1(415) 856-7230 jillyung@paulhastings.com October 6, 2017 David Bernhardt Deputy Secretary Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240 David_Bernhardt@ios.doi.gov Dear Mr. Bernhardt: Currently, rural communities and the high-traffic highways and freeways that connect them are devoid of wireless coverage or dramatically underserved. In areas with adequate service today, increasing consumer, commercial, and government wireless usage threatens to exceed the capacity of the existing wireless infrastructure. Restricted data speeds, or the lack of data transmission altogether, will continue to plague networks as bandwidth availability becomes saturated. New wireless broadband communication sites are needed to ensure the reliability of existing networks and to satisfy the country’s insatiable appetite for more and better service. Some of the best sites for such infrastructure are on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). However the permitting requirements for these sorely needed infrastructure projects, in particular the increasingly burdensome approach to satisfying requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (“NEPA”) and the limitations of land use plans that fail to recognize the imperative need for wireless infrastructure projects, are a significant impediment to the timely development of Rural Wireless Broadband (“RWB”) communication infrastructure (“RWB CI”) on public lands. In the spirit of urgent necessity and collaborative problem-solving, we thus offer the following comments on behalf of Interconnect Towers LLC (“ICT”) regarding the Department of the Interior’s (“DOI’s”) response to Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects” (“EO 13807”) and its efforts to implement Secretary Order 3355 (“SO 3355”), which seeks to streamline NEPA reviews. ICT is a Preferred Vendor for the nation's largest wireless carriers. With 19 years of experience successfully navigating BLM’s multiple-year permitting process under NEPA and operating facilities pursuant to BLM’s right-of-way (“ROW”) grants, ICT is a seasoned facility manager of multi-use, multi-tenant wireless broadband communication sites on federal lands across the southwestern United States. ICT provides wireless broadband communication infrastructure facilities to wireless telecommunication providers, federal/state/county agencies, and rural broadband providers. With almost two decades of experience with permitting RWB CI on public lands, ICT appreciates the opportunity to offer a few streamlining suggestions and comments as requested in SO 3355. /// /// David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 2 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As noted in a recent staff report prepared for the Congressional Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, The importance of access to high speed internet access - also known as broadband - in modern American life and economy cannot be understated. Broadband has enabled near-instantaneous exchange of information across the country, revolutionizing how 1 Americans communicate, conduct commerce, and participate in government. Notwithstanding the increasingly critical role that wireless networks play in the personal and professional lives of Americans, however, infrastructure deployment efforts have struggled to keep up with demand. Facilities designed to support a “Can you hear me now” network servicing 8Kbs phone calls have been overwhelmed by demand from users asking “Can you see it now?” as they operate devices that require speeds of 1.5Mbs for video internet data traffic. Compounding problems, unmet demand is a particularly vexing issue in rural areas that could stand to benefit most from wireless connectivity, but find themselves on the wrong side of an increasing digital divide due to non-uniform development of network infrastructure. Inadequate infrastructure is not a goal of the industry. They stand ready to build more towers and even cooperate with each other to co-locate facilities and minimize development. In particular, they seek to build on federal lands, which offer the ideal locations to reach underserved rural communities and shore up networks with more uniform coverage. Permitting such projects in a timely manner, however, has been increasingly challenging and painfully slow. ICT alone, for example, has 30 serialized applications across California, Nevada, and Arizona that have been pending since 2013 (See Attachment A). As explained in more detail below, every administration since the dawn of commercial cellular communication, Democrat and Republican, has tried to streamline the permitting of broadband infrastructure. These efforts have resulted in long lists of ideas and little action. The following analysis describes the factual and legal support for concrete actions to improve permitting timelines and results, including: 1) Issue an Instruction Memorandum describing procedures for using an Environmental Assessment of a prescribed length to evaluate applications for right-of-way grants for cellular communications towers that meet specific criteria (generally, the criteria that are typical of such projects) 2) Start regulatory proceedings and/or draft legislation to create a categorical exemption pursuant to which BLM can approve applications for right-of-way grants for cellular communications towers 3) Clarify the limitations imposed by federal land use plans, especially the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, with respect to the development of cellular communications towers, using tools for technical corrections rather than renewed land use planning processes whenever possible 1 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Memo from Committee Majority Staff to Members, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, re “Broadband: Deploying America’s 21st Century Infrastructure” (Mar. 17, 2017), http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20170321/105740/HHRG-115-IF16-20170321-SD002-U1.pdf. David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 3 4) Create online tools to track progress on pending applications 5) Establish a forum for regulators to exchange ideas on best practices II. BACKGROUND ON RWB CI NEEDS The widespread adoption of internet connected on mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, laptop computers and even automobiles, has significantly increased the demand for wireless broadband communication services on a scale and at a pace unlike anything we have seen before. Indeed, as evidenced by the charts below, wireless data traffic overtook wireless phone traffic in terms of volume in 2010 and has increased exponentially by comparison annually ever since. The “Can You Hear Me Now” network that ICT assisted the carriers in building on BLM land from 1998-2008 is now groaning under the stress of practices that demand “Can You See It Now” support. Ericsson Mobility Report (June 2017), https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobilityreport/documents/2017/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2017.pdf. More specifically, in 2017 the traffic from wireless broadband devices on the wireless phone traffic networks is 50 times what was contemplated in 2008 (See Voice vs. Data Q-1 Ericsson “Traffic Measurement Chart” below). This represents a staggering 5000% growth since “Data Traffic” first showed up on wireless networks. Moreover, the latest reported information does not account for the recent (Q2 David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 4 2017) increase in unlimited data plans, a change that singlehandedly doubled data usage in the United States. Urgent action is needed to support the processing and granting of new multi-use, multi-tenant wireless communications sites, especially in rural areas dominated by BLM lands, to ensure that the infrastructure can support these growing needs. In addition to consumer driven demand, enhanced fleet management systems, public safety communication networks, first responders (FirstNet specifically) and federal law enforcement agencies have also come to depend on RWB CI to serve their communities. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has observed that “[f]or many Americans, the ability to call 911 for help in an emergency is one of the main reasons they own a wireless phone.” (See http:transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.pdf.) Notwithstanding that consumers’ undeniable and insatiable demand for data warrants investment, the United States is increasingly falling behind other nations in terms of its ability to meet demand. In 2016, the United States ranked an unimpressive 42nd place in the world in terms of its broadband capabilities. In 2017, however, the United States fell even further to 44th place. (See “Ookla National Speed Test” (Sept. 7, 2017), http://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/.) The United States is not a global leader in technology and innovation when it comes to deploying RWB CI, a fact that is inconsistent with numerous federal policies that profess a commitment to supporting the country’s needed network capabilities. The Obama Administration repeatedly signaled its commitment to RWB CI development in plans, policies, and executive orders issued over the past several years. In particular, the National Wireless Initiative (Feb. 10, 2011) aimed to make high-speed wireless services available to at least 98 percent of Americans and directly promoted the development of cellular transmission towers on public lands by investing David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 5 $5 billion of government funds in 4G build out in rural areas. The initiative also reformed the Universal Service Fund by reallocating funds currently supporting landline deployment to funding broadband expansion, doubling