CC 03-16-2021 Item No. 14 Bird-Safe and Dark Sky_Written CommunicationsCC 03-16-21
#14
Dark Sky Policies
Municode
Amendment
Written Comments
6
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <peggy.griffin@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 7:29 PM
To:Erick Serrano; Piu Ghosh
Cc:Deborah L. Feng; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:2021-03-16 CC Meeting Agenda Item #14 - Exhibit D Map needs street names!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Erick and Piu,
Thank you for providing additional exhibits such as the map and glass treatments.
In looking at “Exhibit D ‐ Bird Sensitive Area Map” I noticed that it does not have street names! This is key for people to
orient themselves.
REQUEST: Please update Exhibit D to include street names ‐ especially key street names so people can get oriented AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE so people can have the information before the meeting.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
7
Cyrah Caburian
From:Myron Crawford <Mcrawford@bergvc.com>
Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 8:19 PM
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei; Kitty Moore
Cc:Erick Serrano
Subject:City Council 3-16-21 Item 14 - Municipal Code Amendments to adopt glazing and lighting
regulations
Attachments:CCUP Mayor 33 CC 3-16-21 Item 14 Bd Saf dk sky.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC.
10050 Bandley Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014-2188
Ph (408) 725-0700 Fax 408-703-2035
mcrawford@bergvc.com
3/12/21
Mayor and City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Toree Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: dpaul@cupertino.org; liangchao@cupertino.org; jwilley@cupertino.org; hwei@cupertino.org;
kmoore@cupertino.org
Subject: City Council 3-16-21 Item 14
Municipal Code Amendments to adopt glazing and lighting
regulations
Support of Chamber of Commerce March 4, 2021 Letter – Recommendations
and Comments:
1) We fully support the Chamber of Commerce March 4, 2021 Letter –
Recommendations and Comments.
2) We recommend that the Chamber’s comments and recommendations be
incorporated in their entirety into the new ordinance. We are fortunate
that the Chamber took the time and effort to study the proposed
ordinance and make the comments and recommendations that they did.
3) We note that both the Chamber and Staff report specifically state:
“the proposed ordinance would not apply to any existing structure or
lighting fixtures retroactively. A noncomplying facility may be maintained
indefinitely.” This should absolutely be incorporated in the new
ordinance
Thank you for your consideration,
8
Myron Crawford
Cc: Erick Serrano
Project Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-777-3308; Fax: 408-777-3333
Email: ericks@cupertino.org
Chamber of Commerce
9
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 5:47 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Support: Agenda Item 14, Dark Sky and Bird-Safe Design, March 16 City Council
Attachments:PastedGraphic-2.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Written Communications for 2021‐3‐16 Bird‐Safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinance, Agenda Item 14, City Council
Meeting
Subject: Municipal Code Amendments to adopt glazing and lighting regulations to implement the Fiscal Year 2019/20 City Council Work Program
items related to Dark Sky and Bird‐Safe Design. (Application No. MCA‐2019‐003and MCA‐2019‐004; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City‐
wide)
Dear Mayor, Vice‐Mayor and Councilmembers:
Thank you! Thank you, City Council, for the 2019/2020 City Council Work Program Item to develop a Bird‐Safe Design
and Dark Skies Ordinance. I commend City Staff Erick Serrano, Ellen Yau, and Piu Ghosh for their excellent work on the
Ordinance.
I look forward to your approval of this important Ordinance that will save lives—bird lives and human lives.
This ordinance fits well with another City Work Program FY 2021‐22 for sustainability, Climate Action Plan 2.0. One
major objective of CAP 2.0 is to identify opportunities for Cupertino as California policy points towards neutral emissions
in 2045. The concept of Carbon neutral includes building sinks – something that pulls carbon from the air. (Tree
Canopy). Cupertino has a good tree inventory system, so building on that to make it bigger is a great idea. More birds
attracted to our tree canopy will result in more bird collisions and deaths unless we make them part of the plan. The
Bird‐safe Design and Dark Skies Ordinance will do just that—make birds part of the City’s overall environmental plan.
I strongly support your approval of this Ordinance on Tuesday, March 16, 2021.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
34 year resident, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) Member
Migrating bird from Alaska, 4 inches long (hummingbird size)
10
Cyrah Caburian
From:Josie Gaillard <josie_gaillard@me.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 8:02 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Bird-safe design and dark sky policies
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
I understand that on March 16 you will be considering two policies that support bird‐safe design and dark skies. I write
in support of both.
Climate change is placing incredible stress on all of earth’s ecosystems. Wildlife, including insects and birds, are not
immune. News reports tell us that bird and insect populations are crashing with potentially disastrous consequences for
humans.
As we race to address climate change, please do everything you can to minimize the harms of human development by
thoughtfully requiring those designing our built environment to take wildlife and light pollution into consideration. The
policies being considered by Council take a first important step in that direction and I urge you to vote yes on both.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Josie Gaillard
11
Cyrah Caburian
From:Megan George <mdgeorge1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 8:55 AM
To:City Council
Subject:Protecting birds
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I hope that the city council approves the plan to reduce unnecessary light pollution and to protect birds from collisions
with buildings. We need birds more than unnecessary night lights.
Megan George
23500 Cristo Rey Drive
Cupertino, CA
13
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 12:04 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng
Subject:3-16-2021 CC Study Session Regarding Outback Site-More Info for you
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
In looking at the limited information provided for the Study Session this coming Tuesday evening, I’m sending you a link
to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors agenda item where they discussed this. How can you comment with
limited information?
Here is the detailed agenda item for the 2/23/2021 meeting where the County first introduced the plan to purchase the
shopping center site (including Outback
Steakhouse): http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=13206&MediaPosition=&ID=10
4709&CssClass=
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
3/16/2021 IQM2 Web Portal
sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=13206&MediaPosition=&ID=10 1/1
Powered by Granicus
Log in | Help Search
Print This Page
The requested Document could not be retrieved. Either you do not have Permissions or the document has
been deleted.
Go back to the page you were on.
«Back to Main Site«Back to Main Site WelcomeWelcome MeetingsMeetings VideosVideos NoticesNotices Boards+Boards+
16
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:14 PM
To:Erick Serrano; Piu Ghosh
Cc:City Clerk; City Council; Deborah L. Feng
Subject:Bird Sensitive Areas Map - how can property owners know?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Erick and Piu,
Thank you for providing a map of the proposed Bird Sensitive Areas. Because this map is not very detailed (no street
names, doesn’t show boxes for homes, etc), it’s hard to determine if a property would or would not be include.
Q1: Is there a way a resident or property owner can definitely know if a parcel is included in the area?
Q2: If the corner of a property is included, does it mean all structures on the property are included?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvas.org>
Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:24 PM
To:City Council; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Hung Wei; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey
Cc:Piu Ghosh; Erick Serrano; Deborah L. Feng; Gary Latshaw; Connie Cunningham; Gladwyn D'Souza;
Matthew Dodder; City Clerk; kristens@cupertino.org; Rose Grymes
Subject:Agenda item 14: Bird Safety and Lighting
Attachments:3.16.2021 Cupertino BSD_DS letter (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter support the Bird-Safe
provisions in Attachment A: Bird-Safe and Dark-Sky Ordinance. While we are eager to see the joint ordinance
move forward tonight, we have some concerns about the Dark-Sky provisions. We believe these concerns can
be easily remedied and provide recommendations in the attached letter.
We thank City Staff for their extensive public outreach, research, and diligent work on this ordinance. We also
thank the Mayor and Council for your leadership. We hope you motion to include these simple but important
changes and proceed with the first reading of the Bird-Safe and Dark-Sky Ordinance today.
We thank you for your attention,
Shani
Dear Cupertino Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers,
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
support the Bird-Safe provisions in Attachment A:Bird-Safe and Dark-Sky Ordinance.While we
are eager to see the joint ordinance move forward tonight,we have some concerns about the
Dark-Sky provisions. We believe these concerns can be easily remedied.
We apologize for this last minute request,but we finally heard back from lighting experts
(international expert Dr.Travis Longcore and others),and we are concerned that the lighting
ordinance as written requires lighting minimums and allows for excessively bright lighting
trespass.
We believe that the intent of the ordinance should be to limit lighting and light pollution,
and allow for residents and businesses to choose adequate lighting within the bounds of the
ordinance.With that in mind,we ask for simple modifications that remove lighting minimums and
establish a lower level of allowable light trespass.We recommend replacing the current
ordinance language in red with our proposed language in blue.Please see our
recommendations below.
We thank City Staff for their extensive public outreach,research,and diligent work on
this ordinance.We also thank the Mayor and Council for your leadership.We hope you motion
to include these simple but important changes and proceed with the first reading of the
Bird-Safe and Dark-Sky Ordinance today.
Sincerely,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
Cupertino Resident
Executive Committee Member
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gladwyn d'Souza
Conservation Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Existing Ordinance Language with Proposed Modifications:
19.102.040 Outdoor Lighting Requirements
B.Outdoor Lighting Standards
2.Illumination Levels
a.No exterior light,combination of exterior lights,or activity shall cast light exceeding one (1.0)
foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property,with the illumination level measured at the
property line between the lot on which the light is located and the adjacent lot,at the point
nearest to the light source,except if two adjacent properties are non-residential,or function as a
shopping center, and agree to coordinate lighting.
Revise from 1.0 to 0.5 foot candle.
Reasoning:Light trespass was one of the primary complaints by residents at public meetings.
One foot candle is about 100 times brighter than the full moon.This is very bright for light
spilling onto other properties.Portland Oregon limits light trespass to 0.5 foot candle and
Cupertino should follow suit.
d.Parking lots,sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles on
properties with four or more units,mixed-use development,and non-residential development
shall be illuminated with uniform and adequate intensity.Typical standards to achieve uniform
and adequate intensity are:
Remove the word “Uniform”.
Reasoning:A “Uniform”standard will create unnecessary amounts of light,and light trespass
into neighboring properties.
i.Average horizontal maintained illumination should be between one and three
foot-candles,but shall not be more than three foot-candle.
Replace with:Average horizontal maintained illumination shall not be more than
three foot-candle.
Reasoning:The red text establishes a lighting minimum (that is excessively bright)and
should be removed. Keep a maximum of 3 foot-candle,without requiring a minimum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 19.124.040 - Regulations for Off-Street Parking
1.Exterior Light Color:
All lighting shall be a white type light either metal halide or a comparable color corrected light
unless otherwise approved as part of a development plan for uniformity,not allowing any dark
areas in the parking lot.
