[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52569-52572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25353]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5012]


Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System; Programmatic 
Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a final programmatic environmental assessment (PEA).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) has been 
authorized by Congress, pursuant to section 346 of the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, 
to establish, operate, and manage a nationwide system to be known as 
the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) as soon 
as practicable, to integrate the NDGPS stations into the Continuously 
Operating Reference Station (CORS) system of the National Geodetic 
Survey of the Department of Commerce, and to investigate the use of the 
NDGPS reference stations for the Global Positioning System Integrated 
Precipitable Water Vapor System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce. A final PEA for 
the NDGPS program has been prepared to support this program. The FHWA 
envisions at this time that the NDGPS program will require the 
construction of at least 67 transmitter sites and maybe as many as 100, 
but no new sites will result in significant impacts to the environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James A. Arnold, Office of 
Operations Research and Development, HRDO, (202) 493-3265, Federal 
Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 6300 
Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296, or for legal issues: Mr. Robert 
J. Black, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1359, Federal 
Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    An electronic copy of the PEA for the NDGPS program is available at 
http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: 
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's 
database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The Secretary has delegated his authority under section 346 of the 
DOT Appropriations Act for FY 1998, Public Law 105-66, October 27, 
1997, 111 Stat. 1425, at 1449, to the Commandant of the United States 
Coast Guard (USCG), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the 
FHWA. The FHWA is the lead agency and the USCG and the FRA are 
cooperating agencies for the implementation of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and 23 
CFR part 771. In accordance with NEPA, the FHWA has prepared a final 
PEA for the NDGPS program.
    The NDGPS service would augment existing satellite-based Global 
Positioning System range information with a differential correction 
broadcast from ground-based reference stations transmitting from known 
positions, thereby providing users with more precise radio navigation 
and positioning information for public safety, transportation, 
scientific, and environmental applications. Federal agencies 
implementing the proposed NDGPS service are the DOT's Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation (OST), the FHWA, the FRA, the NOAA, the 
U.S. Air Force (USAF), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and 
the USCG.
    The NDGPS involves the expansion of an existing network of USCG 
local area Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) reference 
stations currently covering United States coastal areas and major 
inland waterways. To expand this existing DGPS service nationwide, the 
installation of additional reference stations with low-frequency 
transmit antennas is required on suitable 11-acre land parcels located 
principally in the interior portions of the continental Unites States 
and Alaska. Sites will typically be on level ground and away from tall 
structures. Three deployment alternatives for the additional NDGPS 
reference stations were considered in the draft PEA.
    Alternative A consists of conversion of 32 decommissioned USAF 
Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) sites for use as NDGPS reference 
stations and the transfer of GWEN equipment from remaining GWEN sites 
to 28 new NDGPS site locations. Seven additional sites would receive 
similar new equipment, for a total of 67 NDGPS reference stations. The 
GWEN transmit antennas to be used are typically 299 feet tall guyed 
towers and will be operated at an effective radiated power (ERP) of no 
more than 500 Watts.
    Alternative B consists of the installation of new equipment at 32 
existing GWEN relay node sites, as well as at 35 new sites. The 
resulting NDGPS reference stations would be physically similar to the 
reference stations of Alternative A.
    Alternative C is to identify 80 to 100 new sites and install 
equipment similar to USCG local area DGPS stations. These reference 
stations would utilize either 90 feet or 120 feet tall towers and 
operate at an ERP of no more than 170 Watts. The NDGPS is expected to 
be fully operational in the United States by the year 2002. During the 
selection of sites for the NDGPS reference stations, the FHWA and 
cooperating agencies will consult with key regulatory agencies and 
apply environmental site-selection criteria to avoid potentially 
significant impacts. If a potentially significant environmental impact 
is unavoidable during the selection of sites for the NDGPS reference 
stations, specific mitigation measures will be implemented to decrease 
the impact to a less than significant level. Provided that 
environmental site-selection criteria and specific mitigation measures 
identified in the draft PEA are implemented for the NDGPS, no 
significant environmental impacts are anticipated to occur under any of 
the proposed action alternatives. If planned mitigation measures for 
potentially significant impacts cannot be implemented at a specific 
site, or a site-specific impact is encountered that was not anticipated 
and addressed in the draft PEA, then additional appropriate NEPA 
analysis and documentation will be prepared by the FHWA for that 
specific reference station. In addition, if any sites would be used as 
a publicly-owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, 
or significant

[[Page 52570]]

historic site, a section 4(f) analysis 1 will be conducted. 
Impacts to historic properties would likewise require consultation with 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S. Code 303) 
states that a DOT action requiring the use of any publicly owned 
land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl 
refuge of national, state, or local significance or land from a 
historic site of national, state, or local significance will be 
analyzed for its impact and approval granted only if there is no 
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the 
action includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting 
from the use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Comments

    Interested persons were invited to comment on the NDGPS draft PEA, 
FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5012 by April 2, 1999 (64 FR 10336, March 3, 
1999). There were 11 commenters to this docket; four were Federal 
agencies, four were State agencies, two were from Indian tribes, and 
one was a private citizen. The major comments relative to the final PEA 
are discussed below.
    State Historic Preservation Offices and Indian tribes were 
primarily concerned about the impact these sites may have if the 
location of new sites were in areas where they operate. There are no 
plans to locate sites on Indian reservations. If a site were planned to 
be located on a historic property that an Indian tribe attached 
religious and cultural significance to, section 106 consultation would 
be conducted. In the case of State Historic Preservation Offices, the 
FHWA will consult with them to identify any potential impact. Before 
each site is installed or, in the case of the GWEN sites, modified, 
each organization that has jurisdiction will be contacted for 
individual site review.
    Federal agencies that responded were generally satisfied with the 
analysis and mitigation measures presented in the draft PEA concerning:

--Potential environmental impacts on geology and soil,
--Water quality,
--Ecologically sensitive areas,
--Air quality,
--Noise,
--Land use,
--Plant and wildlife,
--Cultural resources,
--Hazardous materials,
--Environmental justice concerns,
--Recreation,
--Radio frequency environment, and
--Impacts on human health.

    Federal agencies that noted certain exceptions to the draft PEA 
include the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (the Service), each of which raises particular 
concerns that are addressed below.
    The NMFS expressed concerns over impacts to anadromous salmonids 
and other flora and fauna in the Pacific Northwest and other areas of 
the country. No sites are planned near or in wetlands of any sort. As 
the system is deployed and more precise locations are identified for 
new sites, careful consideration of siting will be used to ensure NDGPS 
reference stations will not be located in wetlands unless no other 
practicable alternative exists. This is unlikely given the flexibility 
of selecting sites. If, in the unlikely instance where no other 
practicable alternative exists, we will follow the procedures outlined 
by the NMFS and work with them to ensure minimal impact on marine 
species.
    Additionally, the FHWA expects the NDGPS service to have a positive 
impact on anadromous salmonids and other threatened or endangered 
species. A prototype site in Appleton, Washington, has been operating 
for approximately two years and has been used for many environmental 
related projects. One project in particular demonstrates the impact of 
the NDGPS service on the chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 
This project, highlighted in the January 1999 issue of ``GPS World,'' 
involved mapping the gravel nests (called redds) of the chinook salmon. 
Using the NDGPS service from Appleton, the mapping was performed much 
quicker and with greater accuracy than other available techniques. 
While the benefits of the study were not described in the article, an 
increase in the knowledge of the spawning habitats of the chinook will 
allow for greater understanding of the impacts of human actions on 
their ecosystem. This same technique can be used to map other 
endangered or threatened species, increasing our understanding and 
ability to mitigate any potential negative effects.
    The Service is concerned about the NDGPS projects' potential 
impacts on threatened and endangered species with specific emphasis on 
the potential for migratory bird strikes on the towers. Additional 
concerns involving threatened and endangered species arise from the 
effects of ground disturbance and copper leaching from the ground plane 
of existing sites and new sites.
    In an effort to minimize impacts to threatened and endangered 
species, site selection criteria will be used to identify sites away 
from these species whenever possible. In the event that a site must be 
located near threatened or endangered species and a ``may affect'' 
determination is made, a section 7 consultation with the Service will 
occur as provided in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(16 U.S.C. 1536).
    It is important to note that the PEA is intended to be a framework 
that could be used to select locations that offer zero impact in a 
number of areas, including threatened and endangered species. Toward 
this end, the potential effects on threatened or endangered species has 
been included in the document as one of the criteria that will be 
addressed at the site-specific level.
    Bird strikes at towers is an issue that is larger then the NDGPS 
project. It is important to note that projections of telecommunications 
and High Definition Television (HDTV) over the next ten years may 
produce as many as 5,000 additional towers per year. The Service 
identifies the towers, lights, and guy wires as known to pose potential 
hazards to migratory birds flying at low altitudes, particularly night-
time neotropical migrating songbirds. The available literature 
highlights this as a problem, but does not offer mitigation techniques 
that have been proven to work everywhere. In fact, the literature 
indicates that this is not a problem everywhere, but is a site-specific 
problem. This indicates that site selection can be used as the first 
mitigation technique. This process includes, but is not limited to 
selecting sites away from known migratory paths, reducing or 
eliminating visual cues that could funnel birds toward the sites, 
locating sites in valleys, and not locating sites between nesting and 
foraging areas.
    It is also important to note that additional techniques are 
available to reduce the impact of the sites even further. These include 
bird deterrent devices, alternative lighting techniques, and visual 
cues on the facility itself. Logically, these techniques should have 
the effect of reducing the likelihood of avian collisions. 
Unfortunately, for many of the techniques, there is little evidence or 
studies supporting this conclusion. The literature also indicates that 
telecommunication towers are not the only threat to migrating birds. 
Bird strikes also occur at tall buildings and other similar structures. 
In fact, any tall structure seems to pose a risk of bird strikes.
    The Service recommends that the NDGPS project implement a pilot 
project to incorporate state-of-the-art mitigation techniques to reduce 
bird strikes along with a five-year monitoring program. Given the 
current interest in telecommunications facilities, especially 
telecommunication towers, a study, as recommended, could provide

[[Page 52571]]

data sufficient to meet needs of many organizations. In an effort to 
address this issue, we have opened discussions with the Service and are 
currently examining technologies for implementation on the NDGPS 
facilities. It is unclear at this point how best to address all the 
issues, but discussions will continue until solutions are found.
    The Service also recommends limiting tower height to 200 feet, 
preferably no higher than 120 feet. Based on the site-specific nature 
of this issue, it would be unwise to limit all new facilities to 120 
feet. However, there are likely to be locations where this is warranted 
and, where conditions dictate, shorter towers will be used. Again, this 
will be based on site-specific criteria and the agency would consider 
tradeoffs between coverage, potential impact, and system costs.
    Additional concerns were raised about the effects of ground 
disturbance. An example is provided for the desert tortoise. To the 
maximum extent possible, we are using existing sites where ground 
disturbance has already occurred. Additionally, one of the main 
criteria for site selection is not to enter critical habitats of 
endangered or threatened species, as discussed above. In the unlikely 
event this proves necessary, we will consult with the Service, as well 
as local organizations, to determine what is the best way to proceed in 
order to minimize or eliminate any potential disturbance of these 
species. Again, it is not expected that the agency will enter the 
habitat of any threatened or endangered species.
    As for the desert tortoise, the only site where there is any 
possibility of impact is at the Fenner, California, GWEN facility. We 
have already requested informal consultation at this site in order to 
minimize or eliminate any impact.
    The Service also raises concerns over the effects of copper 
leaching from the ground plane of the antenna into ground water. In 
order to determine the potential impact of this situation, several 
existing GWEN sites have been tested for copper levels in the ground 
water. No migration of copper off the sites has been found. These sites 
presented the potential for copper leaching from the ground plane into 
nearby ground water supplies and then into waterways due to high water 
tables and the acidity of the ground water. These sites have been 
installed for approximately 10 years. Based on the length of time these 
sites have been in place and no leaching of copper into the ground 
water near the site has occurred to date, we do not expect copper 
leaching to be a problem. To ensure this is the case, we will continue 
to examine sites that pose a potential impact, based on the specific 
site criteria of temperature, pH, salinity, and ground water level. We 
will first attempt to avoid such areas and when this is not possible or 
where GWEN sites are located in these areas we will monitor the ground 
water copper levels and apply appropriate mitigation techniques, 
ensuring copper from the ground plane does not affect the flora and 
fauna.
    Finally, comments were received from a private citizen that had two 
main focuses. These issues concerned the FRA and its roles as program 
sponsor and as regulatory organization for the rail industry, as well 
as several issues related to the draft PEA. Since the roles of the FRA 
as program sponsor and as regulatory organization are not pertinent to 
the docket, they are not addressed here. These issues have been 
forwarded to the FRA its their consideration. The private citizen's 
comments that are pertinent to the PEA are addressed in this notice. 
These are discussed in the following paragraphs and include the 
coverage area of the system, the potential for ``child shocks,'' remote 
monitoring of the facility for safety of air traffic, and information 
telephone numbers.
    The private citizen is concerned with the coverage area of the 
NDGPS service. Once the system is established, coverage verification 
will be performed to ensure adequate coverage of the U.S. If inadequate 
coverage is observed, there is the potential for additional sites to be 
installed. In an effort to eliminate this potential, several studies 
have been performed to determine the coverage area for each beacon. 
These include measuring coverage of existing broadcast facilities 
operated by the U. S. Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (``Field Strength Measurements of DGPS and FAA Beacons 
in the 285-325 kHz Band'' 2 and ``Site Selection Plan and 
Installation Guidelines for a Nationwide Differential GPS Service'' 
3 available at: http://www.tfhrc.gov/) and validation of the 
propagation model using the measured coverage data collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prepared for the FHWA by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Boulder, 
CO 80303, November 1, 1996.
    \3\ Prepared for the FHWA by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Boulder, 
CO 80303, August 5, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the coverage of each beacon is 
primarily a function of ground conductivity. Ground conductivity was 
measured under a program sponsored by the Federal Communications 
Commission when AM broadcast stations were being installed to ensure 
that there would not be any co-channel interference. This data, as well 
as actual field data from aviation beacons and existing USCG/DGPS 
beacons, were combined to form the most accurate propagation and 
interference model currently available. This model, while still 
conservative in estimating coverage, is also conservative in estimating 
interference. In other words, there is greater potential for better 
coverage and less interference than the model would indicate. This 
reduces the potential to require additional sites and have a greater 
impact on the environment.
    The private citizen is also concerned about the potential for 
``child shocks'' when a child comes into contact with the tower, either 
directly or by tossing a conducting material onto the tower. The 
commenter is correct in that the tower is in fact the antenna and is 
emitting Radio Frequency (RF) energy. This does present a potential 
danger, but this danger has been mitigated by an eight-foot chain-link 
fence that is topped with barbed wire and signs are posted on the fence 
to indicate the potential for injury. Additionally, the tower is eight 
to ten feet inside the fence. The description in the draft PEA did not 
provide this additional detail and will be added to the final version. 
Based on the number of injuries (none to date) to anyone coming in 
contact with the tower, no injuries are expected in the future. 
Additionally, most sites are also located in relatively remote areas, 
reducing any possibility of injury even further.
    The private citizen also questions how the tower light is 
monitored. The tower light and other critical elements at each 
installation, are monitored remotely 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by 
the USCG. Additionally, in the event of a failure, there are two 
separate lights located at the top of each tower that are hardened to 
resist failure from lighting and other phenomenon that the tower is 
exposed to. This creates a redundant system. Finally, current operating 
procedures require a 24-hour response time from service technicians to 
correct any problem at the site.
    Finally, the private citizen stated that the telephone number for 
the ``GPS Status Recording (24 hour)'' is inaccurate. The phone number 
published in the DOT telephone directory is incorrect. The correct 
number is (703) 313-5907. Action has been taken to place the correct 
number in the next edition of the DOT telephone

