BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines PDF

BIRD-SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES
Published by: New York City Audubon Society, Inc., May 2007
Project Director: Kate Orff, RLA, Columbia University GSAPP
Authors: Hillary Brown, AIA, Steven Caputo, New Civic Works
NYC Audubon Project Staff: E.J. McAdams, Marcia Fowle, Glenn
Phillips, Chelsea Dewitt, Yigal Gelb
Graphics: Benedict Clouette, Nick Kothari, Betsy Stoel, Li-Chi Wang
photo credit: new york city audubon

Photos: Unless otherwise noted, all wildlife photos are courtesy
of Cal Vornberger. www.calvorn.com
Reviewers: Karen Cotton, Acting Director, Bird-Safe Working

Group; Randi Doeker, Birds & Buildings Forum; Bruce Fowle,
FAIA, Daniel Piselli, FXFOWLE; Marcia Fowle; Yigal Gelb, Program
Director, NYC Audubon; Mary Jane Kaplan; Daniel Klem, Jr., PhD.,
Muhlenberg College; Albert M. Manville, PhD., US Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; E. J. McAdams, Former
Executive Director NYC, Audubon; Glenn Phillips, Executive
Director, NYC Audubon.
Publication of these guidelines has been made possible with

the support of US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service through the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
Joseph & Mary Fiore and the support of NYC Audubon members
and patrons, including NYC Audubon’s American Kestrel Circle:
John and Emily Alexander, Claude and Lucienne Bloch, Bristol-
Myers Squibb Foundation, ConEdison, ConocoPhillips, Ellen D.
Sturgis 1985 Charitable Trust, Joseph and Barbara Ellis, Phillip
Fried, Goldman Sachs, Hudson River Foundation, The Hugh L.
Carey Battery Park City Authority, the Estate of Kathryn R. Lewis,
Beatrice Goelet Manice, National Fish & Wildlife Foundation,
Paul Newman, Wendy Paulson, The Port Authority of NY & NJ,
the Estate of Fred L. Rosensteil, Schaffer & Schonholz, LLP,
Silverstein Properties, Inc., the Estate of Everett S. Steinmetz,
and Winnie Yeung.
Thanks to all members of the Bird-Safe Glass Working Group:

Michelle Arnot, NYC Audubon; Hillary Brown, AIA, New Civic
Works; Karen Cotton, NYC Audubon; Susan Cranjk, Fatal Light
Awareness Program, Toronto; Rebekah Creshkoff, Project Safe
Flight, NYC Audubon; Randi Doeker, Birds & Building Forum,
Chicago; Bruce Fowle, FAIA, FXFOWLE; Marcia Fowle, NYC
Audubon; Yigal Gelb, NYC Audubon; Lisa Garrison, Hudson River
Foundation; John Hadidian, Ph.D., Humane Society of the United
States; Noel Humphreys, NYC Audubon; Daniel Klem, Jr., PhD. Disclaimer
Muhlenberg College; Albert M. Manville, PhD., US Department This publication is presented in good faith and is intended for general
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; E. J. McAdams, former guidance only. The material was drawn from many sources; every effort
Executive Director, NYC Audubon; Peter Rhoades Mott, NYC was made to cite the sources and any omissions are inadvertent. The
Audubon; Kate Orff, RLA, SCAPE; Steve Papa; Diane Pence, US contents of this publication are not intended as professional advice. The
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Dan Piselli, authors and NYC Audubon make no representation or warranty, either
express or implied, as to the completeness or accuracy of the contents.
FXFOWLE. Users of these guidelines must make independent determinations as to
the suitability or applicability of the information for their own situation or
New York City Audubon purposes; the information is not intended to be a substitute for specific
71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1523 technical or professional advice or services. In no event will the publisher
New York, NY 10010 or authors be responsible or liable for damages of any nature or kind
(212) 691-7483 whatsoever resulting from the distribution of, use of, or reliance on, the
www.nycaudubon.org contents of this publication.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Part One: Background
Introduction 3
Overview : Causes of Collisions 4
Birds and the Built Environment 9
Imperatives for Bird Protection 10
Birds and Building Green 12
Conditions Affecting Bird Collisions 14
Part Two: Technical strategies

Comprehensive Local Actions for Bird Safety 22
Bird-Safe Site Planning and Landscape Design 25
Bird-Safe Enhancements to the Building Envelope 28
Modifications to Existing Buildings to Reduce Bird Collisions 34
Bird-Safe Building Operations 40
Emerging Technologies 44
Case Studies: Bird-Safe Architecture Examples 46
Appendix: Checklist of Bird Collision Liabilities 53
References 54
BIRD - SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES

Injured Golden Crowned Kinglet at

base of building, Great Neck, NY

INTRODUCTION
Introduction Gleaming by day and glittering at night, glazed buildings that make up modern city skylines and suburban settings
present serious hazards for birds. Bird populations, already in decline from loss of habitat, are seriously threatened
by the relatively recent incursion of man-made structures into avian air space. In the United States, an estimated 100
million to one billion birds perish each year from encounters with buildings.1
Bird injury or death is largely attributable to two factors: birds, it would appear, are unable to detect and avoid glass,
either during the daytime or night. Moreover, buildings’ artificial night lighting confounds night-migrating species.
Today, preventative actions mindful of these hazards are emerging in building practice. With bird-safe measures at
hand, we can avoid the adverse consequences that until recently seemed inevitable though unintended.
The Bird-Safe Building Guidelines (Guidelines) examine the apparent causes of bird mortality in the built environment;
convey the ecological, economic, ethical and legal justifications for bird conservation; advocate a series of preventative
and rehabilitative strategies, and describe precedents for regulatory initiatives. They strive to stimulate the development
of new glazing technologies while creating a market for all bird-safe building systems.
The Guidelines promote measures to protect birdlife in the planning, design, and operation stages of all types of
buildings, in all settings. They are intended for use by architects, landscape architects, engineers, glass technicians,
environmentalists, building owners and operators, construction industry stakeholders, city planners, civic officials,
state and federal agencies, and the general public.
The Guidelines complement and inform today’s green building initiatives, especially the widely utilized LEED ®
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building rating system developed by the US Green Building
Council.

OVERVIEW : CAUSES OF COLLISIONS
Overview : The magnitude of bird collisions in any one area depends on local and migratory avian populations, densities and species
composition; diurnal (daytime) or nocturnal (nighttime) migration characteristics; resting and feeding patterns; habitat
Causes of Collisions preferences; time of year; prevailing winds; and weather conditions. Understanding the conditions that contribute to
bird collisions with buildings is the first step towards planning bird-safe environments.
DAYTIME
Since birds do not perceive glass as an obstacle to their flight path, collisions and mortality occur at any place where
birds and glass coexist.1 Daytime building collisions occur on windows of all sizes at every building type, from single-
story to high rise structures; in all seasons and weather conditions; and in every type of environment, from forested
and rural settings to dense urban cores. Glass in buildings is an indiscriminate killer regardless of species, sex, age,
size, migration characteristics, or level of adaptation to the built environment.2 After colliding with a glass surface, the
majority of birds either die instantly or shortly thereafter from brain injuries or fall prey to scavengers.3 Two conditions
contribute to birds’ inability to see glass:

2EFLECTIONSTREESSHRUBSGRASSSKYCLOUDSSKYLINE
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION PROBLEM: FLY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
SOLUTION: SCREEN / SOLUTION: VEGETATION SOLUTION: GLASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT
SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR BUILDING DOWNWARDS
Glass Reflectivity : Mirror Effect

From outside most buildings, glass often appears highly reflective, increasingly so when seen from an oblique angle.
Almost every type of architectural glass under the right conditions reflects the sky, clouds, or nearby trees and
vegetation, reproducing habitat familiar and attractive to birds.
SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC
REFLECTIVE MATERIAL REFLECTIVE GLASS FILMS, DIACHROIC COATINGS
AND TINS ON FACADE BIRD - SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES
'LASS&LYWAYSCLEARVIEWINONEWINDOWANDOUTTHEOTHERSIDE
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY
SOLUTION: SCREEN /
SCRIM / FRITTING
Glass Transparency : Fly Through

During daylight hours, birds strike transparent windows as they attempt to access potential perches, potted plants,
water sources and other lures inside and beyond the glass. The trick of transparency is exacerbated when windows
are installed on opposite sides of a building directly across from one another or at a corner, because birds perceive an
unobstructed passageway and fly towards the glass with no awareness of an obstacle.
SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE

!TTRACTIONATNIGHT
PROBLEM: FLY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
SOLUTION: GLASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT

DOWNWARDS
NIGHTTIME : Beacon Effect

The illumination of buildings at night, and in the early morning and evening, creates conditions that are particularly
hazardous to nighttime migrating birds. Typically flying at heights over 500 feet, especially if weather conditions are
favorable, nocturnal migrants depend heavily on visual reference to maintain orientation. During inclement weather,
these migrants often descend to lower altitudes, possibly in search of clear sky celestial clues or magnetic references
and are liable to be attracted to illuminated buildings or other tall structures. Heavy moisture (humidity, fog or mist)
in the air greatly increases the illuminated space around buildings, regardless of whether the light is generated by an
interior or exterior source. Birds become disoriented and entrapped while circling in the illuminated zone and are likely
to succumb to exhaustion, predation, or lethal collision.
SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC
REFLECTIVE GLASS FILMS, DIACHROIC COATINGS
AND TINS ON FACADE
In addition to the adverse impacts on migrating

birds, siginificant economic and health incentives
exist for curbing the problem of excessive building
illumination. Overly lit buildings waste tremendous
amounts of electrical energy, increasing
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution
levels, and of course, wasting money. Researchers
estimate that the United States alone wastes over
one billion dollars in electricity costs annually
because poorly designed or improperly installed
outdoor fixtures allow much of the lighting to go
up to the sky. In addition to the threat that this
poses to the avian kingdom and other animals,
“light pollution” has significant aesthetic and
cultural impact as well. Recent studies estimate
that over two thirds of the world’s population can
no longer see the Milky Way, which humans have
gazed at with a sense of mystery and imagination
for countless millennia. Together the ecological,
financial and aesthetic/cultural impacts of
excessive building lighting serve as compelling
motivation to reduce and refine light usage.

