus argentatus

Herring Gull

gull/tern 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Larus californicus

California Gull

gull/tern 41 34 11 0 0 0 6 0 5

Sterninae Unknown Tern

gull/tern 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern

gull/tern 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 12 12 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Megaceryle

alcyon Belted Kingfisher

passerine 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

63

G. All species detected at reference ponds, spring surveys Spring migrants near reference ponds

Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA Unknown a Unknown other 19 0 19 0 5 0 14 1 Gavia immer Common Loon loon/grebe 217 0 217 22 55 13 127 1 Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe loon/grebe 555 0 555 0 257 0 298 2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 20 0 20 0 12 2 6 1 Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 Pelecanus

erythrorhynchos American White Pelican

other 3 0 3 0 0 2 1

1 Phalacrocorax auritus

Double-crested Cormorant

other 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Ardeidae Unknown Heron other 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron other 10 0 10 0 0 1 9 2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane other 236 1 237 0 0 0 237 2 Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan other 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 Branta canadensis Canada Goose goose 1048 0 1048 205 8 0 835 Anatinae Unknown Duck duck 398 1 399 3 190 13 193 Anatinae Unknown Dabbling

Duck duck 13 0 13 0 0 0 13

1 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard duck 308 0 308 54 65 27 162 1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 6 0 6 0 4 0 2 2 Anas crecca Green-winged Teal duck 63 0 63 0 5 2 56 1 Anas americana American Wigeon duck 268 1 269 5 100 18 146 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail duck 24 0 24 14 2 2 6 1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler duck 92 0 92 44 8 1 39 1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal duck 7 0 7 4 1 0 2 1 Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck duck 22 0 22 0 9 2 11 Aythya spp. Unknown Diving Duck duck 21 0 21 0 0 0 21 1 Aythya valisineria Canvasback duck 379 0 379 0 139 0 240

64

Spring migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Aythya americana Redhead duck 42 0 42 0 23 0 19 1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck duck 221 0 221 6 7 0 208 Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup duck 936 0 936 0 31 2 903 1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 29 0 29 0 26 1 2 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 267 0 267 0 139 9 119 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter duck 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 Melanitta

perspicillata Surf Scoter duck 35 0 35 0 0 3 32

1 Bucephala islandica Barrow's Goldeneye duck 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 1 Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye duck 235 0 235 61 70 12 92 1 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead duck 144 0 144 31 11 8 94 1 Mergus merganser Common Merganser duck 9 0 9 0 0 3 6 1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted

Merganser duck 27 0 27 2 0 0 25

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird shorebird 30 1 31 0 1 12 18 2 Porzana carolina Sora shorebird 19 14 33 0 6 0 27 2 Coturnicops

noveboracensis Yellow Rail shorebird 1 1 2 0 0 0 2

1 Fulica americana American Coot duck 69 1 70 0 39 0 31 Charadriinae Unknown Plover shorebird 5 1 6 0 0 0 6 1 Charadrius vociferus Killdeer shorebird 77 2 79 10 0 6 63 1 Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover shorebird 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs shorebird 10 0 10 3 0 2 5 1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs shorebird 20 0 20 0 0 5 15 Scolopacinae Unknown Sandpiper shorebird 70 0 70 1 1 0 68 1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper shorebird 3 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper shorebird 14 0 14 0 0 5 9 1 Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper shorebird 3 0 3 0 0 3 0

65

Spring migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 288 1 289 0 80 64 145 1 Leucophaeus pipixcan Franklin's Gull gull/tern 30 0 30 0 0 30 0 1 Chroicocephalus

philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull gull/tern 194 0 194 16 39 0 139

1 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull gull/tern 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 31 0 31 0 0 15 16 1 Larus californicus California Gull gull/tern 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 60 0 60 28 12 0 20 2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 203 0 203 0 203 0 0 Raptor b Unknown Raptor raptor 6 0 6 0 4 0 2 2 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Haliaeetus

leucocephalus Bald Eagle raptor 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

2 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier raptor 14 0 14 0 0 0 14 Passeriformes c Unknown Passerine passerine 234 1 235 0 155 0 80 Tetraoninae Unknown Grouse passerine 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker passerine 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 Hirundininae Unknown Swallow passerine 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow passerine 223 2 225 0 126 0 99 1 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow passerine 16 0 16 0 16 0 0 1 Petrochelidon

pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow passerine 1053 0 1053 0 0 1053 0

3 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 Perisoreus

canadensis Gray Jay passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4

1 Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie passerine 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Corvus

brachyrhynchos American Crow passerine 1 1 2 2 0 0 0

66

Spring migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee

passerine 3 0 3 0 3 0 0

1 Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Turdus migratorius American Robin passerine 62 0 62 0 60 0 2 0 Sturnus vulgaris European Starling passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Parulidae Unknown Warbler passerine 18 0 18 0 18 0 0 1 Mniotilta varia Black-and-white

Warbler passerine 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

1 Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped Warlber

passerine 2 0 2 0 2 0 0

1 Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler passerine 17 2 19 0 16 0 3 1 Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Parkesia

noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush passerine 1 1 2 0 0 1 1

2 Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Emberizidae Unknown Sparrow passerine 45 0 45 0 42 1 2 1 Passerculus

sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

1 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow passerine 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated

Sparrow passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

1 Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting passerine 28 0 28 0 0 0 28 Icteridae Unknown Blackbird passerine 19 0 19 0 19 0 0 1 Xanthocephalus

xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird

passerine 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

1 Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird passerine 1059 2 1061 0 900 33 128 2 Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird passerine 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Euphagus Brewer's Blackbird passerine 2 0 2 0 2 0 0

67

Spring migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

cyanocephalus 1 Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle passerine 77 0 77 0 75 0 2

a Unknown had no group or taxonomic information provided. b Raptor includes Accipitridae, Falconinae, and Strigidae. c Passerine includes Passeriformes and passerine-like birds.

68

H. Water-associated species detected at reference ponds, spring surveys Status Species name Common name Group In vicinity Over pond Landing Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

Unknown Unknown other 19 19 4 0 4 0 0 1 Gavia immer Common

Loon loon/grebe 217 217 211 22 55 13 121

1 Podiceps grisegena

Red-necked Grebe

loon/grebe 555 555 545 0 249 0 296

2 Podiceps auritus

Horned Grebe loon/grebe 20 20 20 0 12 2 6

1 Podiceps nigricollis

Eared Grebe loon/grebe 2 2 2 0 0 2 0

2 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

American White Pelican

other 3 3 3 0 0 2 1

1 Phalacrocorax auritus

Double-crested Cormorant

other 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

Ardeidae Unknown Heron

other 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron

other 10 9 4 0 0 1 3

2 Grus canadensis

Sandhill Crane other 237 47 32 0 0 0 32

2 Cygnus buccinator

Trumpeter Swan

other 2 2 2 0 0 0 2

1 Branta canadensis

Canada Goose goose 1048 1030 518 32 2 0 484

Anatinae Unknown Duck

duck 399 393 253 0 181 9 63

Anatinae Unknown Dabbling Duck

duck 13 13 0 0 0 0 0

69

1 Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck 308 307 221 6 65 24 126

1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 6 6 6 0 4 0 2 2 Anas crecca Green-winged

Teal duck 63 63 59 0 5 2 52

1 Anas americana American Wigeon

duck 269 268 241 5 100 18 118

2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail

duck 24 24 23 14 2 2 5

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler

duck 92 92 91 44 7 1 39

1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal

duck 7 7 7 4 1 0 2

1 Oxyura jamaicensis

Ruddy Duck duck 22 22 22 0 9 2 11

Aythya spp. Unknown Diving Duck

duck 21 21 13 0 0 0 13

1 Aythya valisineria

Canvasback duck 379 379 355 0 134 0 221

1 Aythya americana

Redhead duck 42 42 36 0 23 0 13

1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck

duck 221 221 204 6 7 0 191

Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup

duck 936 936 902 0 31 2 869

1 Aythya marila Greater Scaup duck 29 29 29 0 26 1 2 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 267 267 263 0 135 9 119 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged

Scoter duck 4 4 4 0 0 0 4

1 Melanitta perspicillata

Surf Scoter duck 35 35 35 0 0 3 32

1 Bucephala islandica

Barrow's Goldeneye

duck 6 6 6 0 6 0 0

70

1 Bucephala clangula

Common Goldeneye

duck 235 235 225 59 70 12 84

1 Bucephala albeola

Bufflehead duck 144 144 140 31 11 4 94

1 Mergus merganser

Common Merganser

duck 9 9 9 0 0 3 6

1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser

duck 27 27 27 2 0 0 25

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 31 29 22 0 1 11 10

2 Porzana carolina

Sora shorebird 33 19 18 0 5 0 13

2 Coturnicops noveboracensis

Yellow Rail shorebird 2 1 1 0 0 0 1

1 Fulica americana

American Coot

duck 70 69 69 0 39 0 30

Charadriinae Unknown Plover

shorebird 6 5 0 0 0 0 0

1 Charadrius vociferus

Killdeer shorebird 79 62 43 8 0 3 32

1 Pluvialis squatarola

Black-bellied Plover

shorebird 3 3 0 0 0 0 0

1 Tringa melanoleuca

Greater Yellowlegs

shorebird 10 10 10 3 0 2 5

1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs

shorebird 20 20 18 0 0 5 13

Scolopacinae Unknown Sandpiper

shorebird 70 64 58 0 1 0 57

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

shorebird 3 3 3 0 0 2 1

1 Actitis macularius

Spotted Sandpiper

shorebird 14 14 14 0 0 5 9

71

1 Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Snipe shorebird 4 2 0 0 0 0 0

1 Calidris minutilla

Least Sandpiper

shorebird 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 289 253 114 0 36 63 15 1 Leucophaeus

pipixcan Franklin's Gull gull/tern 30 30 30 0 0 30 0

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull

gull/tern 194 194 113 16 10 0 87

1 Larus delawarensis

Ring-billed Gull

gull/tern 6 6 2 0 0 0 2

0 Larus argentatus

Herring Gull gull/tern 31 31 15 0 0 15 0

1 Larus californicus

California Gull

gull/tern 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 60 60 31 19 6 0 6 2 Chlidonias

niger Black Tern gull/tern 203 203 0 0 0 0 0

1 Megaceryle alcyon

Belted Kingfisher

passerine 3 3 2 0 0 0 2

1 Parkesia noveboracensis

Northern Waterthrush

passerine 2 1 1 0 0 1 0

72

I. All species detected at reference ponds, fall surveys Fall migrants near reference ponds

Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA Unknown a Unknown other 160 0 160 0 158 0 2 1 Gavia immer Common Loon loon/grebe 193 0 193 5 140 6 42 Podicipedidae Unknown Grebe loon/grebe 3 0 3 0 0 1 2 1 Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe loon/grebe 140 0 140 5 95 0 40 2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 2 Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe loon/grebe 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 Tachybaptus

dominicus Least Grebe loon/grebe 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

2 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

American White Pelican

other 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Ardeidae Unknown Heron other 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron other 7 0 7 2 1 3 1 2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane other 58 0 58 33 0 0 25 Anserinae Unknown Goose goose 50 0 50 0 0 0 50 1 Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted

Goose goose 29 0 29 0 0 0 29

1 Chen caerulescens Snow Goose goose 143 0 143 0 0 0 143 1 Branta canadensis Canada Goose goose 2238 1 2239 244 205 0 1790 Anatinae Unknown Duck duck 5942 3 5945 0 5173 1 771 Anatinae Unknown Dabbling

Duck duck 84 0 84 0 0 0 84

1 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard duck 300 1 301 12 190 1 98 1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 110 0 110 0 84 0 26 Anas spp. Unknown Teal duck 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 Anas crecca Green-winged Teal duck 21 1 22 0 20 0 2 1 Anas americana American Wigeon duck 249 0 249 0 210 12 27 2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail duck 126 0 126 6 120 0 0

73

Fall migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler duck 34 0 34 3 29 0 2 1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal duck 46 0 46 4 31 0 11 1 Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck duck 47 0 47 0 37 0 10 Aythya spp. Unknown Diving Duck duck 451 0 451 0 11 0 440 1 Aythya valisineria Canvasback duck 352 0 352 0 347 0 5 1 Aythya americana Redhead duck 34 0 34 0 16 0 18 1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck duck 181 0 181 0 0 0 181 Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup duck 393 0 393 0 0 0 393 2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 124 0 124 0 124 0 0 2 Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter duck 37 0 37 0 0 0 37 1 Melanitta perspicillata Surf Scoter duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed Duck duck 11 0 11 0 11 0 0 1 Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye duck 210 0 210 47 45 0 118 1 Bucephala albeola Bufflehead duck 538 0 538 60 319 0 159 Mergus spp. Unknown Merganser duck 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 Mergus merganser Common Merganser duck 12 0 12 0 0 0 12 1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted

Merganser duck 5 0 5 0 0 0 5

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird shorebird 81 1 82 0 3 1 78 1 Fulica americana American Coot duck 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 Charadriinae Unknown Plover shorebird 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 1 Charadrius

semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover shorebird 4 0 4 0 0 0 4

1 Charadrius vociferus Killdeer shorebird 21 0 21 7 0 0 14 Tringa spp. Unknown Yellowlegs shorebird 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 1 Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs shorebird 15 1 16 5 0 0 11 1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs shorebird 13 0 13 1 0 0 12 Scolopacinae Unknown Sandpiper shorebird 159 1 160 0 2 0 158 1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper shorebird 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

74

Fall migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

1 Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper shorebird 23 0 23 0 0 1 22 0 Tringa incana Wandering Tattler shorebird 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope shorebird 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Larinae Unknown Gull gull/tern 29 0 29 0 4 12 13 1 Chroicocephalus

philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull gull/tern 44 0 44 34 0 0 10

1 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull gull/tern 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Larus californicus California Gull gull/tern 9 0 9 1 0 0 8 1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern gull/tern 53 0 53 46 0 1 6 2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 94 0 94 0 89 0 5 Raptor b Unknown Raptor raptor 11 0 11 0 1 0 10

2 Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Bald Eagle raptor 3 1 4 1 1 0 2

2 Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier raptor 16 0 16 0 0 0 16 Passeriformes c Unknown Passerine passerine 1234 1 1235 0 17 0 1218 Tetraoninae Unknown Grouse passerine 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker passerine 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 2 Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Hirundininae Unknown Swallow passerine 95 0 95 0 0 0 95 1 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow passerine 18 0 18 0 6 0 12 1 Petrochelidon

pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow passerine 122 1 123 0 2 0 121

1 Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay passerine 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Perisoreus canadensis Gray Jay passerine 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 1 Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie passerine 6 0 6 0 2 0 4 1 Corvus corax Common Raven passerine 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 Poecile atricapillus Black-capped passerine 23 0 23 0 23 0 0

75

Fall migrants near reference ponds Status Species name Common name Group Observed Heard Total Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

Chickadee 1 Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren passerine 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 Turdus migratorius American Robin passerine 43 0 43 0 43 0 0 1 Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo passerine 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler passerine 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 Emberizidae Unknown Sparrow passerine 7 0 7 0 6 0 1 1 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow passerine 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 1 Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting passerine 76 0 76 0 0 0 76 Icteridae Unknown Blackbird passerine 9 0 9 0 4 0 5 1 Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird passerine 320 0 320 0 318 0 2 2 Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird passerine 15 0 15 0 0 0 15 1 Euphagus

cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird passerine 2 0 2 0 2 0 0

1 Pinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak passerine 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 a Unknown had no group or taxonomic information provided. b Raptor includes Accipitridae, Falconinae, and Strigidae. c Passerine includes Passeriformes and passerine-like birds.