wireless spectrum available for mobile broadband by freeing up, and auctioning off, 500 MHz of spectrum, and investing $10.7 billion to develop and deploy a nationwide wireless network for public safety. (President Obama Details Plan to Win the Future through Expanded Wireless Access: Fact Sheet (Feb. 10, 2011), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/10/presidentobama-details-plan-win-future-through-expanded-wireless-access). Executive Order 13604 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects (Mar. 22, 2012)) then directed agencies to “take all steps within their authority, consistent with available resources, to execute Federal permitting and review processes [of infrastructure projects] with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring the health, safety, and security of communities and the environment while supporting vital economic growth.” Adding to this, Executive Order 13616 (Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment (June 14, 2012)) proposed to “facilitate broadband deployment on Federal lands, buildings, and rights of way, federally assisted highways, and tribal and individual Indian trust lands (tribal lands), particularly in underserved communities.” These programs established working groups and steering committees all designed to “advance broadband deployment” by facilitating access to information, uniformity in permitting, the development of common forms and templates, and streamlining procedures for conducting consultations with Native American tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). In its final report submitted in 2013, the Working Group created by Executive Order 13616 noted that it was exploring means to “increase the appropriate consistency and standard use of categorical exclusions from NEPA review for broadband projects that would not normally result in significant environmental effects.” Implementing Executive Order 13616: Progress on Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment (Aug. 2013); see also Presidential Memoranda on “Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review” (Aug. 31, 2011); Presidential Memoranda on “Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures” (May 17, 2013). These initiatives were followed by a March 23, 2015 memorandum on “Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.” This memorandum established a policy “for executive departments and agencies having statutory authorities applicable to broadband deployment (agencies) to use all available and appropriate authorities to: identify and address regulatory barriers that may unduly impede either wired broadband deployment or the infrastructure to augment wireless broadband deployment; encourage further public and private investment in broadband networks and services; promote the adoption and meaningful use of broadband technology; and otherwise encourage or support broadband deployment, competition, and adoption in ways that promote the public interest.” The memorandum established a Broadband Opportunity Council, composed of representatives from several government agencies, to study ways to reduce regulatory burdens to broadband deployment. The Council’s August 20, 2015 report, “Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations,” identified four overarching recommendations: (1) Modernize Federal programs to expand program support for broadband investments; (2) Empower communities with tools and resources to attract broadband investment and promote meaningful use; (3) Promote increased broadband deployment and competition through expanded access to Federal assets; and (4) Improve data collection, analysis, and research on broadband. The commitment – and need – to improve wireless services did not end with the recent change in administrations. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation recently announced new procedures for review of “next-generation broadband projects on federal lands as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.” This permits federal agencies to review entire categories of “undertakings” David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 6 rather than conducting separate Section 106 consultations/reviews for each individual undertaking. 82 Fed. Reg. 23818 (May 24, 2017). The FCC also recently initiated proposed rulemakings intended to decrease regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment. 82 Fed. Reg. 21761 (May 10, 2017) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (“NPRM” and “NOI,” respectively) entitled “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment”). Chief among the proposals being considered in the NPRM are initiatives to reexamine how the FCC approaches its responsibilities under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. But 2 as explained in greater detail below, there is still more work to be done. III. ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING PERMITTING PROCESS AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS EO 13807 and SO 3355 present a significant opportunity to make a meaningful dent in the nation’s lagging broadband network. Located along major transportation routes and encompassing several significant utility corridors, BLM lands are ideally situated to host critical wireless infrastructure. For a variety of reasons enumerated below, however, the permitting of RWB CI on federal lands has become needlessly complicated, especially in California, and networks are suffering as a result. The following discussion identifies how DOI and BLM can, consistent with the President’s directive in EO 13807 and in implementing SO 3355, significantly improve the permitting process. A. Impediments to efficient and effective reviews ICT has at least 13 applications for communications tower ROW grants in California alone that have been pending for over four years. (See Attachment A.) These are not speculative applications maintained for ulterior motives, as evidenced by the fact that ICT has dropped some applications where appropriate and invested in robust analyses for those that remain. Many of these applications were supported by complete environmental documentation not long after they were filed. However, years of additive requirements and changing demands have inflated what should be simple documents into 300+ page treatises that are still pending approval. The process should not be and need not be so demanding. If we hope to meet the explosive demand for cellular services, immediate changes are needed. Excessive NEPA proceedings. Under NEPA, a federal agency undertaking comprising a “major Federal action” that might significantly affect “the quality of the human environment” must be evaluated via preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). As an initial matter, however, an agency can prepare a less detailed Environmental Assessment (“EA”) to assess the need for an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). Based on the conclusions in the EA, the reviewing agency may determine that in lieu of an EIS, it should issue a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”) accompanied by “a convincing statement of reasons’ to explain why a project’s impacts are insignificant.” Id. § 1501.4(e); Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000), 2 In addition to regulatory and policy changes, the current administration has further suggested that it will commit government resources to broadband deployment efforts. See White House Advisor Says Broadband Funding Is a Trump Goal, Inside Towers (quoting Kelsey Guyselman, a policy advisor for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy), https://insidetowers.com/cell-tower-news-whitehouse-advisor-says-broadband-funding-trumpgoal/?utm_source=Inside+Towers+List&utm_campaign=b3554b45a2EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_af16c4fc22-b3554b45a272592889&goal=0_af16c4fc22-b3554b45a2-72592889. David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 7 overruled on other grounds by Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2011); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1988)). To determine the significance of a proposed action’s impacts, an agency must consider the setting of the proposed action (context) and the severity of the impacts (intensity). 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a), (b). “Context simply delimits the scope of the agency’s action, including the interests affected.” Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The latter consideration, intensity, “relates to the degree to which the agency action affects the locale and interests identified in the context part of the inquiry.” Id. This aspect of the action is examined according to one or more of ten different factors. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(1)-(10). Given that BLM has approved transmission lines covering several miles and power generation projects on hundreds of acres using EAs, it should come as no surprise that the ROW applications for cellular transmission tower projects also easily qualify for review using an EA, and as explained in more detail below, might even be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis. Impacting less than two acres, with narrow profile structures ranging from 80-196 feet in height and sited near existing roads whenever feasible, the impacts of cellular communications towers are limited – and even more so when sited in or near utility corridors already developed with substantially more impactful transmission lines. The effects of these isolated, compact towers are not “highly uncertain” nor do they “involve unique or unknown risks.