BIRDS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Birds and the Built Environment In recent decades, sprawling land-use patterns and intensified urbanization have degraded the quantity and quality of
bird habitat throughout the globe. Cities and towns cling to waterfronts and shorelines, and increasingly infringe upon
the wetlands and neighboring woodlands that birds depend upon for food and shelter. The loss of habitat forces birds
to alight in city parks, streetscape vegetation, waterfront business districts, and other urban green patches. During
dawn or dusk, they encounter the nighttime dangers of illuminated structures and the daytime hazards of dense and
highly glazed buildings.
The increased use of glass poses a distinct threat to birdlife. From urban high-rises to suburban office parks to
single-story structures, large expanses of glass are now routinely used as building enclosure. Energy performance
improvements in transparent exterior wall systems have enabled deep daylighting of building interiors, often by means
of floor-to-ceiling glass expanses. The aesthetic and functional pursuit of still greater visual transparency (integrating
indoors with outdoors) has spurred the production of low-iron glass, eliminating the greenish cast.
The combined effects of these factors have led scientists to determine that bird mortality caused by building collisions
is a “biologically significant”5 issue. In other words, it is a threat of sufficient magnitude to affect the viability of bird
populations, leading to local, regional, and national declines. Researchers and volunteers have documented hundreds
of thousands of building collision-related bird deaths during migration seasons. Included in this toll are specimens
representing over 225 species, a quarter of the species found in the United States. Songbirds—already imperiled by
habitat loss and other environmental stressors—are especially vulnerable during migration to nighttime collisions with
buildings and daytime glass collisions as they seek food and resting perches among urban buildings.
Photo composite of the Minneapolis Public Library frits to go with case study
(photo from Minneapolis Public Library Webpage).
NEW YORK CITY: NEXUS OF BIRD MIGRATION
Time-lapsed radar images reveal the tremendous size and Time-lapse images of the Chicago region depict a three-hour
Time-lapsed radar images showing migratory bird flock descending upon the Chicago waterfront.
density of the migratory flocks that descend upon North period,
(Photo fromduring
Nationalwhich
Weatheraservice?)
cluster of migrating birds—initially as
American metropolitan areas during migration seasons wide as the state of Illinois—descends upon the southwestern
frequently spanning hundreds of miles in width.4 shoreline of Lake Michigan. As seen in the image of at the
bottom right, the greatest density of congregating birds—
shown in red—corresponds to the City of Chicago’s glassy,
skyward business district.
Credit: The National Geographic BIRD - SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES
Society
Bruce Fowle, E.J. McAdams -- March 11, 2005 2

IMPERATIVES FOR BIRD PROTECTION
Imperatives for Bird Protection: The aesthetic enjoyment and scientific fascination of bird watching is a manifestation of mankind’s universal appreciation
for its feathered friends. Birds have enthralled and inspired humans throughout history. Birds’ vitality, resourcefulness,
From the Utilitarian to the Ethical and grace have led people to adopt them—through metaphor, music and art—as ciphers for a range of social and moral
ideals.
In the 1880’s, the environmental movement—in particular the bird conservation movement—was launched in reaction
to the endangerment of numerous bird species by indiscriminate hunting practices and the plume trade. Audubon
societies were founded, the first one in New York State in 1887. In 1918, birds were granted protection with the signing
of the Migratory Bird Treat Act. Today this act, signed with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia, “prohibits the take,
possession, import, export...of any migratory bird species, their eggs, parts and nests except as authorized under a
valid permit…” No other animal species has been the subject of its own protection treaties. And in 1962, Rachel Carson’s
Silent Spring alerted the world to the dangers of pesticides as evidenced by their effect on birdlife. The plight of birds,
a sentinel species of overall environmental health, informs stewardship strategies, including those with respect to
buildings and infrastructure.
Bird-life is an important asset to the travel and recreational sectors of the economy. According to the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, bird watching is the second fastest growing leisure activity in North America. An estimated 63
million Americans participate in wildlife watching and eco-tourism each year. In the process, they spend close to $30
billion annually, with a major portion related to birds.
Birds perform irreplaceable ecological functions by consuming vast quantities of insects, pollinating plants, distributing
seeds, and consuming weed seeds. These processes help to maintain biodiversity worldwide, and they are contributions
that have significant economic value. Insect control, for example, reduces damage to many tree species and maintains
forest biomass. This in turn ensures the productivity of the timber industry, helps to protect against flooding and water
pollution, and preserves the resilience of culturally important landscapes. Birds also help safeguard public health by
eliminating many insect vectors of disease, diseases that include West Nile virus, malaria, and dengue fever.
Abstracting from a particular fondness for birds, human beings also seem to display an inherent love for all living
things—a deeply resonant, even biologically rooted feeling that scientists call “biophilia.” The “biophilia hypothesis”
explains why people are sometimes willing to go to such great efforts to protect living things.6 Society is only beginning
to understand the physiological, psychological and spiritual benefits of biophilia. Nevertheless, this phenomenon is
compelling general motivation for the sustainability movement, and for promoting bird-safety in particular.
10 BIRD - SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES

IMPERATIVES FOR BIRD PROTECTION
In New York City, bird watching has become a popular and visible
pastime. On almost any day of the year, bird watchers are easy to
spot in Central Park and other large urban open spaces. In fact,
many bird watchers consider Central Park one of the best bird-
watching locations in the United States. One pair of birds that
receives constant attention is the red-tailed hawks nesting on a
building along Fifth Avenue. A recent effort by tenants to remove
their nest fueled citywide protests demanding its replacement.
Nearly every major newspaper carried the story as front-page news.
The male hawk affected by the tenants’ actions is known as “Pale
Male” for his distinct white breast feathers. Since the removal and
restoration of his nest, Pale Male has become an icon to New York
City nature lovers. He is the subject of several books and a website
of documentary photography that is updated daily. 7
photo credit: national park service
Bird imagery is frequently embedded throughout the built Bird watching is a popular outdoor pastime.
environment, especially in gothic and classical ornamentation, and
in freestanding statuary.
(above photo by Sarah Cedar Miller,

Central Park Conservancy)
BIRD - SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES 11

BIRDS AND BUILDING GREEN
Birds and Building Green The emergence of a recent generation of sustainable or ‘high performance’ buildings suggests that a transformation
is underway in the real estate and construction industry. Advancements in building science, materials and technology,
and the emerging emphasis on integration of complex systems in design have produced buildings that display
unprecedented levels of environmental responsibility and functionality. The green building movement has enabled
vast improvements in energy and resource efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and human comfort and health, all
while maintaining an emphasis on the economic bottom line.
Advocating bird-safety in buildings is integral to the green building movement. In many regards, the strategies for
reducing bird-collisions complement other sustainable site and building objectives. Common concerns include light
pollution avoidance, reduced disturbance to site and natural systems, and lowered energy use. Realistically, however,
there may be trade-offs or compromises. For example, expansive glazing used to augment views, daylight, natural
ventilation, and, in some cases, save energy by capturing solar gain may lead to increased bird kills. Current energy
saving low-emissivity glass, or glazing with low solar heat gain coefficients often contribute to increased reflectivity.
Encouraging visual access to a building’s surrounding landscape —while it may function to connect people with nature—
can also lead to the disorientation of birds. Ill-sited native or naturalized vegetation may create magnets for birds,
luring them into harm’s way. The desire to bring nature and natural processes into buildings needs to be balanced with
knowledge of potential liabilities. Unless carefully considered, greening efforts may actually contribute to the loss of
the very creatures people seek to protect.

there is nothing in which the birds differ more from
man than the way in which they can build and yet
leave a landscape as it was before. - Robert Lynd. The Blue Lion and Other Essays

CONDITIONS AFFECTING BIRD COLLISIONS
Conditions Affecting For both new and existing buildings, undertaking bird-safe best practices requires an assessment of a range of macro
and micro conditions. These include evaluation of the region and the site; bird demographic chronology and habitat
Bird Collisions use; building height; glass coverage and glazing characteristics; and building operational criteria for exterior and
interior illumination.
Broad-front Songbird Migrations
Billions of migratory birds travel across North America

each spring and fall to seek breeding or wintering
grounds in locales that offer abundant food or space for
nesting. Songbirds travel primarily at night in what can
best be described as “broad-front” migration. These
migrations, in which weather plays a significant role,
can have seasonal and annual variations in songbird
numbers and concentrations and in timing. During fall
migration, birds travel from summer breeding grounds
in the temperate or arctic northern hemisphere to
wintering grounds in the equatorial tropics or temperate
zones of the southern hemisphere, making the reverse
trip the following spring. These historic routes follow
major rivers, coastlines, mountain ranges, and lakes.
Along the way densely built urban areas have become
migration danger zones.
image credit: s.a. gauthreaux, jr. / clemson university radar ornithology laboratory

stopover location example :