Remove this requirement.
Reasoning:“white type light”is generally more biologically disruptive than warmer light.
“Not allowing any dark areas in the parking lot”could lead to increased and unnecessary light
pollution and trespass.Ultimately,it is up to the judgement of the property owners to install
adequate lighting within the upper boundaries of the ordinance.
2.Lighting Intensity:
Parking lots,sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles shall be
illuminated with a uniform and adequate intensity.Typical standards to achieve uniform and
adequate intensity are:
Remove the word “Uniform”.
Reasoning:A “Uniform”standard will create unnecessary amounts of light,and light trespass
into neighboring properties.
a.Average Horizontal Maintained Illumination: Between one and three foot candles.
Replace with:Average horizontal maintained illumination shall not be more than
three foot-candle.
Reasoning:The red text establishes a lighting minimum (that is excessively bright)and
should be removed. Keep a maximum of 3 foot-candle,without requiring a minimum.
c.Minimum Intensity above Parking Lot Surface:Minimum three foot-candles
vertically above the parking lot surface shall be maintained.
Remove this text.
Reasoning:The red text establishes a lighting minimum (that is excessively bright)and
should be removed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:49 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Third and Fourth tries for Kleinhaus presentation Item 14
Attachments:Cupertino CC 3-16-21.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Kirsten,
#3 Here’s a PowerPoint file I think you should be able to open
And
#4 Here’s a DropBox link to that same file
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qqtdvkakg7ib3p3/Cupertino%20CC%203‐16‐21%20copy.pptx?dl=0
Please let me know which one (or both) works.
Thank you!
Connie
3/16/2021
1
1
1
2
3/16/2021
2
Light at night disrupts biological function in all living things,
Humans are no exception
3
4
3/16/2021
3
●Response to light is evolutionary
●Animals and plants respond to lighting:
○Daily and seasonal changes provide
cues for biological function and
behavior.
○Attractions to light detrimental to
insects, birds.
○Exposure to light at night interferes with
hormone regulation -harmful to all living
organism s, triggers disease
Biological Effects
5
6
3/16/2021
4
7
8
3/16/2021
5
Sources of Light Pollution in Cities (cumulative impacts)
9
10
3/16/2021
6
◼
◼
11
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:52 PM
To:Erick Serrano; puig@cupertino.org
Cc:Deborah L. Feng; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:2021-03-16 CC Agenda Item #14 - Staff Report is MISLEADING!!
Attachments:CONDOR-13-090.1 with highlights.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Please include the following email as Written Communications for tonight’s March 16, 2021 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 14 Bird Safety & Dark Skies.
Dear Erick and Piu,
I’d like to clarify a misleading statement found in your Staff Report.
On Page 4 of 6, Bullet 3, it justifies applying the bird‐safe standards to residences based on a figure of 44 percent stated
in a peer‐reviewed journal! The Staff Report is misleading because it doesn’t mention the 56% collision rate found in
low‐rise non‐residential buildings! This, if it had been quoted, would have justified NOT having the first 15’ commercial
exemption.
See below.
FROM THE STAFF REPORT!
FROM THE ARTICLE THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO PICK AND CHOOSE THEIR NUMBERS!
2
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates
of annual mortality and species vulnerability
Authors: Loss, Scott R., Will, Tom, Loss, Sara S., and Marra, Peter P.
Source: The Condor, 116(1) : 8-23
Published By: American Ornithological Society
URL: https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles
in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your
acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.
Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use.
Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as
copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Volume 116, 2014, pp. 8–23
DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality
and species vulnerability
Scott R. Loss,
1,a* Tom Will,
2 Sara S. Loss,
1 and Peter P. Marra
1
1 Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, Midwest Regional Office, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA
a Current address: Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA
* Corresponding author:scott.loss@okstate.edu
Received October 9, 2013; Accepted October 17, 2013; Published January 2, 2014
ABSTRACT
Building collisions, and particularly collisions with windows, are a major anthropogenic threat to birds, with rough
estimates of between 100 million and 1 billion birds killed annually in the United States. However, no current U.S.
estimates are based on systematic analysis of multiple data sources. We reviewed the published literature and
acquired unpublished datasets to systematically quantify bird–building collision mortality and species-specific
vulnerability. Based on 23 studies, we estimate that between 365 and 988 million birds (median ¼599 million) are
killed annually by building collisions in the U.S., with roughly 56% of mortality at low-rises, 44% at residences, and
,1% at high-rises. Based on .92,000 fatality records, and after controlling for population abundance and range
overlap with study sites, we identified several species that are disproportionately vulnerable to collisions at all building
types. In addition, several species listed as national Birds of Conservation Concern due to their declining populations
were identified to be highly vulnerable to building collisions, including Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora
chrysoptera), Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris), Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis), Wood Thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), Kentucky Warbler (Geothlypis formosa), and Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum).The
identification of these five migratory species with geographic ranges limited to eastern and central North America
reflects seasonal and regional biases in the currently available building-collision data. Most sampling has occurred
during migration and in the eastern U.S. Further research across seasons and in underrepresented regions is needed to
reduce this bias. Nonetheless, we provide quantitative evidence to support the conclusion that building collisions are
second only to feral and free-ranging pet cats, which are estimated to kill roughly four times as many birds each year,
as the largest source of direct human-caused mortality for U.S. birds.
Keywords:anthropogenic mortality, Birds of Conservation Concern, individual residence, low-rise, high-rise,
systematic review, window collision
Colisiones entre aves y edificios en los Estados Unidos: Estimaciones de mortalidad anual y
vulnerabilidad de especies
RESUMEN
Colisones con edificios, en particular contra ventanas, presentan una amenaza antropog
´enica importante para las aves,
y se estima que causan la muerte de entre 100 mill ´on a mil millones de aves anualmente. Sin embargo, no existen
estimaciones para los Estados Unidos que est ´en basadas en un ana´lisis sistema´tico de datos provenientes de multiples
fuentes. Revisamos datos publicados y tambien adquirimos bases de datos in ´editos para cuantificar de una manera
sistema´tica la mortalidad causada por colisones entre aves y edificios, y la vulnerabilidad de diferentes especies.
Basado en 23 estudios, estimamos que entre 365 y 988 millones de aves (promedio ¼599 millones) mueren
anualmente como consecuencia de colisiones con edificios en los Estados Unidos, con aproximadamente 56% de la
mortalidad en edificios de baja altura, 44% en residencias, y ,1% en edificios de muchos pisos. Basado en .92,000
fatalidades registradas, y luego do controlar por abundancia poblacional y solapamiento de rango con area de estudio,
identificamos varias especies que son desproporcionalmente vulnerables a colisiones con todos los tipos de edificio.
Adema´s, varias especies listadas nacionalmente como Aves de Inter ´es para la Conservaci ´on debido a sus poblaciones
en declive fueron identificadas como altamente vulnerables a colisiones, incluyendo Vermivora chrysoptera,Passerina
ciris,Cardellina canadensis,Hylocichla mustelina,Geothlypis formosa,yHelmitheros vermivorum. La identificaci
´on de
estas cinco especies migratorias con rangos geogra´ficos restringidos a Norteam ´erica oriental y central refleja sesgos
estacionales y regionales en la disponibilidad de datos actuales disponibles de colisiones con edificios. La mayor´ıa del
muestreo ha ocurrido durante la ´epoca de migraci ´on y en el este de los Estados Unidos. Hacen falta investigaciones
adicionales a trav ´es de estaciones y en regiones poco representadas par reducir este sesgo. Sin embargo, presentamos
Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society. ISSN 0004-8038, electronic ISSN 1938-5129
Direct all requests to reproduce journal content to the Central Ornithology Publication Office at aoucospubs@gmail.com
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
evidencia cuantitativa que apoya la conclusi ´on que, como causa de mortalidad ligada derectamente a los humanos en
los Estados Unidos, las colisiones con edificios son superados solamente por los gatos mascotas libres, los cuales
matan aproximadamente cuatro veces la cantidad de aves anualmente.
Palabras clave:mortalidad antropog ´enica, Aves de Inter ´es para la Conservaci ´on, residencia particular, edificio
de baja altura, edificio de muchos pisos, revisi ´on sistema´tica, colisi ´on con ventana
INTRODUCTION
Collisions between birds and man-made structures,
including communication towers, wind turbines, power
lines, and buildings, collectively result in a tremendous
amount of bird mortality. Buildings are a globally
ubiquitous obstacle to avian flight, and collisions with
buildings, especially their glass windows (Figure 1), are
thought to be a major anthropogenic threat to North
American birds (Klem 1990a, 2009, Machtans et al. 2013).
Estimates of annual mortality from building collisions
range from 100 million to 1 billion birds in the United
States (Klem 1990a, Dunn 1993) and from 16 to 42 million
birds in Canada (Machtans et al. 2013). This magnitude of
mortality would place buildings behind only free-ranging
domestic cats among sources of direct human-caused
mortality of birds (Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013).
Research on bird–building collisions typically occurs at
individual sites with little synthesis of data across studies.
Conclusions about correlates of mortality and the total
magnitude of mortality caused by collisions are therefore
spatially limited. Within studies, mortality rates have been
found to increase with the percentage and surface area of
buildings covered by glass (Collins and Horn 2008, Hager
et al. 2008, 2013, Klem et al. 2009, Borden et al. 2010), the
presence and height of vegetation (Klem et al. 2009,
Borden et al. 2010), and the amount of light emitted from
windows (Evans Ogden 2002, Zink and Eckles 2010). In
the most extensive building-collision study to date, per-
building mortality rates at individual residences were
higher in rural than urban areas and at residences with
bird feeders than those without feeders (Bayne et al. 2012).
However, compared with larger buildings in urban areas
(e.g., skyscrapers and low-rise buildings on office and
university campuses), detached residences appear to cause
lower overall mortality rates and relatively high amounts of
mortality during non-migratory periods (Klem 1989, Dunn
1993, O’Connell 2001, Klem et al. 2009, Borden et al. 2010,
Machtans et al. 2013).
