WPCC 2BJZ Courier#|d@Kx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\?փX@26 ZFZ#|d@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSd6X@K\?փ@CourierCourier Bold<r5ddd,sd6X@`7@s4ddd,Ρd `7<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X<E<<<,n <6X@`7,@ 2A s4-    rn@ $// MO&O, County of Leelanau, MI, FCC 94282//$ rn@  ` `  ,hh^pp rn@   s4N- rn@ }RECORD ONLY rn@ ԃ  s4-  ?<|#x6X@`7>fX@#Before the  ?d< Federal Communications Commission  rn@ ԃ ` `  ,hh^ rn@ Washington, D.C. 20554  r5- #d6X@`7s@# FCC 94282 rn@   r5B-#d6X@`7s@#In the Matter of ,hh^) ` `  ,hh^)  r5- County of Leelanau, Michiganhh^) ` `  ,hh^)  p:-` `  ,hh^) File Nos. 267839, 269291, 269292,  p:-` `  ,hh^) 273392, 790529, and 790530  s5, -` `  ,hh^)  r5 - Applications For Licenses in the)  r5{ -Private Land Mobile and Operational) Fixed Microwave Radio Services)  s4 -  s4- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  s5e- Adopted: November 4, 1994 hh^Released: November 4, 1994 By the Commission:     r5- (#- 1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed jointly  &Z-by the Citizens for Existing Towers (CET), Michigan Audubon Society (MAS),  &-National Audubon Society (NAS), and the National Parks and Conservation  &9!-Association (NPCA) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "CET") on January 21,  &-1994: an Opposition to the Application for Review filed by the County of  &-Leelanau, Michigan (Leelanau County) on February 7, 1994; a Reply to the  &-Opposition to the Application for Review filed by CET on February 17, 1994; a  & -Motion to Expedite Review filed by Leelanau County on June 29, 1994; a Response  &Z-to the Motion to Expedite filed by CET on July 8, 1994; and a Reply to the  r5-Response to the Motion to Expedite filed by Leelanau County on July 14, 1994.; r5- & -ԍ Leelanau County acknowledges that CET had participated in this proceeding  &-at the licensing stage and thus has standing. However, Leelanau County argues  &9!-that since MAS, NAS and NPCA only formally participated at the review stage, they  &-now lack standing and should be dismissed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. Section  r5- &-1.115(a). We will grant them standing, however, since MAS, NAS and NPCA have  r5[- &g -joined with, and raised the same arguments as CET, and dismissal based on their  r5- &-lack of earlier participation thus would not serve any purpose. Cf. Office of  r5- &g -Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 911 F.2d 803, 80809 (D.C.Cir. 1990).  r5/- (#-2. On December 21, 1993, the Private Radio Bureau (Bureau) issued (without  &-a written decision) conditional permits and granted Leelanau County's six land  &Z-mobile and microwave applications to update its public safety system. The  &-proposed public safety system will consist of five existing County operated  &g -towers and the construction of a new tower at the Jurica site, which will house  &g -the radio transmitting and receiving antennae. CET opposes the construction of  &g -the Jurica tower on environmental grounds. Specifically, CET contends that the  & -Jurica tower will be located in a migratory bird corridor and will result in the  &-"taking" of migratory birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16  &-U.S.C. Section 703. Additionally, CET asserts that the Jurica tower will  &-adversely affect the aesthetic nature of the nearby national park system,  &-Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (National Lakeshore). Finally, CET"\ o0*((("  &,-maintains that the Bureau failed to consider alternative sites and failed to"; o0*((n("  &9!-issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, in violation of the requirements of the"\ o0*((("  r5-National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and the Commission's rules. ; r57-  -ԍ See 42 U.S.C. Section 4332 (2)(C)(iii) and (E); 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1308   ,-and 1.1311(a)(4). It should be noted that CET also contends that the Bureau   -failed to consider the fact that the local zoning commission twice denied   g -Leelanau County authority to build on the Jurica site, and that Leelanau County   -overruled the commission's decision. Given that the local zoning decisions were   ,-not provided, the Bureau could not determine that the permits were initially  r5!-  9!-denied on environmental grounds. See Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response  r5-  g -to New Regulations Issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, 60 RR 2d 13,  r5o-  g -1718 (1986); see also Baltimore County, Maryland, 5 FCC Rcd 5615, 5617 (1990).   ,-Although the local zoning board's decisions were advisory in nature, and not   g -binding on the County, we have nevertheless considered herein all references to   -the local decisions and submissions in the record provided by all the interested parties.   -3. We note that prior to issuing Leelanau County's licenses, the Bureau   -required Leelanau County to prepare an Environmental Assessment, and supplements   g -thereto, and reviewed the opinions of expert agencies such as the United States   g -Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the United States Forest Service, as well   -as CET's submissions, regarding the impact of the Jurica tower on threatened,   9!