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4), (5). They are largely not controversial, because most are sited along highways and other developed areas where service is needed, away from areas with “‘[u]nique characteristics,’” such as “‘proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, [] wetlands, [] or ecologically critical areas,’” and are unlikely to “cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources,” or affect endangered species. Id. § 1508.27(b)(3), (8), (9). The limited and isolated nature of the projects further limits their potential to have cumulative impacts. Id. § 1508.27(b)(7). In the rare instances when a proposed tower threatens to cause significant environmental impacts, “[a]n agency’s decision to forego issuing an EIS may [still] be justified by the presence of mitigating measures.” Wetlands Action Network, 222 F.3d at 1121 (citing Friends of Payette v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co., 988 F.2d 989, 993 (9th Cir.1993); id. at 1122 (“In order to issue a FONSI, [an agency] only need[s] to find that the mitigation measures would render any environmental impact resulting from the permit activity insignificant.”); see also N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (observing that “NEPA does not require an agency to formulate and adopt a complete mitigation plan”; an agency must simply discuss all potential mitigation measures “in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated” (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989); City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d at 1142, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997))). Notwithstanding a significant body of case law that would support frequent reliance on uncomplicated EAs for cellular tower projects, the permitting process administered by BLM has only grown increasingly more burdensome and time consuming. Documents that should be “no more than approximately 10-15 pages” sometimes rival the size of an EIS and take just as long (years) to complete. 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (Mar. 23, 1981) (Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, Question 36a). Although environmental requirements have expanded significantly since the publication of CEQ’s regulations, agencies, including David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 8 BLM, as a consequence of EO 13807 and SO 3355 are obligated to reign in this process and reestablish a meaningful difference between the review required for projects suited to an EA and those that warrant an EIS. In particular, the deployment of RWB CI should not be mired in a protracted permitting proceeding that is not commensurate with the actual impacts of these projects. BLM arguably already has the tools it needs to address the problems presented by drawn out and over analyzed EAs, as it could rely on the provisions of NEPA and CEQ’s guidance to prepare simplified documents that are no more detailed than necessary to provide the functionality specified by CEQ. More specifically, EAs should be concise public documents that briefly discuss the environmental impacts of a proposed action and provide sufficient evidence for determining whether to prepare an EIS. Given the importance of RWB CI deployment, however, we urge DOI and BLM to go further and publish an instruction memorandum that provides criteria for identifying cellular tower projects that are suited for analysis in an EA, sets reasonable timelines for completing such reviews, and makes a real commitment to meeting established timelines. The forthcoming page limitation for EAs required by SO 3355 will also be helpful, however we urge DOI to require that any exceedances of this limit (if allowed at all) be approved in advance and on a strict timeline to avoid significant delays that will inevitably result if agencies are allowed to first draft overlong documents, then wait for approval of a page extension and further redraft the EA if the extension is denied. Uncertainty with how to implement unrelated land use plans. Another impediment to timely deployment of WCBI is the uncertainty that follows the adoption of sweeping land use plans designed to address specific issues related to discrete activities that have unintentional impacts on a larger population of individuals and entities that do business on public lands. In particular, the recent (October 2016) adoption of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (“DRECP”) in California spawned several new procedural and substantive obstacles, real and imagined, to the approval of proposed cellular towers on BLM lands. BLM finalized the DRECP in October, 2016. As advertised, the DRECP was supposed to amend the 1980 California Desert Conservation Area (“CDCA”) Plan to provide a new framework under which new applications for renewable energy projects would be considered and evaluated and make commensurate changes in natural resource conservation planning to ensure that development of renewable energy did not overtake the desert. However, the resultant plan, as interpreted now by the BLM, changed how lands in the CDCA are managed for resource conservation, regardless of other proposed uses. ICT recognized the threat posed to the wireless communications industry by the DRECP and submitted comments alerting BLM to its many inherent problems on February 23, 2015. (See Attachment B, Comments of PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association, including Comments of Interconnect Towers LLC, on the Draft EIS for the DRECP.) In particular, the Draft EIS (Table II.3-50, CDCA Plan and DRECP Preferred Alternative Crosswalk, at p. II.3-427) specified that new “Communication Sites” would not be allowed in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACECs”), National Landscape Conservation System (“NLCS”) land that is not wilderness, Special Recreation Management Areas (“SRMAs”) or Extensive Recreation Management Areas (“ERMAs”). These lands were largely designated as “Class L” under the CDCA land use plan, which permitted “lower intensity and carefully controlled multiple uses that do not significantly diminish resource values,” specifically allowing communications projects. (DRECP Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (“LUPA”) and Final EIS at III.14-9.) Some of the covered SRMAs and ERMAs, however, were designated Class M or I, which respectively allowed a “wide variety of uses, David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 9 such as mining, livestock grazing, recreation, and energy and utility development” and intensive, “concentrated human use.” (Id.) The CDCA Plan allowed for the development of new Communication Sites on Class L lands in designated areas and after study in an EA, and on Class M and I lands with NEPA review. (CDCA at p. 16.) In the Final EIS for the DRECP, BLM provided pithy assurances that changes to the Draft were made to ensure that “[t]here is no general prohibition on wireless broadband infrastructure in Conservation Areas.” (DRECP Final EIS at p. E21-17 (Response to Comment (“RTC”) E21-2.) But elsewhere, BLM inconsistently represented that “[t]he DRECP is a LUPA focused on renewable energy and conservation, and would not alter any of BLM’s existing management actions with regard to telecommunications” and a few lines later asserted that “[w]hile [the] impact analysis focuses on effects of renewable energy projects, the construction and operation of other permitted uses of BLM land are also covered by the LUPA.” (Compare id. at p. E21-18 (RTC E21-9), with id. (RTC E21-11); see also id. at p. E49-19 (RTC E49-3) (“The DRECP LUPA does not stop future rural wireless broadband infrastructure. The only types of authorizations which are not allowed in some areas of the Plan are renewable energy and ancillary facilities. Note that in existing protected lands, such as designated Wilderness, restrictions on new authorizations may already be in place despite the LUPA.”).) While it might be true that, as a result of deleting Table II.3-50 entirely, the DRECP did not expressly prohibit new communication sites throughout large swaths of the CDCA, if BLM continues to consider changes made to the land use classification system and newly designated conservation areas when evaluating applications, it will have effectively foreclosed development without having considered the impact this change will have on a human environment that is increasingly dependent upon wireless services. (See DRECP Final EIS at p. IV.22-11 (cursory, one paragraph discussion of the “Impacts of the Ecological and Cultural Conservation and Recreation Designations” on Public Health, Safety and Services, which fails to consider impacts on availability of communication, or more specifically broadband, sites); see also DRECP Glossary at p. 14 (excluding “transmission in existing approved corridors” from the list of activities not authorized in “rightof-way exclusion areas”).) This result cannot be allowed, as it is inconsistent with the analysis supporting the approval of the DRECP. Also contrary to BLM’s representations that the DRECP “would not alter any of BLM’s existing management actions with regard to telecommunications,” BLM has started requiring that the environmental analysis for pending applications include “Relevant Land Use Planning Amendment Conservation Management Actions.” In addition to designating low-conflict areas for renewable energy development, the DRECP also prescribes Conservation and Management Actions (“CMAs”), which BLM represents “were designed to achieve the goals and objectives for activities within the LUPA’s various land use allocations.” (DRECP Record of Decision (“ROD”) at p. 63.) CMAs “identify a specific set of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures, and allowable and non-allowable actions for siting, design, pre-construction, construction, maintenance, implementation, operation and decommissioning activities on BLM-managed lands. The intent of