Despite the apparently large magnitude of bird–building
collision mortality and the associated conservation threat
posed to bird populations, there currently exist no U.S.
estimates of building-collision mortality that are based on
systematic analysis of multiple data sources. The most
widely cited estimate (100 million to 1 billion fatalities per
year) was first presented as a rough figure along with
qualifications (Klem 1990a) but is now often cited as fact
(Best 2008). Assessment of species-specific vulnerability to
collisions is also critical for setting conservation priorities
and understanding population impacts; however, existing
estimates of species vulnerability are limited in spatial
scope. In the most systematic U.S. assessment of building
collisions to date, species vulnerability was calculated using
data from only three sites in eastern North America, but
vulnerability values from this limited sample were used to
conclude that building collisions have no impact on bird
populations continent-wide (Arnold and Zink 2011, but
see Schaub et al. 2011, Klem et al. 2012).
We reviewed the published literature on bird–building
collisions and also accessed numerous unpublished data-
sets from North American building-collision monitoring
programs. We extracted .92,000 fatality records—by far
the largest building collision dataset collected to date—and
(1) systematically quantified total bird collision mortality
along with uncertainty estimates by combining probability
distributions of mortality rates with estimates of numbers
of U.S. buildings and carcass-detection and scavenger-
removal rates; (2) generated estimates of mortality for
different classes of buildings (including residences 1–3
stories tall, low-rise non-residential buildings and residen-
tial buildings 4–11 stories tall, and high-rise buildings 12
stories tall); (3) conducted sensitivity analyses to identify
which model parameters contributed the greatest uncer-
tainty to our estimates; and (4) quantified species-specific
FIGURE 1.A Swainson’s Thrush killed by colliding with the
window of a low-rise office building on the Cleveland State
University campus in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. Photo credit:
Scott Loss
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 9
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
vulnerability to collisions across all buildings and for each
building type.
METHODS
Literature Search
We searched Google Scholar and the Web of Science
database (using the Web of Knowledge search engine) to
locate peer-reviewed publications about bird–building
collisions. We used the search terms ‘‘bird window
collision’’and ‘‘bird building collision’’and both terms
with ‘‘bird’’replaced by ‘‘avian.’’We checked reference
lists and an annotated bibliography (Seewagen and
Sheppard 2012) to identify additional studies. Data from
collision-monitoring programs were located using a
Google search with the term ‘‘window collision monitoring
program’’and by contacting program coordinators listed
on project websites. We cross-checked the datasets we
found with a comprehensive list of ‘‘Lights Out’’programs
provided by C. Sheppard. Additional unpublished datasets
were located based on our knowledge of ongoing studies
presented at professional conferences or in published
abstracts. Finally, we learned of unpublished datasets when
contacting first authors of published studies; these
additional datasets were either more extensive versions
of authors’ published datasets, completely new datasets, or
in one case, a dataset from an independent citizen scientist.
Inclusion Criteria and Definition of Fatality
Different studies employed different sampling designs and
data collection protocols. To reduce this variability, to
ensure a baseline for the rigor of studies we used, and to
minimize bias in our analyses, we implemented inclusion
criteria to filter data at both the study and record levels.
Inclusion criteria were different for the analyses of total
mortality and species vulnerability. As a first step, we only
included studies for in-depth review if they were
conducted in the U.S. or Canada and provided original
data on bird–building collisions. We implemented study-
level inclusion criteria for the estimate of total mortality as
follows. We excluded studies that were based on sampling
at a single structure; these studies often focus only on
unique building types with non-representative mortality
rates (e.g., museums, convention centers, or exceptionally
tall high-rises). We included datasets that were based on
systematic carcass surveys or systematic surveys of home-
owners, but we excluded those that were based on
sampling in response to predicted building kills, incidental
observations, opportunistically sampled collections, or
undocumented methods. Because estimating per-building
mortality rates was a major component of the mortality
estimate, we also excluded studies if they did not record
numbers of buildings monitored or provide street
addresses of buildings that would have allowed us to
estimate numbers of buildings.
Because the species vulnerability analysis was based on
count proportions rather than on per-building mortality
rates, we implemented a different set of inclusion criteria
than that used for the total mortality estimate. This
resulted in the use of some studies that were excluded
from the total mortality estimate. Studies were only
included in the species analysis if they identified carcasses
to species. We excluded studies documenting fewer than
100 collision records because proportions based on small
samples are more likely to be abnormally high or low. As
with the total mortality estimate, we excluded data that
were based on incidental or opportunistic sampling or
undocumented methods. However, we did include studies
even if data were based on sampling of a single structure or
if we could not determine the number of buildings
sampled. Thus, we assume that species composition within
a site is independent of the number of buildings sampled.
The study-level inclusion criteria resulted in 23 and 26
datasets used for the total mortality and species vulnera-
bility estimates, respectively (Table 1). Seven studies were
excluded from all analyses (Table S1 in Supplemental
Material Appendix A).
Many datasets include some collision records that were
collected during standardized surveys and others found
incidentally. In addition, definitions of fatalities differ
among studies. We therefore applied inclusion criteria to
filter individual records and set our own definition of what
constitutes a fatality. The record-level inclusion criteria
were the same for all of our analyses. We excluded records
clearly denoted as incidental finds (i.e. not collected during
surveys), records with a disposition of ‘‘alive’’or ‘‘sur-
vived,’’and records of released birds. We also excluded
records of blood and/or feather spots on windows with no
carcass found. From the remaining records, we defined
fatalities to include any record with a disposition including
‘‘dead,’’ ‘‘collected,’’or any disposition indicating severe
injury (e.g.,‘‘disabled,’’ ‘‘squashed,’’ ‘‘fracture,’’or ‘‘in-
jured’’). All other records were considered to have
unknown disposition (e.g.,‘‘stunned,’’ ‘‘exhausted,’’
‘‘weak,’’ ‘‘dis-oriented,’’or any disposition indicating a
bird was sent to rehabilitation) and were excluded from all
analyses. The record-level criteria resulted in 92,869
records that we used to generate total mortality and
species vulnerability estimates. It was not possible to
confirm whether fatalities were caused by collisions with
windows or with other non-reflective portions of build-
ings; therefore, for the purposes of this study, we treated all
records as building–collision fatalities. Nonetheless, the
majority of bird mortality at buildings likely occurs due to
collision with windows or other reflective surfaces (Klem
2009).
10 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
TABLE 1.Sampling coverage, number of buildings sampled, and mortality rates documented in studies meeting inclusion criteria for estimation of total annual U.S.mortality from bird–building collisions and/or calculation of species-specific collision vulnerability.Building class LocationYear-roundsampling?Used formortalityestimate?Used forvulnerabilityanalysis?BuildingssampledMortality per buildingStudyAverage RangeResidences(1–3 stories)Alberta Yes Yes Noc1,747 0.7 0–43 Bayne et al. 2012U.S. & Canada No Yes Yes 1,165 0.85 0–21 Dunn 1993Duluth, MN No Yes Yes 42 2.3f? Bracey 2011Illinois Yes Yes Noc242 1.5 ? Weiss & Horn 2008Carbondale, IL Yes NoaYesh1 33.0 NA Klem 1979Purchase, NY Yes NoaYesh1 26.0 NA Klem 1979Low-rises Richmond, VA Yes Yes Yes 4 29.0 21–38 O’Connell 2001Cleveland, OH Yes Yes Yes 18 15.1 ? Borden et al. 2010Elsah, IL Yes Yes Yes 4 24.0 ? Hager et al. 2008Decatur, IL Yes Yes Yes 11 7.5f? Collins & Horn 2008Washington, DC No Yes Yes 21–38e4.0 1–30 Lights Out DC 2010–2012Rock Island, IL No Yes Nod20 2.6 0.3–52.1 Hager et al. 2013Decatur, IL No Yes Nod11 4.8 ? Horn personal communicationMurray, KY No Yes Nod13 1.6 0–7 Somerlot 2003Stillwater, OK Yes NoaYes 1 32.0 NA O’Connell personal communicationRock Island, IL Yes NoaYes 1 54.8 NA Hager et al. 2008Chicago, IL No NoaYes 1 1,028.0gNA McCormick Place 1978–2012Rochester, MN No NobYes ? ? ? Project Birdsafe Minnesota 2010–2011San Francisco, CA Yes NoaYes 1 47.2gNA California Academy of Sciences 2008–2012High-rises Indianapolis, IN No Yes Yes 48 3.3 1–14 Lights Out Indy 2009–2010Atlanta, GA No Yes Yes 53 8.4 0–40 Sexton 2006Calgary, AB No Yes Yes 15–36 5.5g1–89 Collister et al. 1996, 1997, Booth & Collister 1998Baltimore, MD No Yes Yes 16–48e7.1g1–81 Lights Out Baltimore 2008–2012Twin Cities, MN No Yes Yes 118 3.0g? Project Birdsafe Minnesota 2007–2012New York, NY No Yes Yes 17–31e5.5g1–52 Project Safe Flight New York 2009–2011Philadelphia, PA No Yes Yes 10 13.2g? Pennsylvania Audubon 2008–2011Columbus, OH No Yes Nod20e1.4 0–5 Lights Out Columbus 2012Portland, OR No Yes Nod21–44 1.0g? Bird Safe Portland 2009–2011Toronto, ON No Yes Yes 74–194e17.4g1–535 Fatal Light Awareness Program 2000–2010Winston-Salem, NC No Yes Yes 16 3.6g0–10 Lights Out Winston-Salem 2011–2012Toronto, ON No NoaYes 1 157.0 NA Ranford & Mason 1969Chicago, IL No NobYes ? ? ? Chicago Bird Collision Monitors 2002–2012Milwaukee, WI No NobYes ? ? ? Wisconsin Night Guardians 2007–2011Toronto, ON No NobYes ? ? ? Fatal Light Awareness Prog. 2007, 2011New York, NY No NobYes ? ? ? Klem 2009aStudy excluded from total mortality estimate because sampling conducted at a single building.bStudy excluded from total mortality estimate because number of buildings sampled not recorded and no information provided to calculate this number.cStudy excluded from species estimates because species data not provided.dStudy excluded from species estimates because sample size,100.eNumberofbuildingsisanestimatebasedontheaverageofpotentialminimumandmaximum(seetext);rangeindicatesyear-to-yearvariationinnumberofbuildingssampled.fMortality rate is corrected for scavenger removal and searcher detection rates.gMortality rate is an average per-building rate across all years of the study/monitoring program.hStudy used for species risk assessment for building class but not assessment across all building classes (sample size,100).S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 11
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Data Extraction
We classified studies into three building classes thought to
cause different mortality rates (Machtans et al. 2013) and
for which data on the number of U.S. buildings is available.
