Programmatic

Environmental Assessment

USDA Rural Development Rural Utilities Service

Telecommunications Program

Broadband Deployment to Rural America

February 2016

Please send questions and comments to:

Mr. Richard Fristik

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Development

Rural Utilities Service

1400 Independence Ave., SW Mail Stop 1571

Washington, DC 20250-1571

Phone: (202) 720-5093

Fax: (202) 690-0649

Email: richard.fristik@wdc.usda.gov

Abstract: 

This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) of the broadband component of

the Telecommunications Program facilitates agency compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other applicable environmental statutes,

regulations, and Executive Orders. Use of the PEA is intended to expedite the

deployment and expansion of broadband infrastructure, save processing time, ensure

consistent and accurate environmental evaluations, and avoid unnecessary duplication

and repetition in planning and evaluation commensurate with the potential

environmental impacts of broadband telecommunications infrastructure projects

financially supported by RUS. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are described. 

Of the environmental topics evaluated, ten are shown to be comprehensively addressed

at the program-level and pose no discernible effects and, if industry standards and

mitigation are properly applied during planning and construction, would need no

additional consideration during project-level evaluations. 
2

1
Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency,

provides financial assistance to rural cooperatives, nonprofit associations, public bodies,

and other eligible applicants seeking development of telecommunications infrastructure

in rural environments.

RUS prepared this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) of the broadband

component of the Telecommunications Program to facilitate agency compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other applicable environmental

statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders. The PEA describes the need for

broadband telecommunications projects and the types of actions and technologies

typically involved in RUS-supported broadband projects.

The PEA includes a detailed account of extensive interviews with federal government

employees, applicants, applicant contractors, and industry organization representatives. 

These stakeholders expressed a common desire to reduce processing time and

improve the consistency of agency reviews. Several sought improved response in the

processing of requests to use federal land needed for all or a portion of a proposed

project.

Monitoring and operational procedures are presented along with useful background

information and description of regulatory processes. Direct, indirect, and cumulative

impacts are described. Of the environmental topics evaluated, ten are shown to be

comprehensively addressed at the program level and pose no discernible effects and, if

industry standards and mitigation were properly applied, would need no additional

consideration during project-level evaluations. 

Programmatic-level recommendations for mitigation of site-specific projects are

presented in addition to pertinent information regarding compliance with important laws

and Executive Orders. Relevant summaries of RUS and other federal agency

environmental and land use regulations are appended to the PEA to foster public

understanding and aid agency staff and applicants in the development and evaluation of

projects seeking RUS financial assistance. 

Use of the PEA is intended to expedite the deployment and expansion of broadband

infrastructure, save processing time, ensure consistent and accurate environmental

evaluations, and avoid unnecessary duplication and repetition in planning and

evaluation commensurate with the potential environmental impacts of broadband

telecommunications infrastructure projects financially supported by the RUS.

As the PEA is used over time, environmental conditions and projected impacts will be

considered and the PEA supplemented or revised as necessary.
2

Table of Contents

1 Purpose and Need..................................................................................................11

1.1 Why RUS is Preparing this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) ..... 11

1.2 Contents of this PEA ................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Benefits of Broadband Services in Rural America .................................................. 14

1.4 Federal Support for Broadband for Rural America .................................................. 15

1.5 RUS Programs for Supporting Deployment of Broadband into Rural Areas ........ 16

1.5.1 RUS Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program....................... 16

1.5.2 Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program.................................................. 16

1.5.3 Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program (DLT) ................................... 17

1.5.4 Community-Oriented Connectivity Broadband Grant Program................................ 17

1.6 NEPA and RUS Decision-making in the Telecommunications Program for

Broadband............................................................................................................................. 18

1.6.1 Purposes of NEPA................................................................................................... 18

1.6.2 NEPA Documents and Public Involvement.............................................................. 19

1.6.3 RUS NEPA Procedures ........................................................................................... 19

1.6.4 Programmatic Decision-making and Tiering............................................................ 20

1.7 Scope of Analysis and Decisions .............................................................................. 21

1.7.1 RUS Programmatic Decisions to be Made Based on this PEA ............................... 21

1.7.2 Scope of Actions included in this PEA..................................................................... 22

1.7.3 Rationale Regarding Not Considering Alternative Technologies in this PEA .......... 22

1.7.4 Geographic Scope of this PEA ................................................................................ 24

1.7.5 Temporal Scope of this PEA ................................................................................... 24

1.8 Processes for Supplementing this PEA.................................................................... 25

1.9 Use of Categorical Exclusions for RUS Telecommunications Program ProjectLevel Environmental Review............................................................................................... 26

1.10 Summary of PEA Scoping Comments..................................................................... 28

1.10.1 Summary of Comments ......................................................................................... 28

1.10.2 Comments Regarding Issues ................................................................................ 29

1.10.3 Comments Providing Recommendations .............................................................. 29

2 Broadband Infrastructure Descriptions ...............................................................32

2.1 General Description of Broadband Technologies.................................................... 32

2.2 Detailed Description of Underground Fiber Optic Cable and Conduit Plant......... 34

2.2.1 General Technology Descriptions ........................................................................... 34

2.2.2 Placement of Underground Cable and Conduits ..................................................... 36

2.2.2.1 Tractor and Vibratory Plowing ........................................................................................ 36

2.2.2.2 Trenching, including Rock Trenching ............................................................................. 39

2.2.2.3 Directional Boring and Bridge Attachment...................................................................... 40

2.2.2.4 Buried Handholes ........................................................................................................... 43

2.2.2.5 Flagging and Staking the ROW and Placing ROW Markers........................................... 45

2.2.2.6 Site Clean-up and Restoration........................................................................................ 46

2.3 Placement of Aerial Cable .......................................................................................... 46

2.3.1 General Description................................................................................................. 46

2.3.1.1 Poles for Aerial Placement of Fiber ................................................................................ 49

2.3.1.2 Cable Deployment .......................................................................................................... 50

2.3.1.3 Site Clean-up and Restoration........................................................................................ 51

2.3.2 Broadband over Existing Powerlines....................................................................... 52

2.4 Wireless Systems: Cell and Microwave Towers....................................................... 52
Executive Summary

3

2.4.1 General Description and Background Information................................................... 52

2.4.2 Use of New Towers for Antenna Placement............................................................ 53

2.4.3 Collocation of Wireless Equipment on Existing Towers, Buildings, or Other

Structures............................................................................................................................ 56

2.5 Last Mile Service Drops .............................................................................................. 58

2.6 Buildings and Electronic Equipment Housing Structures ...................................... 58

2.6.1 General Description................................................................................................. 58

2.6.2 Types of Buildings ................................................................................................... 59

2.6.2.1 Signal Regeneration Stations ......................................................................................... 59

2.6.2.2 Service Area Hubs.......................................................................................................... 59

2.6.2.3 Office and Headquarters Buildings, Including Data Centers .......................................... 60

3 Environmental Consequences..............................................................................61

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 61

3.2 Potential Impacts to Water-Related Resources........................................................ 62

3.2.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act (RHA): Site Specific Analysis if an Individual Permit is Required ................... 62

3.2.1.1 Background Section 404 CWA ....................................................................................... 62

3.2.1.2 Background Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act ............................................................ 66

3.2.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Section 404 CWA, Section 10 RHA ................................ 66

3.2.3 Potential Impacts to Floodplains and Compliance with EO 11988, as revised by EO

13690: Site Specific Analysis for Construction in a Floodplain ........................................... 67

3.2.3.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 67

3.2.3.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Floodplains and EO 11988, as revised by EO 13690 ............ 68

3.2.4 Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Compliance with EO 11990: Site-Specific

Analysis if a Wetland Would be Impacted........................................................................... 68

3.2.4.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 68

3.2.4.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Wetlands and EO 11990 ........................................................ 69

3.2.5 Potential Impacts to Groundwater: No Further Analysis for Project Level Planning 70

3.2.6 Potential Impacts to Surface Water Quality: No Further Analysis for Project Level

Planning .............................................................................................................................. 70

3.3 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial-Related Resources (Soil and Vegetation)........... 70

3.3.1 Potential for Soil Erosion: No Further Analysis for Project Level Planning.............. 70

3.3.2 Potential Impacts to Native Vegetation: No Further Analysis for Project Level

Planning .............................................................................................................................. 70

3.3.3 Potential Impacts to Prime and Unique Farmlands: Site-Specific Analysis for

Construction of Towers and Buildings ................................................................................ 71

3.4 Potential Impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources (S106 NHPA): Deferred to

Project Level Planning ......................................................................................................... 72

3.4.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 72

3.4.1.1 Section 106 Process....................................................................................................... 73

3.4.1.2 Undertakings for which S106 Review is Not Applicable ................................................. 73

3.4.1.3 Undertakings for which S.106 Review is Applicable....................................................... 74

3.4.2 RUS Delegation of Authority to Conduct S.106 Review .......................................... 76

3.4.3 Program Alternatives for Streamlining S.106 Review for Broadband Deployment.. 77

3.4.3.1 Amended Program Comment for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities .................... 77

3.4.3.2 Program Comment for the Timing of Funding Obligation and S.106 Review ................. 78

3.4.3.3 Seeking Program Alternatives for Broadband Deployment ............................................ 79

3.4.4 Impacts and Conclusion: Cultural and Historic Resources per NHPA..................... 80

3.5 Potential Impacts to Air-Related Resources............................................................. 80
4

3.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: No Further Analysis for Project

Level Planning .................................................................................................................... 80

3.5.1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 80

3.5.2 Process for Evaluation of GHG Emissions .............................................................. 81

3.5.2.1 Calculation of GHG Emissions from RUS Broadband Projects ...................................... 82

3.5.2.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Green House Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............... 84

3.5.3 Air Quality: No Further Analysis for Project Level Planning..................................... 84

3.5.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 84

3.5.3.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Air Quality............................................................................... 85

3.6 Potential Impact of Equipment Noise on Sensitive Receptors: No Further

Analysis at Project Level Planning ..................................................................................... 86

3.6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 86

3.6.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Noise ............................................................................... 87

3.7 Potential Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species: Deferred to Project

Level Planning ...................................................................................................................... 87

3.7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 87

3.7.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Threatened and Endangered Species............................. 89

3.8 Potential Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation from Base Stations

(Cell Towers and Microwave Towers) on Human Health and Safety: No Further

Analysis at Project Planning ............................................................................................... 90

3.8.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 90

3.8.2 Background ............................................................................................................. 91

3.8.2.1 Non-ionizing Radiation and Base Stations ..................................................................... 91

3.8.2.2 Human Health Exposure Guidelines............................................................................... 92

3.8.3 Thermal and Non-thermal Potential Health Risks to Humans ................................. 94

3.8.4 Potential Relationship of Non-ionizing EMF to Cancer............................................ 96

3.8.5 Impacts and Conclusion: EMF on Human Health.................................................... 97

3.9 Potential Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation from Base Stations

(Cell Towers and Microwave Towers) on Wildlife: No Further Analysis at Project

Planning................................................................................................................................. 97

3.9.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 97

3.9.2 Impacts and Conclusion: EMF on Wildlife ............................................................. 100

3.10 Physical Impacts of Telecommunications Towers to Migratory Birds: No Further

Analysis at Project Planning ............................................................................................. 101

3.10.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 101

3.10.2 Effects of Bird Collisions with Communications Towers...................................... 101

3.10.3 Characteristics of Towers Contributing to Bird Mortality and FAA and USFWS

Mitigation........................................................................................................................... 102

3.10.4 Impacts and Conclusion: Towers on Birds .......................................................... 104

3.11 Specially-Designated Lands and Consistency with Federal Management Plans:

Deferred to Project Planning ............................................................................................. 104

3.12 EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations: Not Considered in Detail .......................... 105

3.13 Best Management Practices (BMPs), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs),

and Mitigation...................................................................................................................... 105

3.13.1 Protection of Soils, Wetlands, Floodplains, Groundwater, and Surface Water

Quality (Section 3.2) ......................................................................................................... 105

3.13.2 Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources (Section 3.4) ........................................ 107
Executive Summary

5

3.13.3 Protected Migratory Birds Protected (MBTA or ESA) and All Protected Species

(ESA) (Sections 3.10 and 3.11) ........................................................................................ 107

3.13.4 Protection of Human Health and Safety (Section 3.9)......................................... 108

3.13.5 Protection of Air Quality and Minimizing GHGs (Section 3.6).............................. 108

3.13.6 Minimizing the Effects of Noise ........................................................................... 108

3.13.7 Values of Lands with Special Designations......................................................... 109

4 Tiering Process for Broadband Projects ...........................................................110

4.1 Loan and Grant Applications.................................................................................... 110

4.2 Interim Financing Requests ..................................................................................... 110

5 Literature Cited.....................................................................................................114

6 Persons and Agencies Consulted ......................................................................121

7 List of Preparers...................................................................................................122

8 Appendices...........................................................................................................123

Appendix A. Laws and Executive Orders Relevant to USDA RUS Broadband Support

.............................................................................................................................................. 124

Appendix B. Relevant Sections from RUS NEPA Procedures 7 CFR part 1794 .......... 129

Appendix C. NEPA Regulations for Federal Agencies from which Applicants May

Need Land Use Authorizations ......................................................................................... 134

Appendix D. Special Use Permit/Grants Regulations: USFS, BLM, BIA, USFWS....... 187

Appendix E. Applicable Environmental Compliance Requirements in Five U.S.

Territories and Commonwealths....................................................................................... 197

Appendix F. Stakeholder Interviews and Comments Report May 2015....................... 201

Appendix G. Useful Databases, including Spatial Databases (GIS)............................. 253

Appendix H. USFWS Tower Guidelines for Protection of Migratory Birds.................. 260

Appendix I. National Historic Preservation Act Templates ........................................... 267

8.1.1 Template of Pre-application Notification of Proposed Section 106 Undertaking ... 267

8.1.2 Template Tribal Notification of Intent to Initiate Section 106 Review..................... 269

Appendix J. RUS Guidance and Exhibits for Project-Level Tiered Compliance ......... 274
Acronyms

6

Acronyms

3G Third generation of telephone technology

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AGL Above Ground Level

AM Amplitude Modulation, the modulation of a wave by varying its

amplitude, used chiefly as a means of radio broadcasting, in which an

audio signal is combined with a carrier wave. Often contrasted with

frequency modulation.

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APE Area of Potential Effect

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

ASR Antenna Structure Registration Program

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BIR The Bioinitiative Report: A Rationale for biologically-based Exposure

Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation (2012;

http://www.bioinitiative.org/)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice (protective measures for reducing or

avoiding adverse impacts)

BMUB The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature

Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety

BPL Broadband over Power Line

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CAA Clean Air Act

CDE Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalence

CPE Customer Premise Equipment

CX Categorical Exclusion

dBA deciBel A weighted; a measurement of sound pressure (noise)

DECT Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications

DLT Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material present in nearly all

living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes.

DOT Department of Transportation
Acronyms

7

DSL Digital Subscriber Line, a technology for the high-speed transmission of

digital information over standard telephone lines.

EA Environmental Assessment

EEG Electroencephalography

EHS Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

EIRP Equivalent (or, alternatively, “effective”) isotropically radiated power, is

the amount of power that a theoretical isotropic antenna (an antenna

which emits radio waves equally in all directions) would emit to produce

the peak power density observed in the direction of maximum antenna

gain. “Maximum antenna gain” is a measure of antenna efficiency in

terms of how well the antenna transforms the inputted power into radio

waves emitted in a particular direction.

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice (short for Executive Order 12898 “Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations” 2/11/1994)

EMF Electric and Magnetic Frequency, abbreviated to “Electromagnetic

Frequency”, both having the acronym “EMF”

ENG Monograph published by the United Nations World Health Organization

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Non-Ionizing

Radiation Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Vol. 102.

Published 2013, based on the working group meeting in Lyons France

in 2011. (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102-

F01-F02.pdf). 

EO Executive Order of the President of the U.S.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ER RUS Environmental Report

ERP Effective radiated power

ERR RUS Environmental Review Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

Ex U/G Existing Underground

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GHz Gigahertz, a measure of frequency equivalent to one thousand million

(109) cycles per second.

GIS Geographic Information System

GSM Global System (or Standard) for Mobile, a standardized international

system for digital mobile telecommunication.
Acronyms

8

GWP Global Warming Potential

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HF High Frequency

IARC International Radiation Protection Association

ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IMH Israel Ministry of Health

IPaC Information, Planning and Conservation, a USFWS data system website

for conducting informal Section 7 consultation per the Endangered

Species Act and obtaining information about listed species. The site is

also integrating appropriate mitigation for specific types of actions.

IRPA International Radiation Protection Association

IRU Indefeasible Right to Use

L-810 A class of red obstruction lighting

LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan of the USDA Forest Service

LV Low voltage

Mbps Million bits per second, a term used in describing speed of computing

operations.

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MHz Megahertz, one million hertz, a measure of the frequency of radio

transmissions or the clock speed of a computer.

MPE Maximum permissible exposure

MV Megavolt, a unit of electromotive force equal to one million volts.

N20 Nitrous Oxide

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESC National Electric Safety Code

NHO Native Hawaiian Organization

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NISC National Invasive Species Council

NIR Non-ionizing radiation

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx Nitrogen Oxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NWP Nationwide Permit

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

NZMH New Zealand Ministry of Health
Acronyms

9

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Programmatic Agreement (NHPA)

PCCA Power and Communication Contractors Association

PCS Personal communications services

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PEL OSHA’s permissible exposure limit for noise

POC Point of Contact

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

RD Rural Development, a mission area in the Department of Agriculture

RF Radio frequency

RFR Radiofrequency radiation

RFI Request for Information

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act

RLS Restricted Lit Service, a restricted bandwidth lease

RMP Resource Management Plan of the BLM

ROW Right-of-way

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SAH Service Area Hubs

SBI State Broadband Initiative of NTIA

SCN Suprachiasmatic nucleus, a small group of brain cells located in the

hypothalamus that controls the circadian cycles and influences many

physiological and behavioral rhythms occurring over a 24-hour period,

including the sleep/wake cycle.

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SOP Standard Operating Procedures (protective measures routinely

incorporated into design)

STL Studio-to-transmitter broadcasting

STM Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Clean Water Act)

TCNS Tower Construction Notification System of the FCC

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USA U.S. Army

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USAF U.S. Air Force

U.S.C. U.S. Code of Laws of the United States of America

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

USN U.S. Navy

WHO World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations,
Acronyms

10

established in 1948 to promote health and control communicable

diseases worldwide

WHSRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network

Wi-Fi A facility allowing computers, smartphones, or other devices to connect

to the Internet or communicate with one another wirelessly within a

particular area. 

WLAN Wireless Local Area Network

WoUS Waters of the United States, as defined in the regulations implementing

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

WS Abbreviation for the US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services (USDA APHIS WS)

μW/cm2 Micro watts per square centimeter
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

11

1 Purpose and Need 

1.1 Why RUS is Preparing this Programmatic Environmental Assessment

(PEA)

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an agency within the Rural Development (RD)

mission area of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The overall mission of RUS

is to work with and provide financial assistance to rural cooperatives, nonprofit

associations, public bodies, and other eligible applicants to expand and keep utilityrelated technology and facilities up-to-date, and to help establish new and vital services

for water/wastewater, electricity, and telecommunications. The public-private

partnership between RUS and these industries results in billions of dollars in rural

infrastructure development and creates thousands of jobs for the American economy

(RUS 2013). 

Beginning with rural electrification in 1935, RUS has provided financial support for

deployment and expansion of utility systems in rural America. Since the mid-2000s, the

RUS mission has included support for broadband infrastructure in rural areas and is

consistent with recent increases in the federal emphasis and funding for providing costeffective and rapid broadband to rural communities, schools, hospitals, libraries, and for

other purposes related to economic development and quality of life.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other applicable

environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders (EO), RUS must evaluate the

environmental impact of the approval of financial assistance to qualified applicants who

submit project proposals within eligible service areas. RUS evaluates documentation

prepared by applicants in the form of an environmental report (ER) or questionnaire and

uses it to assist the agency in completing its NEPA requirements. RUS requires its

applicants to comply with all pertinent laws and regulations and obtain necessary

permits. Because the agency finds that these types of projects typically have few, if

any, adverse impacts, RUS complies with NEPA procedures primarily through agencywide categorical exclusions (CXs; Appendix B).

RUS finds that most projects submitted for financing through the agency’s

Telecommunications Program use similar construction technologies and methods. RUS

reasons that a broad planning and environmental review in a program-level

environmental assessment for these types of projects would provide consistent

information and analyses for applicant project design and RUS decision-making and

would greatly reduce processing time and costs for both the agency and its applicants

seeking financial assistance for broadband projects in rural environments. 
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

12

When projects are similar to each other in both actions and impacts, the regulations

implementing NEPA at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 (the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations) encourage federal agencies to consider evaluating impacts of the

common actions and project elements in a programmatic manner. The agencies can

then use program-level analyses and decisions to establish the boundaries for the

analyses and decisions of subsequent project-level decisions, thus avoiding repetition

and delay. This step-wise process of analysis and decision-making is called tiering (40

CFR §§1500.4(i), 1502.4, 1502.20, and 1502.28; Chapter 4 of this PEA). RUS will use

tiered decision-making to reduce the amount and types of information and analysis

needed for project-level NEPA compliance prepared by applicants. Tiering and the

PEA’s relationship to project-level environmental review and decision-making are

discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

In addition to the evaluation of program impacts, especially cumulative impacts, and

expediting environmental reviews and program coordination by the RUS

Telecommunications Program, this PEA provides valuable information to aid RUS staff

and applicants.

This PEA has four objectives:

• Expedite the deployment and expansion of broadband infrastructure in rural

communities by the RUS Telecommunications Program consistent with EO

13604;

• Save RUS and applicants substantial time, resources, and funds;

• Ensure consistent and accurate environmental evaluation of broadband projects;

and

• Avoid unnecessary duplication and repetition to ensure that broadband projects

financially supported by RUS are consistently and efficiently planned and

evaluated.

1.2 Contents of this PEA

This PEA describes the types of actions and technologies typically financed by the RUS

Telecommunications Programs for broadband. Associated broadband technologies are

described in Chapter 2 and their direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts appropriate for

evaluation at the programmatic level are evaluated in Chapter 3. Examples of impacts

evaluated in this PEA include greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of

communication towers on migratory birds. Although the PEA provides helpful

background information for understanding resource impacts and regulatory processes,

site-specific impacts particular to a specific project (such as impacts to protected

species or cultural resources) are deferred to project-level evaluation. The process for

tiering to this PEA for site-specific projects is discussed in Chapter 4.
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

13

This PEA:

• Provides discussion of the need for broadband infrastructure projects typically

submitted to the RUS Telecommunications Program for financial support

(Chapter 1);

• Describes the types of actions and technologies typically involved RUSsupported broadband projects (Chapter 2);

• Describes the monitoring and operational procedures pertinent to RUS-supported

broadband projects (Chapter 2);

• Provides useful background information and regulatory processes for each

applicable natural resource, and evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative

impacts associated with those actions that can be readily evaluated at a

programmatic (not site-specific) level (Chapter 3);

• Includes programmatic-level recommendations for mitigation measures for sitespecific application to projects, and refinement, as appropriate, for conditions and

resources evaluated in site-specific project reviews (Section 3.14);

• Summarizes pertinent information regarding compliance with important laws and

Executive Orders that may be applicable to specific broadband proposals

(Appendix A);

• Displays the relevant RUS NEPA regulations and categorical exclusions

applicable to broadband projects (Appendix B);

• Displays applicable NEPA regulations, including relevant categorical exclusions,

for US Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),

National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National

Telecommunications and Information Administration First Responder Authority

(FirstNet), and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) (Appendix C). Presentation of

these agency regulations is intended to help applicants understand the

processes and requirements of these agencies and facilitate obtaining needed

land use authorizations per EO 13604 (Improving Performance of Federal

Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects);

• Identifies key portions of USFS, BLM, BIA, and USFWS regulations regarding

processes for obtaining land use authorizations to help applicants understand the

requirements of these agencies and to assist applicants in obtaining land use

authorizations (Appendix D);
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

14

• Provides information about state environmental policy laws, and contact

information for US territories and commonwealths within which the RUS

Telecommunications Program operates (Appendix E);

• Includes a detailed report documenting the results of extensive interviews with

stakeholders from the federal government, applicants, applicant contractors, and

industry organizations (Appendix F);

• Presents links to and descriptions of helpful environmental databases (Appendix

G);

• Provides guidelines issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for

minimizing adverse impacts of communications towers to migratory birds

(Appendix H);

• Includes helpful documents for compliance with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; Appendix I); and

• Provides RUS forms for tiering to this PEA and considering effects of projects

(Appendix J).

1.3 Benefits of Broadband Services in Rural America

Broadband infrastructure consists of fiber, cable, and wire connections deployed 

underground or on poles, oftentimes existing poles, as well as wireless equipment 

mounted on or in towers, buildings, or other structures, including transmission and 

reception equipment and facilities. This infrastructure provides the backbone for 

connections to the internet, wireless telephone, smartphones, and other 

telecommunication equipment. Society’s increasing reliance on web-based 

technologies has in turn increased capacity demands on the broadband network.

Nationwide, there is significant public and private interest and investment in the 

expansion of broadband networks and capabilities. From 1996 to 2011, overall 

spending by telecommunications companies on broadband networks was nearly $1.2 

trillion. Public investment in expansion projects is evident in many states, local areas, 

and at the national level. 

Due primarily to commercial enterprises and companies, the United States has become 

a global leader in the deployment of broadband services. Today, more than 95% of the 

U.S. population has access to robust and diverse wired broadband infrastructure, 

including fiber to the home, cable and DSL, capable of supporting average download 

speeds of 4 Mbps (megabytes per second). 

Although progress in the expansion of broadband deployment is considerable, areas of

the country continue to be underserved or even without service. These areas are

primarily rural and may be seen as less profitable for service expansion and/or may be
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

15

economically depressed, with many households potentially unable to afford an internet

connection. 

A robust broadband infrastructure connects people, businesses, and institutions in

underserved rural areas and provides a strong economic development incentive for

quality public educational opportunities, professional medical care, efficient first

responder communication, and business opportunities.

Expanding access and upgrading services into rural areas requires installation of new

broadband infrastructure. Federal departments and agencies are critical to the

deployment of broadband infrastructure and have a significant opportunity to help

expand broadband infrastructure for supporting and improving the economic and social

quality of life in rural America (USDOT FHWA August 2013). 

1.4 Federal Support for Broadband for Rural America

The federal government has long recognized the importance of utilities such as

electricity, telephone, and internet service to residents, companies, and public facilities

in rural areas, especially when commercial companies may not be readily interested in

providing such services. 

The mission of RD is to improve the quality of life and the economies of rural America. 

RD provides financial support, through loans, grants, and loan guarantees to support

essential services such as housing, economic development, health care, first responder

services, and water, electric, and communications services, such as broadband

telecommunications services (http://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/mission-history).

The Telecommunications Program of the Rural Utilities Service focuses on loans,

grants, and loan guarantees for utilities, including deploying and expanding

telecommunications services. These programs are intended to revitalize rural

communities through a variety of infrastructure improvements, and create sustainable

opportunities for wealth, new jobs, and increased economic activities in rural America

(www.rurdev.gov). 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 directed $7.2 billion

toward increasing broadband deployment in underserved and rural areas. A portion of

this supported RUS in facilitating the deployment of broadband into rural areas. 

In January 2015, the federal government began a further press for universal access to

broadband high-speed internet across the U.S., especially in rural areas and small to

moderate sized communities. In seeking to expand broadband networks, the federal

government would provide financial and technical assistance to local governments

seeking to improve internet services for their residents. 
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

16

1.5 RUS Programs for Supporting Deployment of Broadband into Rural

Areas

Since 1998, RUS has approved and obligated funds for 578 project loans in the

Telecommunications Program, totaling approximately $8.21 billion (RUS 2009). 

RUS has four programs within its Telecommunications Program that support

deployment of rural broadband access. These programs are included in the scope of

analyses of this PEA and are summarized below.

1.5.1 RUS Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program

This program furnishes loans and loan guarantees to provide funding for the costs of

construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities (not including acquisition of rightsof-way) and equipment to provide service at the broadband lending speed in eligible

rural areas. The broadband lending speed is the minimum bandwidth requirement, as

published by RUS in the Federal Register, by which an applicant must propose to

deliver to every customer in order for RUS to consider a broadband loan. The goal of

the Broadband Loan Program is to ensure that rural consumers enjoy the same quality

and range of services that are available in urban and suburban communities. This

Program aims to lend to entities capable of repaying its loans and that plan to offer

service at a level that keeps pace with technological innovations while meeting the

demands of customers in rural America.

1.5.2 Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program

The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program, supported through

appropriations and requirements provided in USDA Farm Bills (most recently, February

2014), makes long-term direct and guaranteed loans to qualified entities for the purpose

of financing the improvement, expansion, construction, acquisition, and operation of

telephone lines, facilities, or systems, including broadband, to furnish and improve

telecommunications services in rural areas. All facilities financed must be capable of

supporting broadband services at the lending speed. 

The primary goal is to make adequate telephone and telecommunications service

available to the widest practical number of subscribers during the life of the loan, with

the borrower seeking to provide service to all interested potential subscribers in the

service area. Both the nature of the service area and the cost per subscriber must be

considered. However, borrowers are not required to extend service in situations where

costs would be prohibitive (see 7 CFR part 1735). 

Loan funds may be used to finance telecommunications services servicing rural areas

for new construction, improvements, expansions, certain acquisitions, and refinancing of

certain loans from non-RUS lenders. 
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

17

1.5.3 Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program (DLT)

The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program is specifically designed to

assist rural communities in acquiring distance learning and telemedicine technologies

so that local teachers and medical service providers can link to other teachers, medical

professionals, and other needed expertise located at distances too far to access

otherwise. 

The intent of the DLT program is to benefit rural areas as defined by the number of

residents. The definition of “end user” per the regulations (see 7 CFR part 1703

Subparts D through G) includes rural educational facilities and institutions such as

schools, libraries, and training centers with direct real-live-time video connection

between teacher and student. Also included are rural medical facilities such as

hospitals, primary care centers, or other rural community facilities with direct real-time

video connection between the medical provider/specialist and patient. 

Distance learning, as defined by the regulations, emphasizes the connection of students

and teachers at remote sites, implying that the project must incorporate a curriculum

with measurable results delivered via telecommunications. Telemedicine is defined by

the regulations as involving the delivery of medical care from medical professionals at

one site to patients and their medical professionals at other sites via

telecommunications, reflecting some benefit to rural residents either in reduced travel

time or access to services not otherwise available locally. 

1.5.4 Community-Oriented Connectivity Broadband Grant Program

The Community-Oriented Connectivity Broadband Grant Program (Community Connect

Grant Program) is designed to provide financial assistance for telecommunications

service at the RUS-specified internet speeds in rural, economically disadvantaged

communities where broadband service does not currently exist. This program was

initiated in 2002 as a Pilot Program for two years; it was formally implemented in 2004. 

The main purpose is the construction of broadband facilities in areas where no

broadband exists, with a secondary benefit of providing for a community center that

provides free broadband service to all critical community facilities in the proposed

funded service area for a two-year period. This program is operated under the authority

of 7 CFR part 1739 (RUS 2013).

Grants are awarded on a competitive basis for entities to serve all premises in eligible

rural areas to ensure rural consumers enjoy the same quality and range of broadband

services as is available in urban and suburban communities. 
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

18

1.6 NEPA and RUS Decision-making in the Telecommunications Program

for Broadband

1.6.1 Purposes of NEPA

NEPA requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations into

agency planning and decision-making, with appropriate public and agency involvement,

and to make informed decisions that meet the agency need while investigating

alternative ways to minimize or avoid predicted adverse environmental impacts. 

NEPA is a procedural law - it does not require federal agencies to actually select the

alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. It does require that federal agencies

be informed of such alternatives or measures and consider them when making

decisions, along with other factors such as cost, agency policy, decisions made

previously, court decisions, and other preferences. 

Ultimately, the intent of NEPA is that federal agencies make decisions that are fully

informed with environmental and other information and analyses relevant to the

decisions. Information may be provided by agencies and entities with scientific

expertise or jurisdiction by law, and interested and/or affected agencies, entities,

communities, and citizens. Agencies then seek to make decisions that effectively meet

the need they are pursuing while minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

The purpose of NEPA documents (Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and

Environmental Assessments (EAs)) is to ensure that the results of agency planning,

including alternative ways to meet the need, are presented clearly and in writing to the

agency decision-maker and the public before the decisions are made. 

The primary decision resulting from an EA is either the determination to prepare an EIS,

if the analysis identifies the potential for significant impacts, or to not prepare an EIS

because the analysis shows no significant impacts. The rationale for not preparing an

EIS based on an EA is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The

EA also contributes to decision-making for the project or program through considering

and analyzing, when appropriate, alternative ways of meeting the need that would

reduce or change the level of associated adverse impacts. 

Actions that have been identified by the agency as having little risk for adverse impacts

such that no EIS or EA is needed are called “categorically excluded actions”

(categorical exclusions; CXs). A categorical exclusion documents the description of the

proposed action and location, the agency’s category within which the proposed action is

consistent, and the reasons why the proposed action would have minimal to no adverse

impacts.
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

19

1.6.2 NEPA Documents and Public Involvement

To promote well-informed agency decision-making, NEPA procedures require federal

agencies, consistent with applicable law and agency policy, to conduct their planning

and decision-making processes with appropriate public involvement. Public and agency

comments contribute to better planning and more informed decisions. The type of

document (EIS, EA, or CX) the agency prepares depends on the potential level of

impacts associated with the project or program. Projects or programs having the

potential for significant impacts require the most robust and formalized opportunities for

involvement and comment associated with EISs. The level of public involvement for

EAs is discretionary to agency policy, as long as the Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) is made public. Those projects or programs with the potential for very few to

no significant impacts (categorically excluded actions) typically have little to no public

involvement and comment, depending on agency policy. 

The NEPA procedures describing appropriate level of documentation, processes for

each type of documentation, and commensurate public involvement are in the CEQ

Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and are applicable to all federal agencies. 

However, each agency must develop and implement its own procedures or regulations

to supplement and further define the procedures required by the CEQ Regulations, as

described below. 

1.6.3 RUS NEPA Procedures

The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §1507.3 recognize that agencies have different

missions, decision-making processes, and types of actions. Therefore, the CEQ

regulations require every agency to develop NEPA procedures that supplement and are

consistent with the CEQ regulations so that NEPA “is an important contribution to the

decision-making process” for each agency (40 CFR §§1507.3 and 1502.5). 

The current RUS NEPA procedures are at 7 CFR part 1794, “Environmental Policies

and Procedures.” The key sections pertinent to evaluating applications for broadband

deployment are in Appendix B.

RD proposed a draft revision to its NEPA procedures at 7 CFR part 1794 in regulations

that would apply to all Rural Development agencies (including RUS), located at 7 CFR

part 1970 (also entitled “Environmental Policies and Procedures”). RD published these

draft regulations for comment in the Federal Register on February 4, 2014 (79 FR 6739-

6794; comment closed on May 7, 2014). RD anticipates finalizing the proposed

regulations by publication of a final rulemaking in the Federal Register. These proposed

regulations at 7 CFR part 1970 would replace those at 7 CFR part §1794 upon

publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

20

1.6.4 Programmatic Decision-making and Tiering

When a federal agency knows that projects within a program, including programs that

provide funding to applicants, would have similar implementation, construction, and/or

application and that many of the impacts may be similar considering the project’s

location and conditions, the agency may choose to combine the common elements of

the projects into an evaluation of impacts at the program level. Programmatic planning

and decision-making that uses a step-wise approach, called “tiering,” is encouraged by

the CEQ regulations (40 CFR §§1500.4(i), 1502.4, 1502.20, and 1502.28). 

Programmatic decision-making avoids repeating planning steps and documentation that

can occur when decisions are made solely on a project-by-project basis, and provides

the opportunity to evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of the program.

The CEQ regulations state:

“When a PEA or PEIS has been prepared and an action is one anticipated in,

consistent with, and sufficiently explored within the programmatic NEPA review,

the agency need only summarize the issues explored in the broader statement

and incorporate discussion from the broader statement by reference and

concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent tiered proposal” (40 CFR

§1502.20).” 

The CEQ issued final guidance on the use of programmatic NEPA documents and

tiered decision-making on December 18, 2014, entitled “Effective use of Programmatic

NEPA Reviews.” The guidance states:

“Programmatic NEPA reviews add value and efficiency to the decision-making

process when they inform the scope of decisions and subsequent tiered NEPA

reviews. Programmatic NEPA reviews can facilitate decisions on agency actions

that precede site-specific or project-specific decisions and actions, such as

mitigation alternatives or commitments for subsequent actions, or narrowing of

future alternatives. They also provide information and analyses that can be

incorporated by reference in future NEPA reviews. Programmatic NEPA review

may help an agency look at a large or multi-faceted action without becoming

immersed in all the details of future site- or project-specific proposals...Using

programmatic and subsequent tiered NEPA reviews effectively allows for a

focused review at the proper level...CEQ recommends agencies give particular

consideration to preparing a PEA or PEIS when... (3) making decisions on

‘common elements or aspects of a series or suite of closely related projects’.”

RUS encourages the use of programmatic documents and tiered decision-making (see

7 CFR §1794.16):
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

21

“It is the policy of RUS to prepare programmatic level analysis in order to tier

an... EA where (a) it is practicable; and (b) there will be a reduction of delay and

paperwork, or where better decision making will be fostered.” 

Projects typically funded by RUS within the Telecommunications Program have many

similarities, including the environmental conditions where each project would be

constructed. Almost all broadband projects use similar types of installation and

implementation actions standard to the industry and RUS requirements, with the

technologies selected based on the type of project and site-specific conditions. These

technologies are described in detail in Chapter 2. Considering the impacts of these

types of technologies and projects at a program level rather than repeatedly at a

project-by-project level is a logical and efficient approach for the RUS

Telecommunications Program. 

The process for using this PEA in support of project-level NEPA compliance is

described in Chapter 4.

1.7 Scope of Analysis and Decisions

1.7.1 RUS Programmatic Decisions to be Made Based on this PEA

This PEA provides the analyses necessary for RUS to make the decision on whether or

not the cumulative impacts associated with the Telecommunications Program deploying

broadband to rural communities at the programmatic level would have the potential for

significant impacts (40 CFR §1508.27). This analysis would also support RUS making

certain preliminary decisions concerning the obligation of funds and approval of interim

financing requests through a tiered NEPA process described in Chapter 4. The

obligation of funds or approval of interim financing requests would occur prior to the

completion of certain site-specific analyses for which complete data and design criteria

are often unavailable at the time. The ability to make these obligations or approvals

enables applicants to more readily move forward to fully complete planning and design

and thus appropriately conduct the remaining environmental analyses. It should be

noted that RUS possesses the ability to de-obligate funds if all environmental conditions

are not met. Actual release of funds and any construction cannot proceed prior to all

environmental review requirements having been met, thus avoiding an irreversible or

irretrievable commitment of resources and comporting with the provisions of 40 CFR

§1506.1.

RUS and its applicants may use the programmatic analyses, mitigation, and information

within this PEA to frame project analyses, select applicable mitigation, and conduct the

necessary compliance with laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) specific to the conditions

of the proposed project area.
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

22

This PEA provides the basis for only RUS decision-making. Agencies such as the US

Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA), and National Park Service (NPS) that may be requested to authorize land use

under their authority are obligated to comply with all applicable laws and regulations,

including NEPA (see Appendix C for their pertinent NEPA regulations including

categorical exclusions and Appendix D for key sections of agency land use

authorization regulations).

1.7.2 Scope of Actions included in this PEA 

This PEA includes the analysis of various actions for deploying fiber optic cable for

broadband, including in-ground and aerial installation, as well as cell and microwave

towers for wireless broadband. It also includes ancillary actions, such as placement of

small metal cabinets for holding associated electrical equipment and construction of

handholes for accessing, maintaining, and replacing underground cable infrastructure. 

To the extent that the construction of buildings, such as headquarters, may be funded

by RUS, these are included as appropriate, recognizing that site-specific analysis is

necessary for associated parking and utilities, or other connected project elements. 

1.7.3 Rationale Regarding Not Considering Alternative Technologies in this PEA 

This section describes the rationale for eliminating the consideration of action

alternatives other than the described industry-standard technologies used by applicants

in the current RUS Telecommunications Program. These technologies are described in

Chapter 2.

Per 40 CFR §§1501.4(b,c) and 1508.9, the primary purpose of an EA is to “briefly

provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an

environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.” The consideration

of alternatives in environmental assessments is necessary only for a project or program

“which involves unresolved conflicts regarding alternative uses of available resources”

(Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, 40 CFR §1508.9(b), and pertinent federal court precedent). 

RUS regulations at 7 CFR §1794.12 state: 

“In determining what are reasonable alternatives, RUS considers a number of

factors. These factors may include, but are not limited to, the proposed action’s

size and scope, state of the technology, economic considerations, legal and

socioeconomic concerns, availability of resources, and the timeframe in which

the identified need must be fulfilled.”

The CEQ, in its 40 Most Asked Questions (1981; http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/GCEQ-40Questions.pdf) regarding the consideration of the “no action” alternative for

project- and programmatic-level NEPA reviews states: 
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

23

“There are two distinct interpretations of “no action” that must be considered,

depending on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. The first situation

might involve an action such as updating a land management plan where

ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will

continue, even as new plans are developed. In these cases ‘no action’ is ‘no

change’ from current management direction or level of management intensity.

To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a

useless academic exercise. Therefore, the ‘no action’ alternative may be thought

of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is

changed. Consequently, projected impacts of alternative management schemes

would be compared in the [NEPA document] to those impacts projected for the

existing plan. In this case, alternatives would include management plans of both

greater and lesser intensity, especially greater and lesser levels of resource

development.

“The second interpretation of ‘no action’ is illustrated in instances involving

federal decisions on proposals for projects. ‘No action’ in such cases would

mean the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting environmental

effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects of permitting the

proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward...

“In situations where there is an existing program, plan, or policy, CEQ expects

that the no-action alternative ...would typically be the continuation of the present

course of action until a new program, plan or policy is developed and decided

upon.”

As this is a programmatic EA, the definition of the “no action” alternative falls under the

first category, where the “no action” alternative is the current RUS Telecommunications

Program as described in Chapter 2. As the RUS program has been in existence for

many years, the no action alternative is the current program. RUS is continuing the

current program using current industry-standard technologies; therefore, the current

program is both the “no action” and the “proposed action” alternative. 

The current Telecommunications Program is equivalent to the “no action” alternative

and the proposed action per the CEQ regulations and “40 Questions” guidance and

RUS regulations, considering that:

• The actions described in Chapter 2 are currently standard to the industry and are

generally environmentally protective;

• RUS does not foresee applicants proposing actions other than those described,

nor did any applicants indicate the use of other technologies during the

stakeholder interviews (Section 1.10, Appendix F);
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

24

• The majority of RUS-supported telecommunications projects are categorically

excluded from preparation of an EA or EIS, indicating that environmental impacts

are typically not significant (see Section 1.9 below); and

• There are no known “unresolved conflicts regarding alternative uses of available

resources” per NEPA Section 102(2)(E). Almost all program actions occur within

already-disturbed rights-of-way and/or on existing infrastructure, resulting in a

minimal risk of adverse impacts that could not be mitigated during project

planning. The majority of towers are less than 200 feet tall. Most new buildings

are also relatively small and/or sited within developed areas, such as business

areas of a town. Any project-level actions that may have the potential for

significant impacts would be evaluated as such during project evaluation. 

RUS has, therefore, determined that additional alternatives are not necessary or useful

for this PEA and that the current RUS Telecommunications Program and its associated

technologies and methods of deployment as evaluated in this PEA serve as both the

“no action” alternative and the proposed action. 

1.7.4 Geographic Scope of this PEA

The PEA analyzes the potential impacts of proposed broadband projects that meet RUS

Telecommunications Program requirements in all 50 states within the United States

borders and the following U.S. territories and commonwealths likely to benefit from

broadband services:

• Puerto Rico, a commonwealth in political union with the United States;

• U.S. Virgin Islands, an unincorporated territory of the United States;

• American Samoa, an unincorporated territory under the jurisdiction of the United

States;

• Guam, an unincorporated territory of the United States; and;

• Northern Mariana Islands, a former trust territory and now a commonwealth in

political union with the United States.

Appendix E identifies states with environmental policy laws and information regarding

applicable environmental compliance requirements for the five U.S. commonwealths

and territories. 

1.7.5 Temporal Scope of this PEA

This PEA has no termination date. Program expansions and changes in technologies

may require supplementing the PEA if the program or technology changes may result in

changes to impacts as evaluated herein. As long as individual projects are conducted
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

25

as described in Chapter 2 and the potential impacts associated with implementation

remain within the range of impacts as identified in Chapter 3, this PEA remains current.

1.8 Processes for Supplementing this PEA

The purpose of supplementing an existing NEPA document per 40 CFR §1502.9(c) is to

make necessary revisions or corrections while retaining portions of the document that

are still relevant, valid, and correct. The CEQ regulations state that a document only

needs supplementation under the following conditions:

• The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that would cause

different environmental impacts than those analyzed in the NEPA document; or

• There are significant new circumstances or information (including new

technologies or mitigation) that would have different impacts or need different

mitigation than those evaluated in the NEPA document.

RUS also may supplement the PEA when it determines that it would be helpful for its

decision-making. 

This PEA may need supplementation in the future for any of the following reasons in

order to keep it valid and correct, recognizing that any specific changes or revisions in a

supplement do not necessarily affect the remaining information and analyses unless

specified:

• The RUS Telecommunications Program for broadband adds a new program(s),

drops or substantially modifies an existing program(s), or makes other changes

that would affect the analyses and decisions contained in the PEA;

• If one or more types of technologies proposed by the applicant are not described

and analyzed in the PEA, and that new technology might have different

environmental impacts than those analyzed. The new technology would be

added to Chapter 2 and its associated impacts analyzed in Chapter 3; or

• If new information indicates that an impact analysis in Chapter 3 is not correct or

valid so as to affect the decision that RUS made in the original PEA, including the

decision to prepare a FONSI instead of an EIS.

RUS will periodically evaluate this PEA and its associated decision document to ensure

that all legal requirements (statutes, regulations, executive orders, etc.), financing

programs, descriptions, technologies, information, mitigation, and analyses remain

current, complete, accurate, applicable, and valid. For any variations from this PEA,

RUS will either document its determination not to supplement the PEA because the

variations are not environmentally relevant and include its determination in the project

record, or revise or supplement the PEA as needed using appropriate NEPA

procedures.
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

26

1.9 Use of Categorical Exclusions for RUS Telecommunications Program

Project-Level Environmental Review

A categorical exclusion is a type of action that has been found by an agency to not have

significant impacts either for an individual project or cumulatively, unless site-specific

conditions occur that would increase the potential for significant impacts on resources

(extraordinary circumstances; 40 CFR §1508.4). Between 1999 and 2009, RUS has

financed or been involved in as many as 900 telecommunications projects, of which

RUS determined that three large underwater cable projects located in the Pacific Ocean

required EAs, with the remaining projects meeting the criteria for a categorical exclusion

per 7 CFR part 1794. EAs were also prepared for seven large land-based projects

normally meeting the criteria for a categorical exclusion, but requiring land use

authorizations in the formats requested by other federal agencies in Arizona and New

Mexico (US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and

the Bureau of Indian Affairs; RUS 2009). 

The majority of environmental issues raised by RUS broadband proposals are due to

the presence of and potential effects to historic properties, mostly archaeological sites,

and, to a lesser degree, listed plant and animal species. In many cases, project

proponents are able to reroute their construction activities to avoid sites and habitat and

therefore do not engender a finding of “adverse effect” under the NHPA Section 106 or

ESA Section 7 review processes. Because most broadband projects involve

underground placement or aerial attachment to existing structures located within

already disturbed road or electric line rights-of-way, very low risk exists for encountering

protected species or important historic properties. 

Environmental review of construction of new towers for wireless broadband systems is

coordinated with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau for projects licensed through FCC spectrum when

appropriate. Applicants submit the FCC’s New Tower Submission packet to a State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO),

as appropriate, before any construction or other ground-disturbing activities begin for

new towers.

With the enactment of ARRA, both NTIA and its FirstNet Program for First Responders

required development and approval of agency-specific lists of categorical exclusions. 

NTIA based its list on that of RUS in 7 CFR part 1974, and FirstNet based its list on the

approved NTIA list. Both NTIA and FirstNet determined that their categorically excluded

actions would not have significant impacts (NTIA April 2014). These categorical

exclusions are included in Appendix B.

The NTIA analysis substantiates and validates RUS’ predicted environmental effects

related to use of categorical exclusions and provides evidence that RUS’ two-tiered

approach to categorical exclusions (Appendix B) supports the integrity of RUS’
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

27

compliance with NEPA and its regulations. The two tiers of categorical exclusions that

RUS (and some other agencies) use involve, first, those types of actions that have such

a very low risk of adverse impacts that the use of that categorical exclusion does not

need to be documented. The second tier involves those types of actions that have a

higher potential of having some adverse impacts to some resources that RUS requires

documentation of why there would not be “extraordinary circumstances” or adverse

impacts. 

RUS’ requirements for categorical exclusions at 7 CFR §1794.21 (the first tier of

categorical exclusion) and §1794.22 (the second tier) and its internal review process for

applicants’ submittals (including either an Environmental Report or a documented

questionnaire; Appendix J) provides for a level of documentation and analysis that

ensures that no extraordinary circumstances related to potential environmental effects

exist for projects financially supported by RUS’ Telecommunications Program (RUS

2009). 

As the purpose of the RUS Telecommunication Program is to provide or guarantee

financing to relatively smaller broadband projects in rural areas, a project with the

potential for significant impacts that would require preparation of an EIS is very unlikely. 

Therefore, RUS expects that the majority of all proposed broadband projects submitted

under the telecommunications program would be readily tiered to this PEA using

categorically excluded actions. 

To assist applicants when requesting land use authorizations from federal agencies, the

following lists of relevant categorical exclusions, and key agency NEPA and other

regulations pertinent to land use authorizations for broadband projects for the following

agencies are found in Appendices C (NEPA) and D (land use authorization regulations):

• US Forest Service (USFS): NEPA and land use authorizations;

• Department of Interior: NEPA;

• Bureau of Land Management BLM): NEPA and land use authorizations;

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): NEPA and land use authorizations;

• National Park Service (NPS): NEPA;

• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Refuges: NEPA and land use

authorizations;

• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR): NEPA;

• US Army Corps of Engineers (Nationwide Permit 12): NEPA;

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): NEPA;

• US Air Force (USAF): NEPA;

• US Navy (USN): NEPA;

• US Army (USA): NEPA;

• National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA): NEPA; and
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

28

• FirstNet: NEPA.

1.10 Summary of PEA Scoping Comments

RUS published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register on November

28, 2014 for 60 days comment concerning the scoping of this PEA. 

RUS received several letters in response to the RFI. In addition, RUS conducted

detailed interviews of stakeholders, including representatives from eight agencies, two

industry groups, seven current and former program applicants, and nine consultants

and contractors working for program applicants, for a total of over 61 individual

interviewees. The RFI and the detailed report of the letters and interviews are

documented in Appendix F, and key findings are summarized here. 

1.10.1 Summary of Comments

The primary comments expressed by RUS applicants involve federal/state agency and

tribal government coordination. The comments did not focus on RUS environmental

and cultural compliance of this PEA directly, but on delays in the processes caused by

federal land management agencies responding to applications for land use

authorizations, with some concerns expressed about RUS processes. Many

stakeholders interviewed were pleased that RUS is preparing this PEA, and provided

helpful and detailed comments in support of this effort. 

Comments include:

• Long time periods needed for agencies to provide approvals and issue land use

authorizations for projects within existing rights-of-way and on existing poles, or

upgrades and maintenance of existing systems (typically from 2 to (in extreme

cases) up to 8 years);

• Excessive studies required for projects with minimal potential for adverse

environmental effects;

• Mitigation that does not add any additional level of environmental and cultural

resource protection;

• Federal agencies requiring the preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs)

when a Categorical Exclusion (CX) could be appropriate; and, if a CX is used,

agencies requiring the level of analysis, surveys, and studies typical of that for an

EA;

• Agencies acting independently from each other on the same project, with a lack

of a clearly-designated lead agency to assist applicants with the cross-agency

permitting and consultation processes;

• Agencies adding requirements and changing project design or location at the last

minute, even after the conclusion of pre-application meetings or after the
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

29

applicant has obtained approvals from others; these actions lead to delays,

require modification to existing permits, and force program applicants to lose

construction seasons and/or hire construction contractors at unreasonable rates;

and

• Applicants and their consultants/contractors are also very concerned with RUS

possibly requiring that all permits and authorizations be obtained prior to RUS

approval of financial assistance. Most permitting agencies will not accept an

application for consideration if financial support is not clear. 

The costs of delays and unnecessary design and mitigation requirements can make a

project no longer economically viable. Potential clients and customers may continue to

be unserved or underserved.

1.10.2 Comments Regarding Issues

The USFWS’ primary issues regarding installation of broadband infrastructure include:

impacts of towers on migratory birds (mortality to migratory birds from attraction to lights

causing collision with guy wires and potential ecological effects of electromagnetic

frequency radiation); spread of invasive species; impacts on listed species; and tree

removal during nesting season.

1.10.3 Comments Providing Recommendations

Commenters offered the following recommendations:

Design/Construction: Construction engineers request the opportunity to review of the 

entire length of a project to find “red flags” requiring design modification and to

recommend effective and cost-effective mitigation measures.

Training: Almost all interviewed entities expressed much interest for interagency

training in technologies and associated impacts, agency processes, ROW and land use

authorization regulations and processes, RUS loan design and environmental review

processes, and Section 106 processes.

Section 106 (NHPA): 

• Identify opportunities for Programmatic Agreements for loan packages, regional

infrastructure impacts, and the RUS nationwide telecommunications program to

both identify standard mitigation and levels of survey for various conditions.

• Identify opportunities for access to FCC e106 database by agencies and

applicants currently excluded, including just identifying that sites are present, not

types of sites and locations, to facilitate consultation with tribes.

• Program applicants and their consultants request that RUS bring company

representatives to tribal meetings for more positive and productive meetings.
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

30

RUS processes:

• Contractors request that RUS have contractor construction engineers conduct a

“constructability review” for feasibility, red flags, and design recommendations

early in the submittal process.

• Program applicants request RUS assistance in determining appropriate levels of

surveys and NEPA documentation early, perhaps pre-application.

• RUS needs to identify intra-department and inter-agency procedures for

managing environmental review, permitting, consultation, and approvals for the

entire project, with an assigned RUS environmental staff person for each project

to assist the applicant and provide early information on requirements and realistic

schedule timelines.

• RUS needs to provide templates and examples of letters and documentation

standards so that applicants can meet RUS expectations.

• RUS should allow loan package materials to be submitted digitally rather than by

hard copy.

• RUS should conduct only one comprehensive review of the loan application

package to determine if it is complete and, if not, what is needed to provide a

completed loan application; sometimes RUS has several consecutive requests.

• RUS should provide a list of agency contacts for a particular state or region.

Pre-application Meetings, Surveys, Agency Coordination:

• NPS and BIA should not require all locations to be recorded in metes and bounds

or township/range, but should allow for the use of GPS data. Surveyors are

extremely expensive and such data cannot be readily submitted to GPS

databases.

• RUS should waive the need for analysis of alternative routes and technologies

for new installation in existing transmission, distribution lines, or other disturbed

ROWs.

• RUS should accept existing environmental surveys, including environmental

justice (EJ) and historic structures, conducted within 5 or 10 years within the

same ROW/area. Require new surveys only for protected species, jurisdictional

wetlands, and archaeological sites. 

• Applicant’s consultants often must set up pre-application meetings and develop

streamlined processes with the agencies, or nothing will get done in a timely

manner.

• RUS national office staff and appropriate field office of the land management

agencies for a particular project should coordinate early so that the RUS
Ch. 1 Purpose and Need

31

environmental documentation can be prepared as acceptable to all agencies,

and information and resources can be expeditiously shared to reduce or

eliminate duplication of effort. 

• Applicants must often engage both the tribes and the BIA for project

consultations and permits.

• RUS and NTIA should maintain close working relationships on this PEA and

other related activities.

Permits:

• Agencies could issue 20 to 30-year terms for broadband project land use

authorizations.

Supplementing Agency Personnel:

• Applicants should hire consultants to prepare NEPA documents and conduct

surveys, if allowed by the agency field office; some field offices have experienced

consultants working in the agency office for support for NEPA and special use

permitting. 
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

32

2 Broadband Infrastructure Descriptions

This chapter provides a detailed description of installation and construction methods

and technologies for:

• Underground Placement - Fiber optic cables are placed in very strong and

durable conduit in more developed areas to minimize potential for damage;

• Buried Placement - Fiber optic cables are placed underground but in less robust

ductwork or conduit, or sometimes placed directly in the ground on a protective

bed;

• Aerial Cable Placement- Cables are strung on existing telecommunications or

electrical poles or transmission towers;

• Drops - Fiber optic cables are placed from the main line connecting to the user

facility, such as a residence or a library;

• Cell Towers and Microwave Towers - Antennas installed on new and collocated

on existing towers; and

• Ancillary Equipment and Support Buildings - Equipment necessary for supporting

the use of fiber optic cable for broadband operation, such as electrical cabinets

and buildings.

2.1 General Description of Broadband Technologies

Industry practice emphasizes locating new cable on suitable existing poles, on poles

directly adjacent to existing poles, or in previously disturbed rights-of-way and/or

construction easements. To ensure consistent quality of construction and minimal, if

any, impact to the environment, industry standards follow state and local regulatory

requirements and guidelines for permitting and construction practices. 

Applicants seeking RUS support are encouraged to use approved RUS and industry

construction and operation standards found in RUS Bulletins as listed below. The

revisions to RUS bulletins and the alphabetical subject index and numerical index of

current RUS telecommunications issuances are found in Informational Publication 300-

3 (10/28/10). 