these is to provide certainty on what avoidance and minimization measures, design features, and compensation/mitigation measures would be required for a particular action within any one of the LUPA’s land use allocation types.” (Id.) Although these definitions were worded broadly enough to encompass any “activity” BLM might approve, in light of the responses to comments documented above and the overall context of the DRECP – to create Development Focus Areas (“DFAs”) for renewable energy projects – the term must be understood to apply only to the types of projects that the DRECP considered. (See also DRECP ROD at ES-5 (explaining that the DRECP “designates approximately 388,000 acres of Development Focus Areas (DFA). These are areas with substantial energy generation potential, access to existing or planned transmission, and low resource conflicts. CMAs have been developed to provide certainty in order to help David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 10 streamline and incentivize utility-scale renewable energy generation in these areas.”).) Indeed, most of the 370 CMAs could not possibly apply to cellular communications towers, and yet BLM forces applicants to go through the wasteful exercise of explaining why these provisions do not apply as part of the NEPA process, which contradicts a bedrock principle of the statute recognized in SO 3355 – such reviews should not be an exercise in generating paperwork. To avoid interpreting the DRECP in a way that jeopardizes the entire plan (given that the statute of limitations for challenging the decision will not expire for years to come), we recommend that BLM take the following steps: First, at a minimum, BLM should stop requiring developers to create an explanation for how the CMAs apply to communications projects. BLM represented that new management actions would not apply to communications facilities in the DRECP and it cannot now apply them, having failed to consider whether they are appropriate or warranted for such developments. To do so would clearly violate the informational purpose of the NEPA procedures BLM was required to follow before adopting the DRECP. See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692, 711 (10th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that NEPA has two aims: “First, it places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.” (quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted))). Second, BLM needs to clarify, consistent with its response to ICT’s February 23, 2015 comments on the DRECP and the decision to delete the restrictions in Table II.3-50, that, as was the case with the Class L, M, and I lands from which they arose, telecommunication sites may be permitted after review under NEPA in ACECs, NLCS lands that are not wilderness, SRMAs, and ERMAs. The DRECP did not purport to change this practice, and to ensure that these areas are evaluated consistently across different field offices as they were prior to the implementation of the DRECP, BLM should issue clarifying guidance. Finally, BLM needs to clarify that development caps established by the DRECP for renewable energy development impacts do not apply to small-scale telecommunication sites. As previously noted by ICT, many of the new ACECs established as part of the DRECP were not established in accordance with the more stringent public notice requirements applicable to their creation, nor were they supported by the rigorous analysis required by law. The development caps established for these ACECs were furthermore imposed without considering the full portfolio of uses that would be vying for remaining developable lands or how much area would actually be left for development in general (BLM has just recently begun this inventory). Because the DRECP only considered the impact of setting aside millions of acres for preservation from renewable energy development, without contemplating what would remain for other important infrastructure needs, the unprecedented mass designation and expansion of ACECs was not consistent with BLM’s core mission under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to put public lands to their highest and best use. At this point, the fact that BLM established sweeping “disturbance caps” of 0.5% or 1% for unspecified “BLM Special Status Species” without first calculating the precise acreage available is wreaking havoc on ROW applications, including RWB CI projects of only a few acres that will not noticeably move the dial on developed habitat and that offer overall environmental benefits by piggybacking on existing development David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 11 (in particular, existing roads). Applications are being held up while BLM evaluates and spends millions of dollars attempting to calculate the “existing disturbance” to see if the actual impact of a new project, which in most cases is disproportionately small, would exceed or trip the allowed disturbance caps. The current implementation of this section of the DRECP on the inventory of federal lands available for development is freezing development on approximately 10 million acres in the California desert. Consistent with NEPA’s purpose to facilitate informed decision making, this is something that should have been done – was legally required to have been done – before BLM adopted the DRECP in the first instance. Notwithstanding that fact, given the incomplete information BLM relied on when imposing the caps in the first instance, it should not be problematic to exclude low-impact RWB CI projects from these limitations using BLM’s authority under 43 C.F.R. § 1610.6–5 to revise resource management plans, like the DRECP, in response to minor changes in data. B. Additional/revised categorical exclusions for wireless infrastructure Another option for addressing needless constraints on RWB CI permitting in the DRECP and beyond would be to adopt a new categorical exclusion (“CATEX”) applicable to their development. As noted above, the Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group recognized in its 2013 progress report on implementing Executive Order 13616 that the use of CATEXs can meaningfully and appropriately reduce the amount of review time needed for broadband projects “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as historic properties, Tribal Nations’ sacred sites, endangered species, 3 or wetlands.” Pursuant to 516 DM 11.9, BLM already has a CATEX for “Approval of Notices of Intent to conduct geophysical exploration of oil, gas, or geothermal [resources], when no temporary or new road construction is proposed.” Given the comparable size (footprint) of cellular tower projects and preference to locate them next to existing roads, this CATEX could be a model for low-impact tower development. The statutory CATEXs created by section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for specific types of oil and gas exploration projects could also serve as a model for a cellular tower project CATEX. C. Fixing America's Surface Transportation (“FAST”) Act provisions that can apply to wireless infrastructure projects In addition to changing the policies and procedures followed by BLM when administering NEPA for RWB CI project applications, other tools could be utilized, consistent with the spirit of EO 13807 and SO 3355, to facilitate streamlined permitting practices. Chief among these, the project coordination and management tools that various agencies have experimented with to improve environmental reviews should be applied to RWB CI projects to increase agency accountability and permitting efficiency. These programs, like the one established by title XLI of Division D of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (Public Law No. 114-94), more commonly known as the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,” or the “FAST Act,” have been reserved for particularly significant and complex infrastructure projects (e.g., projects with a total investment of more than $200 million and that require the approval of several federal agencies). The isolated and suppositionally simple nature of RWB CI projects disqualifies them from such programs, but their importance to the public should overcome these considerations or alternatively put them in a class by themselves. Field offices should be sharing 3 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 at 11-12 (Aug. 2013), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/broadband_eo_implementation. pdf David Bernhardt October 6, 2017 Page 12 lessons learned to make permitting more efficient and BLM should be monitoring at a national level the progress being made on efforts to site more RWB CI on public lands. If regular coordination to ensure that the government is meeting the broadband development goals discussed in Part I of this letter is not feasible, BLM should, at a minimum, make information on filed, pending, and approved applications publicly available and track the agency’s progress on approvals, as was done with renewable energy projects in response to the goals set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. IV. CONCLUSION As observed by the FCC in its aforementioned NPRM, “[t]he deployment of next-generation wireless broadband has the potential to bring enormous benefits to the Nation’s communities. By one assessment, the next generation of wireless broadband is expected to directly involve $275 billion in new investment, and could help create 3 million new jobs and boost annual GDP by $500 billion. . . . [B]y 2019, mobile data traffic in the U.S. will have grown by nearly six times over the traffic level that existed in 2014.” No other infrastructure in the U.S. is experiencing remotely comparable growth and the stress that such growth places on already inadequate infrastructure can only be fixed by streamlining the BLM’s Rural Wireless Broadband Communication Infrastructure Permitting Procedures. ICT welcomes the opportunity to work with the BLM and the DOI to clarify and realign the agency’s goals and priorities for RWB CI development on federal lands to ensure public land is available to meet national data service needs and to meet the Trump Administration’s clear direction to streamline infrastructure permitting. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you and your staff more detailed technical suggestions for improvements that could be made to specific policies to achieve these objectives. Sincerely, Jill E.C. Yung for PAUL HASTINGS LLP Attachment A: ICT Pending Applications Attachment B: Comments of PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association, including Comments of Interconnect Towers LLC, on the Draft EIS for the DRECP cc: Michael Nedd, Acting Director, BLM Peter Weiner, Paul Hastings LLP Tom Gammon, President, ICT A B C D E F GEO STATE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 I J K L M Case File Juris Text Current Holder Name Billee Name Billee  Address Billing Reference  Identifier Yuma Yuma Lake Havasu Needles  Needles  Bishop  Needles Palm Springs /     S Coast  Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC PENDING Palm Springs /     S Coast  Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING PENDING Palm Springs /     S Coast  Palm Springs /     S Coast  Needles  Needles  Needles  Needles  Yuma  Palm Springs /     S Coast  Palm Springs /     S Coast  Palm Springs /     S Coast  Palm Springs /     S Coast  Needles Needles Needles Barstow Barstow Division of Lands Division of Lands Division of Lands Division of Lands Division of Lands Division of Lands Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers (ICT) LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers LLC Interconnect Towers Interconnect Towers Interconnect Towers Interconnect Towers Interconnect Towers Interconnect Towers 6/17/2013 3 4 H INTERCONNECT TOWERS LLC 1 2 G AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA NV NV NV NV NV NV LAND  PREFIX SERIAL # SUFFIX Geographic Name OFFICE A 036053 A 036054 AZCA 046542 CA 039370 Blind Hills CA 040188 Monumental Pass CA 043440 Bridgeport  CA 051797 Ash Hill CA 053297 Ford Dry Lake Cotton Wood  CA 053298 Springs CA 053299 Quartz CA 053301 Red Cloud CA 053335 Big River CA 053336 Solomons Knob CA 053337 Hwy 95 Mile 75 CA 053338 40‐95 CA 053757 CA 053787 CA 053788 CA 053789 CA 053790 CA 053815 I‐40 Toprock CA 053816 I‐5 Mountain Pass CA 053817 I‐15 Nipton Rd CA 053899 Barstow Mtn CA 053900 Barstow South N 091519 Hiko Springs N 091519 01   N 091523 Jean N 091523 01 N 091524 Roach Lake N 091524 01 Case  Disposition PENDING PENDING PENDING Authorized Authorized Authorized PENDING PENDING Exp Date 4/6/2030 7/17/2033 8/11/2035 Proj‐B516 Proj‐B516 Proj‐B516 Proj‐B516 LVRWB12B5160 LVRWB12B5160 LVRWB12B5160 Hwy 163 Primm 30+ RURAL WIRELESS BROADBAND COMM. SITES HAVE BEEN FILED AND  SERIALIZED SINCE 2012 IN SOUTHERN CA, SO NEVADA AND NW ARIZONA  Attachment February 23, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING docket@energy.ca.gov California Energy Commission Dockets Office, MS-4 Docket No. 09-RENEW EO-01 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 Re: DRECP NEPA/CEQA – Interconnect Towers LLC Comments for the Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Beale (DRECP Acting Director), Mr. Flint (CEC DRECP Program Manager) & Vicki Campbell (BLM DRECP Program Manager): PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association1 has been recently alerted by one of our members, Interconnect Towers, LLC (ICT), of the potential negative impacts of the DRECP Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report on consumers across the country from possible material limitations in wireless broadband deployment to serve remote and central geographies effectively. Any material limitations to thoughtful deployment would conflict with top priorities of both Congress and the White House. Our association has had little to no awareness of this document or the possible proposed negative impacts to the wireless broadband communication industry as we have known no more of the document content than its title as a “Renewable Energy Conservation Plan”. Renewable energy planning should not impede the critically necessary development of wireless broadband communication infrastructure. Congress and the White House have recently acted to streamline broadband deployment on federal lands. Sections 6409(b)-(c) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Spectrum Act”),2 enacted in early 2012, addressed access to federal lands for the deployment of wireless broadband facilities, including requirements that the General Services Administration (“GSA”) develop application forms, master contracts, and cost-based fees for such access. In June 2012, the Obama Administration published an executive order, “Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment” (“Executive Order”).3 The order established a Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group (“Working Group”), “to ensure a coordinated and consistent approach 1 PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association is the principal organization representing the companies that build, design, own and manage telecommunications facilities throughout the world. Its over 200 members include carriers, infrastructure providers, and professional services firms. 2 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 112 Pub. L. 96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 156, 206 (2012). 3 Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment, Exec. Order No. 13616, 77 Fed. Reg. 36903 (Jun. 14, 2012). 500 Montgomery St. ● Suite 500 ● Alexandria, VA 22314 ● T 800.759.0300 ● F 703.836.1608 ● www.pcia.com DRECP NEPA/CEQA – Interconnect Towers LLC Comments for the Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report February 23, 2015 Page 2 of 2 in implementing agency procedures, requirements, and policies related to access to Federal lands, buildings, and rights of way, federally assisted highways, and tribal lands to advance broadband deployment.”4 PCIA respectfully requests additional time to review this excessively large planning document along with further opportunity to provide constructive consideration to the land use planning decisions being sought as they relate to wireless communication infrastructure. Respectfully Submitted, D. Zachary Champ Director of Government Affairs PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association (703) 535-7407 zac.champ@pcia.com Encl: (15) Letter of InterConnect Towers LLC (February 9, 2015) 4 Id. InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 February 9, 2015  docket@energy.ca.gov  California Energy Commission Dockets Office, MS-4 Docket No. 09-RENEW EO-01 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 RE: DRECP NEPA/CEQA – Interconnect Towers LLC Comments for the Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Beale (DRECP Acting Director), Mr. Flint (CEC DRECP Program Manager) & Vicki  Campbell (BLM DRECP Program Manager):  Interconnect  Towers,  LLC  (ICT)  and  team  are  generally  supportive  of  the  DRECP  and  the  conservation measures taken by the cooperating agencies to preserve the public landscape of  our  desert  wilderness  for  future  generations  to  come.    We  would  also  like  to  commend  the  people involved in the production of this document for the work produced and the many hours  of commitment dedicated to this effort.    However, ICT does have serious concerns regarding the DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR and the proposed  impacts  to  the  future  development  of  necessary  wireless  broadband  communication  infrastructure (WBCI) on federal lands.      It has been noted in our review of the plan that there has not been consideration given to the  new development of WBCI for purposes of network densification and reliability.  To define WBCI  for  future  context  in  this  letter,  WBCI  is  inclusive  of  but  not  limited  to  wireless  broadband  communication multi‐tenant sites, fiber optic communication lines, microwave repeaters, access  roads and low voltage electrical distribution lines; all appurtenant accessories to a multi‐tenant  wireless broadband communication site.    In the past 4 years new federal and state legislation has been introduced to expand the nation’s  communication/data  networks.    This  coupled  with  significant  increases  in  consumer  and  commercial  wireless  broadband  usage  has  necessitated  the  expansion  of  WBCI  nationwide.   Much of the legislation is directed to expanding the nation’s WBCI to provide internet to rural  communities, support emergency services, aid in disaster relief and enhance public safety.      It is noted that the Draft DRECP is proposing to amend the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s  (BLM’s) California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA) along with other Resource Management  Plans (RMP’s), create new land designations, conservation areas and expand existing Areas of  Critical  Environmental  Concern  (ACECs).    While  ICT  understands  that  conservation  commensurate  with  new  lands  being  developed  for  renewable  energy  is  necessary,  ICT  was  27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 1    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 surprised to find new restrictions and designations that would ultimately prohibit or additionally  restrict the development of new wireless broadband communication sites.      The  development  of  new  wireless  broadband  communication  sites  is  key  to  the  reliability  of  existing wireless broadband communication networks.  