These classes include residences 1–3 stories tall (detached
houses and multi-unit residences; hereafter,‘‘residences’’),
low-rise non-residential buildings and residential buildings
4–11 stories tall (hereafter,‘‘low-rises’’), and high-rise
buildings 12 stories tall (hereafter,‘‘high-rises’’). For
unpublished data from downtown areas of major cities, we
assumed that all data came from high-rises because it was
not possible to determine building height without visiting
each site. For all other data sources, we were able to
confirm the building type from which data were collected.
Published studies that met our inclusion criteria either
reported an annual mortality rate per building (averaged
across buildings) or presented both the number of dead
birds found and the number of buildings sampled, thus
allowing us to calculate this rate. For published studies, we
extracted a single annual mortality rate for each study
unless the study included data from more than one non-
adjacent site, in which case we extracted a separate rate for
each site (e.g., Klem 1979). For unpublished datasets that
included the number of buildings sampled, we always
extracted a single mortality rate. This value was generated
by first calculating a single-year per-building mortality rate
(averaged across buildings) for each year of the study and
then averaging these rates across years. In some cases, we
determined that two or more sources presented duplicate
data when we observed that the data were collected at the
same study sites and during the same range of dates. In
these instances, we extracted the data from the source that
provided more detailed methods or more extensive fatality
data, and we excluded the duplicated data when extracting
from the other source.
Data from collision-monitoring programs often include
the street address or intersection where a carcass was
found but not the number of buildings sampled. Single
buildings can have more than one address, and a single
address can include more than one building. In addition,
some monitoring programs have no systematic protocol
for recording addresses, resulting in multiple similar
entries for an address (e.g., 1 Main, 1 Main St., and 1
Main—Smith Tower). To account for these issues, we
entered addresses into Google Maps and used satellite
view to determine if addresses referred to one or more
buildings. If it was still unclear from mapping whether an
address referred to one or more buildings, we assumed it
referred to one. Likewise if we could not confirm that two
or more similar addresses referred to one building, we
assumed they were separate buildings. If addresses with
different cardinal directions were possible (e.g., 1 Main E
and 1 Main W), we assumed they referred to separate
buildings, but if they were not possible (i.e. only 1 Main
exists), we assumed data entry error and combined
addresses.
Recognizing that these methods could not account for
all duplicate addresses and data entry errors, we estimated
a minimum and maximum number of buildings sampled
in each year. We estimated a maximum number based on
the number of unique addresses remaining after following
the above steps and the assumption that intersections
referred to a number of buildings equal to the number of
carcasses found up to four (i.e. four or more carcasses may
result from collision with four separate buildings, one at
each intersection corner). We estimated a minimum
number by combining similar addresses that may have
been from one building, even if we could not confirm this
with mapping, and assuming that all intersections referred
to one building. We used the average of the minimum and
maximum number to estimate per-building mortality
rates.
Quantification of Annual Mortality from Building
Collisions
The studies we used cover varying portions of the year, but
most focus all or most of sampling effort on migration
periods. Using raw per-building mortality rates would
therefore result in a national estimate that is only relevant
to spring and fall migration periods. We sought to account
for partial-year sampling and to generate estimates that
reflected the entire year, because several studies have
indicated that building collision mortality can be substan-
tial during summer and winter (Dunn 1993, Klem 2009,
Bayne et al. 2012, Hager et al. 2013). Given enough year-
round studies, partial-year mortality rates can be stan-
dardized to year-round estimates using year-round studies
as a baseline (Longcore et al. 2012, Loss et al. 2013).
However, there were few year-round studies that met
inclusion criteria (Table 1), so we could not adjust
individual studies to year-round estimates. Instead, we
accounted for this limitation in our estimation model
(details below) by only using a year-round study for
residences, repeating estimation using a subset of studies
that sampled year-round for low-rises, or incorporating a
correction factor to account for mortality during periods
other than migration for high-rises, a building type for
which little data exists for summer and winter (see
definition of and rationale for this correction factor in
Supplemental Material Appendix B). Despite the limitation
of applying a post hoc correction factor to the high-rise
estimate, we argue that this approach is preferable to
assuming that no mortality occurs during the summer and
winter.
We estimated mortality in each building class by
multiplying data-derived probability distributions of per-
building mortality rates by distributions of numbers of
buildings. For residences, we followed Machtans et al.
12 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
(2013), which based mortality rates on the only year-round
building collision survey to date that sampled across a
large number of residences, a study of 1,458 Alberta
residents in single and multi-unit residences (Bayne et al.
2012). This study documented higher mortality rates at
rural residences compared with urban residences and at
residences with bird feeders compared with those without
feeders. The study also documented increasing mortality
with increasing age of urban residences. We incorporated
these elements into our residence sub-model:
Mortality rural with feeder
ðMRF Þ
¼Nresidence 3 R 3 F 3 Krural with feeder
3 Dresidence
ð1Þ
Mortality rural no feeder
ðMRNF Þ
¼Nresidence 3 R 3ð1 F Þ 3 Krural no feeder
3 Dresidence
ð2Þ
Mortality urban with feeder
ðMUF Þ
¼NresidenceðageÞ 3ð1 RÞ 3 F 3 Kurban with feederðageÞ
3 Dresidence
ð3Þ
Mortality urban no feeder
ðMUNF Þ
¼NresidenceðageÞ 3ð1 RÞ 3ð1 F Þ
3 Kurban no feederðageÞ 3 Dresidence
ð4Þ
Mortalityresidences ðMR Þ
¼MRF þ MRNF þ MUF þ MUNF
ð5Þ
where N is the number of residences in the U.S.,R is the
percentage of residences in rural areas,F is the percentage
of residences with bird feeders,K is the annual per-
building mortality rate, and D is a correction factor to
account for two biases that lead to underestimation of
mortality (Hager et al. 2013): removal of carcasses by
scavengers prior to fatality surveys and imperfect detection
of the carcasses remaining at the time of surveys. For
Equations (3) and (4), we calculated mortality by building
age classes (0–8, 9–18, and 19–28 years, and all ages 29
years), and summed estimates across age classes.These age
classes correspond closely to those in Machtans et al.
(2013), but we shifted classes slightly (e.g., 9–18 years
instead of 10–20 years) to match housing age data from
the U.S. Census Bureau.
For low-rises, we generated two separate estimates of
collision mortality, one using mortality rates based on all
eight studies meeting our inclusion criteria and one based
only on four year-round studies. We used the following
sub-model for both estimates:
Mortality low-rise ðML Þ¼Nlow-rise 3 Klow-rise 3 Dlow-rise ð6Þ
For high-rises, there are no datasets based on year-round
systematic sampling. We incorporated a correction factor
(Y) into the mortality estimation sub-model to account for
additional fatalities occurring outside of migration periods:
Mortality high-rise ðMH Þ¼Nhigh-rise 3 Khigh-rise 3 Y
3 Dhigh-rise ð7Þ
We estimated total annual building collision mortality by
summing estimates for individual building classes; we
conducted estimation twice, once using each of the low-
rise estimates:
Mortality total ¼MR þ ML þ MH ð8Þ
All of the above parameters were treated as probability
distributions. From the probability distribution of each
parameter (see Table 2 for specific distributions, Supple-
mental Material Appendix B for rationale for all distribu-
tions, and Table S2 in Supplemental Material Appendix C
for numbers of buildings), we randomly drew one value
and used the above formulas. We used ‘‘runif’’and
‘‘rnbinom’’commands (for uniform and negative binomial
distributions, respectively) in Program R and conducted
10,000 iterations to generate a range of estimate uncer-
tainty.
Sensitivity Analysis
We used multiple linear regression analyses assuming a
normal error distribution (function ‘‘lm’’in Program R) to
investigate the percentage of uncertainty in mortality
estimate ranges explained by each model parameter
(Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013). We treated the 10,000
mortality-estimate replicates as the values of the depen-
dent variable and randomly drawn values of each
parameter as values of predictor variables. We used partial
R2 values to interpret the percentage of variance in the
estimate range explained by each parameter. We repeated
this regression analysis four times: once for the total
mortality estimate (including all parameters) and once for
each of the three building class estimates (with each
regression model only including the parameters relevant to
that building class).
Quantification of Species Vulnerability
In addition to estimating total annual mortality, we
calculated vulnerability for species and taxonomic groups.
We followed Arnold and Zink (2011), who identified
‘‘super-collider’’and ‘‘super-avoider’’species using colli-
sion records from three unpublished datasets. We greatly
expanded upon the earlier study by using 26 datasets from
across North America (Table 1). All analyses described
below were conducted across all datasets to estimate
overall building collision vulnerability, as well as separately
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 13
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
for each building class to estimate class-specific vulnera-
bility. As described previously, we only included datasets
with more than 100 records for the overall vulnerability
analysis. However, because there were only two datasets
for residences that had more than 100 records, we also
included two smaller datasets to calculate collision
vulnerability for this building class.
Numbers of fatalities can vary among species due to
population abundance and the degree of range overlap
with study locations (Arnold and Zink 2011). To account
for population abundance, we extracted national popula-
tion size estimates from the Partners in Flight Population
Estimates Database (Rich et al. 2004), which includes
North American population estimates generated using
U.S. Breeding Bird Survey data (Sauer et al. 2012). We
used North American abundance rather than regional
abundance because it is difficult to link study sites where
mortality occurs to the affected regional subsets of bird
populations, especially for species that are killed primarily
during migration (Loss et al. 2012). To account for range
overlap with study sites, we counted the number of sites
overlapping with each species’ breeding, wintering, and/or
migration range (Sibley 2000). We followed Arnold and
Zink’s (2011) approach for calculating species vulnerabil-
ity. To give each site equal weighting, we first standard-
ized each dataset to 36,000, the largest single-site total
TABLE 2.Probability distributions used to estimate total annual U.S. mortality from bird–building collisions. We defined uniform
distributions for most parameters because not enough data exist to ascribe higher probability to particular values in the defined
range. We defined negative binomial distributions for the low-rise and high-rise mortality rate distributions because they allowed
the majority of probability density to match the confidence intervals indicated by the data while also allowing for a small probability
of higher collision mortality rates, reflecting the exceptionally high mortality rates that have been documented at some low-rises
and high-rises (see mortality rates in Table 1).
