This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect 5.1. If the original document contained footnotes or special formatting, such as boldface or italics, that information is missing from the on-line ASCII version. The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) may be changed too. If you need the complete document, the Word Perfect version will be available for downloading by May 1.

                          Washington, D.C.  20554

     In reply refer to:
     1800B3-BCD


Tanja L. Kozicky, Esq.
Greene Espel
1700 Metropolitan Centre
333 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN  55402


     Re:   WMNN(AM), Minneapolis, Minnesota
     File No. BMP-940802DA
     Application for Extension of  
     Construction Permit         
     
     File No. BMP-950216AA
     Application for Modification of 
     Construction Permit
     
 
Dear Ms. Kozicky:     

     We have on file the above-referenced applications to extend and modify a previously
authorized construction permit (File No. BMP-930513AA) granted to Minnesota Public Radio
("MPR"), licensee of WMNN(AM), Minneapolis, MN, (formerly KNOW(AM)).  We also
have on file a September 6, 1994, informal objection filed by Tanja Kozicky ("Kozicky") on
behalf of parties who have challenged construction of the radio towers under applicable
provisions of Minnesota law.  The U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
("USFWS") also filed, on September 16, 1994, comments objecting to the subject extension
application.  Additionally, we have received comments on the extension application from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota River Audubon Chapter and
Minnesota River Audubon Council ("Audubon"), and the City of Savage.  No objections
have been filed against the subject modification application.  As set forth below, we deny
Kozicky's objection and grant the subject extension application.  We also grant the subject
modification application.


BACKGROUND

     On May 13, 1993, MPR filed an application for a construction permit to modify
WMNN(AM)'s antenna system, increase its power, and change its transmitter location (File
No. BMP-930513AA).  In particular, the application sought authorization to construct three
towers at Site A, adjacent to the Minnesota River, near Savage, Minnesota.  Because MPR
proposed locating antenna towers in the 100-year floodplain of the Minnesota River, it
acknowledged the proposed construction represented a major environmental action under the
Commission's environmental rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1307.  MPR attached to its application a
section entitled "Environmental Assessment" ("EA").  In the EA, MPR asserted that the
towers would not have an adverse impact on the natural water flow patterns of the floodplain. 
Additionally, MPR stated that "[t]he proposed site is not located within or in the vicinity of
any wildlife, wilderness, historic, archeological or scenic areas," and that "[t]he site is not
located within any known natural bird flyway."  This application was unopposed and on
February 28, 1994, the Commission granted the Site A construction permit.  On May 17,
1994, MPR notified the Commission that they had recently learned that Site A was, indeed,
located across the river from a small portion of a designated wildlife refuge.  

     On August 2, 1994, MPR filed the subject extension application in which MPR states
that completion of construction of the WMNN(AM) towers has been delayed because it has
not secured the necessary approval from local zoning authorities for construction of the
antenna towers.  On August 24, 1994, MPR amended this application to indicate that
opposition, on environmental grounds, has been raised by Kozicky, USFWS, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, and the Audubon Society, among others, in the context of a
local zoning proceeding.  Relevant environmental issues raised in these local oppositions
include:  the impact of the guyed towers on migratory birds, including the bald eagle, an
endangered species; the impact of construction on the towers in the floodplain; and historic
preservation issues.   Kozicky and USFWS have filed their objections to the extension
application raising, inter alia, many of the same environmental concerns.

     Kozicky raises two issues with respect to the subject extension application.  Kozicky
first contends that MPR made a "business decision to disregard the potential environmental
impacts and likely community opposition to the towers," and that the construction delays were
therefore not beyond MPR's control.  Second, Kozicky argues that MPR lacked candor in
failing to reveal to the Commission that Site A was adjacent to the Minnesota Valley Wildlife
Refuge and in representing in the EA that it knew of no local opposition to the construction
project on environmental grounds.  Kozicky states that at the time MPR filed the subject
extension application, MPR was aware that a local Environmental Assessment Worksheet
petition had been filed and "it was evident that there was broad-based opposition to the
proposed project."

     USFWS also raises two objections against MPR's extension application.  USFWS
contends that because the construction site is located within the Minnesota River floodplain, it
has urged the City of Savage to reject the tower construction project, as "the towers will have
a negative impact on the natural resources and aesthetic qualities of the Minnesota River
Valley."  USFWS's second objection concerns avian matters.  It notes that the Minnesota
River Valley is used by the bald eagle, an endangered species, and that the proposed
construction project would have a "high potential for bird strikes."  USFWS also indicates
that the proposed site for WMNN(AM)'s towers is between two units of the Minnesota Valley
Wildlife Refuge and could have a negative impact upon migratory birds.