The construction standards for broadband technologies are found in:

• RUS Bulletin 1753F-151: Specifications and Drawings for Construction of

Underground Plant (09/2001). This specification provides contractors,

engineers, and RUS borrowers with assembly unit descriptions, materials,
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

33

construction and installation, and drawings for underground plant associated with

RUS Form 515, Telecommunications System Construction Contract.

• RUS Bulletin 1753F-152: Specifications and Drawings for Construction of Aerial

Plant (09/2001). This specification provides contractors, engineers, and RUS

borrowers with assembly unit descriptions, materials, construction and

installation, and drawings for aerial plant associated with RUS Form 515,

Telecommunications System Construction Contract.

• RUS Bulletin 1753F-153: Specifications and Drawings for Service Installation at

Customer Access Locations (09/2001). This specification provides contractors,

engineers, and RUS borrowers with assembly unit descriptions, materials,

construction and installation, and drawings for service installations at customer

access locations associated with RUS Form 515, Telecommunications System

Construction Contract.

In addition, 7 CFR part 1753 defines the processes borrowers must use in applying for

and implementing projects within the RUS Telecommunications program, including:

• General and specific construction requirements for major and minor construction,

including building interiors and exteriors; and

• Standards for hiring architectural and engineering services.

RUS does not have a bulletin for tower construction. New fiber systems have an

average useful life of approximately 30 years. Existing underground and older copper

systems are generally not economically feasible to recover and therefore often

abandoned in place when they are no longer serviceable. Removal of obsolete

underground cables is generally only undertaken if required by the right-of-way

agreement.

Construction and cable installation as described below follow RUS bulletins and

regulations, industry standards, the National Electrical Safety Code, National Electrical

Code, and applicable federal, state, and local guidelines and regulations. Installation of

buried, underground, and aerial fiber optic cables typically occurs along existing

roadways and electric rights-of-way or other utility corridor. To obtain authorization to

use existing rights-of-way, applicants must secure the appropriate permits, land use

authorizations, and/or agreements from the landowner and/or the federal, state, or local

agency with jurisdiction. Prior to underground cable installation, utility companies must

be notified to enable them to mark locations of their existing facilities and avoid

damaging the cables or pipelines during underground installation of fiber optic cable. 

To avoid impacts to other utilities and sensitive environmental resources, installation of

aerial and underground cable may require modifications to cable routes, cable depths,

antenna heights, etc.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

34

2.2 Detailed Description of Underground Fiber Optic Cable and Conduit

Plant

Installation of new fiber optic cable or replacement of older copper wire or damaged

fiber optic cable involves burying the cable, placing the cable underground in either

conduit or protective bed, or attaching the cable to existing power or utility poles.

Service providers for residential and commercial customers may have access to

additional broadband capacity made available over rural broadband networks and

infrastructure owned by others. Additional capacity provides consumers with more

robust broadband services and maximizes consumer welfare, innovation, and

investment.

2.2.1 General Technology Descriptions

The fiber optic cable may be directly plowed into the soil or placed in a conduit or duct

to protect the cable from being damaged by future ground disturbance or by burrowing

rodents. Conduits may be PVC pipes or concrete casings. To avoid additional ground

disturbance, especially when other utility lines such as gas and electric are present in

the construction corridor, an additional conduit may be installed alongside the first for

future use.

The conduits are placed at a minimum depth of three to four feet throughout a project’s

alignment. Where the route crosses a drainage or intersects with a sensitive resource,

the conduit(s) is typically placed using directional boring at a depth necessary to minimize

surface disturbance (see Section 2.2.2.3 below for description of directional boring

procedures).

Existing copper cables are frequently replaced with fiber cables at the time of

installation of new cables. Vegetation clearing and minor grading is performed in areas

of dense vegetation or where the topography makes it difficult for equipment to operate

safely or effectively. However, this is often not necessary in or near maintained rightsof-way. 

Most buried cable placement parallels existing roads within rights-of-way or in existing

utility rights-of-way. Staging yards for project construction equipment and vehicles are

often located in previously developed areas in such a way as to protect the equipment

and vehicles from unauthorized use, damage, or theft. Frequently, existing roads are

used for entrance to and exit from a right-of-way corridor. Vehicles when not in use are

parked on the previously disturbed corridor or road shoulder and are often returned to

the designated staging yard after work hours. 

To ensure that traffic can pass with minimum delays and after coordination with the

appropriate transportation agency(ies), necessary traffic control measures and traffic

signaling are used for construction vehicles entering and exiting roads and for ensuring

that traffic flow is minimally impeded.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

35

RUS may require an independent project inspector. An inspector or monitor may be

present during project construction activities to ensure that acceptable engineering

standards and resource mitigation clauses are being met, especially for projects within

areas with sensitive resources, such as listed species, wetlands, or archaeological sites. 

Such inspectors or monitors are retained by the applicant on the project site as required

by the authorizing agencies. 

The sequence of construction for underground cable systems typically involves:

• Flagging and staking the right-of-way;

• Clearing and grading if necessary;

• Mobilization of conduit/fiber placement crews;

• Installation of the fiber optic cable and conduit, including needed directional

boring;

• Placement of right-of-way markers;

• Splice fiber optic cable system and test for functionality;

• Site cleanup and restoration concurrent with conduit and fiber placement;

• Place route markers;

• Operation and maintenance; and

• Ultimate replacement or abandonment.

Many types and models of equipment are used in placing underground fiber optic cable,

depending on project needs and site conditions. The following table lists representative

types of equipment designed to perform specific tasks. A particular project may use

some or all of the types and models of equipment listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Equipment Typically Used for Placement of Cable Underground.

TYPE QUANTITY

Typical Right-of-Way Preparation Equipment

Standard Pickup Truck 2

Bulldozer with Ripper Shank 1

Two-ton Truck with Chip Box 1

Chipper/Shredder 1

Misc. Small Power Tools, such as chainsaws Many

Typical Underground Fiber Optic Cable Placement

Standard Pickup Truck 2

Semi-Truck with Lowboy Trailer 1

Backhoe/Loader 1

Excavator 1

Cable Plow 1
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

36

Heavy-Duty Flatbed Truck 1

Cable Trailer 1

Typical Directional Boring Equipment

Standard Pickup Truck 1

Dump Truck/Trailer 1

Skid Steer Loader 1

Vacuum Locator System (ditch witch) 1

Compactor 1

Typical Clean-up/Restoration Equipment

Standard Pickup Truck 1

Heavy Duty Dump Truck/Trailer 1

Skid-Steer Loader 1

Backhoe/Loader 1

Vacuum Locator (ditch witch) System 1

Compactor 1

2.2.2 Placement of Underground Cable and Conduits

Depending on existing conditions, underground cable is typically placed 36 to 48 inches

deep within a utility corridor or public road right-of-way whenever possible. Four basic

methods are used for placement of fiber optic cable below-ground, depending on

existing conditions:

• Plowing;

• Trenching;

• Directional boring; and

• Rock trenching. 

2.2.2.1 Tractor and Vibratory Plowing

The tractor plow or vibratory plow is the preferred and cost-effective method for burying

line (Figures 2-1 through 2-4). Plowing uses tracked heavy equipment with a plow

capable of maintaining the intended depth of the conduit while causing minimum

displacement of the soil, although smaller vehicles may be used depending on local

conditions, especially in rural areas with soil having few rocks and obstructions.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

37

Figure 2-1. Diagram of a plow with attached reel for cable deployment.

The width of the plow point is two inches. Direct soil disturbance caused by the burial

plow on the machine is six to twelve inches wide (Figure 2-1), in addition to light surface

disturbance caused by the tracks of the equipment, which is approximately two to three

wide on either side of the vehicle (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). All soil and vegetation

disturbance is temporary, as the vegetation will either recover naturally or the site is

seeded with species consistent with the existing vegetation, such as lawn grasses, or

native species as appropriate (Section 3.14.1). The depth is typically three to four feet,

and up to six feet in areas where more protection is desired, such as washes, high

erosion areas, or areas with a particularly deep frost line. 

The plowing method of installation requires no trench and does not create an excavated

spoil pile; instead it lifts the soil and leaves a heaved-area on each side of the plow slot. 

There is no need for material excavation or imported soil to restore the slit. 

A reel of conduit is either loaded onto the plow or onto a truck directly behind the plow,

and as the plow moves forward, the conduit is fed into a chute, which directs the conduit

into the bottom of the slot opened by the plow. As the plow continues forward, the

excavated slot is immediately compacted back to ground level. 

After the conduits and cables are placed, the disturbed ground is restored using a roller

or by driving the equipment over each side of the plow rip to push it back to a level state

and to compact the disturbed soil. The ground is restored by using either the cable

plow itself, a second excavator used for pulling the plow, or a “cleanup” excavator

working behind the cable plow.

Transport vehicles are required to accompany the track plow, including a cable reel

truck, vehicles for transporting construction personnel, and a truck and trailer to

transport other equipment and supplies. 

Sometimes a vibratory plow (Figure 2-4) is used to break soil compaction, small rocks,

and other resistance. Use of the vibratory plow supplements needed pulling power,

allowing smaller placement equipment to be used.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

38

Figure 2-2. Plowing Method of Installation Source: The Fiber Optic Association

Figure 2-3. Plowing along a roadside. Source: Power and Communication Contractors Association
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

39

Figure 2-4. Vibratory plowing along a roadway. Source: Power and Communication Contractors

Association

2.2.2.2 Trenching, including Rock Trenching

Trenching is typically used in areas where the conduits cannot be placed to depth using

the plow method, such as in areas with rocky soils having large loose boulders. 

Trenching also occurs at handholes and tie-in locations where the conduit is joined

together or where conduit would need to be accessed in the future for maintenance or

upgrade.

Open trenching involves excavating a trench eight to twelve inches wide and three to

four feet deep using a backhoe or similar excavation equipment. The trench may

approach five feet in width in very rocky areas. In addition to the direct ground

disturbance from the trenching, the tracks on the vehicle also causes light disturbance. 

Typically, fiber optic cable is installed in conduits placed in the bottom of the trench or

rarely directly into the trench itself. As the equipment excavates ahead, the side cast

material is backfilled into the trench and the soil suitably compacted using an excavator

and/or skid-steer loaders and compacted with the excavated material.

In developed areas with existing roads or buildings, conduit and/or cable may be

installed by either directional boring (boring under the infrastructure rather than through

it) or by micro-trenching, if the infrastructure is a paved roadway. Directional boring is

described below. Micro-trenching uses special equipment to simultaneously cut a

narrow trench through asphalt to minimize damage to existing roads, typically 12-18

inches deep, while at the same time removing spoil using a vacuum system. Ground

disturbance when micro-trenching is limited to the width of the micro-trench in the

roadbed, typically two- to four-inches in width. After conduits are placed in the trench,
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

40

the excavation is filled with an environmentally safe grout that is resistant to shrinkage,

weathering, and erosion. After curing, asphalt mastic is applied on top of the grout-filled

trench to repair the road.

Rock trenching is used in conjunction with trenching or plowing in areas where

materials such as boulders or bedrock prevent the use of plowing or regular trenching,

and is similar to a trenching process conducted in soils. After the conduit and cable are

placed in the trench, the area is compacted to appropriate standards. If sawing through

large boulders or bedrock is required, the trench could be up to 12 inches wide and 4

feet deep, depending on the extent of rock. 

As is the case with the other construction techniques, trenching typically occurs within

previously disturbed public rights-of-way. 

2.2.2.3 Directional Boring and Bridge Attachment

Directional boring is a process where a hole is drilled under sensitive infrastructure or

resources, such as roads, underground utilities, waterways, wetlands, and cultural

resources. Directional boring uses guidance equipment to provide continuous and

accurate monitoring of the drill bit position to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts or

damage to the resource or infrastructure (Figures 2-5 through 2-7).

Figure 2-5. Directional Boring Method: Typical Waterway Cross-Section
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

41

Figure 2-6. Directional Boring Machine. Source: The Fiber Optic Association

To create a borehole, which is typically 4 to 6 inches in diameter, at the appropriate

depth, directional-boring uses a boring rig set outside of the sensitive area (such as on

the wash bank or edge of roadway) without disturbing the sensitive area or

infrastructure. The typical direct ground disturbance width is several inches, with light

ground disturbance caused by the tracks on the drill rig. Direct ground disturbance for

directional boring is limited to areas of entrance and exit for the boring head and the

location of the boring rig during the drilling. 

As directional boring is used to avoid obstacles and sensitive areas, the depth of

boreholes varies based on depth of the impediment or resource to be avoided.

Although bore lengths are generally less than 100 feet, they may be as long as

hundreds of feet depending on the length of the area to be avoided.

A bore is initiated with a bore pit, which allows the bore to occur at the proper depth. 

The operator who guides tunneling through the ground beneath the obstruction then

directs the boring head forward. As the head moves forward, 10-foot rod sections are

added to the boring rig to increase the length of the excavation as necessary. A watery

slurry mixture is introduced through the rods and bore to reduce soil compaction around

the boring head path. 

After the obstruction or sensitive resource is cleared, the boring head is directed toward

the ground surface on the other side of the impediment. When the boring head breaks
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

42

the surface on the other side, flexible High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) casing is

attached to the bore head and the head is then pulled back through the excavation,

pulling the casing into the excavation, creating a pathway through which the cable is

installed. 

Directional boring requires a boring rig, a cable reel truck, and transport vehicles for

personnel and other equipment and supplies. Handholes are installed below-grade

using small excavators to minimize soil disturbance. Bore pits are backfilled and, where

appropriate, compacted using hand tamps such as mechanical whackers or a

compaction attachment on a backhoe.

For crossings of existing buried pipelines, power lines, or telephone cables, if written

permission from the existing facility owners is obtained, the fiber optic cable can be

placed above the utility as long as the cable remains at least a 12 inches above the

buried utility. Otherwise, the cable/conduit is placed under the existing utilities using

directional boring to maintain a minimum 12-inch clearance.

Dry washes are plowed or bored as environmental factors allow and when determined

to be a jurisdictional wetland per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Conduit is placed

below culverts using directional boring, unless the existing facility owner requires the

use of another technology as recorded in written authorization.

Attaching cables to existing bridges may also be used as an alternative to directional

boring to avoid impacts to wetlands or streams. The number and locations where

bridge attachment would be used are determined at final design stages of project

development.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

43

Figure 2-7. Directional Boring in a sensitive area. Source: Power and Communication

Contractors Association

2.2.2.4 Buried Handholes

Handholes (Figure 2-8) are placed along new lines to provide future access to

underground cables without further ground disturbance, where cables are spliced

together and where cables separate from the main line, where cable slack for future

access is needed, or where aerial cables transition to or from underground placement. 

Existing lines already have handholes in place. Additional handholes are placed in-line

on existing conduit systems to facilitate cable pulling, to create additional access points

for lateral connections, and/or where a physical obstruction/transition requires a

modification in the cable string, such as a transition from buried conduit to a bridge or

pole attachment.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

44

Handholes are used for the following purposes and locations:

• Handholes are placed at fiber optic cable ends and/or intersections for splicing

and storing the splice case and slack. Reel lengths are approximately 20,000

feet - a maximum distance between handholes in rural areas. Often, there are

three to four handholes within these spans, averaging a handhole spacing of

5,000 feet;

• Handholes are placed at access points for future use. In more developed areas

where conduit is placed and fiber optic cable is subsequently pulled through it,

the spacing could be reduced to approximately 1,500 feet to provide more slack

storage and access locations in these high traffic areas; and

• Handholes are placed as pull locations in conduit runs where either the distance,

number of turns/bends, or a combination of both require a mid-assist point to pull

fiber optic cable into the conduit without excessive splice points. These

considerations may decrease the average spacing further in more developed

areas due to numerous potential street intersections, required deviations around

existing facilities, and changes in route direction to pass additional customer

sites.

Installation of handholes requires excavation of an area varying from one foot by one

foot to as large as three feet by five feet wide. A preformed polymer-concrete-metal box

is buried at ground level or slightly below the surface by as much as 12 inches. Buried

handholes are located using metal detectors. Installation is limited to digging directly

above the existing conduit in previously disturbed soil, accessing the conduit by cutting

out a section, and setting the new handhole directly over this access location. 

Once the project is completed, the handholes are accessed periodically for

maintenance or addition of new cable. Handholes are carefully located to avoid cultural

and other sensitive resources. 
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

45

Figure 2-8. A handhole in a suburban neighborhood. Source: Power and Communication

Contractors Association

2.2.2.5 Flagging and Staking the ROW and Placing ROW Markers

Prior to placement, the fiber cable route is staked to ensure construction remains within

the authorized limits of the long-term and temporary right-of-way areas by:

• Centerline staking to indicate the general area of placement for the proposed

conduits;

• Border staking to mark the boundary of the authorized limits of the long-term and

temporary right-of-way areas;

• Boring staking/flagging, if a directional bore is required;

• Staking/flagging to designate the limits of areas of concern that must be avoided;

and

• Staking/flagging to identify the location of handholes.

After conduit and cable are placed, right-of-way marker signs are installed along the

route near the centerline of the right-of-way. These markers are positioned at all

handhole locations, at changes in route directions, at substantial points of interest such

as changes in ROW widths, at route deviations to avoid sensitive resources, and at all

road/highway intersections.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

46

These markers are orange with black lettering, placed on a white post four to five feet

tall that is pounded directly into the ground with no excavation, and printed with a

warning indicating the presence of the buried fiber optic cable. The markers are spaced

within line-of-sight of one another. A brightly colored plastic tape is buried over the

cable and conduits in the trench with at least 12 inches of cover at the time of trench

backfill to warn anyone digging in the area of the fiber optic cable.

2.2.2.6 Site Clean-up and Restoration

Upon completion of construction or more typically, concurrent with project progress, the

soils in the right-of-way are immediately restored to reduce potential erosion and to the

extent possible reflect the original condition and conformance with the surrounding

landscape. All non-permanent materials and debris are removed from the site to

approved disposal locations. Vegetative debris that is not removed is chipped,

scattered, and left in place. Sensitive areas identified by the authorizing agencies are

seeded with native seed mix as specified by the authorizing agency.

Existing roads are reclaimed to their original state, or as near to the original state as

possible and as required by the appropriate transportation authority. Erosion control

along the roads includes compaction of the disturbed soils, use of seed slurry, planting

native seed, and/or the use of other best management practice and standard operating

procedures that are deemed necessary (Section 3.14). The installation company or

RUS awardee ensures that all gates and fences remain in their original condition, and

are repaired as necessary. If construction breaks or destroys a natural barrier or

existing fence used for livestock or wildlife control, gaps are temporarily fenced to

prevent animal passage. Each wire fence crossed by the alignment is braced and

secured to prevent slacking of the wire before cutting the wire for conduit installation. 

2.3 Placement of Aerial Cable

2.3.1 General Description

Attaching fiber optic cable on poles (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) is done by either installing

cables onto existing utility or telephone pole lines owned by a third party or, more rarely,

installing new poles on which to hang cables. Both types of aerial installation are

usually within existing rights-of-way.

Installation of cable on poles is often used where burying is cost-prohibitive, or in areas

with unsuitable rocky or wet soil conditions, where corridor space is limited, or where

the corridor is near a river, all of which may cause complications with burying cables. 

When placing broadband cable on existing poles, proper clearance between the

broadband cable and either existing power cables or height above the ground must be

maintained to avoid interference and/or proper performance. If the existing poles are

less than 45 feet in height, new poles may be required to maintain the appropriate
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

47

distance between the broadband cable and the ground. Fiber optic cable attached to a

new or existing pole needs to be supported and stabilized by strong inactive cable to

protect the fiber optic cable and avoid sagging (Figures 2-9 and 2-10). 

The overhead fiber optic cable can be attached to the existing poles at an average of

one-and-a-half to two miles per day once placement begins. About three days of

preliminary work to prepare the poles and cable staging are necessary.

Figure 2-9. Fiber optic cable anchored by a strong cable and attached to an

empty area on an existing utility pole. Source: NTIA 2012.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

48

Figure 2-10. Cable placement on an existing pole along a stabilizing cable. Source:

NTIA 2012.

The general sequence for constructing fiber optic cable systems to existing poles is:

• Order and staging of materials;

• Mobilization of advance/ROW preparation crews;

• Attaching temporary supports/rollers or permanent grips;

• Placing pull rope (stationary reel method only);

• Mobilization of fiber optic cable placing crews;

• Pulling of fiber optic cable through temporary rollers or hanging of the cable;

• Tensioning, sagging, and permanent attachment of cables;

• Mobilization of splicing/testing crews;

• Splice areas and slack for future access is mounted on poles;

• Splicing and testing of system;

• Placing of route markers; and

• Placing of anchors and down guys, if required by pole owner.

Many types and models of equipment are used in placing overhead fiber optic cable,

depending on the project and site conditions. The following table lists representative

types of equipment designed to perform specific tasks (Table 2-2). Equipment is only

used as needed and a particular project may use some or all of these pieces of

equipment.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

49

Table 2-2. Typical Equipment for Aerial Plant Project

TYPE QUANTITY

Typical Right-of-Way Preparation Equipment

Standard Pickup Truck 1

Bucket Truck 2

Two-ton Truck with Chip Box 1

Chipper/Shredder 1

Misc. Small Power Tools Many

Typical Fiber Optic Cable Placement / Tensioning Equipment

Standard Pickup Truck 1

Bucket Truck 2

Reel Carrier Truck w/ winch 1

Misc. Small Power Tools Many

Typical Clean-up/Restoration Equipment

Standard Pickup Truck 1

Dump Truck/Trailer 1

Skid-Steer Loader 1

Backhoe/Loader 1

Vacuum Locator (ditch witch) System 1

Compactor 1

Typically, the owner of the poles, not the RUS awardee, performs annual and long-term

maintenance of existing poles and vegetation and replaces poles in poor condition with

new poles. The maintenance and monitoring protocol is specified in the pole

attachment agreements between the cable company and the pole owners. Monitoring

of the overhead fiber optic cable is through alarm circuits in the electronics attached to

the cable at various points along the route. 

The life of the fiber optic cable and regeneration station materials is approximately 30

years. Maintenance includes replacement or repair if the poles and/or cables are

damaged by fire or physical destruction, typically by the pole owner. Project hardware

(fiber optic cable, regeneration stations, and splice cases) is replaced by the RUS

awardee as the hardware reaches the end of its productivity, according to the

agreements with the pole and rights-of-way owners.

2.3.1.1 Poles for Aerial Placement of Fiber

Most fiber optic cable is placed on existing electric or telephone poles located in rightsof-way. A person physically climbing the pole or using a bucket truck to reach the

appropriate height attaches the fiber cable to the communication space on the pole. 
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

50

Typically, the fiber optic cable is lashed to an inert cable strung along the poles (Figures

2-9 and 2-10). Existing electrical lines are adjusted after obtaining approval from the

power company to ensure appropriate ground and cable clearances from the electrical

lines on the poles. To avoid disruptions of electrical service, the inert cable is usually

attached to the pole while the electric system remains energized. If existing treated

wood poles must be replaced due to deterioration or to meet National Electric Safety

Code (NESC) requirements before attachment of the fiber optic cable, new poles

replace existing poles in either the same pole holes or are installed immediately

adjacent to existing poles to minimize impacts and ground disturbance. When a new

pole is placed directly adjacent to an existing pole, the existing pole is removed and the

pole hole is backfilled with soil from the new pole hole. The utility owner typically

installs a new pole, or it may be done by the RUS awardee.

The majority of the poles used in rural areas are typically wood, though other materials

are possible, including metal or concrete. In rare cases, a limited number of angle poles

with additional ground anchors and guy wires are required to carry the weight of the

new fiber optic cable. In these cases, a six-foot-long screw anchor is placed in the

ground near the base of the pole and attached to the pole with a cable. When

necessary and approved, cable may also be placed on existing high voltage electric

transmission towers. To meet electric transmission requirements, these towers are

taller than wooden poles and require special procedures for fiber cable installation.

Pole heights, distances between poles, and pole types vary, according to the practice of

the owner of the existing poles. Poles are typically 45 feet tall with an additional 6 feet

buried in the ground. Average spacing between poles ranges from 300 to 600 feet, with

occasional spans of roughly 1,000 feet if needed to cross sensitive areas or areas with

rough topography.

2.3.1.2 Cable Deployment

The cable is deployed either by using reels fixed in a nearby location, or by the drive-out

method, where the reel is located on the back of a truck, depending on the accessibility

of existing poles. Existing roadways or utility corridor rights-of-way and interior roads

are used, depending on the method. 

• Drive-out Method

The drive-out method for stringing cable is preferred and is used in areas where

vehicular access to and along the corridor is available. The existing roadway generally

needs to be 8 feet wide and passable by a standard four-wheel drive vehicle. In this

method, one vehicle carrying the reel of fiber optic cable proceeds from pole to pole,

paying out fiber optic cable as it moves forward. A bucket truck follows at a distance of

approximately 50 feet so that a lineman may lash the fiber optic cable to the pole

attachments.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

51

In the drive-out method of placement, the equipment needed for placement of the fiber

optic cable moves in tandem from the start point to the end of the reel. All equipment is

generally moving within a 100-foot zone along the existing roads.

During the tensioning and sagging operation, a truck is positioned at one end of the

span to be tensioned, while a second truck starts at the opposite end of the span and

works back toward the first truck, securing the fiber optic cable that has been tensioned

and sagged to the structures.

• Stationary Reel Method

The stationary reel method is used in areas where vehicular access to the construction

corridor along a pole line is restricted by rough terrain. Using this method, the poles are

accessed by ATV or on foot, and the technician either uses a ladder or directly climbs

the pole. A pull rope is placed through a pulley system attached to the pole, which is

then attached to the fiber optic cable on a stationary reel located at the nearest access

point to the pole line. The fiber optic cable is pulled, preferably downhill, through the

pulley system and attached to the pole. This method is slower than the drive-out

method and creates the widest spread of equipment and manpower along the route. 

However, this method has the least impact to vegetation and soils. The staging area for

the stationary reel method is restricted to existing roads and disturbed areas to avoid

soil and vegetation compaction. In areas with sensitive resources, monitors check the

area and identify suitable routes to minimize resource damage.

When using the stationary reel method for placing cables on existing poles, areas are

required at opposite ends of a multiple-pole span for parking a reel carrier and a winch

truck to pull back a rope and the attached fiber optic cable end. At multiple locations

along the path between the reel and the winch, workers equipped with two-way radios

are stationed to observe the progress of the pull and to stop the process should

problems arise.

2.3.1.3 Site Clean-up and Restoration

Restoration of rights-of-way is generally concurrent with the progress of construction

throughout the splicing operations, and continues until ground surfaces are restored to

original or near-original condition. 

The staged materials consist of fiber optic cable on six-foot by four-foot reels, splice

cases and appurtenances, splice cases, high density polyethylene conduit (HDPE) on

six-foot by four-foot reels, and aerial strand and pole line hardware. Items not in use

are kept off the right-of-way at a contractor storage yard and/or warehouse location and

transported as needed by crews or delivery. All packaging and other materials are

removed when no longer needed and disposed of in the proper manner. 
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

52

2.3.2 Broadband over Existing Powerlines 

Broadband over Powerline (BPL) systems use existing electrical power lines as a

transmission medium to provide high-speed communications capabilities by coupling

radio frequency (RF) energy onto the power line, which is then distributed into the

home. BPL systems operate on an unlicensed basis under Part 15 of the FCC rules.

Because power lines reach virtually every community in the country, BPL has the

potential to play an important role in providing broadband services to American homes

and consumers.

There are two types of BPL systems:

• In-House BPL, which uses the electrical outlets available within a building to

transfer information between computers and other home electronic appliances

and has no impact outside of the building itself; and

• Access BPL systems, which carry high-speed communication signals outdoors

over the medium voltage (MV) electrical lines from a point where there is a

connection to the internet (backhaul point) to neighborhoods, where the signals

are distributed to homes via the low voltage (LV) power lines or Wi-Fi links

(http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/index.htm?job=bpl). The equipment is

collocated on existing poles or within electrical facilities. Fiber is typically

deployed to various nodes throughout the service area and the existing electric

cable is used from that point forward to the end user.

2.4 Wireless Systems: Cell and Microwave Towers

2.4.1 General Description and Background Information

Wireless technology sends and/or receives radio frequency signals using antennas

attached to new towers or collocated on existing towers, buildings, or other

infrastructure; this may include accessory equipment such as equipment rooms and

metal cabinets. Cell antennas are typically a series of vertical rectangular metal pieces

configured in a circular array (Figure 2-11). Microwave antennas typically look like a

round vertical drum (Figure 2-12).

A cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas that look like

poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, although these types of antennas are becoming less

common in urban areas. In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service

providers now more commonly use "sector" antennas for their base stations. These

antennas are rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in dimension, typically mounted

on a rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poles. The

antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. One antenna in each

group is used to transmit signals to mobile units (car phones or hand-held phones), and

the other two antennas in each group are used to receive signals from mobile units.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

53

Towers or antennas on buildings are generally no higher than 199 feet. Towers may be

freestanding or supported by guy wires. In some situations, towers taller than 199 feet

with or without guy wires may be used. Guy wires may be used for towers subjected to

high winds, or for support for taller towers needed for point-to-point connection in

difficult terrain.

Point-to-point microwave is used in locations where cable is too expensive to install, to

bypass difficult terrain, to cross a river or large body of water, where right-of-way is not

available or is too costly to obtain, or as data backhaul from cell towers. Cell towers are

often installed for “last mile” needs, directly to the user.

2.4.2 Use of New Towers for Antenna Placement

The information in this section is from the Federal Communication Commission PEA for

the Antenna Structure Registration Program (ASR; FCC 2012). 

The number of towers constructed annually increased dramatically beginning in the

early 1980s through about the year 2000. Since 2000, the annual number of registered

towers constructed has decreased, but still remains at levels above those in the early

1990s. 

Any wireless system using towers within the licensed spectrum must meet FCC

requirements, when applicable. The FCC was established by the Communications Act

of 1934, and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by

radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC initiated the ASR in 1995. The

ASR describes the process by which any antenna structure more than 200 feet above

ground level (AGL) and certain antenna structures located within the landing slope of an

airport runway per the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must be registered with

the FCC by the owner of the tower. Towers for national defense and other systems

operated by the federal government are not required to be registered unless they are

also used for FCC-licensed services.

Although new communications antennas can often be collocated on or within existing

structures, in some instances the deployment of services requires construction of a new

tower. Several factors, such as construction costs, government regulations, the

availability of a willing landowner, and the engineering requirements of the service

provider can influence the decision whether to collocate a new antenna on an existing

structure or construct a new tower. Using existing structures avoids additional impacts

to soils, migratory birds, and visual quality associated with constructing a new tower.

New towers for wireless applications are generally constructed on a concrete

foundation, with wireless and microwave antennas located on the tower. 

Communications towers may be straight towers supported by guy wires attached to the

ground to anchor the tower, or can be self-supporting (monopole towers on one

foundation, or three-sided lattice towers with a triangular base), depending on
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

54

engineering, economic, environmental, visual, wind loading, or historic preservation

considerations. Typically, towers for wireless communications are less than 200 feet tall

unless they are collocated on taller towers owned by others through space leased by

the applicant. Tower sites must also support power modules and propane tanks if

needed, with ancillary transmission piping and fencing. Fiber cable is sometimes

necessary for connecting antenna to network systems. 

For a 150-foot self-supporting tower, each face is about 15 feet at the base tapering

toward the top, with a concrete pad footprint no larger than 20 feet x 20 feet. For a 150-

foot guyed lattice structure, each face is about three feet all the way up the tower. If

support guys are needed, guy wire anchors are typically located between 100 to 150

feet from each corner of the tower. 

The FCC can prescribe painting and/or illumination of an antenna structure when there

is a “reasonable possibility” that it may cause a hazard to aviation. Tower permittees,

licensees, or owners are required to maintain the painting and lighting. Under current

rules, each tower owner proposing to construct or alter an antenna structure that is

more than 200 feet AGL or that may interfere with the approach or departure space of a

nearby airport runway must notify the FAA of the proposed construction or alteration

and register the tower with the FCC’s ASR Program. 

Current FAA guidelines ordinarily require lighting conforming to one of the six FAA

Lighting Styles for communications towers over 200 feet AGL, as well as for towers in

the approach or departure space of nearby airports. Towers typically use white flashing

and/or strobe lights, and may also use red flashing lights. The FAA completed a study

to determine if towers using only red flashing lights without the red steady-burning lights

previously required are sufficiently conspicuous to pilots, and subsequently approved

the following changes to tower lighting requirements:

• Systems with white strobe or strobe-like lights do not include non-flashing

lights, including non-flashing red lights; and

• For towers less than 350 feet AGL, FAA is currently evaluating flashing red

lights using synchronously-lighted LED lights. 

The FAA (Patterson 2012) published a detailed memo authorizing lighting changes

intended to protect both migrating songbirds and aviation safety as well as reduce

costs, but the final changes have yet to be incorporated into the new FAA Obstruction

and Marking Lighting Circular. The FCC is currently recommending that new towers

350 to 450 feet AGL have no steady red lights, and the FCC is working on

recommending that existing towers less than 350 feet AGL replace non-flashing light to

flashing lights synchronous with the other flashing beacons. Typically, towers less than

200 feet tall have no lighting requirements. See Section 3.11 for more details on the

effects of towers on migratory birds.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

55

Each site with FCC-regulated collocated antennas must also comply with requirements

of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effect on Historic Properties

for Certain Undertakings Approved by the FCC for Section 106 (2004; see Section 3.4).

RUS generally requires an Environmental Report (ER) providing detailed information for

new towers.

Figure 2-11. Cell tower. Source: Power and Communication Contractors Association
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

56

Figure 2-12. Final construction of a microwave tower. Source: Power and Communication

Contractors Association

2.4.3 Collocation of Wireless Equipment on Existing Towers, Buildings, or Other 

Structures 

Collocation of broadband facilities on existing telecommunications towers consists of

installing a microwave antenna onto an existing tower in accordance with applicable

FCC and industry guidelines and regulations (Figure 2-13). If the antenna is collocated

on an existing tower that is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places, the State Historic Preservation Officer should be consulted (Section

3.3.4).

Antenna collocations on existing buildings consist of attaching microwave antennas to

the rooftops of existing buildings using standard antenna and roof mounts. Co-axial

cable runs from the roof to additional network equipment located inside the buildings. 

Collocation to existing structures generally does not require ground disturbance.

However, collocation on structures such as church steeples that have historical

importance could have adverse impacts.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

57

Leasing agreements are obtained from the existing owners of the tower, building, or

other structure. 

In addition to placement on the existing tower, collocation may include placing a threefoot by three-foot pre-cast concrete pad within the existing tower’s fenced compound to

support the new network equipment cabinet housing essential power and

communication electronics such as batteries, power supplies, and microwave radios. 

Ground disturbance does not occur outside of the existing tower compound footprint. If

the tower compound has existing buildings for the collocation of tenant’s electronics,

then an equipment cabinet is not placed at the site. If required, emergency generators

are installed within the existing compound. Applicable zoning and permitting

requirements must be met for these sites.

Each site with FCC-regulated collocated antennas must also comply with requirements

of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Collocation of Antennas for Section 106

(Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (2001;

http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/da010691a.pdf; Section 3.3.4.3).

Several commercial enterprises have become skillful in designing freestanding towers

and towers attached to existing buildings that are carefully camouflaged and visually

pleasing. 

Any associated underground or aerial installation of cable follows the descriptions in

Sections 2.3 and 2.4.

Figure 2-13. Collocation of a cell tower on existing electric transmission

infrastructure. Source: Power and Communication Contractors Association
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

58

2.5 Last Mile Service Drops

Construction of any type of fiber or wireless system includes service drops, defined as

the final stretch of cable from the proponent’s infrastructure to an end user building,

such as in a residence, hospital, or library. Service drops often require either a simple

40-foot piece of fiber strung aerially from the nearest utility pole to a building’s overhead

mast for cable, or a wireless terminal for wireless transmission. Typically, the electric

transformer on a pole is considered to be along the pathway for the backbone fiber

network, with the transformer serving as the main point of entry or demarcation point for

individual properties. The point of access is generally within 150 feet or less to the

location of the Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), which is a small meter box

mounted near the electric meter on the building being served. The CPE is typically

connected to the existing electric meter for both access to power and future Smart Grid

applications and communication. Wireless point of access may be within the end user’s

building.

2.6 Buildings and Electronic Equipment Housing Structures

2.6.1 General Description

Ancillary structures associated with broadband deployment generally consist of

installing small pre-fabricated buildings, sheds, or cabinets that are used for housing

electronic equipment in support of the broadband network infrastructure, often on

previously disturbed or developed land. These small buildings are usually placed on

concrete pads and generally require very minimal land disturbance.

RUS funds may also be used for constructing a headquarters and/or warehouse

building. The amount of land disturbance resulting from this type of construction can

vary depending on the size of the proposed building, but is typically less than 10 acres. 

Activities associated with the construction of a new facility may include:

• Demolishing an existing facility and replacing it with a new facility on the same

site;

• Site clearing and grubbing;

• Site grading;

• Excavation;

• Staging areas for equipment, building materials, fill, etc.;

• Delivery, installation, and connection of utilities;

• Installing supporting security measures;
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

59

• Use of construction equipment, such as backhoes, front-end loaders,

compactors, trenchers, augers, trucks (concrete, delivery, and dump), and air

compressors; and

• Traffic to and from the project site, including worker vehicles and delivery

vehicles.

All associated needs for a new facility, including utility connections, fencing, lighting,

access roads, equipment staging areas, parking and security measures, etc., are also

addressed under the analysis of this project type, and are considered to contribute to

the entire project footprint. In order to accurately assess the environmental impacts of

this project type, all features of the proposed development must be analyzed. 

2.6.2 Types of Buildings

2.6.2.1 Signal Regeneration Stations

As light travels down a fiber optic cable, it loses power. Regeneration stations or

“regens” are used to amplify a weak incoming signal and send the amplified signal

along the network toward the customer. Regeneration sites vary in size (400-2400

square feet) depending on the available space, and require minor ground disturbance

for construction of the concrete support pad. The spacing of these stations is

determined by many factors, but regeneration is generally necessary every 50 to 75

miles. One of the major determinants for a potential regeneration station site is the

availability of commercial power, so signal regeneration systems are typically located at

existing electric substations in already disturbed areas.

2.6.2.2 Service Area Hubs

Service Area Hubs (SAHs) are small structures installed in locations that provide the

best access for utility workers while having the least impact on the environment, area

aesthetics, and other critical infrastructure. In some instances, easements or property

acquisitions are necessary to locate cabinetry and other needed facilities. The largest

SAHs are standard sized at approximately four feet wide by two feet deep by five feet

tall (Figure 2-14). Most cabinets are smaller and stake mounted, with the concrete base

buried 12 inches deep in previously disturbed soil. 

In developed areas such as towns and neighborhoods, these hubs can be located in

very small areas so that sufficient access is available for maintenance. In rural areas,

cabinetry is placed in rights-of-way either on the ground or sometimes on poles.
Ch. 2 Description of Infrastructure and Construction

60

Figure 2-14. Service Area Hub Cabinet

2.6.2.3 Office and Headquarters Buildings, Including Data Centers

Not all RUS telecommunications programs allow financial support for office and

headquarters buildings, and they are rarely included in applications. In the last 30

years, only 20 such buildings have been included. RUS typically evaluates the impacts

associated with these buildings using a categorical exclusion, as long as the disturbed

area is 10 acres or less and there are no extraordinary circumstances that prohibit the

use of a categorical exclusion. Because applicants are often small businesses located

in rural towns, office and headquarters buildings are often located in already developed

areas or may be located in leased buildings. 

Data centers, where staff monitor network operations, may be included in new or

existing office buildings, usually in a nearby town or city. Data center equipment located

inside an existing building does not require any new ground disturbance. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

61

3 Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

As discussed in Section 1.9, broadband deployment projects financially supported by

RUS typically have few if any environmental impacts. Additionally, RUS typically

concludes NEPA by applying categorical exclusions for financing decisions associated

with broadband projects. Such projects also use standard construction and design

operations, therefore not requiring the consideration of alternatives (Section 1.7.3 and

Chapter 2). Also, as discussed in Section 1.7.3, continuing the current Broadband

Telecommunications Program is both RUS’ proposed action and the no action

alternative for the purposes of this PEA. Therefore, the impact analyses included in

Chapter 3 evaluate the impacts of the proposed action/no action, with no differentiation. 

Each impact analysis considered in detail provides background information to help the

reader understand the analyses and conclusions that follow. Some of the issues need

to be deferred to project-level planning and subsequent tiering (Chapter 4). For issues

that are deferred to project-level analysis, background information and impact analysis

processes necessary for project-specific compliance are typically included in Chapter 3. 

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA provide the following guidance and

definitions regarding impact analyses:

• [Impacts include] ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the

components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetics,

historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect, or

cumulative (40 CFR §1508.8).

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and

place (40 CFR §1508.8).

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time and farther

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may

include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in

the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on

air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems...Effects may also

include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and

detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be

beneficial (40 CFR §1508.8).

• Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

62

non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over

a period of time (40 CFR §1508.7). 

Therefore, cumulative impacts are a combination of direct and/or indirect impacts,

regardless of how those impacts are incurred and by whom, that either additively or

synergistically (or both) create broader impacts on a particular resource.

This PEA provides an excellent opportunity to review and analyze the types of

broadband technologies included in projects that RUS supports financially from the

broader point of view of cumulative impacts on resources as recommended by the CEQ

in 40 CFR §1508.25. RUS can be confident that the program as a whole would not

have significant impacts, if that is found to be the case based on this PEA, and these

impact analyses can then be used to frame project-level analyses as appropriate,

without unnecessary duplication of effort and documentation.

This chapter also provides best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to

resources included in this chapter, and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for

resources that do not rise to the level of needing impact analysis, but still should be

protected to the maximum degree practicable (Section 3.14).

Many of the issues analyzed in this chapter state “No Further Analysis for Project Level

Planning.” This does not mean that these issues do not need to be considered for a

project. It means that, with commitment to appropriate BMPs and SOPs, including

those in Section 3.14, the risk is very low that any impact beyond that analyzed in this

PEA would occur. The use of the tiering process described in Chapter 4 will assist in

making the determination if a particular project has extraordinary circumstances that are

beyond the routine types of projects and environmental conditions considered in this

PEA. 

RUS’ intent is to make this PEA as useful as possible for Agency staff, applicants, and

government entities, with the intent to increase efficiencies per EOs 13604 and 13616

and Congressional goals as expressed through the RUS Telecommunications Program. 

3.2 Potential Impacts to Water-Related Resources

3.2.1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act (RHA): Site Specific Analysis if an Individual Permit is 

Required 

3.2.1.1 Background Section 404 CWA

Section 404 (see 33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the United

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) unless the specific activity is exempted in 33

CFR part 323 or covered by a nationwide permit in 33 CFR part 330.
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

63

Considering applicable law, science, and three Supreme Court decisions, as well as the

agencies’ administrative and technical expertise, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE published a final rule defining the scope of

waters protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (“waters of the U.S.”;

WoUS; 80 FR (124):37054-37127;

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-ruledefinition-of-waters-of-the-united-states; viewed 7/9/2015). The following information is

summarized from the referenced Federal Register notice as relevant to this PEA. This

rule is currently under court-ordered stay. Until the time that the rule is either supported

by the court or revised, the existing case-by-case determination of jurisdictional WoUs

still is applicable. However, 33 CFR part 330 describing Nationwide Permits (NWP) and

the NWPs approved 2012 (77 FR 10184, February 21, 2012) described below are still

applicable. 

The intent of the EPA/USACE final rule is to make the process of identifying CWAprotected WoUS easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the statute

and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the

foundation of U.S. water resources. Upstream waters, including headwaters, tributaries

(including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams), riparian areas, and wetlands,

significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters. 

These areas play a critical role in controlling sediment, filtering pollutants, reducing

flooding, providing habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife, and promoting many vital

chemical, physical, and biological processes.

To ensure that projects offering significant social benefit can proceed with the

necessary environmental safeguards while minimizing permitting delays, permitting

under the purview of the CWA and streamlined regulatory requirements, such as those

of the USACE NWPs, will continue permit simplification. The final rule maintains current

statutory exclusions regarding the regulation of shallow subsurface water connections,

groundwater, erosional features, and land uses. The provisions of the final rule are

particularly applicable to projects that may affect the crossings of ephemeral or

intermittent tributaries deemed jurisdictional under the final rule. 

The final rule clearly defines three categories of water:

• Waters that are jurisdictional in all cases by rule, including traditional navigable

waters, interstate waters (including interstate wetlands; they do not have to be

navigable), and territorial seas; tributaries and adjacent waters, because they

have a significant nexus to the jurisdictional waters, and impoundments of WoUS

because they remain WoUS after impoundment (and, conversely, non-WoUS

can become WoUS after impoundment if they become navigable);
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

64

• A narrow category of waters subject to case-specific analysis to determine

whether they are jurisdictional, including determining a significant nexus to

waters identified above, either alone or in combination with similarly situated

waters in the region (including waters within the 100-year floodplain of a

traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial seas, and waters within

4,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark of such waters, impoundments, or

covered tributaries; and

• Waters that are excluded from jurisdiction, such as groundwater and erosional

features, such as gullies and rills.

Under 33 CFR part 330, the USACE identified specific management activities that can

take place nationwide without the need for a site-specific or regional permit per Section

404 of the CWA when appropriate terms and conditions are met. These NWPs are

designed to regulate minimally impacting projects with little if any delay or paperwork. 

An activity may be authorized only if all of the NWP’s terms and conditions are met. 

Alternatives to proposals for discharge of dredged or fill materials must be considered

unless there are no practicable ways to meet the goals of the project. An alternative is

practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration

cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes (40 CFR

§230.10(a)(1)). Also, it is assumed that any action that does not depend on use of a

WoUS has practicable alternatives that do not involve discharge of dredged or fill

material into WoUS. 

The deployment of broadband with currently available technologies is not considered a

“water-dependent” activity per 40 CFR §230.40. However, if construction activities for

the deployment of underground or pole-mounted cable within jurisdictional WoUS are

determined to be necessary to meet the project goals and the site cannot be

directionally bored, then the applicant may consider using NWP 12 for Utility Line

Activities. NWP 12 applies to linear projects and their associated facilities and activities,

and is not limited to discharges of dredged or fill material. The USACE’s long-standing

practice is to generally calculate impacts for purposes of satisfying its 0.5-acre threshold

for each water crossing, rather than for a project as a whole, unless the crossings are

very close together. NWP 12 covers activities required for the construction,

maintenance, repair, and removal of utility lines and associated facilities in WoUS,

provided the activity does not result in the loss of greater than 0.5-acre of WoUS for

each project. Relevant to telecommunication projects, a ‘‘utility line’’ is defined as any

cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of electrical energy, telephone,

and telegraph messages, and radio and television communication. 

This NWP authorizes the construction or maintenance of foundations for overhead utility

line towers, poles, and anchors in all WoUS, provided the foundations are of the

minimum size necessary and separate footings for each tower leg (rather than a larger
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

65

single pad) are used where feasible. This NWP may authorize utility lines in or affecting

navigable waters of the United States even if there is no associated discharge of

dredged or fill material (See 33 CFR part 322). 

This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to conduct the

utility line activity. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream

flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary

structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construction

activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites.

For deployment activities that would involve minor discharges into WoUS, NWP 18 may

be appropriate. This NWP authorizes minor discharges of dredged or fill material into

WoUS as long as 1) the quantity of discharged material and the volume of area

excavated do not exceed 25 cubic yards below the plane of the ordinary high water

mark or the high tide line; 2) the discharge will not cause the loss of more than 0.1-acre

of WoUS; and 3) the discharge is not placed for the purpose of a stream diversion. In

order to use this NWP, the permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the

USACE District Engineer prior to beginning the activity if 1) the discharge or the volume

of the area excavated exceeds 10 cubic yards below the plane of the high water mark or

the high tide line; or 2) the discharge is in a special aquatic site, including wetlands. 

For construction of buildings involving WoUS, NWP 39 may be appropriate. This NWP

authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal WoUS for the construction

or expansion of commercial and institutional building foundations and building pads and

attendant features that are necessary for the use and maintenance of the structures,

including roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utility lines, and storm water management

facilities. The discharge may not cause the loss of greater than 0.5-acre of non-tidal

WoUS, including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed, unless for

intermittent and ephemeral stream bed, the district engineer waives the 300 linear foot

limit by making a written determination concluding that the discharge will result in

minimal adverse effects. This NWP does not authorize discharges into non-tidal

wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. The permittee must submit a pre-construction

notification to the USACE District Engineer prior to beginning the activity.

For temporary structures, work and discharges necessary for construction activities or

access fills or dewatering of construction sites, whether authorized or not authorized by

the USACE, NWP 33 may be appropriate. Appropriate measures must be taken to

maintain near normal downstream flows and to minimize flooding. Fill must be of such

material and placed in such a way that it would not be eroded by expected high flows. 

The use of dredged material may be used if the District Engineer determines that it will

not cause more than minimal adverse effects on aquatic resources. Following

completion of construction, temporary fill must be entirely removed to an area that has

no WoUS, dredged material must be returned to its original location, and the affected
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

66

areas must be restored to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be

revegetated, as appropriate. This permit does not allow the use of cofferdams to

dewater wetlands or other aquatic areas to change their use. Structures left in place

after construction is completed require a Section 10 permit per the Rivers and Harbors

Act of 1899 if located in navigable waters of the US. The permittee must submit a preconstruction notification to the USACE District Engineer prior to beginning the activity,

which must include a restoration plan showing how all temporary fills and structures will

be removed and the area restored to pre-project conditions.

To qualify for use of any NWP, the prospective permittee must comply with the 31

general conditions identified in Section C, as applicable, as well as any additional

regional or case-specific conditions imposed by the District Engineer. The prospective

permittee should contact the USACE district office to determine the status of CWA

Section 401 water quality certification and/or Coastal Zone Management Act

consistency for use of an NWP. 

3.2.1.2 Background Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act

This law prohibits:

• The construction of bridges, causeways, dams or dikes generally; or the creation

of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable

capacity of any of the waters of the United States;

• The building or commencement of building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom,

weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead,

haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside

established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except

on plans recommended by the USACE;

• The excavation or fill, or in any manner that alters or modifies the course,

location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal,

lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the

channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been

recommended by the USACE prior to beginning the same.

The concern is avoiding any obstructions or changes to navigation. This can include

overhead utility lines constructed over waters classified in Section 10 of the RHA (in

other words, navigable waters) that might be low enough or have poles located in such

a way that they would potentially obstruct or change navigation. NWPs 18, 33, and 39

also apply to Section 10 of the RHA. 

3.2.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Section 404 CWA, Section 10 RHA

It is clear that avoiding discharge of dredged or fill materials to WoUS or constructing in

navigable water for any reason, avoiding the need for a permit from the USACE per
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

67

Section 404 of the CWA or per Section 10 of the RHA, is the most effective mitigation

and most cost-effective manner for planning and constructing the deployment of

broadband infrastructure. 

By using certain technologies (such as directional drilling) or through avoidance

measures (such as relocating a project or spanning the area of a water resource), it is

likely the RUS applicant can minimize effects of construction in USACE jurisdictional

WoUS and navigable waters. These common practices both reduce impacts to waterrelated physical structure, functions, and chemical and biological relationships (which

are considered as conditions that must be met to be approved for a NWP), and avoid

the need for use of an NWP altogether. 

Despite somewhat higher costs, RUS applicants report that they typically use directional

boring or spanning to avoid adverse impacts to USACE jurisdictional WoUS and

navigable waters (Appendix G). With these routine measures in place, the potential for

need of a NWP is negligible, and, if an NWP is used, impacts to WoUS would be

negligible per findings of the USACE. The same conclusion is appropriate under

Section 10 RHA.

If a RUS applicant’s actions cannot be completed following these common practices

and a CWA Section 404 or Section 10 individual permit is required, additional sitespecific review is required as described in Chapter 4.

3.2.3 Potential Impacts to Floodplains and Compliance with EO 11988, as revised 

by EO 13690: Site Specific Analysis for Construction in a Floodplain

3.2.3.1 Background

Protecting the functions of floodplains is addressed by an Executive Order, “Floodplain

Management” (EO 11988, originally signed in 1977 and amended 1/29/2015;

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishingfederal-flood-risk-management-standard-and-; viewed 7/6/2015). FEMA has published

draft guidelines for implementing the EO as amended (FR 80(24): 6530-6531;

http://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2015/02/05/2015-02284.html; viewed

7/6/2015). The proposed guidelines further describe approaches to delineate a

floodplain by considering climate change effects, adding height to the estimated 100-

year floodplain elevation, and/or reliance on the 500-year floodplain in project planning. 

The original and amended EOs are intended to supplement the National Flood

Insurance Act of 1968 (https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/7277;

viewed 7/11/2015) as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 “in order to

avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with

the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of

floodplain development where there is a practicable alternative.” The EOs apply to
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

68

federal undertakings, including actions financed by the federal government. The

analysis of potential impacts to floodplains is to be included as part of NEPA

compliance. 

RUS applicants may propose to construct buildings, access roads, or towers in

floodplains. These may change the hydrological conditions and increase the risk of

flooding. RUS has determined that the EO does not apply to utility lines.

3.2.3.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Floodplains and EO 11988, as revised by EO

13690

Applicants should avoid construction in floodplains as defined by the EOs whenever

practicable for such actions as towers for wireless broadband, buildings, and other

activities (excluding utility lines) that could affect floodplains. If there are no practicable

alternatives to constructing these kinds of activities in a floodplain, the applicant must

provide the appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment, and minimize

impacts when practicable per the EOs. The RUS applicant and its construction

contractor must implement best management practices included in federal, state, and/or

local permits regarding the construction in floodplains (Section 3.14). Also, RUS

requires applicants to obtain flood insurance for all insurable buildings supported by

RUS funding. With these routine measures in place, the potential for adverse impacts

to floodplains is negligible. 

However, if a RUS applicant’s actions cannot be completed following these common

practices and if construction is necessary in a floodplain, additional site-specific review

is required as described in Section 3.2.1.1 and Chapter 4.

3.2.4 Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Compliance with EO 11990: Site-Specific 

Analysis if a Wetland Would be Impacted

3.2.4.1 Background

EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”

(http://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/NEPA_Handbook/EO_11990.pdf; viewed 7/6/2015) was

signed in 1977 to “minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and to

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.” The EO applies

to federal undertakings, including actions financed by the federal government. The

analysis of potential impacts should be included as part of the NEPA compliance

process. The EO requires that federal agencies “avoid undertaking or providing

assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds

(1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and (2) that the

proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which

may result from such use.” The agency may consider economic, environmental, and
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

69

other pertinent factors in the determination. Public notice and opportunity to comment

must be made available, including for projects that would not have significant impacts. 

The following factors relevant to a proposal’s effects on wetlands must be considered:

• Public health, safety, and welfare, including water supply, quality, recharge and

discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards, and sediment and erosion;

• Maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long term

productivity of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability,

hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and

• Other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreational, scientific,

and cultural uses.

These factors are similar to those required for consideration per Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act (Section 404(b)(3) Guidelines) and it is possible that the wetland may

be a jurisdictional WoUS per that law; however, the effects analysis covered under the

EO includes waters and wetlands not within the jurisdiction of the USACE per Section

404 of the CWA. 

Any modification of a wetland must follow the requirements of the EO, and, if the

wetland is determined to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA, then Section

404 processes as described in Section 3.2.1.1 must be followed.

3.2.4.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Wetlands and EO 11990

RUS applicants should avoid construction in wetlands as defined by the EO whenever

practicable for such actions as towers for wireless antennas. Whenever practicable,

directional boring under wetlands should be used to avoid impacting the wetlands. In

the very rare case that there is no practicable alternative, the applicant must work with

RUS to provide the appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment, minimizing

impacts when practicable. 

If the wetland is considered a “WoUS” per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, then

Section 404 processes must also be followed (Section 3.2.1.1). The RUS applicant and

its construction contractor must implement best management practices included in

federal, state, and/or local permits regarding the control of storm water runoff and spills

of petroleum and chemicals (Section 3.14). With these routine measures in place, the

potential for adverse impacts to wetlands is negligible. 

However, if a RUS applicant’s actions cannot be completed following these common

practices and a wetland could be adversely impacted or a Section 404 permit is

required (Section 3.2.1.1), additional site-specific review is required as described in

Chapter 4.
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

70

3.2.5 Potential Impacts to Groundwater: No Further Analysis for Project Level 

Planning

As no chemicals or other discharges into groundwater are likely involved in deployment

of fiber cable or construction of towers and associated facilities. Any hazardous or toxic

chemicals stored in buildings funded by RUS must be stored in accordance with federal,

state, and/or local laws and regulations. Therefore, there is no potential for adversely

impacting groundwater. Therefore, potential impacts to groundwater will not be

considered further in this PEA, nor must it be considered at project-level planning.

3.2.6 Potential Impacts to Surface Water Quality: No Further Analysis for Project 

Level Planning

The RUS applicant and its construction contractor must implement best management

practices included in federal, state, and/or local permits regarding the control of storm

water runoff and spills of petroleum and chemicals (Section 3.14). With these routine

measures in place, the potential for adverse impacts to surface water quality is

negligible. Therefore, potential impacts to surface water quality will not be considered

further in this PEA, nor must it be considered at project-level planning.

3.3 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial-Related Resources (Soil and

Vegetation)

3.3.1 Potential for Soil Erosion: No Further Analysis for Project Level Planning

As the technologies for cable burial involve very little soil disturbance, soil restoration is

conducted immediately upon completing the underground cable deployment (Section

2.2), and best management practices are used (Section 3.14), the potential for soil

erosion is negligible. As described in Chapter 2, heavy construction equipment that is

used off-road typically uses tracks, not tires, further minimizing the potential for soil

compaction and storm water runoff. Construction of towers and placement of new poles

also displaces little soil and soil restoration is conducted immediately. Even building

construction would involve use of BMPs (Section 3.14) to minimize the risk of soil

erosion. With these routine measures in place, the potential for adverse impacts to soils

and surface water quality is negligible. Therefore, potential impacts to soils and risk of

soil erosion will not be considered further in this PEA, nor must it be considered at

project-level planning.