Currently, there are many high‐traffic,  high‐use, frequently traveled portions of Southern California that are devoid of wireless coverage  or insufficiently served.  Coupled with the increase in consumer, commercial and government  wireless usage, new wireless broadband communication sites are needed to ensure the reliability  of existing wireless networks.  Currently, in Southern California, there are many locations that  are  already  feeling  the  impacts  of  over  capacitated  wireless  broadband  communication  sites.   Users  notice  these  over  capacitated  areas  mostly  when  a  call  drops  or  when  a  call  does  not  connect even though the communication device displays a ‘full‐signal’.  These ‘voice connection’  issues will become more prevalent as usage growth continues.  Restricted data speeds, or the  lack of data transmission altogether will continue to plague networks as bandwidth availability  becomes saturated.      Implications resulting in the implementation of the DRECP in the current draft state, with limited  consideration  given  to  the  future  communication  requirements  of  the  American  public,  legislature  and  first‐responder  agencies  would  be  neglectful.    In  rural  areas  and  traveled  highways with complex terrain constraints, federal lands are the last viable siting option for the  development  of  new  wireless  broadband  communication  sites.    Implementing  a  “new  development not allowed (Table II.3‐50 CDCA Plan and DRECP Preferred Alternative Crosswalk)”  allocation  or  implementing  additional  restrictions  to  federal  lands  for  wireless  broadband  communication sites will have long‐lasting negative impacts.      ICT specifically does not support any language, designation or allocation in the DRECP that would  negatively  impact  the  timeframe  and  federal  permitting  process  required  to  develop  new  wireless  broadband  communication  sites.      ICT  does  support  the  new  development  of  strategically located multi‐tenant wireless broadband communication sites on federal lands.  ICT  supports and implements best management practices in the new development of multi‐tenant  wireless broadband communication sites.    The future expansion of WBCI in a timely and responsible manner will have a positive impact on:      The reliability, abilities and functionality of first‐responder agencies;    Functionality  and  reliability  of  federal  enforcement  agencies,  ie.,  Bureau  of  Land  Management,  U.S  Border  Patrol,  Department  of  Homeland  Security,  Drug  Enforcement Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, etc.;    American consumers;   Educational Institutions;    State and Federal economy.    27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 2    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 The following information is supporting information that is necessary to consider in contribution  to our concerns and substantive comments stated within this document.    1. ICT Company Overview:    Interconnect Towers LLC (ICT) is a Wireless Carrier “Preferred Vendor” for the nation’s largest  Carriers and a Facility Manager of multi‐use, multi‐tenant wireless broadband communication  sites on federal lands across the southwestern United States since 1998.  Specifically, ICT provides  wireless  broadband  communication  infrastructure  facilities  to  wireless  telecommunication  providers, federal/state/county agencies and rural broadband providers.        The locations of ICT’s facilities, both existing and proposed are selected by:      Wireless communication constraints necessitating network densification;    Wireless carrier demands;    Private consumer demands;   First‐Responder and Federal/State enforcement agency demands.      Demands from either of these aforementioned parties are generated when:      Wireless  broadband  coverage  has  become  unreliable  based  on  heavy  use,  thus  requiring network densification;     Populated  locations  (rural  communities,  seasonal  communities,  large  event  gatherings)  or  heavy  vehicle  use  areas  (highways,  freeways,  roads,  etc.)  have  no  coverage.    ICT  works  collaboratively  with  their  clients  and  the  federal  land  management  agencies  to  minimize tower site locations and their associated impacts to federal lands while maximizing the  benefits  of  a  strategically  located  multi‐use  facilities,  fully  engineered  to  service  the  needs  of  multiple tenants utilizing present and future technologies.        27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 3    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 2. Wireless Broadband Trends 2014 ‐ 2019:    The  Consumer  Wireless  Communication  Industry  is  witnessing  unprecedented  growth.    This  growth  is  being  driven  by  the  adoption  of  internet  connected  mobile  devices  such  as,  smartphones,  tablets,  wearable  electronic  devices,  laptop  computers  and  soon  to  be  automobiles.  The growth in the use of devices has significantly raised the demand for wireless  broadband communication services.      While this growth is somewhat consumer driven, a significant portion of the demand comes from  enhanced fleet management systems, public safety communication networks, first responders  and  federal  enforcement  agencies.      As  it  applies  to  Emergency  Services  and  wireless  communications, the FCC states the following:   “The number of 911 calls placed by people using  wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent  of  911  calls  are  placed  from  wireless  phones,  and  that  percentage  is  growing.  For  many  Americans, the ability to call 911 for help in an emergency is one of the main reasons they own a  wireless phone.” –  http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.pdf  According to a recent February 3, 2015 report released by Cisco Systems Inc., the future years  between 2014 and 2019 will see unprecedented growth in mobile data use, both in the United  States and on a worldwide scale.          Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO) is $149 Billion market cap company headquartered in San Jose, California  and  is  a  worldwide  leader  in  IT.    More  information  about  Cisco  is  located  at:  http://www.cisco.com/web/about/index.html    The following data has been extracted from the February 3, 2015, “Cisco Visual Networking Index:  Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2014 ‐2019”.  This PDF report can be downloaded  for  viewing  at:  http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service‐provider/visual‐ networking‐index‐vni/white_paper_c11‐520862.pdf       As reported by CTIA, mobile data traffic grew 120% in 2013.   North American mobile traffic grew 63% in 2014.   Global mobile data traffic grew 69 percent in 2014.    Last year’s mobile data traffic was nearly 30 times the size of the entire global Internet  in 2000.    Almost half a billion (497 million) mobile devices and connections were added in 2014   The number of mobile‐connected devices exceeded the world’s population in 2014.   Global mobile data traffic will increase nearly tenfold between 2014 and 2019   Mobile network connection speeds will increase more than twofold by 2019     As can be noted from the data shown above, the reliability of the nation’s wireless broadband  networks depends on expanding the WBCI.        27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 4    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 3. Wireless Broadband in the State of California:    The State of California has recognized the need for broadband propagation within the State along  with  the  benefits,  both  socially  and  economically  for  rural  areas.      The  State  of  California  Broadband and Digital Literacy Office (http://www.cio.ca.gov/broadband/)  acknowledges this fact  in the following Vision Statement:   “While  our  state  is  a  leader  in  developing  broadband  infrastructure,  thousands  of  Californians remain off‐line. Broadband is vital to our economic future. The Broadband  and Digital Literacy Offices.”  For  many  rural  areas  in  California,  fixed  wireline  broadband  is  not  available.    It  should  be  recognized  that  some  of  the  largest  statistics  for  communities  without  access  or  with  underserved  access  to  wireline  broadband  are  within  the  seven  (Imperial,  Inyo,  Kern,  Los  Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino & San Diego) counties participating in and affected by the  DRECP.    Table – California Public Utilities Commission, June 16, 2014  State of California Fixed Broadband Availability (Revised June 16, 2014)  California County  Underserved Households  Unserved Households  Imperial  5,115  1,595  Inyo  470  2,093  Kern  15,120  10,663  Los Angeles  3,928  4,334  Riverside  15,939  8,352  San Bernardino  17,491  15,406  San Diego  6,967  8,522    For rural communities that are underserved or without access to wireline broadband, wireless  broadband is the next viable option.  However, as is demonstrated by the attached maps, much  of the wireless broadband in these areas also falls into underserved or unserved category, thus  requiring further build‐out of wireless broadband infrastructure.  For a visual representation of  Wireless Broadband Availability within the seven counties affected by the DRECP, please refer to  the two maps attached hereto, published by the California Public Utility Commission, published  November 18, 2014:     (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Telco/Information+for+providing+service/Broadband+Availability+Maps. htm)    Map A: State of California – Fixed Wireless Broadband Availability  Map B: State of California – Mobile Broadband Availability   27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 5    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 4. Federal Broadband Communication Infrastructure Legislation:    The  following  are  Federal  initiatives,  executive  orders  and  legislation  which  necessitates  the  development  of  new  wireless  communication  infrastructure  and  the  densification  of  existing  infrastructure.  