     In light of the environmental concerns raised in both of the objections, the
Commission staff, on November 29, 1994, issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to MPR.  The
staff requested that MPR submit (1) a complete and detailed list of alternative sites for the
tower, and the reasons why those sites are unacceptable; (2) a complete and detailed list of
the effects this tower construction will have on the environment; (3) specific and documented
information about the floodplain in regard to its history of flooding and the results of that
flooding; and (4) a detailed explanation of how the construction of the towers will affect the
floodplain at the time of flooding.  

     On February 16, 1995, MPR filed the subject modification application to relocate the
proposed towers to an alternative site (Site B) located on the same parcel of land, but
approximately 1/4 mile farther from the Minnesota River than Site A.  MPR explains that the
application to relocate to Site B was filed in response to USFWS and Audubon concerns
about the potential impact of the tower and guy wires upon local and migratory bird
populations and that the new site was specifically suggested by Audubon as a way to
minimize the potential for avian strikes.  

     On March 23, 1995, MPR filed its response to the LOI providing a detailed
description of its search efforts and its reasons for rejecting alternatives to Site B.  MPR also
addresses the potential environmental impact, and includes an extensive explanation of its
efforts to address and meet the objectors' concerns regarding the potential for avian strikes
and the possible effects on the floodplain.  Regarding the potential for avian strikes, MPR
concludes that "the proposed towers are not expected to present any significant environmental
hazard to migratory and resident bird populations."  MPR bases this conclusion on a review
of the relevant published literature and an MPR-commissioned field study conducted by Frank
J. Svoboda and Associates ("Svoboda study").  With respect to the floodplain concerns, MPR
details the "careful considerations" that were taken in siting and designing the project and
explains that the towers would be built to withstand the 100-year flood level.  MPR therefore
contends that the towers would "have no impact on existing wetlands."   MPR also indicates
that it has obtained approval from the Minnesota Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
which, under Minnesota law, is responsible for reviewing floodplains construction. 
Additionally, in response to Kozicky's allegation that MPR's EA failed to reveal that Site A
was adjacent to the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, MPR explains that it had relied upon
maps that omitted the refuge.  MPR states that once it learned that portions of the Minnesota
Valley Wildlife Refuge were located close to Site A, it notified the Commission on May 17,
1994, prior to the filing of any objections.  

     The Commission received letters from Kozicky and USFWS in reaction to MPR's LOI
response.  On April 27, 1995, Kozicky submitted a letter asserting that MPR has not
adequately addressed the risk of avian deaths.  Kozicky also contends that MPR has not fully
addressed the potential "negative impact" of the proposed towers on the Dan Patch Race
Track and on the Minnesota Masonic Home, an issue that Kozicky raised in the local
environmental review process.  Kozicky asserts that although neither the Dan Patch Race
Track nor the Minnesota Masonic Home is currently listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, they "may" be eligible for registration and "ought to be considered
historically significant."  Kozicky also argues that the proposed towers may, despite
conformity to Commission regulations, "cause electromagnetic interference with medical
devices and security systems."  Lastly, Kozicky asserts that the lighting on the proposed
towers will disrupt the controlled environment of the new "dementia care facility" located at
the Minnesota Masonic Home.  On April 28, 1995, USFWS submitted a letter maintaining
that it is opposed to any construction within the Minnesota River floodplain and again
suggests that the proposed tower construction might pose a potential for bald eagle strikes.

     On May 24, 1995, MPR filed a supplement to the subject extension application
informing the Commission that the Savage City Council had decided to conduct further
environmental review of the proposed construction.  Additionally, MPR submitted a letter
from the Minnesota Historical Society, Minnesota's designated State Historic Preservation
Office, indicating that neither the Dan Patch Race Track nor the Minnesota Masonic Home is
eligible for registration in the National Register of Historic Places.  Kozicky responded to this
supplement stating that it is likely that the further environmental review, now required by the
City of Savage, would include an additional study of the impact on historical sites.

     On January 11, 1996, MPR filed a supplement to both of the subject applications
indicating that "after exhaustive review of the environmental issues raised by the proposed
construction, the City of Savage has resolved the matter in MPR's favor and issued a
conditional use permit for construction at [Site B]."  MPR explains that after it had brought
suit in Minnesota State Court against the City of Savage's additional environmental
assessment, on December 11, 1995, MPR and the City of Savage entered into a court-
approved settlement agreement requiring that MPR finance "a long-term scientific monitoring
program to assess any impact of the subject towers on migratory and resident bird
populations" and also requiring that MPR conduct an engineering study on the effects of the
proposed towers on medical devices used at the Minnesota Masonic Home.  Additionally,
MPR asserts that the City of Savage engaged its own avian expert, Dr. Robert M. Zink,
whose opinion was included in the settlement agreement, and based on that opinion "local
authorities have determined that the proposed construction will not have an adverse impact on
resident or migratory bird populations."


