HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140451.tiff MEMORANDUM
t E�
TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: December 9, 2013
v5l`�-- - Y FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator
C C 1 N_ T Public Works Department
SUBJECT: USR13-0052, Anadarko E&P Co. (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:
Weld County Functional Classification Map: (Revised Feb. 9, 2011 —Amended 10/2011)
CR 12 has been annexed in to the Town of Erie. Access and right-of-way requirements will be
determined by the Town. A right-of-way permit application with permit numbers (09-056A and 10-034)
was supplied in the application packet
A Road Maintenance Agreement for CR 12 was also supplied in the packet by town of Erie.
REQUIREMENTS:
The Tower facility will be an unmanned site; it is estimated that 1 part-time employee will be assigned
to the salt water injection facility where the tower is located. During construction additional personnel
will be on site until completion.
Noxious Weeds:
Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant
to Section 15-1-180 of the Weld County Code.
Access:
The access width requirements for emergency equipment (fire department) are a minimum of 20 feet.
The applicant indicated that it has been cleared with the fire department and emergency services that
the width and weight capacity of the access lane shall be adequate for emergency purposes. The
applicant shall provide documentation to that effect.
The access road shall be a graded and drained road to provide an all-weather access.
Geological Hazard Permit:
The tower site is just out of the geological hazard area. The depth of the old mine covers 150-200 feet.
Fault lines are in the area. A Geological Hazard Development Permit (GHDP) application was
submitted.
FLOOD HAZARD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
This area IS NOT in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as determined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
C:\Users\kford\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.I E5\CBJCX9TL\USR13-0052[2].docx
MEMORANDUM
ivEL TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services
_
ft—o_u N T y � FROM: Lauren Light, Environmental Health
SUBJECT: USR13-0052 Anadarko
DATE: 2/14/2014
Environmental Health Services has reviewed this proposal for a 192 foot telecommunication
tower. 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 expansion.
Bottled water is sufficient for drinking provisions during construction.
We have no objections to the proposal; however, we recommend that the following
requirements be 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.
1861
Department of Planning Services
1555 N 17`"Ave
Greeley, CO 80631
c o U N T Y (970) 353-6100
Weld County Referral
Date: December 2, 2013
Applicant: Anadarko E&P Company, LP
Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 192 foot tall
telecommunications tower in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
Case Number: USR13-0052
Parcel Number: 146703300054-R2241403
After reviewing the application and documents submitted the Building Department has the
following comments:
Building and electrical permits will be required for the 192 ft telecommunication tower and any
new construction, alteration, or addition to any building on the property per Section 29-3-10 of
the Weld County Code. Currently the following codes have been adopted by Weld County: 2012
International Codes; 2006 International Energy Code; 2011 National Electrical Code.
All building permit requirements can be found on the Weld County web-site.
www.co.weld.co.us/Building Inspection/Commercial Permits
Frank Piacentino
Department of Building Inspection
__ 41061,0? Weld County Referral
-----:-.0,-- _ _-L.,..„, r.,, pH
_.
GOUNTY
November 13,2013
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant:Anadarko E&P Company, LP Case Number: USR13-0052
Please Reply By: December 11,2013 Planner: Diana Aungst
Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 192 foot tall
telecommunications tower in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 12; East of and adjacent to County Road 7
Parcel Number: 146703300054-R2241403 Legal: PT W2SW4 SECTION 3, T1 N, R68W LOT A SUB
EXEMPT SE-956 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.
nWe have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive
Plan because: outside comp plan area
H We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Signature Chris Kennedy Date 11/14/2013
Agency Town of Frederick
Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax
Diana Aungst
Subject: FW: Weld County ReferralFW: USR13-0052 Referral
From: Michael Sutherland [mailto:msutherland@broomfield.org]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Kristine Ranslem
Cc:John Hilgers
Subject: FW: Weld County ReferralFW: USR13-0052 Referral
Hello, Kristine:
Thank you for the case referral to the City and County of Broomfield. The proposed tower is over two miles from
Broomfield's municipal boundary,although I am certain Broomfield owns property within the notice boundary for the
project. Broomfield is concerned about the proposed 192-foot tower with required lighting and its potential visual
impact as far away as the northern boundary of the City and County of Broomfield. Anything that can be done within
Weld County regulatory authority to reduce the height of the proposed tower to the minimum height absolutely
necessary or reduce visual impacts would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions about these comments,
please let me know.
My virus software would not allow me to download the comments form,please let me know if you need the official
form to record these comments.
Thank you,
Michael Sutherland,AICP
Broomfield Planning
303.464.5869
1
Submit by Einall[fi
w is Weld County Referral
ceuNTY
November 13,2013
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:.
Applicant:Anadarko E&P Company,LP Case Number: USR13-0052
Please Reply By: December 11,2013 Planner. Diana Aungst
Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 192 foot tall
telecommunications tower in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 12; East of and adjacent to County Road 7
Parcel Number: 146703300054-R2241403 Legal: PT W2SW4 SECTION 3, TIN, R68W LOT A SUB
EXEMPT SE-956 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:
E We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Signature David P. Puccetti COpi Date November 19,2013
Agency Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District
Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.00631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax
FREDERICK-FIRESTONE 6 Fire Prevention Division
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT �>} Office: (303) 833-2742
f � y" Fax: (303) 833-3736
E-Mail: dpuccetti@fffd.us
OVEIQVM V4MR.IIATIO.EIEIAS.
November 19,2013
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N 17th Ave,
Greeley,CO.80631
Diana Aungst,Planner
Ms.Aungst,
I have completed the review of the documents submitted for the Anadarko Tower Project located at North of
and adjacent to County Road 12;East of and adjacent to County Road 7.
The plan review was conducted from a fire protection prospective as directed in the 2006 International Fire
Code as adopted by the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District in Weld County.
Site Access
Site access is acceptable as submitted.
Site and Building Address
The 2006 International Fire Code requires all buildings and project sites have proper addressing for emergency
response. The information needs to be posted on-site and visible by emergency response personnel. The
information needs to include the following
- Site Address
- Owners Name
- Emergency Contact Telephones Numbers
The letters and number must be 4" or larger and visible during all weather conditions, during day and night
times hours.
Final Site Inspection
A final fire code inspection of the site will be required by the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District.This
fire code inspection will included all the above listed information and must be completed before the final
Certificate of Occupancy is issued by Weld County Building Department.
If you have any questions,please contact me at 303-833-2742 x10.
Thank You,
David P.Puccetti
Division Chief/Fire Marshal
Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District
dpuccetti@fffd.us
C/c: File
Physical:8426 Kosmerl Place,Frederick,CO 80504,Mailing:P.O.Box 129,Frederick,CO 80530;wanv.iffd.tis
Diana Aungst
Subject: FAA USR13-0052
Original Message
From: Marsha.Hofer a@faa.gov fmailto:Marsha.Hoferefaa.gov1
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:35 AM
To: Kristine Ranslem
Subject: Fw: USR13-0052 Referral
The FAA reviews proposals through the submittal of an FAA form 7460-1
(Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration). The proponent has already
used the notice criteria tool and the result was the proponent was not
required to file. However, if the proposal emits frequencies, the
proponent is required to file, as they will need an aeronautical study
number(they have to file to get one) and an FAA determination to file with
the FCC.
Marsha Hofer
Program Specialist
Denver Airports District Office
(303) 342-1251
(303) 342-1260 (fax)
1
be/
I.62- ir4r4
bt , ' Weld County Referral
), ti r ! I 11 n s 1i5t X14
�! r � RECEIVED i3a3,.
, COUNT DEC 122013
Weld County, :.1nm-. Department
GREELEY OFFICE
November 13,2013
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant:Anadarko E&P Company, LP Case Number: USR13-0052
Please Reply By: December 11,2013 Planner: Diana Aungst
Project: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 192 foot tall
telecommunications tower in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 12;East of and adjacent to County Road 7
Parcel Number: 146703300054-R2241403 Legal: PT W2SW4 SECTION 3, TIN, R68W LOT A SUB
EXEMPT SE-956 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:
We reviewed
have the request and find no conflicts with ourinterests.
See attached letter.
Signature C1s e,V Qs ,rkn.tr1/4.: .r.q Date � Cl. '3
L -?O t
Agency ekharl.1Jr.k\. . �� n Ati-O V15�
Weld County Planning Dept 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext3540 (970)304-6498 fax
Boulder Valley Conservation District
9595 Nelson Road,Box D Longmont.Colorado 80501 —Phone(303)776.4034—Fax(303)684-9893
Site Review Memo
To: Boulder Valley CD Board
From: Nancy McIntyre
Subject: (List site name, location, Permit#, Purpose,etc.)
Anadarko E&P Company, LP, Case#USR13-0052, north of and adjacent to County Road
12 and east of and adjacent to County Road 7. This is a site specific development plan to
construct a 192 foot tall telecommunications tower. The tower they now use is owned by
American Tower who has notified Anadarko(Kerr McGee)that they will have to vacate the tower
by February 2014.
Prime Farmland:
The land is deemed prime if irrigated.