Central Park
area of special concern:

tall and/or glass building
near migration route 1/4
- 1/2 mile
areas of special concern
Proximity to Stopover Locations
Historically birds have made stopovers in waterfront,

coastal, wetland, wooded, and weedy environments
that are now America’s most densely populated urban
areas. Scientists estimate that migrating birds have
a 70% chance of encountering at least one major
metropolitan area during migration from breeding to
wintering grounds and vice versa. Sites located within
these urbanized regions are likely to be zones of greater
danger, especially to birds landing and taking off from
stopover sites. During their rest intervals, they are
exposed to hazards in the immediate urban context
while they forage for food. Building sites located near
bird feeding areas, waterfront habitat, or patches of
stopover location example : urban vegetation experience increased risk of bird
Battery Park collisions.

photo credit: new york city audubon photo credit: new york city audubon photo credit: new york city audubon
Building Orientation and Massing Features Proximity to Feeding Grounds and Habitat Area Local Meteorological Conditions
Since migratory routes are broad districts and bird flight Building sites near water bodies and wetlands—no matter Regions that are prone to haze, fog, mist, and/or low-lying
patterns vary day to day, one cannot simply address building how small—put both resident and migrant species at risk. clouds may see more frequent bird-kills, especially if the
facades that face an assumed direction of migration. The Sites bordering parkland, pocket parks, habitat patches, area contains tall buildings over 500 feet that are highly
impacts of all facades, with special emphasis on those green roofs, and street-tree corridors present bird-vulnerable illuminated. Generally, there are fewer birds aloft during
adjacent to landscapes or other features attractive to birds, facades, since birds forage these areas for food. Suburban precipitation; however, inclement weather can reduce their
must be considered. Buildings with exterior and/or interior building sites with proximity to natural landscapes also navigational awareness forcing them to fly at lower altitudes
landscaped courtyards create additional hazards, as do present a range of hazards and can be as dangerous to birds in search of visual clues. Heavily illuminated buildings in
glazed areas. As tight enclosures, they can make it very as urban settings. their path can serve as a deadly lure.
difficult for birds to escape safely.

Building Height
Lower levels:
The most hazardous areas of all buildings, especially
WATERFOWL during the day and regardless of overall height, are the
ground level and bottom few stories. Here, birds are most
likely to fly into glazed facades that reflect surrounding
vegetation, sky and other features attractive to birds.
2,000’
Moderate height:
Buildings between 50 and 500 feet tall pose hazards
since migrating birds descend from migration heights in
the early morning to rest and forage for food. Migrants
1,500’ also frequently fly short distances at lower elevations in
SHORE BIRDS the early morning to correct the path of their migration,
making moderate-height buildings a prime target,
especially if they have large expanses of reflective or
1,000’ transparent glass, or if they are highly illuminated.
Tallest:
While the exact height of birds’ migratory paths varies
SONGBIRDS & RAPTORS depending on species, geography, season, time of
500’ day/night, and weather conditions, radar tracking
has determined that approximately 98% of flying
vertebrates (birds and bats) migrate at heights below
250’ 500 meters (1640 feet) during the spring, with 75% flying
below that level in the fall. Today, many of the tallest
DAYTIME COLLISION ZONE 50’ buildings in the world reach or come close to the upper
limits of bird (and bat) migration.8 Storms or fog, which
info credit : fxfowle architects
bruce fowle,
Info Credit: Fox & e.j.
Fowlemcadams - 3/11/05
Architects cause disorientation, put countless numbers of birds at
Bruce Fowle, E.J. McAdams - 3/11/05 risk during a single evening. Any building over 500 feet
tall then—approximately 40-50 stories—is an obstacle
in the path of avian nighttime migration and must be
thoughtfully designed and operated to minimize its
impact.

Glass Coverage and Glazing Characteristics
A major determinant of potential strikes is the sheer percentage of glass used on the building facade. In general, collisions will
occur wherever glass and birds coexist. The ground level and lowest stories are the major collision zones. At these levels large
expanses of monolithic glazing should be minimized, glazing reflectivity (especially when adjacent to landscapes) reduced,
and situations where glazing promotes the false vision of unobstructed passage limited. One proven technique is to maximize
a façade’s “visual noise”, or the readily visible differentiations of material, texture, color, opacity, or other features that help to
fragment glass reflections and reduce overall transparency.9 “Visual noise” at the scale of the building and at the level of the
individual glass unit should be incorporated.
Example of Visual Noise:

metal sunscreen at L’Institut du Monde Arabe
architect: Jean Nouvel
about 5 million birds pass through new york
city each migration period. and we want to
make sure they are well cared for while they
are here, so they can pass safely on to their
ultimate destination. - E. J. McAdams, New York City Audubon Society

here is the bottom line :
birds just don’t see glass. these
animals are not able to recognize
glass as a barrier and avoid it.
- Professor Daniel Klem, New York Times, September 24, 2005

TECHNICAL STRATEGIES
Technical Strategies Bird-Safe Best Practices for Buildings
The following sections address specific recommendations in the planning, design, retrofit, and operation of buildings to
minimize bird collisions. Each ‘best practice’ includes technical strategies; describes potential benefits and limitations;
identifies measures that complement the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating
System; and presents case studies.
The LEED green building rating system™ 10 (continuously refined) is the U.S Green Building Council’s nationally accepted
standard of sustainability for the commercial, residential, and institutional building industries. Credits are awarded in
six categories:
1. Sustainable Sites
2. Water Efficiency
3. Energy and Atmosphere
4. Materials and Resources
5. Indoor Environmental Quality
6. Innovation and Design Process

COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL ACTIONS FOR BIRD SAFETY
Comprehensive Local Actions OBJECTIVE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
for Bird Safety Identify and document specific sites and districts that + Educates public on bird-safe practices.
are in predictable migratory and resident bird collision
areas. Promote bird-friendly policies and activities + Improves bird safety on a district-wide or city-wide
in those areas. Raise awareness of the bird collision scale.
issue.
+ Encourages local market forces to facilitate industry
change.
+ Complements local green building initiatives.
+ Reduces light pollution and results in energy

savings.
– Requires systematic data on bird-collisions and

LEED INTEGRATION mortality to achieve effectiveness.
Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 5.1: – Depends on real estate industry acceptance and
Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat initiative.
Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 5.2: – May require implementation of effective policy
Site Development: Maximize Open Space measures (incentives or regulatory) to help overcome
general resistance to change, based on perceived cost
increases.

Comprehensive Local Actions for Bird Safety
Support voluntary efforts to conduct district-wide, Develop district-wide Lights-Out Programs: Develop planning mechanisms to encourage bird-
daily surveys that are based on peer-reviewed friendly development and building operation:
scientific protocols for injured and dead birds • Encourage building owners and managers to
resulting from building collisions: extinguish all unnecessary exterior and interior lights • Integrate maps of predictable bird-hazard zones
from 11pm to sunrise during the spring migration, from (e.g. where migratory and resident bird collisions are
• Conduct surveys in major business or residential mid-March to early June, and the fall migration, from prevalent) into the planning process.
districts near waterfronts, parks and other habitats late August to late October.
that are attractive to birds. • Consider integrating bird-hazard districts into local
• Encourage building operators to use gradual, zoning ordinances.
• Encourage local conservation groups to compile data “staggered switching” to turn on building lights
on the mortality rate and injury rate of bird collisions. at sunrise rather than instant light-up of the entire • Consider zoning or financial incentives to encourage
building. bird-safe building design and operation.
• Instruct volunteer monitors in methods of temporarily
caring for injured birds before transporting them to • Monitor the effectiveness of lights-out programs. • Promote implementation of bird-safety measures
certified wildlife rehabilitators. Estimate reductions in district-wide energy usage, in publicly funded parks, infrastructure and facility
light emissions, bird collisions, and bird mortality. capital projects.
• Donate dead specimens to authorized bird
conservation organizations or museums to aid in • Publicize results and expand participation. • Promote the local use of bird-safe design methods to
species identification and to benefit scientific study, as achieve a LEED Rating System Credit
per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (see page 10).
• Develop funding mechanisms for bird-safe products
• Produce educational materials on bird-safe practices research and development.
for public officials, building owners and operators, and
the general public.
• Advocate for appropriate, cost-effective building or

site changes at bird collision ‘hot spots.’
Injured bird under temporary care rescued by volunteer.