DISCUSSION
                                    
     A.  The Extension Application.  When contemplating applications for extension of
construction permits, the Commission examines the record to determine whether the
permittee's application satisfies one of the three factors set forth under 47 C.F.R.
 73.3534(b). That subsection provides, in pertinent part, that the Commission will grant an
application for extension where a permittee can show that:  (a) construction is complete and
testing is underway; or (b) substantial progress has been made (i.e., demonstration that
equipment is on order or on hand, site acquired, site cleared and construction proceeding
toward completion); or (c) no progress has been made for reasons clearly beyond the control
of the permittee (such as delays caused by governmental budgetary processes and zoning
problems) and the permittee has taken all possible steps to expeditiously resolve the problem
and proceed with construction.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.3534 (b). 

     We find Kozicky's allegation--that the delays in construction were not beyond MPR's
control--are without merit.  The Commission granted the Site A construction permit February
28, 1994, for a period of six months.  During that six-month period MPR applied for a
conditional use permit from the relevant local authorities and diligently sought assistance in
the approval process from local authorities and agencies.  MPR also participated in several
local hearings.   Based on the record, we find that MPR has taken all possible steps to
conform to the local zoning procedures and has sufficiently established that its difficulties in
obtaining zoning approval, despite its diligent efforts, have caused delays in construction that
were beyond its control.  Moreover, the filing of the subject modification application (to
relocate to Site B) in response to environmental concerns, and the settlement agreement which
resolves the zoning issues, is a clear indication of MPR's diligence in pursuing zoning
approval.

     B.  Lack of Candor.  Lack of candor is a concealment, evasion or other failure to be
fully informative accompanied by an intent to deceive the Commission.   Fox River
Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC2d 127, 129 (1983), recon. dismissed, FCC 831-43 (released Apr.
20, 1983).  The sine qua non of lack of candor is fraudulent or deceitful intent.  See Leflore
Broadcasting v. FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 461 (D.C.Cir.1980); Policy Regarding Character
Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC2d 1179, 1196 (1986).  There is no evidence
in the record of MPR's intent to deceive the Commission.  Moreover, the record indicates that
MPR has fully informed the Commission of all relevant environmental matters.  For example,
on August 24, 1994, several days before the Kozicky objection was filed, MPR filed an
amendment to the subject extension application informing the Commission of the "local
controversy on environmental grounds" surrounding the proposed construction site.  Similarly, 
on May 17, 1994, MPR informed the Commission of Site A's adjacency to the Minnesota
Valley Wildlife Refuge, shortly after MPR learned of its mistake from USFWS.
     
     C.  Environmental Issues.  In accordance with sections 1.1307(a) and (b) of the
Commission's rules, a Commission action with respect to the authorization of facilities may
require environmental processing under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969
("NEPA") if that action may have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment.  47 C.F.R.  1.1303.  If an action falls within one of the eight categories
enumerated in  1.1307(a), an applicant is required to prepare and submit an EA.  The
Commission then reviews the EA, as well as information submitted by other interested parties
and makes a determination as to whether the action will likely have a significant impact that
would necessitate agency preparation of Environmental Impact Statements under NEPA.  See
47 C.F.R.  1.1308.  As set forth below, we find that construction of the WMNN(AM) tower,
as proposed in the subject modification application, will not have a significant impact on the
environment.

     (1)  Floodplain.  We conclude that the proposed construction will not have a
significant environmental impact on the Minnesota River floodplain.  When MPR originally
filed its application to modify its construction permit to relocate WMNN(AM)'s towers to Site
A, it indicated that the application proposed construction in a floodplain, an enumerated
category in  1.1307.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(a)(6).  Accordingly, MPR submitted an EA
asserting that the proposed construction would not have an adverse impact on the floodplain. 
MPR has also filed, as directed by the LOI, another EA with additional information regarding
the floodplain.  MPR explains that each tower will be built to withstand flooding up to
twenty-two feet above ground level, a level that is three feet in excess of the 100-year flood
level and that the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, the agency responsible under
Minnesota law for reviewing floodplain construction projects, has approved the project.  The
City of Savage Zoning Ordinance specifically allows the construction of radio towers at the
proposed construction site and has now specifically issued a conditional use permit for
construction at Site B.  In the environmental area, it is appropriate for the Commission staff
to defer to such local decisions.  See Amendment to the Environmental Rules, 60 R.R. 2d 13,
17-18 (1986), Decatur Telecasting, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 8622 (MMB 1992) (floodplain
construction is appropriate when local zoning regulations specifically permit such use). 

     (2)  Historic Sites.  Consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"),
16 U.S.C.  470(f) and its implementing regulations contained in 36 C.F.R. Part 800, the
Commission's environmental rules subject applications that "may affect districts, sites,
buildings, structures or objects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering or culture, that are listed or are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places" to environmental review and mandatory inter-agency consultation
procedures.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(a)(4);  see also 47 C.F.R.  1.1308.  MPR has submitted
a letter from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer which concludes that "there
are no properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
within the area of potential effect for this project."  We find this evidence conclusive, and
therefore determine that no further review is warranted with respect to 47 C.F.R. 
1.1307(a)(4), 36 C.F.R.  801.1(c).