-endangered species and migratory birds, as well as the nearby National Lakeshore.   -Implicit in the Bureau's grant of the licenses was its determination that   -Leelanau County's proposed public safety system would not likely have a   -significant impact on the environment. Based on our review of the record, we   -affirm the Bureau's grant of conditional licenses, but as discussed below impose   g -several additional conditions. We further explicitly find that the action will   -not have a significant environmental impact, and thereby correct the technical  r5" -defect pointed out by CET." Y ; r5-  -ԍ Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1308(d), the County must provide the community notice of the Commission's finding of no significant impact.   s4p - ` ` Need for an Updated Public Safety Communications System  r5 - ` `  Z-4. Leelanau County had sought authorization to update its existing public   ,-safety communications system, which utilizes eleven multiple tower sites and   Z-relies upon a lowband system with repeaters connected by leased telephone   -circuits and which has proven to be unreliable and expensive to operate.   -Leelanau County maintains that its existing system is no longer suitable because   g -of coverage problems, and has recited a litany of critical safety problems that   -exemplify and demonstrate its need for an improved, effective public  r5O-  -communications system.? " O; r5{ -  -ԍ For example, in April of 1993, a 911 call was received from a frantic   g -mother whose child was choking on a coin. Due to a severe storm across the bay   -in Antrim County, coupled with more power output on the low band radio, the   g -signal was diminished. By the time Suttons Bay rescue could be dispatched, the   g -child had choked to death. In July of 1992, an individual suffered chest pains   -at the Suttons Bay Bank. The Bank contacted 911, but there was a low pressure   -area in the County at the time and the pagers would not activate on signal. The   g -bank customer died. In May of 1993, a home and adjacent structure were lost to   -fire when a fire truck/tanker at the water point had broken an axle and was   Z-unable to leave. Firemen could neither contact other units nor could they   -contact dispatch to report the problem. In September of 1992, a deputy of the   -County Sheriff's Office received severe injuries when the suspect he was"'0*(()"   g -arresting smashed the deputy's face with the hand cuffs the suspect was wearing   -and another person seized the deputy's gun and shot him through the shoulder.   -The deputy laid in a ditch bleeding profusely until the Tribal Police happened   9!-to pass by and attempted to page the Suttons Bay Rescue Squad, two miles from the   -scene. When the communications system failed, the deputy had to rely on an   9!-ambulance from another county, twenty miles from the scene. In December of 1987,   ,-a pilot and his passenger reported icing conditions and prepared for a crash   -landing on North Manitou Island. The Coast Guard had a helicopter in the area   -and immediately diverted it to the target zone of the island. Fire and rescue   g -units were airlifted by Coast Guard helicopter to begin the search, but as each   -search party left the shoreline and went into the wooded area, the radios became   9!-useless. The pilot, a Michigan State police Sergeant, was found on a trail where   -he had covered himself with leaves and snow. The passenger, a Northern Michigan university student, was found at the water's edge. Both had frozen to death. ? Various public safety groups, such as the Leelanau"O 0*(("   -County's Sheriff Department, the Leelanau County Office of Emergency Management,   ,-the Lake Leelanau Volunteer Fire Department, the Northport Emergency Medical   -Services, the Glen Arbor Township Fire Rescue and the Cedar Fire Department, all   -have submitted comments supporting Leelanau County's proposal, recounting the   -daily crisis and utter chaos and emphasizing the dramatic need for an updated public safety communications system.  -5. For example, the Northport Emergency Medical Services states that the   g -current low band system suffers frequent radio failures and that dead spots are   9!-scattered throughout the county. Indeed, it points out that due to the extensive   -hills and valleys in Leelanau Township, there are several areas where the rescue   -and fire units cannot contact the base station. Likewise, the Glen Arbor Township Fire Rescue notes that reception in its area is nonexistent, with three   ,-firepersons and one rescue person unable to receive any calls. The Leelanau   9!-County Office of Emergency Management states that major fires have occurred where   -numerous fire departments were involved, but were unable to communicate among   9!-themselves. The Lake Leelanau Volunteer Fire Department cites to several serious  r5 -  h-problems that have been experienced by paging fire or rescue personnel.