Case Study
photo credit: michael mesure / flap

City of Toronto
Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP)
The City of Toronto, with its glassy skyline located on
the northern shore of Lake Ontario, is an alluring and
potentially harmful stopover destination for migrating
birds. Since 1993, a volunteer organization known as
the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) has patrolled
the downtown during spring and fall migration seasons
to collect birds that were killed or injured by building
collisions. The group has collected over 32,000 dead
birds, representing 140 different species.11 Five of the
twenty most abundant species recorded by FLAP have
experienced significant long-term population declines.
Fortunately, over half of the birds FLAP volunteers collect
annually survive thanks to their rehabilitation efforts.
In 1997, FLAP sponsored the Bird Friendly Building
Program, which successfully encouraged sixteen major
downtown buildings to extinguish unnecessary interior
and exterior lighting after midnight during migration
seasons. The program has reduced nighttime light
emission and bird mortality throughout the downtown.
Eliminating the floodlighting of the CN Tower, for
example, virtually eradicated bird mortality at that
site. FLAP estimates that the participation of all sixteen
buildings in the Bird Friendly Building Program saves
$3.2 million in energy costs, an equivalent reduction
of 38,400 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. For most
participants, this bottom line cost savings is justification
alone to reduce or eliminate nighttime lighting.
LY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
http://www.flap.org
LASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT

S
ON-
GLASS
24 BIRD - SAFE
SOLUTION: BUILDING GUIDELINES
USE OF PLASTIC
FILMS, DIACHROIC COATINGS
AND TINTS ON FACADE
BIRD - SAFE SITE PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Bird-Safe Site Planning OBJECTIVE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
and Landscape Design Minimize the potential for bird collisions when siting + Simple and cost-effective strategy for reducing the
buildings near existing landscape features and attractiveness of glazed buildings to birds.
when planning new landscapes in close proximity to
buildings. + Encourages the placement of habitat attractive to
birds away from buildings.
– May conflict with aesthetic desires to reflect the

surrounding landscape in building façades or to make
the building totally transparent to, or integrated with,
significant landscape features.
LEED INTEGRATION
Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 5.1:
Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat
Site Development: Maximize Open Space

Heat Island Effect: Roof
Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credit 1:

Optimize Energy Performance
peter kerze

Bird-Safe Planning and Landscape Design
Analyze the site to determine potential attractions for • Consider means to isolate existing vegetation that is • Minimize the reflection of rooftop landscapes in
bird populations: especially attractive to birds. adjacent building features or surrounding properties.
Ensure adequate space for birds to fly safely to and from
• Consider the proximity of the building to vegetated • If sited near water features, use soil berms, furniture, rooftop vegetation. Coordinate with LEED Credit
streetscapes or urban parks. landscaping, or architectural features to prevent SS 7.2 - Heat Island Effect: Roof.
reflection of water in glazed building facades.
• Identify mature trees and shrubs, grassy meadows, • Minimize the exterior visibility of interior landscaping
water features, seed and insect sources, and other • In places where situating buildings near existing to reduce its attractiveness to birds.
natural features, especially those that function as food landscapes is desired or unavoidable, utilize
sources and shelter for migratory and resident bird architectural strategies to ensure that building glazing • Utilize fritting, shading devices or other techniques
populations. and avian habitat can coexist safely. See “Bird-Safe to obscure attractive habitat for bird populations. See
Enhancements to Building Envelope” on page 28. “Bird-Safe Enhancements to Building Envelope” on
• Identify human-made structures or other site page 28.
features that attract birds, such as sources of water,
nesting and perching sites, and shelter from adverse Create bird-safe landscaping:
weather conditions.12 Properly locate new water features:
• Place new landscapes sufficiently away from glazed
• Integrate with LEED Credit SS 5.1 - Site Development: building facades so that no reflection occurs. • Take special care to isolate from glazed facades any
Protect or Restore Habitat. ponds, stormwater retention basins, wetlands, swales
• Alternatively, if planting of landscapes nearby or related infrastructure that offers food and shelter to
a glazed building façade is desirable, situate trees and birds.
Site building(s) in relation to existing landscape shrubs immediately adjacent to the exterior glass walls,
features to reduce conflicts with existing features that at a distance of less than three feet from the glass.13
may serve as attractive bird habitat: Such close proximity will obscure habitat reflections
and will minimize fatal collisions by reducing birds’ flight
• Minimize the reflection of existing vegetation on momentum from the vegetation towards the glass. This
building facades. planting strategy also provides beneficial summertime
shading and reduces cooling loads.
• Consider reducing the size of the building footprint
to avoid conflicts with existing landscapes. Coordinate
with LEED Credit SS 5.2 - Site Development: Maximize
Open Space.

Case Study
studio gang architects / scape
Ford Calumet Environmental Center

City of Chicago Dept of Environment
International Design Competition Winning Entry
Chicago, Illinois
Architects: Studio Gang Architects
Landscape Architecture: Kate Orff SCAPE
w/Site Design Group
The Ford Calumet Environmental Center is a proposed

4,000-acre open space located on Chicago’s south side
that was the subject of a recent international design
competition. The site incorporates large expanses of
marshes, wetlands, and prairies that serve as stopover
sites for migratory birds. Concerned that a glass-clad
visitor center would kill the species that the public is
coming to see, the competition’s winners made bird
safety a guiding priority in their design proposal.
The designers took inspiration from birds’ nest
construction, envisioning a basket-like woven screen
that also incorporated locally discarded industrial steel
scrap. Positioning the screen around the glass façade
and porch reduces glass collisions while still allowing
views of the surrounding environment. In addition
to promoting bird safety, the woven screen shades
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION
the building, creates an exciting spatial and textural
experience for visitors, and functions as a ‘blind’ on the
viewing deck that allows people to get close to the birds
without creating a disturbance.
http://www.studiogang.net/studiogang.net/projects/pages/ford.htm
http://www.scapestudio.com/projects
SOLUTION: SCREEN / PROBLEM:SOLUTION: VEGETATION
TRANSPARENCY PR
SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR BUILDING
SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE SOLUTION:SOLUTION:

SCREEN / NON- SO
SCRIM / FRITTING
REFLECTIVE MATERIAL NE
BIRD - SAFE BUILDINGSOLUTION:

GUIDELINES 27
VISUAL NOISE SO
RE
BIRD - SAFE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BUILDING ENVELOPE
Bird-Safe Enhancements OBJECTIVE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
to the Building Envelope Improve upon conventional building envelope design + Complements efforts to control interior building
to prevent bird collisions with glazed surfaces, while climate passively and to create variable climate zones
maintaining transparency for views, daylighting and depending on programmatic uses.
passive environmental control.
+ Encourages innovative aesthetic approaches to façade
treatment in addition to increased bird safety.
– Potentially increases construction costs.
– May compromise daylighting and view objectives.
– Potentially conflicts with desired aesthetic of

maximal transparency.
LEED INTEGRATION – Untested strategies may not achieve desired outcome.

Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 8:
Light Pollution Reduction
Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) Credit 6.1:

Controllability of Systems: Lighting

Daylight & Views
Bird-Legible Pattern: Ornilux Glass

for Bird-Safe Enhancements to the Building Envelope
Plan building layout to minimize the likelihood of bird • Consider the use of angled glass, between 20 and 40 • Use applied ceramic fritting in dot matrix patterns
collisions: degrees from vertical, to reflect the ground instead of and grids to make glass visible to birds, while achieving
adjacent habitat or sky.15 solar shading. (Note: Although fritting is useful for
• Integrate site and landscape features to minimize creating visual noise, it is less effective at reducing
those hazards that bring birds close to buildings such • Minimize bird habitat near ground level stories. reflectance since it is generally applied on the interior
as vegetation, water and other features attractive to face of the glass.)
birds. See “Bird-Safe Site Planning and Landscape
Design” on page 25. At the whole building scale, develop strategies to make • Use real or applied divided lights to break up large
glazing more apparent to birds: window expanses into smaller subdivisions.
• Where practicable, limit the overall amount of glazing
in areas that are in predictable migratory and resident • Avoid monolithic, undistinguished expanses of glazing. • Pay particular attention to treating the ground level
bird collision areas. stories—which is where most bird collisions occur—as
• Create building elevations that simulate large scale well as any areas that are adjacent to landscapes and
‘visual noise’. other bird habitat.
Design ground level stories, which are the most
hazardous areas of all buildings, to minimize bird
collisions: Utilize bird-legible patterns on individual glass units to Develop strategies to minimize the reflection of
make glass more apparent while maintaining its visual surrounding habitat or sky in glass facades:
• Wherever possible, limit the amount of glazing used acceptability:
on ground level stories, particularly in areas that are • Wherever possible, specify reduced- or low-
adjacent to landscapes. • Employ patterns in sizes that, according to reflectivity glass (0 to 10% reflectivity).
experiments, discourage birds from attempting
• In glassy areas, seek to maximize “visual noise”, or through-passage: a maximum space measuring two • In utilizing spectrally selective glass, seek to balance
readily visible differentiations of material, texture, inches tall by four inches wide, or the equivalent size of good thermal control and daylight transmittance with
color, opacity, or other features that help to fragment a human handprint oriented horizontally.16 reduced or muted reflectivity (less than 10%), or provide
glass reflections and reduce overall transparency.14 exterior devices to reduce reflection.
Incorporate “visual noise” at the scale of the building • Consider creative glass patterns that accomplish
and at the level of the individual glass unit. objectives for shading, views, and bird-safety. Integrate • Consider the use of angled glass, between 20 and 40
glass patterning with the overall building design. degrees from vertical, to reflect the ground instead of
• Utilize etching, fritting, and opaque patterned glass to adjacent habitat or sky.18
reduce transparency. • In locations where bird collisions are predictable, seek
uniform covering of glass with bird-safe patterning.17 • Pay particular attention to treating the ground level
• Utilize low-reflectivity glazing. stories—which are where most bird collisions occur—as
• Consider applying acid-etched or sandblasted well as any areas that are adjacent to landscapes and
• Utilize low-e patterning in glass. patterns to glass on the outside surface to “read” in other bird habitat.
both transparent and reflective conditions.
• Utilize shading devices, screens, and other physical
barriers to reduce birds’ access to glass.