Parameter
Distribution
type Distribution parameters Source
Residences (1–3 stories)
Number of residences Uniform Varies by age (Supplemental
Material Appendix C)
U.S. Census Bureau 2011
Percentage in urban areas Uniform Min ¼72.6%; Max ¼88.8% U.S. Census Bureau 2012
Percentage with bird feeders Uniform Min ¼15%; Max ¼25% Dunn 1993
Mortality rate
Rural with feeders (all ages) Uniform Min ¼2.17; Min ¼4.03 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Rural without feeders (all ages) Uniform Min ¼0.98; Max ¼1.82 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Urban with feeders
Age 0–8 Uniform Min ¼0.28; Max ¼0.52 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Age 9–18 Uniform Min ¼0.42; Max ¼0.78 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Age 19–28 Uniform Min ¼0.56; Max ¼1.04 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Age 29þ Uniform Min ¼0.63; Max ¼1.17 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Rural without feeders
Age 0–8 Uniform Min ¼0.11; Max ¼0.20 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Age 9–18 Uniform Min ¼0.18; Max ¼0.33 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Age 19–28 Uniform Min ¼0.25; Max ¼0.46 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Age 29þ Uniform Min ¼0.28; Max ¼0.52 Bayne et al. 2012, Machtans et al. 2013
Scavenging/detectability correction Uniform Min ¼2; Max ¼4 Dunn 1993
Low-rises
Number of low-rises Uniform Min ¼14.0 million;
Max ¼16.2 million
Multiple sources (see Supplemental
Material Appendix C)
Mortality rate (all studies) Neg. bin.n ¼4.6;p ¼0.35 95% of distribution prob. density ¼4–18a
Mortality rate (year-round studies) Neg. bin.n ¼5.1;p ¼0.26 95% of distribution prob. density ¼5–28b
Scavenging/detectability correction Uniform Min ¼1.28; Max ¼2.56 Hager et al. 2012, 2013
High-rises
Number of high-rises Uniform Min ¼19,854; Max ¼21,944 Sky Scraper Source Media 2013
Mortality rate Neg. bin.n ¼4.0;p ¼0.37 70% of distribution prob. density ¼4–11b
Partial-year sampling correction Uniform Min ¼1.05; Max ¼1.20 Additional 5–20% mortality outside
of migration
Scavenging/detectability correction Uniform Min ¼1.37; Max ¼5.19 Ward et al. 2006, Hager 2012, 2013
a Range represents 95% confidence interval of mortality rates calculated across all eight studies of low-rises meeting inclusion
criteria.
b Range represents 95% confidence interval of mortality rates calculated from four year-round studies of low-rises meeting inclusion
criteria.
c Range represents 95% confidence interval of mortality rates calculated from 11 studies of tall buildings meeting inclusion criteria.
14 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
number of fatalities, and then summed standardized
counts across studies for each species. We regressed
log10(Xþ1) species counts (X þ 1 transformation to
account for zero counts for some species at some sites)
on log10 population size and log10 range overlap.
Vulnerability was estimated by fixing coefficients for
population size and range overlap to 1.0 (this assumes
that, for example, a 10-fold increase in abundance is
associated with a 10-fold increase in collision mortality,
all else being equal; Arnold and Zink 2011), calculating
residuals, and raising 10 to the power of the absolute
value of residuals. This approach of fixing model
coefficients was taken because there was an unknown
level of error in both the dependent and independent
variables and, therefore, standard regression models could
not produce unbiased slope estimates (Warton et al.
2006, Arnold and Zink 2011). Calculated vulnerability
values indicate the factor by which a species has a greater
chance (positive residuals) or smaller chance (negative
residuals) of experiencing building collision mortality
compared with a species with average vulnerability. We
estimated vulnerability for taxonomic groups by averag-
ing residuals across species occurring in at least two
studies.
RESULTS
Estimates of Bird–Building Collision Mortality
The 95% confidence interval of annual bird mortality at
residences was estimated to be between 159 and 378
million (median ¼253 million) (Figure 2A and Table 3)
after correcting for scavenger removal and imperfect
detection. This equates to a median annual mortality rate
of 2.1 birds per building (95% CI ¼1.3–3.1). Reflecting the
large number of residences in urban areas and residences
without bird feeders, we estimate that urban residences
without feeders cumulatively account for 33% of mortality
at residences, followed by rural residences without feeders
(31%), urban residences with feeders (19%), and rural
residences with feeders (17%).
FIGURE 2.Frequency histograms for estimates of annual U.S. bird mortality caused by collisions with (A) residences 1–3 stories tall,
(B) low-rises (residences 4–11 stories tall and all non-residential buildings 11 stories tall), (C) high-rises (all buildings 12 stories
tall), and (D) all buildings. Estimates for low-rises and for all buildings are based on the average of two estimates: one calculated with
all eight low-rise studies meeting inclusion criteria and one calculated with a subset of four low-rise studies that conducted year-
round sampling.
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 15
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
The 95% confidence interval of annual low-rise mortal-
ity based on all studies meeting inclusion criteria was
estimated to be between 62 and 664 million birds (median
¼246 million). The 95% confidence interval based on the
four year-round low-rise studies was estimated to be
between 115 million and 1.0 billion birds (median ¼409
million). The average of the two median figures is 339
million (95% CI ¼136–715 million) (Figure 2B), equating
to a median annual rate of 21.7 birds per building (95% CI
¼5.9–55).
The 95% confidence interval of high-rise mortality was
estimated to be between 104,000 and 1.6 million birds
(median ¼508,000) (Table 3 and Figure 2C) after
correcting for scavenger removal, imperfect carcass
detection, and mortality during periods other than
migration. Despite causing the lowest total mortality,
high-rises had the highest median annual mortality rate:
24.3 birds per building (95% CI ¼5–76). Combining
estimates from all building classes (using the average of the
two low-rise estimates) results in an estimate of 599
million birds killed annually across all U.S. buildings (95%
C.I.¼365–988 million) (Figure 2D).
Factors Explaining Estimate Uncertainty
Due to the large number of low-rises and uncertainty
about low-rise mortality rates, sensitivity analyses indicat-
ed that the low-rise mortality rate explained a large
amount of uncertainty for the estimates of both low-rise
mortality (85%) and total mortality (75%). Other param-
eters explaining substantial uncertainty for the total
estimate included the correction factors for scavenger
removal and carcass detection at low-rises (10%) and
residences (9%). For residences, 70% of uncertainty was
explained by the correction factor for scavenging and
detection and 15% was explained by the proportion of
residences in urban areas. For the high-rise estimate, the
greatest uncertainty was explained by the mortality rate
(67%), followed by the correction factor for scavenging and
detection (25%).
Species Vulnerability to Building Collisions
Of 92,869 records used for analysis, the species most
commonly reported as building kills (collectively repre-
senting 35% of all records) were White-throated Sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis), Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis),
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), and Song Sparrow (Melo-
spiza melodia). However, as expected, there was a highly
significant correlation between fatality counts and popu-
lation size (r ¼0.53,P ,0.001, df ¼213) and between
counts and range overlap with study sites (r ¼0.25,P ,
0.001, df ¼223). After accounting for these factors,
estimated vulnerability across all buildings was highly
variable, ranging from 1,066 times more likely to collide
than average to 273 times less likely to collide than average
(high vulnerability species in Table 4; all values in Tables
S3–S6 in Supplemental Material Appendix D).
Several species exhibit disproportionately high vulner-
ability to collisions regardless of building type, including
Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris),
Brown Creeper (Certhia americana), Ovenbird, Yellow-
bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), Gray Catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis), and Black-and-white Warbler
(Mniotilta varia). Seven species that are disproportionately
vulnerable to building collisions are national Birds of
Conservation Concern and 10 are listed regionally (Table
4; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Species in the
former group include Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora
chrysoptera)and Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis)
at low-rises, high-rises, and overall, Painted Bunting
(Passerina ciris) at low-rises and overall, Kentucky Warbler
(Geothlypis formosa) at low-rises and high-rises, Worm-
eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum) at high-rises,
and Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) at residences.
For species with vulnerability indices calculated from a
TABLE 3.Estimates of annual bird mortality caused by building collisions at U.S buildings. For low-rises (and therefore, for the total
mortality estimate), we generated two separate estimates of collision mortality, one using mortality rates based on all eight low-rise
studies meeting our inclusion criteria and one based on a subset of four low-rise studies that sampled mortality year-round.
Building class Mean no. of buildings in U.S.
Point estimate 95% CI
Total Per building Total Per building
Residences (1–3 stories) 122.9 million 253.2 million 2.1 159.1–378.1 million 1.3–3.1
Low-rises 15.1 million 245.5 million
a 16.3a 62.2–664.4 million
a 4.1–44.0a
409.4 million
b 27.1b 114.7–1,028.6 million
b 7.6–68.1b
High-rises 20,900 508,000 24.3 104,000–1.6 million 5.0–76.6
Total 138.0 million 507.6 million
a 3.7a 280.6–933.6 million
a 2.0–6.8a
667.1 million
b 4.8b 349.9–1,296 million
b 2.5–9.4b
a Estimate based on low-rise estimate using all eight studies meeting inclusion criteria.
b Estimate based on low-rise estimate using subset of four year-round studies meeting inclusion criteria.
