Birds vs. towers

mtmiller

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
11,730
Location
Montana
Lawsuit Seeks to Save Millions of Songbirds From Tower Collisions

WASHINGTON, DC, May 3, 2005 (ENS) - Millions of birds die each year in the United States because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has failed to comply with environmental laws in its licensing of television, radio, cell, and other communications towers, according to a lawsuit filed Monday by two conservation organizations.

The American Bird Conservancy of Washington, DC; and the Forest Conservation Council of Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed suit in federal court against the FCC to activate a formal petition they filed with the agency in August 2002 requesting the agency’s environmental compliance in licensing communication towers, and requiring mitigation techniques to avoid bird deaths.

The current lawsuit, filed on behalf of the groups by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, requests that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia order the FCC to respond to the petition.

The petition cited violations of federal laws in the deaths of millions of migrating birds at thousands of towers along the Gulf Coast, towers the two groups claim were illegally authorized by the FCC in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

The groups say federal figures show that up to 50 million birds die each year in the United States as a result of lighting on towers that confuses birds during nighttime migration. The birds then crash into the structures, each other, and the ground.


976 birds killed in a single night at a single Florida TV tower (Photo by Robert Crawford courtesy American Bird Conservancy)
Thousands of birds can die at a single tower in a single night, particularly at times of bad weather or poor visibility during spring and fall migrations, the groups have found.
Still, the FCC has refused to implement the licensing guidelines recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

The FWS recommends that towers be kept below 200 feet, where possible, to avoid the necessity of lighting, using only strobe lights where lighting is necessary, and keeping towers unguyed. These measures protect birds while still facilitating communication services and safeguarding air traffic, the groups maintain. The Service recommends co-locating transmitters on existing towers to reduce the number of new towers needed.

The conservation organizations are especially concerned with the impact of communication towers in the Gulf Coast region, a 1,000 mile wide area that runs from Port Isabel, Texas to Tampa Bay, Florida that is a critical stopover region for millions of migratory birds.

Towers in this region are a particular hazard to the birds that arrive each spring, exhausted after their long flight across the Gulf of Mexico.

A study on one Florida television tower alone revealed the deaths of more than 44,000 birds of 186 species.

“The more than 5,200 towers in the Gulf Coast region are avian death traps in a major migratory area. Our repeated efforts to work with the FCC and industry have not produced change, and our law suit is critical to ending the slaughter of millions of birds,” said David Fischer, director of government relations at American Bird Conservancy.


A communications tower in DeLeon, Texas. (Photo courtesy Vanu, Inc. and Mid-Tex Cellular; National Science Foundation)
"Many of the birds most commonly killed - neotropical migratory songbirds such as warblers, vireos, and thrushes - are already in decline," Fischer said, "and this added mortality to protected species must be addressed.”
“The unregulated jumble of communication towers littering the coastal forests, wetlands, farmlands, and barrier islands of the Gulf Coast region are killing millions of migratory birds each year,” said John Talberth, Forest Conservation Council’s director of conservation.

“Our lawsuit is another step in a broader campaign to reform the haphazard and illegal way the FCC and the communications industry do business, and to bring the public into the decisionmaking process," Talberth said.

In a new study on the numbers and species of birds killed at selected towers, the American Bird Conservancy reports that 230 species of birds were killed at towers, over one quarter of all avian species found in the United States.

Fifty-two of these 230 species are on either the Fish and Wildlife Service's most recent list of Nongame Birds of Management Concern or the Partners in Flight Watch List. This means that 52 species that are in decline and in need of special management attention are killed at towers, including the black rail, Bell's vireo, golden-winged warbler, Swainson's warbler, Henslow's sparrow, Bachman's sparrow, and McCown's longspur.

About 7,000 new towers are currently being built each year, but this rate is expected to increase with developing cellular telephone and digital television networks.


A Bell's vireo. The species has shown an overall decline of 2.8 per per year from 1966-2001 across its U.S. range - the Midwest, Southwest and Western states. In California, the "Least" Bell's Vireo subspecies is federally endangered. (Photo by Steve Maslowski courtesy USFWS)
Flying will become even more hazardous by 2009, predicted Albert Manville, a far-sighted biologist from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird Management in Arlington, Virginia. Television stations converting to the digital format in the United States plan to erect more than 1,000 "megatowers," each at least 1,000 feet tall, he said in 1999.
Avian navigation systems might be disrupted by red lights or radio signals that interfere with the birds' ability to monitor Earth's geomagnetic field, according to biologist Robert Beason of the State University of New York at Geneseo. That may explain why birds circle to reestablish their orientation cues and are more likely to collide with towers and guy wires, said Beason.

Birdwatching is America’s fastest-growing hobby and a major economic force in the country, with an estimated 46 million people spending approximately $23 billion on the pastime each year.

Bird collisions with towers, buildings, and other human structures form the theme of this year’s International Migratory Bird Day on May 14, an annual event designed to celebrate the thousand mile journeys that birds undertake each year, and to heighten awareness of hazards that they face.

For a detailed report on tower kills with data on species killed and prevention measures, log on to: www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
 
And that is the very reason environmental organizations are losing all credibility. They sue, sue, sue and consumer costs and taxpayer costs go up, up, up. Face it, the general public is tired of the lawsuit a week strategy and the negative results. No more forest roads for thinning so they become overgrown and burn a couple million acres and a bunch of homes. Hmm, makes me want to like the groups responsible.
 
ringer, I am not losing a bunch of sleep over this, but do you disagree that if the FCC is indeed not complying with the law then they deserved to be sued?
 
No I don't think they should be sued. The birders want to get their way regardless of safety or cost and the article does not accurately connect mortality to the towers vs other causes. Publish the ruling after it occurrs so we can discuss the data from the plaintiffs and maybe there is some drastic need to sue. Thanks.
 
ringer- If I am understanding you correctly, laws don't need to be followed especially if it will cost you an extra couple of dollars on your bill? How about they read the rules and follow them. No extra court costs in that, right!
 
How are they supposed to build a tower? If they put the cables under ground, I bet the electrical radiation and what not would kill worms, then the birds would starve and the worms would be dead. This way, at least the smart birds, the ones that watch where their flying live. haha

Did they have any signs up for the birds? Beware of Tower when flying buy or landing for a rest. They should at least have that, eh.

What are they supposed to do with those towers? Does anybody know?
It says, "requiring mitigation techniques to avoid bird deaths" is where they failed. What's that?
 
ringer,

If industry was dumping illegal toxicants into, let's say the Yellowstone River, and 1,000's of fishes were dying as a result, should Trout Unlimited have the right to sue? Maybe they should look at a cost analysis to industry instead of resource protection. :rolleyes:
 
How are they supposed to build a tower?
According to the article, USFWS has guidelines. Maybe it is just me, but I would start there (excuse the sarcasm Tom). ;)

ringer
The birders want to get their way regardless of safety or cost
What exactly is the safety issue?
 
Thanks Tom. Just what I thought, a bunch of "if possibles, make an effort" yada yada yada. Says that it is VOLUNTARY. How can anyone win a lawsuit based upon a non-law that is vouluntary? If you want to change the scenario into a real law then get the majority of citizens to vote for it. And no I don't support dumping toxic waste into any body of water but nice try. Looks like just a typical enviro whacko group continuing to sue to fund their agenda.
 
We've had to give this data the look-over on one of our pending wind projects as well...it was truely amazing the amount of birds getting nailed by the com towers % wise more than any other structure. Again, especially hard on the evening migrators.

A few of the stats cited
One television transmitter tower in Eau Claire, WI, was responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 birds on each of 24 consecutive nights. A "record 30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night" at this same tower. In Kansas, 10,000 birds were killed in one night by a telecommunications tower.

Wind gen structures (with the exclusion of Altamont Pass :rolleyes: ) tend to be a lot more "bird friendly" then other structures which kid of surprised me.

Reports I read also state that "birding" is the second or third fasting growing pastime in the U.S.?? Didn't know that as well....
 
Being a television engineer with a company owning a 980-odd foot transmission tower, I can offer a few thoughts from that perspective.

First, I agree that towers do have some impact. We are not located in any major migratory path that I know of, nor are we in wetlands, etc., etc., but we still see a handful of dead birds around the tower each spring. Not thousands like reported here; more like 10-20 tops. The interesting thing is that the majority, non-scientifically speaking, appear to be one particular type of songbird. We've scratched our heads about that more than once.

Regarding the suggested guidelines:
Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower.
This is true for cellular, and can be true for broadcast, but in the case of broadcast it is VERY expensive due to the size and loading requirements. Co-location also often generates a political nightmare among member stations and is therefore often shunned. Any such requirement would undoubtedly be hotly contested.
If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications service providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above ground level (AGL), using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice structure, monopole, etc.)
It seems logical that "service providers" would only install as much steel as is necessary because of cost. In the case of broadcasting, the chances of a sub-200' tower is slim for any major channel allocation from a technical standpoint, at least in the flatlands.
If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should be used.
This is already Federal law, and the FCC has been recently enforcing it vigorously.

Regarding the rest of the guidelines, they fall everywhere from the "why not?" to the "good luck." They suggest reasonable measures like bird-friendly lighting patterns and visual markers, but they also propose "suggesting" that towers be built to accomodate multiple users even if the other users don't currently exist, and conducting extensive site research using expensive equipment and manpower. Who's going to pay for all of this? One probable answer would be the company constructing the tower, which naturally would meet with a great deal of resistance from those companies.

Fascinating topic.
 
Sounds like some big-ass scarecrows are in order!!! Miller, you must be bored as hell?
 
Back
Top