76

J. Water-associated species detected at reference ponds, fall surveys Status Species name Common

name Group In vicinity Over pond Landing Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA

Unknown Unknown other 160 160 159 0 158 0 1 1 Gavia immer Common

Loon loon/grebe 193 193 143 5 90 6 42

Podicipedidae Unknown Grebe

loon/grebe 3 3 3 0 0 1 2

1 Podiceps grisegena

Red-necked Grebe

loon/grebe 140 140 140 5 95 0 40

2 Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe loon/grebe 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 2 Podilymbus

podiceps Pied-billed Grebe

loon/grebe 10 10 7 0 7 0 0

0 Tachybaptus dominicus

Least Grebe loon/grebe 2 2 2 0 0 0 2

2 Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

American White Pelican

other 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Ardeidae Unknown Heron

other 2 2 2 0 0 0 2

2 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron

other 7 5 4 0 0 3 1

2 Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane

other 58 32 32 30 0 0 2

Anserinae Unknown Goose

goose 50 50 0 0 0 0 0

1 Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted Goose

goose 29 3 3 0 0 0 3

1 Chen caerulescens

Snow Goose goose 143 143 0 0 0 0 0

1 Branta canadensis

Canada Goose

goose 2239 2222 840 95 45 0 700

77

Anatinae Unknown Duck

duck 5945 5939 5839 0 5104 0 735

Anatinae Unknown Dabbling Duck

duck 84 84 80 0 0 0 80

1 Anas platyrhynchos

Mallard duck 301 300 251 12 168 1 70

1 Anas strepera Gadwall duck 110 110 110 0 84 0 26 Anas spp. Unknown

Teal duck 3 3 3 0 0 0 3

2 Anas crecca Green-winged Teal

duck 22 21 21 0 20 0 1

1 Anas americana American Wigeon

duck 249 249 248 0 210 12 26

2 Anas acuta Northern Pintail

duck 126 126 126 6 120 0 0

1 Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler

duck 34 34 34 3 29 0 2

1 Anas discors Blue-winged Teal

duck 46 46 46 4 31 0 11

1 Oxyura jamaicensis

Ruddy Duck duck 47 47 47 0 37 0 10

Aythya spp. Unknown Diving Duck

duck 451 451 448 0 11 0 437

1 Aythya valisineria

Canvasback duck 352 352 351 0 347 0 4

1 Aythya americana

Redhead duck 34 34 34 0 16 0 18

1 Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck

duck 181 181 181 0 0 0 181

Aythya spp. Unknown Scaup

duck 393 393 393 0 0 0 393

2 Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup duck 124 124 124 0 124 0 0

78

2 Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter

duck 37 37 37 0 0 0 37

1 Melanitta perspicillata

Surf Scoter duck 2 2 2 0 0 0 2

1 Clangula hyemalis

Long-tailed Duck

duck 11 11 0 0 0 0 0

1 Bucephala clangula

Common Goldeneye

duck 210 210 210 47 45 0 118

1 Bucephala albeola

Bufflehead duck 538 538 533 60 317 0 156

Mergus spp. Unknown Merganser

duck 2 2 2 0 0 0 2

1 Mergus merganser

Common Merganser

duck 12 12 12 0 0 0 12

1 Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser

duck 5 5 5 0 0 0 5

Charadriiformes Unknown Shorebird

shorebird 82 78 9 0 0 0 9

1 Fulica americana

American Coot

duck 2 2 2 0 2 0 0

Charadriinae Unknown Plover

shorebird 8 8 7 0 0 0 7

1 Charadrius semipalmatus

Semipalmated Plover

shorebird 4 4 2 0 0 0 2

1 Charadrius vociferus

Killdeer shorebird 21 17 15 3 0 0 12

Tringa spp. Unknown Yellowlegs

shorebird 9 9 9 0 0 0 9

1 Tringa melanoleuca

Greater Yellowlegs

shorebird 16 15 15 5 0 0 10

1 Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs

shorebird 13 13 13 1 0 0 12

79

Scolopacinae Unknown Sandpiper

shorebird 160 157 51 0 2 0 49

1 Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

shorebird 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

1 Actitis macularius

Spotted Sandpiper

shorebird 23 23 23 0 0 1 22

0 Tringa incana Wandering Tattler

shorebird 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

1 Phalaropus tricolor

Wilson's Phalarope

shorebird 2 2 2 0 0 0 2

Larinae Unknown Gull

gull/tern 29 27 16 0 1 12 3

1 Chroicocephalus philadelphia

Bonaparte's Gull

gull/tern 44 44 44 34 0 0 10

1 Larus delawarensis

Ring-billed Gull

gull/tern 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

0 Larus argentatus Herring Gull gull/tern 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Larus

californicus California Gull

gull/tern 9 9 9 1 0 0 8

1 Sterna hirundo Common Tern

gull/tern 53 51 45 44 0 1 0

2 Chlidonias niger Black Tern gull/tern 94 94 17 0 17 0 0 1 Empidonax

alnorum Alder Flycatcher

passerine 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

80

Table 2. Number of birds detected as landings (i.e., contacts) at process-affected water ponds by five industry-based monitoring groups and by the University of Alberta (UA), whose observations applied only to the Shell Jackpine mine site. Common names are reported as recorded by observers. Species are listed phylogenetically by approximate evolutionary age (oldest to youngest). Status represents a homogenization of the three species at risk designations used in Canada (see report text; 0=no risk level assigned, 1=no concern, 2=some concern, 3=moderate concern, 4=high concern, blank=unknown species).

Status Common name CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA Total

Unknown Species 2 3 1 6

1 Common Loon 79 13 92

1 Pacific Loon 1 1

Unknown Grebe 2 2

1 Red-necked Grebe 9 9

2 Horned Grebe 85 3 2 90

1 Eared Grebe 1 3 4

2 Pied-billed Grebe 1 1

2 American White Pelican 2 2

2 American Bittern 1 1

2 Great-blue Heron 4 4

1 Sandhill Crane 1 2 1 4

1 Greater White-fronted Goose 1 1

1 Snow Goose 1 1

1 Canada Goose 6 9 5 24 2 2 48

Unknown Duck 2 5 9 213 51 56 336

Unknown Dabbling 1 10 11

81

Duck

1 Mallard 3 1 20 422 12 43 501

1 Gadwall 43 3 46

2 Green-winged Teal 6 36 1 124 167

1 American Wigeon 192 12 12 216

2 Northern Pintail 1 14 1 8 24

1 Northern Shoveler 1 93 2 40 136

1 Blue-winged Teal 30 2 7 39

1 Cinnamon Teal 1 1

1 Ruddy Duck 1 9 1 6 17

Unknown Diving Duck 2 3 5

1 Canvasback 5 46 1 52

1 Redhead 1 6 1 8

1 Ring-necked Duck 32 1 8 41

Unknown Scaup 4 4 2 40 50

1 Greater Scaup 15 1 16

2 Lesser Scaup 9 136 5 15 165

Unknown Eider 1 1

Unknown Scoter 1 1

2 White-winged Scoter 2 2 4

1 Surf Scoter 1 1

1 Barrow's Goldeneye 10 10

1 Common Goldeneye 4 200 7 2 213

1 Bufflehead 2 338 2 2 344

82

1 Common Merganser 1 1 2

1 Red-breasted Merganser 1 1

Unknown Shorebird 9 18 24 29 80

2 Sora 1 1

1 American Coot 2 6 8

Unknown Plover 4 4

1 Killdeer 7 18 4 19 48

1 Black-bellied Plover 1 1

1 American Golden Plover 1 1 1 3

1 Unknown Yellowlegs 21 21

1 Greater Yellowlegs 16 2 2 20

1 Lesser Yellowlegs 1 44 4 32 81

Unknown Sandpiper 2 66 70 138

1 Solitary Sandpiper 5 3 1 9

1 Spotted Sandpiper 17 4 18 39

1 Unknown Phalarope 1 1

1 Wilson's Phalarope 1 1

1 Red-necked Phalarope 3 3

0 Unknown Dowitcher 1 1

0 Short-billed Dowitcher 1 7 8

1 Wilson's Snipe 3 3

1 Semipalmated Sandpiper 2 2

83

1 Least Sandpiper 2 1 1 1 5

1 Baird's Sandpiper 1 1 2

2 Upland Sandpiper 1 1

1 Pectoral Sandpiper 1 1

Unknown Gull 4 14 19 68 105

1 Franklin's Gull 2 2

1 Bonaparte's Gull 8 2 3 13

1 Ring-billed Gull 1 1 2

0 Herring Gull 2 2 1 5

1 California Gull 1 1 7 9

1 Common Tern 1 1 1 3

2 Black Tern 1 1

Unknown Raptor 4 4

2 Bald Eagle 1 1

2 Northern Harrier 4 4

1 Rough-legged Hawk 1 1

2 American Kestrel 6 6

0 Merlin 1 1

Unknown Passerine 1 25 3 28 57

1 Northern Flicker 2 2

1 Horned Lark 1 1

1 Tree Swallow 3 2 5

1 Cliff Swallow 7 1 8

3 Barn Swallow 3 3

84

1 Blue Jay 1 1

1 Black-billed Magpie 7 1 8

1 Common Raven 14 11 1 26

1 American Robin 4 4

1 American Pipit 8 8

1 Cedar Waxwing 1 1

1 Northern Waterthrush 1 1

Unknown Sparrow 7 1 2 10

1 Savannah Sparrow 1 1 2

1 Snow Bunting 1 1 1 3

Unknown Blackbird 20 20

1 Yellow-headed Blackbird 3 3

1 Red-winged Blackbird 2 38 6 25 71

1 Brewer's Blackbird 3 3

1 Brown-headed Cowbird 1 1

1 Common Grackle 14 1 15

Total by Operator 19 26 128 24081 217 767 3565

1 Owing to staff availability, Suncor conducted monitoring observations twice daily in 2011,

whereas other operators conducted observations only once. Thus, this total is approximately double the number of birds that should be compared to other operators totals.

85

Table 3. Effects of monitoring duration on the detection of individuals and species (which, hereafter, includes species groups) of water-associated birds relative to the detections that occurred with the actual end date of July 14 in Spring and the start date of July 15 in Fall. The purpose of these calculations is to identify the optimal dates on which intensive monitoring should end and begin in the spring and fall, respectively. Each panel is based on the same four thresholds of 95, 90, 85, and 80 for the percentage of detections attributable to either individuals or species relative to the complete sample.

A. Dates on which each of four percentage thresholds (95, 90, 85, 80) is reached relative to the total detections of 15,719 individuals and 70 species in Spring.

B. Dates on which each of four percentage thresholds (95, 90, 85, 80) is reached relative to the total detections of 28,968 individuals and 79 species.

C. Species-specific percentage detections that would have been achieved on the stop dates (Spring) and start dates (Fall) that corresponded to each of the four thresholds for the entire sample for each of Spring (Panel A) and Fall (Panel B).

D. Dates on which spring monitoring could end and fall monitoring could begin in order to detect each of four thresholds of percent detections of individuals within species relative to the same thresholds for detecting species for each of Spring and Fall. The actual percentages achieved for the percent of species detected with the combined criteria are given in parentheses. For example, if spring migration monitoring stopped on July 6 in 2011, over 80% of the individuals would have been detected for 59 / 70 (84.3%) of the species in the total sample.

A. Effects of shortening spring migration monitoring Spring

Monitoring category End date Day of year % birds counted % species >95%

100% 14/07/2011 195 100 100

95% 10/07/2011 191 95.4 72.9

90% 07/07/2011 188 91.1 67.1

85% 03/07/2011 184 85.7 54.3

80% 28/06/2011 179 80.5 41.4

86

B. Effects of shortening fall migration monitoring Fall

Monitoring category End date Day of year % birds counted % species >95%

100% 15/07/2011 196 100 100

95% 21/07/2011 202 95.1 76.0

90% 24/07/2011 205 90.3 65.8

85% 31/07/2011 212 85.2 57.0

80% 05/08/2011 217 80.2 51.9

C. Effects on individual species of shortening monitoring Spring Fall

Common name 95% 90% 85% 80% 95% 90% 85% 80%

American Coot 91.4 91.4

American Widgeon 90.3 87.0 93.0 88.5 86.5

Black Tern 75.5 73.6 59.3 92.5 34.0 0.9 0.9

Blue-winged Teal 94.3 94.3 94.3 91.9 87.6

Bonaparte's Gull 88.9 67.1 42.7 42.7 34.1

Bufflehead 90.3 79.9 67.4 58.9 90.0 84.1 77.8 65.2

California Gull 80.0 80.0 30.0 10.0 94.0 92.0 92.0 58.0

Canada Goose 90.1 87.4 94.7

Canvasback 84.2 73.5 57.9 53.3

87

Spring Fall

Common name 95% 90% 85% 80% 95% 90% 85% 80%

Common Goldeneye 89.6 80.5 63.5 51.0 76.0 66.4 49.9 47.4

Common Loon 92.5 88.2 88.1 79.1 71.1 67.2

Common Merganser 81.8 63.6 63.6

Common Tern 89.6 33.0 17.9 12.3 7.7 7.7

Eared Grebe 77.8 77.8

Gadwall 29.3 93.0 92.7 91.6 79.4

Great Blue Heron 70.0 40.0 71.4 57.1 0.0 0.0

Greater Scaup 66.7

Greater Yellowlegs 93.3 53.3 89.1 84.8

Green-winged Teal 92.9 90.2 81.0 73.2 84.0 70.8 63.2 54.4

Herring Gull 84.4

Horned Grebe 87.6 79.6 69.0 56.6 93.7 21.2 16.2 14.0

Killdeer 87.0 81.7 75.6 71.0 93.6 87.2 79.8 62.4

Least Sandpiper 40.0 40.0

Lesser Scaup 89.1 87.0 84.6 70.4 86.8 81.5 75.2 74.0

Lesser Yellowlegs 87.9 74.1 68.1 62.9 89.4 81.9 65.9 54.0

Mallard 92.9 84.5 74.6 68.1 88.1 82.9 71.9 61.8

Northern Pintail 49.2 40.5 29.3

Northern Shoveler 88.4 87.4 82.1 72.6

Redhead 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 80.4

Red-necked Grebe 93.5 91.0 87.8 74.3 60.7 23.6 22.9

88

Spring Fall

Common name 95% 90% 85% 80% 95% 90% 85% 80%

Ring-billed Gull 63.6 9.1

Ring-necked Duck 79.9 79.9

Ruddy Duck 52.6 86.2 74.1 51.7

Sandhill Crane 89.1 88.7 77.4 77.4 87.0 87.0 56.5

Short-billed Dowitcher 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0

Solitary Sandpiper 80.0 87.5 87.5 81.2 31.2

Spotted Sandpiper 93.3 93.3 66.7 53.3 72.9 60.9

Unknown 74.7 74.7 71.4 70.3 94.8 89.5 86.4

Unknown Dabbling Duck 61.5 61.5 61.5 61.5 90.9 90.9 90.9

Unknown Diving Duck 93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5

Unknown Duck 91.2 88.7 87.0 92.8

Unknown Gull 92.1 90.4 92.6 88.8 73.6

Unknown Plover 86.4

Unknown Sandpiper 77.5 77.2 74.5 64.8 87.1 68.0 65.6 49.7

Unknown Scoter 88.9

Unknown Shorebird 88.3 85.7 74.5 73.2 92.3 89.3 77.3

Unknown Yellowlegs 52.0

Wilson's Snipe 73.3

89

D. Dates from combined thresholds for reducing monitoring Spring % species

% individuals/species 95 90 85 80

95 13 July (97.1) 13 July (97.1) 13 July (97.1) 12 July (82.8)

90 13 July (97.1) 12 July (92.9) 11 July (87.1) 10 July (81.4)

85 13 July (97.1) 10 July (92.9) 9 July (88.6) 7 July (81.4)

80 12 July (95.7) 8 July (91.4) 7 July (88.6) 6 July (84.3)

Fall % species

% individuals/species 95 90 85 80

95 16 July (96.2) 17 July (92.4) 19 July (87.3) 20 July (83.5)

90 17 July (96.2) 19 July (92.4) 20 July (89.9) 21 July (83.5)

85 19 July (97.5) 21 July (91.1) 21 July (91.1) 23 July (81.0)

80 20 July (96.2) 21 July (93.7) 23 July (86.1) 25 July (81.0)

90

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 1. Rank abundance graphs of the most common species or species groups that comprised a minimum of 95% of all recorded landings, flyovers or individuals heard in a given group of birds in the oil sands region recorded by 5 oil sands operators and UofA researchers. The remaining 5% or fewer of the individuals were detected too infrequently to merit comparison by abundance.

Each set of panels (labelled A – K) below describes a different set of species or species groups. Within each set of panels (e.g., A), there are two figures. The first describes abundance at process-affected ponds and the second describes abundance at reference ponds.Reference ponds include compensation lakes on lease sites as well as natural and semi-natural water-bodies that do not contain process-affected water. Abundance is the estimated or actual counts of individuals that are summed at each site for the entire spring and fall migratory seasons of 2011. The table below provides sample sizes for each set of species or species groups.

Panel Species / Species GroupProcess-affected ponds Reference ponds

% Individuals Species/Groups % Individuals Species/Groups

A All avian detections 95.4 29,464 124 95.3 24,734 118

B All water-associated birds 95.3 24,919 81 95.2 19,776 74

C Ducks 95.3 13,290 28 95.1 12,949 28

D Geese 95.5 6,375 4 97.7 3,509 4

E Loons and Grebes 96.0 574 7 96.3 1,147 7

F Gulls and Terns 95.7 1,396 9 95.4 1,046 8

G Shorebirds 95.7 2,947 23 96.3 618 17

H Raptors 96.3 241 11 98.1 53 4

I Passerines 95.2 4,306 34 95.8 4,911 43

J Other 96.4 335 8 98.0 501 7

91

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Num

ber

dete

cted

A1. All avian detections at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

92

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Num

ber

dete

cted

A2. All avian detections at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

93

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Num

ber

dete

cted

B1. All water-associated avian detections at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

94

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Num

ber

dete

cted

B2. All water-associated avian detections at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

95

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Num

ber

dete

cted

C1. Ducks at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

96

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Num

ber

dete

cted

C2. Ducks at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

97

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

Canada Goose Snow Goose Greater White-fronted Goose

Num

ber

dete

cted

D1. Geese at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Canada Goose Snow Goose

Num

ber

dete

cted

D2. Geese at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

98

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Horned Grebe Common Loon

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

E1. Loon and Grebe at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Red-necked Grebe Common Loon

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

E2. Loon and Grebe at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

99

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Unknown Gull Bonaparte's Gull Common Tern California Gull Franklin's Gull

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

F1. Gulls and Terns at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Unknown Gull Black Tern Bonaparte's Gull Common Tern Herring Gull

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

F2. Gulls and Terns at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

100

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Unknown Sandpiper

Unknown Shorebird

Lesser Yellowlegs

Spotted Sandpiper

Killdeer Unknown Yellowlegs

Greater Yellowlegs

Num

ber

dete

cted

G1. Shorebirds at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

0

50

100

150

200

250

Num

ber

dete

cted

G2. Shorebirds at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

101

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

020406080

100120140160180200

American Kestrel

Northern Harrier Unknown Raptor Rough-legged Hawk

Red-tailed Hawk

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

H1. Raptors at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Northern Harrier Unknown Raptor Bald Eagle

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

H2. Raptors at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

102

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

I1. Passerines at process-affected ponds

SumOfheard Landings Flyovers

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

I2. Passerines at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

103

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Unknown Sandhill Crane Trumpeter Swan

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

J1. Other Avian detections at process-affected ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Sandhill Crane Unknown Great Blue Heron

Num

ber

Det

ecte

d

J2. Other Avian detections at reference ponds

Heard Landings Flyovers

104

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 2. Observation effort. Due to small sample sizes, white bars on graphs may be seen as flat black lines on top of gray boxes.