Employ exterior shading or other architectural devices Design to eliminate nighttime light trespass from the
on glazed façades to enhance bird safety: building’s interior: • On skyscrapers or other tall structures that
must comply with federal aviation or marine safety
• Incorporate louvers, awnings, sunshades, light • Integrate automatic lighting controls to extinguish regulations, install minimum intensity white strobe
shelves or other exterior shading/shielding devices to lights in the evening by 11:00pm. lighting with a three second flash interval instead
reduce reflection and give birds visual indication of a of continuous flood lighting, rotating lights, or red
barrier. • Create smaller zones in lighting layouts to discourage lighting.21
wholesale area illumination.
• Consider other highly patterned shading/shielding • Ensure that all exterior light fixtures are properly
devices that will encourage bird safety. Integrate • Incorporate and encourage the use of localized task installed to prevent unintended light trespass.22
these features with the building’s overall design. (See lighting.
examples for details.)19
• Install light dimmers in lobbies, atria and perimeter Minimize rooftop obstacles to bird’s flight:
• Where appropriate, use plastic or metal screens over corridors for nighttime use.
windows to reduce reflectivity and decrease the damage • Minimize the amount of exterior antennas and other
caused to birds colliding with the glass. • Install motion detectors to turn off lights in the evening tall structures, including cell phone, television and other
when no occupants are present.20 media equipment. Collocate all necessary antennas and
• Pay particular attention to treating the ground level tall equipment, and locate them to minimize conflicts
stories—which are where most bird collisions occur—as with birds.
well as any areas that are adjacent to landscapes and Design exterior lighting to minimize light trespass at
other bird habitat. night: • Utilize self-supporting lattice or monopole towers that
do not require the use of guy wire supports.
• Coordinate bird-safety efforts with daylighting • Minimize amount and visual impact of perimeter
and passive cooling efforts. See LEED Credit EQ 8.1 lighting and façade up-lighting. • Avoid up-lighting rooftop antennas and tall equipment,
Daylight & Views, and LEED Credit EA.1 Optimize Energy as well as decorative architectural spires.
Performance for more details. • Specify full-cutoff exterior fixtures to reduce light
trespass.
Design and operate interior window treatments to • Utilize motion-detection as lighting controls wher-
improve bird safety: ever possible.
• Use light-colored solar reflective blinds or curtains to • Utilize minimum wattage fixtures to achieve appro-
reduce glass transparency and add visual noise. priate lighting levels.
• Close curtains and blinds if evening illumination is • Avoid use of floodlighting.

utilized.
• Consider photo-sensors, timers, or other automatic

controls to regulate shading devices.

Case Study
photo credit: renzo piano building workshop and fxfowle architects
photo credit: renzo piano building workshop and fxfowle architects

New York Times Headquarters
New York, NY
Architects: Renzo Piano Building Workshop
and FXFOWLE Architects
The 52-story headquarters for the New York Times is a

new landmark for both sustainability and sensitivity to
birdlife. From the outset, the architectural firms of Renzo
Piano Building Workshop and FXFOWLE Architects
collaborated with experts to formulate a comprehensive
daylighting strategy that reduces lighting energy use,
minimizes cooling loads and controls glare. The fully
glazed curtain wall is shaded by an exterior framework,
placed one and a half feet from the glass and is
comprised of a series of thin horizontal ceramic tubing
placed on 4 1/2” centers that corresponds to the vertical
spacing of a bird-safe pattern. The only place where
horizontal tubes do not occur is at eye level on each
floor, allowing for an unobstructed view through the
glass. In addition to shading significant portions of the
glass, reducing solar heat gain by 30%, and allowing
deep penetration of daylight, the shading device may
minimize avian mortality by blocking birds from the
glass surface.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-EETD-NYT-building.html
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBL
SOLUTION: SCREEN / SOLUT

SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR
BIRD - SAFE BUILDING VISUAL NOISE 31

GUIDELINES
SOLUTION: SOLU
REFLE
Case Study
photo credit: birdsandbuilding.org
photo credit: birdsandbuilding.org

Swarthmore College
Unified Science Center
Swarthmore, PA
Architects: Helfand Architecture and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott
Landscape design: Gladnick Wright Salameda; ML Baird & Co.
This renovation and 75,000 square foot addition to

an existing science facility was planned to create a
series of outdoor courtyards that took advantage of
the site’s beneficial topography and mature trees.
Sensitive to the liabilities of extensive glazing placed
near attractive landscapes, the College and its architect
Margaret Helfand consulted ornithologist and noted
building-related bird mortality expert Daniel Klem. (See
footnote# 1) Klem proposed patterning portions of the
glass at potential collision ‘hot spots.’ After testing
several configurations, the designers decided to use
a glass with a ceramic frit matrix at locations deemed
susceptible to bird collision. (The initial tests prior to
installation had shown significant reduction in bird
strikes, according to objective experimental evidence.)
Swarthmore engineering professor Carr Everbach,
a member of the College’s green-design committee,
designed a “thump sensor” webcam for installation
next to windows to detect bird collisions. According to
Klem, collisions have been reduced significantly to a
mere one or two a year, giving Swarthmore confidence
to extend the treatment to other campus buildings.23
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature171.htm
32 BIRD - SAFE
SOLUTION: BUILDING
VISUAL NOISE GUIDELINES
SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC
AND TINTS ON FACADE
Case Study
photo credit: fxfowle architects
Wildlife Conservation Society’s Center

for Global Conservation
Bronx, NY
Architects: FXFOWLE Architects
For their new 40,000-square-foot Center for Global

Conservation, the Wildlife Conservation Society/Bronx
Zoo sought a building design that would embody their
mission to preserve wildlife and habitat. Aiming for a
LEED gold rating, the Wildlife Conservation Society
and FXFOWLE team integrated a host of sustainable
features into the design, including a green roof that
is connected directly to the landscape. Sited between
the Bronx Zoo’s Aviary exhibition and a body of water,
bird safety was a priority consideration. Four bird-safe
strategies were developed: 1) A wooden screen doubles
as a solar shading device and bird deterrent. 2) Exterior
acid-etched glass patterned to minimize interference
with human views reduces transparency and reflections
of sky and habitat. 3) Glass with interior ceramic frit
patterns adds aesthetic weight to a stone-clad base
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION PROBLEM
while creating visual noise. 4) Non-reflective exterior
glass is employed in the glazed conference room and
entry areas. Additional bird safety measures include
minimizing night lighting and utilizing full cut-off
luminaries, both of which reduce energy consumption
and light pollution. PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION
SOLUTION: SCREENTRANSPARENCY
PROBLEM: / SOLUTION: VEGETATION
PROBLEM: REFLECTION SOLUTION
SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR BUILDING DOWNWA
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION PROBLEM: FLY THROUGH

SOLUTION: SCREEN / PROBLEM:SOLUTION:
BEACON EFFECT
VEGETATION
SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE

SOLUTION: SCREEN / SOLUTION:
SOLUTION: NON- VEGETATION SOLUTIO
SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR
REFLECTIVE BUILDING
MATERIAL REFLECTI
SOLUTION: SCREEN / SOLUTION: VEGETATION SOLUTION: GLASS

SOLUTION: TILTED
VISUAL NOISE SOLUTION:SOLUTION:
LIGHTS OUT
NON-
SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR BUILDING DOWNWARDS REFLECTIVE MATERIAL
SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE SOLUTION: NON-

REFLECTIVE MATERIAL

MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REDUCE BIRD COLLISIONS
Modifications to OBJECTIVE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
Existing Buildings to Undertake alterations or retrofits to buildings with high + Retrofits can target specific problem areas and do not
require comprehensive building intervention.
Reduce Bird Collisions incidence of bird collisions.
+ Many techniques are cost-effective and require little

or no construction work.
+ Some retrofits are easily integrated with regular

building maintenance.
+ The aesthetic impacts of most retrofit solutions are

minimal.
– Some retrofit choices are expensive.
LEED INTEGRATION – Retrofits may be difficult to achieve or impractical for

large towers.
Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat
Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credit 5.2:
Site Development: Maximize Open Space

Daylight & Views

Modifications to Existing Building to Reduce Bird Collisions
Retrofit problematic windows and glass facades to Undertake strategies to create a physical barrier to the Remove or relocate features attractive to bird
reduce bird collisions: glass: populations to reduce the frequency of collisions:
• Consider installing transparent or perforated • Install exterior coverings, nettings, insect screens, • Relocate interior plantings, water sources or other
patterned, non-reflective window films that make latticework, artwork, shading or shielding devices at features that are causing birds to crash into glass
glass visible to birds (examples include Scotchprint, or notably hazardous windows to deter birds or otherwise windows.
CollideEscape). reduce the momentum of their impact.
• Consider relocating or altering landscapes to
• Consider painting, etching, or temporarily coating • Consider planting trees and shrubs close to minimize reflection in glass facades. See “Bird-Safe
collision-prone windows to make them visible to birds. the building within a maximum of three feet from Site Planning and Landscape Design” on page 25.
a problematic façade or curtain wall. This planting
• Install louvers, awnings, sunshades, light shelves strategy will block access to habitat reflections and
or other shading/shielding devices at large expanses of birds alighting in these trees will not have the distance
glass to reduce reflection and to signal the existence of to build momentum if they move towards the glass. This
a barrier. planting strategy also provides beneficial summertime
shading and reduces cooling loads. See “Bird- Safe Site
• Install and operate reflective blinds, shades Planning and Landscape Design” on page 25.
or curtains to reduce glazing reflectivity and indicate the
presence of a barrier to flight. Close curtains or blinds
during the evenings if the interior is illuminated.
• Consider re-glazing existing windows that experience

high rates of bird collisions with low- reflectivity, etched,
frosted, or fritted glass. Also, consider replacing large
existing windows with multiple smaller units, divided
lights or opaque sections.

