Hi tweets,

Just thought some of you might be interested in this. Warning, it is
somewhat depressing.

Michael Dossett
Shoreline, Washington
mpdossett at Juno.com


--------- Begin forwarded message ----------

The following message is being forwarded from Cayugabirds with permission
of the author.

Jay Greenberg
Rochester, NY
greenberg at fibonacci.biology.rochester.edu


>Subject: 150 pounds of Lapland Longspurs
>Message-ID: <9802171303.AA13391 at blue.ornith.cornell.edu>
>
>
>An estimated 5000-10,000 birds, mostly Lapland Longspurs, were killed on
>the night of January 22nd, 1998 in the vicinity of a 420 foot tall guyed
>communications tower in western Kansas. Apparently there was a heavy
>snowstorm which put the birds up at night looking for bare ground, but
>unfortunately a dense fog occurred and the huge disoriented flock
circled the
>lighted tower and were slaughtered in collisions with the guy wires.
Since
>I know some of the folks out there, I dug up a little more info about
the
>kill. In a two day period, people salvaging the kill picked up about
150
>pounds of dead Longspurs and many more were left behind. A few Horned
>Larks, one Chestnut-collared Longspur, and a Dark-eyed Junco were also
>found. Longspurs were also found dead in nearby wheat fields. Some
were
>impaled by wheat stubble suggesting they were so disoriented by the
lights
>and the fog that they didn't even know which way was up and flew into
the
>ground with full force. The tower had three flashing white strobes.
This
>is interesting because it has been suggested that white strobes cause
less
>mortality than blinking red incandescent lights. There were also power
>lines and a lighted pumping station, some other smaller towers,
buildings,
>and fences that evidently contributed to the mortality.
>
>This event brings up the important question of what the accrued impact
of
>the rapidly increasing number of 200+ foot high communications towers
>across the continent are having on our birds. An estimate in the 1970s
put
>the total at 1.2 million per year (Banks, 1979). But even since 1989,
the
>number of such towers in New York State has doubled and many communities
in
>central New York are now wrestling with tower siting and minimization
>issues. We have nearly four times the number of towers today across the
>continent as we did in the 70s and there is evidence that somewhere
between
>2-4 million songbirds are incidentally killed every year. Most studies
of
>tower kills have been done at the tall 1000+ foot towers. The most
famous
>such study was initiated by Herbert Stoddard at the Tall Timbers
Research
>Station near Tallahassee, Florida. Over a 30 year period the annual
kill
>averaged about 1600 birds and carcasses were found under the tower
nearly
>every day from August through November. In New York State, studies at
tall
>towers have been conducted by Wilifred Howard (25 year study at an 850
ft
>tower in Elmira) and Arthur Clark (31 year study at a number of 1000
foot
>towers around Buffalo, NY). These studies, conducted only in the fall,
>averaged hundreds of birds per year with peak years in the thousands.
>
>Though it is generally agreed that towers under than 500 feet high pose
less
>threat to migrating birds, the massive Longspur kill noted above shows
that
>large kills sometimes occur at smaller towers too. This is alarming
>because these shorter towers are rapidly proliferating and there are no
>long term studies on this size class (that I am aware of) so it is
>difficult to assess their accrued impact. Significant kills occur when
>specific cloudy/foggy weather conditions overlap with peak migration
>nights. The flashing lights (on towers over 200 feet tall for aviation
>safety) reflect off the water in the air and form a "room" of light
causing
>birds to switch to their diurnal (visual) mode of navigation. They end
up
>circling the tower and colliding with guy wires, other structures in the
>vicinity, and other birds. The location of the tower with respect to
>regional geography and migration patterns plays an important role in
>determining a particular towers kill potential. Any guyed and lighted
>communications tower over 200 feet can kill birds if the conditions are
>right. I'm not aware of specific long term studies for towers in the
>200-300 foot range but there are numerous studies indicating significant
>annual kills at lighthouses in the 200-300 foot size class.
>
>As if the problem with the short towers isn't enough, even more alarming
is
>the likelihood that within the next ten years we will have 1000 new tall
>towers in the 1000+ foot range built across the continent to broadcast
the
>new digital TV medium (see Smithsonian, July 1997). Yes, terrestrial TV
is
>likely to compete with the satellites for a long time to come. Once
>companies have invested money in these towers, they will lease space on
>them for a variety of communication services. Tall towers are the most
>economical way to broadcast over a large region and many of the existing
>tall towers are already loaded to the max with antennas. So broadcast
>companies will be building lots of new tall towers. Based on the
evidence
>that exists today, these towers alone will likely add another million
>songbirds to the annual towerkill toll. Along with all the new shorter
>towers, it is not far fetched to predict that annual tower kills across
>North America will soon exceed 5 million songbirds a year. How does
this
>compare with the impact of 70 million cats and the continuing
degradation
>of natural habitats? Well if every cat ate one songbird a year, the
>towerkills are a lot smaller, but towerkills are a source of mortality