A. Total number of pond visits by observer and pond type.

B. Average observation length per visit by observer and pond type.

C. Proportion of visits with no detections (black bars) and additional visits with no detections of water-associated birds (grey bars) and no detections of water-associated birds at ponds (or not specified; white bars) by operator and pond type.

D. Total number of water-associated birds detected per visit that landed (black bars), flew overhead (grey bars), or were heard (white bars) at ponds (or not specified) by operator and pond type.

E. Total number of water-associated birds detected that landed (black bars), flew overhead (grey bars), or were heard (white bars) at ponds (or not specified) by operator and pondtype.

F. Number of detections of water-associated birds per hour that landed (black bars), flew overhead (grey bars), or were heard (white bars) at ponds (or not specified) by operator and pond type.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

reference process-affected

num

ber

of o

bser

vatio

n vi

sits

A. Pond visits by observer and pond type

105

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

reference process-affected

aver

age v

isit

leng

th (h

)

B. Length per visit by observer and pond type

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

reference process-affected

prop

ortio

n of

tota

l obs

erva

tions

C. Visits with no detections

106

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

reference process-affected

dete

ctio

n fr

eque

ncy

(no/

visi

t)

D. Number of water-associated birds detected per visit

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

reference process-affected

num

ber

of d

etec

tions

E. Number of water-associated birds detected by operator and pond type

107

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Imperial Suncor Syncrude UA CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

reference process-affected

dete

ctio

n ra

te (n

o/h)

F. Number of water-associated birds detected per hour by operator and pond type

108

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 3. Observation effort and detection frequency on comparison ponds. UA: University of Alberta.

A. Number of visits to comparison ponds by operators and UA.

B. Average visit length at comparison ponds by operators and UA.

C. Number of detections of water-associated birds that landed (black bar), flew overhead (grey bar), were heard (white bar), or not specified, at comparison ponds by operators and UA.

D. Number of detections of water-associated birds per hour on or over water that landed (black bar), flew overhead (grey bar), were heard (white bar), or not specified, at comparison ponds by operators and UA.

E. Number of detections of water-associated birds per visit that landed (black bar), flew overhead (grey bar), were heard (white bar), or not specified, at comparison ponds by operators and UA.

0

100

200

300

400

500

Suncor UA Shell UA Imperial UA

Crane Jackpine Kearl Compensation

No

visi

ts

A. Number of visits to comparison ponds

109

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Suncor UA Shell UA Imperial UA

Crane Jackpine Kearl Compensation

aver

age v

isit

leng

th (h

)B. Visit length at comparison ponds

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Suncor UA Shell UA Imperial UA

Crane Jackpine Kearl Compensation

No

dete

cted

C. Total detections of water-associated birds on comparison ponds

110

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Suncor UA Shell UA Imperial UA

Crane Jackpine Kearl Compensation

No

dete

cted

/h

D. Detections of water-associated birds per hour on comparison ponds

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Suncor UA Shell UA Imperial UA

Crane Jackpine Kearl Compensation

No

dete

cted

/vis

it

E. Detections of water-associated birds per visit at comparison ponds

111

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 4. Distribution of observation start times within and among operators.

A. Density distribution of observation start times by operator with an overlaid normal curve.

B. Distribution of observation start times per pond for each operator. For each plot, the blue box represents 50% of the data (25th to 75th percentile). The vertical line within the box is the median value (50 of observations are above and 50% are below). The lines attached to either end of the box represent 90% of the data (5th to 95% percentile). The dots are the remaining (outlier) values.

A. Distribution of start times by operator

0.1

.20

.1.2

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24

CNRL Imperial Shell

Suncor Syncrude UA

Densitynormal starthrdec

Den

sity

start time

Graphs by Op

DensityNormal CurveDensityNormal curve

112

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

B. Distribution of start times per pond by operator

5 10 15 20start time

CN_TAILCN_SUMPCN_SULF

CN_STORMCN_RECYCN_R2EDCN_R2BDCN_R1ED

CN_R1DISCN_MDUMPCN_FROTH

CN_EXTPCN_EMDU2CN_EMDU1

CN_D10CN_COMPCN_COKE

CN_BW

CNRL

6 8 10 12 14 16start time

KE_ETA

KE_COMP

Imperial

113

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0 5 10 15 20 25start time

MR_SEA_2MR_SEA_1

MR_SEAMR_SC

MR_IP_2MR_IP_1

MR_IPMR_ETF_2MR_ETF_1JP_ETW_2JP_ETW_1JP_ETE_2JP_ETE_1

Shell

0 5 10 15 20start time

SU_UPSU_SWPSU_STP

SU_PFSU_PC

SU_PAWSU_P8BSU_P8A

SU_P7SU_P6SU_P5

SU_P23SU_P1A

SU_LoonSU_IP

SU_CraneSU_CWP

SU_APISU_86SU_82

SU_300

Suncor

114

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

5 10 15start time

SY_WIP

SY_SWSS

SY_SWIP

SY_MLSB

SY_MLRCW

SY_MLR

SY_MLEFF

SY_EIP

SY_ASB

SY_ANRCW

SY_AIP

Syncrude

0 5 10 15 20start time

Ruth

Pop

K_Lk

K_Comp

JP_ETW

JP_ETE

JP_Comp

Isidore

Crane

Athabasca

University of Alberta

115

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 5. Detection rates (birds per hour or observation period) for each operator. Detections are restricted to water-associated birds. A. Total detection rate by operator by observation period relative to sunrise. Observation

periods are split into bins of 0.8 h (approximately 50 minutes) to support the creation of frequency histograms. A lowess smoother (a non-linear function that accommodates zero-truncation at sunrise) was fit to these distributions to identify the peak detection periods. One outlier was removed from Suncor (in which there were ~4000 detections in a single hour). B. Average number of detections per hour (± 95% CI) of all birds by time block.C. Average number of detections per observation period (± 95% CI) of water-associated birds by time block.D. Average number of detections per hour (± 95% CI) of all birds by time block and operator.E. Average number of detections per hour (± 95% CI) of water-associated birds by time block and operator.

116

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

A. Detection rate by operator by relative to sunrise

050

010

0015

000

500

1000

1500

0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20

CNRL Imperial Shell

Suncor Syncrude UA

tota

lrate

hrpostSRbandwidth = .8

Lowess smoother0

500

1000

1500

050

010

0015

00

0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20

CNRL Imperial Shell

Suncor Syncrude UA

tota

lrate

hrpostSRbandwidth = .8

Lowess smoother

Hours past sunrise

Hours past sunrise

117

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

earlyam lateam afternoon earlypm latepm

B. Detections by time block for all birds

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

earlyam lateam afternoon earlypm latepm

C. Detections by time block for water-associated birds

Det

ectio

ns/h

rD

etec

tions

/obs

erva

tion

peri

od

118

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

early

amla

team

afte

rnoo

nea

rlypm

late

pmea

rlyam

late

amaf

tern

oon

early

pmea

rlyam

late

amaf

tern

oon

early

pmla

tepm

early

amla

team

afte

rnoo

nea

rlypm

late

pmea

rlyam

late

amaf

tern

oon

early

amla

team

afte

rnoo

nea

rlypm

late

pm

CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

D. Detections by time block and operator for all birds

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

early

amla

team

afte

rnoo

nea

rlypm

late

pmea

rlyam

late

amaf

tern

oon

early

pmea

rlyam

late

amaf

tern

oon

early

pmla

tepm

early

amla

team

afte

rnoo

nea

rlypm

late

pmea

rlyam

late

amaf

tern

oon

early

amla

team

afte

rnoo

nea

rlypm

late

pm

CNRL Imperial Shell Suncor Syncrude UA

E. Detections by time block and operator for water-associated birds

Det

ectio

ns/h

rD

etec

tions

/hr

119

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 6. Migration chronology for each bird group (panels A – F). Bar height represents relative proportion of each species counted during a given month and week. Species and species group totals are in brackets.

A. Migration chronology of ducks

American Coot (83)

American Widgeon (2510)

Barrow's Goldeneye (28)

Blue-winged Teal (196)

Bufflehead (2244)

Canvasback (943)

Cinnamon Teal (4)

Common Goldeneye (1875)

Common Merganser (23)

Gadwall (344)

Greater Scaup (150)

Green-winged Teal (660)

Lesser Scaup (1394)

Long-tailed Duck (11)

Mallard (3082)

Northern Pintail (427)

Northern Shoveler (584)

Red-breasted Merganser (33)

Redhead (98)

Ring-necked Duck (579)

Ruddy Duck (115)

Surf Scoter (39)

Unknown Dabbling Duck (136)

Unknown Diving Duck (485)

Unknown Duck (8605)

Unknown Eider (2)

Unknown Merganser (2)

Unknown Scaup (1527)

Unknown Scoter (9)

Unknown Teal (3)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

April May June July August September October

White-winged Scoter (48)

120

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

B. Migration chronology of geese

C. Migration chronology of loons and grebes

Canada Goose (7650)

Greater White-fronted Goose (630)

Snow Goose (1270)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

April May June July August September October

Unknown Goose (334)

Common Loon (651)

Eared Grebe (9)

Horned Grebe (335)

Least Grebe (2)

Pacific Loon (2)

Pied-billed Grebe (11)

Red-necked Grebe (706)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

April May June July August September October

Unknown Grebe (5)

121

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

D. Migration chronology of gulls and terns

Black Tern (322)

Bonaparte's Gull (353)

California Gull (60)

Common Tern (171)

Franklin's Gull (62)

Herring Gull (49)

Ring-billed Gull (24)

Unknown Gull (1400)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

April May June July August September October

Unknown Tern (1)

122

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

E. Migration chronology of shorebirds

American Golden Plover (13)

Baird's Sandpiper (5)

Black-bellied Plover (6)

Greater Yellowlegs (61)

Killdeer (240)

Least Sandpiper (14)

Lesser Yellowlegs (342)

Pectoral Sandpiper (1)

Red-necked Phalarope (16)

Semipalmated Plover (4)

Semipalmated Sandpiper (5)

Short-billed Dowitcher (10)

Solitary Sandpiper (21)

Sora (36)

Spotted Sandpiper (207)

Unknown dowitcher (1)

Unknown Phalarope (1)

Unknown Plover (35)

Unknown Sandpiper (1334)

Unknown Shorebird (1135)

Unknown Yellowlegs (50)

Upland Sandpiper (1)

Wandering Tattler (1)

Wilson's Phalarope (4)

Wilson's Snipe (20)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

April May June July August September October

Yellow Rail (2)

123

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

F. Migration chronology of other water-associated birds

American Bittern (1)

American White Pelican (4)

Double-crested Cormorant (3)

Great Blue Heron (17)

Sandhill Crane (317)

Trumpeter Swan (9)

Tundra Swan (2)

Unknown (473)

Unknown Heron (5)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

April May June July August September October

Unknown Swan (5)

124

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

Figure 7. Mortality survey effort and number of dead birds recorded in total and per hour for each of the Oil Sands operators conducting mortality searches on process-affected water ponds in 2011.

A. Number of surveys (open bars) and total hours spent surveying (closed bars) for dead birds by operator. Imperial Oil’s Kearl Oil Sands Project was not in production in 2011, had no process-affected ponds, and therefore did not conduct mortality surveys.

B. Total number of dead birds found by each operator that conducted mortality surveys. CNRL did not report finding any dead birds.

C. Detection rate (no./hr) of dead birds by each operator that conducted mortality surveys. CNRL did not report finding any dead birds.

A. Mortality surveys by operator

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

CNRL Shell Suncor Syncrude

Mor

talit

y su

rvey

eff

ort

number of surveys total survey hours

125

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

B. Dead birds found by operator

0

5

10

15

20

25

Num

ber

dead

bir

ds

Shell Suncor Syncrude

126

Report on the 2011 Oil Sands Bird Contact Monitoring Plan

St. Clair, Habib, Loots, Ball, and McCallum

C. Detection rate of dead birds per hour by operator

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Ove

rall

dete

ctio

n ra

te (n

o./h

r)

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.02

Spec

ies o

r gr

oup

dete

ctio

n ra

te (n

o./h

r)

Shell Suncor Syncrude

127

Appendix A – Regional Map. Tailings ponds north of Fort McMurray, AB monitored as part of the Regional Bird Monitoring Program from April 1 – October 31, 2011 by industry and/or University of Alberta personnel. Ponds are colour-coded by operator, with reference ponds (i.e.those not containing process-affected water) labelled in italics. The Imperial External Tailings Area, marked with an asterisk, did not contain process-affected water in 2011 because the mine was still in pre-production, but in future years it will contain process-affected water. Note that University of Alberta personnel also monitored some industry ponds. Smaller ponds are indicated by points instead of outlines, and labels for some small ponds have been omitted for clarity. Background imagery is a Landsat 5 composite image captured on September 20, 2011 and obtained from the United States Geological Survey.

128

0 7 143.5 Km

_

"/

Pond 8B

West In-Pit

Pond 7

Tailings Pond

South Tailings Pond

Pond 6

Southwest Sand Storage

Mildred Lake Settling Basin

Pond 2/3

Aurora Settling Basin

In-Pit

Pond 5Southwest In-Pit

Pond 8A

External Tailings Facility

Aurora In-Pit

External Tailings East (MFT)

External Tailings Area*

SoutheastIn-Pit

Pond 1A

External TailingsWest (TT)

Pond 4G/4G2

South Extension Area

Seep Collection

Kearl Lake

Ruth Lake

Mildred Lake Reservoir

Poplar Reservoir

CNRL Compensation Lake

Crane Lake

JackpineCompensation

LakeKearl Compensation Lake

Loon Lake(Weir)

PAW

Dyke 10R2 Dump

Plant 86

PAW Pond

Plant 300

Mine Dump

CIBA Test

Storm Water

Coke Runoff

OPP Train 1OPP Train 2

Recycle Water

Sulphur Runoff

Seal Water Pond

Aurora Recycle Water

Mildred Lake Effluent

Mildred Lake Recycle Water

High

wa

y 63

CNRL

Imperial

Shell

Suncor

Syncrude (Aurora)

Syncrude (Mildred)

University of Alberta

Total Joslyn North Mine Future Pond Site

Ft. MacKay

McClelland Lake

0 10 205 Km

129

Appendix B – Pond Maps. Series of maps showing tailings ponds and process-affected water bodies monitored on each oil sands operator’s mine site as part of the Regional Bird Monitoring Program. All maps are presented at a 1:50,000 scale. Background imagery is a Landsat 5 composite image captured on September 20, 2011 and obtained from the United States Geological Survey. Observation points are indicated by yellow (industry) or green (University of Alberta) squares. Temporary observation points are labelled with a lowercase “t” following the point number. Industry sites also monitored by UA personnel are indicated with an asterisk. Red dots indicate propane cannons (with or without additional deterrents such as falcon or human effigies), and larger red pentagons indicate LRAD devices. Deterrent locations were provided by each operator based on positions at some point throughout the April 1 - October 31 monitoring season, although some minor movement of deterrents occurred throughout the season.

The effective acoustic radius around each deterrent was based on Golder (2000), which recommended a density of one propane cannon per 13 ha, corresponding to a 200-m radius around each cannon. The 200-m radius of this circle is expected to produce a sound level of 80 dB based on a propane cannon’s maximum sound level of 125 dB at the cannon and under ideal conditions (www.zoncannon.com). An LRAD unit is capable of producing 153 dB (www.lradx.com), resulting in a maximum effective (i.e. 80 dB) radius of 4500 m under ideal conditions. Because the directionality of each deterrent was not known, we extended the effective radius a full 360° to obtain their effective area. These 80 dB buffers are indicated withtranslucent yellow circles.