It appears that the planning of the DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR did not plan for, identify  or recognize the implementation of the following:     (Federal) February 10, 2011, National Wireless Initiative  o Launched by President Obama to extend next‐generation wireless coverage to  98 percent of the U.S. population and calling on Congress to support a wireless  spectrum auction.     (Federal) June 14, 2012, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 13616, “Accelerating Broadband  Infrastructure Deployment”  o Facilitate wired and wireless broadband infrastructure deployment on Federal  lands,  buildings,  and  ROW,  federally  assisted  highways,  and  tribal  and  individual Indian trust lands, particularly in underserved communities.    o Noted by the Federal Property Working Group Progress Report dated August  2013, stated the following:      “Broadband infrastructure deployment faces a number of challenges,  including  policy  challenges  (e.g.,  inconsistent  agency  requirements),  procedural  challenges  (e.g.,  differing  forms/applications  and  processes),  physical  challenges  (e.g.,  access  to  Federal  lands  and  buildings), legal and regulatory restrictions (e.g., laws requiring specific  actions  by  agencies,  considerations  related  to  Tribal  Nations,  and  environmental compliance), and technological challenges (e.g., varying  agency use of online tools).”    “As  a  result  of  agencies’  and  bureaus’  different  missions,  applicants  must  often  contend  with  varying  documentation  requirements  and  review  criteria  across  Federal  departments  and/or  agencies,  or  between a single agency’s regional offices and its headquarters.”     (Federal) February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act created  the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)  o FirstNet  is  an  independent  authority  within  the  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce’s  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration.   The law gives FirstNet the mission to build, operate and maintain the first high‐ speed,  nationwide  wireless  broadband  network  dedicated  to  public  safety.  FirstNet will provide a single interoperable platform for emergency and daily  public safety communications.    27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 6    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 5. ICT Comments on the DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR    1) NEPA 40 CFR Part 1501.7 – Scoping (a)(1)  ‐ “….and other interested parties…”    a. Notices in the Federal Register relating to the Notice of Intent and the Notice of  Availability  all  refer  to  the  “Desert  Renewable  Energy  Conservation  Plan”.    The  title, label, heading and basic description of the plan is misleading to the public  and  to  industry.    The  wireless  communication  industry  has  only  recently,  in  February of 2015 been alerted to the potential negative impact of the Draft DRECP  on  the  new  development  of  wireless  broadband  communication  facilities  (inclusive  of  but  not limited  to  wireless  broadband  communication  multi‐tenant  sites, fiber optic communication lines, microwave repeaters, access roads and low  voltage electrical distribution lines; all appurtenant accessories to a multi‐tenant  wireless  broadband  communication  site).    Notice  of  the  Draft  DRECP  and  it’s  potential negative impact on the industry was received via communication with  BLM Field Offices staff relating to recently filed applications for new development.    b. It  should  be  noted  that  the  very  title  of  this  plan,  “Desert  Renewable  Energy  Conservation  Plan”  along  with  the  description  of  the  DRECP  in  the  Federal  Register  Notice,  09/26/2014,  under  Supplementary  Information  which  states,  “…an  integrated  interagency  plan  for  permitting  renewable  energy  and  transmission development…”,  does not support the realistic intent of the Draft  DRECP  to  disallow,  restrict  or  alter  the  conditions  under  which  the  ‘new  development’ of wireless broadband communication sites (inclusive of but not  limited  to  wireless  broadband  communication  multi‐tenant  sites,  fiber  optic  communication  lines,  microwave  repeaters,  access  roads  and  low  voltage  electrical distribution lines; all appurtenant accessories to a multi‐tenant wireless  broadband  communication  site)  by  vehicle  of  amendments  to  the  BLM’s  California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA), multiple other cited Resource  Management  Plans  (RMP’s),  new  land  designations,  conservation  areas  or  the  expansion of  existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) may be  developed  in  the  future.    Expansion  of  ACEC’s  must  comply  with  public  notification requirements as required in BLM Manual Section 1613.3 and 1613.4.    c. Of  the  Stakeholder  Committee  created  to  inform  the  DRECP  Director  and  the  REAT  on  Plan  development,  there  is  no  representation  from  the  Wireless  Communication Industry or any company or carrier associated with industry.    d. Of  the  Stakeholder  Committee  created  to  inform  the  DRECP  Director  and  the  REAT  on  Plan  development  there  is  no  representation  from  Federal  or  State  Agencies with an interest in wireless broadband communication infrastructure.      27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 7    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998   e. It  is  unclear  if  the  Scoping  of  the  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR  made  an  effort  to  include  stakeholders/industries  outside  of  the  Renewable  Energy  /  Electrical  Utility industries for comments relating to infrastructure other than generation  and transmission of electrical energy.    2) NEPA 40 CFR 1502.13 – Purpose and Need    a. The  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR  does  not  appear  to  reference  any  of  the  Federal  Communication Infrastructure Initiatives/Legislation mentioned in Section 4 of  this  comment  letter.    Neither  does  the  plan  show  any  data,  maps,  tables  or  figures referencing and or addressing the need through planning procedures to  provide  language  supporting  the  new  construction  or  densification  of  wireless  broadband infrastructure on federal lands in Southern California.  The absence of  such data reflects that the BLM does not have a clear understanding of the ‘Need’  to consider such data to balance and sustain multiple‐use in amendments to the  BLM’s  California  Desert  Conservation  Area  Plan  (CDCA),  multiple  other  cited  Resource Management Plans (RMP’s), new land designations, conservation areas  or the expansion of  existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)    b. Under the aforementioned context of Item 5.2.b, BLM is not in compliance with  the  BLM  Mission  Statement  or  the  cited  statement  in  the  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR, I.1.2 Bureau of Land Management Purpose and Need, “Comply with all  applicable federal laws, including the BLM’s obligation to manage the public lands  consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple‐ use…..”    3) Missing Information    a. Under the circumstance of the current Comment Period for the DRECP & Draft  EIS/EIR closing on February 23, 2015 and based on 1) ambiguity of the Plan’s title,   label, heading and basic description as described in the Federal Register notices  and  executive  summary  of  the  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR;  2)  lack  of  public  awareness/understanding of the ‘Planned’ impacts to new wireless broadband  communication  sites  under  the  agency  preferred  alternative;  3)  insufficient  notification and awareness by the wireless communication industry and industry  associations;  it can be stated that there is insufficient and missing information  in  the  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR  in  the  form  of  comments  (Public,  Industry  Government  Agency)  and  industry  data  relevant  to  BLM  Land  Use  Planning  decisions that would impact the sustained operation, reliability and growth of  the wireless broadband communication infrastructure on federal lands.      27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 8    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998     b. The DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR does not appear does not appear to identify, evaluate  or  include  any  of  the  Federal  Broadband  Communication  Infrastructure  Legislation mentioned in Section 4 of this comment letter.  Neither does the Plan  appear to depict GIS data, maps, exhibits or figures referencing and or addressing  the  initiative  through  land  use  planning  procedures  to  comply  with  said  legislation referenced in said Section 4.    