Case Study
photo credit: bill buchanan / john heinz national wildlife

Cusano Environmental
Education Center
Philadelphia, PA
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge
This green building demonstration project, completed

in 2001, was built adjacent to a wetland. Its glazed
elevations, while affording intimate views of the natural
surrounding, caused bird fatalities. The problem was
successfully remedied through a partial retrofit with
fine netting.
36 BIRD SOLUTION:
- SAFEVISUAL
BUILDING
NOISE GUIDELINES
SOLUTION: NON-
REFLECTIVE MATERIAL
SOLUTION: NON-
REFLECTIVE GLASS
SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC
AND TINTS ON FACADE
Case Study
photo credit: birdsandbuildings.org

Adler Planetarium
Chicago, Illinois
Retrofit to lakeside glass pavilion
Museum Management
This glass pavilion positioned directly adjacent to Lake

Michigan encloses the Adler Planetarium’s exit stair.
Noting it was causing bird death and injury, the Museum
maintenance staff sought to address the problem first
through the application of traditional bird decals. When
that solution proved ineffective, they subsequently
upgraded to this striping system for the glass fronting
the lake, which has largely addressed the problem.
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLE
SOLUTION: SCREEN / SOLUTI

SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR B

SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE 37 SOLUT
REFLEC
Case Study
photo credit: holliday h. obrecht iii (senior refuge biologist ) / u.s. fish and wildlife service
Patuxent Research Refuge
Visitors Center
Laurel, Maryland
Retrofit to facility
Senior Research Staff
Dedicated to wildlife research, this U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service national wildlife refuge had experienced a high
incidence of bird strikes at this glassy visitors center
since its opening in 1994. To eliminate this problem
while studying the efficacy of such a retrofit, exterior
films were applied to major portions of the windows.
Bird strikes and mortalities were monitored on these
partially filmed windows for two migration cycles. It
was determined that un-filmed panels still experienced
bird strikes and a few bird mortalities whereas adjacent
filmed window panels experienced very few strikes
and no mortalities. These films, which reduce glass
reflectivity, offer other performance characteristics
such as UV reduction and solar heat gain reduction.
FLY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
GLASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT

RDS
NON- SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC

E GLASS FILMS, DIACHROIC COATINGS
AND TINTS ON FACADE

Case Study
Levy Senior Center

Evanston, Illinois
Retrofit to courtyard
This facility has as a major feature, an interior courtyard,

which was well landscaped to attract birds. Reflections
of the sky and vegetation were causing bird strikes. This
retrofit consisted of light-colored blinds and shades,
producing sufficient reflectivity reduction to reduce the
problem.
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM
SOLUTION: SCREEN / SOLUTIO

SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR BU

SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE SOLUTIO
REFLECT
BIRD - SAFE BUILDING OPERATIONS
Bird-Safe Building Operations OBJECTIVE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
Undertake strategies to reduce light trespass from + Highly effective at reducing nighttime migratory bird
buildings, particularly during migration seasons. collisions and mortality.
Undertake monitoring programs to evaluate success.
+ Saves money by reducing energy costs.
+ Decreases air pollution and light pollution.
– Requires the commitment and participation of both

building owners and users.
– Less effective without public awareness about the

problem of bird collisions with all types of buildings.
– Conflicts with aesthetic preconceptions that build-

LEED INTEGRATION ings should be brightly lit at night, particularly in urban
skylines.
Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 8:
Light Pollution Reduction


Controllability of Systems: Lighting
lights out

Bird-Safe Building Operations
Develop Lights-Out programs during peak migration Reduce light trespass from interior sources: Implement daily bird-collision monitoring:
periods:
• Turn off unnecessary interior lighting by 11 pm until • Encourage building management or maintenance
• Encourage building owners and managers to extinguish sunrise, especially during fall and spring migration crews to conduct a daily sweep of the building perimeter,
all unnecessary exterior and interior lights from 11pm to seasons. setbacks, and roof to inspect for injured or dead bird
sunrise during the spring migration, from mid-March to • Utilize automatic controls, including photo-sensors, species.
early June, and the fall migration, from late August to infrared and motion detectors, to shut off lights
late October. automatically in the evening when no occupants are • Encourage volunteer participation in bird-collision
present. monitoring.
• Utilize gradual, “staggered switching” to turn on • Encourage the use of localized task lighting to reduce
building lights at sunrise rather than instant light-up of the need for extensive overhead lighting. • Instruct workers and volunteers in methods of
the entire building. • Schedule nightly maintenance activities to conclude temporarily caring for injured birds before transporting
before 11:00pm. them to certified wildlife rehabilitators.
• Dim lights in lobbies, perimeter circulation areas, and • Educate building users about the dangers of light
atria. trespass for birds. • Document all bird deaths. Donate specimens to
• Encourage voluntary light-closing in the evenings.24 authorized local bird conservation organization or
• Monitor the effectiveness of lights-out programs by museum to aid in species identification and for use in
tracking bird collisions and mortality rates. Determine scientific studies, as per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
light emission reductions and cost savings. Publicize Reduce light trespass from exterior sources: of 1918 (see page 10).
positive outcomes.
• Reduce perimeter lighting wherever possible. • Partner with other buildings in the area as well as
• Contact local bird conservation organizations for local bird conservation groups to develop a district-
support and to share the results of the Lights-Out • Attach cutoff shields to streetlights and external wide monitoring program and corresponding Lights-
program. lights to prevent unnecessary upward lighting. Out strategies.
• Install motion-sensor lighting wherever possible. • Undertake retrofits and other strategies to reduce bird
collisions. See “Modifications to Existing Buildings to
• Utilize minimum wattage fixtures to achieve required Reduce Bird Collisions” on page 34.
lighting levels.
• To comply with federal aviation and marine safety

regulations in large buildings, install minimum intensity
white strobe lighting with a three second flash interval
instead of continuous flood lighting, rotating lights, or
red lighting.25
• Ensure that all exterior light fixtures are properly

installed to prevent unintended light trespass.26

Case Study
photo credit: eric fogleman / www.lightsout.audubon.org

City of Chicago
Lights-Out Program
Chicago, IL
Twice annually, approximately five million birds—

representing 250 species—fly through Chicago in
migration. From 1978 to 2003 a group of researchers
from Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
studied the rate of bird collisions at one particularly
problematic building on the waterfront, the McCormick
Place exhibition hall. During that period, researchers
collected 30,990 dead birds of 141 different species
outside the exhibition hall.27 As a result of this
endeavor, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley decreed a
lights-out program in the fall of 2000 to reduce exterior
lighting from tall towers during peak migration periods.
When lights were extinguished at the McCormick Place
exhibition hall, researchers found that the number of
birds killed in collisions declined by 83%. Today, nearly
all tall buildings in downtown Chicago participate in Lights-Out Chicago
the Lights-Out program. In November 2006, Mayor Two photos of the Chicago skyline taken before and after 11 pm on the same fall night
in 2003.
Daley announced the release of Chicago’s 18-Point Bird
Agenda that include decreasing bird collisions with
buildings, creating bird habitat, and increasing public
awareness of bird populations.
http://www.lightsout.audubon.org/
http://www.cityofchicago.org/Environment/BirdMigration/sub/lights_out_
chicago.html
LY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
LASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT

S
ON-
GLASS
42 BIRD - SAFE
SOLUTION: BUILDING GUIDELINES
USE OF PLASTIC
AND TINTS ON FACADE
Case Study
New York City Audubon’s

Project Safe Flight
New York, NY
Spring and fall, hundreds of thousands of birds fly in broad-front migration over the
northeastern United States. They stop over in New York City’s Central Park, Jamaica
Bay, and other green areas—even very small ones—to rest and refuel. But, as in Toronto
and Chicago, NYC’s urban landscape poses serious threats to migrating birds as well as
resident birds.
In 1997, NYC Audubon’s Project Safe Flight was founded by Rebekah Creshkoff to monitor
bird collisions with NYC buildings during migratory periods. To date, over 5,000 dead and
injured birds representing more than 100 species, mostly migrating songbirds, have been
recorded. Casualties have resulted from both nighttime light-entrapment and daytime
collisions with transparent and reflective glass.
In 2000, Project Safe Flight encouraged the Port Authority of NY and NJ to install fine-
mesh garden netting over ground floor windows at the World Trade Center that were
causing especially high rates of bird collisions.28 The mesh functioned like a trampoline,
preventing birds from hitting the glass, and reduced mortality 65% as compared to the
previous spring’s record.29
Project Safe Flight volunteers identified another NYC high-collision site, six-story Morgan
Mail Processing Facility located in upper Chelsea not far from the Hudson River. The site
comprises an especially lethal combination of conditions—a highly reflective, mirrored
curtain wall that is located opposite a park and a set of street trees. In the fall of 2006,
338 bird collisions were recorded along the building’s 250-yard-long non-transparent
glazed exterior. Experts believe that birds feeding in the adjacent habitat fly towards the
vision of “alternative” feeding grounds reflected in Morgan Mail’s façade. Alerted to the
mortality findings by NYC Audubon, postal officials have agreed to modify the façade
with etched patterns or other applications. Project Safe Flight volunteers will continue to
monitor the site to determine the effectiveness of this renovation.
http://www.nycaudubon.org