16 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
TABLE 4.Estimates of species vulnerability to building collisions. Risk values indicate the factor by which species are at a greater risk of collision compared with a specieswith average risk. Species in boldface italics are Birds of Conservation Concern at the national level and species in boldface are Birds of Conservation Concern in at least oneU.S. region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Scientific names are in Supplemental MaterialAppendix D.All buildings Residences (1–3 stories) Low-rises High-risesSpecies Risk Species Risk Species Risk Species RiskAnna’s Hummingbirda1,066.4Purple Finch257.2Golden-winged Warbler141.7 Townsend’s Solitaire 167.4Black-throated Blue Warbler 45.5 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 174.7Painted Bunting129.3 Black-throated Blue Warbler 78.5Ruby-throated Hummingbird 37.0 Ovenbird 112.1 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 103.7 Connecticut Warbler 52.0Townsend’s Solitaire 36.3 Brown Creeper 81.1 Black-throated Blue Warbler 86.4 Brown Creeper 44.3Golden-winged Warbler35.3 House Finch 80.1 Swamp Sparrow 50.6 Ovenbird 43.7Painted Bunting32.1 Black-and-white Warbler 68.7Canada Warbler46.7 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 43.4Brown Creeper 26.2 Cedar Waxwing 50.5Louisiana Waterthrush46.4Worm-eating Warbler26.5Connecticut Warbler 22.9Field Sparrow48.3 Brown Creeper 44.8Canada Warbler25.8Ovenbird 21.8Wood Thrush41.0Yellow-bellied Sapsucker38.3 Gray Catbird 23.9Canada Warbler17.9 Swainson’s Thrush 34.7 Connecticut Warbler 35.7Yellow-bellied Sapsucker23.7Swamp Sparrow 16.7 Northern Cardinal 27.5 Ovenbird 30.4Golden-winged Warbler23.1Yellow-bellied Sapsucker16.2 Blue Jay 26.5 Sharp-shinned Hawk 27.8 American Woodcock 22.1Louisiana Waterthrush14.3 White-breasted Nuthatch 25.0 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 24.1 Common Yellowthroat 20.4Gray Catbird 12.8Yellow-bellied Sapsucker22.6 Gray Catbird 23.2 Scarlet Tanager 18.5Pine Grosbeaka12.4 Northern Waterthrush 22.5 Black-and-white Warbler 22.7 Black-and-white Warbler 18.3American Woodcock 11.7 Nashville Warbler 22.2 American Woodcock 21.1 Swamp Sparrow 18.1Pygmy Nuthatcha11.4 Gray Catbird 20.7Kentucky Warbler20.2 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 16.2Black-and-white Warbler 11.1Northern Flicker20.2 Mourning Warbler 19.3Kentucky Warbler14.0Pied-billed Grebea11.0 Downy Woodpecker 18.7 Common Yellowthroat 18.4Northern Goshawk13.6Common Yellowthroat 10.9 Black-capped Chickadee 14.9 Cape May Warbler 16.7Eastern Whip-poor-will13.4aSpecies is ranked for all buildings but not individual classes because it occurs in2 total studies, but,2 studies within building class.
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 17
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
relatively small sample of studies (e.g., those noted with a
superscript inTable 4), vulnerability indices may be biased.
For example, the exceptionally high vulnerability value for
Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna) likely results from
this species occurring in only two studies and experiencing
exceptionally high mortality in one of these studies.
Vulnerability estimates for taxonomic groupsare inTable
5. Several high-risk bird groups are represented in our
dataset by only one or two species (e.g., grebes, shorebirds,
kingfishers, and gulls and terns); average risk values for
these groups may not represent the entire taxonomic
family. Other taxa, particularly the hummingbirds and
swifts and the warblers, appear especially vulnerable to
building collisions, with more than one species ranking in
the overall high-vulnerability list. In particular, warblers
experience disproportionately high collision risk, with 10
species ranking among the 25 most vulnerable species
overall and 12 and 14 species ranking among the 25 most
vulnerable species for low-rises and high-rises, respectively.
Taxonomic groups with particularly low collision risk
include ducks and geese, swallows, herons, upland game
birds, and blackbirds, meadowlarks, and orioles.
DISCUSSION
Comparison of Mortality Estimate to Previous
Estimates
Our estimate of 365–988 million birds killed annually by
building collisions is within the often-cited range of 100
million to 1 billion (Klem 1990a). Other estimates are
either outdated (3.5 million, Banks 1979) or are simply a
mid-point of the above range (550 million, Erickson et al.
2005). Our larger estimate of low-rise mortality based only
on year-round studies suggests that total annual building
collision mortality could exceed one billion birds, as
suggested by Klem (2009). Using the year-round low-rise
estimate results in an annual mortality estimate of up to
1.3 billion birds. Regardless of which figure is interpreted,
our results support the conclusion that building collision
mortality is one of the top sources of direct anthropogenic
mortality of birds in the U.S. Among other national
estimates that are data-driven and systematically derived,
only predation by free-ranging domestic cats is estimated
to cause a greater amount of mortality (Loss et al. 2013). A
similar ranking has been made for anthropogenic threats
in Canada (Blancher et al. 2013, Machtans et al. 2013).
Major sources of direct anthropogenic bird mortality
currently lacking systematically derived estimates include
collisions with automobiles and other vehicles, collisions
and electrocution at power lines, and poisoning caused by
agricultural chemicals, lead, and other toxins. Additional
systematic quantification of mortality is needed to allow
rigorous comparisons among all mortality sources.
A general pattern across and within building classes is
that a large proportion of all mortality occurs at structures
that kill small numbers of birds on a per-building basis but
collectively constitute a high percentage of all buildings
(e.g., residences compared to low-rises and high-rises;
urban compared to rural residences; residences without
feeders compared to those with feeders). This finding
suggests that achieving a large overall reduction in
mortality will require mitigation measures to be applied
across a large number of structures (e.g., urban residenc-
es). Our conclusion about the relative importance of
residences for causing U.S. mortality is similar to that
made for Canada by Machtans et al. (2013). This similarity
arises because residences are estimated to comprise a
similar proportion of all buildings in both countries (87.5%
in the U.S and 95.3% in Canada). Even assuming the low-
end mortality estimate for residences (159 million), total
TABLE 5.Average vulnerability of bird groups to building
collisions across all building types. Risk values indicate the factor
by which a species has a greater chance (for positive residuals)
or a smaller chance (for negative residuals) of mortality
compared with a species with average risk.
Group Residual Risk
Hummingbirds and swifts 1.52 33.2
Grebes 1.04 11.0
Shorebirds 0.68 4.7
Kingfishersa 0.56 3.6
Waxwings 0.55 3.6
Warblers 0.54 3.4
Gulls and terns
a 0.52 3.3
Nuthatches, tits, and creeper 0.50 3.1
Cuckoos 0.46 2.9
Mimic thrushes 0.41 2.6
Diurnal raptors 0.40 2.5
Cardinaline finches 0.36 2.3
Kinglets 0.36 2.3
Thrushes 0.25 1.8
Cardueline finches 0.23 1.7
Nightjars 0.16 1.4
Woodpeckers 0.15 1.4
Owls 0.10 1.3
Doves and pigeons 0.08 1.2
Sparrows 0.08 1.2
House Sparrow
a 0.15 1.4
Wrens 0.20 1.6
Coots and rails 0.24 1.7
Flycatchers 0.41 2.6
Vireos 0.55 3.6
Starlinga 0.56 3.6
Corvids 0.61 4.1
Blackbirds, meadowlarks, and orioles 0.64 4.4
Upland game birds 0.77 5.9
Herons 1.05 11.3
Swallows 1.07 11.6
Ducks and geese 1.25 17.9
Gnatcatchersa 1.68 48.1
a Values based on data from a single species.
18 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
mortality at high-rises would have to be 100 times greater
than our high-end estimate for that building class (1.6
million) for the two building classes to cause equivalent
mortality. On a per-building basis, if each residence killed
one bird per year, each high-rise would have to kill .5,800
birds per year to cause equivalent mortality. No evidence
exists that high-rises kill this large number of birds.
The species composition of window collision mortality
also differs by building class. While the high risk group for
individual residences includes several non-migratory
resident species—including Downy Woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus),
and Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)—nearly all
high-risk species for low-rise and high-rise buildings are
migratory. Compared with resident species, migratory
species traverse longer distances, use a greater diversity
of habitat types, and encounter more building types and
total buildings during the annual cycle. Additionally,
migratory species are attracted to large lighted buildings
during their nocturnal migration; this attraction causes a
large amount of mortality at low-rises and high-rises as
birds either immediately collide with lighted buildings or
become entrapped before later dying of collision or
exhaustion (Evans Ogden 1996). The greater representa-
tion of resident species in the high-risk group for
residences may be due to the propensity for many of
these species to congregate at bird feeders, a behavior that
may place them at a greater risk of colliding with windows
(Dunn 1993, Klem et al. 2004, Bayne et al. 2012).
Despite the critical importance of reducing mortality at
residences, mitigation measures targeted at a relatively
small number of buildings with high per-building mortal-
ity rates (e.g., some high-rises and low-rises) will likely
result in large per-building reductions in mortality and
therefore may represent a cost-efficient starting point for
reducing mortality. The mortality proportions that we
attribute to different residence types are similar to those
estimated by Machtans et al. (2013).This result arises from
both the previous study and ours basing analysis on Bayne
et al. (2012), a Canadian study that provides a reasonable
approximation of U.S. mortality rates as evidenced by rates
documented in U.S. studies (Dunn 1993, Weiss and Horn
2008, Bracey 2011).
Species Vulnerability to Building Collisions
Our vulnerability analysis indicates that several species
experience a disproportionately high risk of building
collision mortality. Of particular concern within the list
of high-risk species (Table 4) are those identified as
national Birds of Conservation Concern (species likely to
become candidates for listing under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act without further action based on population
trends, threats to populations, distribution, abundance,
and relative density; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).
For species that are vulnerable to collisions at more than
one building class or overall, including Golden-winged
Warbler, Painted Bunting, Kentucky Warbler, and Canada
Warbler, building collision mortality appears substantial
and may contribute to or exacerbate population declines.
For species identified as highly vulnerable to collision for
one building class but not across building types (Wood
Thrush at residences, Worm-eating Warbler at high-rises),
building collisions may still represent a threat. However,
risk rankings for these species are more likely to be inflated
by high mortality rates at a few sites, and further research
is required to clarify the degree to which populations of
these species are threatened by collision mortality.
Inferences about population impacts of a mortality
source should ideally be based on incorporating mortality
estimates into demographic models (Loss et al. 2012) or
comparing estimates to population abundance (Longcore
et al. 2013). Data limitations preclude intensive population
modeling of building collision impacts. Sampling bias
toward densely populated areas east of the Mississippi
River, and therefore toward certain bird species, prevented
us from estimating species-specific annual mortality. We
initially attempted to apply average species proportions to
the overall mortality estimate following Longcore et al.
(2013), but this method returned unrealistically high
estimates for species that comprised a high percentage of
counts in many studies (e.g., 140% of the total population
of Ovenbirds estimated to be killed each year by building
collisions). Our vulnerability estimates controlled for
abundance and range overlap with study sites and
therefore provide a less biased approximation of species-
specific collision risk.