130

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

Dyke 10

R-2 Basal Dump

Tailings Pond #4

Tailings Pond #3

Tailings Pond #2

Tailings Pond #1

Basal Water Pond

R-2 Emergency Eump

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

CNRL

131

0 1 20.5 Km

")$+$+

$+$+

External Tailings Area

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Imperial

132

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")Kearl Lake

Kearl Compensation Lake*

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Imperial

133

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")Jackpine Compensation Lake

External Tailings West (TT) #2*

External Tailings West (TT) #1*

External Tailings East (MFT) #2*

External Tailings East (MFT) #1*

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Shell (Jackpine)

134

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")

In-Pit #1

South Extension Area #2

South Extension Area #1

External Tailings Facility #2

External Tailings Facility #1

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Shell (Muskeg River)

135

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

Pond F

Pond CPond 5

Pond 1A

Plant 86

Plant 82

Plant 300Pond 7 #1

Pond 8B #2

Pond 8A #1

Pond 7 #2t

Pond 2/3 #2

Upgrader Ponds

Poplar Reservoir

Loon Lake (Weir)

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Suncor

136

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

") ")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")Pond F

Pond CPond 5

Pond 1A

Plant 82

Ink Pond

Plant 300Pond 7 #1

Pond 6 #2

Pond 6 #1

Pond 7 #2t

Pond 2/3 #2Pond 2/3 #1

Crane Lake*Upgrader Ponds

Seal Water Pond

Loon Lake (Weir)

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Suncor

137

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")PAW

Pond 8B #3

Pond 8B #2

Pond 8B #1

Pond 8A #2

Pond 8A #1

South Tailings Pond #2

South Tailings Pond #1

South Tailings Pond #3t

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Suncor

138

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")

") ")

Aurora In-Pit #2

Aurora In-Pit #1

Aurora Recycle Water

Aurora Settling Basin #3

Aurora Settling Basin #2

Aurora Settling Basin #1

Jackpine Compensation Lake

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Syncrude (Aurora)

139

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")Ruth Lake

West In-Pit #3

West In-Pit #2

West In-Pit #1

Southwest In-Pit #2

Southwest In-Pit #1

Southeast In-Pit #2

Southeast In-Pit #1

Mildred Lake Effluent

Mildred Lake Reservoir

Mildred Lake Recycle Water

Mildred Lake Settling Basin #2

Mildred Lake Settling Basin #1

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Syncrude (Mildred)

140

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")

")")

")

")

Southeast In-Pit #2Mildred Lake Effluent

Mildred Lake Reservoir

Mildred Lake Recycle Water

Mildred Lake Settling Basin #3

Mildred Lake Settling Basin #2

Mildred Lake Settling Basin #1

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Syncrude (Mildred)

141

0 1 20.5 Km

")

")

")Southwest Sand Storage #3

Southwest Sand Storage #2

Southwest Sand Storage #1

0 1 20.5 Km

Deterrent (Cannon)

$+ Deterrent (LRAD)

") Observation Point

") Observation Point (UA Only)

80 dB Sound Buffer

Syncrude (Mildred)

142

143

144

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofitpublishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access tocritical research.

Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds inNortheastern Alberta, CanadaAuthor(s) :Kevin P. Timoney and Robert A. RonconiSource: The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 122(3):569-576. 2010.Published By: The Wilson Ornithological SocietyDOI: 10.1676/09-181.1URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1676/09-181.1

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in thebiological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable onlineplatform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated contentindicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercialuse. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to theindividual publisher as copyright holder.

ANNUAL BIRD MORTALITY IN THE BITUMEN TAILINGS PONDS IN

NORTHEASTERN ALBERTA, CANADA

KEVIN P. TIMONEY1,3 AND ROBERT A. RONCONI2

ABSTRACT.—Open pit bitumen extraction is capable of causing mass mortality events of resident and migratory birds.

We investigated annual avian mortality in the tailings ponds of the Athabasca tar sands region, in northeastern Alberta,

Canada. We analyzed three types of data: government-industry reported mortalities; empirical studies of bird deaths at

tailings ponds; and rates of landing, oiling, and mortality to quantify annual bird mortality due to exposure to tailings ponds.

Ad hoc self-reported data from industry indicate an annual mortality due to tailings pond exposure in northeastern Alberta

of 65 birds. The self-reported data were internally inconsistent and appeared to underestimate actual mortality. Scientific

data indicate an annual mortality in the range of 458 to 5,029 birds, which represents an unknown fraction of true mortality.

Government-overseen monitoring within a statistically valid design, standardized across all facilities, is needed. Systematic

monitoring and accurate, timely reporting would provide data useful to all concerned with bird conservation and

management in the tar sands region. Received 17 November 2009. Accepted 5 May 2010.

Global demand for unconventional energy

sources such as coal bed methane, heavy oil,

and bitumen has grown in recent years. Bitumen

in northern Alberta, Canada, is extracted by two

methods, in situ well-based approaches and truck

and shovel open pit mining. The latter method

produces ‘‘tails’’ during separation of bitumen

from the sand. The tails, a mixture of process-

affected water, residual hydrocarbons, brine, silts

and clays, and metals are discharged into tailings

ponds. The extent of tailings ponds in northeastern

Alberta grew by 422% between 1992 and 2008

(Timoney and Lee 2009). The Athabasca tar sands

development is one of the largest energy projects

in the world. Production of bitumen is predicted to

rise from the current 1.3 million barrels/day to

three million barrels/day by 2018 (Alberta Energy

2009).

Water bodies along migration routes attract

many bird species as they afford foraging,

roosting, nesting, and resting opportunities (Ron-

coni 2006). A variety of deterrents have been used

to discourage waterbirds from landing in tailings

ponds such as floating and beach effigies, propane

scare cannons, and sound-producing systems

(Boag and Lewin 1980, Golder Associates Ltd.

2000, Ronconi and St. Clair 2006). Some birds

that land at tailings ponds become oiled and a

proportion of the oiled birds later die. Bird

mortality rates from oiling have not been precisely

measured, but casualties appear to be high for

gregarious species, particularly for diving birds

(Clark 1984). Bird migration is affected by

weather as birds are more likely to land when

they encounter headwinds, low temperatures, and

precipitation (Newton 2007). Storms may increase

the likelihood of bird oiling at tailings ponds

(Ronconi 2006), and inclement weather may

increase the probability of mass mortality events.

Oiled ducks may suffer from reduced insula-

tion, increased metabolic rate, and hypothermia

even from small amounts of oil (Hartung 1967,

McEwan and Koelink 1973). Survival rates of

rehabilitated birds may be as low as 1 to 20% for

some species (Mead 1997). Birds from 43 species

have died due to exposure to tailings ponds in the

area, mostly waterbirds such as dabblers and

divers: Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Common

Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), Northern Shov-

eler (Anas clypeata), Lesser Scaup (Aythya

affinis), American Coot (Fulica americana),

grebes, mergansers, geese, and shorebirds includ-

ing Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla),

Pectoral Sandpiper (C. melanotos), Stilt Sandpiper

(C. himantopus), and Lesser and Greater Yellow-

legs (Tringa flavipes, T. melanoleuca) (Sharp et

al. 1975, Dyke et al. 1976, Gulley 1980, Ronconi

2006). Deaths of birds of prey, gulls, passerines,

and other groups have also been documented.

Mortality rates may be high even at small ponds:

27 dead birds were found at a 0.4-ha tailings pond

lacking deterrents (Dyke et al. 1976). There may

be continual ‘‘incidental take’’ of birds during the

open water season, especially at night when

human observations are impractical. Oiled birds

in tailings ponds have been observed to sink out of

1 Treeline Ecological Research, 21551 Township Road

520, Sherwood Park, AB T8E 1E3, Canada.2 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355

Oxford Street, Halifax, NS B3H 4J1, Canada.3 Corresponding author;

e-mail: ktimoney@interbaun.com

The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(3):569–576, 2010

569

sight (Dyke et al. 1976), minimizing the chance ofdetection.

Our objective was to provide estimates ofannual bird mortality resulting from bitumentailings pond exposure in northeastern Alberta,Canada through synthesis and analysis of avail-able data. These data included numbers reportedby industry to government and scientific data onmortality and landing rates at tailings ponds.

METHODS

Study Area.—We studied avian mortality in theAthabasca bitumen (tar) sands region (geographiccenter at 57u 039 N, 111u 319 W, Fig. 1) in thelower Athabasca River watershed north of the cityof Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. The120.6 km2 of tailings ponds within the area ofopen pit mining, as of March 2008, covered 1.4times the area of natural water bodies (84.9 km2)composed of the surface of the Athabasca River(50.4 km2) and lakes, ponds, and other riversurfaces (34.5 km2) (Timoney and Lee 2009; KPTand RAR, unpubl. data). The area lies within aconvergence zone of North American waterfowlflyways; millions of birds migrate throughnortheastern Alberta en route to and from localand distant breeding areas in northern Alberta, thePeace-Athabasca Delta, Mackenzie River Valley,and the arctic (Butterworth et al. 2002, Thomas2002, USDI 2009b). Thirty-five species andspecies groups of waterbirds, and 29 other specieshave been observed on one lease (Syncrude # 17)at the natural water body Mildred Lake (Sharp etal. 1975). More than 16,000 birds were observedflying over one tailings pond during springmigration (Ronconi and St. Clair 2006) whilemore than 25,000 swans, geese, ducks, SandhillCranes (Grus canadensis), and gulls were ob-served in daylight during a fall migration atSyncrude Lease # 17 (McLaren and McLaren1985). The total number of migratory birdspassing through the lower Athabasca River Valleyis unknown.

Data Collection and Analyses.—Spot censusesand shoreline searches for dead birds of varyingduration, extent, and frequency at tailings pondsof known areal extent during the open-waterseason (Gulley 1980, Van Meer and Arner 1985)were used to calculate bird mortalities per km2

from which mortalities were adjusted to the 2008areal extent of tailings ponds. Mortality data werecollated from three companies with tailings ponds(Suncor 1990–2008, Syncrude 2000–2007, and

Shell Albian 2000–2008). Data were obtained

from reports produced by the companies (Syn-

crude 2008), and from the Alberta government

(Sustainable Resources Development) under a

freedom of information request (K. P. Timoney,

October 2008). These data, reported by company,

year, and mortality type were analyzed to obtain

mean annual mortality. We estimated the total

number of birds landing and subjected to oiling

during spring migration at the Albian Sands

Muskeg River Mine: landings/hr (from Ronconi

and St. Clair 2006) and oiled birds/day (from

Ronconi 2006).

RESULTS

Mortality Rates Estimated by Systematic Sur-

veys.—Systematic surveys for dead birds at

tailings ponds (Table 1), used to calculate mor-

tality per km2 (range 7.2 to 145.2 birds), were

extrapolated to estimate total potential mortality

based on 120.6 km2 of tailings ponds in 2008. An

estimate based on the lowest observed mortality at

FIG. 1. Study area (modified from Timoney and Lee

2009). Areas (as of 19 March 2008) undergoing bitumen

extraction are hachured; tailings ponds are black. Tailings

pond names are MLSB 5 Mildred Lake Settling Basin;

ANTP 5 Aurora North tailings pond; SATP 5 Shell Albian

tailings pond; TIP 5 Tar Island Ponds 1 and 1A; 8AEML 5

Suncor Millennium tailings ponds 8A and EML.

570 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 122, No. 3, September 2010

Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Settling Basin (MLSB)

of 7.2 birds/km2 in 1985 yielded an annual

mortality of 863 birds. A medium estimate based

on Syncrude’s MLSB (1980–1985) average mor-

tality of 13.38 birds/km2 yielded an annual

mortality of 1,614 birds. A high estimate based

on the weighted mean mortality rate for all years

at Syncrude’s MLSB and Suncor’s Tar Island

Ponds 1 and 1A of 41.7 birds/km2 yielded an

annual mortality of 5,029 birds.

Industry-based Annual Mortality Reported

to Government.—Annual mortality attributed to

oiling over the period 2000 to 2007 ranged from

17 to 201 birds. The weighted mean (6 SD)

annual mortality was 65 6 59 birds. (Table 2).

Additional annual mortalities attributed to ‘other’

and to ‘unknown’ causes (details in Table 2)

averaged (6 SD) 13 6 9 (max 31 in 2007) and 16

6 9 birds, respectively. Industry data had poor

agreement with the government data released

under the freedom of information request (Ta-

ble 3); the mean difference was 19%.

Annual Bird Mortality Estimated by Landing

and Oiling Rates.—A spring landing rate of

121.44 birds/day in a 3.5 km2 tailings pond was

calculated, resulting in an estimated rate of 34.69

landings/km2/day during daylight hours only (low

estimate, Table 4). We calculated 54.93 landings/day (109.86 landings/km2/day) (high estimate,Table 4) from observations at a 0.50-km2 areawhere deterrent testing occurred (RAR, unpubl.data not previously reported in Ronconi and St.Clair 2006). Scaling for the total area of tailingsponds in 2008, about 125,513 to 397,408 birdsmay land during a 30-day spring migration period.Thirteen oiled waterbirds and shorebirds werefound during the same period and at the same site(Ronconi 2006), most of which were covered in.50% oil, from which oilings/day and theproportion of landed birds becoming oiled werecalculated (Table 4). We estimate that 286 to 905birds may be oiled during spring migration at anoverall oiling rate of 0.2278% for birds thatlanded on ponds. About 229 to 815 birds may dieeach spring due to oiling if an oiled bird is unableto land more than once, and 80 to 90% of oiledbirds die (Discussion).

DISCUSSION

Uncertainties in Mortality Estimates.—Birdoilings may peak in August and September ratherthan in spring (Van Meer and Arner 1985), and itis reasonable to double the spring mortality toderive an annual mortality of ,458 to 1,630 birds.

TABLE 1. Estimated annual bird mortality/km2/year in the Athabasca tar sands tailings ponds based on spot counts and

systematic shoreline surveys.

Site Area (km2)a YearDeadbirds

Deadbirds/km2 Referencec Comments

MLSB 12.25 1984 94 7.68 1, 3 scare cannons, human effigies

MLSB 11.74 1985 84 7.15 1, 3 scare cannons, human effigies

MLSB 11.58 1980–1983b 189.5 16.36 1, 3 scare cannons, human effigies

Pond 1 1.86 1977 77 41.40 2 human effigies; fresh tailings received 95% of

days (Apr–Oct)

Pond 1 1.86 1978 79 42.47 2 human effigies; fresh tailings received 100% of

days (Apr–Oct)

Pond 1 1.86 1979 270 145.16 2 human effigies with artificial lighting at night;

fresh tailings received 92% of days (Apr–Oct)

Pond 1A 0.56 1977 43 76.79 2 deterrents?d; fresh tailings received 34% of days

(Apr–Oct)

Pond 1A 0.56 1978 31 55.36 2 deterrents?d; fresh tailings received 25% of days

(Apr–Oct)

Pond 1A 0.56 1979 33 58.93 2 deterrents?d; fresh tailings received 0% of days

(Apr–Oct)

aAreas of MLSB derived from planimetry of airphotographs (1980, AS2165-13; 1984, AS3051-5; 1986, AS3356-280; Ponds 1 and 1A areas derived from Gulley

(1980).b

Dead birds/year 1980–1983 derived mathematically from reported values for 1984 and 1980–1984 (Van Meer and Arner 1985): 1980–1984 average mortality of170.4 birds/year; total birds dying 1980–1984 5 170.4 3 5 5 852 birds; 1984 mortality of 94 birds; 1980–1983 average mortality 5 (852 2 94)/4 5 189.5 birds/year, or 16.36 birds/km2; the average weighted mean mortality 1980–1985 5 ((16.36 3 4) + 7.68 + 7.15)/6 5 13.38 birds/km2. The high estimate of annual mortalityis the weighted mean mortality per km2; it is the sum of 500.38 birds/km2 for 12 years of data (1980–1983 comprises 4 years of data), 500.38/12 5 41.70 birds/km2.

cReferences: 1 5 Van Meer and Arner (1985); 2 5 Gulley (1980); 3 5 Golder Associates Ltd. (2000).

dQueries sent to Suncor (17 Nov to 12 Dec 2008) regarding deterrents in use on Pond 1A during 1977–1979; no reply received to date (4 May 2010).

Timoney and Ronconi N BIRD MORTALITY AT TAILINGS PONDS 571

This adjustment to the mortality estimate may be

conservative as it does not include mortalities that

occur before spring, between spring and fall

migration, and after fall migration. Annual

tailings pond mortality estimates derived from

mortality surveys (863 to 5,029 birds) and

landing-oiling rates (458 to 1,630 birds) are

roughly of the same magnitude. Self-reported

oiling mortality data from industry provide the

lowest estimate (65 bird deaths/year) whereas

Wells et al. (2008) provide a high estimate of

8,676 to 156,168 bird deaths/year. Wells et al.

(2008) assumed that all birds that land at tailings

ponds are oiled and that peak landing rates exist

24 hrs/day for 100 days. Our mortality estimates

may be conservative given that 500,000 to one

million birds die annually at oilfield wastewater

ponds in the United States (USDI 2009a). Those

wastewater ponds are similar to bitumen tailings

ponds in their mixture of water, residual oil or

bitumen, and salts.

The presence of extensive tailings ponds

TABLE 2. Bird mortalities attributed to oiling, ‘other’ and ‘unknown’ causes released by the Alberta Government for

petroleum companies with tailings ponds in northeastern Alberta.a

Year

Oilingb Other Unknown

Suncor Syncrude Albianb Suncor Syncrude Albian Suncor Syncrude Albian

1990 103 0 0

1991 93 0 0

1992 194 0 2

1993 135 0 4

1994 87 0 1

1995 43 0 0

1996 72 0 4

1997 71 0 6

1998 80 0 3

1999 48 0 10

2000 193 8 0 2 1 12 7 0

2001 2 15 0 2 0 23 3 0

2002 17 20 1 6 3 1 2 1

2003 15 16 17 2 23 3 2 5 0

2004 10 33 2 0 5 2 2 9 1

2005 3 8 14 2 18 2 1 16 1

2006 3 57 3 4 8 7 3 8 4

2007 9 10 26 1 7 6 6 19 6

2008c 16 4 0 2 1 0 2 4

Recent Mean 6

SDb

31.5 6

65.5

20.9 6

16.7

12.4 6

10.0

1.2 6

1.4

8.9 6

7.6

3.0 6

2.4

6.2 6

7.7

8.6 6

6.0

1.6 6

2.2

a‘Other’ includes electrocution, collisions, predation, fights with other birds, and natural causes; ‘Unknown’ includes incidents where company was not able to

identify cause of death and incidents where cause of death was not reported.b

Tailings pond at Shell Albian began to fill in 2003; mortality due to oiling not expected prior to 2003. Calculations of recent tailings pond mortalities used years2000–2007 for Suncor and Syncrude and years 2003–2007 for Shell Albian. Mortality means for ‘other’ and ‘unknown’ use the period 2000–2007. Mortality meansare for each company and mortality type. Average mortalities by year, 2000–2007, oiling 64.8 6 58.7, other 13.1 6 9.3, and unknown 16.5 6 9.1.

cValues for 2008 were ‘year to date’ current to July 2008 with the exception of Syncrude for which the death of 1,606 ducks at the Aurora North tailings pond in

April 2008 was not made public until 2009.

TABLE 3. Annual bird mortality at Syncrudea as reported by the Alberta government and by Syncrude (2008).

Source

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Alberta Government 17 20 28 44 47 42 73 36

Syncrude 20 21 31 44 69 55 46 35

Differenceb, % 218 25 211 0 247 231 37 3

aCombined Mildred Lake and Aurora leases.

bDifference 5 (Government 2 Syncrude/Government) 3 100; mean difference without regard to sign 5 19%.

572 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 122, No. 3, September 2010

containing bitumen, polycyclic aromatic hydro-carbons (PAHs), naphthenic acids, brine, heavymetals, and ammonia along an internationallysignificant migratory bird corridor poses long-term threats to migratory and resident birds(Schick and Ambrock 1974, Wells et al. 2008).Tailings ponds may pose the greatest threat inspring when warm effluent-fed tailings pondsprovide open water at a time when natural waterbodies remain frozen; however, a high risk ofoiling may extend throughout the open waterseason (Van Meer and Arner 1985).

There are four aspects of our estimates thatinfluence their accuracy. First, no nocturnalobservations of migrating or landing birds weremade. Many birds migrate at night (Richardson1971, Blokpoel 1973, Blokpoel and Burton 1973),but landing rates during darkness are unknown.Many birds migrate at night and mortality ratesmight be higher if data from night-time observa-tions were available. There are also no observa-tions for November through early April, whennatural water bodies are frozen but large areas oftailings ponds remain unfrozen due to addition ofwarm tailings. The frequency of landings then isunknown, but is presumably greater than zero forresident birds. Higher rates of nocturnal landingsand landings in non-migratory periods wouldincrease our estimates.

A second source of estimation error is thatnumbers of birds flying over, landing, becomingoiled, or being found dead are an unknownfraction of the true parameter values. Some ofthese parameters were estimated from the mostrecent and systematically collected data available(e.g., Ronconi 2006, Ronconi and St. Clair 2006);however, without data from other sites and years,

there is no means to assess variation in rates ofbirds landing, becoming oiled, or dying.

Third, we assumed a mortality rate of 80 to90% for birds that came in contact with oil.Mortality rates of oiled birds are unknown (Clark1984), but even very small amounts of oil may killbirds (Hartung 1967, McEwan and Koelink 1973)and survival rates of rehabilitated oiled birds maybe as low as 1 to 20% (Mead 1997). Our estimatesassume a small proportion (10–20%) of oiledbirds may survive oiling.

Finally, by scaling our estimates from individ-ual tailings ponds to the areal extent of tailingsponds in the region, we assumed that bird use andassociated mortalities are similar across sites. Thisassumption remains untested and, for somespecies such as shorebirds, the extent of shorelinecontaminated with bitumen may be a betterpredictor of mortality than extent of open water.

Individual events may result in large variationsin mortality. A migratory waterfowl mortalityevent at the Syncrude Aurora North tailings pondoccurred in April 2008 at which 1,606 deadwaterfowl were later found (CBC 2008, 2010).Provided that all dead waterfowl were found andno non-waterfowl died, the single event resultedin a mortality of 162 birds/km2 well in excess ofour highest estimate (Table 1). The frequency ofmass mortality events is unknown.

Inconsistencies and Deficiencies in ReportingBird Mortality.—We note three major shortcom-ings in the data provided by government andindustry. First, mortality estimates based onmortality surveys and landing/oiling rates are farhigher than those reported by government.Second, industry-reported mortalities often donot match mortalities reported by the government

TABLE 4. Rates of landing and the proportion of birds that subsequently become oiled at Shell Albian Sands tailings

pond during April–May 2003.a

Number ofbirds landing Landings/hr Landings/dayc Oiled birds Oilings/day

% Landed birdsthat became oiled

Ducks 536 3.99 63.69 7 0.149 0.23

Shorebirds 444 3.30 52.76 4 0.085 0.16

Geese/Swans 10 0.07 1.19 1 0.021 1.79

Gulls 13 0.10 1.54 1 0.021 1.38

Other waterbirds b 19 0.14 2.26 0 0.000 0.00

Overall 1,022 7.60 121.44 13 0.277 0.23

aData compiled from spring migration studies in the 3.5 km2 main tailings pond at Shell Albian Sands, Muskeg River Mine (Ronconi 2006, Ronconi and St. Clair

2006) yielding a low estimate of 34.69 landings/km2/day; there were 54.93 landings/day within the 0.50 km2 observation area yielding a high estimate of 109.86landings/km2/day; 47 days of observation for oiled birds.

bLoons, grebes, cranes, herons, cormorants, and coots.

cObservations for daylight hours only; average 15.97 hrs of daylight between 18 April and 29 May, 134.4 hrs of observation (source: www.almanac.com/rise for

Fort McMurray, AB, Canada).

Timoney and Ronconi N BIRD MORTALITY AT TAILINGS PONDS 573

(Table 3), even though government and industrynumbers should be identical. Third, the birdmortality data released by government lack detail.Only company name and total bird mortality foreach year and general cause of death are reported;this results in loss of valuable data on location,date, and circumstances of specific incidents.

Sampling design, including appropriate samplesize, sampling effort, and accurate detection andidentification of species is a critical aspect of aneffective monitoring protocol (McComb et al.2010). Numbers of bird mortalities are directlyrelated to search effort and sampling design.Industry-reported data on bird deaths are prob-lematic as they are not systematic, repeatable, andstatistically robust. Review of mortality data inSyncrude annual reports indicates that few of theobservations come from tailings ponds, which islikely where most oiled birds die. Syncrude (2006,2008) reported underestimating mortality whenexplaining an increasing trend in bird mortality inrecent years as partially attributable to improvedmonitoring and reporting practices.

The Need for Improved Data.—Currently,neither the total number of birds migratingthrough the region nor the total annual birdmortality attributable to tailings ponds are knownwith sufficient scientific rigor. Data on mortalitiesduring extreme weather events are lacking. Thefate of lightly-oiled birds that continue migration,in particular to summer breeding areas, isunknown. Important questions remain about thevariability in landing and oiling probability withseason, weather conditions, time of day, and pondsize and location. Questions also remain aboutmortality detection efficiency in relation tosampling effort, monitoring protocols, and tailingspond size. The ad hoc monitoring by industry,sanctioned by government, is inconsistent, cannotanswer these questions, and undoubtedly under-estimates actual mortality.

CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

The pace and scale of development of theAthabasca tar sands is unprecedented in NorthAmerican history. The industrial footprint andresultant habitat loss may double in 15 years andwill certainly increase bird mortality rates. Openpit bitumen extraction may exert population-levelimpacts upon migratory and resident birds, and iscapable of causing mass mortality events. Existingnatural water bodies should be protected to helpoffset landings of birds in tailings ponds (Ronconi

2006). Production of liquid tailings should bephased-out before this expansion of the industryoccurs.

Tailings ponds exceed the extent of naturalwater bodies in the area, continue to increase inextent, and lie along an internationally significantflyway; thus, they may pose a significant regionalmortality risk. Harmful effects of tailings pondsare not limited to oiling of waterbirds. Ingestionof bitumen grit by waterfowl may be a significantroute of exposure to contaminants (King andBendell-Young 2000). Nesting Tree Swallows(Tachycineta bicolor) exposed to process-affectedwetlands have higher mortality, hormonal stress,nestling parasitism, and reduced nesting success(Wayland and Smits 2004, Gentes 2006). Theeffects were attributed to PAH exposure, possiblythrough feeding on contaminated insects.

A variety of strategies have been tested toreduce the attraction of birds to industrialdevelopments (Brough and Bridgman 1980,Stevens and Clark 1997, Read 1999; and reviewsby Bomford and O’Brien 1990, Donato et al.2007). The tar sands industry in northeasternAlberta has been using landing deterrents such aspropane cannons and scarecrows for .30 years(Boag and Lewin 1980, Gulley 1980, GolderAssociates Ltd. 2000). One of the long-standingproblems of bird deterrents is habituation (Bom-ford and O’Brien 1990, Stickley et al. 1995,Conover 2001). A recent comparison of moderndeterrent techniques found the odds of landing at‘‘protected’’ bitumen tailings ponds remainedhigh relative to non-deterrent controls (Ronconiand St. Clair 2006). Overall, these authorsobserved no significant difference in the deter-rence value of industry standard versus radar-activated systems. The effectiveness of existingdeterrents may be enhanced with development ofcompensation ponds (Read 1999, Donato et al.2007), providing clean water and a positivestimulus for birds deterred from tailings ponds.

Government should assume responsibility fordevelopment of systematic monitoring and re-search on tailings pond bird landing, oiling, andmortality rates. The work should be conducted byindependent scientists using a statistically validsampling design with emphasis on spring and fallmigration. A rigorous and systematic monitoringplan standardized across all facilities is likely toyield a better understanding of the factorscontributing to avian mortality at tailings pondsthan ad hoc monitoring. These data would be

574 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 122, No. 3, September 2010

valuable to development and refinement of

effective mitigation strategies (e.g., deterrentsand compensation ponds) as a component of an

adaptive management approach towards reducing

avian mortalities. Well-designed monitoring pro-grams help managers and policy makers to reach

informed decisions based on facts (McComb et al.

2010). Systematic monitoring and accurate, time-ly reporting would provide data useful to all

concerned with bird conservation and manage-ment in the tar sands region.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank C. C. St. Clair, the editor, and two anonymous

reviewers for helpful comments that improved this

manuscript. RAR was supported by the Killam Trust,

Dalhousie University, during the writing of this paper.

LITERATURE CITED

ALBERTA ENERGY. 2009. Oil sands. Alberta Energy,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

BLOKPOEL, H. 1973. Bird migration forecasts for military

air operations. Occasional Paper 16. Canadian Wildlife

Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

BLOKPOEL, H. AND J. BURTON. 1973. Weather and height of

nocturnal migration in east-central Alberta: a radar

study. Bird Banding 46:311–328.

BOAG, D. A. AND V. LEWIN. 1980. Effectiveness of three

waterfowl deterrents on natural and polluted ponds.

Journal of Wildlife Management 44:145–154.

BOMFORD, M. AND P. H. O’BRIEN. 1990. Sonic deterrents in

animal damage control: a review of device tests and

effectiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:411–422.

BROUGH T. AND C. J. BRIDGMAN. 1980. An evaluation of

long grass as a bird deterrent on British airfields.

Journal of Applied Ecology 17:243–253.

BUTTERWORTH, E., A. LEACH, M. GENDRON, B. POLLARD,

AND G. R. STEWART. 2002. Peace-Athabasca Delta

Waterbird Inventory Program: 1998–2001. Ducks

Unlimited Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CBC). 2008.

Few survivors after 500 ducks take dip in Alberta oil

sands waste. CBC News, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/04/30/ducks-

follo.html?ref5rss

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CBC). 2010.

Syncrude ducks death trial. CBC News, Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/

story/2010/03/24/f-edmonton-indepth-syncrude-ducks-

trial.html

CLARK, R. B. 1984. Impact of oil pollution on seabirds.

Environmental Pollution (Series A) 33:1–22.

CONOVER, M. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts:

the science of wildlife damage management. CRC

Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

DONATO, D. B., O. NICHOLS, H. POSSINGHAM, M. MOORE,

P. F. RICCI, AND B. N. NOLLER. 2007. A critical review

of the effects of gold cyanide-bearing tailings solutions

on wildlife. Environment International 33:974–984.

DYKE, G. R., D. A. BIRDSALL, AND P. L. SHARP. 1976. Test

of a bird deterrent device at a tailings pond, Athabasca

Oil Sands, 1974. Professional Paper 1976-1. Syncrude

Canada Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

GENTES, M.-L. 2006. Health assessment of Tree Swallows

(Tachycineta bicolor) nesting on Athabasca oil sands,

Alberta. Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saska-

toon, Canada.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. 2000. Report on oil sands

tailings pond bird deterrent systems–a review of

research and current practices. Suncor Energy Inc.

(Oil Sands), Syncrude Canada Ltd., and Albian Sands

Energy Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

GULLEY, J. 1980. Factors influencing the efficacy of human

effigies in deterring waterfowl from polluted ponds.

Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

HARTUNG, R. 1967. Energy metabolism in oil-covered

ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 31:798–804.

KING, J. AND L. I. BENDELL-YOUNG. 2000. The toxicolog-

ical significance of grit ingestion to juvenile Mallard

ducklings. Journal of Wildlife Management 192:181–

193.

MCCOMB, B., B. ZUCKERBERG, D. VESELY, AND C. JORDAN.

2010. Monitoring animal populations and their habi-

tats: a practitioner’s guide. CRC Press, Boca Raton,

Florida, USA.

MCEWAN, E. H. AND A. F. C. KOELINK. 1973. The heat

production of oiled Mallards and scaup. Canadian

Journal of Zoology 51:27–31.

MCLAREN, M. A. AND P. L. MCLAREN. 1985. Bird

migration watches on Crown Lease 17, Alberta, Fall

1984. Environmental Research Monograph 1985-2.

Syncrude Canada Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

MEAD, C. 1997. Poor prospects for oiled birds. Nature

390:449–450.

NEWTON, I. 2007. The migration ecology of birds. Elsevier

Ltd., New York, USA.

READ, J. L. 1999. A strategy for minimizing waterfowl

deaths on toxic ponds. Journal of Applied Ecology

36:345–350.

RICHARDSON, W. J. 1971. Spring migration and weather in

eastern Canada: a radar study. American Birds

25:684–690.

RONCONI, R. A. 2006. Predicting bird oiling events at oil

sands tailings ponds and assessing the importance of

alternate waterbodies for waterfowl: a preliminary

assessment. Canadian Field-Naturalist 120:1–9.

RONCONI, R. A. AND C. C. ST. CLAIR. 2006. Efficacy of a

radar-activated on-demand system for deterring wa-

terfowl from oil sands tailings ponds. Journal of

Applied Ecology 43:111–119.

SCHICK, C. D. AND K. R. AMBROCK. 1974. Waterfowl

investigations in the Athabasca Tar Sands Area.

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

SHARP, P. L., D. A. BIRDSALL, AND W. J. RICHARDSON.

1975. Inventory studies of birds on and near Crown

Lease Number 17, Athabasca Tar Sands, 1974.

Environmental Research Monograph 1975-4. Syn-

crude Canada Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Timoney and Ronconi N BIRD MORTALITY AT TAILINGS PONDS 575

STEVENS, R. G. AND L. CLARK. 1998. Bird repellents:

development of avian-specific tear gases for resolution

of human-wildlife conflicts. International Biodeterio-

ration and Biodegradation 42:153–160.

STICKLEY, A. R., D. F. MOTT, AND J. O. KING. 1995. Short-

term effects of an inflatable effigy on cormorants at

catfish farms. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:73–77.

SYNCRUDE. 2006. Annual report of oil sands development

in 2005 and projected for 2006, Mildred Lake Oil

Sands Mine. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Al-

berta, Canada.

SYNCRUDE. 2008. 2007 Annual reclamation progress

tracking report, Mildred Lake and Aurora North oil

sands mines. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Canada.

THOMAS, R. 2002. An updated, provisional bird inventory

for the Peace-Athabasca Delta, northeastern Alberta.

BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

TIMONEY, K. P. AND P. LEE. 2009. Does the Alberta tar

sands industry pollute? The scientific evidence. The

Open Conservation Biology Journal 3:65–81.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (USDI). 2009a. Migratory

bird mortality in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyo-

ming, USA. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/

contaminants/contaminants1b.html

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (USDI). 2009b. Waterfowl

breeding population and habitat survey strata esti-

mates, Strata 13–18, 20, and 77. USDI, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Patuxent, Maryland, USA. http://

mbdcapps.fws.gov/

VAN MEER, T. AND B. ARNER. 1985. Bird surveillance and

protection programme, summary of 1984 and 1985

activities. Syncrude Canada Ltd., Calgary, Alberta,

Canada.

WAYLAND, M. AND J. SMITS. 2004. The ecological viability

of constructed wetlands at Suncor: population and

health-related considerations in birds. Task 5. Pages

48–61 in Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative: collec-

tive findings. Assessment of natural and anthropogenic

impacts of oil sands contaminants within the Northern

River Basins (F. M. CONLY, Compiler). Environment

Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

WELLS, J., S. CASEY-LEFKOWITZ, G. CHAVARRIA, AND S.

DYER. 2008. Impact on birds of tar sands oil

development in Canada’s boreal forest. Natural

Resources Defense Council, New York, USA.

576 THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY N Vol. 122, No. 3, September 2010

Abstract Oil production operations produce waste

fluids that may be stored in pits, open tanks, and other

sites accessible to wildlife. Birds visit these fluid-filled

pits and tanks (‘‘oil pits’’), which often resemble water

sources, and may become trapped and die. The US Fish

andWildlife Service (USFWS) has a program to reduce

these impacts by locating problem pits, documenting

mortality of protected wildlife species, and seeking

cleanup or corrective action at problem pits with the

help of state and federal agencies regulating the oil

industry. Species identification and verification of pro-

tected status for birds recovered from oil pits are per-

formed at the USFWS National Fish and Wildlife

Forensics Laboratory. From 1992 to 2005, aminimum of

2060 individual birds were identified from remains

recovered fromoil pits, representing 172 species from 44

families. The taxonomic and ecological diversity of

these birds indicates that oil pits pose a threat to virtually

all species of birds that encounter them. Ninety-two

percent of identified bird remains belonged to protected

species. Most remains identified at the Forensics Labo-

ratory were from passerines, particularly ground-for-

aging species. Based on Forensics Laboratory and

USFWS field data, oil pits currently cause the deaths

of 500,000–1 million birds per year. Although law

enforcement and industry efforts have produced genu-

ine progress on this issue, oil pits remain a significant

source of mortality for birds in the United States.

Keywords Bird mortality Æ Oil Æ Petroleum ÆContaminants Æ E&P wastes Æ Pollution Æ Lawenforcement Æ Forensics Æ Migratory Bird Treaty Act ÆRCRA

Introduction

Petroleum production is accompanied by the produc-

tion of waste fluids. These fluids (often referred to in

the oil industry as ‘‘E&P waste,’’ for exploration and

production waste) are a mixture of water with a variety

of contaminants, commonly including drilling muds,

concentrated salts, hydrocarbons that were not re-

moved in the separation process, and trace amounts of

potentially toxic metals (EPA 2000, 2002). In many oil

production areas, these waste fluids are a major source

of environmental pollution and public health concern

(e.g., San Sebastian and Hurtig 2004).

Exposure to petroleum waste fluids may also be a

significant source of wildlife mortality. In the United

States, there are more than 500,000 oils wells currently

active (IPAA 2005). When the produced waste fluids

are stored in exposed pits or open-topped tanks

(hereafter, oil pits), they pose a potential hazard to

wildlife. Many U.S. oil production areas are located in

arid regions where open water is scarce, increasing the

attractiveness of oil pits both to waterbirds that land in

the fluid, and to terrestrial birds and other wildlife that

come to drink. Wildlife may also be attracted by food

items that are trapped on the margins and surface of oil

pits (Flickinger 1981; Grover 1983; Flickinger and

Bunck 1987).

Beginning in the 1950s, numerous studies have

documented significant wildlife mortality in oil pits:

P. W. Trail (&)National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory,US Fish and Wildlife Service,1490 E. Main Street,Ashland, Oregon 97520, USAE-mail: pepper_trail@fws.gov

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

DOI 10.1007/s00267-005-0201-7

123

PROFILE

Avian Mortality at Oil Pits in the United States: A Review of theProblem and Efforts for Its Solution

Pepper W. Trail

� Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

914 dead waterfowl in Wyoming (King 1956); 585

vertebrates in Colorado (Tully and Boulter 1970);

more than 1600 birds and mammals in California

(Thomas 1971); 469 birds in New Mexico (Grover

1983); 394 birds in coastal Texas (Flickinger 1981); and

616 birds in Wyoming (Esmoil and Anderson 1995).

Birds are by far the predominant vertebrate remains

recovered from oil pits (Grover 1983), and are the

focus of this report. Documentation of reptile and

mammal mortality in oil pits can be found in Grover

(1983), Flickinger (1981), Thomas (1971), Tully and

Boulter (1970), and Wood and Harrod (2000).

Causes of Mortality in Oil Pits

Exposure to oil causes avian mortality in a variety of

ways (Leighton 1993). Waterbirds that alight in oil pits

may drown or die of exposure after the loss of feather

insulation due to oiling (King 1956; Flickinger and

Bunck 1987). Birds that are trapped in viscous oil pit

fluids may ingest lethal amounts of oil in their struggles

to escape, or die of exposure or starvation (Grover

1983). Although this article concerns only direct mor-

tality at oil pit sites, exposure to toxic fluids in pits likely

causes additional mortality away from pits (Hartung

and Hunt 1966; Snyder and others 1973), as well as

reproductive impairment in birds that survive (Grau

and others 1977; Albers 1978; King and LeFever 1979).

Oil Pits and U.S. Environmental Laws

Most waste fluids commonly stored in oil pits (E&P

wastes) are exempt from federal regulation as haz-

ardous wastes (EPA 2000). Still, the operators of

facilities with oil pits in the United States are subject to

regulation under federal wildlife protection and envi-

ronmental pollution laws (Judah 1997; USFWS 1998).

The most comprehensive wildlife law that may be

triggered by avian mortality in oil pits is the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits the killing

(or ‘‘taking’’) of native North American migratory

birds. Examples of oil production activities that could

result in ‘‘take’’ are discharges of oil or hazardous

materials, and operation of oil pits that are accessible

to wildlife. Other laws that may be violated by avian

mortality in oil pits include the Endangered Species

Act (ESA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,

and, for non-migratory upland game birds (Gallifor-

mes), state wildlife management laws.

Enforcement of the MBTA is the responsibility of

the Office of Law Enforcement of U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS). Violations of the MBTA

carry penalties up to a $15,000 fine, or 6 months in jail,

or both, for each count (i.e., each dead bird of a pro-

tected species). There is no ‘‘allowable take’’ under the

MBTA, and, because it is a strict liability statute, the

government is not required to prove that an oil pro-

ducer knew that exposed waste fluids were taking

migratory birds. Although the MBTA provides for

fines and other penalties, it does not give USFWS the

power to compel pit owners to clean up problem sites

or to render them inaccessible to wildlife.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is

responsible for enforcement of pollution statutes that

apply to oil pits, including the Clean Water Act, the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (EPA 2000). These

statutes empower EPA to alleviate threats to the

environment or human health caused by waste man-

agement operations, and allow for substantial fines for

violations. Section 7003 of RCRA is triggered if EPA

determines that either solid or hazardous waste is

present in a pit, and that the site poses an actual or

potential threat to human health and/or the environ-

ment (USFWS 1998). Documented avian mortality

demonstrates such an actual environmental threat.

RCRA requires the violator to complete an EPA-ap-

proved workplan to correct the violations, and to do

the necessary work in the field. If these requirements

are not met, EPA can impose penalties of $6,500 per

day. EPA’s authority to require clean-up of oil pits

makes it a vital partner with USFWS in rendering these

sites safe for both human health and wildlife.

Law Enforcement Related to Wildlife Mortality inOil Pits

Concerted law enforcement activities aimed at reducing

wildlife mortality in U.S. oil pits began in the late 1970s,

primarily in New Mexico and Texas (Grover 1983; Lee

1990). Much mortality was prevented as a result; for

example, Grover (1983) estimated that 225,000 birds a

year were saved from oil pits due to oil pit clean-ups on

Bureau of Land Management lands in NewMexico. An

early success was the elimination in 1978 of the practice

of pumping waste fluids into dry lake basins (playas) in

Texas, accomplished through negotiations between

USFWS, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Texas

state officials (Lee 1990). USFWS has continued oil pit

enforcement activities in Texas, Oklahoma, and New

Mexico since that time, in collaboration with state

agencies. These efforts have produced considerable

progress. For example, from 1999 to 2002 USFWS

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544 533

123

issued letters of noncompliance concerning more than

1800 oil pits and tanks in this three-state area, and

collected more than $194,000 in fines due to Migratory

Bird Treat Act violations (USFWS 2002). These funds

were all deposited in the North American Wetlands

Conservation Fund, as required by law.

In 1996, the Oil and Gas Environmental Assessment

(OGEA) team was formed in the northern Great

Plains and Rocky Mountain area, including the states

of North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming,

Colorado, and Utah (EPA 2003). The team was made

up of representatives from USFWS, EPA, the state oil

and gas agencies, the state environmental agencies,

tribal energy and environmental agencies, the Bureau

of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Af-

fairs. By 2002, the OGEA team had coordinated aerial

surveys of approximately 5000 pits (15–20% of the total

in the region), had conducted the ground inspection of

475 potential problem sites, and had completed 365

follow-up actions that corrected the problem identified

(EPA 2003).

In addition to these major coordinated efforts,

USFWS has carried out local oil pit inspection and

enforcement activities in virtually all oil-producing

areas of the United States since the 1990’s (e.g., Wood

and Harrod 2000). These efforts are ongoing.

Collection of Avian Remains from Oil Pits

Exposed oil pits that appear likely to pose a hazard to

wildlife were located by enforcement personnel of -

USFWS and cooperating agencies through aerial and/

or ground-based surveys (USFWS 1998; Wood and

Harrod 2000; EPA 2003). These ‘‘problem oil pits’’

were then visited and inspection was made for wildlife

remains. Bird remains visible on the surface and

margins of oil pits were recovered and tagged. No

attempt was made to dredge ponds for remains that

might have sunk out of sight into the pit fluids. Most

oil pit inspections were made during the spring and

summer months, and most pits were visited only once.

Analysis and Identification of Remains

The determination that oiled bird remains belong to

protected species is prerequisite to enforcement action

by USFWS. Non-native birds, notably rock pigeon

(Columba livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris),

and house sparrow (Passer domesticus), are not

protected, and their death in oil pits does not trig-

ger U.S. federal or state wildlife laws. Successful law

enforcement also requires that bird remains recovered

from oil pits be treated as evidence, with strict chain-of-

custody procedures and analytical protocols for species

identification.

Since 1992, species identification of oiled bird re-

mains has been conducted at the USFWS National Fish

and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory. The laboratory’s

evidence-handling and analytical procedures meet the

strict forensic standards of the American Society of

Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD). Upon receipt at the

laboratory, each set of remains was assigned a tracking

number in the computerized laboratory evidence

inventory system, linked to the ‘‘seizure tags’’ filled out

at the time of collection by USFWS field personnel.

The items remained under seal in the Evidence Unit

freezers until they were transferred to the laboratory’s

ornithologist for analysis and identification.

Examination and cleaning were carried out under a

fume hood, using chemical safety precautions. Re-

mains ranged from oil-covered but otherwise intact

carcasses to single bones or feathers. The most usual

remains were decayed partial carcasses, with heads and

tails often missing. The surrounding matrix varied from

brine with little obvious oil to solid blocks of tar. Oiled

remains sometimes exhibited sufficient species-diag-

nostic characters that they could be identified without

cleaning. In that case, notes were taken documenting

the diagnostic features observed (e.g., plumage pat-

tern), and a confirmatory reference standard from the

laboratory’s bird specimen collection was cited. Usu-

ally, however, cleaning of remains was required for

identification.

Before cleaning began, characteristics were noted

indicating the order or family to which the bird remains

belonged. These included body size and shape, and the

morphology of the beak and feet, if visible. This pre-

liminary evaluation was the basis for selecting parts for

cleaning. For example, if the remains resembled a

dove, a tail feather was removed, whereas if the re-

mains resembled a duck, a secondary (speculum)

feather was selected, because those are distinctive

feathers for their respective groups.

The selected item was wiped to remove excess oil,

and was then placed in a bath of Stoddards Solvent

(petroleum distillate; Fisher Scientific). In most cases,

this solvent dissolved the oil residue and rendered the

plumage pattern visible. It was sometimes necessary to

gently brush the feather with a soft toothbrush to

loosen solid clumps of oil.

Once the oil residue was removed, the item was

washed in a bath of hot water and detergent. Feathers

typically emerged from this process with little physical

damage, although the concentrated brine found in

534 Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

123

some pits could destroy feather structure. Exposure to

oil commonly produced discoloration of feather vanes,

imparting a yellowish tinge to white areas, but this

usually did not complicate identification. When the

cleaning was complete, the object was dried with

compressed air and was then ready for comparison

with specimen standards.

The Forensics Laboratory maintains a reference

collection of bird specimens, including prepared skins,

skeletons, and loose feathers. This collection includes

more than 6000 specimens and more than 950 bird

species. Species identification was made by detailed

comparison of cleaned feathers and/or bones with

known specimen standards. In addition to specimens,

reference works were consulted during the examina-

tion process, including Pyle (1997) and relevant spe-

cies accounts in the American Ornithologists’ Union

Birds of North America series. The authority for

avian taxonomy was the A.O.U. Checklist of North

American Birds (American Ornithologists Union

2005).

For each set of remains examined, the ornithologist

prepared laboratory bench notes documenting the

observed species-diagnostic characters and the speci-

men reference standards consulted. The cleaned re-

mains were documented with digital photography.

Examination and documentation procedures were

performed in accordance with ASCLD-approved

Forensic Laboratory protocols.

After identification, a forensic report was written for

the USFWS Special Agent in charge of the investiga-

tion. This stated the identity of the bird remains and, if

multiple remains of a given species were recovered

from a single pit, the minimum number of individuals

(MNI) present. MNI was calculated based on dupli-

cated elements recovered from the same pit, such as

skulls or left wings. MNI was used to determine the

number of wildlife law violations.

Patterns of Avian Mortality in Oil Pits

From August 1992 to June 2005 (the period covered

by this report), a minimum of 2060 individual bird

remains were recovered from oil pits and identified by

USFWS personnel. One hundred sixty-two of the re-

mains belonged to non-native bird species. All the

rest (1898, or 92% of the total) belonged to native

species protected under the MBTA or managed under

state game laws. These remains represented 172 bird

species from 16 orders and 44 families (Table 1).

Most of these species (154, or 90%) were identified at

the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory;

the remainder was identified by other federal and

state personnel.

Birds were recovered and identified from oil pits

in 21 states, stretching from Ohio to California

(Table 1). Three states—Texas, Oklahoma, and Kan-

sas—accounted for more than 50% of the birds

identified from oil pits at the Forensics Lab (Table 2).

The wide disparity between states reflects both dif-

fering numbers of oil production facilities and differ-

ing intensity of oil pit enforcement efforts.

The threat posed by oil pits was not limited to par-

ticular taxonomic or ecological categories of birds.

Among the victims of oil pits were birds as large as

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and as small as

kinglets (Regulus species); as insectivorous as yellow-

billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), as frugivorous as

cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and as grami-

nivorous as pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus); as aerial

as chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica) and as terrestrial

as greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus); as

dependent on forests as red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivac-

eus) and on deserts as cactus wren (Campylorhynchus

brunneicapillus). It appears that oil pits pose a hazard

to virtually every bird species that encounters them.

Information on the outcomes of encounters with oil

pits by birds is limited to opportunistic observations

(Flickinger 1981; Grover 1983); no systematic, quanti-

tative studies have been made. Such documentation

would be needed to assess vulnerability to this hazard

among different ecological categories and species of

birds. Nevertheless, analyses of the identifications

made at the Forensics Lab reveal some broad patterns.

Remains of songbirds and related species (Passerifor-

mes) were the most common (62%) of all birds

recovered from oil pits (Table 3). The next most fre-

quently encountered group, the waterfowl (Anserifor-

mes), accounted for only 10% of remains. Passerines

were represented by 22 different families (Table 4).

The Emberizidae (sparrows and allies) and Icteridae

(blackbirds and allies) accounted for more than 50% of

passerine bird remains recovered (and one third of all

bird remains).

In terms of broad ecological categories, the most

frequent victims of oil pits were ground-feeding birds,

accounting for 63% of all remains (Figure 1). Ecological

categories were defined as follows: Waterbirds = Pod-

icipediformes + Pelecaniformes + Anseriformes; Wad-

ing Birds = Ciconiiformes (except Cathartidae) +

Charadriiformes + Gruiformes + Alcedinidae; Birds of

Prey = Falconiformes + Strigiformes + Cathartidae;

Ground Feeders = Galliformes + Columbiformes +

Geococcyx + Colaptes + Alaudidae + Motacillidae +

Passeridae + Icteridae (except Icterus) + Emberizidae +

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544 535

123

Table 1 Bird taxa identified from remains recovered from oil pits

Order Family Species MNI States

Podicipediformes (n = 25)Podicipedidae (n = 25)Pied-billed grebe, Podilymbus podiceps 7 MI, IL, NM, TXEared grebe, Podiceps nigricollis 12 WYEared or Horned grebe (P. nigricollis or P. auritus) 5 WYUnidentified grebe (Podicipedidae) 1 KS

Pelicaniformes (n = 3)Phalacrocoracidae (n = 3)Double-crested cormorant, Phalacrocorax auritus 3 TX

Ciconiiformes (total = 86)Ardeidae (total = 78)American bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus 1 NEGreat blue heron, Ardea herodias 59 MI, IL, KY, AL, AR, NE,

KS, TX, CO, NM, WY, UT, CAGreat egret, Ardea alba 3 TXReddish egret, Egretta rufescens 1 TXSnowy egret, Egretta thulaa n/a NMTricolored heron, Egretta tricolorb n/a TXLittle blue heron, Egretta caerulea 1 ARCattle egret, Bubulcus ibis 3 KS, TXUnidentified egret (Ardeidae) 1 TXGreen heron, Butorides virescens 4 IL, IN, ARBlack-crowned night-heron, Nycticorax nycticorax 4 AL, TX, NM, CAYellow-crowned night-heron, Nyctanassa violacea 1 TX

Cathartidae (total = 8)Turkey vulture, Cathartes aura 7 OK, TXBlack vulture, Coragyps atratus 1 TX

Anseriformes (total = 213)Anatidae (total = 213)Black-bellied whistling-duck, Dendrocygna autumnalis 5 TXFulvous whistling-duck, Dendrocygna bicolor 1 TXGreater white-fronted goose, Anser albifrons 1 NECanada goose, Branta canadensis 1 OHSnow goose, Chen caerulescensa n/a NMWood duck, Aix sponsa 19 OH, IN, KY, AR, NE, KS, TXGadwall, Anas strepera 20 IL, MO, KS, OK, TX, CO, WY, UT, NMAmerican wigeon, Anas americana 5 OK, TX, WY, NMMallard, Anas platyrhynchos 13 OH, IL, KS, TX, WY, NMMottled duck, Anas fulvigulab n/a TXBlue-winged teal, Anas discors 37 IN, NE, KS, TX, CO, WYCinammon teal, Anas cyanopteraa n/a NMUnspecified teal (A. discors or A. cyanoptera) 5 CO, UTNorthern shoveler, Anas clypeata 25 OK, TX, CO, NM, UTNorthern pintail, Anas acuta 4 OK, TX, COGreen-winged teal, Anas crecca 25 KS, OK, TX, NM, CO, WY, UTUnspecified dabbling duck (Anas species) 19 OH, IL, MI, TX, KS, NM, CO, WYRedhead, Aythya americanac,d n/a OK, TXRing-necked duck, Aythya collaris 6 TX, COGreater scaup, Aythya marila 1 ILLesser scaup, Aythya affinis 11 MI, IL, TX, NM, COUnspecified scaup (Aythya species) 4 IL, KS, CO

Canvasback or redhead (Aythya vasilineria or A. americana) 2 OKBufflehead, Bucephala albeola 1 MICommon merganser, Mergus merganser 1 COHooded merganser, Lophodytes cucullatus 1 CORuddy duck, Oxyura jamaicensis 3 TX, NMUnidentified waterfowl (Anatidae) 3 WY

536 Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

123

Table 1 Continued.

Order Family Species MNI States

Falconiformes (total = 48)Accipitridae (total = 28)Mississippi kite, Ictinia mississippiensisa n/a NMBald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 CANorthern harrier, Circus cyaneus 1 WYHarris’ hawk, Parabuteo unicinctus 1 TXSharp-shinned hawk, Accipiter striatus 1 TXCooper’s hawk, Accipiter cooperii 3 KS, OK, NMUnspecified accipiter (Accipiter species) 2 TXSwainson’s hawk, Buteo swainsoni 3 KS, OKRed-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis 16 MI, IL, MO, KS, OK, TX, NM, COGolden eagle, Aquila chrysaetosa n/a NM

Falconidae (total = 20)American kestrel, Falco sparverius 18 IN, NE, KS, OK, TX, NM, CAPeregrine falcon, Falco peregrinusc n/a TXPrairie falcon, Falco mexicanus 2 OK, CO

Galliformes (total = 39)Phasianidae (total = 5)Ring-necked pheasant, Phasianus colchicus 4 NE, OK, TX, UTLesser prairie-chicken, Tympanuchus pallidicinctusa n/a NMHelmeted guineafowl, Numida meleagris 1 OK

Odontophoridae (total = 34)Scaled quail, Callipepla squamata 2 OK, NMGambel’s quail, Callipepla gambelii 3 TXNorthern bobwhite, Colinus virginianus 17 IL, KS, OK, TXUnidentified quail (Odontophoridae) 12 TX, NM

Gruiformes (total = 9)Rallidae (total = 9)Virginia rail, Rallus limicola 1 ILSora, Porzana carolina 1 UTUnidentified rail (Rallidae) 1 CACommon moorhen, Gallinula chloropusc n/a TXAmerican coot, Fulica americana 6 IL, MO, OK, TX, NM

Charadriiformes (total = 55)Charadriidae (total = 15)Killdeer, Charadrius vociferus 15 MI, IL, IN, KS, TX, NM

Recurvirostridae (total = 4)American avocet, Recurvirostra americana 4 TX, CO, UT

Scolopacidae (total = 22)Lesser yellowlegs, Tringa flavipes 2 NE, NMSolitary sandpiper, Tringa solitaria 2 KS, NMSpotted sandpiper, Actitis macularia 1 SDLeast sandpiper, Calidris minutillad n/a OKUnspecified ‘‘peep’’ sandpiper (Calidris species) 1 KSLong-billed dowitcher, Limnodromus scolopaceus 1 NEWilson’s snipe, Gallinago delicata 8 NE, KS, TX, CO, WY, UTAmerican woodcock, Scolopax minor 4 OH, KY, IL, KSUnidentified sandpiper (Scolopacidae) 3 NE, WY

Laridae (total = 14)Laughing gull, Larus atricilla 1 TXHerring gull, Larus argentatus 2 ALRing-billed gull, Larus delawarensis 2 OH, OKUnspecified gull (Larus species) 8 MI, COBlack skimmer, Rynchops niger 1 TX

Columbiformes (total = 117)Columbidae (total = 117)Rock pigeon, Columba livia 38 OH, MI, IN, IL, MO, KS, OK, TX, NM, CAMourning dove, Zenaida macroura 78 OH, IL, MO, NE, KS, OK, TX, CO, NM, CAUnidentified dove (Columbidae) 1 OH

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544 537

123

Table 1 Continued.

Order Family Species MNI States

Cuculiformes (total = 38)Cuculidae (total = 38)Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus 6 KY, KS, TXGreater roadrunner, Geococcyx californianus 32 OK, TX, NM

Strigiformes (total = 106)Tytonidae (total = 54)Barn owl, Tyto alba 54 NE, KS, OK,TX, NM, CA

Strigidae (total = 52)Eastern screech-owl, Megascops asio 9 KY, IL, KS, TXWestern screech-owl, Megascops kennicottiid n/a NMUnspecified screech-owl (Megascops species) 3 TX, NMGreat horned owl, Bubo virginianus 31 KY, NE, KS, OK, TX, MT, COBarred owl, Strix varia 5 KY, AR, KS, OK, TXShort-eared owl, Asio flammeus 1 KSBurrowing owl, Athene cunicularia 3 TX, NM, CA

Caprimulgiformes (total = 24)Caprimulgidae (total = 24)Lesser nighthawk, Chordeiles acutipennis 1 TXCommon nighthawk, Chordeiles minor 18 OH, IL, MO, TX, NMUnspecified nighthawk (Chordeiles species) 3 TX, NMWhip-poor-will, Caprimulgus vociferus 1 ILCommon poorwill, Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 1 CA

Apodiformes (total = 4)Apodidae (total = 4)Chimney swift, Chaetura pelagica 4 NE, TX

Coraciiformes (total = 2)Alcedinidae (total = 2)Belted kingfisher, Ceryle alcyon 2 IL, TX

Piciformes (total = 13)Picidae (total = 13)Red-bellied woodpecker, Melanerpes carolinusc n/a TXGolden-fronted woodpecker, Melanerpes aurifrons 3 TXUnspecified woodpecker (Melanerpes species) 3 IL, TXNorthern flicker, Colaptes auratus 7 NE, KS, TX, UT

Passeriformes (total = 1278)Tyrannidae (total = 67)Eastern phoebe, Sayornis phoebe 13 OH, IN, IL, KS, OK, TXSay’s phoebe, Sayornis sayaa n/a NMAsh-throated flycatcher, Myiarchus cinerascensa n/a NMGreat Crested flycatcher, Myiarchus crinitus 1 TXWestern kingbird, Tyrannus verticalis 19 NE, TX, NMEastern kingbird, Tyrannus tyrannus 10 IL, ND, NE, KS, TXScissor-tailed flycatcher, Tyrannus forficatus 2 TXUnspecified kingbird (Tyrannus species) 19 OK, TX, NM, COUnidentified flycatcher (Tyrannidae) 3 IL, KS, NM

Laniidae (total = 11)Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus 8 KS, OK, TX, NM, CANorthern shrike, Lanius excubitor 2 KS, TXUnspecified shrike (Lanius species) 1 NM

Vireonidae (total = 1)Red-eyed vireo, Vireo olivaceus 1 IL

Corvidae (total = 15)Blue jay, Cyanocitta cristata 6 KSWestern scrub-jay, Aphelocoma californica 3 NM, CABlack-billed magpie, Pica hudsoniae n/a COAmerican crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos 2 KY, TXChihuahuan raven, Corvus cryptoleucus 1 NMUnspecified crow (Corvus species) 3 AR, OK, TX

538 Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

123

Table 1 Continued.

Order Family Species MNI States

Alaudidae (total = 31)Horned lark, Eremophila alpestris 31 IL, NE, OK, TX, MT, WY, CO, NM

Hirundinidae (total = 35)Tree swallow, Tachycineta bicolor 6 IL, ND, NE, KSBarn swallow, Hirundo rustica 27 IL, KY, KS, OK, TX, WYNo. rough-winged swallow, Stelgidopteryx serripennis 1 KSUnidentified swallow (Hirundinidae) 1 WY

Paridae (total = 3)Juniper titmouse, Baeolophus griseus 2 NMCarolina chickadee, Poecile carolinensis 1 KY

Sittidae (total = 1)White-breasted nuthatch, Sitta carolinensis 1 OK

Troglodytidae (total = 5)Cactus wren, Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus 2 TX, NMCarolina wren, Thryothorus ludovicianus 1 OKBewick’s wren, Thryomanes bewickii 1 TXRock wren, Salpinctes obsoletus 1 KS

Regulidae (total = 1)Unspecified kinglet (Regulus species) 1 MI

Sylviidae (total = n/a)Unspecified gnatcatcher (Polioptila species)c n/a TX

Turdidae (total = 14)Eastern bluebird, Sialia sialis 3 OH, TX, KSUnspecified bluebird (Sialia species) 1 NMAmerican robin, Turdus migratorius 10 IL, NE, KS

Mimidae (total = 131)Gray catbird, Dumetella carolinensis 2 NE, KSNorthern mockingbird, Mimus polyglottos 94 AL, KS, OK, TX, NMSage thrasher, Oreoscoptes montanus 25 WY, UTBrown thrasher, Toxostoma rufum 6 IN, KSCurve-billed thrasher, Toxostoma curvirostre 1 TXUnidentified thrasher (Mimidae) 3 TX, NM

Sturnidae (total = 42)European starling, Sturnus vulgaris 42 MI, IN, IL, NE, KS, OK, CO, CA

Motacillidae (total = 1)American pipit, Anthus rubescens 1 CA

Bombycillidae (total = 1)Cedar waxwing, Bombycilla cedrorum 1 OK

Parulidae (total = 7)Yellow warbler, Dendroica petechia 1 KSMacGillivray’s warbler, Oporornis tolmiei 1 CACommon yellowthroat, Geothlypis trichas 1 KSYellow-breasted chat, Icteria virens 4 KY, CA

Emberizidae (total = 328)Canyon towhee, Pipilo fuscus 1 TXCassin’s sparrow, Aimophila cassinii 6 OK, TX, NMUnspecified sparrow (Spizella species) 27 ND, TX, WY, NMTree sparrow, Spizella arborea 1 KSVesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus 13 ND, NE, TX, NM, WYLark sparrow, Chondestes grammacus 11 KS, OK, TX, NMBlack-throated sparrow, Amphispiza bilineata 10 TX, NMLark bunting, Calamospiza melanocorys 140 NE, KS, OK, TX, CO, NM, WYSavannah sparrow, Passerculus sandwicensis 11 OH, LA, ND, NE, KS, TXGrasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum 2 OKSong sparrow, Melospiza melodia 21 OH, MI, IN, IL, KS, TX, CO, CASwamp sparrow, Melospiza georgiana 1 INUnspecified sparrow (Zonotrichia species) 2 NEWhite-crowned sparrow, Zonotrichia leucophrys 2 OK, CADark-eyed junco, Junco hyemalis 2 KS, TX

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544 539

123

Table 1 Continued.

Order Family Species MNI States

Lapland longspur, Calcarius lapponicus 3 OK, MTMcCown’s longspur, Calcarius mccowniia n/a NMSmith’s longspur, Calcarius pictusa n/a NMChestnut-collared longspur, Calcarius ornatus 1 KSUnidentified sparrow (Emberizidae) 74 OH,IL,KY, NE, KS, OK,

TX, WY, CO, NMCardinalidae (total = 58)Northern cardinal, Cardinalis cardinalis 17 KS, OK, TXPyrrhuloxia, Cardinalis sinuatus 35 TX, NMUnspecified bunting (Passerina species) 1 INBlack-headed grosbeak, Pheucticus melanocephalus 2 NMDickcissel, Spiza americana 3 TX

Icteridae (total = 352)Red-winged blackbird, Agelaius phoeniceus 44 IL, NE, KS, OK, TX, CO, WYUnspecified blackbird (Agelaius species) 6 CAUnspecified meadowlark (Sturnella species) 179 ND, SD, NE, KS, OK,

TX, WY, CO, NMYellow-headed blackbird, X. xanthocephalus 2 NE, KSRusty blackbird, Euphagus carolinus 2 IL, NDBrewer’s blackbird, Euphagus cyanocephalus 4 COUnspecified blackbird (Euphagus species) 4 TXCommon grackle, Quicalus quiscula 42 IN, KY, IL, MO, ND, NE,

KS, OK, TX, NMGreat-tailed grackle, Quiscalus mexicanus 2 NE, OKUnspecified grackle (Quiscalus species) 4 TXBrown-headed cowbird, Molothrus ater 39 ND, NE, KS, OK, TX, COUnspecified cowbird (Molothrus species) 2 OK, TXBullock’s oriole, Icterus bullockii 1 NM‘‘Northern oriole,’’ Icterus galbula or I. bullockii 1 NMOrchard oriole, Icterus spurius 1 TXUnspecified oriole (Icterus species) 16 KS, TX, NMUnidentified blackbird (Icteridae) 3 KS, NM, CA

Fringillidae (total = 22)Unspecified rosy-finch (Leucosticte species) 7 WYHouse finch, Carpodacus mexicanus 8 NM, CAUnspecified finch (Carpodacus species) 3 ILAmerican goldfinch, Carduelis tristis 4 IL, KS

Passeridae (total = 77)House sparrow, Passer domesticus 77 IN, IL, ND, NE, KS,

OK, TX, CO, CAUnidentified passerines (not consistent with

Sturnus or Passer) (total = 75)Grand total = 2060

Identifications were made by staff at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, unless noted by a superscript. Total = 172unique taxa (species and taxa that were never identified below the genus level; e.g. meadowlarks, Sturnella sp.). MNI = minimumnumber of individuals in oil pit remains analyzed at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, 1992–2005. n/a = MNI datanot available (analyses not carried out at the Forensics Laboratory)

Data sources for bird taxa identified by authorities other than the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratorya Grover, V. L. 1983. The reduction of wildlife mortality in the sump pits of southeast New Mexico. Report for the Bureau of LandManagement, Carlsbad, New Mexicob Flickinger, E. L. 1981. Wildlife mortality at petroleum pits in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:560–564c Lee, R. C. Jr. 1994. Migratory bird kills at petroleum pits in Texas. Report of Investigation No. 120, U.S. Dept. of Interior, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement, Lubbock, Texasd McKay, T. 2002. Environmental contaminants program, off-refuge investigations sub-activity. FY 2002 final report. TX, OK, NM —oilfield pollution. Project ID: 2F37,9920006.2. U.S. Dept. of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement,Oklahoma City, Oklahomae Ramirez, P. Jr., and G. G. Mowad. Personal communication

540 Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

123

Cardinalidae (except Pheucticus) + Fringillidae + Cor-

vidae + Laniidae + Mimidae + Turdidae + Sturnidae;

Arboreal Feeders = Coccyzus + Melanerpes + Bomby-

cillidae + Parulidae + Regulidae + Paridae + Sittidae +

Troglodytidae + Vireonidae + Icterus + Pheucticus; and

Aerial Feeders = Caprimulgiformes + Apodiformes +

Tyrannidae + Hirundinidae. The total number of

identified remains in Figure 1 is 1985 (2060 remains

identified to protected categoryminus 75 passerines that

were not identified at the family level).

Table 2 Oiled bird remains identified at the National Fish andWildlife Forensics Laboratory, summarized by state

State MNI

Alabama 10Arkansas 10California 60Colorado 114Illinois 123Indiana 32Kansas 285Kentucky 18Louisiana 1Michigan 34Missouri 12Montana 12Nebraska 62New Mexico 159Ohio 35Oklahoma 432North Dakota 19South Dakota 26Texas 432Utah 15Wyoming 169Total 2060

MNI = minimum number of individual birds

Table 3 Oiled bird remains identified at the National Fish andWildlife Forensics Laboratory, summarized by avian order

Order MNI Percent

Podicipediformes 25 1.2%Pelecaniformes 3 0.1%Ciconiiformes 86 4.2%Anseriformes 212 10.3%Falconiformes 46 2.2%Galliformes 39 1.9%Gruiformes 9 0.4%Charadriiformes 55 2.7%Columbiformes 117 5.7%Cuculiformes 38 1.8%Strigiformes 106 5.1%Caprimulgiformes 24 1.2%Apodiformes 4 0.2%Coraciiformes 2 0.1%Piciformes 13 0.6%Passeriformes 1278 62.0%Total 2060

MNI = minimum number of individual birds

Table 4 Oiled passerine remains identified at the National Fishand Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, summarized by family

Family MNI Percent

Alaudidae 31 2.4%Bombycillidae 1 < 0.1%Cardinalidae 58 4.5 %Corvidae 15 1.2%Emberizidae 328 25.7%Fringillidae 22 1.7%Hirundinidae 35 2.7%Icteridae 352 27.5%Laniidae 11 0.9%Mimidae 131 10.3%Motacillidae 1 < 0.1%Paridae 3 0.2%Parulidae 7 0.5%Passeridae 77 6.0%Sylviidae n/a n/aRegulidae 1 < 0.1%Sittidae 1 < 0.1%Sturnidae 42 3.3%Troglodytidae 5 0.4%Turdidae 14 1.1%Tyrannidae 67 5.2%Vireonidae 1 < 0.1%Unknown 75 5.9%Total 1278

MNI = minimum number of individual birds

Fig. 1 Oil pit mortality by general ecological category, for thebird remains identified at least to the family level at the forensicslab (n = 1985 remains). See text for description of taxa includedin each ecological category. Sample sizes as follows: water-birds = 241 remains; wading birds = 144 remains; birds ofprey = 162 remains; ground feeders = 1256 remains; arborealfeeders = 52 remains; and aerial feeders = 130 remains

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544 541

123

Four of the top five species recovered from oil

pits were ground-feeding passerines, namely, mead-

owlark (Sturnella species), lark bunting (Calamospiza

melanocephala), northern mockingbird (Mimus poly-

glottos), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus); the

fifth was the ground-feeding mourning dove (Zenaida

macroura). The majority of inspected oil pits were

located in open, semiarid habitats with few trees

(USFWS field staff, personal communication). This

likely contributed to the low numbers of arboreal birds

recovered from oil pits (Figure 1).

Birds dependent on water for foraging (waterbirds

and wading birds) made up a small proportion (19%) of

all avian oil pit mortalities (Figure 1). Indeed, the

proportion of waterbirds recovered from oil pits ap-

pears to be decreasing. Between 1992 and 1996, water

and wading birds comprised 27% of the oiled bird

remains identified at the Forensics Lab. From 1998 to

2005, they comprised only 14% (no oil pit remains were

identified at the laboratory in 1997 due to staff turn-

over). This trend may reflect continuing success in

reducing the size of oil pits.

Avian mortality increases linearly with oil pit sur-

face area (Esmoil and Anderson 1995). Large, lake-

like oil pits formerly attracted large numbers of ducks

(Gregory and Edwards 1991), but the use of such sites

has now been largely eliminated (Lee 1990). The typ-

ical oil pit today is a far smaller, pool-like site. Surveys

of oil pits in Texas in the early 1980s yielded average

pit sizes of 1208 m2 in coastal areas and 372 m2 in

northwestern Texas (Flickinger and Bunck 1987). In

contrast, 19 storage sites inspected in west Texas from

1999–2002 ranged from 0.56 to 372 m2, with a mean of

45.6 m2 (USFWS 2002). These smaller pits appear to

draw fewer waterfowl, but still attract passerines and

other nonaquatic birds.

Prior Estimates of Avian Mortality in Oil Pits

Several regional and national estimates of direct avian

mortality in oil pits have been made. Grover (1983)

estimated an annual mortality of 450,000 vertebrates at

oil pits in southeastern New Mexico from the 1950s to

1981, when a cleanup effort was launched. Birds rep-

resented more than 90% of this mortality, based on

identified remains. Lee (1990:444) stated that annual

bird mortality from oil pits in Oklahoma, Texas, and

New Mexico ‘‘easily exceeded 300,000 birds, including

100,000 ducks’’ in the late 1980s. Banks (1979:12)

extrapolated from a 1970s annual mortality estimate of

150,000 in California’s San Joaquin valley to make a

‘‘very conservative’’ estimate of 1.5 million birds killed

in oil pits nationwide each year.

For many years, USFWS estimated bird mortality

in oil pits at approximately 2 million per year (e.g.,

Ramirez 1999). Due to progress that has been made on

the oil pit problem through enforcement activities and

industry compliance, that estimate is no longer consid-

ered valid (EPA 2003). Given that enforcement activi-

ties continue to document avian mortality at oil pits, it is

important to estimate the current extent of the problem.

Estimating Current Annual Avian Mortality in Oil Pits

Earlier nationwide estimates of avian oil pit mortality

were based on extrapolations of data from specific areas,

without discussion of underlying assumptions. This

article presents a more explicit process of estimation,

which may spur efforts to address the data gaps that

remain.

There appear to be no published data on the number

of oil pits in the United States. Most drilling sites have

at least one pit for storage of waste fluids, including

produced water and drilling muds, and some wells have

multiple pits for different E&P wastes (EPA 2000,

2002). Therefore, I assumed that each of the nation’s

approximately 500,000 onshore oil wells had one

associated oil pit.

These calculations further assume that 80% of the

nation’s oil pits pose no threat to wildlife. This value is

based on data from aerial surveys in the northern

Great Plains and Rocky Mountains (EPA 2003). This

produces an estimate of approximately 100,000 pits

deserving of inspection nationwide (0.20 · 500,000

wells producing oil). The average rate of avian mor-

tality at inspected pits from 1996 to 2002 across a broad

area of the western United States was 0.30 birds/

inspection (Table 5). Therefore, it is expected that

30,000 dead birds would be recovered if all question-

able oil pits were subjected to a one-time inspection

(100,000 pits · 0.3 birds/pit).

Single inspections reveal only a small fraction of the

annual avian mortality in an oil pit. Many oiled bird

remains are removed by scavengers, and others sink

out of sight over time (Grover 1983). In a study of

Texas oil pits, Flickinger and Bunck (1987) determined

that the average sinking time for passerines in the

warmer months was only 4 days. They recommended

that pits be inspected at least once a week to document

all passerine mortality in summer, with inspections at

least every 3 weeks in winter.

Based on these studies, I propose that the following

inspection schedule would be needed to document

542 Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

123

most avian mortality in oil pits: one inspection per

month from November to February; two inspections

per month in March, April, September, and October;

and four inspections per month in May, June, July, and

August. This totals 28 inspections per year. The most

northern states might need no inspections at all from

November through February or March, but the

southern states might need even more than indicated

on this schedule.

One-time inspections of all questionable oil pits in the

United States would yield the remains of approximately

30,000 birds, as calculated above. Thus, a full schedule of

28 inspections per year is predicted to yield a total an-

nual mortality of approximately 840,000 birds (30,000

birds · 28 needed inspections). The toll among pro-

tected birds is estimated at 772, 800 per year, given

Forensics Lab data that 92% of oiled bird remains

belong to protected species.

Clearly, this is a rough calculation. Still, it provides

grounds for concluding that the current annual mor-

tality at oil pits is in the range of 500,000–1 million

birds. That is a considerable decline from the former

mortality estimate of 2 million birds per year, made

prior to concerted enforcement efforts. This is an

encouraging indication that enforcement and proactive

industry compliance have indeed reduced avian mor-

tality in oil pits in the United States. Nevertheless,

even the lower-end estimate of 500,000 birds is a very

high annual toll for a human-caused, preventable

source of mortality on U.S. native birds. It compares,

for example, to an estimate of 250,000 birds killed as a

result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Piatt and Ford

1996), which is generally considered to be one of the

greatest environmental disasters of recent times.

Protecting Wildlife from Oil Pits

The goal of USFWS and cooperating agencies is to

render oil production waste fluids inaccessible to wild-

life and humans, and to isolate them from groundwater

supplies. The best permanent solution is the replace-

ment of oil pits with closed tanks or other closed

containment systems. When properly designed and

installed, such systems require little or no maintenance

and eliminate the possibility of soil contamination

(USFWS 2003).

If open pits are retained, they need to be enclosed

with netting to exclude wildlife. Deterrent methods,

including flagging, strobe lights, reflectors, and noise-

makers, do not reduce avian mortality in oil pits

(Esmoil and Anderson 1995). Sturdy, well-installed

netting is highly effective at excluding birds. Such

netting should be supported by a steel frame and

provide complete enclosure. Netting requires mainte-

nance and monitoring to assure that it remains effec-

tive under all conditions. For example, weakly

supported netting may sag into oil pits under the

weight of snow, destroying its ability to exclude wild-

life. Detailed information on effective netting solu-

tions, with photographs, can be found at the website

for the Environmental Contaminants Program of Re-

gion 6 of the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2003).

Through a combination of law enforcement, educa-

tion, and cooperation with industry, progress continues

to be made in eliminating oil pits that threaten wildlife.

Still, further efforts are needed. The level of noncom-

pliance to wildlife protection and environmental pol-

lution laws remains too high. Further work by both

government agencies and the oil industry is needed to

Table 5 Results of two recent oil pit inspection efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agencya

Locality No. pits inspected Pits with avian mortality No. of bird mortalities

Colorado 96 20 89Montana 169 9 47North Dakota 56 3 7South Dakota 16 8 38Utah 115 2 2Wyoming 347 33 137Kansas 360 74 183Nebraska 74 32 140Subtotals 1233 181 (14.6%) 643

So. New Mexico 280 16 150Oklahoma 1374 31 81Texas 537 48 151Subtotals 2191 95 (4.3%) 382

Grand Totals 3424 276 1025

a Data from northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states from EPA (2003); data from Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico fromUSFWS (2002)

Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544 543

123

eliminate this significant, preventable, and illegal

source of avian mortality in the United States.

Acknowledgments This article is based on the work of SpecialAgents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of LawEnforcement, who perform the difficult and essential tasks ofinspecting oil pits and recovering bird remains. In particular, Iwish to thank Special Agents K. Garlick, R. C. Lee, Jr., T.McKay, M. Medina, S. Middleton, and G. Mowad for theirleadership in this area and for providing unpublished reports.P. Ramirez, Jr., of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environ-mental Contaminants Program and R. Lamdin of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency RCRA Program provideduseful information and advice. R. C. Laybourne and B. A. Sabodeveloped the feather cleaning methods used at the ForensicsLaboratory and contributed to the identification database re-ported here. G. Espinoza, L. Saturen, and M. E. Sims assistedwith the cleaning and identification of oiled bird remains.

References

1. Albers P. H. 1978. The effects of petroleum at differentstages of incubation in bird eggs. Bulletin of EnvironmentalContamination and Toxicology 19:624–630

2. American Ornithologists Union. 2005. A.O.U. checklist ofNorth American birds, 7th edition and supplements. Avail-able at: http://www.aou.org/checklist/index.php3#phas (Ac-cessed April 2006)

3. Banks, R. C. 1979. Human related mortality of birds in theUnited States. United States Dept. of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service, Special Scientific Report–Wildlife Number215. Washington, DC, USA

4. EPA. 2000. Profile of the oil and gas extraction indus-try. EPA/310-R-99-006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/oilgas.pdf (Accessed April 2006)

5. EPA. 2002. Exemption of oil and gas exploration andproduction wastes from federal hazardous waste regula-tions. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/oil/oil-gas.pdf (Accessed April 2006)

6. EPA. 2003. Report of the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency Region 8 oil and gas environmentalassessment effort 1996–2002. Available at: http://epa.gov/re-gion08/land_waste/ogeafinalreport.pdf (Accessed April2006)

7. Esmoil B. J., S. H. Anderson. 1995. Wildlife mortality asso-ciated with oil pits in Wyoming. Prairie Naturalist 27:81–88

8. Flickinger E. L. 1981. Wildlife mortality at petroleum pits inTexas. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:560–564

9. Flickinger E. L., C. M. Bunck. 1987. Number of oil-killedbirds and fate of bird carcasses at crude oil pits in Texas.Southwestern Naturalist 32:377–381

10. Grau C. R., T. Roudybush, J. Dobbs, J. Wathen. 1977. Al-tered yolk structure and reduced hatchability of eggs frombirds fed single doses of petroleum oils. Science 195:779–781

11. Gregory D. G., W. C. Edwards. 1991. Investigating oiledbirds from oil field waste pits. Veterinary and Human Tox-icology 33:497–498

12. Grover, V. L. 1983. The reduction of wildlife mortality in thesump pits of southeast New Mexico. Report for the Bureauof Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA

13. Hartung R., G. S. Hunt. 1966. The toxicity of some oils towaterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 30:564–570

14. IPAA. 2005. The oil and gas producing industry in yourstate. Available at: http://www.ipaa.org/reports/econreports/IPAAOPI.pdf (Accessed April 2006)

15. Judah J. 1997. An environmental framework for drillingfluid disposal. Hart’s Petroleum Engineer International70:54–58

16. King, C. A. 1956. Waterfowl mortality at oil sumps of theBighorn River drainage. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.Report, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA

17. King K., C. A. LeFever. 1979. Effects of oil transferred fromincubating gulls to their eggs. Marine Pollution Bulletin10:319–321

18. Lee R. C., Jr. 1990. Bird kills in contained oil: a biopolitical/enforcement strategy. Proceedings of the Annual Confer-ence of Southeastern Association of Fish and WildlifeAgencies 44:444–447

19. Lee, R. C., Jr. 1994. Migratory bird kills at petroleum pits inTexas. Report of Investigation No. 120, United StatesDepartment of Interior, United States Fish and WildlifeService, Division of Law Enforcement, Lubbock, Texas,USA

20. Leighton, F. A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds.Environmental Review 1:92–103

21. Piatt J. F., R. G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killedby the Exxon Valdez oil spill? In S. D. Rice, R. B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, B. A. Wright, (eds), Proceedings of the ExxonValdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Soci-ety Symposium 18, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. pp 712–719

22. Pyle P. 1997. Identification guide to North American birds,Part 1. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, California, USA

23. Ramirez P., Jr. 1999. Fatal attraction: oil field waste pits.Endangered Species Bulletin 24:10–11

24. San Sebastian M., A.-K. Hurtig. 2004. Oil exploitation in theAmazon basin of Ecuador: a public health emergency. PanAm J Public Health 15:205–211

25. Snyder S. B., J. G. Fox, O. A. Soave. 1973. Mortalities inwaterfowl during Bunker C fuel exposure. Stanford Uni-versity Press, Stanford, California, USA. 48 pp

26. Thomas, R. D. 1971. Wildlife problems associated with SanJoaquin oil production facilities. California Dept. of Fish andGame Report

27. Tully, R. J., and M. Boulter. 1970. Survey of water pol-lution, soil contamination, and wildlife mortality caused bysludge pits and related oil pumping practices in Colorado.Colorado Division of Wildlife Report, Denver, Colorado,USA

28. USFWS. 1998. Service and EPA tackle deadly oil pits. USFish and Wildlife News. Nov/Dec. 1998, p. 7

29. USFWS. 2002. United States Department of the Interior,United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Environ-mental Contaminants Program Off-Refuge InvestigationsSub-Activity. FY 2002 Final Report, TX, OK, NM- OilfieldPollution

30. USFWS. 2003.United States Fish andWildlife ServiceRegion6EnvironmentalContaminants Program.Contaminant issues:oil field waste pits. Available from: http://www.r6.fws.gov/con-taminants/contaminants1c.html (Accessed June 2005)

31. Wood K. A., F. W. Harrod Jr. 2000. Investigation of migra-tory bird mortality in Arkansas oil pits. Proceedings of theAnnual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies 54:469–477

544 Environ Manage (2006) 38:532–544

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.