[[Page 52572]]

directory. Additionally, to speak directly to someone about NDGPS, a 
more appropriate number to call is (703) 313-5900. This is the 
``Navigation Information Service (24 Hour Watch).'' This number is 
answered by trained USCG personnel who will answer questions concerning 
all navigation systems in which the Coast Guard has a role. 
Additionally, the ``24 Hour Watch'' would have provided specific 
answers to U.S. Coast Guard monitored DGPS systems, including both the 
Maritime and Nationwide DGPS services. All these numbers, located on 
the same page, can be found in the DOT telephone directory.

Conclusion

    Changes have been made to the NDGPS PEA addressing each of the 
above comments. The FHWA looked at the three separate deployment 
alternatives for deployment of the NDGPS service in this PEA. Based on 
the comments received and further investigation, no single alternative 
alone would successfully fulfill the objectives of the system. The FHWA 
therefore proposes to employ a combination of the three alternatives. 
We believe that at least 67 sites and perhaps as many as 100 will be 
constructed for the NDGPS service, and, as discussed above, none of 
these sites would have a significant environmental impact. Each site 
will be considered against the programmatic data and if the potential 
for impact is imminent, the appropriate mitigation measures and 
environmental documentation will be developed and made available for 
review and comment. If there is a question as to whether a proposed 
site could have a significant impact, the FHWA will be responsible for 
the appropriate NEPA documentation.
    Based on the comments received and available mitigation techniques, 
a finding of no significant impact at the programmatic level is 
assessed for the NDGPS.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315, sec. 346, Pub. L. 105-66, 111 Stat. 
1425, 1449 (1997); and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on: September 22, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-25353 Filed 9-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P