Our vulnerability analysis expanded upon the analysis of
Arnold and Zink (2011), which was based on three sites in
the northeastern U.S. and adjacent Canada. Nonetheless,
we documented some of the same vulnerable species,
including Brown Creeper, Black-throated Blue Warbler
(Setophaga caerulescens), and Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza
georgiana), and similar high- and low-risk taxonomic
groups (e.g., warblers and swallows, respectively). As in the
previous study, the vast majority of highly vulnerable
species were long-distance migrants. Unlike the previous
study, we did not assess whether population trends were
correlated with building collision vulnerability. This
approach has received criticism (Schaub et al. 2011, Klem
et al. 2012) and shifts focus away from identifying which
individual species of conservation concern face a high risk
of colliding with buildings.
Research Needs and Protocol Improvements
Sensitivity analyses indicated that more research of
mortality rates at low-rises will contribute greatly to
improving mortality estimates. Future research should
sample a variety of low-rise types, including residential,
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 19
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
commercial, and industrial buildings. Research at low-rises
has occurred mostly at buildings that are known to cause
large numbers of fatalities (e.g., office or university campus
buildings with many windows and/or near favorable bird
habitat). Random selection of buildings for monitoring (for
all building classes) allows for less-biased conclusions
about local mortality rates and more reliable extension of
results within study areas and across regions. Mortality
data specific to different low-rise building types will allow
improvement upon the current approach of assuming that
all low-rise buildings have similar mortality rates. Because
we based our low-rise estimate on the number of U.S.
‘‘establishments,’’and because the relationship between
numbers of establishments and numbers of buildings is
unknown, we suggest that improved data be collected and
made available for the number of U.S. low-rise buildings.
Non-residential low-rises are not currently included in
assessments by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Sensitivity analyses also indicate that mortality estimates
will benefit from quantification of searcher efficiency and
scavenger removal rates. Recent research has resulted in
major advancements in understanding these biases,
including studies that estimate carcass detection and/or
scavenger removal rates (Collins and Horn 2008, Hager et
al. 2012, 2013) or apply methods to simultaneously
account for both biases (Bracey 2011, Etterson 2013). In
the future, studies should account for these biases when
possible and investigate how these rates are affected by size
and species of carcasses, abundance and community
composition of scavengers, and characteristics of vegeta-
tion and habitat near buildings.
A large portion of the unpublished data we used were
collected by volunteer-led collision-monitoring programs
in major cities. These citizen-science programs have
contributed greatly to the understanding of bird–building
collisions; however, standardization of data collection and
recording procedures is necessary to make these data more
comparable across programs and across years within
programs. As a first step, all monitoring programs should
record sampling effort, including (1) a record of all surveys
conducted, even those with zero fatalities found; (2) the
number of person-hours of sampling in every survey; (3)
the number of buildings and building facades sampled; (4)
street addresses of buildings (with attention to avoiding
multiple addresses referring to one building and clarifying
when one address includes .1 building); and (5) separate
records of fatalities found during surveys on official routes
and those found incidentally outside of survey periods
and/or off of routes. This information will allow increased
comparability of data among regions, improved under-
standing of seasonal and regional mortality patterns, and
reduced bias in estimates of per-building mortality rates
and overall mortality. Combining effort-corrected mortal-
ity data with information about buildings (e.g., height in
stories and meters; orientation and area of building
facades; glass area, type, extent, and reflectivity; vegetation
presence, type, density, and height; and amount of light
emitted), will allow identification of mortality rate
correlates, prediction of mortality rates from building
characteristics, and implementation of techniques to
reduce mortality. Monitoring programs could also expand
to incorporate sampling at multiple building types,
including individual residences and additional types of
low-rises and high-rises. A national reporting system and
database for bird mortality data would facilitate standard-
ization of data collection for building collisions and other
mortality sources (Loss et al. 2012). Until this type of
comprehensive system is developed and launched, window
collision monitoring programs can use simple user-defined
data entry portals that will increase standardization of data
recording, formatting, and compilation (see example at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?usp¼
drive_web&formkey¼dDA1dDVTSVUzS1NfX0NxWm
ZxTEctbHc6MQ#gid¼0), and therefore benefit research
that synthesizes multiple datasets.
Model Limitations
Because data collection methods varied greatly among
studies, we could not account for all differences among the
datasets we synthesized. How this limitation influenced
our estimates is unclear. Nonetheless, our inclusion criteria
removed studies that lacked a systematic component to
sampling, and we accounted for partial-year sampling by
either estimating mortality using only year-round studies
or applying correction factors to mortality estimates. We
also accounted for sample size differences when estimating
species vulnerability. However, the data we analyzed
overrepresented the eastern U.S. and underrepresented
the Great Plains, Interior West, and West Coast. Because of
this data limitation, the mortality rate distributions that we
applied to all U.S. buildings were primarily based on data
from the eastern U.S. This could have biased our estimates
if mortality rates in the West differ consistently from those
documented in the East; however, the lack of western data
prevents conclusions about such regional variation. In
addition, our species vulnerability estimates do not cover
species with a large proportion of their range in the West.
Further research of bird–building collisions in areas west
of the Mississippi River is needed to document whether
per-building mortality rates differ consistently from those
in well-studied regions of the east and to assess building
collision vulnerabilities for western bird species. Our
mortality estimates are limited by the assumption that all
non-residential establishments listed by the U.S. Census
Bureau are 11 stories tall and that all buildings sampled
by monitoring programs in major downtown areas are
.12 stories tall. These assumptions were unavoidable
because U.S. low-rise building data are not available and
20 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
building height information was not recorded in most
studies.
Our mortality estimates may be conservative because
data from buildings that cause exceptionally high annual
rates of collision were removed from our analysis before
extending average rates to the scale of the entire U.S.
Hundreds to greater than one thousand birds per year have
been found at intensively monitored buildings in or near
areas with a high concentration of birds during migration
(e.g., Taylor and Kershner 1986, M. Mesure and D. Willard
personal communication). Other factors that may have
contributed to underestimation include crippling bias (e.g.,
an uncertain percentage of birds fly away from sampling
areas before dying) and sub-lethal effects that may
influence social interactions and migration behavior even
if not causing eventual death (Klem 1990b). Further
research to quantify crippling bias and sub-lethal effects
is crucial for continued improvement in the accuracy of
mortality and species vulnerability estimates.
Finally, we were unable to quantify seasonal patterns of
mortality due to a limited sample of studies that surveyed
throughout the year. Additionally, several studies employed
varying sampling effort across seasons and did not record
effort data that could be used to account for this variation.
Among records meeting our inclusion criteria, 60.0% were
found during fall migration (August–November) and 37.0%
were found during spring migration (March–May). These
figures are likely inflated relative to non-migratory periods
because most studies sampled only during spring and fall.
Despite varying sampling effort among seasons, mortality
during fall migration appears to be consistently greater than
during spring migration; this pattern was seen in most of
the datasets and could be related to larger populations of
birds in the fall due to presence of young-of-the-year birds.
Notably, several studies have indicated substantial building
collision mortality during periods outside of migration,
including in winter at individual residences (Dunn 1993,
Klem 2009) and in summer at low-rise buildings (Bayne et
al. 2012, Hager et al. 2013). Our methods accounted for
partial-year sampling by either using only year-round
studies (for residences and low-rises) or applying a
correction factor that assumed additional mortality during
summer and winter (for high-rises, a building type for which
little data exists for non-migration periods). Species
vulnerability estimates were also likely to be influenced by
seasonal sampling biases, with in-transit migratory species
likely overrepresented compared with summer and winter
residents. Additional year-round studies are needed at all
building types to clarify how mortality rates and species
composition of fatalities vary by season.
Conclusions
As human populations and numbers of buildings increase
in the U.S. and globally, actions to reduce bird mortality
from building collisions will be necessary at all types of
buildings. For residences, mitigation techniques could
include reducing vegetation near windows, angling win-
dows to reduce reflection, and installing netting, closely
spaced decals, or UV light-reflecting glass (Klem et al.
2004, Klem 2006, 2009). For low-rises and high-rises,
mortality can be reduced by minimizing light emission at
night (Evans Ogden 1996, 2002) and incorporating bird
friendly design elements into new and existing buildings
(e.g., Brown and Caputo 2007, Sheppard 2011). A long-
term approach to reducing mortality is the continued
adaptation of Green Building certification standards to
include bird collision risks (Klem 2009).
We provide quantitative evidence of the large amount of
bird mortality caused by building collisions in the U.S. Our
estimates represent roughly 2–9% of all North American
birds based on a rough estimate of 10–20 billion total birds
in North America (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).
However, because our results illustrate that not all species
are equally vulnerable to building collisions, and because
considerable uncertainty remains regarding species-spe-
cific mortality and population abundance, the actual
impacts of collisions on population abundance are
uncertain. Despite this uncertainty, our analysis indicates
that building collisions are among the top anthropogenic
threats to birds and, furthermore, that the several bird
species that are disproportionately vulnerable to building
collisions may be experiencing significant population
impacts from this anthropogenic threat.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the following people and organizations for
providing access to unpublished datasets from building
collision monitoring programs: K. Brand (Lights Out Win-
ston-Salem, Forsyth County Audubon Society & Audubon
North Carolina), A. Conover (Lights Out Columbus, Ohio
Bird Conservation Initiative & Grange Insurance Audubon
Center), M. Coolidge (Bird Safe Portland, Audubon Society of
Portland), S. Diehl and C. Sharlow-Schaefer (Wisconsin Night
Guardians, Wisconsin Humane Society), J. Eckles, K. Nichols,
and R. Zink (Project Bird Safe Minnesota, Audubon
Minnesota & University of Minnesota), S. Elbin and A.
Palmer (Project Safe Flight, New York City Audubon), M.
Flannery (California Academy of Sciences), D. Gorney (Lights
Out Indy, Amos W. Butler Audubon Society), A. Lewis and L.
Fuisz (Lights Out DC, City Wildlife), M. Mesure (Toronto
Fatal Light Awareness Program), W. Olson (Lights Out
Baltimore, Baltimore Bird Club), A. Prince (Chicago Bird
Collision Monitors, Chicago Audubon Society), K. Russell
(Audubon Pennsylvania), and D.Willard (The Field Museum).