that
>we can reduce by encouraging environmental site reviews before tower
>construction, by keeping tower numbers to a minimum, and their heights
as
>low as possible.
>
>There is a Bill currently before the New York State Assembly called the
>Bragman Bill (Assembly Bill 8567). This Bill proposes a "wireless
facility
>siting act" and though it is still evolving, it theoretically could give
>municipalities in New York State more authority to control and restrict
the
>siting of communication towers. Currently section 704 of the Federal
>Telecommunications Act preserves local zoning authority, but it also
>provides for the restriction and preemption of such authority by the
>Federal Communication Commission [FCC]. So, to give a local example
here
>in New York State, Frontier Cellular applied to the town of Ulysses to
put
>up a 280 foot guyed and lighted cellular communications tower. In
response
>to public sentiment against a lighted tower, Frontier voluntarily
proposed
>a 195 foot tower that would not have to be lit. A group of concerned
>citizens believed that equal or better coverage could be obtained by
>co-location on two existing structures (a water tower and fire tower),
so
>they urged the Planning Board to reject the application. Frontier
claimed
>it would be too expensive to cover the cell from two locations instead
of
>only one. At public hearings the citizens group argued against
approval,
>and engaged both technical and legal expertise to provide supportive
>evidence for a denial. Their foremost argument was that Frontier had
not
>demonstrated that the tower needed to be built; an engineering
consultant
>employed by the citizens proved that, in a way consistent with the
Ulysses
>Tower Ordinance, Frontier could utilize two existing shorter towers to
>accomplish the same coverage. Frontier agreed but noted the extra cost
of
>additional transmitting gear and said that it couldn't afford to be the
>first cell company in the area to spend more for environmental and
>aesthetic reasons. When it appeared that the Planning Board might
respond
>to the citizens group evidence and deny the application, Frontier
>threatened to sue the town for extensive damages. In the face of this
>threat the Planning Board backed down and approved the application. The
>concerned citizens have continued their opposition; on the basis of
their
>arguments presented at earlier public hearings, and other procedural
flaws
>in the application process, these citizens have filed suit in the State
>Supreme Court against the town Planning Board, the Board of Zoning
Appeals,
>and the Building Inspector, and against Frontier Cellular, asking for
>reversal of the town's action. The point here is that birders in New
York
>State could potentially help shape the Bragman Bill to empower towns
such as
>Ulysses to minimize aesthetic and environmental damage. This would
include
>giving the towns legal backing to minimize the number and height of
towers
>and, therefore, concurrently reduce annual bird mortality.
>
>Since their currently are no well defined guidelines in place by the
United
>States Fish and Wildlife Service's Office of Migratory Bird Management
to
>minimize the impact of these towers on migratory birds, the
responsibility
>may initially have to lie within local municipalities to enforce minimum
>environmental impact. By getting involved with the evolution of the
>Bragman Bill, it appears we can at least give municipalities the
potential
>for reducing the number and height of communications towers. There is a
>public hearing on the Bill on March 11th in Albany. Folks in the Ithaca
>and Cortland areas can contact their Assemblyman Marty Luster (125th
>district) for more information regarding this Bill.
>
>On the Federal level, the FCC issued a proposed rule on August 19th
1997,
>MM Docket No. 97-182, which would preempt the application of State and
>local zoning and land use ordinances. This rule was proposed in order
to
>help speed the construction of the tall 1000+ foot digital television
>towers through the siting process. From what I understand, even people
with
>land in conservation easements were at risk of having towers spring up
on
>their land in eminent domain-like fashion. Folks in Vermont have taken
the
>lead on reducing the height and number of communications towers, among
>other reasons, to preserve the beauty of their landscape. Vermont
Senators
>Leahy and Jeffords introduced a Bill (S. 1350) on October 30th 1997 to
>counteract the FCC rule and preserve State and local authority to
regulate
>the placement, construction, and modification of certain
telecommunications
>facilities, and for other purposes. Currently the FCC has backed down
but
>this issue still needs watching.
>
>Many cell communications companies have been building their own towers
>instead of co-locating transmitters on a shared single tower the way
cable TV,
>electric power, and phone lines share telephone poles. This means we
could
>end up with two to three times more towers than needed to do the job,
and a
>larger unnecessary mortality on the already threatened songbirds
>we appreciate in our gardens and woodlands. Bird lovers across the
>continent need to take the lead on minimizing the number and height of
>towers in their regions.
>
>Bill Evans
>Cornell Lab of Ornithology
>159 Sapsucker Woods Road
>Ithaca, NY 14850
>bill at ornith.cornell.edu
>
>Lit. cited:
>
>Banks, R.C. 1979. Human related mortality of birds in the United States.
>USFWS Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. No. 215.

--------- End forwarded message ----------

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]