The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20120136 .l Submit by Email • (it(iii,"--- , Weld County Referral September 30, 2011 111k COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant: DCP MIDSTREAM, LP Case Number: USR11-0018 Please Reply By: October 28, 2011 Planner: Kim Ogle Project: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A 200 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWER FOR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS PROCESSING AND COMPRESSOR SITES [DCP MIDSTREAM, LP] Location: LOCATED IN TEH NW4 OF SECTION 21, T6N, R62W OF THE 6TH P.M. GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 68; EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 77 SECTION LINE Parcel Number 079721100002-R1153086 Legal: 6039 ALL 21 6 62 EXC UPRR RES of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the • above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. ® We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because: Fe We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Comments: Signature a Date 10— 12 - [ 4 • Agency .43 AA EXHIBIT 2012-0136 1 4 Weld County Planning Dept, 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO.8063 usimfroorg t04-6498 fax RECEIVED MEMORANDUM 0Cr 1720,1 186 I - 2 0 1 1 Wetd,caun t y rl�nn°'B'�9��rE"ddl6diC TO: Kim Ogle, Planning Services DATE: 6 SM14?4t FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator Ill WEL ' C O N T Y Public Works Department SUBJECT: USR11-0018, DCP Midstream, LP 200' Telecommunication Tower The Weld County Public Works Department reviewed the submitted application for critical items, including but not limited to Site Plan, Traffic Study, Preliminary Drainage Report, Geotechnical Soils Report, and Flood Hazard Development Permit. A detailed review of these items was not completed at this step in process. Comments made during this stage of the review process will not be all inclusive; as revised materials are submitted other concerns or issues may arise. All issues of concern and critical issues during further review must be resolved with the Public Works Department. COMMENTS: CR 68 is a local gravel road and requires a 60-foot right-of-way at full build out. There is presently a 60-foot right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. Pursuant to the definition of SETBACK in the Weld County Zoning (23-1-90), the required setback is measured from the future right-of-way line. REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the property or come established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for ntrolling the noxious weeds. All vegetation, other than grasses, needs to be maintained at a maximum height of 12 inches until the area is completely developed. The easement shall be a graded and drained road to provide an all-weather access. Drainage Report: A drainage report is not required. Storm Water Drainage: The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned ponding of storm run-off. The applicant must take into consideration storm water capture/quantity and provide accordingly for best management practices. Traffic Statement: A traffic Statement is not required. This is an unmanned facility. Flood Hazard Development Standards: This area IS NOT in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). • M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\-2011 Planning Referrals\USR11\USR11-0018 DCP\USR11-0018.docx • rtz.... MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Ogle, W.C. Planning Services WIID€ FROM: Lauren Light, Environmental Health Services COLORADO SUBJECT: USR11-0018 DCP Midstream DATE: October 13, 2011 Environmental Health Services has reviewed this proposal for a 200 foot wireless communications tower and associated support building. As no employees will be located at the site, permanent water and sewer is not required. Portable toilets and hand washing units can be utilized during construction of the tower. Bottled water is sufficient for drinking provisions during construction. We have no objections to the proposal; however, we do recommend that the following requirements are incorporated into the permit as development standards: 1. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and • Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 2. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. 3. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. 4. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. 5. Adequate drinking (bottled water), toilet facilities (portable toilets) and hand washing units shall be provided during construction of the facility. 6. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. 0 • From: Kristine Ranslem Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 1 :28 PM To: Kim Ogle Subject: FW: USR11-0018 Referral Please see comments below. Thanks ! Original Message From: Marsha.Hofer@faa.gov [mailto:Marsha.Hofer@faa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:28 AM To: Kristine Ranslem Subject: Fw: USR11-0018 Referral The Federal Aviation Administration reviews planning and construction proposals through the submittal of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. If any portion of the proposal is located within 20, 000 feet of a public use runway; or, is more than 200 feet above ground level at any location, the FAA requires the project' s proponent to file a Form 7460-1 . If the proposal does not meet any of the criteria above, it may still be necessary to file a Form 7460-1 if the structure requires an FCC license. The FAA uses information provided on this form to conduct an air space analysis to determine if the proposal will pose an aeronautical hazard and to minimize the adverse effects to aviation. FAA • Form 7460-1 can be filed electronically at www.oeaaa. faa.gov. Marsha Hofer Program Specialist Denver Airports District Office (303) 342-1251 (303-342-1260 (fax) Forwarded by Marsha Hofer/ANM/FAA on 10/04/2011 11 :23 AM From: Linda Bruce/ANM/FAA ANM-DEN-ADO, Denver, CO To: Marsha Hofer/ANM/FAA@FAA Date: 10/04/2011 09 :59 AM Subject: Fw: USR11-0018 Referral Linda Bruce Airport Planner FAA Denver Airports District Office • (303) 342-1264 Forwarded by Linda Bruce/ANM/FAA on 10/04/2011 09 : 59 AM , From: Kristine Ranslem <kranslem@co.weld.co.us> To: "awilsonwheeler@gxy.net" <awilsonwheeler@gxy.net>, Bethany Salzman <bsalzman@co.weld.co.us>, Roy Rudisill <rrudisill@co.weld.co.us>, Steven Reams <sreams@co.weld.co.us>, "Billings, Sandra" <Sandra.Billings@state.co.us>, "brandon.muller@state.co.us" <brandon.muller@state.co.us>, Linda Bruce/ANM/FAA@FAA, Joyce Wallace <joyce.wallace@wgcd.org> Date: 10/03/2011 10 :38 AM Subject: USR11-0018 Referral We have just received a case (USR11-0018) in which we ask that you review the material and send a referral to us. The following is a quick link to the case in question: http: //www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanningZoning/PlanningDepartment/in dex.html#USR11- 0018 If you have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact me at the number below. Thank you! Kristine Ranslem Planning Technician Weld County Planning Services 1555 N 17th Ave, Greeley CO 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3519 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. ' • CORPS ENGRS USR11-0018 (UNCLASSIFIED) .tXt From: McKee, Terry A NWO [Terry.A.McKee@usace.