A. Bracey, J. Ducey, M. Etterson, S. Hager, A. Harrington, D.
Horn, G. Niemi, and T. O’Connell provided access to
unpublished or otherwise unavailable data. R. Schneider and
J. Rutter provided assistance with data collection and
management; E. Bayne, C. Machtans, and C. Wedeles
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 21
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
provided access to unpublished manuscripts; and M. Lynes
and C. Sheppard assisted in locating datasets. We give special
thanks to D. Klem for providing access to nearly all of his
window collision data, investing significant effort along with P.
Saenger to digitize historical records, and for pioneering the
study of bird–window collisions. S.R.L. was supported by a
postdoctoral fellowship funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service through the Smithsonian Institution’s Postdoctoral
Fellowship program. The findings and opinions expressed in
this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
Smithsonian Institution.
LITERATURE CITED
Arnold, T. W., and R. M. Zink (2011). Collision mortality has no
discernible effect on population trends of North American
birds. PLoS One 6:e24708.
Banks, R. C. (1979). Human related mortality of birds in the
United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 215.
Washington, DC, USA.
Bayne, E. M., C. A. Scobie, and M. Rawson-Clark (2012). Factors
influencing the annual risk of bird–window collisions at
residential structures in Alberta, Canada. Wildlife Research 39:
583–592.
Best, J. (2008). Birds—Dead and deadly: Why numeracy needs to
address social construction. Numeracy 1(1):article 6.
Blancher, P. J. (2013). Estimated number of birds killed by house
cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology
8(2):3.
Booth, G., and D. Collister (1998). Calgary Bird Banding Society
1997 Annual Technical Report. Calgary Bird Banding Society,
Calgary, AB, Canada.
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons
(2010). Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of
bird–window collisions on an urban university campus in
Cleveland, OH. The Ohio Journal of Science 110:44–52.
Bracey, A. M. (2011). Window related avian mortality at a
migration corridor. M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota-
Duluth, USA.
Broughman, S. P., N. L. Swaim, and C. A. Hryczaniuk (2011).
Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States. Results
from the 2009–10 Private School Universe Survey (NCES
2011-339). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC, USA.
Brown, H., and H. Caputo (2007). Bird-Safe Building Guidelines.
New York City Audubon Society, New York, NY, USA.
Codoner, N. A. (1995). Mortality of Connecticut birds on roads
and at buildings. The Connecticut Warbler 15:89–98.
Collins, K. A., and D. J. Horn (2008). Bird-window collisions and
factors influencing their frequency at Millikin University in
Decatur, Illinois. Abstract. Transactions of the Illinois State
Academy of Science 101(Supplement).
Collister, D., G. Booth, and B. Couronne (1997). Calgary Bird
Banding Society 1996 Annual Technical Report. Calgary Bird
Banding Society, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Collister, D., G. Booth, G. Meyer, and B. Couronne (1996). Calgary
Bird Banding Society 1995 Annual Technical Report. Calgary
Bird Banding Society, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Dunn, E. H. (1993). Bird mortality from striking residential
windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302–309.
Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, and D. P. Young, Jr. (2005). A
summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropo-
genic causes with an emphasis on collisions. In Bird
Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Amer-
icas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight
Conference (C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, Editors). USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, pp. 1029–
1042.
Etterson, M. A. (2013). Hidden Markov models for estimating
animal mortality from anthropogenic causes. Ecological
Applications. doi:10.1890/12–1166.1
Evans Ogden, L. J. (1996). Collision Course: The Hazards of
Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. World
Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Light Awareness
Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Evans Ogden, L. J. (2002). Summary Report on the Bird Friendly
Building Program: Effect of Light Reduction on Collision of
Migratory Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
Fink, L. C. (1971). Birds in downtown Atlanta—Spring 1970. The
Oriole 36:2–6.
Gelb, Y., and N. Delacretaz (2006). Avian window strike mortality
at an urban office building. The Kingbird 56:190–198.
Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay (2012). Scavenging
affects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window
collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology
83:203–211.
Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K. J. McKay, C. Monson, W.
Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins (2013). Window area and develop-
ment drive spatial variation in bird–window collisions in an
urban landscape. PLoS One 8:e53371.
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer
(2008). Bird density and mortality at windows. The Wilson
Journal of Ornithology 120:550–564.
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson (1976). Bird mortality at a
glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99–
107.
Klem, D., Jr. (1979). Biology of collisions between birds and
windows. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, IL, USA.
Klem, D., Jr. (1989). Bird–window collisions. The Wilson Bulletin
101:606–620.
Klem, D., Jr. (1990a). Collisions between birds and windows:
Mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:
120–128.
Klem,D.,Jr.(1990b).Birdinjuries,causeofdeath,and
recuperation from collisions with windows. Journal of Field
Ornithology 61:115–119.
Klem, D., Jr. (2006). Glass: A deadly conservation issue for birds.
Bird Observer 34:73–81.
Klem, D., Jr. (2009). Avian mortality at windows: The second
largest human source of bird mortality on earth. In Tundra to
Tropics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in
Flight Conference (T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D. Demarest, and
C. Thompson, Editors). Partners in Flight, pp. 244–251.
22 U.S. bird–building collisions S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Klem, D., Jr., K. L. DeGroot, E. A. Krebs, K. T. Fort, S. B. Elbin, and
A. Prince (2012). A second critique of Arnold and Zink 2011
[PLoS One 6:e24708]. PLoS One Comment.http://www.
plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root¼49197
Klem, D., Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb, and P. G.
Saenger (2009). Architectural and landscape risk factors
associated with bird–glass collisions in an urban environ-
ment. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126–134.
Klem, D., Jr., D. C. Keck, K. L. Marty, A. J. Miller Ball, E. E. Niciu, and
C. T. Platt (2004). Effects of window angling, feeder
placement, and scavengers on avian mortality at plate glass.
The Wilson Bulletin 116:69–73.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M.
Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L.
Crawford, A. M. Manville II, et al. (2012). An estimate of
mortality at communication towers in the United States and
Canada. PLoS ONE 7:e34025.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M.
Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L.
Crawford, A. M. Manville II, et al. (2013). Avian mortality at
communication towers in North America: Which species, how
many, and where? Biological Conservation 158:410–419.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra (2012). Direct human-caused
mortality of birds: Improving quantification of magnitude
and assessment of population impacts. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment 10:357–364.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra (2013). The impact of free-
ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature
Communications 4:1396.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne (2013). A first
estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding
with buildings. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6.
O’Connell, T.J. (2001). Avian window strike mortality at a
suburban office park. The Raven 72:141–149.
Ranford, R. B., and J. E. Mason (1969). Nocturnal migrant
mortalities at the Toronto-Dominion Center. The Ontario
Field Biologist 23:26–29.
Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W.
Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C.
Hunter, E. E. I ˜nigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, et al. (2004). Partners in
Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell
Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski,
Jr., and W. A. Link (2012). The North American Breeding Bird
Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2011. Version 07.03.2013.
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD, USA.
Schaub, M., M. K
´ery, P. Korner, and F. Korner-Nievergelt (2011).
Critique of Arnold and Zink 2011 [PLoS One 6:e24708]. PLoS
ONE Comment.http://www.plosone.org/annotation/
listThread.action?root¼9659
Seewagen, C. L., and C. Sheppard (2012). Bird Collisions with
Windows: An Annotated Bibliography. American Bird Con-
servancy, The Plains, VA, USA.
Sexton, L. (2006). Bird strikes at commercial buildings in Atlanta.
MS thesis. University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK.
Sheppard, C. (2011). Bird-Friendly Building Design. American Bird
Conservancy, The Plains, VA, USA.
Sibley, D. A. (2000). National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide
to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY, USA.
Sky Scraper Source Media (2013). Sky Scraper Page.http://www.
skyscraperpage.com/cities
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato
(2010). Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of
wind turbine–caused avian fatality rates. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 74:1089–1097.
Somerlot, K. E. (2003). Survey of songbird mortality due to
window collisions on the Murray State University campus.
Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–9.
Taylor, W. K., and M. A. Kershner (1986). Migrant birds killed at
the vehicle assembly building (VAB), John F. Kennedy Space
Center. Journal of Field Ornithology 57:142–154.
U.S. Census Bureau (2008). 2007 Economic Census.http://
factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/
productview.xhtml?pid¼ECN_2007_US_00A1&
prodType¼table
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). American Housing Survey for the
United States: 2009. Current Housing Reports, Series H150/
09, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.
U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census Urban Facts.http://
www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafacts.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002). Migratory Bird Mortality
Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arlington, VA, USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008). Birds of Conservation
Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA, USA.
Ward, M. R., D. E. Stallknecht, J. Willis, M. J. Conroy, and W. R.
Davidson (2006). Wild bird mortality and West Nile virus
surveillance: Biases associated with detection, reporting, and
carcass persistence. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42:92–106.
Warton, D. I., I. J. Wright, D. S. Falster, and M. Westoby (2006).
Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biological Re-
views 81:259–291.
Weiss, R., and D. J. Horn (2008). Project prevent collision: A study
of bird-window collisions in residential neighborhoods in
Illinois. Abstract. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of
Science 101(Supplement).
Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles (2010). Twin Cities bird–building
collisions: A status update on ‘‘Project Birdsafe.’’The Loon
82:34–37.
S. R. Loss, T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra U.S. bird–building collisions 23
The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8–23,Q 2014 Cooper Ornithological Society
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Condor on 15 Mar 2021
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:15 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng
Subject:2021-03-16 CC Meeting - Agenda Item 14 Bird Safety & Dark Skies
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Please include the following email as Written Communications for tonight’s March 16, 2021 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 14 Bird Safety & Dark Skies.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and City Council Members,
Please approve the combined ordinance (Attachment A) with the following 3 changes:
BIRD SAFE ORDINANCE SECTION
#1 ‐ MODIFY SECTION 19.102.030 (C) 2
This section needs to specify the amount of emitted light in some way. “Low voltage” says nothing about light intensity.
You can have an EXTREMELY, blindingly bright LED light that is “low voltage”.
#2 ‐ MODIFY SECTION 19.102.030(E)2.
Change #2 to read “First floor retail storefront display windows up to a height of 15’;”
This provides visibility for stores/retail without including other kinds of buildings i.e. office buildings.
#3 ‐ OUTDOOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS
MODIFY SECTION 19.102.040(B)12.d String Lighting Regulations for Commercial and mixed‐Use Commercial Areas
‐ Add that the commercial string lights need to be extinguished by 11pm or by 2 hours after closing, whichever is
later. They don’t need to be on all night!
2
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin