[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