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:42 AM To: Kim Ogle Subject: USR11-0018 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE If any work requires the discharge of dredged or fill material , and any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent in an aquatic site, which may include ephemeral and perennial streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, drainage ditches and irrigation ditches, this office should be notified by a proponent of the project for Department of the Army permits, changes in permit requirements or jurisdictional determinations pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. work in an aquatic site should be identified by the proponent of the project and be shown on a map identifying the Quarter Section, Township, Range and county or Latitude and Longitude, Decimal Degrees (datum NAD 83) and the dimensions of work in each aquatic site. Any loss of an aquatic site may require mitigation. Mitigation requirements will be determined during the Department of the Army permitting review. Any questions call : Mr. Terry McKee Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory office (303) 979-4120 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED • Caveats: NONE • Page 1 • otipR4a COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE • '7 Y4t `I W 6060 Broadway • Denver, Colorado 80216 �'` Phone (303) 297-1192 • FAX (303) 291-7109 /wrr ti wildlife.state.co.us • parks.state.co.us `s• wry,. .^r- October 28, 2011 E Cr:: :.ti 1 r E Kim Ogle NOV 0 9 ?011 Weld County Planning Department 'Yield cr.,: Jrthnt 1555 N 17th Ave G, Greeley, CO 80631 RE: USR11-0018 Dear Mr. Ogle: Colorado Parks and Wildlife has received and reviewed the proposal for the site specific development plan and use by special review permit for a 200 foot telecommunication tower for DCP Midstream located in the NW1/4 of Section 21, T6N,R62W of the 6th P.M. in Weld County. The tower is located in disturbed pasture ground surrounded by oil and gas infrastructure and a county road and will not significantly impact the surrounding • habitat. The proposed installation site does fall within the overall range of mule deer and pronghorn. I am concerned for the safety of wildlife at this site if any fence is erected as some types of fencing can be dangerous and even fatal. Therefore, I recommend that if any fencing is to be used during this operation, the use of smooth strand fencing with a bottom strand height of 17 inches and a maximum top strand height of 36 inches. Attached please find a copy of the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning." The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife fully endorses these guidelines and we highly recommend that these guidelines be taken into consideration with regards to this current project proposal. On behalf of the Division of Parks and Wildlife I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you or the applicants have any questions, please feel free to call Brandon Muller at 970-692-9530. Since-)td A te Mark Leslie Ja' Area Wildlife Manager cc: S. Yamashita, K. Green, B. Muller • STATE OF COLORADO John W.Hickenlooper,Governor•Mike King,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources Rick D.Cables,Director,Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission:David R.Brougham•Gary Butterworth,Vice-Chair•Chris Castilian Dorothea Farris•Tim Glenn,Chair• Allan Jones•Bill Kane•Gaspar Pentane •Jim Pribyl•John Singletary Math Smith,Secretary•Robert Streeter•Lenna Watson•Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members:Mike King and John Salazar • t In Reply Refer To: FWS/FHC/DHC/BFA Memorandum To: Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 From: Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Subject: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers Construction of communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) in the United States has been growing at an exponential rate, increasing at an estimated 6 percent to 8 percent annually. According to the Federal Communication Commission's 2000 Antenna Structure Registry, the number of lighted towers greater than 199 feet above ground level currently number over 45,000 and the total number of towers over 74,000. By 2003, all television stations must be digital, adding potentially • 1,000 new towers exceeding 1,000 feet AGL. The construction of new towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. Communications towers are estimated to kill 4-5 million birds per year, which violates the spirit and the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 50 designed to implement the MBTA. Some of the species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Act. Service personnel may become involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or in the evaluation of tower impacts on migratory birds through National Environmental Policy Act review; specifically, sections 1501.6, opportunity to be a cooperating agency, and 1503.4, duty to comment on federally-licensed activities for agencies with jurisdiction by law, in this case the MBTA, or because of special expertise. Also, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act requires that any activity on Refuge lands be determined as compatible with the Refuge system mission and the Refuge purpose(s). In addition, the Service is required by the ESA to assist other Federal agencies in ensuring that any action they authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally endangered or threatened species. A Communication Tower Working Group composed of government agencies, industry, academic researchers and NGO's has been formed to develop and implement a • research protocol to determine the best ways to construct and operate towers to prevent bird strikes. Until the research study is completed, or until research efforts uncover significant new mitigation measures, all Service personnel involved in the • 2 review of proposed tower sitings and/or the evaluation of the impacts of towers on migratory birds should use the attached interim guidelines when making recommendations to all companies, license applicants, or licensees proposing new tower sitings. These guidelines were developed by Service personnel from research conducted in several eastern, midwestern, and southern States, and have been refined through Regional review. They are based on the best information available at this time, and are the most prudent and effective measures for avoiding bird strikes at towers. We believe that they will provide significant protection for migratory birds pending completion of the Working Group's recommendations. As new information becomes available, the guidelines will be updated accordingly. Implementation of these guidelines by the communications industry is voluntary, and our recommendations must be balanced with Federal Aviation Administration requirements and local community concerns where necessary. Field offices have discretion in the use of these guidelines on a case by case basis, and may also have additional recommendations to add which are specific to their geographic area. Also attached is a Tower Site Evaluation Form which may prove useful in evaluating proposed towers and in streamlining the evaluation process. Copies may be provided to consultants or tower companies who regularly submit requests for consultation, as • well as to those who submit individual requests that do not contain sufficient information to allow adequate evaluation. This form is for discretionary use, and may be modified as necessary. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. While the Act has no provision for allowing an unauthorized take, it must be recognized that some birds may be killed at structures such as communications towers even if all reasonable measures to avoid it are implemented. The Service's Division of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. While it is not possible under the Act to absolve individuals or companies from liability if they follow these recommended guidelines, the Division of Law Enforcement and Department of Justice have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in the past regarding individuals or companies who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take of migratory birds. Please ensure that all field personnel involved in review of FCC licensed communications tower proposals receive copies of this memorandum. Questions regarding this issue should be directed to Dr. Benjamin N. Tuggle, Chief, Division of Habitat Conservation, at (703)358-2161, or Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory • Bird Management, at (703)358-1714. These guidelines will be incorporated in a Director's Order and placed in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual at a future date. • Service Interim Guidelines For Recommendations On Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning 1. Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 2. If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications service providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above ground level, using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice structure, monopole, etc.). Such towers should be unlighted if Federal Aviation Administration regulations permit. 3. If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of those towers to migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of each individual tower. 4. If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing "antenna farms" (clusters • of towers). Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat of threatened or endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings. 5. If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should be used. Unless otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should be used at night, and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum number of flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of solid red or pulsating red warning lights at night should be avoided. Current research indicates that solid or pulsating (beacon) red lights attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white strobe lights. Red strobe lights have not yet been studied. 6. Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor or waterbird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird movement routes or stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by these diurnally moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C., 78 pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines. • Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C., 128 pp. Copies can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.eei.org/resources/pubcat/enviro/, or by calling 1-800/334-5453). • 7. Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or minimize habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower "footprint." However, a larger tower footprint is preferable to the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be minimized to reduce or prevent habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above ground obstacles to birds in flight. 8. If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the proposed tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. If this is not an option, seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid disturbance during periods of high bird activity. 9. In order to reduce the number of towers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged to design new towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for each tower structure), unless this design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an otherwise unlighted and/or unguyed tower. 10. Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site. • 11. If a tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from the Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird use, conduct dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground, and to place radar, Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical monitoring equipment as necessary to assess and verify bird movements and to gain information on the impacts of various tower sizes, configurations, and lighting systems. 12. Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months of cessation of use. In order to obtain information on the extent to which these guidelines are being implemented, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, letters provided in response to requests for evaluation of proposed towers should contain the following request: "In order to obtain information on the usefulness of these guidelines in preventing bird strikes, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, please advise us of the final location and specifications of the proposed tower, and which of the measures recommended for the protection of migratory birds were implemented. If any of the recommended measures can not be implemented, please explain • why they were not feasible." Hello