Water Quality:
N/A
Noxious Weed Control:
The information states that there will be native vegetation in allowed areas and will not be
allowed to grow over 12" high. A weed management plan should also be adopted so that weeds
will be controlled before the native vegetation grows.
Soils Limitations:
The information states that Anadarko will conduct dust suppression measures during
construction.
Other concerns:
Summary comments:
CONSERVATION-DEVELOPMENT -SELF GOVERNMENT
RECEIVE®
DEC ; 2013
]1s]d County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Weld County Referral
1' rr •
.
r .
G0 � N?
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant:Anadarko E&P Company, LP Case Number: USR13-0052
Please Reply By: December 11,2013 Planner: Diana Aungst
Project:A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 192 foot tall
telecommunications tower in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 12; East of and adjacent to County Road 7
Parcel Number: 146703300054-82241403 Legal: PT W2SW4 SECTION 3,T1 N, R68W LOT A SUB
EXEMPT SE-956 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:
[] We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
[X] See atfac i 4e 7�
Signatuf -�-'.1�n '�_ A. Date ill 0.1'13
Agency r sier .ac Nth,9 i.J [altA
` 1 � COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE
ctt ,-.. 4207 West County Road 16E• Loveland, Colorado 80537
r �,` Phone 970-472-4460• FAX 970-472-4468
4s., 1-,' cpw.state.co.us
IA.
December 2,2013
Diana Aungst
Weld County Department of Planning and Services
1555 N 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
(970)353-6100
(970) 304-6498 fax
Re. USR13-0052
Dear Ms. Aungst:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above proposed telecommunication
tower north of and adjacent to County Road 12 and east of and adjacent to County Road
7. It should be noted that at this time there is an active bald eagle nest within a half mile
of this location. Additionally,the proposed site is located where the eagles have
frequently been observed utilizing the surrounding land and trees.
Bald eagles are protected by the federal bald and golden eagle protection act. Any
activity that results in a"take"of a bald eagle is a violation of this act. This includes
causing adult eagles to abandon an active nest or causing an active nest to fail. Colorado
parks and Wildlife(CPW)has guidelines and recommendations to avoid such take. They
include no surface occupancy (beyond that which has historically occurred in the area)
within ''A mile radius of active nests and seasonal restriction to human encroachment
within 1/2 mile radius of active nests from October 15 through July 31. If construction of
this tower is to proceed CPW recommends that the construction activity take place
outside of this seasonal restriction and that no permanent structures be built within r/A
mile radius of the nest. Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service is recommended
as well.
Communication towers themselves may have negative impacts on flying birds, including
eagles. It is estimated that 4-5 million flying birds are killed each year in the United
States when they collide with communication towers. With the high avian populations in
the area,especially raptors and including the bald eagles, effort should be made to
mitigate any possible impacts to passing or migrating birds and the eagles. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has developed guidelines on communication towers in order to
address these impacts. Some of the guidelines may not apply in all cases. However,a
summary of a few of those guidelines are listed below:
STATE OF COLORADO
John W.Hidcenlooper,Governor•Mice King,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources
Bob D.Brosdreid,Director,Cobrado Parks and Widlife
Parks and Wrkiife Commssion:Robed W.Bray•Chris Caspian,Secretary•Jeanne Home
Bill Kane,Chair•Gaspar Penicone•James Prbyl•John Singletary
Mark Smith,Vice-Chair•James Vigil•Dean Wingfield•Michelle Zimmerman
Ex Officio Members:Mike King and John Salazar
1. We recommend that communication towers be installed onto existing towers
or structures whenever possible.
2. New towers that are developed are recommended to be no more than 199 feet
above ground level,use no guy wires,and be lighted.
3. Install daytime visual markers on guy wires, if used,to prevent collisions.
4. Design the footprint of the towers or equipment in such a way as to minimize
habitat loss. •
5. Down-shield any on-ground security lighting to keep light within the
boundaries of the site. Consult with the Federal Aviation Administration if
lights are required for aviation safety. Lights used at night should be red or
white(white is preferred)strobe lights. The minimum number,minimum
intensity and minimum number of flashes per minute(longest duration
between flashes), allowable by the FAA should be used. Avoid the use of
solid red or pulsating red warning lights.
6. Remove towers no longer in use within 12 months of cessation of use.
Attached,you will find the complete recommendations from the USFWS concerning
communication towers. Please feel free to contact District Wildlife Manager Kristin
Cannon at 303-291-7117 if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
Larry Rogstad,
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: S Yamashita,K Green, T Kroening,M Taylor, L Rogstad,K Cannon
1
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 andlor 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