The government is us; we are the government, you and I. -Theodore Roosevelt
In 2018, the U.S. had the largest annual increases in energy development ever recorded by any country, mostly powered by the shale gas revolution. Combined with wind and solar farms and liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminals, production of domestic energy resources can have significant effects on wildlife and habitats. At the same time, developing a new energy economy could cause energy costs to rise and threaten the affordability of working lands and forests, forcing landowners to sell land for development resulting in habitat fragmentation and conversion to less wildlife-friendly environments.
The developed energy resources and our natural resources provide economic benefits for the country, and both are needed for future generations. Achieving both, however, will require early consideration of effects on goals for habitat, wildlife, and water in order to balance energy development and wildlife management.
Placement of climate-beneficial technologies, such as some wind projects and their associated transmission lines, should be planned with the same care as carbon-based developments to avoid fragmenting wildlife corridors or impeding migratory bird flyways. Siting these projects in areas with minimal wildlife impacts, such as former industrial sites, rooftops, parking lots, landfills, abandoned mines, and brownfields should be chosen wherever possible. In addition, government mandates to include corn ethanol and soy biodiesel in fuel supplies have driven the conversion of millions of acres of grasslands and wetlands to agriculture. This has eliminated habitats for pheasants, ducks, and other gamebirds and also reduced important carbon sinks.
We encourage prudent development of renewable energy as part of our nation’s overall goals toward energy security along with responsible development of oil and gas resources. However, renewable energy siting and production also must engage state wildlife managers early and often in the process to reduce potential impacts to wildlife populations and their habitat.
Energy development sites as well as pipelines and electrical transmission lines can fragment habitats, disrupt wildlife movements, and impair water quality and quantity, significantly degrading habitat. The current scale of development exacerbates this problem for many local species populations and, in at least one case, for an entire species – the greater sage-grouse. Infrastructure and transmission lines often conflict with wildlife, including imperiled species like the lesser prairie-chicken. In addition, hydraulic fracturing for shale gas requires tremendous amounts of water, and disposal into surface water bodies is problematic for drinking water and wildlife habitats.
These problems can be addressed by state and federal wildlife, land management, and utility regulatory agencies working together with the energy industries. For example, when the sage grouse was petitioned to be listed under the Endangered Species Act, agencies and stakeholders responded with a plan for conserving the bird in and around energy and infrastructure projects. This is the largest coordinated conservation plan between state and federal governments in our nation’s history – 11 western states are involved. However, such efforts would be easier and more effective if undertaken from the beginning of planned developments. A general policy to begin coordination in the earliest stages of the projects, when most options are open, will lead to more success incorporating energy planning with landscape-scale mitigation policies, resource management plans, and conservation actions on private working lands.
For more information about the American Wildlife Conservation Partners visit their web site at www.americanwildlifeconservation.org.
Recommendation 1: Secure permanent and dedicated conservation funding from public and private sources.
Recommendation 2: Enhance access for hunters and outdoor recreationists.
Recommendation 3: Require collaboration on big game migration corridors and habitats.
Recommendation 4: Integrate industry, state, and federal wildlife goals early in energy planning.
Recommendation 5: Incentivize private landowners to conserve wildlife and habitat and provide access for hunting.
Recommendation 6: Increase active management of federal land habitats and reduce litigation through collaboration.
Recommendation 7: Achieve greater results from an improved ESA program.
Recommendation 8: Support and assist states in addressing Chronic Wasting Disease and wild sheep pneumonia.
Recommendation 9: Focus climate policy on habitat conservation and restoration.
Recommendation 10: Require collaboration for wildlife conservation, hunting, and recreational shooting on federal lands.
"The wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So we must and we will."
-Theodore Roosevelt