Laserfiche WebLink
To address the four factors listed above,several alternatives were reviewed by the client for the <br /> proposed tower facility,and are further discussed below. <br /> 1.Reducing the tower height to less than 200 feet is not feasible at this site since it would not <br /> meet the necessary coverage objectives. <br /> 2.A change from a guyed tower to a self-support structure is not feasible as the additional <br /> cost associated with a self-support tower may render coverage in this rural area <br /> impractical. <br /> 3.The tower owner has agreed dual-medium intensity lighting,but the side lights will flash at <br /> a minimum rate of 30 flashes per minute. White lighting at night is typically not <br /> acceptable to meet local zoning standards. However,this issue can be discussed with <br /> the local zoning representatives and an attempt can be made to implement this <br /> recommendation if compatible with the surroundings and as approved by the FAA. <br /> 4.Bird diverter devices are not currently proposed for this tower. <br /> Additionally,the proposed communications facility is designed to accommodate at least three <br /> additional telecommunication carriers,precluding the need to construct additional towers and <br /> associated compounds in this area. <br /> SECTION 3:CONCLUSIONS <br /> Edge Consulting requests your correspondence in regards to mitigation measures to reduce the <br /> potential risk to migratory birds. Please inform us if any further preferred mitigation measures are <br /> recommended for this project. <br /> Respectfully, <br /> Oi• rip <br /> Tracy . runasky <br /> Environmental Scientist <br /> Edge Consulting Engin-- nc. <br /> tdrunasky @edgeconsult,com <br /> Street Maps <br /> USGS Quad Map <br /> Site Plan <br /> Site Photographs <br /> 5080 FWS Ltr Submittal Addendum 2 of 2 <br />