|  ; r58-  -ԍ Specifically, the Lake Leelanau Volunteer Fire Department cited the   -following three cases. In the first case, a strong thunderstorm knocked out the   ,-communications system, voiding all paging and dispatching of fire and rescue   -units. Personnel had to be contacted by telephone, with a loss of time. In the   g -second case, a situation was reported in which phone lines were cut, making all   9!-emergency dispatch on the system unavailable for 5 hours, since the Lake Leelanau   -Volunteer Fire Department's system operates and relies on phone lines. During   -the 5 hour outage, there were 2 fire calls, one being a house fire that   -responding units from nearby counties had to handle, because the Lake Leelanau   Z-Volunteer Fire Department was unable to dispatch. Finally, the third case   g -involved a heart attack call with an unconscious victim. Due to communications   -problems, two pages had to be sent before the volunteers arrived on the scene,   -just two miles from the fire station. A rescue helicopter was forced to hover   -for approximately ten minutes waiting for the Lake Leelanau volunteers to arrive   -to secure a landing area. Not only was the fire department having dispatching   9!-problems, it was also experiencing a problem with neighboring counties which were using the same frequency and causing interference. | The   -Cedar Fire Department refers to the many situations where public safety   ,-communications have failed due to storms, power outages and other causes, at   -times when such communications were needed most. The Cedar Fire Department also   -complains that during emergencies, there is often interference with excess radio traffic as the four counties attempt to share the frequency.  -6. Leelanau County's proposed system would remedy the current problems   -by providing excellent countywide mobile and portable coverage that could be   9!-used as a collection point for single channel radio frequency links for receivers"0*((T"   g -and fire transmitters located elsewhere in the county. The main feature of the   g -proposed system is the ability to use multiplexed microwave radios and link all   9!-of the system back to the central dispatch site at Jurica. The proposed 480 foot   -steel guyed Jurica tower will house radio transmitting and receiving antennae,   g -and will be designed to hold a variety of communications antennae that could be   -used in the future to support other countywide mobile systems such as road   -commission and local government communications. The proposed system requires   -lineofsite paths for radio frequency links from other subordinate sites around   g -Leelanau County and a strong microwave path from the central Jurica site to the Leelanau County Jail in Leland, Michigan.  s4--` `   Effect on Endangered Species and Migratory Birds   - 7. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Section   g -1531, requires agencies to consult with the USFWS when proposals may jeopardize   g -threatened or endangered species. Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's own  r5p -  h-environmental regulations,Bp ; r5 -ԍ 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1308.B the Bureau initiated formal consultation with the   -USFWS to assess the effects of the Jurica tower on the Piping Plover, the Bald   ,-Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon, three species identified by CET as federally   -listed threatened or endangered species that are in the area. As part of the   -consultation process, and at the recommendation of the USFWS, Leelanau County   -submitted extensive data on the effects of towers on the three designated   g -species, as well as migratory birds generally, since the Jurica site is located   -within a migratory bird corridor. The USFWS, fully apprised of the data   9!-collected, concluded "that the proposed Commission licensing action is not likely   g -to adversely affect the piping plover, bald eagle, or peregrine falcon," noting   g -"that the probability of collision by these three federally listed species with  r5-  : -the proposed tower would be insignificant," and terminating consultation. 7; r5C-  -ԍ Letter dated December 17, 1993 from Charles M. Wooley, field supervisor   -of the USFWS's East Lansing Field Office to W. Riley Hollingsworth, Deputy Chief of the Bureau's Licensing Division.  The   -Bureau conditioned Leelanau County's authorization by requiring the County to   -monitor and report the loss of any threatened or endangered species, as   9!-recommended by the USFWS. The USFWS, however, did not reach any explicit finding   -with respect to the effect of the tower on migratory birds. CET raises no   9!-objections to the USFWS's conclusions, and recommended conditions, concerning the threatened and endangered species.  -8. The issue thus becomes whether the Jurica tower will significantly   -affect the migratory bird population. CET contends that the Jurica tower will   9!