Industry Downplays Tower Risks to Birds, Say Conservation Groups
Three leading conservation groups fired back at wireless industry and broadcaster arguments that the FCC shouldn’t make major changes in tower siting rules in response to a February 2008 remand from the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. “Regrettably, the industry continues to contest even modest changes to prevent the death of our native birds, a natural resource, held in trust for all current and future generations of Americans,” the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife and National Audubon Society said in comments filed at the commission.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The appeals court ordered the FCC to explain why it had failed to fully review the environmental impact of 6,000 Gulf Coast communications towers before granting licenses for them. The court also said the commission hadn’t applied the proper National Environmental Policy Act standards and didn’t give meaningful notice of tower applications (CD Feb 20/08 p2). In April, the conservation groups filed a petition at the FCC seeking an expedited rulemaking, saying commission action in response to the court was long overdue. In a first comment round, the CTIA, NAB, PCIA and National Association of Tower Erectors said the FCC should take action but only in direct response to the remand.
“Contrary to the wealth of scientific study or basis in law, comments from the broadcast and telecommunications industry simply repeat the position they have held for the past ten years on this issue -- that there be no regulatory changes by the FCC to improve its antenna structure registration procedures to better protect migratory birds,” the conservation groups said in reply comments this week. “This is despite the growing body of research documenting the extent of avian mortality caused by communication towers and the published research documenting measures available to mitigate such mortality.”
The conservationist coalition disputed industry claims of scant evidence that significant number of birds die yearly flying into wireless towers. “There is overwhelming peer-reviewed science to demonstrate the significance of tower-caused kills on bird populations,” the conservation groups said. “While not specifically addressed in our Petition, we also believe that proposed solutions such as those regarding tower height and lighting have been sufficiently studied to determine their potential for minimizing avian mortality.” Based on the lowest estimates, tower accidents every year kill at least 10,000 birds each of 24 species on a Fish and Wildlife Service watch list, the groups said.
The conservation groups charged that industry groups put far too much weight on one study, by Avatar Environmental, looking at bird mortality and towers. “Despite their request to the FCC to use ‘good’ science, industry groups support the findings of the controversial Avatar report and cite it frequently in their comments,” the groups said. “Following the publication of the Avatar report for public comment, leading scientific experts in the field such as Land Protection Partners and Dr. Joelle Gehring as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted detailed comments criticizing the report’s analysis and recommendations. … We urge the FCC to closely reexamine the comments it received from avian scientists and the FWS on the Avatar report and to acknowledge the significant limitations of that report.”
Wireless carriers, broadcasters, fixed microwave carriers, public safety licensees and aviation safety groups oppose steps called for by the conservation groups, CTIA and other industry groups said in joint reply comments.
The remedies urged “far exceed the scope of the Court’s mandate, are based on non-peer reviewed estimates of avian mortality, and fail to balance communications needs with environmental concerns,” the industry groups said. The proposals “threaten to bring tower siting to a grinding halt, making it difficult or impossible for 700 MHz licensees to meet the FCC’s stringent, time-based, build out requirements” and “would undermine the President’s and Congress’ intent that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 jump start our nation’s economy by impeding an infrastructure grantee’s ability to timely construct tower sites.”
U.S. Cellular said that as a midsized carrier it owns more than 3,800 registered antennas and has a “large stake” in the outcome of the proceeding. “The questions of whether and to what extent certain types of FCC-licensed antenna towers harm migratory birds, and what the remedies for such harm might be, are unresolved and bitterly contested,” U.S. Cellular said.
The carrier called the FCC’s obligations in responding to the remand limited. U.S. Cellular said the FCC must prepare an environmental assessment to determine if there are any significant environmental impacts caused by Gulf Coast towers, which would in turn could require the a more detailed environmental impact statement; provide a description of the type of “showing” which would trigger “programmatic consultation” by the FCC with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on avian mortality and towers; and adopt a new procedure to provide adequate notice to the public of all pending tower registration applications. “The Environmental Petitioners, in contrast, argue the FCC must now take wide-ranging actions far beyond the scope of the Remand Order,” U.S. Cellular said.