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Emerging Technologies OBJECTIVE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
Encourage glass manufacturers to advance the search + The development of an integral glass technology
and development of innovative technologies that make would greatly reduce the problem of building-related
glass visible to birds without visually impairing glass for bird mortality without imposing major aesthetic
humans. Such bird-safe glass may involve novel uses modifications to contemporary building designs.
of known manufacturing processes, new/unexplored
technologies or even the use of polycarbonates. + Encouraging a technological solution would stimulate
research and development in the glass industry,
and encourage wide-ranging innovative product
development with beneficial economic consequences.
+ An innovative technological solution would be widely

accepted in the design and construction industry,
with beneficial economic consequences, particularly
if it minimized aesthetic impacts and was cost-
LEED INTEGRATION competitive.
Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) Credit 8.1: + Significant development would serve as a model for
Daylight & Views other potential “bio-mimetic” technological solutions
to design problems.
Innovation & Design Process (ID) Credit 1 to 1.4:
– Developing effective technologies may require large
Innovation in Design
investments and may prove challenging in the short
term.
– Ineffective without the support and leadership of

glass and construction industry officials.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Emerging Technologies
Refine methods of obscuring transparency of glass: Encourage the development of glass that eliminates Develop new technology:
reflections. The exterior surface of glass is of primary
• Continue research on pattern recognition of both concern, however all surfaces of glass reflect habitat to • Develop glass with integral patterns in the ultra-violet
humans and birds to identify patterns that inhibit some extent: range that will be visible to birds and not humans.30
bird ‘fly-throughs’ while minimally obstructing human
views. • Lower reflectivity of existing “non-reflective” glass. • Improve polycarbonates as an alternate to glass and
explore its bird-safe potential.
• Encourage manufacturers to offer “bird-safe” • Develop plastic films, diachronic coatings, and tints
patterns as stock products in a variety of finishes for exterior use. • Encourage research into experimental technologies
for design flexibility (i.e. ceramic frit, acid etching, such as nanotechnology, meta-materials, and other
laminated LEDs, electrochromic coatings etc.). • Experiment with particles that can be cast integrally unforeseen solutions.
into glass during the production process.
• Enhance existing patterning materials such as

ceramic frits and acid etching for exterior use.
• Encourage the development of other forms of non-

reflective tinted or spectrally selective glass.
A “Bio-mimetic” Solution on the Horizon

Scientists have concluded that birds perceive UV daylight as a separate, enhanced color.
In fact, most birds have UV-colored plumage that is invisible to humans but important
to birds in distinguishing among bird species and sexes. UV vision is also important
for bird’s orientation during migration and it facilitates feeding practices. Given bird’s
receptivity to UV light, it is possible to develop a “bio-mimetic” solution for bird-safe
glass.30
Example: Emerging Technology
700 nm
UV Reflective Coatings: Glaswerke Arnold’s Ornilux Glass
“According to Christian Irmscher, Director of Applied Technologies at Glaswerke Arnold,
Ornilux glass uses a unique UV reflective coating that allows birds to easily identify glass
surfaces and therefore avoid collisions with them. ‘Our new application is based on the
anti-bird-strike patent and basic research conducted by Dr. Alfred Meyerhuber which
examined the use of glass coatings and the UV vision of birds.’”
600 nm Human-Visible (For more information, see source: http://www.glaswerke-arnold.de)
human vision bird vision: uv spectrum

VISIBLE
500 nm
strong UV reflectance
400 nm
UV
300 nm
Bird-Visible
WAVELENGTH
image credit: Robert Bleiweiss/Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
BIRD - SAFE ARCHITECTURE EXAMPLES
Case Study
IIT Student Center
Chicago, IL
Architects: OMA/Rem Koolhaas
This building incorporates faceted glass, Panelite

panels, and a dot matrix pattern (pictured here) in its
facade. These elements create visual noise which is
perceptable to birds, preventing the fly-through effect
and the mirror effect.
TION PROBLEM: FLY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
ATION PROBLEM:
SOLUTION: TRANSPARENCY
GLASS TILTED SOLUTION:PROBLEM: REFLECTION
LIGHTS OUT PROBLEM: FLY THROUGH PROBLEM: BEACON EFFECT
DOWNWARDS
SOLUTION:
SOLUTION: NON-SCREEN / SOLUTION: SOLUTION: VEGETATION
USE OF PLASTIC SOLUTION: GLASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT
RIAL SCRIM /GLASS
REFLECTIVE FRITTING NEAR BUILDING
FILMS, DIACHROIC COATINGS DOWNWARDS
AND TINTS ON FACADE
46 BIRD - SAFE
SOLUTION: VISUALBUILDING
NOISE GUIDELINES
SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: NON-
REFLECTIVE GLASS
REFLECTIVE MATERIAL
AND TINTS ON FACADE
Case Study
La Defense Offices, 2004, UNStudio © Christian Richtersr
La Defense Offices
Almere, Netherlands
Architects: UN Studio
This building incorporates faceted glass, Panelite

panels, and a dot matrix pattern (pictured here) in its
facade. These elements create visual noise which is
perceptable to birds, preventing the fly-through effect
and the mirror effect.
AND TINTS ON FACADE

Case Study
Tower Woermann, abalos herreros, ©Paolo Rosselli

Tower Woermann
Madrid, Spain
Architects: Abalos & Herreros
This building beautifully incorporates a screening

element which is bird-visible and provides sun shading.
The facade is also striated with horizontal elements that
cast shadows on the glass, rendering it bird-visible.

SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE SOLUTION: NON-
REFLECTIVE MATERIAL
SOLUTION: NON-
REFLECTIVE GLASS
AND TINTS ON FACADE
Case Study
photo credit: chelsea dewitt
IAC Offices
New York, NY
Architects: Frank O. Gehry and Partners
This building has a sculpted glass facade that is etched

or fritted with white pattern. It is anticipated that this
building will be bird-safe due to the faceting of the glass
and the patterned facade.
AND TINTS ON FACADE

Case Study
photo credit: eric fogleman / www.lightsout.audubon.org

Minneapolis Central Library
Minneapolis, MN
Architects: Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects
Landscape design : Cohen + Partners
The Minneapolis Central Library incorporates bird-safe

design techniques in several ways. Its variegated and
curtained facade presents an identifiable pattern to
birds, while an indigenous shale and birch garden at the
building’s north perimeter filters views to and from the
main level reading rooms. This technique of planting
very close to a building facade, in addition to providing
shade, prevents incidents of fatal bird strike. Birds can
perceive patterns and shadows of the foliage cast on
the glass, which identify it as a barrier. At the same
time, birds are less likely to develop fatally high speed
collision rates due to the close proximity of planting to
glass.
NSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION SOLUTION: SCREEN

PROBLEM: /
FLY THROUGH SOLUTION:BEACON
PROBLEM: VEGETATION
EFFECT SOLUTION: GLASS TILTED SOLUTION: LIGHTS OUT
REEN / SOLUTION: VEGETATION SOLUTION:

SOLUTION: GLASS
VISUAL TILTED
NOISE SOLUTION:
SOLUTION:LIGHTS
NON- OUT SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC
NG NEAR BUILDING DOWNWARDS REFLECTIVE MATERIAL REFLECTIVE GLASS FILMS, DIACHROIC COATINGS
AND TINTS ON FACADE
UAL NOISE SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION: USE OF PLASTIC

50 BIRD - SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES AND TINTS ON FACADE
Case Study
Jupille: Project for Living
Angers, France
Landscape design : Duncan Lewis
This green screen offers shading while providing a bird-

visible layer between sky and glass.
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: REFLECTION PRO
PROBLEM: TRANSPARENCY
SOLUTION: SCREEN / PROBLEM: REFLECTION
SOLUTION: VEGETATION PROBLEM:
SOL
SCRIM / FRITTING NEAR BUILDING DOW
SOLUTION: SCREENVISUAL
SOLUTION: / NOISE SOLUTION: VEGETATION
SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION:
SOL
REFLECTIVE MATERIAL DOWNWAR
REF
SOLUTION: VISUAL NOISE SOLUTION: NON- SOLUTION:

REFLECTIVE MATERIAL REFLECTIVE

APPENDIX : CHECKLIST OF BIRD COLLISION LIABILITIES
Appendix : Region
e Within of migratory route
Checklist of Bird Collision Liabilities e Proximate to migratory stopover destination
This checklist summarizes conditions that contribute
to bird injury and mortality. It may be used to evaluate Locale
existing or new buildings for potential problems. e Proximate to attractive habitat areas
e Dense urban context (reduced sky visibility)
e Fog-prone area
Site
e Nearby trees and shrubs
e Adjacent to grassy meadows
e Water features/wetlands

Façade Glass Coverage (overall percentage*)

e < 20%
e > 20, < 35 %
e > 35, < 50%
e > 50%
Special features
e Unbroken glass expanses at lower levels (atrium wall, lobby wall)
e Courtyard(s)
e Transparent corners
e Glazed passageways
Glazing characteristics
e Tinted
e Reflective
e Mirror/Specular

Dusk and Night-time Illumination
e External facade up-lighting
e Non-cut-off exterior lighting
e Spill of interior lighting
Other building elements * Percentages here assume many areas of surface are already
e Antenae opaque: areas for penthouse, mechanical space, service areas.
e Spires Lower ranges reflect punched openings or partial curtain wall;
e Guy-wires higher ranges are full curtain wall.

