SHARON — The Sharon Audubon Center located just off of Cornwall Bridge Road is made up of 1,149 acres of mostly woodland habitat and has helped countless animals return to the wild.
The refuge acts as a temporary home for injured and orphaned songbirds, birds of prey, small mammals and reptiles. Nationally it serves as one of two Audubon centers with an animal rehab clinic and, as stated by Director of Wildlife Rehabilitation Sunny Kellner, “is always busy this time of year.”
Kellner, who has been in the role since June 2015, grew up in the area and started working as a volunteer at age 13. It was at the Sharon Audubon that she discovered that helping animals could be both her career and lifestyle.
When asked about the rehabilitation process, she emphasized that every situation is unique and that there is “no one size fits all” for patient care. The process often starts with a report that an animal has been found either injured or orphaned and images are then taken of the animal to determine age, condition, and species.
Once brought in and a full examination is complete, patients are stabilized and treated for any life-threatening issues while also being slowly re-hydrated and fed. It is at this point that staff members and veterinarians will treat all other issues and administer any antibiotics. Continued care is provided up until the patient shows signs of self-reliance for two weeks (self-feed, weatherproofed feathers, ability to move freely).
A North American Porcupine rehabilitated at the Sharon Audubon Center.Provided
The most common injuries seen in the clinic are derived from human impact, while toxicities and pathologies follow as other contributors. Examples of human impact injuries include motor vehicle/window strikes, attacks by house pets, and entrapment.
In the past few years, woodpeckers and nuthatches have been disproportionately affected by the sticky tape being wrapped around tree trunks. Put up in an effort to repel spongy moths, trunk space is now taken up by this plastic that is simultaneously trapping and killing bark-climbing birds.
The overarching goal of the clinic is to return the patients back to their natural environments as quickly as possible, but more importantly, in a viable state. For some patients this may mean being in the clinic for a few days while others need to stay closer to a year. Of the small mammals that the Sharon Audubon does take in, porcupines are at the forefront.
Kellner, who specializes in porcupine rehab, explained that the babies typically stay over winter and are released in the spring. The release rate for all species falls between 40-43%.
Animals that are “non-releasable” due to human imprinting or permanent injury typically become residents. Current resident animals include the reptiles on display in the Education Center and the raptors in the outdoor aviaries.
Three fledgling American Robins getting ready to move into an outdoor aviary.Provided
Though the clinic is animal-centered, it is human-dominated. The amount of help and the speed at which animals receive it, is dependent on the number of people ready to jump in. The summer months, commonly referred to as “baby season”, are especially busy. Volunteers and staff work around the clock feeding and caring for baby birds of all species, but specifically Chimney Swifts.
“They need to be fed about every 20 minutes for at least 14 hours,” stated Kellner.
Volunteers learn just about everything - how to feed, handle, identify, and care for patients. They are welcomed year-round with no prior experience required, just the desire to help.
The sprawling property is home to 11 miles of trails, two ponds, raptor aviaries, the Pollinator Garden and a working sugarhouse. In addition to animal rehabilitation, it functions as a community nature center where people of all ages have the opportunity to engage and educate themselves on local wildlife.
The Sharon Audubon has plans to extend their premises in the coming years, providing a larger space for wildlife rehab. Though still in the works, the goal is to have waiting, triage, and isolation rooms, as well as more aviaries and storage areas. It is anticipated that this building will be separate from the public areas, allowing more privacy for patients. The planning of this project comes at a “great time” as pressing illnesses and more regulations are being brought up.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.