-result in an annual estimated loss of 2,500 migratory birds based on a 1979 study  r5-  -by Richard C. Banks, an abstract of which was provided by Leelanau County.N; r5--  -ԍ Leelanau County's Supplemental Information on Environmental Assessment, Attachment 1. CET   -contends that such loss constitutes a taking under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act   -(MBTA), 16 U.S.C. Section 703. At the outset, as Leelanau County pointed out,   -the 1979 Banks analysis, which set forth the 2,500 avian mortality figure, was   -based on studies of towers considerably taller than the Jurica tower and located   -in completely different migratory flyways, and thus does not have direct bearing  r5-  : -on the impact of Leelanau County's proposed tower.w C ; r5-%-  : -ԍ Specifically, the three towers that were the subject of the Banks' study   -were significantly dissimilar to the Jurica proposed tower, in that the three   -towers were located in Florida and North Dakota and had tower heights of 1,200   g -feet, 1,480 feet and 673 feet respectively. Moreover, the 673 foot tower had a   9!-base elevation which was over 200 feet higher than the base elevation of Leelanau"'0*((u("   -County's proposed tower, causing the tower to be almost twice the size of the   Z-proposed tower. Most notably, the studies were all conducted in different   -migratory flyways than the proposed. Leelanau County's Reply to CET's Response to Motion to Expedite at 46. w Moreover, it is not clear", 0*(($"   -whether the MBTA, which is primarily a "hunting" statute that prohibits the   9!-"pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing and killing" of migratory birds, would even  r5N-  -apply to a federally authorized tower structure." {N,; r5-  -ԍ See Seattle Audubon Society v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 30203 (9th Cir.1991)   -(rejected the claim that federally authorized timber sales amounted to a   g -"taking," concluding that the MBTA primarily is a hunting statute and does not   -apply to bird mortalities attributed to the destruction or alteration of their  r5 -  -habitat); Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc. v. Edrington, 781 F. Supp. 1502,   -150910 (D.Or. 1991)(found that the modification of migratory birds' habitat did   g -not constitute a taking under the MBTA, finding that the fundamental purpose of   g -the Act was to protect migratory birds in an "unequal contest with hunters" who  r5! -  -commercially benefit from selling migratory bird parts); but see Defenders of  r5 -  9!-Wildlife v. Administrator, EPA, 688 F.Supp. 1334, 1346 (D. Minn. 1988)(found that   Z-the Endangered Species Act and the MBTA both are concerned with protecting   g -certain species from a variety of harms, including the federally authorized and registered use of pesticides). " Nevertheless, consistent with   -our overall obligations to consider the impact of our authorized facilities on   -the environment, we will address and determine whether the proposed Jurica tower  r5C-  -would pose a significant, adverse impact on the migratory bird population.3 Co ; r5!-  -Ѝ See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1307(c); see also Caloosa Television Corporation,   -3 FCC Rcd 3656, 3658 (1988)(where the Commission considered the impact of a proposed tower on the area's migratory bird population).3   -Based on our review of the complete record and our imposition of further   -conditions on Leelanau County's authorization as set forth below, we have   -determined that the Jurica tower will not result in a significant loss of migratory birds.  Z-9. Based on all of the submissions furnished by both Leelanau County and   g -CET, it appears that any appreciable danger to the migratory bird population by   -the proposed Jurica tower would be during periods of low visibility, when the  r5" -  -birds become disoriented. " ,; r5-  i-ԍ Raymond J. Adams, Jr., Director of Research of the Kalamazoo Nature   -Center, Letter to Stuart Hollander, February 15, 1993. Leelanau County's Supplemental Information on Environmental Assessment, Attachment 1.  W e will thus condition Leelanau County's   -authorization on its marking the tower and guyed lines with appropriate balls   -and/or streamers, which, as we have found in the past, increases the structure's   -visibility and thus ameliorates the impact of a tower on the migratory bird  r5 -  -population.k ; r5 -ԍ See Caloosa Television Corporation, 3 FCC Rcd at 3658.k Moreover, recent studies have indicated that bird casualties   -would be dramatically reduced by the utilization of red beacon flashing lighting  r5 -  -on towers. X; r5"-  -ԍ Leelanau County's Environmental Assessment, Paragraphs 2.1.2 and 6.1.3.  r5z#-  - The U.S. Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan is currently conducting a study in   -which there appears to have been a drastic decline in the number of birds killed   9!-after the tower lighting modification. Leelanau County's Supplemental Information  r5o%-  g -to the Environmental Assessment, Attachment 1. Indeed, even the experts relied  s5&-  v -upon by CET, acknowledged that such lighting features have been  shown to reduce   9!-bird loss at towers (Raymond J. Adams, Jr., Director of Research of the Kalamazoo  r5e'-Nature Center, Letter to Stuart J. Hollander, February 15, 1993 ). " ( 0*((c)"Ԍ Apparently, the alternating periods of light and darkness enable" 70*((h"   -the birds to adjust, become aware of their surroundings, and avoid tower   M-structures. Accordingly, we will further condition Leelanau County's   -authorization on the installation of such lighting features. Finally, we will   -condition Leelanau County's authorization on a comprehensive monitoring   9!