     (3)  Lighting.  Although Kozicky has alleged that the lighting on the proposed towers
will disrupt residents at the Minnesota Masonic Home, there is no indication in the record
that the towers are to be located in an area zoned residential and that the towers will have
high intensity white light.  Thus, construction of the WMNN(AM) facilities does not
implicate 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(a)(8), an enumerated category dealing with possible significant
environmental effects due to high intensity white lighting in zoned residential areas, and no
environmental review with respect to this allegation is required.

     (4)  Bald Eagles.  In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C.
 1531, and the Interagency Cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, 50 C.F.R. Part
402, the Commission's environmental rules subject applications that may affect listed
threatened or endangered species or critical habitats to environmental review and mandatory
inter-agency consultation.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307 (a)(3).   Thus, based on the potential for
the proposed towers to affect the bald eagle, an endangered species, we are required to
consult with the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service in an effort to
determine whether the proposed towers are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
bald eagle.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1308.  In this case, USFWS received copies of all relevant
applications, pleadings and amendments and has informed us of its concerns.  USFWS has
not, however, made any explicit finding with respect to bald eagle strikes.  In granting the
conditional use permit, the City of Savage consulted with Dr. Robert M. Zink, a professor of
ornithology at the University of Minnesota, who concluded that the proposed towers are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle.  In the absence of a specific
finding by USFWS, and in light of the conclusion reached by the Zink study, we conclude
that the proposed towers are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species and thus no further consultation with the USFWS is required.  See 50
C.F.R.  402.10(a) (Joint Regulations on Endangered Species require that Federal agencies
consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service when an action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species).

     (5)  Impact on Migratory and Resident Bird Populations.  Based on the record, we
determine that the proposed towers will not pose a significant adverse impact on migratory
and resident bird populations.  In making this conclusion, we have relied upon the Zink
study which concluded that "there will be a negligible impact on populations of either resident
or migrant birds" as a result of the proposed towers.  Furthermore, this conclusion confirms
the conclusions of the Svoboda study which found that "[c]ollission mortality would likely be
very low and infrequent."  Additionally, we note that, pursuant to the settlement agreement
between MPR and the City of Savage, MPR is obligated to conduct "a long-term scientific
monitoring program to assess any impact of the subject towers on migratory and resident bird
populations."  Therefore, we find that construction of the proposed towers will not result in a
significant loss of migratory or resident birds.


CONCLUSION
                                    
     Based on the record, and in accordance with the National Environmental Protection
Act of 1969, we have determined that construction of the WMNN(AM) tower, as proposed in
the subject modification application, will not have a significant impact on the environment. 
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.  Accordingly, Tanja Kozicky's
informal objection to the subject extension application  IS DENIED.  The application for
extension of construction permit (File No. BMP-940802DA) IS GRANTED.  Additionally, the
application for modification of construction permit (File No. BMP-950216AA), being
otherwise technically conforming, is GRANTED without further environmental considerations. 
Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.1308(d), IT IS ORDERED that MPR provide the community notice
of our finding that construction of the towers at the site specified in the subject application
will have no significant impact on the environment.



                                        Sincerely,



                                        Linda Blair
                                        Acting Chief
                                        Audio Services Division
                                        Mass Media Bureau

cc:  Todd M. Stansbury, Esq.
     Mr. Nick Rowse
     Mr. Thomas W. Balcom
     Mr. Edwin E. Martini, Jr.
     Mr. Dennis A. Gimmestad
     Ms. Lois Norrgard
                                APPENDIX A

Todd M. Stansbury, Esq.
Wiley, Rein & Fielding 
1776 K Street, N.W.  
Washington, DC   20006

Mr. Nick Rowse
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Twin Cities Field Office
4101 East 80th Street
Bloomington, MN  55425-1665

Mr. Thomas W. Balcom
State of Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources 
Natural Resources Environmental Review Section
Office of Planning
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN  55155-4010

Mr. Edwin E. Martini, Jr.
Minnesota Masonic Home
1140 Normandale Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN  55437-3699 

Mr. Dennis A. Gimmestad
Minnesota Historical Society
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
345 Kellogg Boulevard West
St. Paul, MN  55102-1906

Ms. Lois Norrgard
Natural Resources Co-chair
Minnesota River Valley Audubon Society
Box 20400
Bloomington, MN  55420

Mr. John Heald
City Planner
City of Savage
6000 McColl Drive
Savage, Minnesota 55375

Return to the Audio Services Division screen

Return to the Mass Media Bureau screen

FCC Home Page