stan said:
Isn't the transmitter closer to Conroe than The Woodlands?
There has been some confusion about this one due to a number of modifications to applications along the way. The Conroe site along loop 336 was in the original proposal back in 2004 and it was for 600 watts daytime only; there was also a proposal that called for 480 watts daytime (and
7 at night?) but I can't locate that one. Unless something changed
*, the authorized site (in the proposal for 250 day/69 watts night) is about four miles east of I-45 and a little over a mile south of 242 near the Tamina community.
In looking back through the paperwork I noticed a lot of things that weren't quite right or had been neglected. For instance, the engineering narrative originally stated that the transmitter site would be about 10 kilometers north of Shenandoah. That would have placed it near the southern edge of Conroe (the 600 watt site?), but in reality the coordinates listed in the approved application correspond with the Tamina site (4 miles, or about 6 km east of Shenandoah). That's a
flood plain area, virtually along the western bank of the San Jacinto River, and that subject came up when they applied for the two-tower 10kW directional pattern for daytime. I don't think it had been mentioned previously. In connection with that ill-fated application the consulting engineer admitted that the site had been under about 11 feet of water during flooding back in 1994. I never heard if the environmental issues were fully addressed but if the FCC was really concerned about it, it shouldn't have mattered how many towers would be located there. After all, they had already issued a construction permit for one-tower operation the year before.
(*) I'm open to any corrections on this, but what I see is that the construction permit was issued under the file number BMJP-20050118ADX. If that's correct, it seems that the folks at Radio-Locator were looking at the wrong application (the original from '04, or its later version in '07).