-requirement that will require the County to continually monitor and report to the   -Bureau any and all migratory bird casualties, in addition to the existing   ,-conditions regarding threatened and endangered species. We believe that the   g -conditions thus imposed will address CET's concerns, and more importantly, will   9!-significantly ameliorate any impact of the proposed Jurica tower on the migratory  r5-bird population.7; r5 -  v -ԍ In Caloosa Television Corporation, 3 FCC Rcd at 3658, the Commission, in   -consultation with the Department of Interior, imposed similar conditions on a   g -broadcast license where the proposed tower site was situated within a migratory   9!-bird corridor, and adjacent to a wildlife sanctuary. In this connection, we also   9!-note that the conditions herein imposed are similar to the conditions recommended   -by the USFWS biological opinion, which analyzed the impact of tower structures on the bird population and which was furnished by Leelanau County.   s4-` `  Affect on the National Lakeshore  r5{- -  10. The proposed Jurica site consists of 40 acres of undeveloped land.   9!-The Jurica tower will be located 1.5 miles northeast from the northern tip of the   -National Lakeshore, a national park system that hosts several designated   -wilderness areas and is administered by the National Park Service. CET contends   -that the Jurica tower will infringe upon the "natural and cultural resources,"  r5 -  v -adversely impact the "view shed," and interfere with the "visitor experience."Q ; r5-ԍ CET'a Application for Review at 5.Q   g -CET also asserts that the very presence of such a structure may preclude future wilderness designation of the Good Harbor Basin area.  - 11. In assessing aesthetic concerns, the Commission accords considerable   -weight to local planning decisions that have addressed such matters, and other   -expert agencies that are familiar with and responsible for overseeing and  r5O-  -administering this nation's natural, cultural and historic resources.QO; r5-  i-ԍ See Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response to New Regulations  r5d-  -Issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, 60 RR 2d 13, 1718 (1986); see  r5 -also Baltimore County, Maryland, 5 FCC Rcd 5615, 5617 (1990).Q The   -National Park Service has considered Leelanau County's proposal, and has found that:   - S ` ` While the proposed communications tower is taller than others   -` ` located within visual distance of the . . . National   -` ` Lakeshore, the impact is not anticipated to be significantly ` ` different from the other intrusions already impacting the   -` ` viewshed [sic]. For example, the developments at Sugar Loaf   3-` ` Mountain and at the Homestead Resort, the major electrical   a-` ` power lines cutting across the Miller Hill ridge, the FAA  r5|-` ` radar dome at Empire, etc. N| j r5$-  -ԍ National Park Service/ Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Letter to Great Lakes Environmental Center, May 10, 1993. ` `   g - S The National Park Service concluded, by stating that it did not "anticipate any   -direct impacts to the natural or cultural resources within the boundaries of the   g -. . . National Lakeshore" and "strongly" supporting Leelanau County's proposal," 0*(( "   -which represents an "equitable solution that will resolve the [County's]  r5-  ;-communications problems."4; r5-ԍ Id. 4 We note that CET did not support or document its   g -claim that the tower would adversely affect the National Lakeshore, and did not  r5-  9!-provide any evidence to refute the National Park Service's finding of no impact.  r5-  9!- We thus accord due deference to the National Park Service's findings and conclude   Z-on the record before us that the Jurica tower will not have a significant,   ,-adverse impact on the National Lakeshore. We further find that there is no   -record evidence to support CET's speculative assertions that the erection of the   -Jurica tower will have a detrimental effect on, or preclude, any future wildlife or wilderness designations.  s4-- ` `  Consideration of Alternative Sites  r5{- M-  12. The study of alternative sites and systems, while critical to an   g -adequate assessment of the particular proposal under consideration, need not be  r5 -  -exhaustive or exacting, only a reasonable choice of alternatives is required. ; r5-  -ԍ See 42 U.S.C. Section 4332(2)(C)(iii) and (E); see also Vermont Yankee  r5d-  -Nuclear Power Corp. V NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978)(the study of alternatives   ,-in an environmental analysis "must be bound by some notion of feasibility");  r5-  -Seacoast AntiPollution League v NRDC, 598 F.2d 1221, 122829 (1st Cir. 1979)(an   -environmental analysis of alternatives is dictated by a standard of reason");  r5-  9!-Baltimore County, Maryland, 5 FCC Rcd 5615, 5617 (1990)(the study of a reasonable choice of alternatives satisfies NEPA requirements).    -Contrary to CET's assertions that alternative sites were not addressed, the   g -alternative site analysis was reasonable and reflected a detailed consideration  r5 -  \-of alternative sites and systems.d ; r5 -ԍ Leelanau County's Environmental Assessment at Section 5.2. d Moreover, as discussed below, the   -alternative site analysis demonstrated that the alternative systems and sites were not selected due to either infeasibility or unavailability.  Z- 13. The County initially had considered a proposal to utilize and upgrade   -its eleven existing sites, the proposal most favored by CET. However, such a   -proposal would not have corrected many of the operational problems associated   g -with Leelanau County's current multiple transmitters. Most importantly, such a   -proposal would necessitate a zoned system for police operations which would   -require police officers to change channels on the radios to stay in touch with   -the dispatcher a method considered to be both cumbersome and unsafe.   -Moreover, the existing towers would have to be replaced with much taller   -structures and additional relay sites would be needed to support the microwave radio operations, at great expense to the County.  ckR   - ckR  14. Given the constraints of updating and utilizing the current system,   g -the alternative site analysis examined proposals based on the construction of a   9!-central tower site, supported by several existing tower sites. Specifically, the   -alternative site analysis considered an already existing Leelanau County site,   -known as Maple City, as a potential central tower site. That site proved not to   -be a viable option, because the County was unable to acquire the additional land   g -that would have been necessary to accommodate the taller, replacement tower and   ,-its supporting guy wires. The alternative site analysis also considered the   g -possibility of utilizing the tower located at, and leased by, Central Michigan   -University, as central tower site. However, the alternative analysis points out   Z-that concerns were raised as to whether the University tower could support"[M 0*(($"   ,-additional microwave dish antennae, and more importantly, whether the public   g -safety communication system could afford to hinge on a lease that is subject to   -periodic renewal and possible future termination. The alternative site analysis   9!-further considered as a possible central tower site an area located on land owned   -by the County's Road Commission, known as the "gravel pit" site. The gravel pit   ,-site was subject to zoning restrictions, however, and an attempt to have the  r5-property rezoned failed.   -15. Based on the alternative site analysis, we believe that Jurica site   9!-represents the best, most viable option for the location of a central tower site.   9!-In contrast to the other alternatives considered, the Jurica site, which has been   9!-acquired by Leelanau County, meets all the technical requirements for the central   -tower site proposal, in that it: 1) is centrally located in Leelanau County;   g -2) has enough acreage to accommodate the tower and supporting guy wires; 3) is  r5" -  -at least 900 feet above mean sea level; and 4) it is also properly zoned. We   Z-further believe that the proposed system design, which utilizes the Jurica   ,-central tower site and four existing tower sites, will best achieve Leelanau County's objectives.  s5e - ` `   hh, Conclusion ` `  hh,  -16. We affirm the Bureau's conditional grants issued to Leelanau County  r5[-  -on December 21, 1993. As discussed in para. 9, we will further condition   -Leelanau County's grants. We find that the imposition of such conditions will   -ameliorate any impact the Jurica tower might have on the migratory bird   M-population, and that the tower thus will not significantly impact the   -environment. We also find that the Jurica tower will not significantly affect   -the National Lakeshore. Finally, we find that grant of Leelanau County's   -applications will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity by   g -enabling it to provide a necessary reliable and effective public communications   9!-system necessary to protect and safeguard the County's citizens, as well as the National Lakeshore's visitors.  -17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT CET's Application for Review IS   ,-DENIED, and that the Bureau's grant of Leelanau County's six land mobile and  r5-  ,-microwave applications IS AFFIRMED. WE FURTHER ORDER that Leelanau County's authorizations will be subject to the additional following conditions:  o3-   1. The licensee shall conduct monitoring at the Jurica site  o&-on a regular basis to evaluate the impact of the tower   o-structure and supporting guy wires on the migratory bird  o3-population. The licensee shall record any losses or other  o-casualties of migratory birds on an annual basis to the Private Radio Bureau.   oa-2. The licensee shall utilize strobe red beacon lightning  o-and install other appropriate markings such as balls and/ or  o-streamers, at the Jurica tower for the protection of the migratory bird population.     ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  r5$-` `   hh,William F. Caton  r50%-` `   hh,Acting Secretary