3.3.2 Potential Impacts to Native Vegetation: No Further Analysis for Project 

Level Planning

Most underground or aerial deployment of cable occurs in existing rights-of-way in

which existing vegetation is either already disturbed through regular maintenance or the

use of heavy equipment with tracks rather than tires results in minimal disturbance to

vegetation. Best management practices involving, for example, immediate restoration
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

71

using native seeds and plants (Section 3.14) further minimizes the potential for adverse

impacts to vegetation. With these routine measures in place, the potential for adverse

impacts to vegetation is negligible. Therefore, potential impacts to native vegetation will

not be considered further in this PEA, nor must it be considered at project-level planning

unless vegetation species that are listed per the Endangered Species Act are present

and would be potentially impacted (Section 3.8).

3.3.3 Potential Impacts to Prime and Unique Farmlands: Site-Specific Analysis 

for Construction of Towers and Buildings

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal

programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to

nonagricultural uses. It assures that to the extent practicable federal programs are

administered to be compatible with state/local units of government, and private

programs and policies to protect farmland. Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if

they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and

are completed or assisted by a federal agency, including providing financing or loans

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail). 

Most underground or aerial deployment of cable occurs in existing rights-of-way. 

Applicants typically avoid the use of farmland whenever possible as this complicates the

project by the need for obtaining easements from private landowners. Areas that are

zoned for industrial use, previously developed land, existing utility and road easements,

and lands requiring federal licensing and permitting are not subject to FPPA. Use of

existing poles for aerial plant in a farm field would not require compliance with the FPPA

for collocation of cable.

In instances where important farmland may be used to construct a building or tower, the

applicant, representing the federal agency, would need to contact the local office of the

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or USDA Service Center. NRCS

uses its Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system (Form AD-1006) to

establish a farmland conversion impact rating score on proposed sites of federally

funded and assisted projects. This score is used as an indicator for the project sponsor

to consider alternative sites if the potential adverse impacts on the farmland exceed the

recommended allowable level. Because of the small amount of land required for

construction of a tower, pole, or hub cabinet, the risk of exceeding this score is

negligible. 

Construction of a building on farmland for a specific project may require the evaluation

using Form AD-1006 but, because of the small amount of land (5 acres is a good rule of

thumb) required for construction of a building, the risk of exceeding this score is

negligible. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

72

Therefore, potential impacts to farmland will be evaluated only for the construction of

towers and buildings at project-level planning.

3.4 Potential Impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources (S106 NHPA):

Deferred to Project Level Planning

3.4.1 Background

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that federal agencies, including

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), consider the effects of their actions on the human

environment prior to making a decision. Pursuant to 40 CFR §1508.4, the human

environment is interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical

environment, and the relationship of people with that environment. A NEPA analysis,

therefore, should systematically address the social and cultural (human) aspects of the

environment as well as those that are natural, and the relationships between them.

RUS must consider the impact of its actions on “cultural resources” as a component of

the human environment. Although no legal or generally accepted definition exists within

the federal government, the term “cultural resources” typically is used to refer to historic,

aesthetic, and cultural aspects of the human environment, such as archeological sites,

buildings, and traditional resources and use areas. 

Historic properties are that subset of cultural resources which have been listed in or are

considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which

is a commemorative listing of those resources significant to the American past at the

national, state or local level that is managed by the National Park Service. Historic

properties are defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or

object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, including artifacts, records, and

material remains related to such a property or resource (16 U.S.C. 470w).

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering,

and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess

all or some of the following aspects of integrity - location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling and association – and meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad

patterns of our history; or

B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose

components may lack individual distinction; or
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

73

D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or

prehistory (NPS, 1997).

Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. §302706 [formerly Section 101(d)(6) of NHPA], resources of

traditional religious and cultural importance to federally recognized Indian tribes or

Native Hawaiian organizations (NHO) may be determined to be eligible for listing in the

NRHP.

3.4.1.1 Section 106 Process

In accordance with S.106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C.

§306108, Federal agencies, such as RUS, are required to take into account the effect of

their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on those effects. Pursuant

to 36 CFR §800.16(y), an “undertaking” is defined as a “project, activity or program

funded in whole or part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency”. 

RUS has determined that the provision of Federal financial assistance for the

development, expansion and improvement of telecommunications infrastructure,

including broadband, is an undertaking subject to S. 106 and its implementing

regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). 

The implementing regulations establish a standard process through which RUS and

other federal agencies comply with their statutory obligations to consider effects to

historic properties prior to decision-making. The legal requirements of both NEPA and

S. 106 must be completed by RUS prior to the obligation of federal funding by the

agency. This timing requirement under 36 CFR §800.1(c), however, does not prevent

RUS from authorizing nondestructive project planning activities. 

As it is encouraged to do so, pursuant to 36 CFR §800.8(a)(1), RUS coordinates its

compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of S. 106 with the agency’s

procedures for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR 1794. Accordingly, studies required by

RUS to identify historic properties also provide needed information for the identification

of other types of cultural resources eligible for consideration under NEPA which might

be impacted by the agency’s proposed action. The CEQ and ACHP have issued

guidance to explain how best to coordinate NEPA and S.106 review titled, “NEPA and

NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and S. 106 (2013;

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G-CEQNEPA_NHPA_Section_106_Handbook_Mar2013.pdf).

3.4.1.2 Undertakings for which S106 Review is Not Applicable

In accordance with 36 CFR § 800.3(a)(1), RUS possesses sole authority to determine

whether an undertaking is a type of activity that does not have the potential to cause

effects to historic properties, assuming such properties were present. When RUS
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

74

makes such a determination, the agency has no further obligation under 36 CFR part

800. RUS is developing a list of undertakings, including those funded through its

Telecommunications Program, for which RUS has determined S.106 review is not

applicable. To the maximum extent possible, RUS will coordinate these undertakings

with its NEPA Categorical Exclusions. RUS will make this list available to its applicants

so that they can determine how to proceed in S.106 review.

3.4.1.3 Undertakings for which S.106 Review is Applicable

For undertakings for which S.106 is applicable, RUS must complete the following four

steps established by 36 CFR part 800 in order to comply with statutory requirements:

1. Initiate consultation – The first step in S.106 review is to identify the applicable State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other consulting parties. In completing the four

regulatory steps, RUS must consult (i.e. share information with, consider the views of,

and seek agreement with) nonfederal parties such as the SHPO, federally recognized

Indian tribes, local governments and others with an interest in the effects of the

undertaking on historic properties. While RUS is obliged to consult with these parties,

completing each of the steps of S.106 review is based on federal decision-making.

In addition to identifying consulting parties, the federal agency should plan for involving

the public in S.106 review. Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.2(d)(3), RUS uses its NEPA

procedures to satisfy the requirement for public involvement. 

2. Identify and evaluate historic properties – In the next step of S.106 review, the

federal agency gathers information from consulting parties and conducts the studies

necessary to identify and evaluate historic properties. No specific studies are required

under the regulations, and there is no regulatory requirement for the identification of “all”

historic properties or study of the entire area of potential effects (APE). Rather, RUS, as

the responsible federal agency, applies the reasonable and good faith effort regulatory

standard, defined at 36 CFR §800.4(b)(1), to determine what if any studies need to be

performed. In order to conclude this step, the federal agency applies the NRHP criteria

to those buildings, structures, sites, districts and objects identified in the APE to

determine if any are eligible for listing in the NRHP.

3. Assess effects - If no historic properties are identified in step #2, then S.106 review is

concluded. If historic properties are identified, then RUS applies the criteria of adverse

effect in accordance with 36 CFR §800.5(a)(1). Concurrence between RUS and

consulting parties in either a finding of no historic properties affected or no adverse

effect concludes S.106 review.

Construction of communications towers and ancillary compound facilities, access roads,

and work staging areas for wireless telecommunications undertakings cause ground

disturbance which can have direct effects on historic properties. Similarly the

installation of wireless equipment, such as antennas and small cells, on existing
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

75

buildings or structures that are listed or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP may

alter the qualifying characteristics of that historic property. The construction of new

communications towers and, to a lesser extent, the collocation of wireless equipment

introduces a new visual element that could diminish the setting and feeling of a historic

property, in those cases in which these aspects of integrity apply. As such, this wireless

construction could have an effect on historic properties. In the absence of a legal

standard for the geographic scope of such visual (indirect) effects, RUS relies on the

thresholds established by Stipulation VI.C.3 and 4 of the Federal Communications

Commission’s (FCC) nationwide Programmatic Agreement (PA) titled, Nationwide

Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effect on Historic Properties for Certain

Undertakings Approved by the FCC, which was executed October 4, 2004.

Construction of buried or aerial fiber optic cable mainline and service lines, and the

connections between them using handholes, pedestals or vaults for wired

telecommunications undertakings can cause ground disturbance, and as such could

affect NRHP listed or eligible archeological sites, and properties of religious and cultural

significance to federally recognized Indian tribes. Aerial or buried fiber optic cable

service line is typically used to connect wireless equipment to the mainline. 

Occasionally fixed wireless connections are used in place of cable, but this is often a

suboptimal alternative. Therefore, even wireless telecommunications may have a wired

component. However, for mainline buried fiber optic cable the use of a vibratory plow

for the construction and the deployment of this infrastructure in existing road right-ofway (ROW) significantly diminishes the potential for adverse effects. The same limited

potential for adverse effects does not apply to the construction of buried fiber optic cable

outside of existing road ROW or utility easement.

The same limited potential to affect historic properties applies for the construction of

service lines which are typically placed adjacent to existing driveways or in utility

easements typically using a vibratory plow or smaller equipment. Furthermore, the

location of a buried fiber optic cable mainline usually can be adjusted, either horizontally

(other side of the road) or vertically (using directional bore) to avoid adverse effects to

historic properties.

The most extensive ground disturbance caused by buried fiber optic cable projects

usually is associated with the construction of the connections between the main line and

service lines, and the entry and exit holes for directional bores, which may be as much

as four feet wide, long and deep. However, these connections, just like the customers

they serve, are not densely distributed across the rural landscape. Since historic

properties are not ubiquitous across the landscape, these widely-spaced connections

are likely to have little effect on historic properties. 

Aerial fiber optic cable (mainline and service lines) can be installed on new or existing

distribution or transmission lines. The construction of a new pole line has the potential
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

76

for effects because its construction causes ground disturbance and could introduce a

new element to the setting of a historic property. Placing aerial fiber optic cable on an

existing distribution or transmission line does not introduce a new element to a historic

property’s setting. Therefore, this action will not affect historic properties, except when

poles need to be added or replaced. Typically, the replacement of poles in the existing

hole or within five feet of it limits the potential for adverse effects. RUS must take into

account the effect of this action on historic properties only when its applicant has control

over the existing pole line. When the applicant does not possess such authority, the

action of the owner of the pole line is not subject to S.106 review.

This general overview of the potential for Telecommunications Program undertakings to

affect historic properties does not apply to those that will cross federal lands. Unlike

private or state lands, federal lands and the resources they contain are subject to

authorizing legislation, such as the Organic Act of 1916 or the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976, and other requirements, such as the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C 3001 et seq., and the

Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm, which

enhance the protection afforded to cultural resources, including historic properties.

Actions crossing tribal lands, as defined pursuant to 36 CFR §800.16(x), also are

subject to NAGPRA and ARPA, and in many cases oversight by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs as well as tribal permitting and cultural resources ordinances. These additional

requirements typically are meant to enhance the protection afforded to cultural

resources, including historic properties.

4. Resolve adverse effects – When there will be an adverse effect, pursuant to 36 CFR

§800.6, RUS works with consulting parties to identify measures to avoid, minimize or

mitigate those adverse effects. Over the past five years, there have been fewer than

ten adverse effects, a number particularly significant when compared with the funding

provided by the Telecommunications Program from 2010 to 2015. For example, in

implementing its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Broadband

Initiatives Program (BIP), RUS funded 301 projects, of which 51 were wireless only, 33

were combined wired/wireless, and the remaining 217 were wired only. Several of the

wireless projects proposed construction of more than ten communications towers and in

total the wired projects have constructed more than 10,000 miles of fiber optic cable in

rural America. None of these projects, however, were found to have an adverse effect. 

3.4.2 RUS Delegation of Authority to Conduct S.106 Review

In accordance with 36 CFR §800.2(d)(4), and by letters dated July 16, 2009 and August

14, 2012, RUS issued a blanket delegation authorizing all of its applicants to “initiate

consultation.” This blanket delegation allows RUS applicants to proceed through S.106

review as long as the applicant and consulting parties agree on the recommended
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

77

finding of effect and any determinations of eligibility. RUS, which retains responsibility

to document findings and determinations as required by 54 U.S.C. part 306114

[formerly Section 110(l) of NHPA], is likely to conclude S.106 review on the basis of the

agreed upon recommendations.

Federally recognized Indian tribes are legally considered sovereign nations entitled to a

special government-to-government relationship with the federal government. 

Accordingly, RUS may not delegate to an applicant the authority “to consult” with Indian

tribes. However, an applicant may “work with”, “engage” or “involve” a federally

recognized Indian tribe in S.106 review under delegated authority as long as the tribe is

willing to participate. An applicant must involve RUS in S.106 review whenever a

federally recognized Indian tribe requests the participation of the federal agency. RUS

encourages federally recognized Indian tribes to work with its applicants under

delegated authority in order to become involved as early as possible in S.106 review. 

Applicants authorized under this blanket delegation are required to involve RUS

whenever there is an adverse effect, a disagreement between the applicant and

consulting parties, an objection from a consulting party or the public, or a failure to

adhere to regulatory requirements. The direct participation of RUS is required because

all decision-making authority in S.106 review rests with the federal agency. 

Accordingly, only RUS can successfully resolve these issues in the public interest.

RUS expects its authorized applicants to “involve consulting parties in developing

recommendations about S.106 findings and determinations, and to carry out the

exchange of documentation and information in a respectful, constructive, and

predictable manner.” In order to assist its applicants in doing so, RUS has developed

template letters to be used by applicants in notifying Indian tribes and SHPOs, and

seeking their recommendations about proposed findings and determinations, and

guidance on implementing the blanket delegation (See Appendix I).

3.4.3 Program Alternatives for Streamlining S.106 Review for Broadband 

Deployment

Federal agencies may use one or more of several program alternatives – alternate

procedures, programmatic agreement (PA), exempted categories, standard treatments

or program comment - identified pursuant to 36 CFR §800.14 to tailor S.106 review for a

single undertaking or an entire program. There is one program alternative applicable to

RUS telecommunications undertakings and two just beginning formal consideration.

3.4.3.1 Amended Program Comment for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities

Using 36 CFR §800.16(b), S.106 review has been tailored for the FCC through the

execution of two nationwide PAs (NPAs) titled NationwideProgrammatic Agreement for

the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (March 16, 2001;
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

78

http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/da010691a.pdf), and Nationwide Programmatic

Agreement for Review of Effect on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved

by the FCC (October 4, 2004; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-

222A3.pdf). Neither of these NPAs is applied to undertakings on federal or tribal lands. 

Following the execution of these NPAs, FCC developed special tools to enhance their

implementation, including an electronic system for S. 106 review (E-106), Forms 620

and 621 for the recording of S.106 information for the construction of new

telecommunications towers and the collocation of equipment, respectively, and the

Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) designed to notify and solicit the views

of consulting parties.

On October 23, 2009, a program comment issued by the ACHP went into effect that

would relieve RUS, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from conducting

duplicative S. 106 reviews when any one of them assisted in a telecommunications

undertaking subject to review by the FCC under one of its NPAs. When an RUS, NTIA

or FEMA undertaking consists of both wireless and wired infrastructure, the program

comment provides efficiency only for the former. This program comment was

successfully implemented by RUS and the other agencies until its expiration on

September 30, 2015.

Prior to expiration, RUS, NTIA and FEMA initiated amendment of the 2009 program

comment. The amendment to this program comment was published in the Federal

Register Vol. 80 No. 189, pages 58744-58747, on September 30, 2015. This

amendment extends the duration of the program comment to ten years, with the

possibility of another five year extension through amendment, adds federal agencies

and departments – the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Transit

Authority (FTA), First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) and the components of

the Department of Homeland Security – and provides for development of a monitoring

system. To date, this is the only program alternative specific to the deployment of

broadband infrastructure available to RUS.

3.4.3.2 Program Comment for the Timing of Funding Obligation and S.106 Review

On January 8, 2016, RUS distributed a request to SHPOs, federally recognized Indian

tribes, the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, the National

Trust, and selected organizations representing industry for their comments on a

proposal by the Agency to continue the practice of obligating funding for

Telecommunications Program applications and then conducting S.106 review prior to

the release and advance of the obligated assistance. In addition to this review, RUS is

seeking recommendations from these parties on the appropriate program alternative to

use to establish this sequencing. RUS believes that given the benefits of this

sequencing to applicants, the remarkably limited occurrence of adverse effects, and the
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

79

very straightforward nature of the issue that a program comment is the most appropriate

program alternative.

RUS has requested submission of comments on or before the close of business on

Friday, February 12, 2016. RUS will analyze the timely comments received and

proceed to institute a program alternative as appropriate. If consulting parties agree

with the proposed sequencing through a program comment this matter could be

resolved as early as May 1, 2016.

3.4.3.3 Seeking Program Alternatives for Broadband Deployment

On June 14, 2012, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13616 titled “Accelerating

Broadband Infrastructure Deployment,” with a specific focus on federal lands. RUS has

been engaged with the EO Broadband Work Group since then to more precisely identify

measures which might resolve the challenges faced by industry in the deployment of

broadband on federal lands. In 2013, EO Broadband Work Group members, which

include land managing agencies, developed the following proposed list of S. 106

efficiencies:

• Wireless

1. Adopt best features of the FCC NPAs for use on Federal land and buildings

[Proposed]

Program Alternative: Standard Treatment

2. Expand applicability of existing 2001 FCC NPA to DAS and small cells [Under

Development by FCC]

Program Alternative: Amendment to existing 2001 FCC NPA (Collocation

Agreement). While this agreement currently excludes DAS and small cells

from review on the same terms as conventional wireless facilities, the FCC

believes the smaller size of these facilities warrants broader exclusions. 

While the agreement does not by its terms apply on Federal lands and

buildings, the ACHP could leverage its applicability to other Federal agencies

through a Standard Treatment.

• Wired

1. Placement of aerial fiber optic cable on an existing line [Proposed]

Condition: Pole replacement or additional poles needed

Indirect Effects: (1) New and replacement poles are the same kind and quality

as the originals; (2) any height increase limited to no more than 20% of the

original; (3) poles are more than 250 feet from a historic district boundary

Direct Effects: [Discussion needed]
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

80

Treatment: Exemption from review

Program Alternative: Exemption

2. Connection of broadband to federal buildings and buildings located on federal

land [Proposed]

Condition for Exemption: Connection is adjacent to existing utility entry points

or on the rear building façade

Treatment if not Exempt: Lacking an existing utility entry point or the

availability of the rear façade on a historic property, the connection would

follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and National

Park Service Preservation Briefs

Program Alternative: Exemption and Standard Treatment

3. Installation of buried fiber optic cable in existing road ROW [Proposed]

Condition: Use of vibratory or static plow

Treatment: (1) Identify known archeological sites within 300 feet on either

side of the road ROW; and (2) Adjust the buried fiber optic cable route to

avoid these sites

Program Alternative: Standard Treatment

The EO Broadband Working Group will consult with the ACHP to determine how best to

proceed with the review and consideration of these efficiencies. The goal of the EO

Broadband Work Group leads – the Office of Science Technology Policy and DHS - is

to have this matter resolved as soon as possible before December 31, 2016. If and

when these efficiencies are adopted and implemented, RUS will apply them to its

broadband infrastructure programs as appropriate. 

3.4.4 Impacts and Conclusion: Cultural and Historic Resources per NHPA

Therefore, compliance with NHPA is deferred to project-level planning as described in

this section and Chapter 4. 

3.5 Potential Impacts to Air-Related Resources

3.5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: No Further Analysis for 

Project Level Planning

3.5.1.1 Introduction

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are components of the atmosphere that trap heat relatively

near the surface of the earth, and therefore contribute to the greenhouse effect and

global warming. Most GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, but increases in their

concentration result from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Global
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

81

temperatures are expected to continue to rise as human activities continue to add

carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases to

the atmosphere.

3.5.2 Process for Evaluation of GHG Emissions

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) advises federal agencies to

consider whether analysis of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

from their proposed actions may provide meaningful information to decision makers and

the public (CEQ Revised Draft Guidance 2014). Based on their review of the available

science, CEQ advised agencies that if a proposed action would be reasonably

anticipated to cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2-equivalent

GHG emissions on an annual basis, significant impacts on the environment from the

action were possible and the agencies should consider that a quantitative and

qualitative assessment may be meaningful to decision makers and the public. RUS has

assessed the potential GHG impacts of its current and proposed actions in context of

the CEQ guidance.

The CEQ states in the 2014 draft guidance:

• “In addressing GHG emissions, agencies should be guided by the principle that

the extent of the analysis should be commensurate with the quantity of projected

GHG emissions. This concept of proportionality is grounded in the fundamental

purpose of NEPA to concentrate on matters that are truly important to making a

decision on the proposed action. When an agency determines that evaluating

the effects of GHG emissions from a proposed Federal action would not be

useful to the decision-making process and the public to distinguish between the

no-action and proposed alternatives and mitigations, the agency should

document the rationale for that determination...CEQ does not expect that an EIS

would be required based on cumulative impacts of GHG emissions alone...”

• “Agencies should be guided by a “rule of reason” in ensuring that the level of

effort expended in analyzing GHG emissions or climate change effects is

reasonably proportionate to the importance of climate change related

considerations to the agency action being evaluated...”

• “In considering when to disclose projected quantitative GHG emissions, CEQ is

providing a reference point of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions on an annual

basis below which a GHG emissions quantitative analysis is not warranted

unless quantification below that reference point is easily accomplished. This is

an appropriate reference point that would allow agencies to focus their attention

on proposed projects with potentially large GHG emissions...”

• “Applying this guidance will promote an appropriate and measured consideration
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

82

of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change in the NEPA process

through a clearer set of expectations and a more transparent process, thereby

informing decision-makers and the public and resulting in better decisions.”

The average person in a home produces 4 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents

(CDEs); includes CO2, NOx, CO, and SOx) annually (EPA 2010). Offices of companies

applying to RUS for financial support for broadband projects would likely produce fewer

CDEs annually than the average home because little electricity is used at night and on

weekends when office staff are not present. 

Prominent GHGs of primary concern from land use development projects include

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Other GHGs such as

hydrofluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are of less concern

because construction and operational activities associated with land use development

projects are not likely to generate substantial quantities of these GHGs. Land use

development projects typically include the following sources of GHG emissions:

• Construction activities resulting in exhaust emissions of GHGs from fuel

combustion for mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment,

portable auxiliary equipment, material delivery trucks, and worker commuter trips;

• Motor vehicle trips generated by the particular land use (i.e. vehicles arriving and

leaving the project site), including those by residents, shoppers, workers, and

vendors (CEQA 2015;

http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch6ghgFINAL.pdf). 

The questions needing consideration regarding contributions to GHG at the project level

are:

• Will the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant effect on the environment?

• Will the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for

reducing the emissions of GHGs in the state or region?

3.5.2.1 Calculation of GHG Emissions from RUS Broadband Projects

The following calculations are based on carbon dioxide, one of several greenhouse

gases. All greenhouse gases are evaluated based on the amount of CO2 that would

have the same global warming potential (GWP), when measured over a specified

timescale, generally 100 years. This index is called the carbon dioxide equivalence

(CO2e). For example, methane has a carbon dioxide equivalence of 25, meaning that

one ton of methane will cause the same amount of warming as 25 tons of carbon

dioxide. Similarly, nitrous oxide will cause the same amount of warming as 298 tons of

carbon dioxide. For this reason, the CEQ uses only carbon dioxide emissions for its

suggested threshold for more detailed calculations for GHG emissions. The carbon
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

83

dioxide equivalence for other GHG can be readily calculated from that for carbon

dioxide.

Assumptions for the GHG calculations of hypothetical aerial and underground plant of

fiber cable are:

• 600 miles of fiber plant;

• Use of vehicles in Table 2-1 for underground and Table 2-2 for aerial plant;

• 270 days (2,160 hours considering an 8-hour day) operation to complete project

for aerial and underground (exception of directional boring);

• Directional boring only used half of the days (135 days; 1,080 hours considering

an 8-hour day);

• Pickup trucks, chipper shredder, Ditch Witch, compactor use gasoline fuel;

• Bulldozers, two-ton trucks, backhoe/loaders, semi-truck with trailer, excavator,

cable plow, flatbed truck, dump truck/trailer, skid loader use diesel fuel;

• Assume 2 gallons/hour of gasoline fuel used at 8 hours/day = 16 gallons

gasoline/vehicle/day;

• Assume 10 gallons/hour of diesel fuels used at 8 hours/day = 80 gallons of

diesel/vehicle/day

(http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?5804-fuelconsumption) (viewed 7/7/2015);

Calculation of CO2 emissions for aerial plant of fiber on poles (to nearest whole number)

• Gasoline: 16 gals/day x 270 days x 8.8 kg/gal divided by 1000 kg/metric ton x 5

vehicles = 190 metric tons

• Diesel: 80 gals/day x 270 days x 10.1 kg/gal divided by 1000 kg/metric ton x 5

vehicles = 1,090 metric tons

• Total metric tons = 190.5 + 1090.8 = 1,281.3 metric tons for an aerial plant over

600 miles, which is substantially less than 25,000 metric tons suggested for

detailed analysis by CEQ (2014)

Calculation of CO2 emissions for underground plant of fiber (to nearest whole number):

• Gasoline (not including directional boring): Gasoline: 16 gals/day x 270 days x

8.8 kg/gal divided by 1000 kg/metric ton x 4 vehicles = 152 metric tons

• Diesel (not including directional boring): 80 gals/day x 270 days x 10.1 kg/gal

divided by 1000 kg/metric ton x 6 vehicles = 1,309 metric tons

• Gasoline directional boring: 16 gals/day x 135 days x 8.8 kg/gal divided by 1000
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

84

kg/metric ton x 3 vehicles = 57 metric tons

• Diesel directional boring: 80 gals/day x 135 days x 10.1 kg/gal divided by 1000

kg/metric ton x 5 vehicles = 545 metric tons

• Total metric tons = 152.1 + 1,309.0 + 57.0 + 545.4 = 2,063 metric tons for

underground plant, including directional boring, over 600 miles, which is

substantially less than 25,000 metric tons suggested for detailed analysis by

CEQ (2014).

It is assumed that because tower construction is conducted in a small localized area

over a short period of time, that the GHG emissions would be even less than those for

aerial or underground plant.

3.5.2.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Green House Gas Emissions and Climate

Change

Considering the conservative calculations above and the scope of anticipated projects,

the metric tons of CO2 are substantially below the CEQ suggested threshold for

conducting detailed calculations.

Applicants must consider the potential for climate change impacts on their projects

during design and implementation. For example, applicants must ensure that:

• In areas that may be subject to more severe storms with high winds, that all

poles, towers, and antennas are secured and can withstand the pressures;

• In coastal areas subject to rising sea levels, or in areas potentially subject to

heavy precipitation and flooding, projects would not be inundated within the life of

the project.

Further analysis of GHG emissions will not be considered further in this PEA and are

not necessary at the level of project-level planning.

3.5.3 Air Quality: No Further Analysis for Project Level Planning

3.5.3.1 Introduction

Impacts to air quality associated with deploying fiber underground are limited to

temporary and incidental increases in particulate matter (dust) during construction in

addition to precursor emissions from operating construction equipment.

Aerial plant would not create fugitive dust issues except for vehicle use on dirt or gravel

roads within rights-of-way. Following dust abatement best management practices in

Section 3.14 would minimize dust emissions.

Underground plant is typically accomplished using the minimally ground disturbing

plowing construction technique (Section 2.2). The narrow blade used for cable
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

85

installation causes soils to be cut and not tumbled, and limits the vegetative clearing

and disruption of soils to a small trench approximately 3 to 6 inches in width. Tractor

treads on the heavy equipment minimize vegetation disturbance beyond that width.

Construction of a tower would have very little ground disturbance, and all disturbed land

would be quickly covered in concrete for the tower footings. Building construction would

require erosion control, including dust suppression and rapid ground cover with building

foundations and parking areas. Few projects require new building construction. 

Dust suppression, especially use of water trucks, will be employed as required to control

fugitive dust at construction sites for fiber plant and tower and building construction, as

measured in particulate matter of 10 microns in size and 2.5 microns in size (PM10 and

PM2.5), with 2.5 micron grains being more damaging to lungs. However, because the

narrow trenching blade and immediate reconstruction result in almost no dust, fugitive

dust is not expected to be a problem with deployment of either underground or aerial

deployment.

The air emissions of construction activities, including fiber plant and construction of

towers and buildings, from the vehicle exhaust emissions of heavy-duty-diesel and

gasoline-powered equipment and worker commute trips include criteria air pollutants

NOx, CO, SO2, and ozone. These pollutants are less concern than particulate matter

because construction activities are not likely to generate substantial quantities of the

criteria pollutants (CEQA 2015;

http://airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch3Construction-GeneratedCAPsFINAL.pdf

(viewed 7/6/2015)). The questions that need to be considered regarding air quality at

the project level are:

• Is the air quality in the area for any criteria pollutant in non-attainment as

determined by the state implementation plan?

• If so, will the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the state air

quality implementation plan?

• If so, will the project violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to

an existing or projected air quality violation?

• If so, will the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment?

• Will the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?

3.5.3.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Air Quality

Adherence to BMPs and SOPs in Section 3.14 will keep the already minimal air quality

emissions to a minimum. Most rural areas where RUS-supported projects are expected

to be conducted within attainment areas. Emissions from an individual broadband
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

86

project in any one area are projected to be de minimis and do not need to be evaluated

at the project level, even in the unlikely circumstance where the area is in maintenance

or non-attainment for a precursor air pollutant. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this

analysis would be needed to be performed at a project level. 

3.6 Potential Impact of Equipment Noise on Sensitive Receptors: No

Further Analysis at Project Level Planning

3.6.1 Introduction

Noise and vibration are both fluctuations in the pressure of air (or other media) that

affect the human body. Vibrations that are detected by the human ear are classified as

sound. We use the term 'noise' to indicate unwanted sound.

Noise is measured in units of sound pressure levels called decibels, named after 

Alexander Graham Bell, using A-weighted sound levels (dBA). The A-weighted sound 

levels closely match the perception of loudness by the human ear. Decibels are 

measured on a logarithmic scale, which means that a small change in the number of 

decibels results in a huge change in the amount of noise and the potential damage to a 

person's hearing.

Sixty to eighty dBs are considered to be “loud.” Table 3-1 indicates the comparative

sound pressure levels of “sound” in dBs of various sources

(http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-pressure-d_711.html; viewed 7/12/2015).

Table 3-1. Comparative Sound Pressure Levels of “Noise” in Sound Pressure

Levels (dBs).

Source dB

Quietest audible sound for persons with excellent hearing

under laboratory conditions (threshold of hearing)

0

Rustling leaves 20

Quiet room in a home 40

Vacuum cleaner, inside a car moving at 50 m/hour (loud for a

voice conversation at 1 foot)

70

Automobile (30 feet away), diesel trucks, road with busy traffic,

maximum REL for 8 hours to protect hearing (loud, intolerable

for phone use)

80

Food blender, bulldozer or jackhammer at 45 feet away,

maximum sound for 8 hour criteria (loud, intolerable for phone

use)

90

Diesel truck at 30 feet (very loud) 100

Lawn mower at 3 feet (very loud) 107

Large aircraft at 450 feet overhead (threshold of discomfort) 110
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

87

Chainsaw (threshold of discomfort) 117

Siren (deafening, human pain limit) 120

For the worst-case analysis, we assumed deploying underground cable in a residential

neighborhood for a period of, for example, two hours in a one-block area during the

daytime. Sound is “less noisy” during the day than at night, when roads have traffic,

and televisions, washing machines, music, and other sounds are occurring inside an

individual residence, and other “noisy” activities are occurring inside and outside a

residence. Also, residents tend to be either working or involved in activities away from

the residence during the day. We assume that no resident is sleeping during the

daytime. 

Using Tables 2-1 and 2-2, we assume that, at any one time, a piece of equipment

equivalent to a bulldozer would be operating within a one block area of a residential

neighborhood for approximately 2 hours. To minimize a sound of 90 to 100 dB at

distance of 45 feet from the source, a resident at home can shut their windows on the

road side of the house for several hours, substantially reducing the sound level. 

Because the operating site is rehabilitated immediately, all vehicles and equipment

would be gone within several hours, with no need to return.

When loud sounds may be a concern, the equipment may be artificially muffled by thick

material, such as a carpet, between the loud equipment and the sensitive receptor, or a

tent structure over loud equipment (pers. comm. PCCA, 7/5/2015). 

3.6.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Noise

People in residential areas are exposed to the loud noise associated with the operation

of lawn mowers and chain saws, which are “louder” than bulldozers and diesel trucks,

on a regular basis (lawn mowers probably once per week, including their own). 

Therefore, people would not be exposed to harmful sounds for an extended period of

time, and, although they may be slightly annoyed for several hours, the period of

annoyance would be temporary. Construction would be consistent with local noise

ordinances and limited to daylight hours. With these routine measures in place, the

potential for adverse impacts to sensitive noise receptors is negligible. Therefore,

potential impacts from noise will not be considered further in this PEA, nor must it be

considered at project-level planning.

3.7 Potential Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species: Deferred to

Project Level Planning

3.7.1 Introduction

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 United States Code (U.S.C.)

1531 et seq., as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), all federal agencies must conserve
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

88

listed threatened and endangered species and will use their authorities in furtherance of

the purposes of the Act (Sec. 2(c)). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) are charged with implementation and enforcement of the

ESA, including development of recovery plans for listed species. Under the authority of

the ESA, these agencies act to prevent the extinction of plant and animal species by

identifying species at risk of extinction, designating (or "listing") these species as

threatened or endangered. These agencies provide protection for these listed species

and their habitats by developing and implementing recovery plans to improve specie

status, and ultimately "delisting" these species and returning full management authority

of the species to the states or tribes when warranted.

Agencies conduct ESA Section 7 consultations with the USFWS/NMFS and use their

expertise to ensure that "any action authorized, funded or carried out by such an

agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or

threatened species...Each agency will use the best scientific and commercial data

available" (Sec.7(a)(2)). 

The USFWS/NMFS can issue permits providing for conducting various activities,

including scientific research or enhancement of propagation or survival; “take” incidental

to conducting other activities is covered under an incidental take statement issued

under Section 7.

Under the ESA implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) regarding informal Section

7 consultation, federal agencies must review their actions and determine whether their

action may affect federally listed or proposed listed species as well as proposed or

designated critical habitat. To accomplish Section 7 consultation, federal agencies must

request from the USFWS/NMFS a list of species and critical habitats that may be in the

project area or they can request concurrence with the agency’s list of species. The

USFWS’s IPaC website can be used for informal consultation (Appendix G) by clicking

on the “Request an Official Species List” button. 

The USFWS/NMFS must respond to either a request or concurrence of an Agency

species list within 30 days. If listed species may be present, the requesting entity may

self-determine a “no effect” finding based on its analysis. Alternatively, the agency may

proceed with informal consultation by submitting a finding of effects determination or

Biological Assessment to their local USFWS field office and request guidance on ways

to reduce any effects. If the results of informal consultation lead to the determination

that the project may adversely affect the listed species, then formal Section 7

consultation is initiated, resulting in the USFWS/NMFS issuing a Biological Opinion, with

conservation measures, and potentially an incidental take statement with mandatory

terms and conditions.
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

89

Detailed step-by-step instruction and technical assistance is found at

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/7a2process.html (viewed

7/6/2015). This site walks the viewer through the Section 7 consultation process,

provides guidance for preparing a Biological Assessment for formal or informal

consultation (format, content, and analysis), and links to the USFWS Section 7

Consultation Handbook. 

 The IPaC website and databases described in Appendix G of this PEA as well as the

website identified above provide the information needed for informal consultation,

including species lists, species information, maps of critical habitat, and meaningful and

effective mitigation and conservation measures specific to the proposed and associated

connected actions. Use of the available tools helps the USFWS focus on formal

Section 7 consultations for proposals with higher impacts to listed species. 

The website http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/no_effect/telcoms3.html

(viewed 7/6/15), which is accessible from the USFWS Section 7 Technical Assistance

website, provides two primary factors for consideration of telecommunication projects:

A. Does the project involve installing towers that include use of guy wires and/or

is the tower over 200 feet in height? If yes - the project requires further review. 

Please contact the Ecological Services Field Office nearest the project for

assistance. If no, continue with the “no effect” determination process; and

B. Does the project involve removal of native vegetation? If yes, the project

requires further review, including the determination of presence or absence of

suitable habitat, presence or absence of associated listed species and critical

habitat, and potential for impact to either. If no, continue with the “no effect”

determination process.

See Appendix I for the USFWS criteria and checklist for tower siting and design.

Geospatial data regarding designated critical habitat can be readily found at the website

http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ (Viewed 7/6/2015). See a detailed description of this

website in Appendix G of this PEA.

3.7.2 Impacts and Conclusion: Threatened and Endangered Species

As species and associated critical habitat vary among regions both in and outside of the

U.S., each project will need site-specific compliance with the ESA. Therefore,

compliance with the ESA is deferred to project-level planning and NEPA compliance. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

90

3.8 Potential Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation from Base

Stations (Cell Towers and Microwave Towers) on Human Health and

Safety: No Further Analysis at Project Planning

3.8.1 Introduction

With the rapid increase of cell phone use and wireless internet worldwide, including the

proliferation of microwave antennas, questions and concerns have surfaced regarding

the possible adverse impacts to human health and safety from electromagnetic radiation

emitted by antennas located on towers and other elevated infrastructure, such as

buildings. Some people perceive risks to human health from whole-body exposure to

electromagnetic radio frequency (RF) fields as likely and even possibly severe (WHO;

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/).

Since the late 1990s, much of the research on impacts of RF has been conducted

outside the United States, with unclear or differing results. In many respects, the

scientific literature concerning biological and possible health effects of RF fields is

uneven, confused, and varies widely in quality. In many reports, biological endpoints

and relevance are from limited experiments, have obvious technical flaws, small sample

sizes, or present results promoting publication bias. The literature “abounds with

reports of ‘effects’, many of which are artifacts from poorly conducted experiments”

(Foster and Trottier 2013). 

Considering the state of current information, the analysis in this PEA is based on reports

and guidelines from the most recent, objective, and peer-reviewed sources. These

sources include:

• International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP;

http://www.icnirp.org/en/home/home-read-more.html;

http://www.icnirp.org/en/frequencies/high-frequency/hf.html;

http://www.icnirp.org/en/applications/base-stations/index.html);

• United Nations World Health Organization (WHO; http://www.who.int/pehemf/publications/facts/fs304/en/);

• United Nations World Health Organization International Agency for Research on

Cancer (IARC) Non-Ionizing Radiation Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic

Fields Vol. 102. Published 2013, based on the working group meeting in Lyons

France in 2011. (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102-

F01-F02.pdf); and

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/background.html) (https://www.fcc.gov/whatwe-do) (https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/background.html)
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

91

(https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-andpcs-sites).

References are drawn from the cited websites, which were reviewed on 06/30/2015,

unless stated otherwise. 

A frequently referenced report, “The BioInitiative Report (BIR): A Rationale for

Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation”

(2012; http://www.bioinitiative.org/), is a non-peer-reviewed document that purports to

evaluate the science, public health, and public policy impacts of RF exposures on

human health, based primarily on RF emitted from cell and wireless phones, not the RF

from cell towers and base stations, which has different frequencies and emissions,

scope of exposure, and potential effects. It also misinterprets the conclusions related to

cell phone RF emissions made in the 2013 IARC monograph.

Several international relevant entities invalidate the methodology and conclusions in the

BIR, finding them unbalanced, biased, non-rigorous, scientifically unjustified, and not

meeting the standards of science (Croft et al. 2008, the Health Council of the

Netherlands 2008, Foster and Trottier, the Indian Ministry of Communications and

Information Technology 2013). Therefore, the BIR, as well as and papers and blogs

prepared by the primary preparers of the report, are not incorporated in this PEA. 

3.8.2 Background

3.8.2.1 Non-ionizing Radiation and Base Stations

Ionization is the conversion of an atom, molecule, or substance into an ion or ions by

removing one or more electrons. Ionization is associated with higher frequency

electromagnetic radiation such as ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, and gamma rays. Lowerfrequency non-ionizing radiation (NIR) includes microwaves and electromagnetic

radiation such as ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, radio waves, and

mechanical waves such as infra- and ultrasound. In daily life, common sources of NIR

include the sun, household electrical appliances, mobile phones, microwave ovens, and

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines used for medical purposes, and

microwave antennas used in telecommunications.

This analysis addresses non-ionizing radiation emitted from cell and microwave

antennas (also called base stations or cellular or PCS cell site antennas) and

associated infrastructure described in Section 2.5. Cellular or Personal

Communications Service (PCS) cell site towers are typically 50-to 200-feet high, with

antennas typically arranged in groups of three; antennas may also be mounted on water

towers or other elevated structures such as rooftops or the sides of buildings. Base

stations for cellular phones use frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz). 

Transmitters in broadband PCS use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

92

The total RF power that can be transmitted from each transmitting antenna at a cell site

depends on the power of each transmitter and the number of radio channels

(transmitters) authorized by the FCC. While a typical base station could have as many

as 63 transmitters (with total power ranging between 10 and 50 watts), not all of the

transmitters routinely operate simultaneously or continuously, thus reducing overall

emission levels below the possible maximum permitted by the FCC.

The RF signal from a cellular or PCS base station antenna mounted on a rooftop or

tower is essentially directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the

horizontal plane. Thus, the dispersion of microwave energy outside of the relatively

narrow horizontal beam is minimal or insignificant. The radiation pattern from an omnidirectional antenna may be compared to a thin doughnut or pancake centered around

the antenna, while the pattern for a sector antenna is fan-shaped, like a wedge cut from

a pie (Figure 3-15). As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density

decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna in horizontal distance or one is

below the emission pattern that extends horizontally from the antenna. Generally, the

RF field strength decreases very rapidly with distance from the source at the antenna

and can be calculated as the inverse square of the distance (ICNIRP, FCC). 

Figure 3-15. Diagrams of the Horizontal and Vertical Patterns from a Cell Phone

Antenna. An antenna radiates a horizontal fan-shaped beam with a narrow

vertical beam. A tower with multiple antennas would have a broader horizontal

beam. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_antenna#/media/File:Sector_antenna_radiation_pattern.png) 

Consequently, ground-level exposure is substantially less than exposures that might be

encountered if one were very close to the antenna directly within the transmitted beam. 

3.8.2.2 Human Health Exposure Guidelines

Most countries, including the United States, base exposure recommendations upon the

same general concepts and thresholds as those used by the:
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

93

• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a nonprofit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and

recommendations concerning radiation protection;

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a nonprofit, privately funded

membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary national

standards in the United States);

• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a national nonprofit

technical and professional engineering society); and

• ICNIRP (1998, base station standards currently under revision). 

Scientists and engineers experienced and knowledgeable in RF biological effects and

related issues developed both the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE guidelines; the ANSI/IEEE

guidelines are widely used and cited. The guidelines are based on published scientific

studies relevant to establishing safe levels for human exposure to RF energy.

In 1985 the FCC adopted recognized safety guidelines for evaluating RF environmental

exposure for portable devices, such as cell and cordless phones and mobile wireless,

and fixed cellular and wireless antennas used for cellular and PCS, which were

amended in 1996 (FCC 1996) based on recommendations by ANSI, IEEE, and NRCP. 

The FCC guidelines provide recommended human health exposure and received

comments from more than 100 parties, including telecommunications organizations,

federal agencies, local and state authorities, and individuals. However, the United

States does not have regulatory standards for cellular base station RF emissions. 

In its 1996 notice, the FCC concluded in part that, out of an abundance of caution, the

FCC requires further environmental analysis for tower-mounted installations lower than

10 meters [approximately 30 feet, much taller than a human being] above ground and

with an effective radiated power (ERP) of over 100 watts, or when the total power of all

channels being used is over 1000 watts ERP. For antennas mounted higher than 10

meters above ground, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that

ground-level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the

new maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits (FCC 1996 para. 92). 

FCC radiofrequency radiation guidelines for the limit of human exposure recommend a

maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580

microwatts per cm2, which is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the

base of cellular or PCS cell site towers. Calculations corresponding to a “worst case”

situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum

increased power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC’s

guidelines, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam

(which is in a pattern horizontal from the point of transmission and decreases rapidly
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

94

above and below that plane) and within a few feet in front of the antenna for at least 6

minutes. The fact that rooftop cellular and PCS antennas usually operate at lower

power levels than antennas on free-standing towers further reduces the likelihood of

excessive exposure conditions on rooftops. In addition, the significant signal

attenuation caused by a building’s roof minimizes any chance for persons living or

working within the building itself to be exposed to RF levels that could approach or

exceed applicable safety limits (FCC). Thus the possibility that a member of the general

public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely

remote.

Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless

technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally

thousands of times below international standards (FCC, WHO, ICNIRP). Moreover, as

an added margin of safety, microwave tower sites are normally inaccessible to the

general public. Significant exposures from these antennas could only occur in the

unlikely event that an individual were to stand directly in front of and very close to an

antenna for a period of time, such as standing on a rooftop near an antenna mounted

there. 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld FCC’s guidelines developed using ANSI

and NRCP standards and the human exposure standards as reasonable and not

arbitrary or capricious (Cellular Phone Taskforce, et al. v. Federal Communications

Commission, 205 F.3d 82, 2000).

3.8.3 Thermal and Non-thermal Potential Health Risks to Humans

To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews is related to

an increase in body temperature (>1°C) in exposed tissue from exposure at very high

field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities. RF fields can penetrate into the

body (the higher the frequency, the lower the penetration depth) and cause vibration of

charged or polar molecules (such as water) inside resulting in friction and thus heat - a

process similar to cooking food in a microwave oven.

Internal temperature regulation can accommodate small increases in heat, but above a

certain threshold level and depending on the duration of exposure, higher frequency RF

exposure and the accompanying temperature rise can provoke serious health effects

such as heatstroke and tissue damage (burns). Acute and long-term effects of RF

exposure below the thermal threshold have been studied extensively without revealing

any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects. The levels of RF exposure from

base stations and wireless networks are so low that temperature increases are

insignificant and do not affect human health.

Few studies have investigated general non-thermal health effects in individuals exposed

to RF fields from base stations, because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

95

effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF

signals in the environment. Most non-thermal studies have focused on the RF

exposures of cordless and cell phone users, which have exposures about 1,000 times

higher than those associated with general exposure from base stations or wireless

networks.

Due to their lower frequency, at similar exposure levels, the human body absorbs up to

five times more of the signal from FM radio and television antennas than from base

stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV

broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those used in mobile telephony

(900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body an efficient

receiving antenna at those frequencies. Further, radio and television broadcast stations

have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health

consequence being established (WHO).

As recognized in a recent WHO 2004 fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

(EHS)" (http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/EMF; viewed 7/3/2015),

EMF hypersensitivity is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ

among individuals in both types of symptoms and severity. It has not been identified as

a medical diagnosis, and may not represent a single medical problem. The range of

non-specific symptoms lack apparent toxicological or physiological basis or independent

verification and might arise from unrelated environmental factors, stress reactions, and

psychiatric conditions. 

However, the WHO has identified research to determine health effects as a high priority. 

These topics include levels of RF exposures from various sources; behavioral,

neurological, and development of fetuses and children; aging and neurodegenerative

diseases in adults; and levels of exposure to non-thermal RF radiation from various

sources (WHO 2010).

Natural RF from the earth’s electric and magnetic fields, the sun’s electromagnetic

activity, cosmic ionizing and nonionizing radiation, and terrestrial radioactivity is nonpolarized and has more or less a constant and stable intensity level most of the time. 

Artificial man-made electromagnetic radiation is polarized, changes/modulates/pulses

frequently in intensity, is generated continuously, and is often made up of differing

frequencies. Artificial electromagnetic frequencies add to the natural environmental

ones, increasing the exposure (Panagopoulos 2013).

Stable electromagnetic fields outside and in the bodies of living organisms (endogenous

weak electrical currents) are involved in all functions at the cellular, tissue, and organ

levels, controlling cell growth, proliferation, and differentiation; embryonic development;

wound healing/tissue regeneration; and various physiological functions, health, and

vitality through the operation of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) gland that controls
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

96

the circadian biological clocks in all locations and cells in the body. The body’s

circadian clocks control sleep/wake cycles, brain and cardiovascular activity, the

rhythmic operation of the heart; the operation of the endocrine system, physiology of the

gastrointestinal tract, feeding behavior and timing, and hepatic metabolism. It is

possible that disturbances in the communication between the different individual body

clocks throughout the body potentially caused by RF may desynchronize the circadian

system, which may lead to fatigue, decreased performance, obesity, neuropsychiatric

disorders, and disease (Panagopoulos 2013). 

Since man-made electromagnetic fields change or modulate constantly, typically

including two or more different fields, usually of varying frequencies characteristic of

most types of man-made RF fields, the cells of living organisms cannot adapt to the

unstable EMF fields, which can lead to biological changes and potentially changes in

health effects. Cell phones and the emissions from base stations serving phones and

broadband can create frequency systems that are increasingly complex and constantly

and unpredictably changeable to carry more and different types of information, such as

voice, music, video, and internet. The RF becomes stronger when searching for signals

or when signals are weak.

3.8.4 Potential Relationship of Non-ionizing EMF to Cancer

Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained

through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15

years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer

have been published. These studies do not provide evidence that RF exposure from

the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have

not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels

that are much higher than those produced by base stations and wireless networks

(WHO).

IARC (2013) analysis of emissions from fixed transmission antennas based on

measures of geographic proximity to the antennas as an exposure surrogate do not

suggest a positive association between RF emissions and cancer of the brain, based on

five case-controlled studies. Two studies were based on AM radio-transmitters or

mobile phone base station antennas; one was based on a mobile phone base station;

one was based on the proximity of digital cordless phones (digital enhanced cordless

telecommunications (DECT)) to beds in the home; and, the fifth was based on proximity

of residences near a base station antenna. Together, these studies provided no

indication that environmental exposure to RF radiation increases the risk of brain

tumors, and no conclusions could be drawn regarding the risk of leukemia or lymphoma

from environmental exposure to RF radiation, finding the available evidence

uninformative. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

97

In summary, IARC concluded that RF electromagnetic fields possibly associated with

the use of cell and cordless phones are “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” potentially

causing gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but not from RF radiation in the environment

from base stations. Actual measurements found that being in close proximity to mobile

phone base stations is not a good proxy for exposure, due to considerable variability in

characteristics of the antennas and shielding and reflection of the microwaves. It found

that typical exposures from rooftop or tower-mounted base stations are lower by more

than five orders of magnitude than those from the cordless phone handsets. 

3.8.5 Impacts and Conclusion: EMF on Human Health

There is no convincing or generally accepted scientific evidence to date that adverse

short- or long-term human health effects may occur from the RF radiation produced by

base stations for cell phones. Because wireless networks produce generally lower RF

signals than base stations, the current state of the science indicates that no adverse

health effects are expected from the level of exposure to RF radiation at a reasonable

distance from base stations that would be routinely experienced by the general public

(WHO, ICNIRP, FCC). Therefore, operation of wireless and microwave towers are

assumed to comply with Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/1997.html#13045; viewed 7/12/2015).

While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations,

research is still being promoted by WHO and many other international organizations

and scientists to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher

RF exposures from mobile phones and non-thermal effects from RF radiation from base

stations and wireless networks (WHO 2010). 

Because humans are generally below the plane of and at least 30 feet from primary RF

radiation associated with broadband antennas, based on information available to date

there should be negligible impact to human health. 

Therefore, potential impacts from EMF on human health will not be considered further in

this PEA, nor must it be further evaluated at project-level planning.

3.9 Potential Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation from Base

Stations (Cell Towers and Microwave Towers) on Wildlife: No Further

Analysis at Project Planning

3.9.1 Background

The following incorporates the analysis of impacts to human health in Section 3.9

without repeating citations. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

98

Little research has been conducted on the ecological effects of RF on wildlife and

insects in natural habitats. Most relevant research has been performed in the

laboratory, primarily in Europe and India. 

Cucurachi et al. (2012), attempting to use only high value, mostly peer-reviewed

published literature, conducted a systematic review of the published literature regarding

the ecological effects of RF including microwave frequencies on non-human organisms. 

However, most of the studies involved laboratory and field studies and did not use the

newer forms of wireless communication, such as 3G and WiFi systems, focusing on

frequencies emitted by older cell phones. The animal studies typically involved studies

on growth, development, behavior, shifts in population size/abundance/presence, and

reproduction/fertility that could potentially provide relevant information for extrapolation

to broader ecological levels. All studies focused in the range of 10 MHz to 3.6 GHz

(from the AM radio frequencies to lower band microwave frequencies), but many of the

studies involved the frequencies emitted by cellular and cordless phones (900 MHz and

1800 MHz), which are not the same frequencies as those emitted from base stations. 

Many of the studies had differing levels and duration of exposure, making them difficult

to compare and many of the studies and literature reviews were conducted by only a

small number of researchers. 

To provide context for the state of the science, Cucurachi et al. (2012) originally

reviewed over 700 articles, but found only eight field studies that involved real exposure

conditions, and no studies that evaluated the impacts of RF radiation at the ecosystem

level. 

Cucurachi et al. (2012) found that none of the studies analyzed in their review reported

the use of standard, repeatable, and well-described protocols and analysis, such as

appropriate controls, objective data collected subject to statistical analysis, and

selection of appropriate study subjects (as cited in Michaelson (1991), Beers (1989),

and Repacholi and Cardis (1997)). Beers (1989) states (as quoted in Cucurachi et al.

2012): “a long list of reports of positive results yielded by inadequate experiments may

appear impressive in a review yet mean little.”

Balmari (2009) also reviewed the literature on effects of RF radiation on wildlife, but

Cucurachi et al. (2012) found that his review of the literature did not identify the criteria

for screening the literature or the rationale for inclusion or exclusion of articles; did not

include a detailed analysis of the research protocols, such as duration of exposure and

physical parameters; and only included studies finding a significant adverse effect,

making conclusions difficult. Only five studies matched the ecological criteria set for the

review, and only one laboratory study on mice (Lee et al. 2009) investigated the

possible impacts of newer technologies such as 3G and WiFi. The review concluded

that a clear need exists for the study of the effects of RF radiation on more species and
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

99

organisms, including more field studies of such effects on populations, interactions

among species, and ecological impacts. 

Therefore, the published studies regarding the possible effects of EMF on wildlife and

plants do not provide a basis for making robust scientific conclusions. 

The following summaries are based on recent published articles that are often quoted in

other papers that use frequencies emitted from base stations (not mobile phones),

including in Cucurachi et al. (2012), or that appear to provide useful information.

• Balmori (2015), in the review of the literature referenced above, identified that

outdoor exposure to weak RF radiation in the broadband spectrum from radio

and mobile phone base stations (especially RF in cell phone frequencies) may

contribute to interference with the ability of insects and birds to orient themselves

in the earth’s magnetic field and to find food using the electromagnetic fields

created by plants, including bumblebees (Bombus terrestris; Cammaerts et al.

2012, 2014); honeybees (Apis mellifera; Favre 2011); and monarch butterflies

(Danaus plexippus; (Guerra et al. 2014). White storks (Ciconia ciconia) nesting

directly on power lines (Vaitkuniene and Dagys 2014) and near phone base

stations (Balmori 2005) appeared to have decreased reproductive success. 

These factors may possibly contribute cumulatively to population decreases,

although ability to make conclusions based on the study protocols is weak at

best.

• Everaert and Bauwens (2007) studied male house sparrows (Passer domesticus)

in residential neighborhoods to evaluate nesting abundance related to the

distance from and strength of the electromagnetic radiation in the 900 MHz and

1800 MHz frequency bands emitted from telephone base stations. Results

suggested that long-term exposure to higher levels of radiation negatively affects

the abundance or behavior of house sparrows in the wild (decreasing number of

nesting birds with increasing levels of radiation) and/or may adversely affect the

insect populations needed to feed nestling chicks. Birds may be susceptible to

radiation because they have thin skulls, their feathers may actually perform as

dielectric receptors of microwave radiation, and they may spend time nesting and

flying in elevations above the ground that may be closer the emissions of

antennas. The authors admit to multiple weaknesses in their study protocols, but

believe that the consistent results among all study areas “strengthens the

possibility that the relationship is not a spurious one.”

• Balmori (2006) included a review of literature related to the impacts of

electromagnetic radiation on rapid decline of amphibian populations. Amphibians

may be reliable bio-indicators of the health of ecosystems because they have

moist skin that is highly permeable to water chemicals (especially eggs and
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

100

larvae) and air pollutants (especially adults), without any protection between the

skin and the environment. Population declines may be caused by increases in

ultraviolet light, chemical pollutants, pathogens and parasites, destruction and

changes in habitat, climate change, and introduction of invasive species, and are

occurring even in relatively pristine areas. Despite the wide range of factors

potentially impacting amphibian populations, the author postulates that manmade electromagnetic radiation, especially microwaves and RF from mobile

telecommunications and radio station transmitters, may be contributing to

adverse effects on amphibians and populations through increased mortality,

heart arrhythmia, deformities, altered immune, nervous, and endocrine systems,

increases in embryonic mortality, and synergistic relationships with the adverse

effects of ultraviolet radiation. The author recognized that studying effects of RF

on living organisms is complex, with many variables, non-linear dose-response

relationships, and varying individual and species susceptibility to radiation, and

that the results reported may not be causal.

3.9.2 Impacts and Conclusion: EMF on Wildlife

The limited laboratory and field studies and research conducted to date, mostly outside

the United States, include poor-quality protocols with insufficient controls, lack of

evaluation of other possible causes of potential results (for example, effects of water

quality in the case of impacts on amphibians), and inability to determine causality

relationships. Studies may infer that non-thermal, non-ionizing radiation may be

contributing to adverse impacts to wildlife and insects through various mechanisms at

the cellular, individual, species, population, and ecological levels, although consistently

poor quality protocols do not provide evidence at this time. Many of the studies used

RF frequencies emitted from cell phones at close range to the subjects; such emissions

are more biologically active than those from PCS and microwave antennas, and

therefore would have a much higher risk of impacts. Such conditions would also not

occur in the environment.

Most of the literature reviewed, as well as reports from the USFWS, identifies an urgent

need for additional laboratory and field studies with robust protocols for further

investigation of the potential adverse impacts of towers and RF on ecological systems

and species diversity.

Wildlife (insects, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and most birds) and plants would

not be directly within an EMF pattern emitted horizontally from the antenna for any

duration, such as the six minutes used for the threshold for direct human exposure, and

the fact that emissions dissipate quickly with distance from the antenna (Sections

3.9.2.1 and 3.9.2.2). The only possible exception could be a bird nesting or a bird roost

area directly located directly within the main beam in front of the antenna, either of

which is highly unlikely. Therefore, no adverse impacts could be expected from direct
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

101

exposure. The number of confounding factors and lack of robust protocols associated

with current studies cannot lead to a prediction of the relationship of causality to

adverse impacts with certainty.

The USFWS, operating within its authority per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the

Endangered Species Act, has expressed concerns regarding the potential cumulative

effects on birds caused by non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication

towers. The agency, quoting many of the papers summarized above, has expressed

concerned that the 1996 FCC guidelines, which are based on thermal effects of EMF on

humans, are outdated. The agency recommends that independent third-party field

studies should be conducted in the United States and Canada to determine “the

potential impacts of communication tower radiation – both direct and indirect – to

migratory birds and other wildlife” (USFWS 2014).

Given the state of the science as summarized here, it is highly unlikely that wildlife

would be located within the direct beam of a wireless base station. Therefore, the

impact to wildlife and ecosystems from the RUS Telecommunications Program is

negligible. 

Therefore, potential impacts from EMF on wildlife will not be considered further in this

PEA, nor must it be further evaluated at project-level planning.

3.10 Physical Impacts of Telecommunications Towers to Migratory Birds:

No Further Analysis at Project Planning

3.10.1 Background

This analysis summarizes and incorporates by reference the analysis in the PEA

prepared for the FCC’s Antenna Structure Registration Program (FCC 2012), as well as

USFWS recent guidance for minimizing the risk of collisions of migratory birds with

telecommunications towers (Patterson 2012, Manville 2014, USFWS 2014).

The physical impacts of towers on migratory birds (collisions) and the electromagnetic

impacts of cell and microwave tower emissions on living organisms are of interest to the

public. Therefore, to consider these environmental effects, the following summarizes

known information and research results, with conclusions related to the physical

impacts of towers on birds.

3.10.2 Effects of Bird Collisions with Communications Towers 

Bird kills caused by towers and their guy wires, as well as the effects of non-flashing

lights, have been recorded since the 1950s, with the earliest mass kill documented in

1874. However, the first comprehensive study of such kills was not conducted until

2000 (American Bird Conservancy 2000). Since 2000, the USFWS has provided and

updated guidance regarding tower siting and construction standards and mitigation for
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

102

minimizing the risk of bird collisions. The most recent FAA advisory circular regarding

tower obstruction marking and lighting (AC 70/7460-1K, 2007) was published in 2007. 

Since then, the FAA has been informally updating the requirements as new information

regarding impacts of towers on birds becomes available. To reduce the risk to

migratory birds, the FAA has proposed to make specific changes to the obstruction

lighting standards in its 2007 advisory circular, including a proposal to omit steadyburning red lights or configuring red lights so that they flash periodically (Patterson

2012). 

The USFWS states (Manville 2014):

“Some will argue that the current estimated annual levels of mortality from avian

collisions with communication towers are relatively small (i.e., 6.8 million in the

U.S. and Canada; Longcore et al. 2012), compared to collisions with window

glass (median 599 million; Loss et al. 2013b, Klem and Saenger 2013), or

domestic and feral cats (median 2.4 billion; Loss et al. 2013a). While these

comparisons may be interesting and perhaps instructive, they are by far not the

end of the story. Impacts to migratory birds must include cumulative effects

(cumulative biologically and under the legal mandates of NEPA) from all sources,

including the effects of collisions and radiation from cellular towers, the latter

which remains un-assessed and still poorly understood in North America.”

Longcore et al. (2013) conducted a detailed and thorough meta-review and regression

analysis of the North American avian research data, estimating that at least 13 species

of Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) and species of concern from Canada

are being impacted at the population level based solely on collisions with

communication towers. Ninety-seven per cent of these birds were migratory birds. 

Most notable were projected impacts to the yellow rail, pied-billed grebe, bay-breasted

warbler, prairie warbler, and ovenbird. Their estimates were based on data that

included 259,393 documented deaths of 239 species at 107 locations in the United

States and Canada (Manville 2014). 

3.10.3 Characteristics of Towers Contributing to Bird Mortality and FAA and 

USFWS Mitigation

Light appears to be a key attractant for night-migrating songbirds, especially on nights

with poor visibility, low cloud ceilings, heavy fog, or various forms of precipitation

associated with passing or stationary cold fronts (Manville 2005). Tall towers supported

by guy wires are also a major contributor. The FCC (2012) identified towers located in

heavy migration areas such as ridgelines, coastal zones, bird staging areas, colonial

nesting sites, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) areas, and

riparian zones as having the potential for higher adverse impacts to migrating birds. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

103

Cutting edge research by J. Gehring on Michigan State Police and several tall Michigan

television towers (Gehring et al. 2009, 2011, 2013a and 2013b), and more recently on

tall towers in Michigan and New Jersey (Gehring and Walker 2012), have clearly

illustrated the relationship between communication towers, bird collisions, tower

structural lighting, tower height, and the presence of guy wires (Gehring 2013, Gehring

and Manville 2013, Gehring et al. 2009, 2011).

The majority of fatalities involved night-migrating songbirds, and the key factors can be

summarized as follows:

• Towers with guy-support wires result in higher levels of avian mortality than

towers without guy wires (16 times more in the Michigan study by Gehring et al.

2009, Gehring 2013);

• Taller towers result in higher levels of avian mortality than shorter towers. In the

Michigan study (Gehring et al. 2011 and Gehring 2013), tall towers >1,000 feet

above ground level (AGL) were involved in 5 times more collisions than towers

than those less than 470 ft. AGL;

• Steady-burning lights on towers result in higher levels of avian mortality than

flashing lights. In the Michigan study (Gehring et al. 2009, Gehring 2013), tower

lighting systems that included non-blinking red lights were involved in 3.5 times

more bird collisions than any other lighting system present; and

• The elimination (through retrofit, relicensing, or new construction) of steady red

(L-810) non-flashing lights could collectively reduce avian mortality by 50-70%

nationwide based on current assessments. In the Michigan study (Gehring et al.

2009, Gehring 2013), this level of reduction was attained at the P < 0.01 level

using the simple Student t-test.

The FAA (Patterson 2012) published a detailed memo authorizing these lighting and

other changes, but the final changes have yet to be incorporated into the new FAA

Obstruction and Marking Lighting Circular that will update FAA’s current 2007 guidance. 

The updated Lighting Circular is anticipated to be publicly available in the near future.

The changes, however, are authorized by the FAA for implementation (Patterson 2012).

The FCC, having acknowledged the results of the FAA’s study on the visibility of towers

to airplane pilots and subsequent 2012 determination, now requires that all new towers

>450 feet AGL have no steady red lights. The FCC is currently recommending that new

towers 350 to 450 feet AGL contain no steady red lights, but has not yet made that a

requirement.

The FCC will eventually address new towers <350 feet AGL, recommending that

existing non-flashing lights flash with the other flashing beacons. These new flashing

side-marker lights are currently under development and LED lighting will be suggested
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

104

for all new construction and for retrofits. Synchronization of flashes will be required

(Manville 2014). 

The USFWS has developed Revised Voluntary Guidelines for Communication Tower

Design, Siting, Construction, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning (USFWS September

2014), including a Tower Site Evaluation Form, to help project managers and planners

having one or more towers as a component of their project select sites that minimize

bird mortality (Appendix H). 

3.10.4 Impacts and Conclusion: Towers on Birds

Following the USFWS voluntary guidelines by collocating antennas whenever possible,

and using non-guyed towers less than 200 feet tall with appropriate lighting if collocation

is not possible whenever practical and feasible, would minimize or avoid the risk of bird

collisions with towers. Each project should complete the USFWS “Tower Site

Evaluation Form” to ensure that proposed towers meet the USFWS’s guidelines

(Appendix H). New towers not meeting the USFWS and FCC recommended standards

will require additional evaluation and consultation with the USFWS, and possibly a

project-level EA. 

Therefore, if proposed towers meet the USFWS guidelines, this issue does not need to

be further evaluated at project-level planning.

3.11 Specially-Designated Lands and Consistency with Federal

Management Plans: Deferred to Project Planning

Specially-designated lands include lands such as national parks, state and federal

wildlife refuges, public parks, national monuments, wilderness and wilderness study

areas, roadless areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other classifications. Often these

lands have unique requirements for land uses in addition to those of national forests,

federal public lands, state forests or other agency-administered lands. Management

plans include Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), BLM

Resource Management Plans (RMPs), National Wildlife Refuges and National Park

Service Comprehensive Plans, Wilderness Management Plans and other agencyspecific management plans.

If a project would involve federal, state, and/or specially-designated land, the applicant

must submit an application to the relevant land management agency for an

authorization or permit to use the land for project purposes. In preparation of a land use

application, the applicant should review the pertinent management plan prior to

submitting the application to the agency to determine if the proposed project is

consistent with the agency’s land management plan. If not consistent with the

management plan, the applicant should make appropriate changes to the proposal or

further coordinate with the land management agency. The federal, state, or local land
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

105

management agency will make the final determination of consistency of a proposed

project with the applicable management plan. 

Therefore, this subject is deferred to project-level planning.

3.12 EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations: Not Considered in

Detail

Any construction or visual impacts will occur to any person, regardless of

socioeconomic status, within the area, and will be managed with the BMPs and SOPs

identified in Section 3.14 and terms and conditions included in permits. The proposed

action should improve the quality of life for low income and/or minority communities by

providing affordable internet service where it is not currently available. Therefore,

potential adverse impacts to low income and/or minority populations will not be

considered further in this PEA, nor must it be considered at project-level planning. 

3.13 Best Management Practices (BMPs), Standard Operating Procedures

(SOPs), and Mitigation

These BMPs, SOPs, and mitigation measures should be considered for inclusion in

project design and implementation, in addition to terms and conditions included in state,

county, and local permits. BMPs are based on impact analyses in Chapter 3. SOPs

are actions that are routinely implemented in project design to protect resources.

3.13.1 Protection of Soils, Wetlands, Floodplains, Groundwater, and Surface 

Water Quality (Section 3.2)

• Do not disturb stream or riverbanks and beds by using directional boring,

attaching cable to bridges, attaching cable to poles, or using microwave as

feasible. 

• If stream or river banks and beds must be disturbed, design the project to disturb

the minimum amount necessary, using the fewest pieces of equipment, and

minimize the amount of sediment flowing downstream.

• Avoid removing native riparian vegetation, including trees and shrubs, within

riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains. If trees or shrubs must be removed,

design the project to remove the absolute minimum number of trees and shrubs

necessary. This applies to underground and aerial plant and new towers. 

However, for aerial plant, woody vegetation must be permanently removed to

avoid interference with poles and wires and to minimize the risk of fire.

• Any sites needing revegetation to improve recovery rates or minimize the risk of

soil erosion shall be planted with either existing species (such as lawn grass) or

native species, as appropriate.
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

106

• Maintain or protect roadside ditches and culverts to efficiently collect storm water

within construction areas and avoid over-road flow.

• No fueling will be conducted less than 200 feet from wetland, floodplain, and/or

riparian areas, and secondary containment will be used where appropriate and

minimum spill cleanup kits will be in all fueling vehicles, including equipment such

as storm drain plug or cover kit, non-water absorbent containment boom of at

least 10 feet in length with a 12-gallon absorbent capacity, non-metallic shovel,

and two five-gallon buckets with lids. All fueling will be conducted at least 25 feet

from the nearest storm drain or inside an impervious containment with a

volumetric holding capacity equal to or greater than 110% of the fueling tank

volume, or covering the storm drain to ensure no inflow of spilled or leaked fuel. 

Spills over five gallons or any spills of hazardous or toxic materials/wastes will be

reported to the state environmental protection agency. 

• The contact information for the local fire department (911) and the appropriate

regional office of the state natural resources regulatory agency will be on site to

report all spills in a timely manner.

• During directional boring operations near riparian areas, containment, and

cleanup equipment will be present for use at the site, as needed; a qualified

hydrological monitor will be present for prompt detection of any releases;

releases will be immediately controlled and drilling fluid contained or removed; a

remediation plan will be in place for all directional boring operations; and all slurry

used for directional boring will be removed from the site and discarded at an

approved site.

• Concrete trucks will not be allowed to wash out or discharge surplus concrete or

drum wash water on-site or in unapproved sites.

• Each contractor will designate at least one trained person to be responsible for

erosion and spill control to ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal

erosion and sediment control requirements. 

• Storm drain inlets will be protected to prevent coarse sediment from entering

drainage systems prior to permanent stabilization of disturbed areas. Protection

may include, depending on site conditions: a temporary dike using concrete

blocks and gravel; a gravel “donut”; gravel and wire mesh filters; catch basin

filters; curb inlet protection with wooden weir; block and gravel curb inlet

protection; or curb and gutter sediment barrier.

• If contaminated soils are encountered during ground disturbing activities, the

contractor will halt construction and contact the state environmental protection

agency. 
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

107

• To prevent compaction, gullying, and rutting, mechanical equipment would be

limited or excluded during wet soil conditions.

3.13.2 Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources (Section 3.4)

• Installation equipment and vehicles will remain on road surfaces or within existing

rights-of-way whenever possible. 

• Should ground disturbance encounter previously unknown cultural artifacts or

deposits or human remains, work will be halted within a defined area. The RUS

applicant or approved archaeologist must contact the SHPO and RUS for further

consultation. 

• Whenever possible, avoid all historic sites when causing ground disturbance,

especially in sites not previously disturbed. 

• If a site is possibly within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and cannot be

avoided, including by direction boring, monitoring by an approved archaeologist

and/or appropriate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) is required for proper mitigation.

• For cemeteries located within 200 feet of the APE, flagging and/or monitoring by

an approved archaeologist will be conducted to ensure that no adverse impacts

are created.

• Any buildings and properties contributing to a historic district may be adversely

impacted by vibrating equipment or visually by towers and poles. Ensure proper

consultation with the SHPO for such properties.

• Protection measures resulting from consultations with the SHPO will be provided

to the construction contractor prior to work, and an approved archaeologist will

conduct training on the location, actions, and protective conditions that must be

followed.

3.13.3 Protected Migratory Birds Protected (MBTA or ESA) and All Protected 

Species (ESA) (Sections 3.10 and 3.11)

• Where placement of cable or other infrastructure would require removing nest

trees for migratory birds protected by the MBTA or ESA, develop effective

protective measures, such as avoiding removing the nesting trees or shrubs

during nesting season. If active nests of migratory birds are discovered during

surveys, the potential for adverse impact would be evaluated by RUS and

appropriate protective measures identified, including measures such as

appropriate buffers, avoidance during the sensitive season (such as nesting), not

removing or disturbing habitat or vegetation to avoid or minimize adverse

impacts.
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

108

• If nests or birds must be disturbed while present, the applicant will contact RUS

and the USFWS. Any permits from the USFWS will be provided to the

construction contractor prior to work.

• The applicant should consult with the USFWS if lattice towers are proposed for

constructing in areas of protected birds or mammals (such as sage grouse, for

example) that might provide perching habitat for raptors that might prey on the

protected species, or use monopole towers instead.

• Any project-specific or programmatic agreements from consultations with the

USFWS will be provided to the construction contractor prior to work.

• Follow the USFWS guidelines for towers to protect migratory birds (Appendix H)

as appropriate.

• If informal consultation results in conservation recommendations, or if formal

consultation is required, resulting in mandatory terms and conditions per the

ESA, integrate such recommendations if appropriate, and terms and conditions

when required into project design and implementation. 

3.13.4 Protection of Human Health and Safety (Section 3.9)

• Ensure that all cell and microwave towers/base stations are at least 30 feet from

public areas and residences, with no access by unauthorized people. 

3.13.5 Protection of Air Quality and Minimizing GHGs (Section 3.6)

The impact analyses associated with these BMPs are found in Section 3.6.

• All measures to control fugitive dust will be followed as appropriate.

• Dust suppression, such as use of water trucks, will be employed as required to

control PM10 and PM2.5. 

• Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing

the idling time to 5 minutes. 

• Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to

manufacturer’s specifications. 

• When appropriate, update equipment to higher efficiency models to minimize air

quality and GHG emission.

3.13.6 Minimizing the Effects of Noise

The impact analyses associated with these BMPs are found in Section 3.7.

• Activities near residences and sensitive noise receptors such as hospitals,

nursing homes, and residences would be performed during daylight hours, with
Ch. 3 Environmental Consequences

109

optimum muffling of equipment where needed and in accordance with local noise

ordinances. 

3.13.7 Values of Lands with Special Designations

• Integrate standards, guidelines, and conditions found in the agency’s land

management plan as pertinent to the project and its construction into site-specific

project location and design.
Ch. 4 Tiering Process

110

4 Tiering Process for Broadband Projects

The information presented in Chapter 3 provides a broad-scale environmental impact

analysis of technologies typically financed through the RUS Telecommunications

Programs. This section provides the basis for how tiered environmental reviews will be

completed for each applicant’s loan or grant application and/or interim financing

request. Exhibits 4-1 through 4-3 (Appendix J) serve as the mechanisms by which RUS

and program applicants would conduct environmental reviews for activities analyzed in

this PEA. Environmental reviews for activities not covered in the PEA will proceed

following normal processes described in the agency’s Environmental Policies and

Procedures or more specifically, RUS would need to conclude its site-specific

environmental review process prior to making a decision. 

4.1 Loan and Grant Applications

Figure 4-A identifies which exhibits must be completed prior to RUS making certain

agency decisions in association with a loan or grant application, including but not limited

to the approval of financing, construction contracts, and funds dispersal. Exhibit 4-1

should be completed when a program applicant submits a financing application for

activities where site-specific information is currently unavailable. RUS will use Exhibit 4-

1 to document if the activities in an application are consistent with this PEA and its

associated Finding prior to making a decision on the application. 

Exhibits 4-2 and 4-3 document the site-specific analyses of activities included within the

scope of this PEA. The applicable forms must be completed by the program applicant

before project construction or RUS approval of construction contracts or funds

dispersal. Program applicants must receive RUS written notification that the

environmental review is complete before RUS can approve actions that have the

potential to result in project construction or completion. If a program applicant proceeds

with actions that may have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of

reasonable alternatives before conclusion of the environmental process, it may

jeopardize project eligibility for RUS funds dispersal. Such prohibited actions may

include site preparation or construction (see 7 CFR §1794.15 and 40 CFR §1506.1).

4.2 Interim Financing Requests

There are instances where a program applicant may request interim financing from an

outside lender for project design, construction activities, or other purposes. Before

using interim financing, the program applicant must receive written approval from RUS if

the program applicant plans to later request RUS long-term financing for the activities. 

RUS approval of an interim financing request does not obligate the agency to approve a

future long-term financing application; it only allows for the activities included in the
Ch. 4 Tiering Process

111

interim financing request to be eligible for reimbursement purposes, provided all

underwriting, engineering, and environmental requirements are met.

Figure 4-B shows when Exhibits 4-1 through 4-3 should be completed for the kinds of

activities included in an interim financing request. Exhibit 4-1 is required for requests

involving design and planning activities or for activities where site-specific information is

currently unavailable. The program applicant should complete the form and include it

as an attachment to interim financing requests of this nature. Requests involving

construction or land disturbing activities where site-specific information is available

require the completion of Exhibits 4-2 and 4-3 as applicable. Similar to the

requirements of loan and grant applications, program applicants must receive RUS

written notification that the environmental review is complete before proceeding with

project construction or land disturbing activities for the approved activities to be eligible

for RUS long-term financing.

When a program applicant submits a long-term financing application for activities

included in interim financing requests previously approved by RUS, copies of the RUS

notification letters showing completion of the environmental review process also should

be submitted.
Ch. 4 Tiering Process

112
Ch. 4 Tiering Process

113
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

114

5 Literature Cited 

American Bird Conservancy. 2000. Communication towers: A deadly hazard to birds. 

Report documents killing of 230 bird species. G. Shire, K. Brown, and G.

Winegrad. 23 pp. 

Balmori, A. 2005. Possible effects of electromagnetic fields from phone masts on a

population of white stork (Ciconia cocinia). Electromagnetic Biology and

Medicine, 24: 109-119. 

Balmori, A. 2006. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline:

Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological and Environmental

Chemistry 88:287-299. 

Balmori, A. 2007. The urban decline of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): A

possible link with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and

Medicine, 26:141-151. 

Balmori, A. 2009. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts: Effects on wildlife.

Pathophysiology, doi 10.1016/jpathophys2009 01.007.

Balmori, A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria)

tadpoles: The city turned into a laboratory. Electromagnetic Biology and

Medicine, 29:31-35. 

Balmori, A. 2015. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging

threat to wildlife orientation. Science of the Total Environment 518-519:58-60. 

Beers, J. 1989. Biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 200

MHz: A survey of the literature with special emphasis on possible magnetic

resonance effects. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 7:309-331. In: Cucurachi S. 

2012. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields

(RF-EMF). Environment International. 51:116-40. Epub. 12/2/2012. 

http://emrpolicy.org/regulation/united_states/Exhibit_9_EMRPI_Cucurachi_Env_I

ntl_2013.pdf. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

Blunden, J. and D. S. Arndt, Eds. 2013. State of the climate in 2012. Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological. Society 94(8): S1-S238. In: USDA APHIS Wildlife

Services Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach Final

Environmental Impact Statement, 2015. 

Cammaerts, M.C., P. De Doncker, X. Patris, F. Bellens, Z. Rachidi, and D. Cammaerts.

2012. GSM 900 MHz radiation inhibits ants’ association between food sites and

encountered clues. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 31:151-165. In:

Balmori, A. 2015. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an

emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of the Total Environment 518-

519:58-60. 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). June 2015. CEQA Guide Update. Ch. 3,

Construction-generated Criteria Air Pollutant; Ch. 6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

115

Croft, R., M. Abramson, Irena Cosic, J. Finnie, R. McKenzie, A. Wood. 2008. A

ACRBR [Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research] Position

Statement on BioInitiative Report. 

http://www.acrbr.org.au/FAQ/ACRBR%20Bioinitiative%20Report%2018%20Dec

%202008.pdf. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

Cucurachi S. 2012. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International. 51:116-40. Epub.

12/2/2012. 

http://emrpolicy.org/regulation/united_states/Exhibit_9_EMRPI_Cucurachi_Env_I

ntl_2013.pdf. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impactsadaptation/ecosystems.html#Changes (reviewed 07/08/2015).

Everaert J. and D. Bauwens. 2007. Possible Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation from

Mobile Phone Base Stations on the Number of Breeding House Sparrows

(Passer domesticus). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26: 63–72, DOI:

10.1080/15368370701205693. The original publication is available at

www.informaworld.com. viewed 6/30/2015. 

Favre, D. 2011. Mobile-phone induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie 42:270-

279. In: Balmori, A. 2015. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields

as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of the Total Environment

518-519:58-60. 

Federal Communications Commission. Undated websites. 

https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/. 

(https://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do). 

(https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/background.html). 

(https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-andpcs-sites). Viewed 6/30/15. 

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Obstruction marking and lighting. Advisory

Circular AC 70/7460-1K. U.S. Department of Transportation.

Federal Communications Commission. March 13, 2012. Final Programmatic

Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program. 

Washington, D.C.

Federal Communications Commission. August 1, 1996. Guidelines for evaluating the

environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation. 

Federal Communications Commission. 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental

Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program. Washington, D.C.

Foster, K.R. and L. Trottier. 2013. Picking cherries in science: The Bioinitiative Report. 

Blog posting https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/picking-cherries-in-sciencethe-bio-initiative-report/. Viewed 6/30/2015. 
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

116

Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, II. 2011. The role of tower height and guy

wires on avian collisions with communication towers. Journal of Wildlife

Management 75(4): 848-855. The Wildlife Society. In: Manville, A.M. March 7,

2014. Status of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Developments with

Communication Towers, with a Focus on Migratory Birds: Updates to Service

Staff Involved in Tower Issues – A webinar and talking points and literature

citations, available to the public. Released March 7, 2014. Unpublished.

Gehring, J. L., P. Kerlinger, and A. Manville II. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and

birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. 

Ecological Applications 19: 505-514. In: Manville, A.M. March 7, 2014. Status

of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Developments with Communication Towers,

with a Focus on Migratory Birds: Updates to Service Staff Involved in Tower

Issues – A webinar and talking points and literature citations, available to the

public. Released March 7, 2014. Unpublished.

Gehring, J., and A.M. Manville, II. 2013. Reducing bird collisions with communications

towers: the relationships between bird collisions, structure lighting, height, and

guy wires. A PowerPoint presented at the Anthropocentric Panel, 5th

International Partners in Flight, Snowbird, Utah, August 27, 27 pp, and a 2-page

briefing memo available to the public. In: Manville, A.M. March 7, 2014. Status

of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Developments with Communication Towers,

with a Focus on Migratory Birds: Updates to Service Staff Involved in Tower

Issues – A webinar and talking points and literature citations, available to the

public. Released March 7, 2014. Unpublished.

Guerra, P.A. R.J. Reppert, and S.M. Reppert. 2014. A magnetic compass aids

monarch butterfly migration. Natural Communication 5. In: Balmori, A. 2015. 

Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to

wildlife orientation. Science of the Total Environment 518-519:58-60. 

Health Council of the Netherlands. 2008. BioInitiative report. The Hague: Health

Council of the Netherlands, 2008; publication no. 2008/17E.

http://www.gr.nl/pdf.php?ID=1743&p=1. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

Indian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. 2013. Study on

radiation from mobile towers and cell phones. 

http://pib/nic.in/newsite/erelcontent/aspx?relid=92395. Viewed 6/20/15.

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Undated

website. http://www.icnirp.org/en/. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection). 2010. 

Statement—guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic,

and electromagnetic fields (1 Hz–100 kHz). Health and Physiology, 99:818–836.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual

signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology

125(2): 406-411. In: Manville, A.M. March 7, 2014. Status of US Fish and

Wildlife Service Developments with Communication Towers with a Focus on
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

117

Migratory Birds: Updates to Service Staff Involved with Tower Issues – a

Webinar. Talking Points and Literature Citations, Available to the Public. 

Lee, H.J., J.S. Lee, J.K. Pack, H.D. Choi, N. Kim, and S.H. Kim. 2009. Lack of

teratogenicity after combined exposure of pregnant mice to CDMA and WCDMA

radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Radiation Research, 172(5):648-652. In:

Cucurachi S. 2012. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International. 51:116-40. Epub.

12/2/2012. 

http://emrpolicy.org/regulation/united_states/Exhibit_9_EMRPI_Cucurachi_Env_I

ntl_2013.pdf. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D.G. Bert, L.M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie,

S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr., M.L. Avery, R.C. Crawford, A.M. Manville, II, E.R. Travis,

and D. Drake. 2012. An estimate of avian mortality at communication towers in

the United States and Canada. PLoSONE 7(4) 17 pp, Open Access.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D.G. Bert, L.M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie,

S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr., M.L. Avery, R.C. Crawford, A.M. Manville, II, E.R. Travis,

and D. Drake. 2013. Avian mortality at communication towers in the United

States and Canada: which species, how many, and where? Biological

Conservation 158: 410-419.

Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013a. The impact of free ranging domestic cats

on wildlife in the United States. Nature Communications: 4, Article No. 1396.

doi:10.1038/ncomms2380. In: Manville, A.M. March 7, 2014. Status of US Fish

and Wildlife Service Developments with Communication Towers with a Focus on

Migratory Birds: Updates to Service Staff Involved with Tower Issues – a

Webinar. Talking Points and Literature Citations, Available to the Public. 

Loss, S.R., T. Will, S.S. Loss, and P.P. Marra. 2013b. Bird-building collisions in the

United States: data-driven estimates of annual mortality and species

vulnerability. Briefing memo for April 18, 2013, stakeholder information meeting

at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HQ Office, Arlington, VA. 1 pp. In: Manville,

A.M. March 7, 2014. Status of US Fish and Wildlife Service Developments with

Communication Towers with a Focus on Migratory Birds: Updates to Service

Staff Involved with Tower Issues – a Webinar. Talking Points and Literature

Citations, Available to the Public. 

Manville, A.M., II. 2004. Prairie grouse leks and wind turbines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service justification for a 5-mile buffer from leks; additional grassland songbird

recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, Arlington,

VA, peer-reviewed briefing paper. 17 pp.

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication

towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps

toward mitigation. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/1051

-1064.pdf. Viewed 7/3/2015.
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

118

Manville, A.M., II. 2007. Comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted

Electronically to the FCC on 47 CFR Parts 1 and 17, WT Docket No. 03-187,

FCC 06-164, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, "Effects of Communication Towers

on Migratory Birds." February 2, 2007. 32 pp.

Manville, A.M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings – steps being

taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory

birds at these structures. Pages 262- 272 In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.

Demarest, and C. Thompson (eds.). Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Habitats and

People. Proceedings 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, McAllen,

TX, 2008.

Manville, A.M., II. 2011. Comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of

Migratory Bird Management Filed Electronically on WT Docket No. 08-61 and

WT Docket No. 03-187, Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Federal

Communication's Antenna Structure Registration Program. January 14, 2011.

12 pp.

Manville, A.M., II. 2013. Anthropogenic-related bird mortality focusing on steps to

address human caused problems. An invited White Paper for the Anthropogenic

Panel, 5th International Partners in Flight Conference, August 27, Snowbird,

Utah, peer-reviewed. 16 pp.

Manville, A.M. March 7, 2014. Status of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Developments

with Communication Towers, with a Focus on Migratory Birds: Updates to

Service Staff Involved in Tower Issues – A webinar and talking points and

literature citations, available to the public. Released March 7, 2014. 

Unpublished.

Michaelson, S.M. 1991. Biological effects of radiofrequency radiation: Concepts and

criteria. Health and Physiology, 61;(1):3-14. In: Cucurachi S. 2012. A review of

the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).

Environment International. 51:116-40. Epub. 12/2/2012. 

http://emrpolicy.org/regulation/united_states/Exhibit_9_EMRPI_Cucurachi_Env_I

ntl_2013.pdf. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

National Park Service. 1997. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National

Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park

Service. http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. Viewed 1/2/2106.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 2012. Nevada

Hospital Association Nevada Broadband Telemedicine Initiative, Final

Environmental Assessment. Volume 1. 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. August 2014. 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Quarterly Program Status

Report. Submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, the

Senate and House Committees on Energy and Commerce. 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. April 29, 2014. First

Responder Network Authority National Environmental Quality Act Categorical

Exclusions. 79 Federal Register 23945-23950. 
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

119

Osborne, S. and R. Lindsey. 2013. 2012 State of the Climate: Earth’s Surface

Temperature. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understandingclimate/2012-state-climate-earths-surface-temperature (viewed 07/08/2015)

Panagopoulos, DJ. 2013. Electromagnetic Interaction between Environmental Fields

and Living Systems Determines Health and Well-Being. In: Kwang, MH. and

Yoon, SO. (eds.) Electromagnetic Fields: Principles, Engineering Applications

and Biophysical Effects. Nova Publishers.

URL: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=37

822. Accessed 7/2/15.

Patterson, J.T., Jr. 2012. Evaluation of new obstruction lighting techniques to reduce

avian fatalities. DOT/FAA/TC-TN12/9, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation. 28 pp, plus appendices. 

http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/safety/downloads/TC-TN12-9.pdf. Reviewed

4/25/2015.

Repacholi, M.H. and E. Cardis. 1997. Criteria for EMF health risk assessment. 

Radiation Prot. Dosimetry. 72: 305-312. In: Cucurachi S. 2012. A review of the

ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).

Environment International. 51:116-40. Epub. 12/2/2012. 

http://emrpolicy.org/regulation/united_states/Exhibit_9_EMRPI_Cucurachi_Env_I

ntl_2013.pdf. Viewed 6/30/2015. 

Rural Utilities Service. June 23, 2009. Memorandum for the Administrator, RUS. 

Administrative Record to Support the National Telecommunication and

Information Administration’s Consideration and Potential Adoption of the Rural

Utilities Services’ Categorical Exclusions for Proposals Funded through the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Rural Utilities Service. May 3, 2013. Community Connect Broadband Grant Program. 

78 Federal Register 25787-25795. 

Rural Utilities Service. December 1, 2015. Telecommunications Program Infrastructure

Loan Application Guide. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. December 2012. 

Executive Order: Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment:

Background Paper and Work Plan Strategy. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/workplan.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. August 2013. 

Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group. Implementing

Executive Order 13616: Progress on Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure

Deployment. A progress Report to the Steering Committee on Federal

Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction,

Operation, and Decommissioning of Communication Towers. September 14,

2000. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/

comtow.html.
Ch. 5 Literature Cited

120

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United

States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory

Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind

Energy Guidelines. March. 82 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, Module 1,

Land-based Wind Energy, Version 2. Division of Migratory Bird Management.

April. 103 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Comment to National Telecommunications and

Information Administration regarding First Responder Network Authority

(FirstNet) proposed NEPA procedures. Signed Willy Taylor, Director, Office of

Environmental Policy and Compliance.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 2014. Service Guidance on the Siting,

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of Communication Towers. 

Memo from Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, to Regional Directors. 

Vaitkuviene, D., and D. Dagys. 2014. Possible effects of electromagnetic field on white

storks (Ciconia ciconia) breeding on low-voltage electricity line poles. Zoological

Ecol. 24:289-296. In: Balmori, A. 2015. Anthropogenic radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Science of

the Total Environment 518-519:58-60. 

World Health Organization. Undated website. http://www.who.int/. viewed 6/30/2015. 

World Health Organization. 2010. WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields. 

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/agenda/en/. Viewed 7/1/2015.

World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2013. 

Non-Ionizing Radiation Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Vol. 102.

Published 2013, based on the working group meeting in Lyons France in 2011. 

(http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/mono102-F01-F02.pdf).

Viewed 6/30/2015. 
Ch. 6 Persons and Agencies Consulted

121

6 Persons and Agencies Consulted

Federal agencies: 

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

• FirstNet

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; included Migratory Birds, Ecological

Services, and Refuges divisions)

• National Park Service (NPS)

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

Industry groups: 

• Association of Communications Engineers

• Power and Communication Contractors Association

• WTA Advocates for Rural Broadband

Current and former program applicants

• Georgia Transmission Corporation, Tucker, GA

• Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Bismarck, ND

• Sacred Wind Communications, Yatehey, NM

• Tabletop Telephone Company, North Fork, CA

• The Ponderosa Company, North Fork, CA

• Triangle Communications, Havre, MT

Consultants and contractors working for program applicants

• ACRS Telecommunications Consulting and Engineering, Oklahoma City, OK

• Heberly Engineering and Associates, Havre, MT

• Kadrmas Lee Jackson, Bismarck, ND

• Metcalf Archaeology, Bismarck, ND

• Mid-State Consultants, Nephi, VT

• Quality Services, Rapid City, SD

• RVW, Inc. Architectural Planning and Design, Columbus, NE

• Transcom, Salt Lake City, UT

• Vantage Point Solutions, Inc., Mitchell, SD
Ch. 7 List of Preparers

122

7 List of Preparers 

Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.

Judith Lee, President

Analyst and Principal Writer

Stakeholder Interviews and Report

Pathway Consulting Service, LLC

Robert Cunningham, Principal

Analyst and Writer

Stakeholder Interviews and Report

Rural Utilities Service

Lauren McGee-Rayburn, Environmental Scientist

Laura Dean, Archeologist and Federal Preservation Officer

Richard Fristik, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist

Dennis Rankin, Environmental Protection Specialist

Scott Steiner, Engineering Branch Chief

Norberto Esteves, Engineering Branch Chief

Aylene Mafnas, Engineering Branch Chief
Ch. 8 Appendices

123

8 Appendices 

Appendix A. Summary of Laws and Executive Orders Relevant to RUS Broadband 

Telecommunications Program

Appendix B. Rural Utilities Service NEPA Procedures 7 CFR part 1794

Appendix C. Agency NEPA Procedures: USFS, BLM, FEMA, BIA, NPS, USFWS, 

FirstNet, BOR

Appendix D. Land Use Authorization Regulations: USFS, BLM, USFWS, BIA

Appendix E. References to state environmental policy laws and relevant US 

Territory/Commonwealth Environmental Laws and Agencies

Appendix F. RUS Stakeholder Report

Appendix G. Links to useful natural resources databases

Appendix H. USFWS Guidelines for Mitigating Impacts of Towers on Migratory Birds

Appendix I. NHPA Section 106 Template Documents (SHPO/THPO Letter templates) 

and RUS delegation of authority letter

Appendix J. RUS Guidance and Exhibits for Project-Level Tiered Compliance
Appendix A Relevant Laws

124

Appendix A. Laws and Executive Orders Relevant to USDA RUS

Broadband Support

Federal Laws

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Most federal actions are subject to NEPA (Public Law 9-190, 42 USC 4321 et

seq.). NEPA requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning

into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. The two primary

objectives of the NEPA are: 1) agencies must have available and fully consider

detailed information regarding environmental effects of federal actions and 2)

agencies must make information regarding environmental effects available to

interested persons and agencies before decisions are made and before actions

are taken. 

When federal agencies undertake actions involving another federal agency, it is

often most efficient for them to cooperate in fulfilling their NEPA compliance

obligations.

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA are at 40 CFR 1500 - 1508 while

USDA’s are at 7 CFR part 1b and RUS’ are at 7 CFR part 1794. Pursuant to

NEPA and the CEQ regulations, agency processes document the analyses

resulting from proposed federal actions, informs decision-makers and the public

of reasonable alternatives capable of avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts,

and serve as a decision-aiding mechanism to ensure that the policies and goals

of NEPA are infused into federal agency actions. NEPA documents integrate as

many of the natural and social sciences as relevant to pending decisions and

based on the potential effects of the proposed actions. The direct, indirect, and

cumulative impacts of the proposed action are analyzed at an appropriate level of

detail.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA)

Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), all

federal agencies will seek to conserve threatened and endangered listed species

and will utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act

(Sec.2(c)). Depending on the species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are charged with implementation and

enforcement of the ESA, as amended, including development of recovery plans

for listed species. Agencies conduct ESA Section 7 consultations with

USFWS/NMFS and use their expertise to ensure that "any action authorized,

funded or carried out by such an agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the
Appendix A Relevant Laws

125

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species . . . Each agency

will use the best scientific and commercial data available" (Sec.7 (a)(2)). Under

the authority of the ESA, USFWS/NMFS act to prevent the extinction of plant and

animal species by identifying species at risk of extinction, designating ("listing")

these species as threatened or endangered. These agencies provide protection

for these listed species and their habitats, developing and implementing recovery

plans to improve their status, and ultimately "delisting" these species and

returning full management authority to the states or tribes when warranted. The

USFWS/NMFS can issue permits providing for various activities, including

scientific research, enhancement of propagation or survival, and take incidental

to conducting other activities, while minimizing potential harm to the listed

species.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended

Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800)

require federal agencies to initiate an evaluation and consultation if the agency

determines that its actions are “undertakings” as defined in Sec. 800.16(y) and, if

so, whether the action is a type of activity with the potential affect historic

properties that are either listed on or eligible for listing in the National Register of

Historic Places. If the undertaking is a type of activity that does not have the

potential to adversely affect historic properties or historic districts, the agency

official has no further obligations under section 106. The Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP) and each state’s State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) or the tribal government Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) are

the primary entities consulted. If an individual activity with the potential to affect

historic resources were planned, the site-specific consultation as required by

Section 106 of the NHPA would be conducted with the SHPO or THPO as

necessary.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA gives the USFWS regulatory authority to protect native species of

birds that migrate outside the United States. The law prohibits any "take" of

these species, except as permitted by the USFWS. The MBTA established a

federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take,

capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to

purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for

transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried

by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or

export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg

of any such bird. The USFWS released a final rule on November 1, 2013

identifying 1,026 birds in its List of Migratory Birds that are protected under
Appendix A Relevant Laws

126

MBTA (USFWS 2013). Species not protected by the MBTA include nonnative

species introduced to the United States or its territories by humans, such as

starlings, pigeons, house sparrows, mute swans, and domestic waterfowl, and

native species that are not mentioned by the Canadian, Mexican, or Russian

Conventions that were implemented to protect migratory birds (USFWS 2013).

Some listed migratory bird species are not protected if they are causing

economic hardship due to agricultural depredation. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).

This law provides special protection for bald and golden eagles. Similar to the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) prohibits the take of

bald or golden eagles unless permitted by the Department of the Interior. The

term “take” in the Act is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill,

capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Disturb is defined as any activity that

can result in injury to an eagle, or cause nest abandonment or decrease in

productivity by impacting breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Section 404 (see 33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) unless the specific activity is

exempted in 33 CFR part 323 or covered by a nationwide permit in 33 CFR part

330.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

As required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (see 33 USC 1341), an

applicant for a permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

must also possess a permit from the state in which the discharge originates or

will originate, when applicable. The USACE is responsible for reviewing Water

Quality Certifications applications required by Section 401. The USACE

developed the requirements of the Water Quality Certification process to be

compliant with the State’s water quality policy. 

Presidential Executive Orders

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

and Low Income Populations - Executive Order 12898

Executive Order 12898 promotes the equitable treatment of people of all races,

income levels, and cultures with respect to the development and implementation

of federal actions, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and

policies. EO 12898 requires federal agencies to make environmental justice part

of their mission, and to identify and address, when appropriate,
Appendix A Relevant Laws

127

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of

federal programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income persons or

populations.

Invasive Species - Executive Order 13112

Executive Order 13112 establishes guidance for federal agencies to use their

programs and authorities to prevent the spread or to control populations of

invasive species that cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human

health. The EO states that each federal agency whose actions may affect the

status of invasive species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law: 1)

reduce invasion of exotic species and the associated damages; 2) monitor

invasive species populations and provide for restoration of native species and

habitats; 3) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to

prevent introduction; and 4) provide for environmentally sound control and

promote public education of invasive species. This EO created the National

Invasive Species Council (NISC).

Flood Plain Management – Executive Order 11988, as amended

Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible

the long and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and

modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain

development wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this

objective, “each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce

the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health,

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served

by flood plains in carrying out its responsibilities.” This EO was amended by EO

13690, dated January 29, 2015, to expand public notice, consideration of

alternatives, and construction requirements. The EO as amended applies to all

agencies and all relevant actions. Agencies are to act, not merely to consider

reducing risk, and minimize adverse impacts, and restore and preserve floodplain

values, through consideration of alternatives whenever practicable, including

avoiding actions in a floodplain wherever practicable and using nature-based

systems, with additional opportunities for public notice and review. Draft

guidance was published by FEMA for public comment on January 28, 2015. EO

13690 also establishes a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard that

considers the effects of climate change on future flood risk. Implementing

Guidelines for EO 11988 and 13690 were published on October 8, 2015.

Protection of Wetlands – Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 was signed to “minimize the destruction, loss or

degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial
Appendix A Relevant Laws

128

values of wetlands.” To meet those objectives, EO 11990 requires federal

agencies to consider alternatives to wetland sites, in planning their actions, and

to limit potential damage, if a federal agency cannot avoid an activity affecting a

wetland.

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments - Executive

Order 13175

This EO directs federal agencies to provide federally recognized tribes the

opportunity for government-to-government consultation and coordination in policy

development and program activities that may have direct and substantial effects

on their tribe. Its purpose is to ensure that tribal perspectives on the social,

cultural, economic, and ecological aspects of agriculture, as well as tribal food

and natural-resource priorities and goals, are heard and fully considered in the

decision-making processes of all parts of the Federal Government.
Appendix B Relevant RUS NEPA Procedures

129

Appendix B. Relevant Sections from RUS NEPA Procedures 7 CFR part

1794

Actions requiring environmental review §1794.3

The provisions of this part apply to actions by RUS including the approval of financial

assistance pursuant to the Electric, Telecommunications, and Water and Waste

Programs, the disposal of property held by RUS pursuant to such programs, and the

issuance of new or revised rules, regulations, and bulletins. Approvals provided by RUS

pursuant to loan contracts and security instruments, including approvals of lien

accommodations, are not actions for the purposes of this part and the provisions of this

part shall not apply to the exercise of such approvals.

Applicant responsibilities §1794.10

As described in subpart C of this part, applicants shall prepare the applicable

environmental documentation concurrent with a proposed action's engineering,

planning, and design activities. RUS shall assist applicants by outlining the types of

information required and shall provide guidance and oversight in the development of the

documentation. Documentation shall not be considered complete until all public review

periods, as applicable, have expired and RUS concurrence, as set forth in the

appropriate decision document and associated public notice, has been issued.

Consideration of alternatives §1794.12

In determining what are reasonable alternatives, RUS considers a number of factors.

These factors may include, but are not limited to, the proposed action's size and scope,

state of the technology, economic considerations, legal and socioeconomic concerns,

availability of resources, and the timeframe in which the identified need must be fulfilled.

Public involvement §1794.13 

(a) In carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA, RUS shall make diligent efforts to

involve the public in the environmental review process through public notices and public

hearings and meetings.

(1) All public notices required by this part shall describe the nature, location, and extent

of the proposed action and indicate the availability and location of additional information.

They shall be published in newspaper(s) of general circulation within the proposed

action's area of environmental impact and the county(s) in which the proposed action

will take place or such other places as RUS determines.

(2) The number of editions in which the notices should be published will be specified in

the Bulletins referenced in §1794.7 or established on a project-by-project basis.

Alternative forms of notice may also be necessary to ensure that residents located in
Appendix B Relevant RUS NEPA Procedures

130

the area affected by the proposed action are notified. The applicant should not publish

notices for compliance with this part until so notified by RUS.

(3) A copy of all comments received by the applicant concerning environmental aspects

of the proposed action shall be provided to RUS in a timely manner. RUS and

applicants shall assess and consider public comments both individually and collectively.

Responses to public comments will be appended to the applicable environmental

document.

(4) RUS and applicants shall make available to the public those project related

environmental documents that RUS determines will enhance public participation in the

environmental process. These materials shall be placed in locations convenient for the

public as determined by RUS in consultation with applicants. Included with the

documentation shall be a list of other project-related information that shall be available

for inspection through a designated RUS or applicant contact person.

(5) Public hearings or meetings shall be held at reasonable times and locations

concerning environmental aspects of a proposed action in all cases where, in the

opinion of RUS, the need for hearings or meetings is indicated in order to develop

adequate information on the environmental implications of the proposed action. Public

hearings or meetings conducted by RUS will be coordinated to the extent practicable

with other meetings, hearings, and environmental reviews which may be held or

required by other Federal, state and local agencies. Applicants shall, as necessary,

participate in all RUS conducted public hearings or meeting.

(6) Scoping procedures, in accordance with 40 CFR §1501.7, are required for proposed

actions normally requiring an EA with scoping (§1794.24) or an EIS (§1794.25). RUS

may require scoping procedures to be followed for other proposed actions where

appropriate to achieve the purposes of NEPA.

(b) The applicant shall have public notices described in this section published in a

newspaper(s). Applicants shall obtain proof of publication from the newspaper(s) for

inclusion into the applicable environmental document. Where the proposed action

requires an EIS RUS shall, in addition to applicant published notices, publish notice in

the Federal Register. In all cases, RUS may publish notices in the Federal Register as

appropriate.

Interagency involvement and coordination §1794.14

In an attempt to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort with state or local procedures,

RUS will, to the extent possible and in accordance with 40 CFR §1506.2, actively

participate with any governmental agency to cooperatively or jointly prepare

environmental documents so that one document will comply with all applicable laws.

Where RUS has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency, in accordance with 40
Appendix B Relevant RUS NEPA Procedures

131

CFR §1501.6, RUS may rely upon the lead agency's procedures for implementing

NEPA procedures. In addition, RUS shall request that:

(a) The lead agency indicates that RUS is a cooperating agency in all NEPArelated notices published for the proposed action;

(b) The scope and content of the EA or EIS satisfies the statutory and regulatory

requirements applicable to RUS; and

(c) The applicant shall inform RUS in a timely manner of its involvement in a

proposed action where another Federal agency is preparing an environmental

document so as to permit RUS to adequately fulfill its duties as a cooperating

agency.

Categorical exclusions that normally do not require the submission of an ER

§1794.21 

Applications for financial assistance for the types of proposed actions listed in this

paragraph (b) normally do not require the submission of an ER. These types of actions

are subject to the requirements of Sec. 1794.31. Applicants shall sufficiently identify all

proposed actions so their proper classification can be determined. Detailed descriptions

shall be provided for each proposal noted in this section. RUS normally requires

additional information in addition to a description of what is being proposed, to ensure

that proposals are properly classified. In order to provide for extraordinary

circumstances, RUS may require development of an ER for proposals listed in this

section.

Electric and Telecommunications Programs §1794.21(b)

(4) Changes or additions to microwave sites, substation, switching station,

telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers, buildings, or small

structures requiring new physical disturbance or fencing of less than one acre. A

description of the additions or changes and the area to be impacted by the

expansions shall be provided to RUS.

(7) Ordinary maintenance or replacement of equipment or small structures (e.g.,

line support structures, line transformers, microwave facilities,

telecommunications remote switching and multiplexing sites.

(8) Construction of...telecommunications facilities within the fenced area of an

existing substation, switching station, or within the boundaries of an existing

electric generating facility site. A description of the facilities to be constructed

shall be provided to RUS.

(14) Rebuilding of power lines or telecommunications cables where road or

highway reconstruction requires the applicant to relocate the lines either within or
Appendix B Relevant RUS NEPA Procedures

132

adjacent to the new road or highway easement or right-of-way. A description of

the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS.

(16) Construction of new power lines, substations, or telecommunications

facilities on industrial or commercial sites, where the applicant has no control

over the location of the new facilities. Related off-site facilities would be treated

in their normal category. A description of the facilities to be constructed shall be

provided to RUS. 

Categorical Exclusions that normally do require the submission of an ER

§1794.22(a)

(2) Construction of buried and aerial communications lines, cable, and related

facilities.

(3) Construction of microwave facilities...involving no more than five acres (2

hectares) of physical disturbance at any single site.

(4) Construction of cooperative or company headquarters, maintenance facilities,

or other buildings involving no more than 10 acres (4 hectares) of physical

disturbance or fenced property.

(6) Changes or additions to existing substations, switching stations,

telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers, or external changes to

buildings or small structures requiring one acre (0.4 hectare) or more but no

more than five acres (2 hectares) of new physically disturbed land or fenced

property.

(7) Construction of substations, switching stations, telecommunications switching

or multiplexing centers requiring no more than five acres (2 hectares) of new

physically disturbed land or fenced property.

7 CFR part 1794 does not identify specific extraordinary circumstances.

General categorical exclusion guidance §1794.30

The procedures of this subpart which apply to proposed actions classified as CEs in

§§1794.21 and 1794.22 provide RUS with information necessary to determine if the

proposed action meets the criteria for a CE. Where, because of extraordinary

circumstances, a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant effect on

the quality of the human environment, RUS may require additional environmental

documentation.

Electric and telecommunications programs §1794.31(a) 

RUS will normally determine the proper environmental classification of projects based

on its evaluation of the project description set forth in the construction work plan or loan

design which the applicant is required to submit with its application for financial
Appendix B Relevant RUS NEPA Procedures

133

assistance. Each project must be sufficiently described to ensure its proper

classification. RUS may require the applicant to provide additional information on a

project where appropriate.

Environmental Report (ER) §1794.32

(a) For proposed actions listed in §1794.21(b) and (c), the applicant is normally not

required to submit an ER.

(b) For proposed actions listed in §1794.22(a) and (b), the applicant shall normally

submit an ER. Guidance in preparing the ER for Electric and Telecommunication

proposals is contained in RUS Bulletin 1794A-600. The applicant may be required to

publish public notices and provide evidence of such if the proposed action is located in,

impacts, or converts important land resources.

Agency action §1794.33

RUS may act on an application for financial assistance upon determining, based on the

review of documents as set forth in §1794.32 and such additional information as RUS

deems necessary, that the project is categorically excluded.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

134

Appendix C. NEPA Regulations for Federal Agencies from which

Applicants May Need Land Use Authorizations

NEPA regulations for the following agencies are summarized below

(agency paragraph and regulation numbering is included for reference to

appropriate sections of agency regulations):

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration, First

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet): 79 FR 23950-23958; April 29,

2014

• US Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture: 36 CFR part 220

• The following agencies within the Department of Interior (DOI) follow both

43 CFR part 46, and their own chapter within 516 DM. Therefore, to

organize each agency within the DOI clearly and independently, sections

of 43 CFR part 46 that apply to all DOI agencies are repeated for each of

the following agencies within their particular section:

o National Park Service, US Department of Interior: 516 DM Chapter

12; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

o Bureau of Indian Affairs, US Department of Interior: 516 DM

Chapter 10; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

o Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Interior: 516 DM

Chapter 11; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

o US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior: 516 DM

Chapter 8; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

o Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of Interior: 516 DM

Chapter 14; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

• Federal Emergency Management Agency: 44 CFR part 10

• US Air Force: 32 CFR part 989

• US Army: 32 CFR part 651.28 (AR 200-2) Subpart D

• US Navy: 32 CFR part 775

• US Army Corps of Engineers: 33 CFR part 230
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

135

National Telecommunications and Information Administration, First 

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) 79 FR 23950-23958 4/29/14

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub.L.112–96, 126

Stat. 156 (2012)) created and authorized FirstNet to take all actions necessary to

ensure the design, construction, and operation of a nationwide interoperable

public safety broadband network (PSBN) based on a single, national network

architecture. The Act meets a long-standing and critical national infrastructure

need, to create a nationwide interoperable broadband network that will, for the

first time, allow police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service

professionals, and other public safety officials to effectively communicate with

each other across agencies and jurisdictions.

(d) Where the action requiring FirstNet review is by a private applicant or other

nonfederal entity:

1. The Director of Environmental Compliance and/or the NEPA

Coordinator or other assigned FirstNet Environmental Protection

Specialist will advise the applicant of FirstNet’s policies and procedures for

NEPA compliance and make available or direct the applicant to resources

within FirstNet, the Department, or elsewhere in the federal government to

facilitate the applicant’s consideration and explanation of environmental

impacts and alternatives.

2. FirstNet will consult with appropriate state, local, and tribal governments

and other relevant organizations on environmental impacts of, and

alternatives to, a proposed action when its own involvement is reasonably

foreseeable.

3. FirstNet will initiate its NEPA review process at the earliest practicable

time.

Scoping

FirstNet shall comply with scoping procedures described in 40 CFR §1501.7

required for proposed actions normally requiring an EIS. In some, but not all,

circumstances, and at the discretion of the Director of Environmental Compliance

and/ or the NEPA Coordinator, scoping will also be conducted on an EA. 

Additionally, FirstNet may also require scoping procedures to be followed for

other proposed actions, where appropriate, to achieve the purposes of NEPA.

Environmental Assessment

(a) When a proposed action is not in a category of actions described in an

available categorical exclusion and there is not enough information available to

know whether the proposed action will have significant environmental impacts,
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

136

an EA will be prepared. In this situation, an EA process is used to determine,

through environmental impact evaluation and opportunity for public involvement,

as appropriate, if the impacts on the quality of the human environment are

potentially significant.

(b) A proposed action that meets categorical exclusion criteria, but that is

associated with extraordinary circumstances, may require the preparation of an

environmental assessment to determine if there are significant impacts

associated with the action.

(a) Categorical Exclusion (CE)

1. If a proposed action is determined to be a CE and not considered a routine

administrative, ministerial, or a personnel or procurement action, FirstNet shall

document its determination that a CE applies to a proposed action with a

memorandum to the file that states no extraordinary circumstances are present

that would preclude the use of the CE.

2. For more complicated CEs, a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC)

would be prepared to document the decision. A REC is a brief document that

demonstrates that NEPA and other relevant laws, regulations, and EOs have

been analyzed for an action that does not require an EA or EIS. A REC is kept in

the administrative record and should cite the categorical exclusion used and

show that the agency determined:

(1) The action fits within the category of actions described in the

categorical exclusions; and

(2) There are no extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the

project or proposed action from qualifying as a categorically excluded

action.

If a proposed action is determined to be a CE and not considered a routine

administrative, ministerial, procurement, or personnel action, FirstNet shall

document its determination that a CE applies to a proposed action with a

Memorandum to File or a Record of Environmental Consideration.

Tiering

FirstNet shall tier environmental documents to eliminate repetitive discussions of

the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level

of environmental review, as appropriate (see 40 CFR 1508.28). When a

Programmatic EIS has been prepared, FirstNet need only summarize the issues

discussed in the broader environmental document, incorporate discussions from

the broader environmental document by reference, and focus the tiered

document on issues specific to the subsequent action.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

137

Supplemental Environmental Documentation

FirstNet may prepare supplements to either the draft or final environmental

documentation if:

(a) FirstNet makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are

relevant to environmental concerns; or

(b) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its

impacts.

(c) FirstNet is relying upon an environmental review previously performed

by another federal agency with authority over the action or related activity

of an applicant, and additional analysis is needed to address the

reasonably foreseeable impacts of the action under consideration by

FirstNet.

Appendix C. Categorical Exclusions

A.4: Purchase of existing facilities or a portion thereof where use or operation will

remain unchanged.

A.5: Internal modifications or equipment additions (e.g., computer facilities,

relocating interior walls) to structures or buildings.

A.6: Construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines, cables, and

related facilities.

A.7: Construction of wireless telecommunications facilities involving no more than

five acres (2 hectares) of physical disturbance at any single site.

A.8: Construction of cooperative or company headquarters, maintenance

facilities, or other buildings involving no more than 10 acres (4 hectares) of

physical disturbance or fenced property.

A.9: Changes to existing transmission lines that involve less than 20 percent pole

replacement, or the complete rebuilding of existing distribution lines within the

same right of way. Changes to existing transmission lines that require 20

percent or greater pole replacement will be considered the same as new

construction.

A.10: Changes or additions to existing substations, switching stations,

telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers, or external changes to

buildings or small structures requiring one acre (0.4 hectare) or more but no

more than five acres (2 hectares) of new physically disturbed land or fenced

property.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

138

A.11: Construction of substations, switching stations, or telecommunications

switching or multiplexing centers requiring no more than five acres (2 hectares)

of new physically disturbed land or fenced property.

A.12: Changes or additions to wireless telecommunication sites, substations,

switching stations, telecommunications switching or multiplexing centers,

buildings, or small structures requiring new physical disturbance or fencing of

less than one acre (0.4 hectare).

A.13: Ordinary maintenance or replacement of equipment or small structures

(e.g., line support structures, line transformers, microwave facilities,

telecommunications remote switching and multiplexing sites).

A.14: The construction of telecommunications facilities within the fenced area of

an existing substation, switching station, or within the boundaries of an existing

electric generating facility site.

A.15: Testing or monitoring work (e.g., soil or rock core sampling, monitoring

wells, air monitoring).

A.16: Studies and engineering undertaken to define proposed actions or

alternatives sufficiently so that environmental effects can be assessed.

A.17: Rebuilding of power lines or telecommunications cables where road or

highway reconstruction requires the applicant to relocate the lines either within or

adjacent to the new road or highway easement or right-of-way.

A.18: Phase or voltage conversions, reconductoring, or upgrading of existing

electric distribution lines, or telecommunication facilities.

A.19: Construction of standby diesel electric generators (one megawatt or less

total capacity) and associated facilities, for the primary purpose of providing

emergency power at an existing applicant headquarters or district office,

telecommunications switching or multiplexing site, or at an industrial, commercial,

or agricultural facility served by the applicant.

Appendix D: Extraordinary Circumstances

Extraordinary circumstances that may preclude the use of a CE include:

(a) Reasonable likelihood of significant impact on public health or safety.

(b) Reasonable likelihood of significant environmental effects (direct, indirect, and

cumulative)

(c) Reasonable likelihood of effects on the environment that are highly uncertain,

unique, or are scientifically controversial.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

139

(d) Reasonable likelihood of violating any federal, state, or local law or

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

(e) Reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting ‘‘environmentally sensitive’’

resources, unless the impact has been resolved through another environmental

process (e.g., Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act). 

Environmentally sensitive resources may include:

1. Proposed or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or their

designated critical habitat (including species and habitat listed under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.); Migratory

Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §703 et seq.) and Bald and Golden

Eagle Act of 1940, (16 U.S.C. § 68 et seq.).

2. Areas having special designation or recognition such as prime or

unique or agricultural lands; designated wilderness or wilderness study

areas; wild and scenic rivers; 100-year or 500-year floodplains; wetlands;

sole source aquifers (potential sources of drinking water); National Wildlife

Refuges; National Parks; areas of critical environmental concern; or other

areas of high environmental sensitivity.

(f) Reasonable likelihood of adversely impacting water quality, sole source

aquifers, public water supply systems, or state, local, or tribal water quality

standards established under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water

Act.

(g) Reasonable likelihood of effects on the quality of the environment that are

highly controversial on environmental grounds. The term ‘‘controversial’’ means

a substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the proposed action

rather than to the existence of opposition to a proposed action, the effect of

which is relatively undisputed.

(h) Reasonable likelihood of a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low

income populations or minority populations.

(i) Limited access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands

by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical

integrity of such sacred sites.

(j) A greater scope or size than is normal for this category of action.

(k) Reasonable likelihood of degrading already existing poor environmental

conditions. Also, initiation of a degrading influence, activity, or effect in areas not

already significantly modified from their natural condition.

(l) Introduction or employment of unproven technology.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

140

Forest Service Pertinent NEPA Regulations 36 CFR part 220

36 CFR §220.6. Categorical Exclusions

(d) Categories of actions for which a project or case file and decision

memo are not required. A supporting record and a decision memo are not

required, but at the discretion of the responsible official, may be prepared for the

following categories:

(2) Rules, regulations, or policies to establish service-wide administrative

procedures, program processes, or instructions. Examples include but are not

limited to:

(iv) Proposing changes in contract terms and conditions or terms and

conditions of special use authorizations;

(4) Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries. Examples

include but are not limited to:

(ii) Grading a road and clearing the roadside of brush without the use of

herbicides;

(iii) Resurfacing a road to its original condition;

(v) Surveying, painting, and posting landline boundaries.

(10) Amendment to or replacement of an existing special use authorization that

involves only administrative changes and does not involve changes in the

authorized facilities or increase in the scope or intensity of authorized activities,

or extensions to the term of authorization, when the applicant or holder is in full

compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use authorization. 

Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Amending a special use authorization to reflect administrative changes

such as adjustment to the land use fees, inclusion of non-discretionary

environmental standards or updating a special use authorization to bring it

into conformance with current laws or regulations (for example, new

monitoring required by water quality standards), and

(ii) Issuance of a new special use authorization to reflect administrative

changes such as, a change of ownership or control of previously

authorized facilities or activities, or conversion of the existing special use

authorization to a new type of special use authorization (for example,

converting a permit to a lease or easement).

(e) Categories of actions for which a project or case file and decision memo

are required.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

141

A supporting record is required and the decision to proceed must be documented

in a decision memo for the categories of action in paragraphs (e)(1) through (17)

of this section. As a minimum, the project or case file should include any records

prepared, such as: The names of interested and affected people, groups, and

agencies contacted; the determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist;

a copy of the decision memo; and a list of the people notified of the decision. If

the proposed action is approval of a land management plan, plan amendment, or

plan revision, the plan approval document required by 36 CFR part 219 satisfies

the decision memo requirements of this section.

(2) Additional construction or reconstruction of existing telephone or utility lines in

a designated corridor. Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Replacing an underground cable trunk and adding additional phone

lines, and

(ii) Reconstructing a power line by replacing poles and wires.

(3) Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of NFS lands

that require less than five contiguous acres of land. Examples include, but are

not limited to:

(i) Approving the construction of a meteorological sampling site;

(iv) Approving the use of land for a 40-foot utility corridor that crosses one

mile of a national forest;

(vi) Approving an additional telecommunication use at a site already used

for such purposes;

(viii) Approving the continued use of land where such use has not

changed since authorized and no change in the physical environment or

facilities are proposed.

(15) Issuance of a new special use authorization for a new term to replace an

existing or expired special use authorization when the only changes are

administrative, there are not changes to the authorized facilities or increases in

the scope or intensity of authorized activities, and the applicant or holder is in full

compliance with the terms and conditions of the special use authorization.

(16) Land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions developed

in accordance with 36 CFR part 219 et seq. that provide broad guidance and

information for project and activity decision-making in a NFS unit. Proposals for

actions that approve projects and activities, or that command anyone to refrain

from undertaking projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify

contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, are outside the scope of this

category and shall be considered separately under Forest Service NEPA
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

142

procedures.

36 CFR §220.6(b). Extraordinary Circumstances for Categorical Exclusions

Resource conditions.

(1) Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether

extraordinary circumstances related to a proposed action warrant further analysis

and documentation in an EA or an EIS are:

(i) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical

habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest

Service sensitive species;

(ii) Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds;

(iii) Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study

areas, or national recreation areas;

(iv) Inventoried roadless area or potential wilderness area;

(v) Research natural areas;

(vi) American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites; and

(vii) Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.

(2) The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not

preclude use of a categorical exclusion (CE). It is the existence of a cause-effect

relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these

resource conditions, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential

effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether

extraordinary circumstances exists.

36 CFR §220.6(f). Decision memos for Categorical Exclusions

The responsible official shall notify interested or affected parties of the availability

of the decision signing. While sections may be combined or rearranged in the

interest of clarity and brevity, decision memos must include the following content:

(1) A heading, which must identify:

(i) Title of document: Decision Memo;

(ii) Agency and administrative unit;

(iii) Title of the proposed action; and

(iv) Location of the proposed action, including administrative unit, county,

and State.

(2) Decision to be implemented and the reasons for categorically excluding the
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

143

proposed action including:

(i) The category of the proposed action;

(ii) The rationale for using the category and, if more than one category

could have been used, why the specific category was chosen;

(iii) A finding that no extraordinary circumstances exist;

(3) Any interested and affected agencies, organizations, and persons contacted;

(4) Findings required by other laws such as, but not limited to findings of

consistency with the forest land and resource management plan as required by

the National Forest Management Act; or a public interest determination (36 CFR

§254.3(c));

(5) The date when the responsible official intends to implement the decision and

any conditions related to implementation; 

(6) Whether the decision is subject to review or appeal, the applicable

regulations, and when and where to file a request for review or appeal;

(7) Name, address, and phone number of a contact person who can supply

further information about the decision; and

(8) The responsible official’s signature and date when the decision is made.

36 CFR §220.7. Environmental Assessment processes

(a) Environmental assessment. An environmental assessment (EA) shall be

prepared for proposals as described in §220.4(a) that are not categorically

excluded from documentation §220.6) and for which the need of an EIS has not

been determined (§220.5). An EA may be prepared in any format useful to

facilitate planning, decision-making, and public disclosure as long as the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this section are met. The EA may incorporate

by reference information that is reasonably available to the public.

(b). An EA must include the following:

(1) Need for the proposal. The EA must briefly describe the need for the project.

(2) Proposed action and alternative(s). The EA shall briefly describe the

proposed action and alternative(s) that meet the need for action. No specific

number of alternatives is required or prescribed.

(i) When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of

available resources (NEPA, Section §102(2)(E)), the EA need only analyze the

proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives.

(ii) The EA may document consideration of a no-action alternative through the

effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action and any
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

144

alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future condition if the

proposed action were not implemented.

(iii) The description of the proposal and alternative(s) may include a brief

description of modifications and incremental design features developed through

the analysis process to develop the alternatives considered. The documentation

of these incremental changes to a proposed action or alternatives may be

incorporated by reference in accord with 40 CFR §1502.21.

(iv) The proposed action and one or more alternatives to the proposed action

may include adaptive management. An adaptive management proposal or

alternative must clearly identify the adjustment(s) that maybe made when

monitoring during project implementation indicates that the action is not having

its intended effect, or is causing unintended and undesirable effects. The EA

must disclose not only the effect of the proposed action or alternative but also the

effect of the adjustment. Such proposal or alternative must also describe the

monitoring that would take place to inform the responsible official whether the

action is having its intended effect.

(3) Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative(s).

The EA:

(i) Shall briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis, including the

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative(s), to determine

whether to prepare either an EIS or a FONSI (40 CFR §1508.9);

(ii) Shall disclose the environmental effects of any adaptive management

adjustments;

(iii) Shall describe the impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives in

terms of context and intensity as described in the definition of ‘‘significantly’’ at 40

CFR §1508.27;

(iv) May discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact(s) of the proposed

action and any alternatives together in a comparative description or describe the

impacts of each alternative separately; and

(v) May incorporate by reference data, inventories, other information, and

analyses.

(4) Agencies and Persons Consulted.

36 CFR §220.7(c). Decision Notice 

If an EA and FONSI have been prepared, the responsible official must document

a decision to proceed with an action in a decision notice unless law or regulation

requires another form of decision documentation (40 CFR §1508.13). A decision
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

145

notice must document the conclusions drawn and the decision(s) made based on

the supporting record, including the EA and FONSI.

A decision notice must include:

(1) A heading, which identifies the: (i) Title of document; (ii) Agency and

administrative unit; (iii) Title of the project; and (iv) Location of the action,

including county and State.

(2) Decision and rationale;

(3) Brief summary of public involvement;

(4) A statement incorporating by reference the EA and FONSI if not 

combined with the decision notice;

(5) Findings required by other laws and regulations applicable to the

decision at the time of decision;

(6) Expected implementation date;

(7) Administrative review or appeal opportunities and, when such

opportunities exist, a citation to the applicable regulations and directions

on when and where to file a request for review or an appeal;

(8) Contact information, including the name, address, and phone number

of a contact person who can supply additional information; and

(9) Responsible Official’s signature, and the date the notice is signed.

(d) Notification. The responsible official shall notify interested and affected

parties of the availability of the EA, FONSI and decision notice, as soon as

practicable after the decision notice is signed.

36 CFR §220.3. Schedule of proposed actions (SOPA)

A Forest Service document that informs the public about those proposed and

ongoing Forest Service actions for which a record of decision, decision notice or

decision memo would be or has been prepared. The SOPA also identifies a

contact for additional information on any proposed actions.

36 CFR §220.4(d and e). Scoping

(d) The responsible official shall ensure the SOPA is updated and notify the

public of the availability of the SOPA.

(e) Scoping (40 CFR §1501.7). (1) Scoping is required for all Forest Service

proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded

from further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS (§ 220.6).

(2) Scoping shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

146

§1501.7. Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the

scope and intensity of analysis, no single scoping technique is required or

prescribed.

(3) The SOPA shall not to be used as the sole scoping mechanism for a

proposed action.

36 CFR §220.6(c). Scoping 

If the responsible official determines, based on scoping, that it is uncertain

whether the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment,

prepare an EA. If the responsible official determines, based on scoping, that the

proposed action may have a significant environmental effect, prepare an EIS.

36 CFR §220.4(i). Applicants

The responsible official shall make policies or staff available to advise potential

applicants of studies or other information foreseeably required for acceptance of

their applications. Upon acceptance of an application as provided by 36 CFR

§251.54(g) the responsible official shall initiate the NEPA process.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Section 11.21. Purpose and Need

The need for action discusses the relationship between the desired condition and

the existing condition in order to answer the question, “why consider taking any

action?” The breadth or narrowness of the need for action has a substantial

influence on the scope of the subsequent analysis. A well-defined “need” or

“purpose and need” statement narrows the range of alternatives that may need to

be considered. For example, a statement like “there is a need for more

developed recreation” would lead to a very broad analysis and consideration of

many different types of recreation. However, a statement like “there is a need for

more developed campsites along Clear Creek” would result in a more focused

analysis with consideration of a much narrower range of alternatives.

“Purpose” and “need” may be discussed separately, but normally they are

discussed as one because the purpose of an action will be to respond to the

stated need.

It is critical that the responsible official and interdisciplinary team members all

understand and agree on the need for action. An informed decision can only be

made when everyone is working together to solve the same problem.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

147

Department of Interior Extraordinary Circumstances Applicable to all DOI 

Bureaus and Services

43 CFR §46.215. Categorical exclusions: Extraordinary circumstances

Extraordinary circumstances (see paragraph §46.205(c)) exist for individual 

actions within categorical exclusions that may meet any of the criteria listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section. Applicability of extraordinary 

circumstances to categorical exclusions is determined by the Responsible 

Official.

(a) Have significant impacts on public health or safety.

(b) Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique

geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park,

recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national

natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime

farmlands; wetlands (EO 11990); floodplains (EO 11988); national

monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical

areas.

(c) Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved

conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA section

102(2)(E)].

(d) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects

or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

(e) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in

principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental

effects.

(f) Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant

but cumulatively significant environmental effects.

(g) Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on

the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the bureau.

(h) Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on

the List of Endangered or Threatened Species or have significant impacts

on designated Critical Habitat for these species.

(i) Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement

imposed for the protection of the environment.

(j) Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or

minority populations (EO 12898).
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

148

(k) Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal

lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the

physical integrity of such sacred sites (EO 13007).

(l) Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of

noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area

or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the

range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and EO

13112).

National Park Service 516 DM Chapter 12; Department of Interior 43 CFR 

part 46

§46.205. Actions categorically excluded from further NEPA review

Categorical Exclusion means a category or kind of action that has no significant

individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. See 40

CFR §1508.4.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if an action is covered by

a Departmental categorical exclusion, the bureau is not required to prepare an

environmental assessment (see subpart D of this part) or an environmental

impact statement (see subpart E of this part). If a proposed action does not meet

the criteria for any of the listed Departmental categorical exclusions or any of the

individual bureau categorical exclusions, then the proposed action must be

analyzed in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

(b) The actions listed in section §46.210 are categorically excluded, Departmentwide, from preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact

statements.

(c) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §1508.4 require agency procedures to

provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may

have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. 

Section §46.215 lists the extraordinary circumstances under which actions

otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion require analyses under NEPA.

(1) Any action that is normally categorically excluded must be evaluated to

determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances in

section §46.215; if it does, further analysis and environmental documents

must be prepared for the action.

(2) Bureaus must work within existing administrative frameworks, including

any existing programmatic agreements, when deciding how to apply any

of the section §46.215 extraordinary circumstances.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

149

Ch. 12.5 Categorical Exclusions [pertinent to broadband projects]. The

following NPS actions are designated categorical exclusions unless the action

qualifies as an exception under [43 CFR §46.215].

A. Actions Related to General Administration.

(4) Reissuance/renewal of permits, rights-of-way or easements not

involving new environmental impacts,

(5) Conversion of existing permits to rights-of-way, when such conversions

do not continue or initiate unsatisfactory environmental conditions,

(6) Issuances, extensions, renewals, reissuances or minor modifications of

concession contracts or permits not entailing new construction,

(7) Commercial use licenses involving no construction,

(11) At the direction of the NPS responsible official, actions where NPS

has concurrence or co-approval with another bureau and the action is a

categorical exclusion for that bureau.

B. Plans, Studies and Reports.

(1) Changes or amendments to an approved plan, when such changes

would cause no or only minimal environmental impact.

(9) Adoption or approval of surveys, studies, reports, plans and similar

documents which will result in recommendations or proposed actions

which would cause no or only minimal environmental impact.

C. Actions Related to Development.

(3) Routine maintenance and repairs to non-historic structures, facilities,

utilities, grounds and trails.

(4) Routine maintenance and repairs to cultural resource sites, structures,

utilities and grounds under an approved Historic Structures Preservation

Guide or Cyclic Maintenance Guide; or if the action would not adversely

affect the cultural resource.

(5) Installation of signs, displays, kiosks, etc.

(8) Replacement in kind of minor structures and facilities with little or no

change in location, capacity, or appearance.

(13) Upgrading or adding new overhead utility facilities to existing poles, or

replacement poles which do not change existing pole line configurations.

(14) Issuance of rights-of-way for overhead utility lines to an individual

building or well from an existing line where installation will not result in
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

150

significant visual intrusion and will involve no clearance of vegetation other

than for placement of poles.

(15) Issuance of rights-of-way for minor overhead utility lines not involving

placement of poles or towers and not involving vegetation management or

significant visual intrusion in an NPS-administered area.

(16) Installation of underground utilities in previously disturbed areas

having stable soils, or in an existing utility right-of-way.

(17) Construction of minor structures, including small, improved parking

lots in previously disturbed or developed areas.

(20) Construction of fencing enclosures or boundary fencing posing no

effect on wildlife migrations.

E. Actions Related to Resource Management and Protection.

(1) Archeological surveys and permits involving only surface collection or

small-scale test excavations.

§46.120. Using existing environmental analyses prepared pursuant to

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations

(a) When available, the Responsible Official should use existing NEPA analyses 

for assessing the impacts of a proposed action and any alternatives. Procedures 

for adoption or incorporation by reference of such analyses must be followed 

where applicable.

(b) If existing NEPA analyses include data and assumptions appropriate for the 

analysis at hand, the Responsible Official should use these existing NEPA 

analyses and/or their underlying data and assumptions where feasible.

(c) An existing environmental analysis prepared pursuant to NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations may be used in its entirety if the 

Responsible Official determines, with appropriate supporting documentation, that 

it adequately assesses the environmental effects of the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives. The supporting record must include an evaluation of 

whether new circumstances, new information, or changes in the action or its 

impacts not previously analyzed may result in significantly different 

environmental effects.

(d) Responsible Officials should make the best use of existing NEPA documents 

by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous 

NEPA environmental analyses to avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork.

§46.320. Adopting environmental assessments prepared by another

agency, entity, or person
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

151

(a) A Responsible Official may adopt an environmental assessment prepared by 

another agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, if the Responsible 

Official:

(1) Independently reviews the environmental assessment; and

(2) Finds that the environmental assessment complies with this subpart and 

relevant provisions of the CEQ Regulations and with other program 

requirements.

(b) When appropriate, the Responsible Official may augment the environmental 

assessment to be consistent with the bureau's proposed action.

(c) In adopting or augmenting the environmental assessment, the Responsible 

Official will cite the original environmental assessment.

(d) The Responsible Official must ensure that its bureau's public involvement 

requirements have been met before it adopts another agency's environmental 

assessment.

§46.300. Purpose of an environmental assessment and when it must be

prepared 

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to allow the Responsible 

Official to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a 

finding of no significant impact.

(a) A bureau must ensure that an environmental assessment is prepared for all 

proposed Federal actions, except those:

(1) That are covered by a categorical exclusion;

(2) That are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document as 

determined and documented by the Responsible Official; or

(3) For which the bureau has already decided to prepare an environmental 

impact statement.

(b) A bureau may prepare an environmental assessment for any proposed action 

at any time to:

(1) Assist in planning and decision-making;

(2) Further the purposes of NEPA when no environmental impact statement 

is necessary; or

(3) Facilitate environmental impact statement preparation.

§46.235. NEPA scoping process 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

152

(a) Scoping is a process that continues throughout the planning and early 

stages of preparation of an environmental impact statement. Scoping is required 

for an environmental impact statement; scoping may be helpful during 

preparation of an environmental assessment, but is not required (see paragraph 

46.305(a) Public involvement in the environmental assessment process). For an 

environmental impact statement, bureaus must use scoping to engage State, 

local and tribal governments and the public in the early identification of concerns, 

potential impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative 

actions. Scoping is an opportunity to introduce and explain the interdisciplinary 

approach and solicit information as to additional disciplines that should be 

included. Scoping also provides an opportunity to bring agencies and applicants 

together to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, expediting reviews where 

possible, integrating other environmental reviews, and identifying any major 

obstacles that could delay the process. The Responsible Official shall determine 

whether, in some cases, the invitation requirement in 40 CFR §1501.7(a)(1) may 

be satisfied by including such an invitation in the notice of intent (NOI).

(b) In scoping meetings, newsletters, or by other communication methods 

appropriate to scoping, the lead agency must make it clear that the lead agency 

is ultimately responsible for determining the scope of an environmental impact 

statement and that suggestions obtained during scoping are only options for the 

bureau to consider.

Ch. 12.3 Guidance to Applicants. Actions in areas of NPS jurisdiction that are 

initiated by private or non-Federal entities include the following:

C. Permits, Rights-of-Way, and Easements for Non-Park Uses

Informational requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis, and 

applicants should consult with the Park Superintendent before making formal 

application. The applicant must provide sufficient information on the proposed 

non-park use, as well as park resources and resource-related values to be 

affected directly and indirectly by the proposed use in order to allow the Service 

to evaluate the application, assess the impact of the proposed use on the NPS 

unit and other environmental values, develop restrictions/stipulations to mitigate 

adverse impacts, and reach a decision on issuance of the instrument. Authorities 

for such permits, rights-of-way, etc., are found in the enabling legislation for 

individual National Park System units and 16 U.S.C. 5 and 79 and 23 U.S.C. 317. 

Right-of-way and easement regulations are found at 36 CFR Part 14. Policies 

concerning regulation of special uses are described in the NPS Management 

Policies Notebook.

BIA Appendix 516 DM Chapter 10; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

§46.205. Actions categorically excluded from further NEPA review
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

153

Categorical Exclusion means a category or kind of action that has no significant

individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. See 40

CFR §1508.4.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if an action is covered by

a Departmental categorical exclusion, the bureau is not required to prepare an

environmental assessment (see subpart D of this part) or an environmental

impact statement (see subpart E of this part). If a proposed action does not meet

the criteria for any of the listed Departmental categorical exclusions or any of the

individual bureau categorical exclusions, then the proposed action must be

analyzed in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

(b) The actions listed in section 46.210 are categorically excluded, Departmentwide, from preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact

statements.

(c) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §1508.4 require agency procedures to

provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may

have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. 

Section 46.215 lists the extraordinary circumstances under which actions

otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion require analyses under NEPA.

(1) Any action that is normally categorically excluded must be evaluated to

determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances in section

46.215; if it does, further analysis and environmental documents must be

prepared for the action.

(2) Bureaus must work within existing administrative frameworks, including

any existing programmatic agreements, when deciding how to apply any of the

section 46.215 extraordinary circumstances.

Ch. 10.5 Categorical Exclusions [pertinent to this PEA].

The following BIA actions are hereby designated as categorical exclusions

unless the action qualifies as an exception [43 CFR Part 46]. These activities are

single, independent actions not associated with a larger, existing or proposed,

complex or facility. If cases occur that involve larger complexes or facilities, an

EA or supplement should be accomplished.

A. Operation, maintenance, and replacement of existing facilities. Examples are

normal renovation of buildings, road maintenance and limited rehabilitation of

irrigation structures.

F. Rights-of-Way.

(1) Rights-of-way inside another right-of-way, or amendments to rights-of-way

where deviations from or additions to the original right-of-way are involved and
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

154

where there is an existing NEPA analysis covering the same or similar impacts in

the right-of-way. 

(2) Service line agreements to an individual residence, building or well from an

existing facility where installation will involve no clearance of vegetation from the

right-of-way other than for placement of poles, signs, (including highway signs),

or buried power/cable lines. 

(3) Renewals, assignments and conversions of existing rights-of-way where there

would be essentially no change in use and continuation would not lead to

environmental degradation.

L. Roads and Transportation

(1) Approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility located

in whole within the limits of the roadway right-of-way. 

(4) Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters,

traffic signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial acquisition or

traffic disruption will occur. 

M. Other.

(3) Actions where BIA has concurrence or co-approval with another Bureau and

the action is categorically excluded for that Bureau.

§46.120. Using existing environmental analyses prepared pursuant to

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations

(a) When available, the Responsible Official should use existing NEPA analyses 

for assessing the impacts of a proposed action and any alternatives. Procedures 

for adoption or incorporation by reference of such analyses must be followed 

where applicable.

(b) If existing NEPA analyses include data and assumptions appropriate for the 

analysis at hand, the Responsible Official should use these existing NEPA 

analyses and/or their underlying data and assumptions where feasible.

(c) An existing environmental analysis prepared pursuant to NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations may be used in its entirety if the 

Responsible Official determines, with appropriate supporting documentation, that 

it adequately assesses the environmental effects of the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives. The supporting record must include an evaluation of 

whether new circumstances, new information or changes in the action or its 

impacts not previously analyzed may result in significantly different 

environmental effects.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

155

(d) Responsible Officials should make the best use of existing NEPA documents 

by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous 

NEPA environmental analyses to avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork.

§46.320. Adopting environmental assessments prepared by another

agency, entity, or person

(a) A Responsible Official may adopt an environmental assessment prepared by 

another agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, if the Responsible 

Official:

(1) Independently reviews the environmental assessment; and

(2) Finds that the environmental assessment complies with this subpart and

relevant provisions of the CEQ Regulations and with other program 

requirements.

(b) When appropriate, the Responsible Official may augment the environmental 

assessment to be consistent with the bureau's proposed action.

(c) In adopting or augmenting the environmental assessment, the Responsible 

Official will cite the original environmental assessment.

(d) The Responsible Official must ensure that its bureau's public involvement 

requirements have been met before it adopts another agency's environmental 

assessment.

§46.300. Purpose of an environmental assessment and when it must be

prepared 

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to allow the Responsible 

Official to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a 

finding of no significant impact.

(a) A bureau must ensure that an environmental assessment is prepared for all 

proposed Federal actions, except those:

(1) That are covered by a categorical exclusion;

(2) That are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document as 

determined and documented by the Responsible Official; or

(3) For which the bureau has already decided to prepare an environmental 

impact statement.

(b) A bureau may prepare an environmental assessment for any proposed action 

at any time to:

(1) Assist in planning and decision-making;
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

156

(2) Further the purposes of NEPA when no environmental impact statement 

is necessary; or

(3) Facilitate environmental impact statement preparation.

§46.235. NEPA scoping process 

(a) Scoping is a process that continues throughout the planning and early stages 

of preparation of an environmental impact statement. Scoping is required for an 

environmental impact statement; scoping may be helpful during preparation of an 

environmental assessment, but is not required (see paragraph 46.305(a) Public 

involvement in the environmental assessment process). For an environmental 

impact statement, bureaus must use scoping to engage State, local, and tribal 

governments and the public in the early identification of concerns, potential 

impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative actions. 

Scoping is an opportunity to introduce and explain the interdisciplinary approach 

and solicit information as to additional disciplines that should be included. 

Scoping also provides an opportunity to bring agencies and applicants together 

to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, expediting reviews where possible, 

integrating other environmental reviews, and identifying any major obstacles that 

could delay the process. The Responsible Official shall determine whether, in 

some cases, the invitation requirement in 40 CFR §1501.7(a)(1) may be satisfied 

by including such an invitation in the notice of intent (NOI).

(b) In scoping meetings, newsletters, or by other communication methods 

appropriate to scoping, the lead agency must make it clear that the lead agency 

is ultimately responsible for determining the scope of an environmental impact 

statement and that suggestions obtained during scoping are only options for the 

bureau to consider.

Ch. 10.3A(1). Guidance to Applicants

(a) An “applicant” is an entity which proposes to undertake any activity which will 

at some point require BIA action. These may include tribal governments, private 

entities, state and local governments or other Federal agencies. BIA compliance 

with NEPA is Congressionally-mandated. Compliance is initiated when a BIA 

action is necessary in order to implement a proposal.

(b) Applicants should contact the BIA official at the appropriate level for 

assistances. This will be the Agency Superintendent, Area Director or the 

Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities.

(c) if the applicant’s proposed action will affect or involve more than one tribal 

government, one government agency, one BIA agency or where the action may 

be of State-wide or regional significance, the applicant should contact the 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

157

respective Area Director(s). The Area Director(s), using sole discretion, may 

assign the lead NEPA compliance responsibilities to one Area Office, or, as 

appropriate, to one Agency Superintendent. From that point, the Applicant will 

deal with the designated lead office. 

(d) Since much of the applicant’s planning may take place outside the BIA 

system, it is the applicant’s responsibility to prepare a milestone chart for BIA use 

at the earliest possible stage in order to coordinate the efforts of both parties. 

Early communication with the responsible BIA office will expedite determination 

of the appropriate type of NEPA documentation required. Other matters such as 

the scope, depth and sources of data for an environmental document will also be 

expedited and will help lead to a more efficient and more timely NEPA 

compliance process. 

Ch. 10.3C. Programs under 25 CFR for which BIA has not yet issued regulations 

or directives for environmental information for applicants are listed below. These 

programs may or may not require environmental documents and could involve 

submission of applicant information to determine NEPA applicability. Applicants 

for these types of programs should contact the appropriate BIA office for 

information and assistance.

 (8) Leasing and permitting (Lands) (25 CFR Part 162)

 (14) Rights-of-way over Indian lands (25 CFR Part 169)

Bureau of Land Management Pertinent NEPA Regulations 43 CFR Section 

46.210 (Department of Interior-wide); Part 516 DM Ch. 11 (Bureau of Land 

Management)

§46.205. Actions categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Categorical Exclusion means a category or kind of action that has no

significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human

environment. See 40 CFR §1508.4.

(c) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §1508.4 require agency procedures to

provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may

have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. 

Section 46.215 lists the extraordinary circumstances under which actions

otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion require analyses under NEPA.

(1) Any action that is normally categorically excluded must be evaluated to

determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances in section

§46.215; if it does, further analysis and environmental documents must be

prepared for the action.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

158

(2) Bureaus must work within existing administrative frameworks, including

any existing programmatic agreements, when deciding how to apply any of the

section 46.215 extraordinary circumstances.

Ch. 11.9 Actions Eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (CX). 

[43 CFR §46.205] requires that before any action described in the following list of

CXs is used, the list of “extraordinary circumstances” must be reviewed for

applicability. If a CX does not pass the “extraordinary circumstances” test, the

proposed action analysis defaults to either an EA or an EIS. When no

“extraordinary circumstances” apply, the following activities do not require the

preparation of an EA or EIS. As proposed actions are designed and then

reviewed against the CX list, proposed actions or activities must be, at a

minimum, consistent with the DOI and the BLM regulations, manuals,

handbooks, policies, and applicable land use plans regarding design features,

best management practices, terms and conditions, conditions of approval, and

stipulations.

Pertinent BLM Categorical Exclusions

Ch. 11E. Realty.

(9) Renewals and assignments of leases, permits, or rights-of-way where no

additional rights are conveyed beyond those granted by the original

authorizations.

(10) Transfer or conversion of leases, permits, or rights-of-way from one agency

to another (e.g., conversion of Forest Service permits to a BLM Title V Right-ofway).

(11) Conversion of existing right-of-way grants to Title V grants or existing leases

to FLPMA Section 302(b) leases where no new facilities or other changes are

needed.

(12) Grants of right-of-way wholly within the boundaries of other compatibly

developed rights-of-way.

(13) Amendments to existing rights-of-way, such as the upgrading of existing

facilities, which entail no additional disturbances outside the right-of-way

boundary.

(14) Grants of rights-of-way for an overhead line (no pole or tower on BLM land)

crossing over a corner of public land.

(16) Acquisition of easements for an existing road or issuance of leases, permits,

or rights-of-way for the use of existing facilities, improvements, or sites for the

same or similar purposes.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

159

(17) Grant of a short rights-of-way for utility service or terminal access roads to

an individual residence, outbuilding, or water well.

(18) Temporary placement of a pipeline above ground.

The BLM list of actions for which an EA is the appropriate NEPA document

Ch. 11.7C. An EA is usually the appropriate NEPA document for:

(1) Land Use Plan Amendments;

(2) Land use plan implementation decisions, including but not limited to analysis

for implementation plans such as watershed plans or coordinated resource

activity plans, resource use permits (except for those that are categorically

excludable), and site-specific project plans, such as construction of a trail.

D. An EA should be completed when the Responsible Official is uncertain of the

potential for significant impacts and needs further analysis to make the

determination.

§46.240. Establishing time limits for the NEPA process 

(a) For each proposed action, on a case-by-case basis, bureaus shall:

(1) Set time limits from the start to the finish of the NEPA analysis and

documentation, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR §1501.8 and

other legal obligations, including statutory and regulatory timeframes;

(2) Consult with cooperating agencies in setting time limits; and

(3) Encourage cooperating agencies to meet established time frames.

(b) Time limits should reflect the availability of Department and bureau personnel

and funds. Efficiency of the NEPA process is dependent on the management

capabilities of the lead bureau, which must assemble an interdisciplinary team

and/or qualified staff appropriate to the type of project to be analyzed to ensure

timely completion of NEPA documents.

§46.120. Using existing environmental analyses prepared pursuant to

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

(a) When available, the Responsible Official should use existing NEPA analyses

for assessing the impacts of a proposed action and any alternatives. Procedures

for adoption or incorporation by reference of such analyses must be followed

where applicable.

(b) If existing NEPA analyses include data and assumptions appropriate for the

analysis at hand, the Responsible Official should use these existing NEPA

analyses and/or their underlying data and assumptions where feasible.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

160

(c) An existing environmental analysis prepared pursuant to NEPA and the

Council on Environmental Quality regulations may be used in its entirety if the

Responsible Official determines, with appropriate supporting documentation, that

it adequately assesses the environmental effects of the proposed action and

reasonable alternatives. The supporting record must include an evaluation of

whether new circumstances, new information or changes in the action or its

impacts not previously analyzed may result in significantly different

environmental effects.

(d) Responsible Officials should make the best use of existing NEPA documents

by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous

NEPA environmental analyses to avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork.

§46.320. Adopting environmental assessments prepared by another

agency, entity, or person 

(a) A Responsible Official may adopt an environmental assessment prepared by

another agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, if the Responsible

Official:

(1) Independently reviews the environmental assessment; and

(2) Finds that the environmental assessment complies with this subpart

and relevant provisions of the CEQ Regulations and with other program

requirements.

(b) When appropriate, the Responsible Official may augment the environmental

assessment to be consistent with the bureau's proposed action.

(c) In adopting or augmenting the environmental assessment, the Responsible

Official will cite the original environmental assessment.

(d) The Responsible Official must ensure that its bureau's public involvement

requirements have been met before it adopts another agency's environmental

assessment.

Ch. 11.5. Plan Conformance 

Where a BLM land use plan (LUP) exists, a proposed action must be in

conformance with the plan. This means that the proposed action must be

specifically provided for in the plan, or if not specifically mentioned, the proposal

must be clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the plan or

plan as amended. If it is determined that the proposed action does not conform

to the plan, the Responsible Official may:

A. Reject the proposal;

B. Modify the proposal to conform to the land use plan; or
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

161

C. Complete appropriate plan amendments and associated NEPA compliance

requirements prior to proceeding with the proposed action.

Ch. 11.6. Existing Documentation (Determination of NEPA Adequacy

[Supplements]) 

The Responsible Official may consider using existing NEPA analysis for a

proposed action when the record documents show that the following conditions

are met:

A. The proposed action is adequately covered by (i.e., is within the scope of and

analyzed in) relevant existing analyses, data, and records; and

B. There are no new circumstances, new information, or unanticipated or

unanalyzed environmental impacts that warrant new or supplemental analysis. If

the Responsible Official determines that existing NEPA documents adequately

analyzed the effects of the proposed action, this determination, usually prepared

in a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) worksheet to provide the

administrative record support, serves as an interim step in the BLM’s internal

decision-making process. The DNA is intended to evaluate the coverage of

existing documents and the significance of new information, but does not itself

provide NEPA analysis. If the Responsible Official concludes that the proposed

action(s) warrant additional review, information from the DNA worksheet may be

used to facilitate the preparation of the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. The

BLM’s NEPA Handbook and program specific regulations and guidance describe

additional steps needed to make and document the agency’s final determination

regarding a proposed action.

Ch. 11.3. External Applicants’ Guidance 

A(1) For all external proposals, applicants should make initial contact with the

Responsible Official (District Manager, Field Manager, or State Director)

responsible for the affected public lands as soon as possible after determining

the BLM’s involvement. This early contact is necessary to allow the BLM to

consult early with appropriate state and local agencies and tribes and with

interested private persons and organizations, and to commence its NEPA

process at the earliest possible time.

A(2) When a proposed action has the potential to affect public lands in more than

one administrative unit, the applicant may initially contact any Responsible

Official whose jurisdiction is involved. The BLM may then designate a lead office

to coordinate between BLM jurisdictions.

A(3) Potential applicants may secure from the Responsible Official a list of NEPA

and other relevant regulations and requirements for environmental review related
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

162

to each applicant’s proposed action. The purpose of making these regulations

and requirements known in advance is to assist the applicant in the development

of an adequate and accurate description of the proposed action when the

applicant submits their project application. The list provided to the applicant may

not fully disclose all relevant regulations and requirements because additional

requirements could be identified after review of the applicant’s proposal

document(s) and as a result of the “scoping” process.

A(4) The applicant is encouraged to advise the BLM of their intentions early on in

their planning process. Early communication is necessary so that the BLM can

efficiently advise the applicant on the anticipated type of NEPA review required,

information needed, and potential data gaps that may or may not need to be

filled, so that the BLM can describe the relevant regulations and requirements

likely to affect the proposed action(s), and to discuss scheduling expectations.

43 CFR §2805.10(a)(1). Applicant’s Need for Action as Evaluated by the

BLM. (IM 2011-059, re-authorized February 2013)

The purpose and need statement as a whole describes the problem or

opportunity to which the BLM is responding and what the BLM hopes to

accomplish by the action. The purpose and need statement in a NEPA

document for a renewable energy right-of-way application must describe the

BLM’s purpose and need for action, not the applicant’s interests and objectives

(BLM NEPA Handbook Section 6.2). The applicant’s interests and objectives,

including any constraints or flexibility with respect to their proposal, help to inform

the BLM’s decision and cannot be ignored in the NEPA process. The applicant’s

interest and objectives should be described in the NEPA document (e.g., in the

background section or in the project description). This information will help

determine which alternatives are analyzed in detail through the NEPA process

and may also provide a basis for eliminating some alternatives from detailed

analysis.

For most renewable energy projects the BLM’s purpose and need for action will

arise from the BLM’s responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act (FLPMA) to respond to a right-of way application requesting

authorized use of public lands for a specific type of renewable energy

development. The purpose and need statement should also describe the BLM’s

authorities and management objectives with respect to renewable energy and

public lands (see example below). Additionally, offices should include a

description of the BLM’s decision(s) to be made as part of the purpose and need

statement to help establish the scope of the NEPA analysis (BLM NEPA

Handbook Section 6.2). In responding to a right-of-way application the BLM may

decide to deny the proposed right-of-way, grant the right-of way, or grant the
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

163

right-of-way with modifications. In accordance with the right-of-way regulations,

modifications may include modifying the proposed use or changing the route or

location of the proposed facilities (43 CFR §2805.10(a)(1)).

The following purpose and need statement is provided as an example. Changes

in the statement as written are expected based on project-specific circumstances

including appropriate reference to land use plans or other management

objectives or policies for an area (e.g., Secretarial Order 3310, dated December

22, 2010, Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the

BLM). In some situations, distinguishing the “purpose” from the “need” as two

separate aspects of the purpose and need statement may provide an opportunity

to better clarify why the BLM is proposing an action (BLM NEPA Handbook

Section 6.2).

In accordance with FLPMA (Section 103(c)), public lands are to be managed for

multiple use that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for

renewable and non-renewable resources. The Secretary of the Interior is

authorized to grant rights-of-way on public lands for systems of generation,

transmission, and distribution of electric energy (Section 501(a)(4)). Taking into

account the BLM’s multiple use mandate, the purpose and need for the proposed

action is to respond to a FLPMA right-of-way application submitted by [Company

X] to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a [type of energy] facility

and associated infrastructure on public lands administered by the BLM in

compliance with FLPMA, BLM right-of-way regulations, and other applicable

Federal laws and policies. This proposed action would, if approved, assist the

BLM in addressing the management objectives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005

(Title II, Section 211) which establish a goal for the Secretary of the Interior to

approve 10,000 MWs of electricity from non-hydropower renewable energy

projects located on public lands. This proposed action, if approved, would also

further the purpose of Secretarial Order 3285A1 (March 11, 2009) that

establishes the development of environmentally responsible renewable energy

as a priority for the Department of the Interior.

The BLM will decide whether to deny the proposed right-of-way, grant the right-of

way, or grant the right-of-way with modifications. Modifications may include

modifying the proposed use or changing the route or location of the proposed

facilities.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

164

USFWS CX 516 DM chapter 8; Department of Interior 43 CFR part 46

§46.205. Actions categorically excluded from further NEPA review

Categorical Exclusion means a category or kind of action that has no significant

individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. See 40

CFR §1508.4.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if an action is covered by

a Departmental categorical exclusion, the bureau is not required to prepare an

environmental assessment (see subpart D of this part) or an environmental

impact statement (see subpart E of this part). If a proposed action does not meet

the criteria for any of the listed Departmental categorical exclusions or any of the

individual bureau categorical exclusions, then the proposed action must be

analyzed in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

(b) The actions listed in section 46.210 are categorically excluded, Departmentwide, from preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact

statements.

(c) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §1508.4 require agency procedures to

provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may

have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. 

Section 46.215 lists the extraordinary circumstances under which actions

otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion require analyses under NEPA.

(1) Any action that is normally categorically excluded must be evaluated to

determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances in section

46.215; if it does, further analysis and environmental documents must be

prepared for the action.

(2) Bureaus must work within existing administrative frameworks, including

any existing programmatic agreements, when deciding how to apply any of the

section 46.215 extraordinary circumstances.

Ch. 8.5 Categorical Exclusions [pertinent to this PEA]

In addition to the actions listed in the Departmental categorical exclusions [43

CFR part 46.215], the following Service actions are designated as categorical

exclusions unless the action is an exception to the categorical exclusion. 

B. Resource Management. Prior to carrying out these actions, the Service

should coordinate with affected Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local

governments.

(2). The operation, maintenance, and management of existing facilities and

routine recurring management activities and improvements, including renovations
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

165

and replacements which result in no or only minor changes in the use, and have

no or negligible environmental effects on-site or in the vicinity of the site.

C. Permit and Regulatory Functions.

(3) The issuance of special regulations for public use of Service-managed

land, which maintain essentially the permitted level of use and do not continue a

level of use that has resulted in adverse environmental effects. 

(4) The issuance or reissuance of permits for limited additional use of an

existing right-of-way for underground or above ground power, telephone, or

pipelines, where no new structures (i.e., facilities) or major improvement to those

facilities are required; and for permitting a new right-of-way, where no or

negligible environmental disturbances are anticipated.

(5) The issuance or reissuance of special use permits for the administration

of specialized sues, including agricultural uses, or other economic uses for

management purposes, when such uses are compatible, contribute to the

purposes of the refuge system unit, and result in no or negligible environmental

effects.

(6) The denial of special use permit applications, either initially or when

permits are reviewed for renewal, when the proposed action is determined not

compatible with the purposes of the refuge system unit. 

(8) Actions where the Service has concurrence or co-approval with another

agency and the action is a categorical exclusion for that agency. This would

normally involve one Federal action or connected actions where the Service is a

cooperating agency. 

§46.215. Categorical exclusions: Extraordinary circumstances

Extraordinary circumstances (see paragraph 46.205(c)) exist for individual 

actions within categorical exclusions that may meet any of the criteria listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section. Applicability of extraordinary 

circumstances to categorical exclusions is determined by the Responsible 

Official.

(a) Have significant impacts on public health or safety.

(b) Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique 

geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, 

recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national 

natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime 

farmlands; wetlands (EO 11990); floodplains (EO 11988); national 

monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical 

areas.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

166

(c) Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA section 

102(2)(E)].

(d) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects 

or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

(e) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in 

principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental 

effects.

(f) Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant 

but cumulatively significant environmental effects.

(g) Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on 

the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the bureau.

(h) Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on 

the List of Endangered or Threatened Species or have significant impacts 

on designated Critical Habitat for these species.

(i) Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the environment.

(j) Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or 

minority populations (EO 12898).

(k) Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal 

lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the 

physical integrity of such sacred sites (EO 13007).

(l) Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of 

noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area 

or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the 

range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and EO 

13112).

§46.300. Purpose of an environmental assessment and when it must be

prepared 

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to allow the Responsible 

Official to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a 

finding of no significant impact.

(a) A bureau must ensure that an environmental assessment is prepared for all 

proposed Federal actions, except those:

(1) That are covered by a categorical exclusion;
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

167

(2) That are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document as 

determined and documented by the Responsible Official; or

(3) For which the bureau has already decided to prepare an environmental 

impact statement.

(b) A bureau may prepare an environmental assessment for any proposed action 

at any time to:

(1) Assist in planning and decision-making;

(2) Further the purposes of NEPA when no environmental impact statement 

is necessary; or

(3) Facilitate environmental impact statement preparation.

Ch. 8.6 Actions Normally Requiring an EA

A. Proposals to establish most new refuges and fish hatcheries, and most

additions and rehabilitations to existing installations.

B. Any habitat conservation plan that does not meet the definition of “low effect”

in the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Handbook.

§46.235. NEPA scoping process 

(a) Scoping is a process that continues throughout the planning and early stages 

of preparation of an environmental impact statement. Scoping is required for an 

environmental impact statement; scoping may be helpful during preparation of an 

environmental assessment, but is not required (see paragraph 46.305(a) Public 

involvement in the environmental assessment process). For an environmental 

impact statement, bureaus must use scoping to engage State, local and tribal 

governments and the public in the early identification of concerns, potential 

impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative actions. 

Scoping is an opportunity to introduce and explain the interdisciplinary approach 

and solicit information as to additional disciplines that should be included. 

Scoping also provides an opportunity to bring agencies and applicants together 

to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, expediting reviews where possible, 

integrating other environmental reviews, and identifying any major obstacles that 

could delay the process. The Responsible Official shall determine whether, in 

some cases, the invitation requirement in 40 CFR §1501.7(a)(1) may be satisfied 

by including such an invitation in the notice of intent (NOI).

(b) In scoping meetings, newsletters, or by other communication methods 

appropriate to scoping, the lead agency must make it clear that the lead agency 

is ultimately responsible for determining the scope of an environmental impact 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

168

statement and that suggestions obtained during scoping are only options for the 

bureau to consider.

§46.120. Using existing environmental analyses prepared pursuant to

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations

(a) When available, the Responsible Official should use existing NEPA analyses 

for assessing the impacts of a proposed action and any alternatives. Procedures 

for adoption or incorporation by reference of such analyses must be followed 

where applicable.

(b) If existing NEPA analyses include data and assumptions appropriate for the 

analysis at hand, the Responsible Official should use these existing NEPA 

analyses and/or their underlying data and assumptions where feasible.

(c) An existing environmental analysis prepared pursuant to NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations may be used in its entirety if the 

Responsible Official determines, with appropriate supporting documentation, that 

it adequately assesses the environmental effects of the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives. The supporting record must include an evaluation of 

whether new circumstances, new information or changes in the action or its 

impacts not previously analyzed may result in significantly different 

environmental effects.

(d) Responsible Officials should make the best use of existing NEPA documents 

by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous 

NEPA environmental analyses to avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork.

§46.320. Adopting environmental assessments prepared by another

agency, entity, or person

(a) A Responsible Official may adopt an environmental assessment prepared by 

another agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, if the Responsible 

Official:

(1) Independently reviews the environmental assessment; and

(2) Finds that the environmental assessment complies with this subpart and 

relevant provisions of the CEQ Regulations and with other program 

requirements.

(b) When appropriate, the Responsible Official may augment the environmental 

assessment to be consistent with the bureau's proposed action.

(c) In adopting or augmenting the environmental assessment, the Responsible 

Official will cite the original environmental assessment.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

169

(d) The Responsible Official must ensure that its bureau's public involvement 

requirements have been met before it adopts another agency's environmental 

assessment.

Ch. 8.4 Guidance to Applicants

A. Service permits. The Service has responsibility for issuing permits to Federal 

and state agencies and private parties for actions which would involve certain 

wildlife species and/or use of Service-administered lands. When applicable, the 

Service may require permit applicants to provide additional information on the 

proposal and on its environmental effects as may be necessary to satisfy the 

Service’s requirements to comply with NEPA, other Federal laws, and executive 

orders.

(2) Federal lands managed by the Service. Service lands are administered 

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 USC 

668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 USC 460k-460k-4), and 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 410hh3233, 43 USC 1602-1784). Inherent in these acts is the requirement that only 

those uses that are compatible with the purposes of the refuge system unit may 

be allowed on Service lands. The Service also complies with Executive Order 

12996, signed March 25, 1996, entitled “Management and General Public Use of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System.” This Executive Order identifies general 

public uses that will be given priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management, subject to meeting the compatibility requirement and if adequate 

funding is available to administer the use. Detailed procedures regarding 

comprehensive management planning and integration with NEPA are found in 

the Service Manual (602 FW 1-3). Reference to this and other National Wildlife 

Refuge System requirements are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

50 parts 25-29, 31-36, 60, and 70-71. Under these regulations, these protections 

are extended to all Service-administered lands, including the National Fish 

Hatchery System.

Bureau of Reclamation 516 DM Ch. 14; DOI 43 CFR 46

§46.205. Actions categorically excluded from further NEPA review

Categorical Exclusion means a category or kind of action that has no significant

individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. See 40

CFR §1508.4.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if an action is covered by

a Departmental categorical exclusion, the bureau is not required to prepare an

environmental assessment (see subpart D of this part) or an environmental

impact statement (see subpart E of this part). If a proposed action does not meet
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

170

the criteria for any of the listed Departmental categorical exclusions or any of the

individual bureau categorical exclusions, then the proposed action must be

analyzed in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

(b) The actions listed in section 46.210 are categorically excluded, Departmentwide, from preparation of environmental assessments or environmental impact

statements.

(c) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR §1508.4 require agency procedures to

provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may

have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. 

Section 46.215 lists the extraordinary circumstances under which actions

otherwise covered by a categorical exclusion require analyses under NEPA.

(1) Any action that is normally categorically excluded must be evaluated to

determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances in section

46.215; if it does, further analysis and environmental documents must be

prepared for the action.

(2) Bureaus must work within existing administrative frameworks, including

any existing programmatic agreements, when deciding how to apply any of the

section 46.215 extraordinary circumstances.

Ch. 14.5. Categorical Exclusions [pertinent to this PEA]. The following

Bureau actions are designated categorical exclusions unless the action qualifies

as an exception under [43 CFR 215]:

B. Planning Activities.

(1) Routine planning investigation activities where the impacts are

expected to be localized, such as land classification surveys, topographic

surveys, archeological surveys, wildlife studies, economic studies, social

studies, and other study activity during any planning, preconstruction,

construction, or operation and maintenance phases.

(3) Data collection studies that involve test excavations for cultural

resources investigations or test pitting, drilling, or seismic investigations

for geologic exploration purposes where the impacts will be localized.

C. Project Implementation Activities.

(2) Minor acquisition of land and rights-of-way or easements.

(3) Minor construction activities associated with authorized projects which

correct unsatisfactory environmental conditions or which merely augment

or supplement, or are enclosed within existing facilities.

D. Operation and Maintenance Activities.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

171

(1) Maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing facilities which

may involve a minor change in size, location, and/or operation.

(7) Withdrawal, termination, modification, or revocation where the land

would be opened to discretionary land laws and where such future

discretionary actions would be subject to the NEPA process, and disposal

and sale of acquired lands where no major change in usage is anticipated.

(10) Issuance of permits, licenses, easements, and crossing agreements

which provide right-of-way over Bureau lands where the action does not

allow for or lead to a major public or private action.

§46.120. Using existing environmental analyses prepared pursuant to

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations

(a) When available, the Responsible Official should use existing NEPA analyses 

for assessing the impacts of a proposed action and any alternatives. Procedures 

for adoption or incorporation by reference of such analyses must be followed 

where applicable.

(b) If existing NEPA analyses include data and assumptions appropriate for the 

analysis at hand, the Responsible Official should use these existing NEPA 

analyses and/or their underlying data and assumptions where feasible.

(c) An existing environmental analysis prepared pursuant to NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations may be used in its entirety if the 

Responsible Official determines, with appropriate supporting documentation, that 

it adequately assesses the environmental effects of the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives. The supporting record must include an evaluation of 

whether new circumstances, new information or changes in the action or its 

impacts not previously analyzed may result in significantly different 

environmental effects.

(d) Responsible Officials should make the best use of existing NEPA documents 

by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous 

NEPA environmental analyses to avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork.

§46.320. Adopting environmental assessments prepared by another

agency, entity, or person

(a) A Responsible Official may adopt an environmental assessment prepared by 

another agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, if the Responsible 

Official:

(1) Independently reviews the environmental assessment; and
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

172

(2) Finds that the environmental assessment complies with this subpart and 

relevant provisions of the CEQ Regulations and with other program 

requirements.

(b) When appropriate, the Responsible Official may augment the environmental 

assessment to be consistent with the bureau's proposed action.

(c) In adopting or augmenting the environmental assessment, the Responsible 

Official will cite the original environmental assessment.

(d) The Responsible Official must ensure that its bureau's public involvement 

requirements have been met before it adopts another agency's environmental 

assessment.

§46.300. Purpose of an EA and when it must be prepared 

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to allow the Responsible Official 

to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding 

of no significant impact.

(a) A bureau must ensure that an environmental assessment is prepared for all 

proposed Federal actions, except those:

(1) That are covered by a categorical exclusion;

(2) That are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document as 

determined and documented by the Responsible Official; or

(3) For which the bureau has already decided to prepare an environmental 

impact statement.

(b) A bureau may prepare an environmental assessment for any proposed action 

at any time to:

(1) Assist in planning and decision-making;

(2) Further the purposes of NEPA when no environmental impact statement 

is necessary; or

(3) Facilitate environmental impact statement preparation.

§46.235. NEPA scoping process 

(a) Scoping is a process that continues throughout the planning and early stages 

of preparation of an environmental impact statement. Scoping is required for an 

environmental impact statement; scoping may be helpful during preparation of an 

environmental assessment, but is not required (see paragraph 46.305(a) Public 

involvement in the environmental assessment process). For an environmental 

impact statement, bureaus must use scoping to engage State, local and tribal 

governments and the public in the early identification of concerns, potential 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

173

impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative actions. 

Scoping is an opportunity to introduce and explain the interdisciplinary approach 

and solicit information as to additional disciplines that should be included. 

Scoping also provides an opportunity to bring agencies and applicants together 

to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, expediting reviews where possible, 

integrating other environmental reviews, and identifying any major obstacles that 

could delay the process. The Responsible Official shall determine whether, in 

some cases, the invitation requirement in 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(1) may be satisfied 

by including such an invitation in the notice of intent (NOI).

(b) In scoping meetings, newsletters, or by other communication methods 

appropriate to scoping, the lead agency must make it clear that the lead agency 

is ultimately responsible for determining the scope of an environmental impact 

statement and that suggestions obtained during scoping are only options for the 

bureau to consider.

Ch. 14.3 Guidance to Applicants.

A. Types of Applicants.

(1) Actions that are initiated by private or non-Federal entities through

applications include the following: Repayment contracts, water service contracts,

Small Reclamation Projects Act Loans, Emergency Loans, Rehabilitation and

Betterment Loans, Distribution System Loans, land use permits, licenses,

easements, crossing agreements, permits for removal of sand and gravel,

renewal of grazing, recreation management, or cabin site leases.

(2) Applicants will be provided information by the regional office on what

environmental reports, analysis, or information are needed when they initiate

their application. The environmental information requested may, of necessity, be

related to impacts on private lands or other lands not under the jurisdiction of the

Bureau to allow the BuRec to meet its environmental responsibilities.

Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 10

§10.7. Planning

(b) Lead agency. To determine the lead agency for policy-making in which more

than one FEMA office or administration is involved or any action in which another

Federal agency is involved, FEMA offices and administrations shall apply criteria

defined in §1501.5 of the CEQ regulation. If there is disagreement, the FEMA

offices and/or administrations shall forward a request for lead agency

determination to the Environmental Officer;

(1) The Environmental Officer will determine lead agency responsibility

among FEMA offices and administration.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

174

(2) In those cases involving a FEMA office or administration and another

Federal agency, the Environmental Officer will attempt to resolve the differences.

If unsuccessful, the Environmental Officer will file the request with the Council on

Environmental Quality for determination.

(c) Technical assistance to applicants. (1) Section 1501.2(d) of the CEQ

regulations requires agencies to provide for early involvement in actions which,

while planned by private applicants or other non-Federal entities, require some

form of Federal approval. To implement the requirements of §1501.2(d),

(ii) The Regional Administrator shall provide such guidance on a project-byproject basis to applicants seeking assistance from FEMA.

(iii) Upon receipt of an application for agency approval, or notification that an 

application will be filed, the Regional Administrator shall consult as required with 

other appropriate parties to initiate and coordinate the necessary environmental 

analyses.

(2) To facilitate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section, applicants and other non-Federal entities are expected to:

(i) Contact the Regional Administrator as early as possible in the planning 

process for guidance on the scope and level of environmental information 

required to be submitted in support of their application;

(ii) Conduct any studies which are deemed necessary and appropriate by 

FEMA to determine the impact of the proposed action on the human 

environment;

(iii) Consult with appropriate Federal, regional, State, and local agencies and 

other potentially interested parties during preliminary planning stages to ensure 

that all environmental factors are identified;

(iv) Submit applications for all Federal, regional, State, and local approvals 

as early as possible in the planning process;

(v) Notify the Regional Administrator as early as possible of all other 

Federal, regional, State, local, and Indian tribe actions required for project 

completion so that FEMA may coordinate all Federal environmental reviews; and

(vi) Notify the Regional Administrator of all known parties potentially affected 

by or interested in the proposed action.

§10.8. Determination of Requirement for Environmental Review

(d) Categorical Exclusions (CATEXs). CEQ regulations at 40 CFR §1508.4 

provide for the categorical exclusion of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment and for which, 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

175

therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 

statement is required. Full implementation of this concept will help FEMA avoid 

unnecessary or duplicate effort and concentrate resources on significant 

environmental issues.

(1) Criteria. The criteria used for determination of those categories of 

actions that normally do not require either an environmental impact statement or 

an environmental assessment include:

(i) Minimal or no effect on environmental quality;

(ii) No significant change to existing environmental conditions; and

(iii) No significant cumulative environmental impact.

(2) List of exclusion categories [pertinent to this PEA]. FEMA has 

determined that the following categories of actions have no significant effect on 

the human environment and are, therefore, categorically excluded from the 

preparation of environmental impact statements and environmental assessments 

except where extraordinary circumstances as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of this 

section exist. If the action is of an emergency nature as described in §316 of the 

Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5159), it is statutorily excluded and is noted with [SE].

(vii) The acquisition of properties and the associated demolition/removal [see

paragraph (d)(2)(xii) of this section] or relocation of structures [see paragraph

(d)(2)(xiii) of this section] under any applicable authority when the acquisition is

from a willing seller, the buyer coordinated acquisition planning with affected

authorities, and the acquired property will be dedicated in perpetuity to uses that

are compatible with open space, recreational, or wetland practices.

(viii) Acquisition or lease of existing facilities where planned uses conform to

past use or local land use requirements;

(ix) Acquisition, installation, or operation of utility and communication

systems that use existing distribution systems or facilities, or currently used

infrastructure rights-of-way;

(xi) Planting of indigenous vegetation;

(xii) Demolition of structures and other improvements or disposal of 

uncontaminated structures and other improvements to permitted off-site 

locations, or both;

(xiii) Physical relocation of individual structures where FEMA has no 

involvement in the relocation site selection or development;

(xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to 

current codes and standards, or replacement of any facility in a manner that 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

176

substantially conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location; [SE, in 

part]

(xvi) Improvements to existing facilities and the construction of small scale 

hazard mitigation measures in existing developed areas with substantially 

completed infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been 

disturbed, and when those actions do not alter basic functions, do not exceed 

capacity of other system components, or modify intended land use; provided the 

operation of the completed project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the 

quality of the human environment;

(xvii) Actions conducted within enclosed facilities where all airborne 

emissions, waterborne effluent, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, and solid 

and bulk waste disposal practices comply with existing Federal, state, and local 

laws and regulations;

(3) Extraordinary circumstances. If extraordinary circumstances exist 

within an area affected by an action, such that an action that is categorically 

excluded from NEPA compliance may have a significant adverse environmental 

impact, an environmental assessment shall be prepared. Extraordinary 

circumstances that may have a significant environmental impact include:

(i) Greater scope or size than normally experienced for a particular category 

of action;

(ii) Actions with a high level of public controversy;

(iii) Potential for degradation, even though slight, of already existing poor 

environmental conditions;

(iv) Employment of unproven technology with potential adverse effects or 

actions involving unique or unknown environmental risks;

(v) Presence of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat, or 

archaeological, cultural, historical, or other protected resources;

(vi) Presence of hazardous or toxic substances at levels which exceed 

Federal, state or local regulations or standards requiring action or attention;

(vii) Actions with the potential to affect special status areas adversely or 

other critical resources such as wetlands, coastal zones, wildlife refuge and 

wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, sole or principal drinking water aquifers;

(viii) Potential for adverse effects on health or safety; and

(ix) Potential to violate a Federal, State, local or tribal law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the environment.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

177

(x) Potential for significant cumulative impact when the proposed action is 

combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

even though the impacts of the proposed action may not be significant by 

themselves.

(4) Documentation. The Regional Administrator will prepare and maintain an

administrative record of each proposal that is determined to be categorically

excluded from the preparation of an environmental impact statement or an

environmental assessment.

§10.9 Preparation of environmental assessments.

(a) When to prepare. The Regional Administrator shall begin preparation of an 

environmental assessment as early as possible after the determination that an 

assessment is required. The Regional Administrator may prepare an 

environmental assessment at any time to assist planning and decision-making.

(b) Content and format. The environmental assessment is a concise public 

document to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement, 

aiding in compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and facilitating 

preparation of a statement when one is necessary. Preparation of an 

environmental assessment generally will not require extensive research or 

lengthy documentation. The environmental assessment shall contain brief 

discussion of the following:

(1) Purpose and need for the proposed action;

(2) Description of the proposed action;

(3) Alternatives considered;

(4) Environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives;

(5) Listing of agencies and persons consulted; and

(6) Conclusion of whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.

(c) Public participation. The Regional Administrator shall involve 

environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, in 

preparing environmental assessments. In determining “to the extent practicable,” 

the Regional Administrator shall consider:

(1) Magnitude of the proposal;

(2) Likelihood of public interest;

(3) Need to act quickly;

(4) Likelihood of meaningful public comment;
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

178

(5) National security classification issues;

(6) Need for permits; and

(7) Statutory authority of environmental agency regarding the proposal.

§10.9(e) Finding of No Significant Impact. If the Regional Administrator 

determines on the basis of the environmental assessment not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement, the Regional Administrator shall prepare a 

finding of no significant impact in accordance with 40 CFR §1501.4(e) of the 

CEQ regulations. The assessment and the finding shall be submitted to the 

Environmental Officer and the Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) for approval. If 

Environmental Officer and OGC approval is obtained, the Regional Administrator 

shall then make the finding of no significant impact available to the public as 

specified in §1506.6 of the CEQ regulations. A finding of no significant impact is 

not required when the decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement 

is based on a categorical exclusion.

US Air Force NEPA Regulations 32 CFR part 989

§989.6(f). Pertinent Categorical Exclusions 

§989 Appendix B. Pertinent Categorical Exclusions

A2.3.11. Actions similar to other actions which have been determined to have an 

insignificant impact in a similar setting as established in an EIS or an EA resulting 

in a FONSI. The EPF must document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, 

specifically identifying the previous Air Force approved environmental document 

which provides the basis for this determination.

A2.3.12. Installing, operating, modifying, and routinely repairing and replacing 

utility and communications systems, data processing cable, and similar electronic 

equipment that use existing rights of way, easements, distribution systems, or 

facilities.

A2.3.14. Installing on previously developed land, equipment that does not 

substantially alter land use (i.e., land use of more than one acre). This includes 

outgrants to private lessees for similar construction. The EPF must document 

application of this CATEX on AF Form 813

A2.3.19. Granting easements, leases, licenses, rights of entry, and permits to 

use Air Force controlled property for activities that, if conducted by the Air Force, 

could be categorically excluded in accordance with this Appendix. The EPF must 

document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813.

A2.3.25. The analysis and assessment of the natural environment without

altering it (inspections, audits, surveys, investigations). This CATEX includes the 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

179

granting of any permits necessary for such surveys, provided that the technology 

or procedure involved is well understood and there are no adverse environmental 

impacts anticipated from it. The EPF must document application of this CATEX 

on AF Form 813.

§989.13(b) Extraordinary Circumstances. Characteristics of categories of 

actions that usually do not require either an EIS or an EA (in the absence of 

extraordinary circumstances) include:

(1) Minimal adverse effect on environmental quality;

(2) No significant change to existing environmental conditions;

(3) No significant cumulative environmental impact;

(4) Socioeconomic effects only; and

(5) Similarity to actions previously assessed and found to have no significant 

environmental impacts.

Appendix A2.2 Additional (extraordinary) Circumstances 

Circumstances may arise in which usually categorically excluded actions may 

have a significant environmental impact and, therefore, may generate a 

requirement for further environmental analysis. Examples of situations where 

such unique circumstances may be present include:

A2.2.1. Actions of greater scope or size than generally experienced for a 

particular category of action.

A2.2.2. Potential for degradation (even though slight) of already marginal or poor

environmental conditions.

A2.2.3. Initiating a degrading influence, activity, or effect in areas not already 

significantly modified from their natural condition.

A2.2.4. Use of unproved technology.

A2.2.5. Use of hazardous or toxic substances that may come in contact with the 

surrounding environment.

A2.2.6. Presence of threatened or endangered species, archaeological remains, 

historical sites, or other protected resources.

A2.2.7. Proposals adversely affecting areas of critical environmental concern, 

such as prime or unique agricultural lands, wetlands, coastal zones, wilderness 

areas, floodplains, or wild and scenic river areas.

A2.2.8. Proposals with disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

180

§989.12. AF Form 813. The Air Force uses AF Form 813 to document the need 

for environmental analysis or for certain CATEX determinations for proposed 

actions. The form helps narrow and focus the issues to potential environmental 

impacts. AF Form 813 must be retained with the EA or EIS to record the 

focusing of environmental issues. [note: it is often used for categorical exclusions 

as well]

§989.9(b). Adoption of EA or EIS. The Air Force, even though not a 

cooperating agency, may adopt an EA or EIS prepared by another entity where 

the proposed action is substantially the same as the action described in the EA 

or EIS. In this case, the EA or EIS must be recirculated as a final EA or EIS but 

the Air Force must independently review the EA or EIS and determine that it is 

current and that it satisfies the requirements of this part. The Air Force then 

prepares its own FONSI or ROD, as the case may be. In the situation where the 

proposed action is not substantially the same as that described in the EA or the 

EIS, the Air Force may adopt the EA or EIS, or a portion thereof, by circulating 

the EA or EIS as a draft and then preparing the final EA or EIS.

§989.7. Guidance to Applicants 

(a) Non-Air Force agencies or entities may request the Air Force to undertake an 

action, such as issuing a permit or outleasing Air Force property, that may 

primarily benefit the requester or an agency other than the Air Force. The EPF 

and other Air Force staff elements must identify such requests and coordinate 

with the proponent of the non-Air Force proposal, as well as with concerned 

state, Tribal, and local governments.

(b) Air Force decisions on such proposals must take into consideration the 

potential environmental impacts of the applicant’s proposed activity (as described 

in an Air Force environmental document), insofar as the proposed action involves 

Air Force property or programs, or requires Air Force approval.

(c) The Air Force may require the requester to prepare, at the requester’s 

expense, an analysis of environmental impacts (40 CFR §1506.5), or the 

requester may be required to pay for an EA or EIS to be prepared by a contractor

selected and supervised by the Air Force. The EPF may permit requesters to 

submit draft EAs for their proposed actions, except for actions described in 

§989.16(a) and (b), or for actions the EPF has reason to believe will ultimately 

require an EIS. For EISs, the EPF has the responsibility to prepare the 

environmental document, although responsibility for funding remains with the 

requester. The fact that the requester has prepared environmental documents at 

its own expense does not commit the Air Force to allow or undertake the 

proposed action or its alternatives. The requester is not entitled to any 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

181

preference over other potential parties with whom the Air Force might contract or 

make similar arrangements.

(d) In no event is the requester who prepares or funds an environmental analysis 

entitled to reimbursement from the Air Force. When requesters prepare 

environmental documents outside the Air Force, the Air Force must 

independently evaluate and approve the scope and content of the environmental 

analyses before using the analyses to fulfill EIAP [Environmental Impact Analysis 

Process] requirements. Any outside environmental analysis must evaluate 

reasonable alternatives as defined in §989.8. 

US Army NEPA Regulations 32 CFR part 651.28 (AR 200-2) Subpart D

§651 Appendix B. List of Categorically Excluded Actions

(b)(13) Actions affecting Army property that fall under another federal agency’s 

list of categorical exclusions when the other federal agency is the lead agency 

(decision maker), or joint actions on another federal agency’s property that fall 

under that agency’s list of categorical exclusions (REC [Record of Environmental 

Consideration] required). 

(c)(1) Construction of an addition to an existing structure or new construction on 

a previously undisturbed site if the area to be disturbed has no more than 5.0 

cumulative acres of new surface disturbance. This does not include construction 

of facilities for the transportation, distribution, use, storage, treatment, and 

disposal of solid waste, medical waste, and hazardous waste (REC required). 

(d)(4) Studies, data collection, monitoring, and information gathering that do not 

involve major surface disturbance. Examples include topographic surveys, bird 

counts, wetland mapping, and other resources inventories (REC required).

(e)(2) Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility and communication 

systems, mobile antennas, data processing cable and similar electronic 

equipment that use existing right-of-way, easement, distribution systems, and/or 

facilities (REC required). 

(f)(1) Grants or acquisitions of leases, licenses, easements, and permits for use 

of real property or facilities in which there is no significant change in land or 

facility use. Examples include, but are not limited to, Army controlled property 

and Army leases of civilian property to include leases of training, administrative, 

general use, special purpose, or warehouse space (REC required).

§651.29. Determining when to use a CX (screening criteria).

(a) To use a CX, the proponent must satisfy the following three screening 

conditions:
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

182

(1) The action has not been segmented. Determine that the action has not 

been segmented to meet the definition of a CX. Segmentation can occur when 

an action is broken down into small parts in order to avoid the appearance of 

significance of the total action. An action can be too narrowly defined, minimizing 

potential impacts in an effort to avoid a higher level of NEPA documentation. 

The scope of an action must include the consideration of connected, cumulative, 

and similar actions (see §651.51(a)).

(2) No exceptional circumstances exist. Determine if the action involves 

extraordinary circumstances that would preclude the use of a CX (see 

paragraphs (b) (1) through (14) of this section).

(3) One (or more) CX encompasses the proposed action. Identify a CX (or 

multiple CXs) that potentially encompasses the proposed action (Appendix B of 

this part). If no CX is appropriate, and the project is not exempted by statute or 

emergency provisions, an EA or an EIS must be prepared, before a proposed 

action may proceed. 

(b) Extraordinary circumstances that preclude the use of a CX are:

(1) Reasonable likelihood of significant effects on public health, safety, or the 

environment. 

(2) Reasonable likelihood of significant environmental effects (direct, 

indirect, and cumulative). 

(3) Imposition of uncertain or unique environmental risks.

(4) Greater scope or size than is normal for this category of action.

(5) Reportable releases of hazardous or toxic substances as specified in 40 

CFR part 302, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification.

(6) Releases of petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) except from a properly 

functioning engine or vehicle, application of pesticides and herbicides, or where 

the proposed action results in the requirement to develop or amend a Spill 

Prevention, Control, or Countermeasures Plan.

(7) When a review of an action that might otherwise qualify for a Record of 

Non-applicability (RONA) reveals that air emissions exceed de minimis levels or 

otherwise that a formal Clean Air Act conformity determination is required.

(8) Reasonable likelihood of violating any federal, state, or local law or 

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

(9) Unresolved effect on environmentally sensitive resources, as defined in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

183

(10) Involving effects on the quality of the environment that are likely to be 

highly controversial.

(11) Involving effects on the environment that are highly uncertain, involve 

unique or unknown risks, or are scientifically controversial.

(12) Establishes a precedent (or makes decisions in principle) for future or 

subsequent actions that are reasonably likely to have a future significant effect.

(13) Potential for degradation of already existing poor environmental 

conditions. Also, initiation of a degrading influence, activity, or effect in areas not 

already significantly modified from their natural condition.

(14) Introduction/employment of unproven technology.

(c) If a proposed action would adversely affect ‘‘environmentally sensitive’’ 

resources, unless the impact has been resolved through another environmental 

process (e.g., CZMA, NHPA, CWA, etc.) a CX cannot be used (see paragraph 

(e) of this section). 

Environmentally sensitive resources include:

(1) Proposed federally listed, threatened, or endangered species or their 

designated critical habitats.

(2) Properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (AR 200–4).

(3) Areas having special designation or recognition such as prime or unique 

agricultural lands; coastal zones; designated wilderness or wilderness study 

areas; wild and scenic rivers; National Historic Landmarks (designated by the 

Secretary of the Interior); 100-year floodplains; wetlands; sole source aquifers 

(potential sources of drinking water); National Wildlife Refuges; National Parks; 

areas of critical environmental concern; or other areas of high environmental 

sensitivity.

(4) Cultural Resources as defined in AR 200–4.

§651.33. Actions normally requiring an EA.

(c) Changes to established installation land use that generate impacts on the 

environment. 

(d) Alteration projects affecting historically significant structures, archaeological 

sites, or places listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

(e) Actions that could cause significant increase in soil erosion, or affect prime or 

unique farmland (off Army property), wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, 
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

184

wilderness areas, aquifers or other water supplies, prime or unique wildlife 

habitat, or wild and scenic rivers. 

(i) Actions that take place in, or adversely affect, important wildlife habitats, 

including wildlife refuges. 

(p) An activity that affects a federally listed threatened or endangered plant or 

animal species, a federal candidate species, a species proposed for federal 

listing, or critical habitat or violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment.

§651.47(c). Public Involvement. Proponents will invite public involvement in the 

review and comment of EAs and draft FNSIs (40 CFR §1506.6).

US Navy NEPA Regulations 32 CFR part 775

§775.6(f). Pertinent Categorical Exclusions 

(18) Studies, data, and information gathering that involve no permanent physical

change to the environment (e.g., topographic surveys, wetlands mapping, 

surveys for evaluating environmental damage, and engineering efforts to support 

environmental analyses);

(30) Renewals and minor amendments of existing real estate grants for use of 

Government-owned real property where no significant change in land use is 

anticipated;

(33) Grants of license, easement, or similar arrangements for the use of existing 

rights-of-way or incidental easements complementing the use of existing rightsof-way for use by vehicles (not to include significant increases in vehicle loading); 

electrical, telephone, and other transmission and communication lines; water, 

wastewater, storm water, and irrigation pipelines, pumping stations, and facilities; 

and for similar utility and transportation uses;

(34) New construction that is similar to existing land use and, when completed, 

the use or operation of which complies with existing regulatory requirements 

(e.g., a building within a cantonment area with associated discharges/runoff 

within existing handling capacities);

(36) Acquisition, installation, and operation of utility (e.g., water, sewer, electrical) 

and communication systems (e.g., data processing cable and similar electronic 

equipment) which use existing rights of way, easements, distribution systems, 

and/or facilities.

§775.6(e). Extraordinary Circumstances. Even though a proposed action

generally is covered by a listed categorical exclusion, a categorical exclusion will

not be used if the proposed action:
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

185

(1) Would adversely affect public health or safety;

(2) Involves effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain, involve

unique or unknown risks, or which are scientifically controversial;

(3) Establishes precedents or makes decisions in principle for future actions that

have the potential for significant impacts;

(4) Threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local environmental laws applicable

to the Department of the Navy; or

(5) Involves an action that, as determined in coordination with the appropriate

resource agency, may:

(i) Have an adverse effect on federally listed endangered/threatened

species or marine mammals;

(ii) Have an adverse effect on coral reefs or on federally designated

wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries, or parklands;

(iii) Adversely affect the size, function or biological value of wetlands and

is not covered by a nation-wide or regional permit;

(iv) Have an adverse effect on archaeological resources or resources

(including but not limited to ships, aircraft, vessels and equipment) listed

or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places; or

(v) Result in an uncontrolled or unpermitted release of hazardous

substances or require a conformity determination under standards of the

Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule.

US Army Corps of Engineers: NEPA Regulations 33 part 230

§230.9. Pertinent US Army Corps of Engineers Actions Eligible for a

Categorical Exclusion (CX). 

(i) Real estate grants for rights-of-way which involve only minor disturbances to 

earth, air, or water:

(2) Minor utility distribution and collection lines, including irrigation.

(j) Real estate grants of consent to use Government-owned easement areas.

(k) Real estate grants for archeological and historical investigations compatible 

with the Corps Historic Preservation Act responsibilities.

(l) Renewal and minor amendments of existing real estate grants evidencing 

authority to use Government-owned real property.
Appendix C Relevant Agency NEPA Procedures

186

§230.7. Actions normally requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) but

not necessarily an EIS.

Actions normally requiring an EA, but not an EIS, are listed below:

(a) Regulatory Actions. Most permits will normally require only an EA.

(3) Grants of leases or easements for other than minor oil and gas transmission 

lines, electric power transmission lines, road and highway rights-of-way, and 

sewage or water treatment facilities and landfills.

§230.21. Adoption

A district commander will normally adopt another Federal agency's EIS and 

consider it to be adequate unless the district commander finds substantial doubt 

as to technical or procedural adequacy or omission of factors important to the 

Corps decision. In such cases, the district commander will prepare a draft and 

final supplement noting in the draft supplement why the EIS was considered 

inadequate. In all cases, except where the document is not recirculated as 

provided in 40 CFR §1506.3 (b) or (c), the adopted EIS with the supplement, if 

any, will be processed in accordance with this regulation. A district commander 

may also adopt another agency's EA/FONSI.
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

187

Appendix D. Special Use Permit/Grants Regulations: USFS, BLM,

BIA, USFWS

The Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation use Standard Form

299 for applications for land use authorizations. This form, with instructions, can

be accessed at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/117318. 

Forest Service Special Use Permit Regulations 36 CFR part 251

36 CFR §251.54(e) Initial and Second-Level Screening

USDA Forest Service Screening Criteria

The USFS must consider the following initial and second-level screening criteria

(36 CFR §251.54(e)) to determine if the USFS will accept an application for use

of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The USFS has provided additional

guidance for understanding the criteria in italics (pers. comm. J. Perry, USFS

Lands and Realty Management, 5/29/2015; not in original regulations):

(e) Pre-application actions— (1) Initial screening. Upon receipt of a request

for any proposed use other than for noncommercial group use, the authorized

officer shall screen the proposal to ensure that the use meets the following

minimum requirements applicable to all special uses:

(i) The proposed use is consistent with the laws, regulations, orders, and policies

establishing or governing National Forest System (NFS) lands, with other

applicable Federal law, and with applicable State and local health and sanitation

laws. The proposal for occupancy and use of NFS lands must be consistent with

the laws, regulations, orders, and policies establishing or governing NFS lands,

with other applicable Federal law, and with applicable State and local health and

sanitation laws.

(ii) The proposed use is consistent or can be made consistent with standards

and guidelines in the applicable forest land and resource management plan

prepared under the National Forest Management Act and 36 CFR part 219. The

Forest Service reviews the proposal to ensure it is consistent or can be made

consistent (e.g., adjust the timing of construction, location of improvements) with

the applicable forest land and resource management plan.

(iii) The proposed use will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health

or safety. The proposed use would be screened to ensure that the use itself or

the construction would not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or

safety.

(iv) The proposed use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or

occupancy. The Forest Service must ensure that no authorized use
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

188

unreasonably competes with or interferes with the continued or future land use

by other entities when issuing a land use authorization. Rights-of-ways and

corridors may continue to be used by holders of current land use authorizations

and other new users, as appropriate. At the conclusion of the land use

authorization, all improvements (above and below ground) must be removed

from NFS land, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, by the authorized Forest

Service officer.

(v) The proposed use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with

administrative use by the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing

uses of the National Forest System, or use of adjacent non-National Forest

System lands. The Forest Service must ensure that any proposed occupancy

and use of NFS lands would not conflict or interfere with administrative use by

the Forest Service, or other scheduled or authorized existing uses.

(vi) The proponent does not have any delinquent debt owed to the Forest

Service under terms and conditions of a prior or existing authorization, unless

such debt results from a decision on an administrative appeal or from a fee

review and the proponent is current with the payment schedule. Any debts owed

to the Forest Service by the proponent would be addressed in the review of the

SF-299 land use application.

(vii) The proposed use does not involve gambling or providing of sexually

oriented commercial services, even if permitted under State law. Deployment

and maintenance of broadband into rural areas does not directly involve

gambling or sexually-oriented commercial services. The USDA Rural Utilities

Service or its borrowers have no authority or control over the subsequent uses of

the telecommunication services provided by the infrastructure; this criterion

would therefore likely not apply.

(viii) The proposed use does not involve military or paramilitary training or

exercises by private organizations or individuals, unless such training or

exercises are federally funded. This criterion would likely not apply.

(ix) The proposed use does not involve disposal of solid waste or disposal of

radioactive or other hazardous substances. The proposed use may not involve

the disposal of solid waste or disposal of radioactive or other hazardous

substances. All materials and other equipment are removed and disposed of

according to the authorization, law, and regulation during construction, operation,

and removal of broadband infrastructure.

(2) Results of initial screening. Any proposed use other than a

noncommercial group use that does not meet all of the minimum requirements of

paragraphs (e)(1)(i)-(ix) of this section shall not receive further evaluation and
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

189

processing. In such event, the authorized officer shall advise the proponent that

the use does not meet the minimum requirements. If the proposal was submitted

orally, the authorized officer may respond orally. If the proposal was made in

writing, the authorized officer shall notify the proponent in writing that the

proposed use does not meet the minimum requirements and shall simultaneously

return the request. A rejection of a proposal is not administratively appealable.

(5) Second-level screening of proposed uses. A proposal which passes the

initial screening set forth in paragraph (e)(1) and for which the proponent has

submitted information as required in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, proceeds

to second-level screening and consideration. In order to complete this screening

and consideration, the authorized officer may request such additional information

as necessary to obtain a full description of the proposed use and its effects. An

authorized officer shall reject any proposal, including a proposal for commercial

group uses, if, upon further consideration, the officer determines that one or more

of the following criteria applies:

(i) The proposed use would be inconsistent or incompatible with the purposes for

which the lands are managed, or with other uses. The proposed use must be

consistent with the purposes for which the lands are managed, or with other

uses.

(ii) The proposed use would not be in the public interest. The proposed use of

NFS lands for deployment of broadband to rural areas is intended to protect the

public interest by improving the quality of life, and supporting community

education, medicine, and the local economy. NFS lands provide essential

opportunities for locating and deploying broadband infrastructure in the public

interest and effectively meeting the federal government’s objectives.

(iii) The proponent is not qualified. The FS evaluates the qualifications of

applicants prior to accepting an application for review.

(iv) The proponent does not or cannot demonstrate technical or economic

feasibility of the proposed use or the financial or technical capability to undertake

the use and to fully comply with the terms and conditions of the authorization. 

The FS evaluates the qualifications of applicants prior to accepting an application

for review.

(v) There is no person or entity authorized to sign a special use authorization

and/or there is no person or entity willing to accept responsibility for adherence to

the terms and conditions of the authorization. The applicant must have a person

or entity that is authorized to sign and commit to adhering to the terms of any

land use authorization.
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

190

Pre-Application Process 36 CFR §251.54 

(a) Early notice. When an individual or entity proposes to occupy and use

National Forest System lands, the proponent is required to contact the Forest

Service office(s) responsible for the management of the affected land as early as

possible in advance of the proposed use. 

Additional information may be obtained at the FS website for special uses for

communication sites:

http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/special_comm.shtml

Bureau of Land Management (Federal Land Policy Management Act 

(FLPMA; 43 CFR part 2800 Rights-of-Way) and Part 516 DM Ch. 11 

The BLM must consider the following screening criteria (43 CFR §2804.26) to

determine if the BLM will accept an application for use of lands under the

jurisdiction of the BLM. The BLM evaluations for the following criteria are similar

to those of the FS discussed above. 

A ROW application may be denied for any one of the following reasons (43 CFR

§2804.26):

(a) BLM may deny your application if:

(1) The proposed use is inconsistent with the purpose for which BLM

manages the public lands described in your application. 

(2) The proposed use would not be in the public interest.

(3) You are not qualified to hold a grant. 

(4) Issuing the grant would be inconsistent with the Act, other laws, or

these or other regulations.

(5) You do not have or cannot demonstrate the technical or financial

capability to construct the project or operate facilities within the right-ofway.

(6) You do not adequately comply with a deficiency notice (see

§ 2804.25(b) of this subpart) or with any BLM requests for additional

information needed to process the application.

--Serious environmental consequences may occur from the proposed

project that cannot be mitigated.

What is the objective of BLM's right-of-way program? §2801.2

It is BLM's objective to grant rights-of-way under the regulations in this part

to any qualified individual, business, or government entity and to direct and

control the use of rights-of-way on public lands in a manner that:
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

191

(a) Protects the natural resources associated with public lands and adjacent

lands, whether private or administered by a government entity;

(b) Prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands;

(c) Promotes the use of rights-of-way in common considering engineering

and technological compatibility, national security, and land use plans; and

(d) Coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions under the

regulations in this part with state and local governments, interested individuals,

and appropriate quasi-public entities.

11.3 BLM Guidance for External Applicants

A(1) For all external proposals, applicants should make initial contact with the

Responsible Official (District Manager, Field Manager, or State Director)

responsible for the affected public lands as soon as possible after determining

the BLM’s involvement. This early contact is necessary to allow the BLM to

consult early with appropriate state and local agencies and tribes and with

interested private persons and organizations, and to commence its NEPA

process at the earliest possible time.

The BLM provides guidance, including for grants and applications for

communication sites, at the following websites:

BLM communication site web site:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/communication_sites.html

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 25 CFR part 169 BIA Rights-of-Way Over 

Indian Lands

§169.3 Consent of landowners to grants of right-of-way.

(a) No right-of-way shall be granted over and across any tribal land, nor shall any

permission to survey be issued with respect to any such lands, without the prior

written consent of the tribe.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no right-of-way shall be

granted over and across any individually owned lands, nor shall any permission

to survey be issued with respect to any such lands, without the prior written

consent of the owner or owners of such lands and the approval of the Secretary.

(c) The Secretary may issue permission to survey with respect to, and he may

grant rights-of-way over and across individually owned lands without the consent

of the individual Indian owners when

(1) The individual owner of the land or of an interest therein is a minor or a

person non compos mentis, and the Secretary finds that such grant will cause no
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

192

substantial injury to the land or the owner, which cannot be adequately

compensated for by monetary damages;

(2) The land is owned by more than one person, and the owners or owner of a

majority of the interests therein consent to the grant;

(3) The whereabouts of the owner of the land or an interest therein are unknown,

and the owners or owner of any interests therein whose whereabouts are known,

or a majority thereof, consent to the grant;

(4) The heirs or devisees of a deceased owner of the land or an interest therein

have not been determined, and the Secretary finds that the grant will cause no

substantial injury to the land or any owner thereof;

(5) The owners of interests in the land are so numerous that the Secretary finds it

would be impracticable to obtain their consent, and also finds that the grant will

cause no substantial injury to the land or any owner thereof.

§169.4 Permission to survey.

Anyone desiring to obtain permission to survey for a right-of-way across

individually owned, tribal or Government owned land must file a written

application therefor with the Secretary. The application shall adequately describe

the proposed project, including the purpose and general location, and it shall be

accompanied by the written consents required by §169.3, by satisfactory

evidence of the good faith and financial responsibility of the applicant, and by a

check or money order of sufficient amount to cover twice the estimated damages

which may be sustained as a result of the survey.

§169.5 Application for right-of-way.

Written application identifying the specific use requested shall be filed in

duplicate with the Secretary. The application shall cite the statute or statutes

under which it is filed and the width and length of the desired right-of-way, and

shall be accompanied by satisfactory evidence of the good faith and financial

responsibility of the applicant.

Subpart D §169.26 Telephone and telegraph lines; radio, television, and other

communications facilities.

(a) The Act of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790), as amended by the Act of March

4, 1940 (54 Stat. 41; 43 U.S.C. 959); the Act of March 4, 1911 (36 Stat. 1253), as

amended by the Act of May 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 95; 43 U.S.C. 961); and the Act of

March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1083; 25 U.S.C. 319), authorize right-of-way grants

across tribal, individually owned, and Government-owned land for telephone and

telegraph lines and offices, for poles and lines for communication purposes, and

for radio, television, and other forms of communication transmitting, relay, and
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

193

receiving structures and facilities. Rights-of-way granted under these acts shall

be subject to the provisions of this section as well as other pertinent sections of

this part 169. Except when otherwise determined by the Secretary, rights-of-way

granted for such purposes under the Act of February 5, 1948 (62 Stat. 17; 25

U.S.C. 323-328), shall also be subject to the provisions of this section.

(b) A right-of-way granted under the said Act of March 4, 1911, as amended,

shall be limited to a term not exceeding 50 years from the date of the issuance of

such grant.

(c) No right-of-way shall be granted for a width in excess of 50 feet on each side

of the centerline, unless special requirements are clearly set forth in the

application which fully justify a width in excess of 50 feet on each side of the

centerline.

(d) Applicants engaged in the general telephone and telegraph business may

apply for additional land for office sites. The maps showing the location of

proposed office sites shall be filed separately from those showing the line of

route, and shall be drawn to a scale of 50 feet to an inch. Such maps shall show

enough of the line of route to indicate the position of the tract with reference

thereto. The tract shall be located with respect to the public survey as provided in

§169.8, and all buildings or other structures shall be platted on a scale sufficiently

large to show clearly their dimensions and relative positions.

(e) Rights-of-way for poles and lines for communication purposes, and for radio,

television, and other forms of communication transmitting, relay, and receiving

structures and facilities, shall be limited to 200 feet on each side of the centerline

of such lines and poles; radio and television, and other forms of communication

transmitting, relay, and receiving structures and facilities shall be limited to an

area not to exceed 400 feet by 400 feet.

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System Special Use Permits 50 CFR parts 

25, 26, 29

§25.41 Who issues refuge permits?

We authorize the refuge manager of the facility where an activity is to take place

to issue permits required by this subchapter C unless the regulations in this

subchapter C require the applicant to obtain the applicable permit from the

Director or Secretary. In those situations, the refuge manager will so inform the

applicant, giving the applicant all necessary information as to how and where to

apply.
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

194

§25.44 Grant Permits for easement area uses

(b) We require permits for use of easement areas administered by us where

proposed activities may affect the property interest acquired by the United

States. Applications for permits will be submitted in writing to the Regional

Director or a designee. We may grant special use permits to owners of servient

estates, or to third parties with the owner's agreement, by the Regional Director

or a designee, upon written determination that such permitted use is compatible. 

If we ultimately determine that the requested use will not affect the United States'

interest, the Regional Director will issue a letter of non-objection.

§26.41. Determination of compatible use

The Refuge Manager will not initiate or permit a new use of a national wildlife

refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a national wildlife refuge,

unless the Refuge Manager has determined that the use is a compatible use. 

This section provides guidelines for making compatibility determinations, and

procedures for documenting compatibility determinations and for periodic review

of compatibility determinations. We will usually complete compatibility

determinations as part of the comprehensive conservation plan or step-down

management plan process for individual uses, specific use programs, or groups

of related uses described in the plan. We will make all compatibility

determinations in writing.

(a) What information do we include in a compatibility determination?

All compatibility determinations will include the following information:

(1) The proposed or existing use;

(2) The name of the national wildlife refuge;

(3) The authorities used to establish the national wildlife refuge;

(4) The purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge;

(5) The National Wildlife Refuge System mission;

(6) The nature and extent of the use including the following: (i) What is the use?

Is the use a priority public use?; (ii) Where would the use be conducted?; (iii)

When would the use be conducted?; (iv) How would the use be conducted?; and

(v) Why is the use being proposed?.

(7) An analysis of costs for administering and managing each use;

(8) The anticipated impacts of the use on the national wildlife refuge’s purposes

and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission;

(9) The amount of opportunity for public review and comment provided;
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

195

(10) Whether the use is compatible or not compatible (does it or will it materially

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge

System mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge);

(11) Stipulations necessary to ensure compatibility;

(12) A logical explanation describing how the proposed use would, or would not,

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife

Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge;

(13) The Refuge Manager’s signature and date signed; and

(14) The Regional Chief’s concurrence signature and date signed.

(15) The mandatory 10- or 15-year reevaluation date.

(b) Making a use compatible through replacement of lost habitat values or other

compensatory mitigation. We will not allow compensatory mitigation to make a

proposed refuge use compatible, except by replacement of lost habitat values as

provided in paragraph (c) of this section. If we cannot make the proposed use

compatible with stipulations we cannot allow the use.

(c) Existing right-of-ways. We will not make a compatibility determination and

will deny any request for maintenance of an existing right-of-way which will affect

a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, unless: the design adopts

appropriate measures to avoid resource impacts and includes provisions to

ensure no net loss of habitat quantity and quality; restored or replacement areas

identified in the design are afforded permanent protection as part of the national

wildlife refuge or wetland management district affected by the maintenance; and

all restoration work is completed by the applicant prior to any title transfer or

recording of the easement, if applicable. Maintenance of an existing right-of-way

includes minor expansion or minor realignment to meet safety standards.

50 CFR 29 Rights-of-Way General Regulations

29.21 (g) Compatible means that the requested right-of-way or use will not

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which units of the National Wildlife

Refuge System are established. 

§29.21-1(a). No right-of-way will be approved unless it is determined by the

Regional Director to be compatible. 

§29.21-2. (a) Application. (1) No special form of application is required. The

application should state the purpose for which the right-of-way is being requested

together with the length, width on each side of the centerline, and the estimated

acreage. Applications, including exhibits, shall be filed in triplicate with the

Regional Director for the region in which the State is located.
Appendix D Relevant Agency Permitting Regulations

196

(a)(2)(ii)(D) (D) When an application is received, the Regional Director will

estimate the costs expected to be incurred in processing the application. If the

estimated costs exceed the payments under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) (A), (B), or (C) of

this section by an amount greater than the cost of maintaining actual cost

records, the Regional Director shall require the applicant to make periodic

payments in advance of the incurrence of such costs by the United States except

for the last payment which will reflect final reimbursement for actual costs of the

United States in processing the application. Overpayments may be refunded or

adjusted by the Regional Director as appropriate.

29.21-3(a) (a) Where the land administered by the Secretary is owned in fee by

the United States and the right-of-way is compatible with the objectives of the

area, permit or easement may be approved and granted by the Regional

Director. Generally an easement or permit will be issued for a term of 50 years or

so long as it is used for the purpose granted, or for a lesser term when

considered appropriate.

29.21-4(a) Any right-of-way easement or permit granted will be subject to

outstanding rights, if any, in third parties. (b) An applicant, by accepting an

easement or permit agrees to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed

by the Regional Director in the granting document. Such terms and conditions

shall include the following, unless waived in part by the Regional Director, and

may include additional special stipulations at his discretion.

29.21-5. (a) If construction is not commenced within two (2) years after date of

right-of-way grant, the right-of-way may be canceled by the Director of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.
Appendix E Commonwealth and Territory Environmental Procedures

197

Appendix E. Applicable Environmental Compliance Requirements in

Five U.S. Territories and Commonwealths

States with environmental policy acts or “little NEPAs”

• Arkansas: Ark. Stat. Ann. §8-1-101 (1987)

• California: Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq. (West 1982)

• Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann §§22a-14 to 22a-20 (West Supp.

1974-75)

• District of Columbia: D.C. Code Ann. 1981 §6-981 et seq.

• Florida: Fla. Stat. §§380.92 et seq.

• Hawaii: Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§343-1 to 343-8 (1985)

• Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. §§13-1-10-1 to 13-1-10-8 (West 1987)

• Maryland: Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. §§1-301 to 1-305 (1983 and Supp.

1987)

• Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch 30, §§61-62H

• Minnesota: Minn. Stat. Ann. §§116D.01 et seq. (West 1977 and Supp.

1981)

• Montana: Mont. Code Ann. §§75-1-101 to 105; §75-1-201 (1981)

• New York: N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§8-0101 to 8-0117 (McKinney

1984)

• North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§113A-1 to 10 (1978)

• South Dakota: S.D. Codified laws Ann. §§34A-9-1 to 34A-9-12

• Virginia: Va. Code §§10.1-1200 through 10.1-1212

• Washington: Wash. Rev. Code §§43.21C.010-43021C.910 (1974);

Wash. Admin. Code R. 197-11

• Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §1.11 et seq.; Department of Natural Resources

WEPA rules are found in Wis. Admin. Code NR 150 01-40

States and District of Columbia with additional environmental review 

requirements 

• Arizona: An Executive Order mandates that the Governor's Commission

on Arizona Environment evaluate environmental problems, make

recommendations to the Governor, and establish a clearinghouse for the
Appendix E Commonwealth and Territory Environmental Procedures

198

exchange of information relating to environmental problems and their

solutions.

• Delaware: In the Del. Code Ann. Tit. 7, Chapter 66 concerns wetlands

permits, and chapter 20, coastal zone permits.

• Georgia: The Code of Georgia provides that on certain types of actions on

a case-by-case basis, the state may require that an environmental

assessment be prepared.

• Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §30.2021 (West 1991) covers

interstate compacts on environmental control,for which the Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality serves as a clearinghouse for all

statements of environmental impact to be prepared or reviewed by

state agencies (other than Department of Transportation and

Development), in accordance with NEPA. The Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries is responsible for review and comment on any EIS

regarding fish and wildlife resources or their habitat, as well as the

discharge of dredge and fill material into state waters.

• Michigan: Executive Order 1974-4 requires each state agency to

prepare a formal environmental assessment for all major activities of

the agency having a possible significant impact on the environment

or human life. Executive Order No. 53 (1973) requires all state

agencies and departments to submit to the Department of

Environmental Protection a description of the environmental impact

of all major construction projects.

Environmental Compliance Requirements in Five U.S. Territories and 

Commonwealths

The RUS Telecommunications Program can support the development of

broadband infrastructure in the U.S. territories and commonwealths affiliated with

the United States. The United States has military bases and civilian facilities

within these territories, as well as a National Forest in Puerto Rico and National

Parks and Marine Reserves. Each of these territories and commonwealths has

local governance and environmental compliance requirements for infrastructure

development that must be addressed during project planning and RUS

application development. As with any project within the states, early

engagement with the proper regulatory authorities and landowners is vital to

successful project completion and avoidance of missteps in project timelines.

The following lists key information regarding environmental compliance

requirements in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and

Northern Mariana Islands:
Appendix E Commonwealth and Territory Environmental Procedures

199

A. Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, an unincorporated territory of the

Untied States in political union with the United States

Puerto Rico “little NEPA” law: P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 12, §§1121-1127

• Environmental Quality Board

Regulations for the evaluation and processing of environmental documents are

published by the Environmental Quality Board, Office of the Governor,

Government of Puerto Rico, found at http://www.ecos.org/section/states/?id=PR

Address: P.O. Box 11488

Santurce, PR 00910

(787) 767-8181 ext. 3266

• Environmental Protection Agency EPA

The link to the EPA in Puerto Rico is http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-puertorico

• Coastal Zone Management

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources

Post Office Box 366147

San Juan, PR 00936

(787) 999-2200 ext. 2719

• Airport Clear Zones & Accident Potential Zones, Federal Aviation

Administration - Airports Division

Southern Regional Office

1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 540

College Park, GA 30037

(404) 305-6700 / Fax: (404) 305-6730

• Federal Aviation Administration

Orlando Airports District Office - (Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands)

5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400

Orlando, FL 32822-5024

(407) 812-6331 / Fax: (407) 812-6978

• Clean Air Act

o Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources

45 Mars Hill

Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00802

(340) 773-1082

o Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Department of
Appendix E Commonwealth and Territory Environmental Procedures

200

Planning and Natural Resources

St. Croix Office St. Thomas Office

No. 45 Mars Hill Cyril E. King Airport

Rainbow Building Terminal Building - Second Floor

Frederiksted, VI 00840 St. Thomas, VI 00802

(340) 773-1082 (340) 774-3320

• Endangered Species

USFWS Ecological Field Office, Puerto Rico

Boqueron Field Office Rio Grand Field Office

Carr 301, KM 5.1, BO Corozo Edificio Suarez

Boqueron, PR 00622 Calle Garcia De La Noceda Local No. 1

Rio Grande, PR 00745

B. American Samoa, an unincorporated territory under the jurisdiction of

the United States

Information regarding environmental issues and permitting can be found at

http://www.epa.as.gov/. Environmental regulations for American Samoa can be

found at http://www.epa.as.gov/list-of-regulations.

C. Guam, an unincorporated territory of the United States

A summary of environmental regulations and key staff contacts for Guam can be

found at http://epa.guam.gov/ 

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) has developed a short form

of its Environmental Impact Assessment requirement for use by developers

proposing projects or land use activities that may pose only insignificant

environmental impacts. 

D. Northern Mariana Islands, a former trust territory and now a

commonwealth in political union with the United States

Environmental permitting regulations for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana

islands can be found at US EPA Region 9

http://www.epa.gov/region9/islands/northern.html. This includes a link to the

CNMI Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

201

Appendix F. Stakeholder Interviews and Comments Report May 2015

Key Findings from Commenting Stakeholders (Scoping Report)

USDA Rural Utilities Service

Programmatic EA for Telecommunications Program

Providing Financial Support for Broadband Infrastructure to Rural Areas

Prepared by:

Judith Lee, Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.

Robert Cunningham, Pathway Consulting Service, LLC

For:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Utilities Service

The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is preparing a Programmatic Environmental

Assessment (PEA) for the broadband infrastructure program of the RUS Telecommunications

Program. The Program provides financial assistance in the form of loans and grants to program

applicants for the deployment and/or upgrade of broadband infrastructure serving rural America. 

The proposed PEA is intended to expedite the environmental review of these applications by

providing analysis of impacts at the subprogram level. This approach is expected to improve

efficiency and effectiveness of the RUS environmental review process while reducing overall

project planning costs and time for the applicant and, hopefully, involved Federal agencies. 

RUS has found over many years that these projects typically involve disturbed rights-of-way or

existing telecommunications poles having low environmental impacts.

To better understand the issues and challenges associated with program implementation, the

contractors interviewed stakeholders, including Federal agencies, borrowers, industry

organizations, and construction contractors during early 2015. 

More detailed information can be found in the following attachments:

• Attachment A: List of Acronyms PEA p. 209

• Attachment B: Request for Information PEA p. 211

• Attachment C: List of Commenting Stakeholders PEA p. 214

• Attachment D: Interview Comments Sorted by Topic PEA p. 215

• Attachment E: Written Comments PEA p. 235

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

RUS published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014

(see Attachment B). Commenting stakeholders either responded to the RFI or were interviewed

by Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc. and Pathway Consulting Service, LLC to better

understand the challenges and successes faced by applicants for RUS financial assistance for

broadband infrastructure. 

The primary comments expressed by program applicants involve federal/state agency and tribal

government coordination. They include:
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

202

• Long time periods needed for agencies to provide approvals and issue land use

authorizations for projects within existing rights-of-way and on existing poles, or

upgrades and maintenance of existing systems (estimates from 2 - 8 years);

• Excessive studies required for projects with minimal potential for adverse environmental

effects;

• Mitigation that does not add any additional level of environmental and cultural resource

protection;

• Federal agencies requiring the preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs) when a

Categorical Exclusion (CX) could be appropriate; and, if a CX is used, agencies requiring

the level of analysis, surveys, and studies typical of that for an EA;

• Agencies acting independently of each other on the same project, with a lack of a

clearly-designated lead agency to assist applicants with the cross-agency permitting and

consultation processes; and

• Agencies adding requirements and changing project design or location at the last

minute, even after the conclusion of pre-application meetings or after the applicant has

obtained approvals from others; these actions lead to delays, require modification to

existing permits, and force program applicants to lose construction seasons and/or hire

construction contractors at unreasonable rates.

Applicants and their consultants/contractors are also very concerned with RUS possibly

requiring that all permits and authorizations be obtained prior to RUS approval of financial

assistance. Most permitting agencies will not accept an application for consideration if financial

support is not approved. RUS loan designs and grant applications, the documents on which

RUS bases a preliminary financing decision, are broad and non-site specific when RUS makes

a preliminary financing decision. The project is better defined when the program applicant

requests RUS approval of construction contracts and/or funds advancement. Many applicants

and consultants stated that requiring all permits to be in place before securing RUS loan

approval would render the RUS program impossible to navigate and that they would be forced

to seek funding elsewhere while loan rates are still low. 

Program applicants and their consultants/contractors would like to complete projects for a

reasonable cost while meeting construction and environmental protection objectives. However,

program applicants need to know early in the planning process that the effort and mitigation

required is commensurate with potential environmental impacts, that requirements will not

change throughout or late in the process, and that permits can be obtained in a timely manner

consistent with construction seasons, times, and costs. The costs of delays and unnecessary

design and mitigation requirements can make a project no longer economically viable. Clients

and customers will continue to be unserved or underserved. 

Program applicants’ frustration and sense of powerlessness in obtaining approvals and permits

from federal and state agencies in a timely manner with practical and appropriate requirements

were evident in almost every interview. A few interviewees were refusing to either use RUS

programs or federal or Tribal/BIA lands, or both. Since applicants will need to work with the field
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

203

offices of federal agencies in the future, they are reluctant to push agencies because they do not

want to jeopardize long-term relationships. 

Federal agencies acknowledge that resource specialist and realty staffs are understaffed and

have insufficient resources needed to prepare documentation and permits, conduct field

reviews, and review documents prepared by program applicants and their consultants. They at

times may lack personnel needed to prepare cost recovery agreements. Agency staff has

minimal experience with broadband infrastructure construction technologies and their

associated environmental effects to feel confident in their actions and decisions.

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

1. Length of Time/Costs to Obtain Permits, Excessive Studies/Ineffective Mitigation

• Agencies may take years to identify additional surveys and mitigation that may not be

commensurate with level of environmental effects caused by a project; sometimes

mitigation causes more adverse environmental impacts than the project, such as

installation of silt fencing when a cable is being sliced through soil with a vibratory plow

and immediately backfilled. Applicants have no mechanism for challenging mitigation

and little time for compliance because mitigation is identified at the last minute. These

changes inserted after lengthy delays can also require new resource surveys, or

changes to permits already obtained, such as county road permits. 

• Delays or new requirements at the last minute (especially for federally listed species and

historic property surveys) can cause missed construction or survey seasons; this

increases construction costs substantially because local construction companies are

already scheduled and construction materials already ordered that may need to change. 

Because of delays and limited construction seasons, little time is available to improve

design after construction is underway.

• Federal land managing agencies and SHPOs often demand more extensive

archeological surveys (Class III surveys and/or surveys required along the entire length

of ROW) that are not commensurate with the potential risk; some SHPOs request

surveys for 1 mile on either side of road for a project requiring a 2” inch trench/slit in road

right-of-way (ROW). Federal land management agencies also use projects requiring

special use permits to collect resource information not related to the project (USFS ROW

regulations explicitly prohibit this approach; BLM ROW regulations explicitly allow this

approach).

• Applicants cannot accurately plan for or predict processes and requirements because

agencies or even intra-agency field offices are inconsistent. For the same project,

different agencies may require different levels of surveys and/or the same data in

different formats, so applicants and their consultants repeatedly rewrite reports and re-do

surveys to meet these differing preferences. Approaches of field offices often are

personality-dependent, so when a manager or specialist leaves, requirements may

change, including actions in progress.

• Some federal agencies have the often-informal policy that national-level federal
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

204

managers cannot or should not influence field office processes and decisions to address

delays and conflicts.

• Agencies have insufficient time, personnel, funds (and cost recovery takes too much

effort to put in place), and sometimes, commitment to processing applications in a timely

manner. Personnel are already fully scheduled with existing agency-sponsored projects

that use Congressionally-appropriated funds with restricted deadlines. Agencies do not

have the resources to complete work internally. Even if an applicant submits studies,

surveys, and draft NEPA documents, the agencies may say they do not have the

resources to review it. Few-to-no realty specialists are stationed at field offices to

process the applications, and necessary realty and resource specialist personnel who

leave are not replaced.

• Agencies may have more extensive environmental requirements for broadband projects

(having minimal environmental effects) than for larger development projects (such as

development of oil fields) that the broadband infrastructure may be serving. The serving

utilities and the development that they service are often disconnected and evaluated

separately.

• The objective should be a better feasible project, not perfect NEPA; focus on NEPA adds

delays. 

• Agency staff may not be familiar with broadband construction and installation

technologies, thus requiring more extensive studies and NEPA analysis than should be

necessary.

• Preparing EAs may be 10%-15% of the entire cost of a project, including construction

costs; with added delays, these costs may make a project infeasible. These costs and

delays may also put the program applicant at a competitive disadvantage with

companies that do not use RUS funding or do not site projects on federal lands.

• Delays in issuing federal land use authorizations may result in the applicant being unable

to draw down the RUS loan in the required 5-year time frame. Delays may also be so

lengthy that the approval of an application may involve a part of the tenure of a term of

the permit, requiring a new permit application almost upon use of a current permit. 

• Working with Tribal governments and staffs may add additional layers of time, and often

costs.

• The National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National

Wildlife Refuges (NWR) very seldom grant authorizations for “new uses,” which can

include new proposed actions within existing rights-of-way; the compatibility/consistency

determinations are a very difficult standard to meet. 

2. Use of Categorical Exclusions versus Environmental Assessments

• The field offices of all agencies are resistant to the use of CXs, even though suitable

categories may exist for all agencies for actions proposed in disturbed ROWs,

collocation on poles/towers, maintenance, and replacement of infrastructure. Agencies
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

205

produce mostly EAs; the few times agencies do use CXs, they require EA processes,

times, and studies, resulting in little time/money savings. 

• A USFS CX has a 5-acre limit on the amount of land that may be disturbed. The USFS

typically calculates this area multiplying a 20-25 foot potential disturbance width by the

length of the linear feature, meaning that the feature must be less than 2 miles long to

not exceed the limit. The actual disturbance is between 2 to 6 inches, not including the

vehicle tracks and restoration occurs immediately during construction. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or delegated state agency requiring

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) to manage soil erosion per the Clean

Water Act use the same approach as the Forest Service to calculate the disturbance

area, disregarding actual impacts and thereby requiring SWPPPs when the potential for

soil erosion is minimal due to minimal ground disturbance, eliminating the possibility of

using a CX. 

• The NPS and NWR are reluctant to approve any infrastructure not directly related to their

administrative activities or visitor service. The NPS does not have a definition of

“disturbed lands,” indicating a high potential for inconsistency on the determination of the

level of impacts for environmental review and the appropriate level of documentation

among individual national parks. The determination of whether or not to use a CX for a

project should be based on its potential to adversely impact a resource identified in the

agency’s list of extraordinary circumstances and not just on the characteristics of a

project. 

• Field offices of federal agencies may be reluctant to use information and analyses from

the RUS PEA, especially because many resist using CXs and insist on conducting their

own surveys and preparing their own EAs. 

• Federal agency unnecessary use of EAs rather than CXs may be due to a fear of

litigation.

3. RUS Processes/Workflow

• RUS should continue to allow for approval of a loan package contingent on the applicant

obtaining permits and approvals and not require that the applicant obtain all the permits

and approvals before RUS loan approval. Applicants and their consultants made it clear

that requiring the completion of all environmental reviews and permits before RUS loan

approval will not work, and may be impossible – making RUS financing non-viable.

• Applicants, consultants, construction contractors, and agencies hope that the PEA will

help improve processes at all levels.

• Program applicants and consultants identified workflow/timing issues that need

resolution. They recognized that federal land-managing agencies may have at least a 2-

year lead-time for approval of land use authorizations, and the company may try to

approach the agency before the RUS loan approval is finalized. The agency often

rejects the overture because the project is unfunded. If the company waits until the loan

is in place, then it may take a considerable amount of time once the application is
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

206

submitted to get a response from the permitting agency.

• Many entities are pleased with the RUS field representatives, engineers, and cultural

resource specialists, but all RUS staff are overworked and understaffed to provide full

support to applicants as the lead agency. This can cause applications to be lost or

delayed, and new staff may have different approaches and requirements than the

previous staff on the same project. 

• RUS letter templates for Section 106 consultation and notification are helpful. However,

tribes do not understand the role of program applicants and consultants/contractors in

these relationships and applicants and consultants may not understand the governmentto-government relationship. These issues may complicate communications and increase

the potential for delays.

• Applicants may get frustrated because RUS does not have the authority to dictate to

other agencies how other agencies will implement its requirements, processes, and

decisions to resolve issues. 

4. Lead Agency for Broadband Projects

• A major challenge for applicants and their consultants is knowing which agency is the

lead for the initiation, coordination, and conclusion of all permits, consultations,

approvals, and actions. Program applicants have few means to successfully negotiate

with agencies or prompt agencies to act.

• Agencies only look at and make decisions on their own portion of a project, without

recognizing the context of their decision within that of the overall project need or design.

• RUS applicants are responsible obtaining permits and interacting with authorizing

agencies, tribes, and SHPO; applicants feel powerless to facilitate. Program applicants

have difficulties with the timely progress of agency decision making processes.

• RUS seldom has sufficient personnel to assist and provide guidance to applicants and

their consultants attempting to navigate through agency processes on particular projects.

5. Pre-application Meeting

• Agencies may provide limited opportunities for pre-application meetings, and, despite

stating that they want to be contacted prior to submitting an application and even before

obtaining RUS funding, they often will not respond to requests to meet until after the

official application has been submitted. Agencies may still create unpredictable changes

and requirements after the meetings. Each request for and delivery of new information

results in additional review time, usually at least 60-90 days after each deliverable, not

including the time it takes for the applicant or its consultants to prepare the requested

information.

• Several agencies, such as NPS and USFWS Refuges, have delegated full responsibility

for responding to and processing applications to the field office/national park/wildlife

refuge. Applicants can deal only with the field offices, and possibly the regional offices,

reducing the influence of higher-level agency staff.
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

207

6. Mitigation

• Construction engineers have little involvement in the project design phase, but they are

critical in identifying feasible design features and mitigation on the ground that was not

foreseen during in-office project design. Once construction is in progress, there is not

enough time to correct design flaws identified in the field. 

• Program applicants find it difficult to know how to deal with mitigation for what land

management agencies have called “potential habitat” and “future habitat” for listed

species that are not currently using the habitat that may be present at the site, and for

species that may be listed in the future.

• Based on policy, neither the NPS nor USFWS Refuges can allow applicants to use

compensatory mitigation to make a project compatible or consistent with Park/Refuge

purposes – projects must not adversely impact or impair sensitive resources.

• Standard mitigation, best management practices (BMPs) and standard operating

procedures (SOPs), such as directional boring, collocating on existing poles, towers, and

in disturbed ROWs, burying cable in conduit, plowing, and immediate rehabilitation of the

site are the primary requirements for cable placement. Towers and microwave may

have some site-specific issues that need more tailored mitigation. 

7. Cost Recovery and Rental Fees

• Entities eligible for funding by RUS are exempt from land use rental fees per Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) §504(g).

• Underfunded agencies may not have staff to process cost recovery agreements for

processing land use authorizations.

8. Permits

• Applicants need new permits for using existing poles/towers permitted to another entity,

as well as for capacity provided within existing cables owned/permitted by another entity. 

9. Impacts, Databases, Section 106 (NHPA)

• Impacts of radio frequency (RF) emissions from wireless/microwave facilities on wildlife,

insects, and people have not been studied in the US for over 10 years; most of the

research is from Europe. People are concerned about RF impacts, but there are

currently no conclusive research results.

• Databases available: The USFS tracks special uses through its PALS database. The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the NEPAssist database for

identifying sensitive areas, but potential users must have a USEPA sponsor to access. 

The USFWS has IPaC for resource mitigation, species of concern, and impacts. The

FCC has the e106 database for sensitive tribal resources, but only a few agencies have

direct access because of the proprietary nature of the data. 

• The FCC is working with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) for

developing processes for replacement of towers that did not originally have coverage

under its current nationwide programmatic agreement and program comment. Towers
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

208

older than 50 years may also be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). FCC is also working to renew the Program Comment expiring in September

2015 and Programmatic Agreements (PAs) for collocation and placement in buildings. 

• The USFWS’ primary issues regarding installation of broadband infrastructure include

impacts of towers on migratory birds (both providing perching habitat for predatory birds

and mortality to migratory birds from attraction to lights causing collision with guy wires),

spread of invasive species, impacts on listed species, tree removal during nesting

season, towers in coastal areas, and towers making shadows that affect birds. The

USFWS will provide information to assist RUS in analysis of impacts.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTER/INTERVIEWEE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Design/Construction: Construction engineers request the opportunity to review of the entire

length of a project to find “red flags” requiring design modification and to recommend effective

and cost-effective mitigation measures.

2. Training: We found much interest by all interviewed entities for interagency training in

technologies and associated impacts, agency processes, ROW and land use authorization

regulations and processes, RUS loan design and environmental review processes, and Section

106 processes.

3. Section 106 (NHPA): 

• Identify opportunities for Programmatic Agreements for loan packages, regional

infrastructure impacts, and the RUS nationwide telecommunications program to both

identify standard mitigation and levels of survey for various conditions.

• Identify opportunities for access to FCC e106 database by agencies and applicants

currently excluded, including just identifying that sites are present, not types of sites and

locations, to facilitate consultation with tribes.

• Program applicants and their consultants request that RUS bring company

representatives to tribal meetings for more positive and productive meetings.

4. RUS processes:

• Contractors request that RUS have contractor construction engineers conduct a

“constructability review” for feasibility, red flags, and design recommendations early in

the submittal process.

• Program applicants request RUS assistance in determining appropriate levels of surveys

and NEPA documentation early, perhaps pre-application.

• RUS needs to identify intra-department and inter-agency procedures for managing

environmental review, permitting, consultation, and approvals for the entire project, with

an assigned RUS environmental staff person for each project to assist the applicant and

provide early information on requirements and realistic schedule timelines.

• RUS needs to provide templates and examples of letters and ERs so that applicants

clearly know what RUS expects from them.
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

209

• RUS should allow loan package materials to be submitted digitally rather than by hard

copy.

• RUS should conduct only one comprehensive review of the loan application package to

determine if it is complete and, if not, what is needed to provide a completed loan

application; sometimes RUS has several consecutive requests.

• RUS should provide a list of agency contacts for a particular state or region.

5. Pre-application Meetings, Surveys, Agency Coordination

• NPS and BIA should not require all locations to be recorded in metes and bounds or

township/range, but should allow for the use of GPS data. Surveyors are extremely

expensive and such data cannot be submitted to GPS databases.

• RUS should waive the need for analysis of alternative routes and technologies for new

installation in existing transmission, distribution lines, or other disturbed ROWs.

• RUS should accept existing environmental surveys, including environmental justice (EJ)

and historic structures, conducted within 5 or 10 years within the same ROW/area. 

Require new surveys only for protected species, jurisdictional wetlands, and

archaeology. 

• Applicant’s consultants often must set up pre-application meetings and develop

streamlined processes with the agencies, or nothing will get done in a timely manner.

• RUS national office staff and appropriate field office of the land management agencies

for a particular project should coordinate early so that the RUS Environmental Report

(ER), RUS CX, and RUS PEA can be prepared as acceptable to all agencies, and

information and resources can be expeditiously shared to reduce or eliminate duplication

of effort. 

• Applicants must often engage both the tribes and the BIA for project consultations and

permits.

• RUS and NTIA should maintain close working relationships on this PEA and other

related activities.

6. Permits:

• Agencies could issue 20-30 year terms for broadband project land use authorizations.

7. Supplementing Agency Personnel:

• Applicants should hire consultants to prepare NEPA documents and conduct surveys, if

allowed by the agency field office; some field offices have experienced consultants

working in the agency office for support for NEPA as special use permitting. 

Attachment A: List of Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BMP Best Management Practice (protective measures for reducing or

avoiding adverse impacts)
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

210

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CX Categorical Exclusion

EA Environmental Assessment

EJ “Environmental Justice” (short for Executive Order 12898 “Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations” 2/11/1994

ER RUS Environmental Report

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places (NHPA)

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

PA Programmatic Agreement (NHPA)

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

RF Radio frequency

ROW Right-of-way

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SOP Standard Operating Procedures (protective measures routinely

incorporated into design)

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Clean Water Act)

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

211

Attachment B: Request for Information
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

212
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

213
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

214

Attachment C: List of Commenting Stakeholders

Federal agencies: 

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

• FirstNet

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; included Migratory Birds, Ecological Services,

and Refuges divisions)

• National Park Service (NPS)

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

Industry groups: 

• Association of Communications Engineers

• Power and Communication Contractors Association

• WTA: Advocates for Rural Broadband, Washington, D.C.

Current and former program applicants

• American Samoa Telecommunications Authority

• Georgia Transmission Corporation, Tucker, GA

• Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Bismarck, ND

• Sacred Wind Communications, Yatehey, NM

• Tabletop Telephone Company, North Fork, CA

• The Ponderosa Company, North Fork, CA

• Triangle Communications, Havre, MT

Consultants and contractors working for program applicants

• ACRS Telecommunications Consulting and Engineering, Oklahoma City, OK

• Heberly Engineering and Associates, Havre, MT

• Kadrmas Lee Jackson, Bismarck, ND

• Metcalf Archaeology, Bismarck, ND

• Mid-State Consultants, Nephi, VT

• Quality Services, Rapid City, SD

• RVW, Inc. Architectural Planning and Design, Columbus, NE

• Transcom, Salt Lake City, UT

• Vantage Point Solutions, Inc., Mitchell, SD
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

215

Attachment D. Interview comments Sorted by Topic. Interviews Conducted

2/25/2015 - 3/6/2015

Key: 1: Industry Group; 2: Current/Former RUS Program Applicant; 3: Consultants/

Contractors to Applicants; 4: Federal Agency

Length of time/costs to obtain permits

1 Lots of work in preparing RUS loan application, with environmental review for the loan

approval requiring rather broad descriptions of the project (almost a formality), with details

for the project permits. Obtaining federal and state permits are difficult – some permits

require approval of other permits before being considered, such as the State DOT needs the

permit from DNR. States will not recognize work done on previous permits, with

application needing to be site-specific, within feet. Despite work done for the RUS

approval, work must be repeated in more detail for other permits.

1 It takes a long time to get permits, especially out west with Federal and Tribal permits, as

well as state permits. Even with no issues, it takes 1.5 years to obtain approval from State

Trust Lands to be in DOT ROW, even after the DOT has approved the permit. Great

variability among field offices in Federal and state agencies everywhere. Even though staff

and funding has been cut, Federal/state agencies do their own studies, not accepting

company studies, even for fiber within disturbed ROWs. Same information has to be

submitted in different formats for various permits. 

1 Fed/State agencies, including SHPO, do not identify what is needed up front, then 30 days

after submittal, want more and different information, repeatedly, with each additional

request adding at least 30 days. Even if you work well with a local person, that person

leaves and the next person often has a different perspective and requirements. Starting over

is common.

1 If RUS states that all states have acceptable standards, then RUS would not have to add

another step to the project after loan application approval. Don’t add another step between

site-specific design permits and actual construction, i.e., DNR/archaeological permits –

allow project to proceed without additional permits.

1 Industry moves faster than the overall approval and permitting processes – this causes costly

delays in construction bidding and initiation, and may lose the construction season for a year

or more if delayed by permitting.

1 If agencies are involved, takes too long. Companies/cooperatives using RUS funds with its

requirements and the agency permit requirements are at a competitive disadvantage to

companies using open market funding because of costs and delays. Approx. 90% of projects

are on state or county ROW with cable, power and gas already buried, but federal agencies

are still requiring EAs.

1 RUS should establish clear points of contact for land management agencies and inform the

applicants. 

1 Because most broadband is placed either in already-disturbed road ROWs or on existing

poles, RUS should be more flexible in the level of environmental review required so

companies’ limited resources and be used more efficiently. Conduct full reviews later in the

process when detailed information on the project is more available to the applicant and

permitting agencies, reducing the risk of misdirecting money on a project that may not be

approved. 

2 So much of service area includes federally-managed lands. Projects which cross these lands

need land use authorizations: BIA, BLM, USFS, some private and state lands checkerboarded throughout. Each agency has its own requirements for permits (RUS is the most

reasonable). Endangered species and archaeological studies for each permit substantially

increase costs. In many cases, just replacing outdated cables in existing ROWs - BIA/BLM
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

216

treats as new infrastructure that never had a permit. When acquired territory from Qwest,

had 28 existing cabinets for electronic equipment that had been in place for decades that

needed to be replaced with updated cabinets at the same site on federal lands – RUS used

CX, BIA needed full environmental and archaeological surveys even over the objections of

the Navajo Nation. Took a total of 3 years to replace the cabinets on site.

2 Most customers are Navajo, 40% on BIA trust lands. BIA field offices interpret the

requirements differently. If the property is owned by the Navajo Tribal Authority (the

Tribal-owned electric cooperative), the facilities are for only their use, with more hoops to

collocate on their facilities.

2 For our design, we need tribal and BIA permits to survey, then discuss design with

engineering staff at RUS provides guidance, starts the environmental process, then RUS

reviews an environmental report (ER) and application for engineering, environmental, and

financial feasibility. Then Tribal engagement notice to all tribes with interest in the area. 

The entire process takes a long time and is costly.

2 The entire process is costly. Someone needs to look at the overall costs for the process. 

Need a better way to manage taxpayer dollars. The major contributor to costs is doing the

EAs, which is 10%-15% of total construction costs. Some operational support from the

FCC, some from the state Universal Service Fund (USF). It is difficult to meet RUS and

USFS expectations to make a reasonable rate of return to meet the loan requirements with

these costs and delays. ROW fees and permit fees are out-of-pocket. Under RUS

requirements, a borrower is supposed to draw down funds within 5 years, but sometimes

need extensions because of other requirements and delays. Begin design for buildout and

start application for ROW permit after loan agreement signed, which takes 2 years, then no

time to meet deadline for drawdown of funds for the actual project. Takes 1.5-2 years to get

approval from the Tribal Council if one person works on the application full time (costs outof-pocket also), which can’t be started without loan approval from RUS. Obtaining the

ROW takes 6 months. Most rigid and unresponsive agency is the BIA; BLM is better, RUS

is easiest. 

2 Remove roadblocks that we deal with every year. Need to influence the Administration to

extend broadband on federal lands substantially, create CXs for any fiber attached to

existing poles on federal land - 60% of projects could be done in a couple of years with

reduced installation costs. Some poles from the 1920s, no easement/ROW paperwork, so

poles are in trespass, so borrower cannot use them for attaching fiber – the pole owner has to

apply for a new easement, then an EA is done for permit approval, then the broadband utility

borrower needs NEPA for the broadband installation. Grandfather in all existing

infrastructure on federal lands, then make poles available to all utilities.

2 Have had issues with unnecessary delays and costs since becoming an RUS borrower with

getting land use permits from federal and state agencies (USFS, BLM, SHPO). They

worked with a local consultant that helped with getting permits, but the agencies don’t want

the same information in the same format on the same timelines. Even when agencies agree

to be on a timeframe, schedules always slip. Takes at least 2 years to get a land use

authorization, and as much as 8 years. Costs and time for archaeological surveys and reports

to different agencies exceeds estimates, which affects the entire project. Different processes

for adjacent USFS Ranger Districts on the same National Forest. Every state and federal

agency is different – USFS, BLM, state, SHPOs, Tribal, including differences among field

offices in the same agency. We want to do what is right and what is needed, but the process

is too bulky and disorganized and takes too long. Needs to be streamlined. Have to request

an amendment to the loan to cover the excessive and unpredictable costs. Unbearable in

time and costs. 

2 The county had an easement for a county road on a national forest in the Southwest and
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

217

wanted to share it for broadband, but USFS said that a new permit would be required for

placing broadband directly in the road, with full environmental studies.

2 Very frustrating for program applicants and contractors when they do not receive easements

in a timely fashion, trying to foresee what is required in the future, since there have been no

unforeseen issues from existing projects. 

2 When personnel changes, the process starts over, reinterpretation of work already done,

delays for the new person to review, changes in requirements. If higher priority project is

submitted, then broadband projects drops back in the queue. The program applicant

prepares the EA, including coordinating with 30-32 tribes, and getting a SWPPP; once the

EA is submitted, more time for review and comments, and time slips even further, as drafts

are revised and more comments. No value added, and ineffective mitigation required. 

2 One permit took 8 years for approval. “How in the world can we do business when it takes

8 years for a project to be approved?” For a 100 mile project, the borrower was led to

believe by the USFS that the Forest had no issues, so selected and contracted with a

construction company, then the USFS added issues, the project was delayed for 4 years,

which used up the time required to draw down the RUS loan.

2 Any place where constructing on Tribal lands, very difficult to get permits. Never

successful in getting approval from a tribe for anything, even though the company has some

native speakers. In addition to requiring all the studies, creates constantly moving target. 

Requests money for each application, with apparently arbitrary amount that can become

hundreds of thousands of dollars. Found other ways to reach clustered developments. 

Roads transferred to the BIA allow utility corridors in easements, but if the design is not in

the easement, then long time to get permits. 

2 The USFS is very understaffed; they do not have the time to conduct the field surveys and

prepare the environmental review, and do not have the time to review anything prepared by

contractors for the program applicant. Would like option to know how long it would take

the agency to conduct the environmental surveys and reviews or if the program applicant

could contract it out and get a timeline on their review and approval to have some certainly

in timeline on the date of permit issuance.

2 For one permit, it took 8 years to receive the permit, yet it was only good for 10 years, so

need to start renewal almost upon receipt of the permit. Receive automatic 1-year

extensions.

2 Some federal agencies do not want to coordinate NEPA and NHPA with RUS, and it takes

too long to get permits

2 Because of delays and bureaucracy, often better to obtain public funding, with same or

better rates than RUS. RUS is too frustrating, too clunky, takes too long. Federal land use

authorizations are not as bad. No longer using RUS loans. 

2 Takes too long – BLM says they must do their own EA, which they put on hold for a year

until RUS and the SHPO processes were completed (4.5 months). After one year

(application submitted in April, request not made until December, BLM required a

paleontological study that they did not request at the beginning, requiring the program

applicant to hire and pay for it, as BLM paleontologist doesn’t go into the field. With the

new requirement, BLM cannot say what types of mitigation may be required. BLM also did

not want to even see the program applicant’s protected species report because the Greater

sage grouse is not yet listed, and BLM believed that the report would assume remain

candidate species. BLM biologist assumes it will be listed and is requiring additional

mitigation. 

2 Agency national office managers and staff have no clue on what is happening at the field

offices that the borrowers have to deal with. Federal agencies have no sensitivity of

considerations of anything other than their own – the proponent has to help the manager
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

218

manage his own unit. This PEA will have a good long-term effect by helping put better

procedures in place. We hope someone in DC listens; this PEA interview is a good start. 

2 Every new requirement from RUS and agencies adds months stretching to years. 

Replacement of copper with fiber used to take 2 years, now it takes 4 years, hamstringing

the program applicants because they cannot get through the process in a timely manner. 

2 Agencies need to provide the requirements at the beginning – do not request major changes

and requirements at the last minute.

2 USFS, BLM, BOR, and NPS are especially slow. BOR took 3-4 months to approve a trench

across their parking lot to their own building; NPS took 5 years, so rerouted 3⁄4 mile around

park in one year. 

2 Difficult to find out what the agencies want up front, then getting it to them and waiting for

the response in a timely manner. The approach is to get us something then they will let the

program applicant know what else they need. Because of limited construction seasons, new

requirements at last minute may require another year, more surveys, changing permits and

agreements already obtained (i.e., county roads, state highways, private lands) to meet the

new requirements – this happened with BLM 50 days from initiation of construction. No

mechanism to question federal requirements, especially when they are not effective, or their

requirements and mitigation forces cable installation into unsuitable places (sometimes the

last choice location), increases costs to redesign and change permits, program applicants

pays the cost, counties are delayed with their permitting, frustrating for everyone. As

mitigation, BLM required the telecomm move 25 feet into the ROW because of fear of

invasive weeds and potential habitat for sage grouse (none observed since 2009, but

sagebrush present). County sprays weeds. Increases costs in hiring construction crews,

making them sit idle, materials already ordered for original design, program applicants

absorb the costs.

2 Do not want to elevate problem to higher BLM office because program applicant has to

work with the field office staff for a long time and do not want to ruin relationships. 

3 States operate differently – some are very supportive, some want nothing to do with

broadband projects, and often personality dependent. 

3 Some USFS permits take at least 2 years for plowing cable into existing ROWs with USFS

land on either side of centerline. On one project, a field trip with USFS specialists helped

expedite permit in 2 years. Some agencies ask for one thing, then keep requesting more

consecutively, with associated review time for each request. Feels like they are trying to get

rid of the applicant. Now try to avoid all federal land, even it is the most efficient route –

takes too long and costs too much to use federal land. 

3 The biggest problem is obtaining federal land use authorizations, and different agencies

requiring different reports in different formats. Can RUS make agreements with federal

land management agencies such as USFS, BLM, USFWS to expedite compliance and land

use authorizations at national office level without having to obtain local permits?

3 RUS has variable times for loan approvals, but they are fairly quick. Agency field offices of

other agencies highly variable.

3 Seasonal surveys can cause delays.

3 Federal agencies do not have time, staff or money, and this will get worse. Needs to be a

priority to the USFS for the staff to work on it. Do not have time or staff to set up cost

recovery agreements and accounts/codes. 

3 It is challenging to work with the BLM, Corps of Engineers, USFS, and the USFWS to

obtain land use authorizations. Each has their own processes for NEPA, Section 106,

Section 7; they do not work together (including RUS); different NEPA thresholds for type of

documentation – BLM and USFS prepared EAs, RUS prepares ERs for a CX. Each has a

different management plan. More work is always requested, the agencies create confusion
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

219

over the level of archaeological surveys needed. RUS offers guidance on level of Section

106 surveys, and we assume that what we do is sufficient for everyone, but it is never clear. 

For larger exchanges crossing state lines, have to work with multiple SHPOs and prepare

individual reports for each state. Causes delays. It can take 6 months to even get a response

from an agency. Counties respond much more quickly than federal agencies. 

3 BLM and USFS are only concerned with the portion of project on their lands, and do not

work with the RUS. They typically wait until RUS approves the loan before they will

accept an application, then the time for issuing land use permits gets extended. Also no

analysis of cumulative impacts. 

3 USFWS does not tell you about wetlands/grasslands in FHA easements, easements not on

record at courthouse, just at USFWS field office (although local offices may not know about

the easement either). Inadvertently plowed through an FHA easement, USFWS held up

construction, creating higher costs and delays

3 A common medicinal plant used by tribes brought up late in part of tribal consultation

process, added two years to the approval. Tribes also wanted monitors for the plant

throughout construction, and surveys on private land. Needed adjudication with RUS

federal preservation officer who was very busy.

3 Biggest hurdle is trying to maintain a current list of federal, state, and local points-of-contact

and knowing who to contact for what issue. Have to contact every POC individually to

request input, process very slow and more cumbersome. Navy does not respond at all. 

Never had any red flags, just required SOPs and BMPs like replace ground cover, reseed,

and restore someone’s driveway. 

3 If already a RUS borrower, expanding existing system in same disturbed ROWs (99.9% of

new projects; multiple loan designs for same company) in franchise area uses the same

information in previous ER, yet have to re-contact all the same agencies with project

description, map. Typically a 60-90 day for any agency response, have to keep following up

with contacts. In last 4 years, only 1 route has been approved in NW Texas, obtained 300

feet of private ROW to avoid steep rocky area. Have to do too much work for no additional

benefit. 

3 Difficulty getting multiple uses into a ROW permitted by the USFS – the USFS land use

authorization was only for county road, but program applicant wanted to replace existing

copper with fiber in ROW. USFS chose to do own environmental work, even though it was

redundant for original project. Took 3 months. 

3 For one project, SHPO refused to respond or acknowledge, RUS finally had to sternly step

in after calling every day – 90 days after submittal, SHPO responded. This approach had

political repercussions with SHPO.

3 Send cultural reports to everyone at same time: SHPO, USFS, BLM, BOR, state so

hopefully can be processed by July-August. Approximately 5 months for RUS and SHPO. 

BLM will not start the permitting process until program applicant receives SHPO

concurrence (Section 106). Still waiting for BLM permit in February for a project scheduled

to begin construction in May for which the information was submitted the previous April for

a project with no issues. The BLM did not want to see reports from the program applicant’s

consultant, wanted to do their own. BLM requested that the project be 10 feet outside the

ROW on private, if refused, then to ROW, even if it is not conducive to burying cable. 

3 A 60-day timeframe for RUS approval and 120 for agency land use authorization

reasonable. If we knew what was needed up front, process could be coordinated so

construction can start on time. But requirements at the last minute. After a pre-application

meeting in March, another requirement the following January. BLM, BOR, and USFS are

known for causing delays. 

3 BLM requires metes and bounds surveying, which adds substantially more costs and time. 
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

220

3 USFS has more processes and is more difficult to get a definitive decision than BLM. 

Agency processes personality driven. USFWS can take months.

3 All agencies are short-staffed, projects are taken in order, so it depends on the project’s

place in the queue. Try to make the project tied to the federal agency to get support. 

3 Change in project creates need to change NEPA document when permit is already issued. 

3 Focus should be on construction, not on NEPA, as the end point and objective. Focusing on

NEPA adds delay. Make project feasible. 

3 Each agency wants a different report with different formats, some different content for

permitting and Section 106 (Corps, DNR, USFWS). Needs coordination and commensurate

studies. Do not need six different formats six different times. 

3 RUS takes 90 days for loan approval; need to tie with the ER within the 90 days. Applicant

told to contact agencies directly, they are difficult to reach, have to push for response from

agencies. Then say they need more information, and agency staff does not follow through. 

Do not want to bother them too much and to risk relationship. 

3 Agency examples and templates keep changing, applies to all resources – need to redo work.

3 Getting a USFS or BLM permit can take over a year, causing excessive delays. Takes too

long. Processes are not followed consistently, even among adjacent field offices, and the

length of time it takes for the agency to determine its own requirements for the project is

extensive. And not consistent. Example: USFS required Class III survey at the bottom of a

canyon for aerial placement across the canyon. 

4 FirstNet streamlining where possible, but delays and inconsistent requirements with federal

agencies, especially those that have decentralized field offices. 

4 Most decisions made by the USFS are special use authorizations. USFS Ranger Districts

(RD) do not have realty specialists, staff moved without filling in behind them. USFS

struggling with how to deal with this problem. Too much work at RDs, special use

applications competing with scheduled forest projects that are not on program of work with

hard targets. Special use program seldom a priority, not part of performance rating. 

4 Much diversity on approaches among field offices of various agencies, with little ability of

national offices to direct the work of field offices in implementation of broadband decisions. 

Some field offices focused on their decisions, not necessarily the overarching need for the

project during ARRA projects. Takes too long, especially in the west with more federal land

and tribal land. In areas with delays, once they understood the technologies, permits were

issued more quickly. 

4 By written policy, Refuge managers shall not permit use of NWR system lands unless the

use meets compatibility standards (50 CFR 26.41), which means it is compatible with the

mission of the NWR system and the purpose of the individual refuge. Each refuge was

established with a particular purpose, such as protection of migratory birds, protection of

threatened or endangered species, or protection of biodiversity. Meeting the compatibility

standard is a very high bar and is very seldom met for new uses. Any proposed use, even

within an area that is already developed, such as an existing right-of-way, is considered a

new use subject to compatibility standards and are very seldom granted. Except subject to

ANILCA in Alaska, new rights-of-way are generally not granted. The burden is on the

proponent to provide evidence of meeting compatibility standard or avoid use of NWR

system lands, and there are very few examples where this standard was met. Very rarely,

the USFWS will consider land swaps, but these are extremely difficult.

4 Refuge manager should engage landowners for actions on lands adjacent to a specific

Refuge to attempt to minimize potential impacts to the Refuge; however, the Refuge has no

ability to directly influence what happens on lands not subject to USFWS jurisdiction. 

Excessive Studies/Ineffective Mitigation

1 Mitigation often used in avoiding a sensitive resource through direction boring, placing new
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

221

cable next to existing cable in disturbed rights-of-way. May still have to do some level of

listed species/cultural resources surveys, although some states may use surveys done

previously for the same ROW if conducted within last 10 years, i.e., DOT did studies during

road upgrade for ROW for original placement of fiber. If the study is older, they want a new

one. 

1 What can RUS do to simplify the entire process and when proposing to construct in

disturbed ROWs? i.e., bald eagle nesting next to used road required a seasonal construction

closure for one day’s work, needed to conduct arch. survey and protect a county-maintained

ditch. Sometimes SHPO wants trenching under existing development, like a road, to find

out what might be there, even when directional boring would work. Mitigation almost never

provides a benefit to sensitive resources; permitting agencies seem to believe that laying

fiber is as destructive as other types of projects, i.e. gas pipelines or transmission lines, and

they also apply mitigation for nonlinear projects to linear projects

1 Can RUS help with EPA/state requirements for mitigation for a Stormwater Protection Plan

(SWPPP) needed for any action greater than 30 acres as currently applied? Because laying

fiber disturbs several inches over many miles, and all sites are recovered as the fiber is

installed – the cost is increased substantially, more disturbance with mitigation, no benefit.

1 Agency people often do not know the technologies associated with fiber cable, and believe

that the ground disturbance (mostly 2-6 inches, almost always less than one foot in width)

and impacts are higher. Silt fences for 2 inches of disturbance along the entire length even if

a buffer exists between the water and the trench may be required, causing more impacts than

the project, plus construction and maintenance costs for the fence, with no protection of

resources. In American Samoa, mitigation monitors are available when needed, and do not

hold up construction.

2 Monitors for archaeology required on site – the monitor looks into the trench/slit made by

the plow, writes a report, or says that directional boring is required. Identified the areas with

any possibility of sites and did those first so do not have to pay the monitor for the entire

project. Try to mitigate sites efficiently. Very unpredictable what mitigation for

archaeology or listed species will be required – a “mish-mash.” SHPO wants at least a

Phase I study; SHPO may not accept reports older than 10 years old. SHPO, DNR, and

federal agencies sometimes want the entire length studied for archaeology and listed species. 

2 Agencies do not understand the types of construction involved, and how construction design

can mitigate impacts to listed species and archaeological sites, so they require ineffective

mitigation. 

2 One project involved placing fiber on another company’s electrical poles that did not meet

standards. USFS requested that the program applicant talk to the electric utility to find out if

the program applicant could replace the pole, even though the utility had the easement,

which was not appropriate and added additional time. 

3 USFWS required moving burying beetles under an emergency take permit.

3 SHPO can request surveys for sites within one mile of the road for a 2-inch width of

disturbance in disturbed ROW, using project to get unrelated information. Some states

provide known archaeological site information, some do not.

3 What is appropriate review process when a program applicant needs a land use authorization

or permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers, USFS, BLM, USFWS, BOR? We want to

do what is needed, but no duplication or unnecessary work. 

3 In one agency, one person’s requirements contradicted another person’s requirements; they

did not understand the technologies. 

3 Broadband projects already low impacts, make mitigation commensurate with level of

impacts, try to avoid impacts. Monitors are costly.

3 SHPO wanted full survey along the entire length within 1 mile on each side of road – gets
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

222

information for SHPO, but not helpful for project. 

3 Even with mitigation technologies causing minimal impacts, SHPO still requires full Section

106 surveys; RUS has fewer environmental hoops. Land management agencies do not

understand the technologies.

3 Some SHPOs unreasonably require extensive surveys for projects in disturbed ROWs. One

SHPO wants every inch surveyed. If not surveyed in the past, then Class III survey

required. Private landowners sometimes do not want surveys conducted on their lands. 

3 Some requirements appear to be autocratic rather than a sincere effort to act as a steward of

the lands for the public. There is absolutely no common sense in some cases.

3 Frankly, many of the rules applied to telecommunications projects are ridiculous, and none

particularly helpful to projects with inherently low impacts. Always at the mercy of each

agency as well as the agency’s individual staff requirements. 

4 NPS trying to maintain major involvement in tower siting, even if off NPS lands, in some

cases 7 miles away, with concerns about visuals. Have to go out at night to see if tower can

be seen from the national park. 

Use of Categorical Exclusions v. Environmental Assessments

1 RUS uses CXs for loan approval, but land management agencies use EAs. Sometimes the

agency allows applicants to prepare EAs. 

1 Approx. 90% of projects are on state or county ROW with cable, power, and gas already

buried, but federal agencies are still requiring EAs.

2 BIA, USFS, BLM mostly require full EAs. BIA said that for them to determine if a CX is

appropriate, they required full surveys and analyses, including for removing copper from

existing poles and replacing with fiber, when the easement and poles had been in place for

35 years. 

2 Agencies will not use CXs; only one used, after a long, drawn out process; may have saved

some field monitoring, but permit still not issued in a timely manner.

3 Recommends that USFS/BLM evaluate the applicability of a CX based on impacts rather

than the aspect of ROW (5 acre limit), because impacts are consistently over-estimated,

requiring more surveys and analysis than is necessary and the 5 acre limit doesn’t apply well

to linear projects. 5 acres calculated using 15 feet wide (the width of tracked equipment, not

the actual ground disturbance, which is about 2 inches maximum) by the length of the

project, which unnecessarily causes agencies to prepare EAs.

3 CXs only used if very clear category; if not a clear category, the agency defaults to EAs. If

a resource is present but not affected then a CX can be appropriate, but if cautious, concern

with risk about sensitive resource, then EA. Field review can increase agency confidence in

decision. If needs consultations, then the agency prepares an EA with no public

involvement. Contractors can prepare NEPA documents, but sometimes agencies want to

do it themselves. ER is sometimes sufficient for the agency EA for BLM, USFS, BIA and

agency EAs may be sufficient for RUS ER.

3 Federal agencies in ND are overburdened with oil company permits, USFS keeps wanting

complete NEPA with EAs, rather than CXs, even though no impacts, the staff wants proof. 

4 BLM does FCC NEPA compliance for towers, applicant passes information to the FCC. 

Determining NEPA Adequacy (DNA) documents - checklist evaluation of an existing

NEPA document prepared for a previous project to determine if impact analysis sufficient

for current project, with justification. Previous document has to be newer than 10 years. 

Since BLM has a CX for work in existing ROW, sometimes a CX takes less time. Whatever

the applicant can do to facilitate NEPA helps avoid delays, as NEPA drives time. Mostly

EAs. Some offices do EA in-house. BLM interdisciplinary team determines the scope of

issues and provides information to contractor. Each state has own environmental checklist. 

4 For existing facilities, problem with USFS using EAs when should be CX. 
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

223

4 NEPA is where everything gets bogged down in special use authorizations. USFS overdoes

NEPA because of fear of litigation.

4 Many USFS sites are microwave wireless, because terrain makes fiber more expensive. Cell

companies want their own buildings, but better to and will collocate on existing towers. 

Wireless needs 10’x10’ structure/building for equipment. Should be CXs. 

4 Difficult to make the 5-acre limitation for use of a USFS CX work for a linear feature.

4 Expedite CX approval through CEQ leadership.

4 Under ARRA, 17,000 projects in 2014, 14,000 projects in 2013, all but a few adverse

impacts involved visuals, a few archaeological sites mitigated with recovery – good at

minimizing and avoiding impacts. Because of a nationwide programmatic agreement (under

Section 106), most projects do not get elevated to the national office, are worked out

amongst SHPO, applicant and tribes. National office spot checks e106 database.

4 BIA has some CXs, need a common CX that would apply, perhaps facilitated by CEQ. BIA

CX within existing ROW, service line agreements, substation, but can be elevated to EA. 

How does this work on Indian lands?

4 NPS does not have any CXs for new construction in areas previously disturbed, so must use

EA. Takes 6 mo-1 year once application completed. Currently revising NPS guidance for

CX for non-new construction in previously disturbed areas and installing on existing poles. 

Cannot envision a CX in areas not previously disturbed, as impacting parkland is an

extraordinary circumstances increasing level to EA, but NPS considering relaxing

restrictions in previously disturbed areas by this summer (NPS does not have a definition of

“disturbed lands” – most parkland is not disturbed except for roads, ROW, parking lots). 

The NPS mandate is to preserve land in same or better condition, so could significantly

impact non-disturbed parklands. RUS reviews general impacts at loan approval decision

with ER, then NPS looks at site-specific impacts, with CX or EA. RUS is not the applicant.

People often question NPS science and analyses, such as RF near birds, visual impacts, the

PEA can assist with this. Cell tower decisions are case-by-case decisions. NEPA

procedures to be revised in next 2-3 years.

RUS Processes

1 Appreciate the opportunity to provide input – great relationship with RUS, good

communication

1 Concern that RUS will require full detailed environmental review, reports, permits, and

surveys before approving a loan package. That will make it almost impossible to get RUS

loans. Recommend continuing to approve loans contingent upon doing the detailed work

and obtaining the permits and approvals. 

1 Update RUS guidance documents and use current mapping software. 

2 If RUS requires all permits and approvals before issuing a loan, “we’re not going to be able

to do it.” RUS is not going to see much borrowing. Need to get the loan approval before

permits and easements.

2 Great relationships with RUS field reps and engineering staff who work with the program

applicant directly

2 Believes that RUS should be able to review a completed loan application within 3 months –

the program applicant has planned and constructed projects within existing ROW within one

calendar year. 

2 After RUS approves loan, lots of work to get the loan in place, with all the upfront costs and

time, many program applicants are looking elsewhere for funding that has similar low

interest rates. Gets the impression that RUS is putting hurdles and obstacles in place so

program applicants will not use the RUS loan program.

3 The process RUS currently uses to manage loan applications is great, packaging 5 years of

construction work plans under one loan, with a 5-year plan, then build in 5-year window,
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

224

with all surveys, environmental reviews, and studies being done at the right time, not before

loan approval. Changing the process to require all surveys, permits, consultations, and

approvals to be completed before RUS issues the loan package would not work, is not

reasonable. As long as RUS final approval/fund distribution is contingent on obtaining all

requirements, that would work. The current process works in KS, NE, SD, CO, MO, IA,

and NM. 

3 Heard that RUS wants to review record search phase I report prepared for SHPO before

sending it to SHPO, will add delay; also not clear if program applicant does Section 7

consultation with USFWS, then send final report to RUS or vice versa. Want to avoid

duplication of effort.

3 With multiple projects in one RUS funding package, if one project held up, all are held up. 

3 Concern with RUS considering requiring all permits, consultations before issuing loan

authorization

3 Tribal notification – Tribes do not understand roles of contractors – contractors make initial

contact, then contractor forwards to RUS – tribes do not like the additional step. Tribes can

respond to either the contractor or RUS. Proponents are the primary POC for initial tribal

notification. RUS wants all Tribes contacted at the same time so that the tribe can determine

if it wants to work government-to-government or staff to staff level. Tribes tend to respond

better with additional information about the project and Phase I surveys

3 Likes the idea of the PEA, and believes it will be helpful.

3 RUS scoping template letters for engaging tribes and RUS guidance on which tribes to

engage is very helpful. RUS provides helpful post-approval guidance. 

3 RUS must be prodded to find out status of a loan application, and once RUS asked the

company to ask RUS on status. Some delays with environmental and technical reviews at

RUS, and some papers got lost in the national office. 

3 RUS policy is that program applicants and their consultants can submit Section 106

information to SHPO directly, without going through RUS prior review (2012 RUS

delegation letter). Sometimes other agencies want to review before it goes to SHPO. Ask

for guidance from RUS – they are very busy but helpful. 

3 RUS field reps have little turnover in this area in last 25 years. RUS loan officers in the

field try to help, but they do not have much environmental expertise, and local agencies are

not familiar with federal requirements. 

3 Several potential clients shy away from using RUS financing because of extended approval

times by RUS and agencies

3 Grateful that RUS is doing this PEA, and they want to support making it successful. 

3 RUS was allowed to obligate funds before ER completed and SHPO approval, approving

multiple projects over multiple years, with rough costs and route as justification for the loan. 

Once the loan approved by RUS, engineers detailed the project for obtaining agency permits

and approvals. Now, cannot get loan without SHPO concurrence, and cannot get SHPO

approval without the loan. Asking for consistency and decisions that work. 

3 RUS had staff assigned to each region who would look at submittals information and

determine level of Section 106 survey appropriate and coordinate with SHPO. Those

representatives are now gone, so the program applicants must communicate directly with

SHPO (Dec. 2014). Approvals are starting to back up in RUS. Need to get construction

bids in Jan-Feb so construction can start in May-June. If delays, then most of construction

contractors already booked so higher prices are demanded.

3 Aerial plant collocated on existing poles, no environmental issues, usually a quick RUS

turnaround

3 Must meet state SHPO requirements before the RUS will approve loan application and

release funding. Each state has different requirements. Next to impossible in some states
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

225

without large expenditures for surveys. At pre-loan stage, the detailed field engineering not

completed, so difficult to get SHPO approval until detailed design. RUS does not require

surveys for other resources.

3 95% of the time, RUS will not make a determination until the other federal agencies have

cleared/approved the project (except once, when the BLM refused to approve the ROW

grant until RUS had approved the ER). The RUS cannot dictate to or overrule another

federal agency, even if requirements appear to be excessive. Too much overlap between

RUS ER clearance and actual ROW procurement. RUS should be able to give ER clearance

contingent on the borrower getting approval or being granted ROW from other federal

agencies. Construction cannot be started until all permits secured.

3 RUS requirements sometimes murky and difficult to determine: what is needed, an ER? EA?

3 30-60 days is a reasonable time for RUS to consider an application, with a comprehensive

list of information needed so everything can be corrected at the same time. It takes so long

for RUS field reps to review the application that we need new signature documents prior to

the loan being submitted to RUS national office. If delayed too late in the calendar year,

then new financial information is needed. Frustrated and costly for the borrower. 

3 RUS needs established and clear rules for environmental review. No consistency by RUS

staff in application of CFRs, rules, and procedures, making it difficult for

borrower/contractors to determine what will be needed. What works in one area doesn’t

work in another. Hopefully the new RUS environmental regulations will help. Right now, a

moving target. 

Lead Agency for Broadband Projects

1 Great coordination among RUS field reps, but RUS field reps do not interact with the

federal and state agencies – obtaining permits is a RUS borrower requirement. RUS mostly

concerned with completed applications. When RUS tries to assist borrowers with obtaining

permits, RUS field reps have the same problems with the agencies as the borrowers do. 

2 No apparent lead agency – RUS defers to the borrower to get permits from other agencies,

and each agency looks at their part of the project independently of the project as a whole. 

2 Major challenge is knowing who the federal lead agency is responsible for the initiation,

coordination, and conclusion of all permits, consultations, and actions. A non-federal entity

cannot initiate or request actions from any federal agency without the assignment of a lead

agency, yet program applicant must spend considerable time attempting to find the lead

agency; would assume that the lead would be identified at the outset. It is unclear as to

which federal agency should have the responsibility based on the application itself, and not

which agency is “not busy.” Lead agency differs among similar projects and the

inconsistency creates confusion. 

3 Determine who is lead agency when multiple agencies involved. 

3 Biggest challenge is high turnover in RUS national office in the last couple of years, new

RUS POC did not tell company, and project went into a “dark hole”, also differences in

standards among new and old staff. Want to clearly know what they need to do and who do

they need to work with (chain of command and players) – both in RUS national office and

field offices. Who is responsible for tribal contact – RUS or consultant/program applicant? 

And to what extent should they be involved? 

3 No communication among agencies on which agency is the lead for a project. Uncertain

who to work with for each project. 

3 Lately, the process is getting more muddled and long, with RUS, BLM, BOR, USFS, State

DNR, SHPO, etc. DOT will not issue permit until 100% of other work completed – permits

and NEPA – they call themselves the “active agency” not the lead agency. Crossing the

highway may be a very small part of the project, but a major decision and delay. 

3 RUS is supposed to be lead agency, but held hostage by other agencies. 
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

226

3 When more than one federal agency involved, no clear understanding of which agency is

lead agency.

Pre-Application Meeting

2 Agencies do not want to meet with the applicant, and won’t respond until after the official

land use application is submitted. The BLM was easier to work with, but that was perhaps

because all the projects directly benefitted BLM. 

4 Pre-application meeting: BLM provides guidance to applicant for NEPA compliance – BLM

bring resource team and data, and applicant/contractor brings project description and route. 

Identify sensitive areas to avoid. Makes a big difference in time to process application when

submitted. The time it takes depends on the degree of development of the project that the

applicant provides – Proposed action in detail in Plan of Development (POD) list of content

on BLM website. Part 7 of SF 299, if well-detailed and designed, BLM can provide

immediate feedback. Also bring Class I surveys for Section 106. Review resource

management plan (RMP) for project consistency, ROW exclusion areas, wilderness areas –

avoid having to revise RMP to allow a project that is not consistent, which also needs

NEPA. If application incomplete, BLM requests additional information in Letter of

Inadequacy, try to have complete application so momentum, can improve timelines. 

4 NHPA, Endangered Species Act biggest project-level issues. USFS accepts studies done by

others, including NEPA documentation prepared by third party contractors for applicants at

the pre-application phase. Face to face meetings with the applicant, contractor, RUS field

rep and the USFS Ranger District personnel during the pre-application phase so that the

USFS staff understands the details about the project works best. It is also helpful if the area

RUS field rep contact the USFS. Determine if project consistent with land and resource

management plan (LRMP). 

4 USFS would like to be contacted prior to a proponent applying to RUS for a loan that would

require use of National Forest lands. Allows the agency to consult with applicant regarding

to compliance with laws, policies, and LRMP. Also requests consultation by RUS prior to

RUS approval or disapproval of application for loan so that USFS can advise proponent on

site-specific requirements, including possible prohibited areas. USFS may have areas where

it may not authorize new projects, i.e. at some designated communications sites new

construction for new wireless facilities may be prohibited due to collocation opportunities

with existing facilities.

4 Proponent files a written proposal or present orally to the affected District Ranger or Forest

Supervisor, meeting the requirements of 36 CFR 251.54 (lays out requirements for a

completed application), including applicant’s name and address, corporate information,

technical and financial capability, and project description. USFS accepts the application

only when the proposed used meets all initial and secondary level screening criteria. 

Proponent should provide as much clear detail in proposal to inform the USFS of what they

want to do, where, and elaborate on details regarding short term and long term occupancy of

use of National Forest lands. Identifies potential flaws. 

4 For particularly sensitive areas, such as protected species, communications towers and birds,

traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, medicinal plants, request a pre-application

meeting to identify red flags and mitigation. 

4 Decisions made by National Park Superintendent, so discuss project early, even before

obtaining RUS funding approval. Let the Park assist applicant in planning the project to

avoid pitfalls and make sure it is a viable project. Review the General Management Plan for

the specific park and ensure that communications site locations are allowed. Applicant

submits studies and surveys to NPS for NEPA. Applicant can facilitate discussions between

NPS and SHPO. 

4 Each NTIA project has environmental review in pre-work phase, looking for red flags,
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

227

initial assessment on front end, then each project had CX (limited mostly to cable installed

on new poles) or if needed EA, with mostly EAs. EAs are fairly large, not on the NTIA

website. 

4 For obtaining permits, start with USFWS field/refuge office, then regional office if need

more help – national office cannot provide support. Develop relationship so field offices

understand the project

4 If a proponent is considering a project requiring use of NWR system lands, it is critical to

discuss this with the specific refuge manager early, if possible even before receiving or

applying for RUS funding. 

Mitigation

1 Role of Design and Construction. Construction contractors have little involvement in the

design phase, so sometimes contractors are challenged to implement projects. Engineering

firms hire young people who do not spend time on site before designing the project and

writing the applications. They do not understand the realities on the ground. Early

engagement of construction engineers during design and during work with permitting

agencies can help understanding project feasibility, get the design right for the conditions,

and avoid unnecessary costs, such as unnecessary directional drilling in already disturbed

ROWs when placing cable next to existing cable. Construction is 80% of the total costs, so

construction engineers should be involved during design to keep costs reasonable. If

companies can hire a construction company early, then there is time to fix flawed designs. 

With RUS funding and requirements for so many permits, there is no time to correct poor

project design. Because of federal contracting rules, if construction contractors work on the

design, they may be prohibited from bidding on the actual construction because of conflict

of interest. If the construction company bids considering all necessary mitigation based on

the realities of the sites, they may be at a competitive disadvantage than the companies who

do not know what is needed and bid lower, resulting in cost overruns later. 

2 Directional boring is a good avoidance mitigation, but very expensive – rerouting may be

more effective.

2 Difficult to know what mitigation is reasonable for impacts to “potential habitat” and “future

habitat” for listed species and what is protected today versus what could be protected in the

future. 

2 Mitigation includes conducting surveys to determine sensitive areas or requiring permits,

determining equipment and materials needed, such as drilling lubricants for directional

boring, using horizontal directional drilling under jurisdictional waters and wetlands to

avoid impacts and minimize time-consuming Section 404 permits from U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers

2 BMPs and SOPs from related construction activities are the most efficient and cost-effective

mitigation. Field training, informal or formal, should be a requirements for all project

personnel to effectively implement mitigation. Use of on-site monitors may be effective, but

far too costly and in some instances causes unnecessary delays and complexities.

3 Agencies do not like to work up front and identify requirements; program applicant likes to

coordinate early, use directional boring for USFWS and Army Corps of Engineers

mitigation (or Corps nationwide permit #12), doing appropriate consultations; stay in

roadway or public ROW, follow existing cable routes in already disturbed areas, seasonal

construction, avoid removing trees (nests), stay in ditch if following blacktop. 

3 Most projects have no impacts. Avoid waters of the US, remove any extra trench dirt so no

discharge of dredged material or directional bore, plow noise no noisier than traffic already

using the road. SWPPP: EPA calculates acreage by width times length, yet the small trench

would not have any impacts related to stormwater runoff. 

3 The nature of the work involving underground burial does not cause adverse impacts to
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

228

endangered species and other resources, such as floodplains, wetlands, and cultural

resources. Coordinate with RUS field reps. SHPO generally decides level of survey, and

generally accepts RUS’ level. SHPO recognizing that burying cable in existing ROW has a

low level of risk.

3 Clients try to avoid going cross-country, on private lands because of cost of getting private

ROW, areas with cultural resources and listed species. Cable has been in disturbed ROW

for decades. 

3 Mostly use directional drilling to avoid sensitive areas or plowing to cause the least damage.

3 Design project so minimal impact – plow, recover after plowing, reseed, directional boring

under sensitive resources, careful not to unnecessarily impact resources.

4 NPS does not allow compensatory mitigation by policy – must not adversely impact the

resource, not try to make up for adverse impacts – no impairment. 

4 NPS prefers buried cable be located in conduit, easier to repair and lasts longer. Use

directional drilling under national trails and other sensitive resources. 

4 For project in California, construction workers were trained in and implemented mitigation

measures, had checklists, walk-throughs, monitoring. Also needed compliance with CEQA. 

4 USFWS prefers collocate on existing towers whenever possible, use monopole towers. 

4 Will provide USFWS preferences for BMPs. USFWS wants to help design successful

projects through advice on building sustainably in the right areas and minimizing impacts. 

4 USFWS regulations do not allow compensatory mitigation to make a new use compatible.

Cost Recovery and Rental Fees

2 BLM and USFS assess fees and cost recovery; state lands require certified surveys and

assess annual fees. Have to pay fees to the state to house archaeological artifacts in a

museum.

3 Cost recovery agreement takes time, has to be approved at agency regional level. 

4 If program applicant has or is eligible for RUS funding, it needs to be identified on the

easement application form, which is sent to the national office for coordination with RUS to

confirm funding available or approved, then exempts land use fees. Determining if project

eligible for RUS funding for rental exemption is big challenge for BLM. BLM currently

working with RUS on this process. 

4 Cost recovery fees to fund the processing of environmental analysis, decision, etc. by USFS

as well as project monitoring likely to be assessed (USFS 36 CFR 251.58). FLPMA section

504(g) is explicit that entities eligible for financing may be exempt from a land use fee but

not recovery fee.

Permits

4 30 year term of grants typical for broadband projects in BLM. 

4 Some projects have fiber hung on existing power lines, BLM grants for separate cables on

same poles. But some power companies selling capacity on their existing cables for ISPs –

needs new grant for co-use of existing capacity on same lines. Power companies do not

want non-company people climbing their poles for liability reasons, so sell capacity so their

service does not get interrupted. 

4 Only one realty person per NPS region, as a collateral duty. The decision is made by the

Park Superintendent before a permit expires, or by the Regional Director if it is a new

proposal. Permits do not transfer without signatures of new party to ensure terms and

conditions are understood and accepted. 

Connected Actions

3 Utilities service oil fields, yet broadband considered separately, and despite RUS attempt to

get decisions at the same time. Lots of paperwork. Ending up building the project except

for section on USFS lands for two years. Cannot serve customers.

Impacts, Databases, Section 106
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

229

4 FirstNet will do analysis of radio frequency impacts, and will share information for RUS

PEA. Most information from Europe, with little research on impacts to birds, bats, insects,

people in US. Working closely with USFWS. Will share information with RUS. 

4 Firstnet working with ACHP regarding FCC Program Comment for Section 106, especially

for wires on existing poles. ACHP/FCC are currently meeting to determine full array of

tools available for Section 106 compliance: Programmatic Agreement, Program Comment,

Alternative Rule Development. The ACHP held a Section 106 Summit in 2014 for tribes,

federal, state, and local agencies to provide clear understanding of proper Section 106

compliance, as tribes may have higher expectations beyond those required for compliance,

while some agencies are not doing enough. 

4 FAA changing requirements for lighting on towers to minimize impacts on migratory birds.

4 USFS tracking of special uses is in the PALS database, based on the SOPA is available.

4 ACHP issued FCC Program Comment for FCC processes for communications towers (up

for renewal Sept 2015, expected to be extended with additional agencies). Everyone likes

the nationwide programmatic agreement, which lays out requirements for specific Areas of

Potential Effects (APEs) and limits size, limits ability of SHPOs to request unnecessary new

surveys. Tribes concerned with effects of communications towers on their activities. Not

applicable when communications towers placed in highly visible ridgelines. 

4 FCC only does NEPA regarding authorization to construct a tower, not for the construction

itself - agencies do their own NEPA for land use authorization for constructing towers. FCC

rules to not apply to federal land and Indian reservation, so certain requirements of the

national programmatic agreement and collocation do not apply. If on federal land, if RUS is

lead agency, RUS just manages the overall process, but other agencies do their own

authorization and permitting processes. RUS uses NPA as a standard. FCC is the expert

agency on communications towers and encourages other agencies to “borrow” FCC

processes. NPA limits surveys for placement of infrastructure in buildings, but requires

archaeological studies for tower construction. FCC towers are expensive, high value and a

huge business, do not want to collocate on non-compliant towers, so they are bringing many

towers into compliance. Working with ACHP to determine what to do if evaluating a

current tower that did not have Section 106 review performed when it was constructed. 

4 FCC cannot give other agencies access to e106 database because must keep control of

confidentiality and distribution of tribal proprietary information on sites. Program comment

allows RUS, NTIA, FEMA and FCC to use the database. Other agencies must demonstrate

to tribes that they can keep the information confidential. 

4 FCC has engineers with expertise on the spectrum for where towers must be sited for

communications and radio frequency characteristics. Current status of radio frequency

impact in US not studied for 10 years in US, more recent studies in Europe. 

4 FAA has interim policy that towers greater than 350 feet can turn off solid red lights,

probably permanent in May 2015. Dr. Manville has updated guidance for tower lighting

dated 2014, use that information, not the current USFWS guidance.

4 FCC Interim rule: Towers less than 200 feet are not registered with FCC – applicants selfcertify with CX. Interim guidance – if tower 350 feet or greater, needs an EA; if less than

350 feet, CX unless very sensitive area, such as ridgeline. If greater than 200 feet, fails the

FAA airport glide/slope test, NEPA requires notice for comments. Consistent with FCC

PEA, the new guidance is refinement of previous Manville standards, involving lighting

under towers and heat/motion sensors.

4 Some people have issue with expanding electricity to communications sites in underserved

area with concerns about inducing growth. 

4 Many towers built in the 1960s, need replacement or hardening. As towers age, may

become eligible for listing on National Register of Historic Places. 
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

230

4 Use USFWS IPaC and USEPAs NEPAssist (needs EPA sponsor) online databases/tools to

identify sensitive areas. 

4 Because national parks generate so much interest with constituents nationwide, local issues

tend to elevate quickly. Often receive thousands of comments on proposals, think

snowmobiles in Yellowstone Nation Park. Parks have to do a “compatibility analysis” – is

the proposal compatible with the reasons for which the particular park was created? NPS

does not have general guidance for broadband or telecommunications projects, but primarily

issues are visual impacts, soundscape, wildlife, archaeology. 

4 USFWS primary issues are effects of towers on migratory birds (latticework towers

providing perching habitat for predators in areas lacking natural perching structures, killing

migratory birds with lights and guy wires), spread of invasive species, impacts on listed

species, impacts of tree removal during maintenance activities on nesting birds, tall towers,

towers in coastal areas with many birds, microwave towers making shadows that birds do

not like.

4 Use IPaC database to determine species of concern ecos.fws.gov/ipac Information

Planning and Conservation also NEPAssist database. 

Recommendations

Recommendations: Easements and Design/Construction

1 To avoid unnecessary mitigation, the construction engineering company should review the

entire route with the borrower before permits are obtained with conditions and mitigation to

identify mitigation for appropriate resource protection and commensurate costs with

rationale, such as using temporary mats across small wetlands rather than directional boring,

seasonally adjusting crossing ephemeral streams so to use dryland technologies. Decisions

on permit conditions are made by people who do not understand technologies, have never

seen a vibratory plow, directional drill, etc. at work, and do not understand the low level of

impacts; have “no skin in the game” often make decisions based on looking at maps and

Google Earth, with no idea of conditions on the ground. Approx. 95% of projects use plows

inserting no more than 2” conduit (sometimes smaller) and directional drilling with very few

impacts. For aerial placement on existing poles, most of the project time is “make ready”

looking at each pole, condition, age, space for new line, identify which poles need to be

replaced to bring up to code by the power company. If it is too expensive, the fiber is just

placed underground. It can cost $20,000-30,000 to replace one structure. 

2 If the infrastructure easements are for electric rather than communication, then different set

of CFRs. This company worked with the EO Working Group, made recommendation: 

change all current easements to utility easements so that easement would be automatically

available to all utilities. 

Recommendations: Training

1 RUS should provide/support training for federal/state agencies and borrowers on broadband

construction technologies and their associated impacts, and which BMPs are effective under

which conditions. 

1 RUS needs to identify how they can provide approvals more quickly, with less unnecessary

mitigation, more flexibility for design modifications during construction to fit the conditions

and keep the project moving, conduct “constructability review” during loan application so

that RUS loans more desirable, especially when market rates increase to make RUS loans

more competitive; work with applicants and contractors better. Identify how construction

engineers can be involved during design. Train RUS, borrowers, agencies on technologies

and impacts so fewer unnecessary studies and ineffective mitigation.

2 Provide RUS training related to loan design (similar to RUS Form 515A contract training)

and RUS loan training. Training should include a checklist of items needed to have the loan

design accepted by RUS; and guidance from RUS on what environmental/cultural reviews
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

231

would be required for a project and develop a plan for dealing with any known agency

issues that need to be considered. 

3 Training by RUS and state agencies (SHPO) for consultants on RUS and SHPO processes,

Training for federal authorizing agency on RUS process, construction technologies

3 Training for agencies needed.

3 RUS needs to provide training to all RUS field personnel.

4 BLM provides training on fundamentals of the ROW program

4 BLM would like RUS to provide training for BLM field offices and RUS to understand

broadband technologies and NEPA, BLM can work with RUS to develop curriculum. 

4 RUS could train USFS field personnel on broadband technologies and projects.

4 Joint RUS/USFS training needed for local ranger districts on broadband technologies and

NEPA processes

4 Written direction from USFS national office might be helpful. 

4 NTIA recommends RUS providing training on fiber construction technologies, ESA,

Section 106, and wants to be involved. 

4 Training in Effects Pathways is available from the USFWS.

Recommendations: Section 106

2 Lessons learned: Deal with tribal Governments early, respectfully, honestly, bring in RUS

and cooperative representative to meet with Tribe at the same time, which makes the

meetings more positive

2 RUS federal preservation officer kick started a languishing project by negotiating a PA with

a SHPO, but it took a while because RUS could not work on it full time. Tribal and SHPO

consultation letter templates developed by RUS very helpful, needs to be broadened to be

applicable to federal agencies.

3 Need nationwide programmatic agreement for RUS Telecommunications Program to make

mitigation more consistent and efficient.

3 Need tribal notification process similar to FCC’s e106 database.

3 Directional boring not often used as archaeological mitigation because not sure how deep or

exact location because of “wiggling”. Work out the best path through the site in

consultation with SHPO for avoidance. 

3 Need nationwide or regional programmatic agreement for RUS Telecom Program.

3 Ask for a meeting between RUS and tribe to talk about projects, and ensure that broadband

projects are included. Whenever possible, place fiber next to or within existing cable. 

3 Section 106 programmatic agreement with pre-determined levels of review would be helpful

if this is even possible and agency cooperation can be obtained. Level of review should be

lower in disturbed ROWs, but not all agencies see it that way. If fiber installed in existing

ductwork or aerial system, then the process should be very simple. 

4 FCC e106 database: even though most other agencies cannot access, can FCC just say

whether there are sites without identifying type and location? 

Recommendations: RUS Processes

1 RUS should have a line item in the application for a constructability review by the RUS

engineers to verify feasibility.

1 RUS should consider using digital public notification processes, rather than just newspaper

notices. 

2 Requests assistance from RUS on level of environmental surveys needed, such as GIS data

from federal/state agencies or field surveys; as well as level of NEPA documentation

(project description, ER, EA, EIS)

2 Biggest challenge is knowing what the specific requirements are and level of detail expected

in order to submit a completed application. Considering the cost, it would be helpful to have

report templates, examples, and FAQs for reference to expedite the process and reduce the
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

232

repeated draft and rework process, causing delay.

2 RUS should develop intra-department and interagency procedures to efficiently and

effectively manage the environmental review, permit, consultation, and approvals that are

required prior to construction. Assign a RUS environmental staff person to each project to

actively engage in borrowers/owners project meetings and discussions, to provide assistance

for environmental approvals, and to assist with roadblocks and jeopardy issues to minimize

delays and to meet schedules. 

2 RUS must give timely information on requirements, with realistic expectations on how long

the process will take, recognizing that RUS has fewer people with increased workload. RUS

used to have 6-7 environmental staff, now has 3, with everything having to go through the

RUS national office. 

3 Need to tie RUS down for their decision on the completed application, too unpredictable,

and very difficult. Need a pre-committee meeting of the engineers and loan officers to

determine what the RUS committee needs so proponent can submit a completed application

first try. Use a pre-application process, so loans can be approved in less than the 6 months

to a year it takes now. 

3 Need access to RUS templates and examples for completed and approved ERs to ensure

complete and avoid redrafting. Also list of different permits required. Some RUS templates

change with no reasons provided. 

3 RUS receives some of the tribal responses, did not tell company of responses or content. 

RUS does not respond to company of RUS review of class III report, just that it has been

received. Since not clear on processes and when processes/standards change, consultant

cannot advise and serve client in quality manner. RUS needs a process guidebook.

3 Allow loan package submittals to RUS to be .pdf digital form.

3 It would be helpful if RUS previewed the application to determine if application is complete

and will move forward – several sent back for minor missing data. Also, allow electronic

submittals as .pdf or CD.

3 Consider a blanket CX for repeat borrowers in same area and omit requirement for new ER. 

If updating in same area, be allowed to send same ER. An exception would be if existing

borrower purchases another franchise area and connects it to their original network, an ER

might be helpful. One company had 13 projects in the same foot print, with 13 identical

ERs. If new area, then new ER necessary. 

3 RUS needs to provide a list of agency contacts in the area that they want involved.

3 Wants to be able to submit environmental information to RUS on-line.

Recommendations: Pre-application Meeting, Surveys, Agency Coordination

2 For NPS and BIA permits, do not require all locations to be recorded in metes and bounds,

but accept field GPS shape files. Surveyors are extremely expensive and metes and bounds

make no sense. 

2 For new installation within existing transmission or distribution line or other utility or

transportation ROWs, waive the need for a study of alternatives for route or installation

methods.

2 Accept environmental surveys conducted within 5 years of the new broadband project.

2 Require new surveys only for protected species, jurisdictional wetlands, and archaeology;

waive requirements for historic structures and EJ surveys when operating within existing

ROWs with no new visual or economic impacts

2 Agencies must coordinate so program applicants can know requirements and standards up

front, and have consistency among agencies and units.

3 Pre-application meeting is responsibility of lead agency, but the consultant sets it up, or it

will not happen. Consultants also have to drive the process or it will not happen. Build

relationships, trust with the agencies, so it is easier to set up meetings and move the process
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

233

forward. Pre-application meeting extremely valuable. 

4 FirstNet: First 5 PEIS for 5 regions since regions are different (first draft next year), with 35

agencies (including RUS) invited to be cooperating agencies, hoping to begin

communication; 848 letters sent to tribes to begin informal consultations, at least 25 have

responded to date; FirstNet’s Tribal Liaison is meeting with individual tribal leaders, as a

cooperating agency, RUS is invited. Projects are CXs, Records of Consideration, or EIS,

tiered to regional PEIS. 

4 USFS and RUS should coordinate processing efforts so that a CX, EA, EIS is acceptable to

both agencies on whether or not to authorize land use, including sharing resources and

working in partnership to eliminate duplication of effort. USFS must still make its own

decision. Unlikely that PEA can be used to make site-specific decisions. Local USFS

official makes the determination on appropriate level of NEPA documentation for land use

authorization decision based on scope of activity, site-specific conditions, and consistency

with law, regulation, and LRMPs. The programmatic EA can disclose the necessity for the

project, but unless the applicant has consulted with the USFS prior to RUS making a

funding decision, there should be no assumption that the USFS can make a decision. The

FS must still make its own decision under a separate determination independent of the RUS

PEA. The USFS strongly encourages RUS to contact the appropriate USFS environmental

staffs responsible for NEPA to obtain information that may make the assessment more

robust for consideration.

4 USFS proposed that the affected agencies meet semi-annually or annually to discuss issues

and develop streamlines processes to provide better customer service and ensure rural

communities have access to reliable broadband service. It may be beneficial to develop a

MOU between the USFS and RUS. 

4 Proponents must be aware that in many cases they must engage both the tribes and the BIA

to avoid unnecessary delays. Normally tribes coordinate with RUS in a government-togovernment relationship.

4 RUS and NTIA are not competitors and do not build in the same areas. No NTIA project

funding foreseen since ARRA closed. NTIA is a principal advisor to the president on

internet/broadband issues (subject matter expert for broadband), manages the federal

spectrum, and coordinates with FCC. Developing a local/tribal broadband toolkit for

communities. NTIA wants to maintain a close relationship with RUS, as RUS is a key

funding agency. NTIA provided training to communities and invited RUS – working on

getting users online and using internet for economic development, workforce, education, to

help keep young people in home communities. If NTIA received another infrastructure

project, would coordinate with RUS. NTIA definitely interested in RUS PEA. 

Recommendations: Technologies

1 Towers: wireless and telecommunications towers – many wireless for broadband are

collocated on existing towers, almost no impact. Even when a tower or pole is used with

solar panel, the signal has to be collected and sent through fiber. With more LTE and higher

speeds and more video streaming, more towers and fiber needed. 

2 Using RUS funding, constructs underground and aerial broadband within their existing

ROWs and on their own poles. For underground, primarily uses horizontal directional

drilling (up to 10 feet deep with 1.25 inch conduit) and vibratory plowing (depth of 3-4 feet

in narrow trench with immediate backfilling). 

4 FirstNet infrastructure available to RUS borrowers for leveraging into rural areas and vice

versa – FirstNet is also required to facilitate broadband for first responders into rural areas. 

FirstNet managed by a Board. FirstNet is a licensee of FCC. RUS is different from

FirstNet, as RUS is not the owner or investor in the networks. USDA is an enterprise

partner of FirstNet, and part of USDA/FirstNet Coordinating Council. RUS/FirstNet:
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

234

Facilitate with low interest loans to help tap into affordable debt to meet economic goals to

bring in business, keep young people in community. FirstNet towers need fiber backhaul for

traffic between towers to meet challenges from buildings/line of sight. 8. Pilot projects for

FirstNet: NJ, CO, NM, LA region (Los Angeles NF)

Recommendation: Permit Terms

4 USFS could issue 20-30 year term permits, with the term in the SUP. 

Recommendations: Supplementing Staff

3 In Utah, AZ, TX, CA, lots of Federal land - USFS, BLM, and BIA. Company provides third

party support to agency, has office in BLM, helps with NEPA and writing permits. Works

with BLM western region, reviewing all NEPA, cultural resource, and biology documents.

4 BLM has fewer staff, less money to work on applications, field offices cannot backfill realty

and resource positions, even with category 6 cost recovery, not enough staff. If applicants

hire contractors to conduct resource surveys, cost recovery amounts decreased.
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

235

Attachment E: Written Comments
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

236
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

237
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

238
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

239
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

240
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

241
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

242
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

243
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

244
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

245
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

246
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

247
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

248
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

249
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

250
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

251
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

252
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

253
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

254
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

255
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

256
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

257
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

258
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

259
Appendix F Stakeholder Interview Report

260
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

253

Appendix G. Useful Databases, including Spatial Databases (GIS)

The White House Initiative Broadband Working Group GIS Database

The White House Initiative Broadband Working Group developed a GIS-based

database that displays all GSA-owned buildings and lands where a commercial

antenna installation may be sited, as well as point of contact (POC) information. 

This GIS database also displays layers offering visibility information related to

national parks, protected wilderness areas, BLM lands and Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, road and boundary base maps, topographic maps,

military lands, the National Park Service Spatially Explicit Regional Growth

Model, national forests, and lands of tribal significance.

(http://www.permits.performance.gov/broadband_map) (viewed 7/6/2015)

The White House Initiative Infrastructure Projects Broadband

Inventory

http://www.permits.performance.gov/broadband_inventory?field_bi_responsible_

agency_value=All&field_bi_resource_type_value=All&field_bi_function_value=All

&field_optional_value=1 (viewed 7/6/2015)

This database provides a source of useful planning tools for broadband projects. 

In addition to links to agency regulations and guidance for obtaining permits, the

site provides links to some relevant databases, including information on

regulatory permits and consultations

(http://www.permits.performance.gov/permit-inventory)

The site includes searchable information regarding:

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act;

• Clean Water Act Section 404;

• Endangered Species Act, FWS and NOAA;

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES);

• Rights-of-Way Authorization (FWS, BIA, BLM, BOR); and

• Special Use Permits (USFS, BLM).

FCC Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS)

http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/notification/TCNS_tribe.pdf

This system is an on-line password-protected system intended to advance the

goal of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to protect historic

properties, including tribal religious and cultural sites. Specifically, the system

increases communication by providing federally-recognized Indian Tribes, Native
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

254

Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) and State Historic Preservation Officers

(SHPOs) with early notification of proposed towers in order to facilitate

compliance with the Commission's Rules and Section 106 of the NHPA. The

TCNS also enables the Commission to consult early on a government-togovernment basis with federally recognized Tribes. The website allows users to:

• REPLY to Notifications: You may reply to a single notification you have

received regarding proposed tower construction. You may also reply to

multiple notifications at the same time. See 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/notification.

• SEARCH for Notifications: You may search the database for notifications

based on several criteria, including structure location, date notification was

filed, and notification ID number;

• UPDATE Contact Information: You may change the contact information for

your Tribe or organization, i.e., name, address, phone number, and email;

• UPDATE Notification Preference: You may choose whether to receive

initial notifications via email and/or letter, or not to receive them at all;

• UPDATE Final Request Preference: You may choose whether to receive

final requests for indication of interest via email and/or letter;

• ADD Details: You may add language specifying your preferences and

procedures. This language is sent by the system to all applicants who

submit notifications that are sent to the Tribe or NHO; and

• VIEW Existing Area(s) for Notifications: You may view and update the

specific areas, states, and counties for which you will receive notifications. 

These can be changed at any time. Tribes and NHOs who do not identify

specific areas are notified of proposed tower constructions throughout the

United States.

By participating in the TCNS, Tribes, NHOs, and SHPOs can help to ensure that

they will be notified of proposed tower constructions in which they have an

interest, and will not be notified of proposed tower constructions outside their

geographic area of interest. By making themselves available to receive

notification of proposed tower construction sites as early as possible, Tribes,

NHOs and SHPOs can increase their ability to engage tower constructors and

their consultants at an early date. Only Tribes, NHOs, and SHPOs, as

authorized system users, will have access to the information relating to proposed

tower construction sites.
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

255

FCC Application Packets for New Towers and Antenna Collocation,

including Programmatic Agreements (viewed 7/6/2015)

http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form620/620.pdf (new tower application packet)

http://transition.fcc.gov/Forms/Form621/621.pdf (antenna collocation)

National Wildlife Refuge Boundaries

http://www.fws.gov/gis/data/CadastralDB/ (viewed 6/7/2015)

Access to the boundaries and metadata required ArcGIS (free download at

http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/explorer).

USFWS Wetlands

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html

This spatial database with metadata requires ArcGIS to download (free download

at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/explorer). The information provided

includes wetlands polygon, metadata, historic wetlands maps and metadata, and

riparian polygon data, as a minimum. 

Federal, State, and Tribal Historic Preservation Programs and

Officers

(http://www.achp.gov/programs.html)

Tribal Contacts

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/TribalHistoricNotification/listTribes.htm (requires login;

viewed 7/6/2105))

This list includes federally recognized tribes, with POCs and titles for tribes that

have defined areas of interest for which they request to receive proposed tower

construction notification. This list may be useful for non-tower projects also. 

List of Helpful Resources for Section 106

(http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/ND/Cultural_Resources.pdf)

A helpful list of resources for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act.

Section 106 Guidance from the Advisory Council for Historic

Preservation

http://www.achp.gov/usersguide.html (viewed 7/6/2015)

Website Includes:

• Regulations, process flowchart, explanatory material, and questions and

answers;

• National Register Evaluation Criteria;
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

256

• Section 106 Applicant Toolkit;

• Integration of NEPA and Section 106 process flowcharts;

• Memo from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation re: Limitation on

the Delegation of Authority by Federal Agencies to Initiate Tribal

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Dated July 1, 2011 (http://www.achp.gov/delegationmemo-final_7-1-

11.pdf);

• CEQ’s Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106);

• Assistance with Initiating Consultation between Federal Agencies and

Indian Tribes Regarding Federal Permits, Questions and Answers

(http://www.achp.gov/docs/Assistance%20Agency%20Tribal%20Consultat

ion%20Q&A.pdf);

• Section 106 Consultation Involving National Historic Landmarks; and

• Policy statement regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains,

and Funerary Objects for federal agencies

(http://www.achp.gov/docs/hrpolicy0207.pdf).

National Broadband Map

(http://www.broadbandmap.gov/) (Viewed 7/6/2015)

This geospatial mapping database provides geospatial and data information

including:

• Speed availability;

• Type of technology available (asymmetric XDSLm Symmetric XDSLm

copper wire line, cable modem DOCSIS 3.0, cable modem other, fiber to

end use, terrestrial fixed wireless (unlicensed) terrestrial wireless

(licensed), and terrestrial mobile wireless);

• Number of broadband providers;

• Broadband provider service areas; and

• Broadband availability demographics by density, age, income, and

education.

The data provides analyses for ranking areas by speed, availability, and

broadband provider availability. 

Public Land Survey Database

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/lsis_home/home/index.htm#plss

(viewed 7/6/2015)
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

257

Exportable GIS shape files with embedded metadata by state, county, and

individual townships. 

USFWS IPaC (Information for Planning and Consultation)

An easy to use set of databases, including geospatial information, useful in

supporting the integration of mitigation into project planning regarding threatened

and endangered species, critical habitat, migratory birds, or other natural

resources that may be impacted by a project. Resource maps provide geospatial

information regarding wetlands and national wildlife refuges. The impact analysis

portion is still being constructed, and will ultimately help evaluate connected

actions associated with projects, and identify potential resource impacts and

possible mitigation. The official list of threatened and endangered and other

USFWS trust resources can be used to initiate informal Section 7 consultation as

the basis for a Biological Evaluation. The website can also be used to initiate

formal Section 7 consultation. The website mapper is easy to use. 

USFWS Critical Habitat Portal

http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ (Viewed 7/6/2015)

This portal provides downloadable and detailed information regarding designated

critical habitat for listed species, including:

• Critical habitat spatial data;

• Critical habitat metadata;

• Federal register documents related to designation of critical habitat; and

• USFWS species profile information. 

Layers in the critical habitat spatial data include reference grids, political and land

use boundaries, hydrography, critical habitat, street maps, and topography, as

well as the ability to tailor maps to specific needs.

The information is not complete for every species. If needed information is not

available for a species of interest, the website recommends contacting the

applicable USFWS region.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Data and Maps

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ (viewed 7/6/2015)

This easy-to-use public website provides spatial maps and background

information of soil surveys for user selected areas. The user identifies the area

of interest (by address, county, rectangle or polygon) for the soil map of the area,

and tabs provide access to detailed information on the most recent soil survey
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

258

and each soil’s characteristics. Maps of interest can be downloaded as a file for

later use. 

Helpful Environmental Protection Agency Databases

Envirofacts

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ (viewed 07/06/2015)

This is the searchable “master” site for access to all EPAs databases and

mappers.

Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)

http://www.epa.gov/echo (searched 7/6/2015)

This database can be used to determine whether compliance inspections have

been conducted by EPA or state/local governments, if violations were detected,

and what enforcement actions were taken, as well as penalties assessed in

response to violations in particular areas (searchable by city and state and/or zip

code). Searches can be conducted by zip code, city, size of facility, type of data,

and EPA cases. It also provides links to information about EPA regulatory

authorities, laws, and science for subjects such as climate change, water quality,

air quality, hazardous waste, health, pesticides, and sustainable practices. 

Environmental Justice Screening Tool

http://www2.epa.gov/ejscreen (viewed 07/06/15)

http://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ (viewed 07/06/15)

This is a searchable geospatial tool with analytic links that provides data on 2000

and 2010 census data, demographics, health risks, and air and water quality.

The site will also provide a standard report that includes maps, comparable local,

state, and federal indices for 12 environmental indicators and 6 demographic

indicators, in tabular and graphic formats. 

MyEnvironment

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htm (viewed 07/06/2015)

http://www.epa.gov/myenvironment/ (viewed 07/06/2015)

MyEnvironment provides a searchable database with geospatial data related to

data that EPA collects regarding the Clean Water Act (dischargers, releases, and

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)), Clean Air Act, hazardous waste laws (Toxic

Release Inventory, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, brownfield

properties, Toxic Substances Control Act, Toxic Release Inventory, etc.). It also

provides analysis of cancer health risks from air, and state and national energy

production and consumption data. 
Appendix G Useful Environmental Databases

259

Surf Your Watershed

fpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm (viewed 07/06/2015)

This website provides accesses to four spatial tools for identifying, displaying,

and understanding the characteristics and the environmental health of

nationwide, state, and local watersheds. Using zip code, stream name,

watershed name, state, or city, the website identifies the 8-digit code for

watersheds within the identified area, and provides information on water quality

monitoring data, impaired waters (303(d)), USGS data on stream flow and water

use data, and other related data.

NEPAssist

The complete database, which won an award from the CEQ, requires approval

from specific EPA staff to access and use. However, the public can access

NEPAssist at http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist. NEPAssist is a tool that

facilitates the environmental review process and project planning in relation to

environmental considerations. The web-based application draws environmental

data dynamically from EPA Geographic Information System databases and web

services and provides immediate screening of environmental assessment

indicators for a user-defined area of interest. These features contribute to a

streamlined review process that potentially raises important environmental issues

at the earliest stages of project development.

Demographic and Community Information

www.city-data.com (viewed 02/03/2106)

This set of easily searchable databases, with maps, charts, and graphs (many

interactive), quickly provides detailed information about towns and municipalities

in each state, including demographics, schools, home assessments, building

permits, city guides, recreation, crime, banks, jobs, and more.
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

260

Appendix H. USFWS Tower Guidelines for Protection of Migratory

Birds
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

261
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

262
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

263
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

264
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

265
Appendix H USFWS Tower Guidelines Migratory Birds

266
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

267

Appendix I. National Historic Preservation Act Templates

8.1.1 Template of Pre-application Notification of Proposed Section 106 

Undertaking

[date]

[SHPO Name

Title

Address] 

Subject: Pre-Application Notification of Proposed Section 106 Undertaking

[Borrower]

[Project Name]

[County(s), State] 

Dear [Name]: 

[Borrower] intends to seek financial assistance from the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS)

for the [Project Name and brief description] (the Project). RUS may fund the Project, thereby

making it an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470(f), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part

800). The project involves [provide a description of the project, including the design

specifications, the required disturbance, whether new or existing utility ROW will be used,

overhead or underground, whether or not there will be new ground disturbance or if area has had

previous ground disturbance]. The recommended area of potential effects (APE) is defined as

[describe the area of potential disturbance = the width/length of the right-of-way or

building/structure footprint].

The enclosed archeological site record search for the project’s area of potential effects (APE),

was conducted on [date]. The records search [describe the findings of the records search – if

there are any sites, list the site numbers]. No other sites were identified as a result of the records

search.

[If additional survey is required, describe it here.]

On [date], [borrower/consultant] notified the [list tribes, use http://egis.hud.gov/tdat/Tribal.aspx

to search for tribes to consult by county] about the project. [Describe the response from the

tribes. If a tribe responds with concerns, please send copy of letter to RUS point of contact].

Proposed Finding of Effect

Based on an analysis of the enclosed report[s], we are proposing a finding of:

- No historic properties affected: if there are no resources listed on, or eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places.

- No adverse effect to historic properties: if there are historic properties present within the

APE, but the project will not affect them.
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

268

- Historic properties affected: there are historic properties present within the APE, and they

will be affected by the undertaking.

In accordance with RUS’s Blanket Delegation of Authority for Section 106, which has

previously been provided to the [state] SHPO, [borrower] is submitting the [state what

documentation is submitted for review = mapping, inventory survey etc.], recommendations of

eligibility (only include if resources are identified in the survey), and recommendation of project

effect for your review in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.2(c)(4). Please provide your

concurrence within thirty (30) days of receipt of this proposed finding pursuant to 36 CFR §

800.3(c)(4). We will proceed to the next step in review after this time. Please direct any

questions you may have to [contact information].

Sincerely,

Enclosures

cc: [RUS field or N/O representative] USDA Rural Utilities Service 
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

269

8.1.2 Template Tribal Notification of Intent to Initiate Section 106 Review

[date][#2]

RE: Notification of Intent to Initiate Section 106 Review [#3]

[Project, Borrower, Project Location] [#4]

Dear [Name of THPO or Official Tribal Designee] [#5]:

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), one of three agencies comprising USDA Rural Development,

is authorized under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, to provide federal

financial assistance for the construction, improvement and expansions of telecommunications

infrastructure, including broadband, in eligible rural communities in the United States. [Name of

Borrower] [#6] financial assistance from RUS for [#7]. [#8 ].

If RUS elects to fund this application, it will become an undertaking subject to review under

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §470m, and its implementing

regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. In accordance with the attached blanket authorization issued by

RUS in August 2012, [Name of Borrower] is initiating Section 106 review on behalf of RUS. In

delegating this authority, RUS is advocating for the direct interaction between its

Telecommunications Program borrowers and Indian tribes. RUS believes this interaction, prior

to direct agency involvement, will support and encourage the consideration of impacts to historic

properties of importance to Indian tribes earlier in project planning.

[Name of Borrower] proposes that the area of potential effects (APE) for the referenced project

consists of [#9] as shown on the enclosed map. [#10] The geographic scope of the APE will not

be final until a determination is made by RUS pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4(a)(1). The APE does

not include any tribal lands as defined pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.16(x). [#11]

[Name of Borrower] is notifying you about the referenced project because of the possible

interest of the [Name of Indian Tribe] in [Insert County Name(s)]. Should the [Name of Indian

Tribe] elect to participate in Section 106 review of the referenced project, please notify me in

writing via letter or email as soon as possible at the following addresses – [Insert your mailing

and email addresses]. Please include with your affirmative response, a description of any

specific historic properties or important tribal resources in the APE and your recommendations

about the level of effort needed to identify additional historic properties which might be affected

by the referenced project. [Name of Borrower] will respect the confidentiality of the information

which you provide to the fullest extent possible.

If at any time you wish to share your interests, recommendations and concerns directly with

RUS, as the agency responsible for conducting Section 106 review, or to request that RUS

participate directly in Section 106 review, please notify me at once, preferably via email. 

However, you may contact RUS directly. If you wish to do so, please submit your request to

[Insert EES Manager Name and Contact Information].

Please submit your response to me by [Insert date 30 days from expected date of receipt]. 

During this time period, I will follow up to ensure your receipt of this notification and to identify

any constraints which might delay your timely response. [Name of Borrower] has been advised
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

270

by RUS to proceed to the next step in Section 106 review if you choose not to respond in a

timely fashion. Should you have any questions or require additional information please contact

me at [Insert contact information].

Sincerely,

Enclosures

cc:

[#12]

_________________________________________________________

Guidance for completing the template

#1 Applicability of Template

The template is not applicable to the construction of telecommunications towers and collocations which

will carry spectrum regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Section 106 review of

towers and collocations carrying FCC regulated spectrum is concluded using FCC procedures.

#2 Insert date

Do not forget to date this correspondence because it is essential in determining when the 30-day review

period has ended. If it is not too costly, please consider obtaining a delivery receipt for this notification.

#3 Notification of Intent to Initiate Section 106 Review

Do not designate this letter as a “Pre-Application Notification.” It can be confusing and send the wrong

message to parties outside of RUS. Therefore, its use is discouraged.

#4 Identify the Project, Borrower and Project Location by County and State

Clearly designate what is being submitted for review. Typically, it will be a loan design project. This is

very important because an incorrect decision at this point could cause significant delays in completing the

review. Get it right the first time - When in doubt, seek guidance from EES.

#5 Identify Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), or, in the absence of a THPO, the Official Tribal

Designee, Title and Address

The addressee will be the THPO designated pursuant to Section 101(d)(2) of the National Historic

Preservation Act. In the absence of a THPO, the tribe should have identified an official designee for

Section 106 review. Please note that if this notification is directed to “Whom It May Concern,” it is not

legally sufficient.

#6 Select “is seeking” or “plans to seek”

Select “is seeking” whenever the borrower has filed an application with RUS for assistance. It matters only

that the application is with RUS, NOT whether or not RUS has approved it for consideration.

Select “plans to seek” whenever the application for assistance has NOT yet been filed with RUS. If this is

the case, then you may elect in the heading to designate this notice as a “Pre-Application Notification.”

#7 Insert a Complete Project Description

All elements of the proposed construction must be included, especially those which will cause any digging,

excavation or other ground disturbance. Include the design specifications, the scope of the ground

disturbance, a description of the ROW/easement ownership, establish whether or not new or existing ROW

or easements will be used, establish whether or not the construction will occur in or out of municipal

boundaries, estimate the number of miles to be buried versus aerial, and if aerial, the prediction about the
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

271

need for new and/or replacement poles. Do not forget to include work and staging areas, laydown yards

and access roads. If no ancillary facilities such as these are needed, then include that statement in the

description. Also, please name the towns and counties where construction will occur. Also, describe any

construction which will be more than 20 feet tall and therefore might intrude upon an important setting or

obstruct an important vista.

#8 Describe the Project’s Purpose and Need

This explanation, which must be consistent with the language in the ER or EA when that level of NEPA

documentation is needed, helps establish for the tribe the public benefit of the project.

#9 Describe the area of potential effects (APE)

Describe the geographic area(s) which might be impacted by the project construction activities. The APE

is not restricted to areas where construction will occur but also includes locations from which a

constructive element greater than 20 feet tall might be seen. A borrower and tribe can only make

recommendations about the scope of the APE. RUS makes the final determination. Therefore, get it right

the first time - when in doubt, seek guidance from EES.

#10 Enclose maps

Enclose one or several maps showing the area in which the construction activities will occur and the

proposed location of the various constructive components. Use USGS 7.5 series maps or something similar

which shows the terrain in which the construction will occur. This can be augmented by other types of

maps which show other project details. Staking sheets or maps with that level of detail are not necessary.

#11 Confirm that tribal lands are not involved

Under Section 106 tribal lands are defined “as all lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian

reservation and all dependent Indian communities.” Confirm that the APE does not contain any tribal

lands. In the event that tribal lands will be crossed or involved, work with your EES contact to engage the

Tribe.

#12 Insert name and email address of appropriate EES contact
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

272
Appendix I NHPA Guidance

273
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

274

Appendix J. RUS Guidance and Exhibits for Project-Level Tiered

Compliance

Exhibit 4-1

Telecommunications Program

Overview

The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is required to assess the impacts of proposed 

federal actions to the environment, such as the provision of financial assistance through 

the Telecommunications Program, in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other federal, state, and local environmental laws. 

RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794, relevant sections in 

Appendix B) defines the classifications and documentation requirements based on 

types of construction activities. 

RUS has completed a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for project 

activities typically financed through the agency’s Telecommunications Program. This 

form must be completed by program applicants for activities where site-specific 

information is currently unavailable. RUS will use the information provided in this form 

to document if the activities in an application or non-site specific activities in an interim 

financing request are consistent with the PEA and its Finding prior to making an 

obligation decision.

No construction activities may begin until RUS fully concludes its environmental 

review process; RUS will notify applicants when they may begin construction. In 

accordance with 7 CFR §1794.15, borrowers and grantees are prohibited from taking 

actions that may have an adverse environmental impact until RUS has concluded the 

environmental review process. If the proposed project involves construction activities 

the applicant is generally prohibited from rehabilitating, converting, leasing, repairing or 

constructing property or facilities, or committing or expending Agency or non-Agency 

funds that are subject to reimbursement by RUS until after RUS has concluded its 

environmental review requirements.

I. Activities Covered in the Telecommunications Program PEA

A. Activities not requiring tiered, site-specific environmental review

In accordance with the PEA, the following activities do not require additional 

environmental review. Please mark if any of these activities are in your application 

or interim financing request: 

 Last Mile Service Drops
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

275

 Internal building modifications

 Equipment replacement

 Cable placement in existing conduit

B. Activities not requiring tiered, site-specific environmental review, provided the 

following conditions are met. 

In accordance with the PEA, the following activities do not require additional 

environmental review. Please mark if any activities with associated conditions are 

included in your application or interim financing request: 

 Placing antenna on existing towers and buildings not listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places

 External building modifications requiring less than or equal to 1 acre of new 

land disturbance with no extraordinary circumstances (see Section II of this 

form)

 Aerial cable installation on existing poles with no extraordinary circumstances 

(see Section II of this form)

 Ancillary equipment and huts installed in existing right-of-way with no 

extraordinary circumstances (see Section II of this form)

 New microwave or cell towers within the fenced area of an existing 

substation, switching station, or within the boundaries of an existing electric 

generating facility that is consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

guidelines on towers (Appendix H of PEA) and with no extraordinary 

circumstances (see Section II of this form).

If conditions associated with these activities cannot be met, tiered site-specific 

environmental analyses, as demonstrated through the completion of Exhibits 4-2 

and 4-3, must be completed as applicable prior to project construction or RUS 

approval of construction contracts or funds dispersal. Please list projects in your 

application or interim financing request that meet this criterion:

C. Activities requiring tiered-site specific environmental review 

In accordance with the PEA, the following activities do require tiered site-specific 

environmental analyses, as demonstrated through the completion of Exhibits 4-2 

and 4-3 as applicable. For these projects to remain eligible for RUS financing, you 

must receive RUS written notification that the environmental review is concluded 

before project construction or RUS approval of construction contracts or funds 

dispersal.

Please identify if any of the following activities are in your application or interim 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

276

financing request: 

 Underground and buried placement of mainline cable 

 New cell and microwave towers not consistent with Section I.B of this form

 New buildings, including headquarters offices

II. Identification of Extraordinary Circumstances

Extraordinary circumstances may be described as unique situations presented by 

specific proposals, such as characteristics of the geographic area affected by the 

proposal, scientific controversy about the environmental effects of the proposal, 

uncertain effects or effects involving unique or unknown risks, and unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternate uses of available resources within the meaning of Section 

102(2)(E) of NEPA. In the event of extraordinary circumstances, a normally excluded 

action (i.e., one identified in Section I of this form) will be the subject of an additional 

environmental review by the Agency to determine the potential of the proposed action to 

cause any significant adverse environmental effect, and could, at the Agency’s sole 

discretion, require an EA or an EIS. 

Extraordinary circumstances can include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Any violation of applicable Federal, state, or local statutory, regulatory, or 

permit requirements for environment, safety, and health.

2. Any proposal that is likely to cause uncontrolled or unpermitted releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or petroleum and natural gas 

products. 

3. An adverse effect on the following environmental resources: 

a. Historic properties;

b. Federally listed threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, 

Federally proposed or candidate species; 

c. Wetlands (actions that propose to convert or propose new 

construction in wetlands will require consideration of alternatives to 

avoid adverse effects and unwarranted conversions of wetlands. 

Actions involving linear utility infrastructure where utilities are 

proposed to be installed in existing, previously disturbed rights-of 

way or that are authorized under applicable Clean Water Act, 

Section 404 nationwide permits will not require the consideration of 

alternatives. Actions that require Section 404 individual permits 

would create an extraordinary circumstance);
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

277

d. Floodplains (actions that introduce fill or structures into a floodplain 

or propose substantial improvements to structures within a floodplain 

will require consideration of alternatives to avoid adverse effects and 

incompatible development in floodplains. Actions that do not 

adversely affect the hydrologic character of a floodplain, such as 

buried utility lines, would not create an extraordinary circumstance; 

or purchase of existing structures within the floodplain will not create 

an extraordinary circumstance but may require consideration of 

alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development 

in floodplains when determined appropriate by the Agency);

e. Areas having formal Federal or state designations such as 

wilderness areas, parks, or wildlife refuges; wild and scenic rivers; or 

marine sanctuaries;

f. Coastal barrier resources or, unless exempt, coastal zone 

management areas. 

4. The existence of controversy based on effects to the human environment 

brought to the Agency’s attention by a Federal, tribal, state, or local government 

agency.

Please describe if any of the activities included in your application or interim 

financing request (and as described in Section I of this form) may have 

extraordinary circumstances that require further RUS review.
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

278

III. Activities not covered in the PEA

Provide a description of each activity included in your application or interim financing 

request that does not fall within the description of activities listed in Section I of this 

form. RUS Bulletin 1794A-600, Exhibit C should be used as guidance in preparing the 

project descriptions so that RUS can classify the proposed project(s) in accordance with 

7 CFR Part 1794.
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

279

Exhibit 4-2

Telecommunications Program

Environmental Report – Tiered Review for Cable Installation

Overview

The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is required to assess the impacts of proposed 

federal actions, such as the provision of financial assistance through the 

Telecommunications Program, to the environment in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other federal, state, and local 

environmental laws. RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794)

defines the classifications and documentation requirements based on types of 

construction activities. If the project is listed under 7 CFR §1794.21, no additional 

documentation is required. If the project is listed under 7 CFR §1794.22, the applicant 

must complete this Environmental Report (ER). This report documents the additional 

site-specific analyses for those resources identified in the PEA as requiring such 

analyses. RUS will use the information provided in this ER to either conclude the 

environmental review process or determine the appropriate level of additional impact 

analyses. 

No construction activities may begin until RUS concludes the environmental 

review process; RUS will notify applicants when they may begin construction. In 

accordance with 7 CFR §1794.15, awardees are prohibited from taking actions that may 

have an adverse environmental impact until RUS has concluded the environmental 

review process. If the proposed project involves construction activities the applicant is 

generally prohibited from rehabilitating, converting, leasing, repairing or constructing 

property or facilities, or committing or expending Agency or non-Agency funds that are 

subject to reimbursement by RUS until after RUS has concluded its environmental 

review requirements.

Federal agencies are encouraged to cooperate in their review of actions subject to 

NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 7 of the ESA. An applicant may submit to 

RUS a copy of any environmental review document that has been prepared in 

connection with obtaining permits, approvals, or other financing for the proposed project 

from state, local or other federal agencies. Such material, to the extent determined to 

be relevant, may be used to fulfill RUS environmental review requirements. RUS will 

notify applicants if additional information or analyses are necessary. 

Requested Information

A. Project Description

Describe all project-related construction activities, including, but not limited to: 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

280

a. Construction and/or installation of buried or aerial cable: Provide the type of 

facility (buried vs. aerial), the method of construction (plow vs. trench), and 

the mileage for each type of facility; describe the potential rights-of-way (e.g., 

existing road shoulder, undisturbed land outside of existing ROW); can be 

general locations but should describe where in the ROW the cable is being 

planned for installation. See also item B.1.

b. Access: Provide a description of any access roads/facilities required for 

operation of the project, indicating the type (gravel, asphalt etc.) and size 

(length and width); and

c. Any pole replacement if required.

Complete descriptions include the length of proposed facilities, construction 

methodology, and locations. Maps must be provided for each site affected by 

project-related construction activities. RUS recommends U.S. Geological Survey 

7.5-minute quadrangle maps at a map scale of 1:24,000; larger scale maps may be 

provided for site-specific proposals. USGS maps may be obtained and purchased at 

the following website (http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/maps.html). All project 

elements, if known at the time of the application, must be clearly depicted on any 

map provided. If appropriate, photographs or aerial photographs of site-specific 

proposals may be provided.

B. Property Changes

Describe the amount of property to be cleared, excavated or otherwise disturbed by

the proposed project.

a. Describe the current land use and zoning for all lands disturbed by project 

construction activities. If adjacent to road right-of-way (ROW), provide the 

distance from road asphalt (i.e. located within the road prism). If utility 

easement, also provide the distance from existing facilities; and 

b. Determine and document whether the proposed project, or any project 

component, is within the boundaries of federally or state managed lands, 

including but not limited to parks, forest lands, wildlife refuges, or public lands. 

Where pertinent, integrate any standards, guidelines, or conditions from the 

federal or state agencies’ land management plan(s) if such plan(s) exist. Also 

determine and document whether the proposed project, or any project 

component, is located on tribal lands, meaning lands within the exterior 

boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian communities or 

on Indian allotment lands. If so, provide the name of the government body 

and indicate the status of coordination. Please note that all roads and 

associated ROWs traversing federal lands are controlled by the appropriate 

federal agency. Applicants may find information related to federal and tribal 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

281

lands on the ArcGIS website

(http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8047eda3656e4

241b75463a5451ba9e2). State land boundaries information may be obtained 

through state government websites or sources. 

C. Other Federal Involvement

Provide the name of any other federal agencies that may have a NEPA action 

associated with the project. This information will allow RUS to coordinate our review 

with other agencies and avoid duplicative effort.

D. Permitting

Provide a list of all federal, state, local, or tribal permits that will be required to 

construct the proposed project. Please provide the status of these permits and the 

anticipated date of receipt.

For the following resource areas, please indicate whether the resources are 

present within the project area and if the project will have any impacts on that 

resource. 

E. Protected Species

Determine whether any project sites and activities will directly or indirectly affect any 

federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species, or are 

within or near designated critical habitat. Applicants must obtain and provide 

species lists and appropriate species accounts (i.e. requisite habitat) from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service's website (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/), which will provide 

applicants with information about threatened and endangered species, critical 

habitat, wildlife refuges, migratory birds, and wetlands (see below). Any 

conservation measures resulting from ESA Section 7 consultation, or seasonal or 

other restrictions to protect migratory birds, nests, or habitat should be incorporated 

into the assessment. 

F. Wetlands

If wetlands are to be avoided, or potential impacts are addressed through a U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP), check this box □ , 

and no further action is required. If wetlands are identified in the project area and 

they cannot be avoided, applicants may need an individual permit from the USACE 

and/or the appropriate state agency. Applicants must notify RUS if the project will 

require an individual permit. Information about the USACE regulatory program can 

be found on their website

(http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.asp

x). If the project will adversely affect wetlands, applicants should state if there is a 

practicable alternative location. In addition to any permit requirements, standard 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

282

avoidance and minimization measures should be implemented such as 

erosion/sedimentation protection, minimal vegetation removal, spill prevention and 

control, and appropriate vegetation/restoration. Maps of wetlands may be obtained 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory website

(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/), or from soil maps obtained from the USDA, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service's website

(http://search.mediacomcable.com/search/?q=http%3A//websoilsurvev.nrcs.usda.go

v/app/HomePage.htm&r=&t=0). Wetland information may also be obtained from the 

applicable state agency. 

G. Farmlands

If the project is located in other than a ROW or otherwise disturbed area, indicate 

whether the project will cross any farmland. The identification of alternatives per the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is neither applicable nor required, but 

potential impacts to continued use of the affected land should be considered. 

H. Coastal Areas

Determine whether any project sites are within the boundaries of a Coastal Barrier 

Resource Area (CBRA). For boundary related and contact information related to 

CBRA, see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s CBRA website

(http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/Coastal.html). 

I. Historic Properties 

a. If you are applying for a project-specific loan or grant under the Broadband or 

Community Connect Programs, please continue on to the next steps. If you 

are applying for a multi-year loan under the Infrastructure Program, contact 

the appropriate RUS environmental protection specialist at the earliest time 

possible for more information. 

b. For cable projects, RUS will conduct the Section 106 review. Applicants must 

contact the appropriate RUS environmental protection specialist for templates 

to consultation with SHPOs and to notify Indian tribes, Alaska Native Villages 

and Native Hawaiian organizations. Databases and maps to assist in 

identifying known archeological sites and NRHP listed or eligible resources 

can be obtained from the appropriate SHPO, which can be identified on the 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers website

(http://ncshpo.org/find/index.htm). The SHPO website will also include 

information about tribal interest. Applicants can also use tribal interest 

directories developed by other federal agencies, including the National Park 

Service website (http://grants.cr.nps.gov/nacd/index.cfm)or the Housing and 

Urban Development website (http://egis.hud.gov/tdat/tribal.aspx)
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

283

For buried fiber optic cable and aerial fiber optic cable requiring pole 

construction/replacement, applicants must identify and describe, including type 

and status for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) known 

archeological sites located within 500 feet of either side of the cable route and 

prior archeological surveys that have been conducted in this study area. 

Include this information in the ER along with mapping that shows the 

relationship between these known sites and the study area as well areas of 

planned disturbance, whether for trenching or entry for buried line, or pole 

placement for aerial.

c. Certain standard practices or measures will also help avoid potential impacts 

to cultural resources. These include: keeping equipment and vehicles on 

roads or exiting ROWs; avoiding known cultural or historic sites; flagging or 

monitoring cemeteries within 200 feet of the Area of Potential Effect (APE); 

considering the effects of vibrating equipment on historic structures; 

implementing any protection measures resulting from consultation with 

SHPO; and stopping work and notifying the SHPO and RUS if artifacts or 

human remains are inadvertently discovered. 

Extraordinary Circumstances Statement

Extraordinary circumstances may be described as unique situations presented by 

specific proposals, such as characteristics of the geographic area affected by the 

proposal, scientific controversy about the environmental effects of the proposal, 

uncertain effects or effects involving unique or unknown risks, and unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternate uses of available resources within the meaning of Section 

102(2)(E) of NEPA. In the event of extraordinary circumstances, a normally excluded 

action will be the subject of an additional environmental review by the Agency to 

determine the potential of the proposed action to cause any significant adverse 

environmental effect, and could, at the Agency’s sole discretion, require an EA or an 

EIS. Extraordinary circumstances can include, inter alia, the following: Any violation of 

applicable Federal, state, or local statutory, regulatory, or permit requirements for 

environment, safety, and health; an adverse effect on the following environmental 

resources: historic properties, federally-listed threatened or endangered species or 

critical habitat, wetlands, floodplains, formally-designated lands or waters, special 

sources of water, coastal barrier resources, or coral reefs.

In reviewing this report, the Agency certifies/does not certify that the proposal meets the 

criteria established in §§7 CFR 1794.21 and .22, Categorical Exclusions without or with 

an environmental report. The proposal’s description and this Environmental Report also 

demonstrate/do not demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with 40 CFR §1508.4, 

Categorical Exclusion and that the proposal does not have any extraordinary 

circumstances.
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

284

Exhibit 4-3

Telecommunications Program

Environmental Report – Tiered Review for Towers and Buildings

Overview

The USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is required to assess the impacts of proposed federal 

actions, such as the provision of financial assistance through the Telecommunications Program, 

to the environment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 

other federal, state, and local environmental laws. RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures 

(7 CFR Part 1794) defines the classifications and documentation requirements based on types 

of construction activities. If the project is listed under 7 CFR §1794.21, no additional 

documentation is required. If the project is listed under 7 CFR §1794.22, the applicant must 

complete this Environmental Report (ER). This report documents the additional site-specific 

analyses for those resources identified in the PEA as requiring such analyses. RUS will use the 

information provided in this ER to either conclude the environmental review process or 

determine the appropriate level of additional impact analyses. 

No construction activities may begin until RUS concludes the environmental review 

process; RUS will notify applicants when they may begin construction. In accordance with 

7 CFR §1794.15, awardees are prohibited from taking actions that may have an adverse 

environmental impact until RUS has concluded the environmental review process. If the 

proposed project involves construction activities the applicant is generally prohibited from 

rehabilitating, converting, leasing, repairing or constructing property or facilities, or committing or 

expending Agency or non-Agency funds that are subject to reimbursement by RUS until after 

RUS has concluded its environmental review requirements.

Federal agencies are encouraged to cooperate in their review of actions subject to NEPA, 

Section 106 of the NHPA, and Section 7 of the ESA. An applicant may submit to RUS a copy of 

any environmental review document that has been prepared in connection with obtaining 

permits, approvals, or other financing for the proposed project from state, local or other federal 

agencies. Such material, to the extent determined to be relevant, may be used to fulfill RUS 

environmental review requirements. RUS will notify applicants if additional information or 

analyses are necessary. 

Requested Information

A. Project Description

Describe all project-related construction activities, including, but not limited to: 

a. Installation of telecommunications transmission facilities: Provide the type of facility 

(towers, satellite dishes, or equipment collocations) and the size/height. Indicate whether 

any of the facilities will use Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensed 

spectrum;
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

285

b. Access: Provide a description of any access roads/facilities required for operation of the 

project, indicating the type (gravel, asphalt etc.) and size (length and width); and

c. Building construction: Provide the type of construction, including installation of 

prefabricated buildings, internal modifications, or equipment additions to buildings or other 

structures (e.g., relocating interior walls or adding computer facilities). 

Complete descriptions include the height of proposed facilities, construction methodology (e.g., 

for towers, monopole, lattice, guyed vs. unguyed), and locations. Maps must be provided for 

each site affected by project-related construction activities. RUS recommends U.S. Geological 

Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle maps at a map scale of 1:24,000; larger scale maps may be 

provided for site-specific proposals. USGS maps may be obtained and purchased at the 

following website (http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/maps.html). All project elements, if known at 

the time of the application, must be clearly depicted on any map provided. Cell or microwave 

towers should be sited at least 30 feet from public areas or residences, and not be accessible to 

unauthorized people. If appropriate, photographs or aerial photographs of site-specific 

proposals may be provided.

B. Property Changes

Describe the amount of property to be cleared, excavated, fenced, or otherwise disturbed by the

proposed project.

a. Describe the current land use and zoning for all lands disturbed by project construction 

activities. If proposing a building on an urban or otherwise previously-developed site, 

determine if the site may be a brownfield (defined as: real property, the expansion, 

redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential 

presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant), and if so, how applicable 

requirements for development have been met; and 

b. Determine and document whether the proposed project, or any project component, is 

within the boundaries of federally or state managed lands, including but not limited to 

parks, forest lands, wildlife refuges, or public lands. Where pertinent, integrate any 

standards, guidelines, or conditions from the federal or state agencies’ land management 

plan(s) if such plan(s) exist. Also determine and document whether the proposed project, 

or any project component, is located on tribal lands, meaning lands within the exterior 

boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian communities or on Indian 

allotment lands. If so, provide the name of the government body and indicate the status of 

coordination. Please note that all roads and associated ROWs traversing federal lands are 

controlled by the appropriate federal agency. Applicants may find information related to 

federal and tribal lands on the ArcGIS website

(http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8047eda3656e4241b75463a

5451ba9e2). State land boundaries information may be obtained through state 

government websites or sources. 

C. Other Federal Involvement

Provide the name of any other federal agencies that may have a NEPA action associated with 

the project. This information will allow RUS to coordinate our review with other agencies and 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

286

avoid duplicative effort.

D. Permitting

Provide a list of all federal, state, local, or tribal permits that will be required to construct the 

proposed project. Please provide the status of these permits and the anticipated date of receipt.

For the following resource areas, please indicate whether the resources are present 

within the project area and if the project will have any impacts on that resource. 

E. Protected Species

Determine whether any project sites and activities will directly or indirectly affect any federallylisted threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species, or are within or near designated 

critical habitat. Applicants must obtain and provide species lists and appropriate species 

accounts (i.e. requisite habitat) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website

(http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/), which will provide applicants with information about threatened and 

endangered species, critical habitat, wildlife refuges, migratory birds, and wetlands (see below). 

To avoid/minimize potential impacts to migratory birds, applicants should certify that they will 

implement the applicable measures as identified in Section 3.11.1.3 and Appendix I of the PEA. 

Any conservation measures resulting from ESA Section 7 consultation, or seasonal or other 

restrictions to protect migratory birds, nests, or habitat should be incorporated into the 

assessment. Special attention should be given to any measures in regard to lattice tower 

construction or use of guy wires. Also consult the USFWS Guidelines regarding towers and 

migratory birds (see Appendix H of the PEA).

F. Wetlands

If wetlands are to be avoided, or potential impacts are addressed through a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP), check this box □, and no further action is 

required. If wetlands are identified in the project area and they cannot be avoided, applicants 

may need an individual permit from the USACE and/or the appropriate state agency. Applicants 

must notify RUS if the project will require an individual permit. Information about the USACE 

regulatory program can be found on their website

(http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx). If the 

project will adversely affect wetlands, applicants should state if there is a practicable alternative 

location. In addition to any permit requirements, standards avoidance and minimization 

measures should be implemented such as erosion/sediment protection, minimal vegetation 

removal, spill prevention and control, and appropriate vegetation/restoration. Maps of wetlands 

may be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory website

(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/), or from soil maps obtained from the USDA, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service's website

(http://search.mediacomcable.com/search/?q=http%3A//websoilsurvev.nrcs.usda.gov/app/Hom

ePage.htm&r=&t=0). Wetland information may also be obtained from the applicable state 

agency. 

G. Floodplains

Determine whether any project sites are located within the risk-adjusted floodplain as 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

287

determined by EO 13690 and the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). If any 

project-related construction activities are within floodplains, a copy of a Flood Insurance Rate 

Map (FIRM) that depicts construction activities must be included. Information related to 

floodplains, National Flood Insurance Maps, and the EO and FFRMS may be obtained from the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) website (http://msc.fema.gov/portal). If the 

project will adversely impact the floodplain, applicants should state whether there is a 

practicable alternative location. Standard measures to protect floodplains include soil 

erosion/sediment protection and spill prevention and control.

Determine whether the project will irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to 

nonagricultural use in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The USDA, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) established a farmland conversion impact 

rating score used to consider alternative sites if the score exceeds the recommended allowable 

level. This assessment is completed on Form AD-1006, which can be found on the NRCS 

website (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045394.pdf) The 

applicant is responsible for filling out Parts I, V, and VI of the form for submittal to the local 

NRCS office; the criteria for Part VI are found at 7 CFR §658.5.

H. Coastal Areas

Determine whether any project sites are within the boundaries of a Coastal Barrier Resource 

Area (CBRA). For boundary related and contact information related to CBRA, see the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s CBRA website (http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitatconservation/Coastal.html). 

I. Historic Properties 

a. If you are applying for a project-specific loan or grant under the Broadband or Community 

Connect Programs, please continue on to the next steps. If you are applying for a multiyear loan under the Infrastructure Program, contact the appropriate RUS environmental 

protection specialist at the earliest time possible for more information. 

b. Determine if your project will require review by the Federal Communications Commission.

Applicants proposing telecommunications towers and collocations should note that the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory requirements for licensing 

radio spectrum, and an established review process for ensuring compliance with Section 

106 of NHPA. If the proposed tower or collocation will use FCC licensed spectrum, 

regardless of the height of the tower, applicants must complete FCC’s Section 106 review 

process; see FCC’s website (https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting). If an 

application proposes a tower or collocation that will carry FCC spectrum, RUS has agreed 

that FCC will conduct Section 106 review for those facilities. The FCC Section 106 review 

requirements include: completing Form 620 for new towers or Form 621 for collocations, 

contacting the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and notify Indian 

tribes, Alaska Native Villages and Native Hawaiian organizations using the Tower 

Construction Notification System (TCNS), which can be found at FCC’s website

(http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/index.htm?job=tower_notification). In completing Form 

620 applicants are advised to include for review any fiber optic cable that will be 

constructed to connect a proposed new tower to mainline cables. Please note: the FCC’s 
Appendix J RUS Tiering Guidance

288

Section 106 review process does not apply to any portion of a proposal that is located 

within federal property, such as U.S. Forest Service, or National Forest System land, or an 

Indian reservation.

c. For all other projects, RUS will conduct the Section 106 review. Applicants must contact 

the appropriate RUS environmental protection specialist for templates to consultation with 

SHPOs and to notify Indian tribes, Alaska Native Villages and Native Hawaiian 

organizations. Databases and maps to assist in identifying known archeological sites and 

NRHP listed or eligible resources can be obtained from the appropriate SHPO, which can 

be identified on the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers website

(www.ncshpo.org). The SHPO website will also include information about tribal interest. 

Applicants can also use tribal interest directories developed by other federal agencies, 

including the National Park Service website (http://grants.cr.nps.gov/nacd/index.cfm) or 

the Housing and Urban Development website (http://egis.hud.gov/tdat/Tribal.aspx). 

d. Certain standard practices or measures will also help avoid potential impacts to cultural 

resources. These include: keeping equipment and vehicles on roads or exiting ROWs; 

avoiding known cultural or historic sites; flagging or monitoring cemeteries within 200 feet 

of the Area of Potential Effect (APE); considering the effects of vibrating equipment on 

historic structures; implementing any protection measures resulting from consultation with 

SHPO; and stopping work and notifying the SHPO and RUS if artifacts or human remains 

are inadvertently discovered. 

Extraordinary Circumstances Statement

Extraordinary circumstances may be described as unique situations presented by specific 

proposals, such as characteristics of the geographic area affected by the proposal, scientific 

controversy about the environmental effects of the proposal, uncertain effects or effects 

involving unique or unknown risks, and unresolved conflicts concerning alternate uses of 

available resources within the meaning of Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA. In the event of 

extraordinary circumstances, a normally excluded action will be the subject of additional 

environmental review by the Agency to determine the potential of the proposed action to cause 

any significant adverse environmental effect, and could, at the Agency’s sole discretion, require 

an EA or an EIS. Extraordinary circumstances can include, inter alia, the following: Any violation 

of applicable Federal, state, or local statutory, regulatory, or permit requirements for 

environment, safety, and health; or, an adverse effect on the following environmental resources: 

historic properties, federally-listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat, 

wetlands, floodplains, formally-designated lands or waters, special sources of water, or coastal 

barrier resources.

In reviewing this report, the Agency certifies/does not certify that the proposal meets the criteria 

established in §§7 CFR 1794.21 and 1794.22, Categorical Exclusions without or with an 

environmental report. The proposal’s description and this Environmental Report also 

demonstrate/do not demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with 40 CFR §1508.4, 

Categorical Exclusion and that the proposal does not have any extraordinary circumstances.