1. Daniel Klem, Jr. “Bird-Window Collisions.”
References The Wilson Bulletin. 101(4), 1989. Pages 606-620.
Available at: http://birdsandbuildings.org/docs/
WB1989BirdWindowCollisions.pdf
2. The exception seems to be pigeons, starlings and
sparrows that do not collide with buildings in significant
numbers due to their high level of adaptation to urban
environments.
3. Daniel Klem, Jr. “Bird Injuries, Cause of Death, and
Recuperation from Collisions with Windows.” Journal of
Field Ornithology, 61(1), 1990, pp.115-119.
4. Sidney A. Gauthreaux, Jr. and Carroll G. Belser.
Radar Ornithology and Biological Conservation. The
Auk 120(2):266-277. 2003.
5. Travis Longcore, Ph.D. (Land Protection Partners)
et all. Scientific Basis to Establish Policy Regulating
Communications Towers to Protect Migratory Birds.
Published by the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders
of Wildlife, and partners. Available at: http://www.
defenders.org/wildlife/birds/fcc.pdf.
6. Edward O. Wilson. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1984. Edward O. Wilson and Stephen
R. Kellert. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press, 1993.
7. See the following books: Marie Winn’s, Red-Tails
in Love: a Wildlife Drama in Central Park. New York:
Vintage Books, 1999. Cal Vornberger, Birds of Central
Park. With foreword by Marie Winn. New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc, See also online: www.palemale.com, and
www.birdsofcentralpark.com.
8. Note that the Empire State Building is 1454 feet
from the ground to the tip of its lightning rod.
9. For more information on creating visual noise in
building facades and glazing, see Randi Doeker, Bird
and Buildings: Creating a Safer Environment. Birds &
Buildings Forum. http://www.birdsandbuildings.org/
docs/birdsafedesign.pdf
10. Buildings may achieve a certified, silver, gold or
platinum rating according to the number of credits
achieved.
11. For current statistics, see FLAPs website: http://
www.flap.org/. For background, see Lesley J. Evans

Ogden, Collision Course: the Hazards of Lighted the Fatal Light Awareness Program, 2002. Available at: New York City, 1997-2001: A Deadly Mix of Lights and
Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Published www.flap.org/new/Effect%20of%20Light%20Reduction Glass.
by World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Light %20on%20Collision%20of%20Migratory%20Birds.pdf.
29. For information on bird safety efforts in the
Awareness Program. 1996. Available at: http://www. 21. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife rebuilding of Lower Manhattan, see “Rebuilding
flap.org/new/ccourse.pdf. Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. The Lower Manhattan: A Birds-Eye View.” Presented by
12. Daniel Klem, Jr. “Bird-Window Collisions.” ABC’s of Avoiding Bird Collisions at Communication E.J. McAdams, Executive Director of the NYC Audubon,
The Wilson Bulletin. 101(4), 1989. Pages 606-620. Towers: The Next Steps. 2000. Available at: http:// to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.
Available at: http://birdsandbuildings.org/docs/ library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/tower_collisions00. December 1, 2003.
WB1989BirdWindowCollisions.pdf html.
30. For information on birds’ UV vision, see D. Burkhardt
See also: Travis Longcore, Ph.D. (Land Protection
13. Daniel Klem, Jr. “Collisions Between Birds and and E. Maier. “The Spectral Sensitivity of a Passarine
Partners) et all. Scientific Basis to Establish Policy
Windows: Mortality and Prevention.” Journal of Field Bird is highest in the UV.” Naturwissenschaften 76,
Regulating Communications Towers to Protect Migratory
Ornithology, 61(l), 1990, pp. 120-128. Available at: 1989, pp. 82-83.
Birds. Published by the American Bird Conservancy,
http://elibrar y.unm.edu/sora/JFO/v061n01/p0120- For more information on the possibility for “bio-
Defenders of Wildlife, and partners. Available at: http://
p0128.pdf. mimetic” bird-safe glass, see: Friedrich Buer and
www.defenders.org/wildlife/birds/fcc.pdf.
Martin Regner, “With the ‘Spider’s Web Effect’ and UV-
14. For more information on creating visual noise in
22. For more information on exterior light-reduction Absorbing Material Against Bird-Death on Transparent
building facades and glazing, see Randi Doeker, Bird
initiatives, see Lesley J. Evans Ogden, Collision Course: and Reflecting Panes.” Translated from the original
and Buildings: Creating a Safer Environment. Birds &
The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to article in German, in Vogel und Umwelt 13, 2002, pp.
Buildings Forum. http://www.birdsandbuildings.org/
Migrating Birds. Published by the World Wildlife Fund 31-41. Available at: http://www.spinnennetz-effekt.de/
docs/birdsafedesign.pdf
Canada and the Fatal Light Awareness Program. 1996. article.pdf.
15. Daniel Klem, Jr., et all. “Effects of Window Angling, Available at: http://www.flap.org/new/ccourse.pdf.
Feeder Placement, and Scavengers on Avian Mortality
23. For background, see: Grasso-Knight, Guido &
at Plate Glass.” Wilson Bulletin, 116(1), 2004, pp. 69–73.
Waddington, Michael. Spring 2000 Report on Bird
Available at: http://www.birdscreen.com/Klem_WB_
Collisions with Windows at Swarthmore College. 2000.
WindowAngling2004.pdf
http://www.swarthmore.edu/es/birdcollisions.html.
16. Daniel Klem, Jr. “Collisions Between Birds and For building description, see also: Stephens, Suzanne.
Windows: Mortality and Prevention.” Journal of Field “Swarthmore College Unified Science Center.”
Ornithology, 61(l), 1990, pp. 120-128. Available at: Architectural Record. December, 2004.
http://elibrar y.unm.edu/sora/JFO/v061n01/p0120-
24. Lesley J. Evans Ogden, Collision Course: the Hazards
p0128.pdf.
of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds.
17. Daniel Klem, Jr. “Collisions Between Birds and Published by World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal
Windows: Mortality and Prevention.” Journal of Field Light Awareness Program. 1996. Available at: http://
Ornithology, 61(l), 1990, pp. 120-128. Available at: www.flap.org/new/ccourse.pdf. www.flap.org/new/Eff
http://elibrar y.unm.edu/sora/JFO/v061n01/p0120- ect%20of%20Light%20Reduction%20on%20Collision
p0128.pdf. %20of%20Migratory%20Birds.pdf.
18. Klem, et all. “Effects of Window Angling.” See 25. Manville, ABC’s of Avoiding Bird Collisions at
Footnote 17. Communication Towers. See footnote 21.
19. See also: Randi Doeker, Bird and Buildings: Creating 26. Ogden, Collision Course. See footnote 22.
a Safer Environment. Birds & Buildings Forum. http://
27. Field Museum. Field Museum Study, 1978-2002.
www.birdsandbuildings.org/docs/birdsafedesign.pdf.
2002.
20. For more information on interior light-reduction
28. For details, see Allison Sloan, Migratory Bird
initiatives, see Lesley J. Evans Ogden, Effect of Light
Mortality at the World Trade and World Financial Centers,
Reduction on Collision of Migratory Birds. Published by
it is estimated that 100 million birds are killed every year in
the united states alone through collisions with buildings.
second only to habitat loss as a cause of declining populations,
some experts believe the number is even higher, perhaps as many
as one billion killed annually. - New York City Audubon
september 22, 2006 - 2 brown creepers + 5 red-eyed vireos + 2 swainson’s thrushes + 1 magnolia warbler + 1 nashville warbler
october 02, 2006 - 4 golden-crowned kinglets + 5 northern parulas + 1 magnolia warbler
october 03, 2006 - 3 golden-crowned kinglets + 1 red-eyed vireo + 1 ruby-crowned kinglet + 1 white-throated sparrow
october 10, 2006 - 2 ruby-crowned kinglets + 1 golden-crowned kinglet + 1 nashville warbler + 1 yellow-bellied sapsucker
october 19, 2006 - 2 ruby-crowned kinglets + 1 brown creeper + 1 hermit thrush
october 23, 2006 - 8 ruby-crowned kinglets + 1 golden-crowned kinglet
october 24, 2006 - 8 ruby-crowned kinglets + 5 golden-crowned kinglets + 2 hermit thrushes + 1 dark-eyed junco
october 26, 2006 - 6 golden-crowned kinglets + 4 ruby-crowned kinglets + 1 dark-eyed junco
in 8 days, 72 birds were found dead around the office building pictured here in great neck, long island, NY
( )
-1
white-throated
sparrow thrush -2
swainson’s
sapsucker-1
yellow-bellied
-3
brown creeper -2 -20
dark-eyed junco
golden- crowned
kinglet -2
magnolia warbler -2 -25
nashville warbler
ruby- crowned
kinglet -6
red -eyed vireo -5
northern parula -3
hermit th rush

BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIRD-SAFE BUILDING GUIDELINES

photo credit: new york city audubon

Reviewers: Karen Cotton, Acting Director, Bird-Safe Working

Publication of these guidelines has been made possible with

Thanks to all members of the Bird-Safe Glass Working Group:

Part Two: Technical strategies

Case Studies: Bird-Safe Architecture Examples 46

Appendix: Checklist of Bird Collision Liabilities 53