c. The DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR does not appear to identify, evaluate or analyze the  supporting  data  relevant  and  required  by  a  NEPA  analysis  to  support  a  recommendation or decision to disallow, restrict or alter the conditions under  which  the  ‘new  development’  of  wireless  broadband  communication  sites  (inclusive of but not limited to wireless broadband communication multi‐tenant  sites, fiber optic communication lines, microwave repeaters, access roads and low  voltage electrical distribution lines; all appurtenant accessories to a multi‐tenant  wireless broadband communication site) by vehicle of amendments to the BLM’s  California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA), multiple other cited Resource  Management  Plans  (RMP’s),  new  land  designations,  conservation  areas  or  the  expansion  of    existing  Areas  of  Critical  Environmental  Concern  (ACECs).  The  supporting data being inclusive of the following, but not limited to:    i. Existing wireless broadband communication sites.  ii. Carrier Coverage Maps indicating the need for the new development of a wireless  broadband communication site.  iii. Coverage  and  reliability  data  indicating  the  need  for  network  densification  through new development of a wireless broadband communication site.  iv. Data relevant to the growing demand for wireless broadband services and the  single‐option of locating new wireless broadband communication sites on federal  land due to the unavailability of private lands.  v. Data  relevant  to  the  industry  growth  trends  as  outlined  in  Section  2  that  will  impact  the  reliability  and  functionality  of  existing  wireless  broadband  communication  sites,  thus  necessitating  the  development  of  new  wireless  broadband communication sites.  vi. Data identifying high‐car count areas, recreational use areas (such as OHV) and  other critical areas that may have insufficient coverage or no coverage to support  consumer  communications,  fleet  management,  emergency  response  communications and law enforcement communications.  vii. Data identifying the need for distribution transmission to support the redundant  electrical requirements of new wireless broadband communication sites.  viii. Data  identifying  both  types  of  tower  structures  and  tower  heights  that  would  optimize and promote the use of multiple tenant communication facilities.  ix. Socioeconomic data relating to wireless broadband availability and accessibility.      27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 9    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998   d. The DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR does not appear to identify, evaluate or analyze the  1) socioeconomic impacts to the general public or 2) potential public health and  safety  impacts  to  the  general  public,  first‐responders  and  federal/state  enforcement agencies as is relevant and required by a NEPA analysis to support  a recommendation or decision to disallow, restrict or alter the conditions under  which  the  ‘new  development’  of  wireless  broadband  communication  sites  (inclusive of but not limited to wireless broadband communication multi‐tenant  sites, fiber optic communication lines, microwave repeaters, access roads and low  voltage electrical distribution lines; all appurtenant accessories to a multi‐tenant  wireless broadband communication site) by vehicle of amendments to the BLM’s  California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA), multiple other cited Resource  Management  Plans  (RMP’s),  new  land  designations,  conservation  areas  or  the  expansion of  existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).    e. ICT could not find in the DRECP Draft EIS/EIR where a clearly defined discussion  of the expansion areas of existing ACEC’s are consistent with the relevance and  importance criteria for which the original ACEC was designated. (BLM Manual  Section 1613.1)      4) Issues Requiring Clarification or Modification (Applies to Preferred Alternative but also  to any Alternatives brought forward.    a. Appendix E of DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR    i. “….consistent with small project thresholds (i.e., <2 acres)”    1. Less than 2 Acres is not be large enough to facilitate the redundant  electrical  requirements  required  by  new  multi‐tenant  wireless  broadband communication sites.  Grid power supplemented with  fossil fuel generation or solar PV generation may require a larger  surface area.  Suggest ‘Less than 3 Acres’ and clearly state that this  acreage limitation is not inclusive of acreage for site accessories (ie.  Access roads, distribution lines, etc.).    2. Less  than  2  Acres  is  not  be  large  enough  to  facilitate  the  construction of multi‐tenant wireless broadband communication  facilities.    Larger  buildings,  increased  space  for  electrical  generation, tower location and grounding setbacks require a larger  surface area.  Suggest ‘Less than 3 Acres’ and clearly state that this  acreage limitation is not inclusive of acreage for site accessories (ie.  Access roads, distribution lines, etc.).    27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 10    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998 b. Table II.3‐50 CDCA Plan and DRECP Preferred Alternative Crosswalk    i. Land Use, Communication Sites, DRECP Allocations, “New Development is  not  allowed.    Maintenance,  retrofitting  for  newer  technology,  and  operation of existing or previously approved facilities is allowed.”     1. As  noted  in  5.3  Missing  Data  and  Section  4  both  within  this  comment  letter,  the  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR  does  not  appear  to  contain  sufficient  data  to  support  a  decision/guideline  of  “New  Development is not allowed”.  Suggest revising language to state,  “New Development may be allowed.”    c. Throughout the DRECP & Draft EIS/EIR document    i. References throughout the document refer to “lattice steel towers” and  “steel monopoles”.  Clarification is suggested that these references refer  only to transmission structures (towers) and not to multi‐tenant wireless  broadband  communication  towers.    Multi‐tenant  wireless  broadband  communication facilities require lattice tower designs with a height of less  than  200  feet  to  accommodate  multiple  tenants.    This  feature  ideally  eliminates  the  need  for  several  ‘single‐carrier’  steel  monopole  towers  interspersed on federal lands and encourages co‐location to multi‐tenant  facilities.    ii. References throughout the document refer to new ‘electrical power pole  structures’, ‘electrical distribution lines’ or limit the permitting of new low  voltage  electrical  distribution  lines.    To  meet  the  redundant  power  requirements  for  multi‐tenant  wireless  broadband  communication  facilities,  new  low  voltage  electrical  distribution  lines  are  sometimes  required.    Clarification  is  suggested  to  allow  new  low  voltage  electrical  distribution structures or the extension of existing low voltage electrical  distribution lines when they are associated with the new development of  multi‐tenant wireless broadband communication sites.     iii. References  throughout  the  document  reference  new  ‘roads’.    In  some  cases, helicopter access is possible but not entirely feasible for the amount  of transportation activities, reliability response and security requirements  associated  with  multi‐tenant  wireless  broadband  communication  sites.   New,  low  impact  roads  are  most  of  the  time  required.    Clarification  is  suggested  to  allow  ‘new’  roads  or  the  extension  of  existing  roads  when  they  are  associated  with  the  new  development  multi‐tenant  wireless  broadband communication facilities.   ‐ End of Comments ‐  27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 11    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998   ICT  is  appreciative  of  this  opportunity  to  comment  publicly  on  the  DRECP  &  Draft  EIS/EIR  document.    The  work  and  effort  of  so  many  that  went  into  this  document  is  noted  and  appreciated.    It  is  the  hope  of  ICT  and  our  industry  partners  that  the  governmental  agencies  responsible for the generation of this document consider our comments and concerns.      Conservation  is  a  necessary  aspect  of  land  use  planning  for  the  continued  enjoyment  of  our  planet for generations to come.  ICT supports the preservation of our wilderness and pristine  natural  landscapes  in  balance  with  human  safety.    Our  communication  infrastructure  today  sustains the electronic devices we use to communicate over all aspects of life.  Our needs for  conservation  must  be  balanced  with  our  needs  for  communication  as  communication  is  the  fundamental fabric of a healthy society.      Respectfully Submitted,      Thomas Gammon, Principal  Interconnect Towers, LLC       27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 12    InterConnect Towers LLC InterConnecting Wireless Coverage on Federal Land Since 1998             ATTACHMENTS      27762 Antonio Parkway, L1-471 Ladera Ranch, California 92694 13    STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fixed Wireless Broadband Availability Round 10: Broadband Service, Households and Land Area OREGON DEL NORTE SISKIYOU MODOC Served Broadband service at least 6 Mbps down and 1.5 Mbps up CALIFORNIA SHASTA TRINITY Lakes Highways Areas without Households Total HUMBOLDT Counties Served Areas Underserved Areas Unserved Areas with Households LASSEN Underserved Broadband service slower than 6 Mbps down or 1.5 Mbps up Unserved Either no service available, or internet access is slower than 768 Kbps down or 200 Kbps up Unpopulated Area Households 2014 12,731,223 8,582,768 67.4% 393,729 3.1% 3,754,726 29.5% -- -- Land Area (Square Miles) 155,779 38,642 24.8% 12,549 8.1% 35,735 22.9% 68,854 44.2% TEHAMA PLUMAS BUTTE GLENN SIERRA MENDOCINO YUBA COLUSA LAKE NEVADA PLACER SUTTER EL DORADO YOLO SONOMA NAPA NEVADA ALPINE SACRAMENTOAMADOR SOLANO CALAVERAS MARIN TUOLUMNE CONTRA COSTA SAN JOAQUIN MONO SAN FRANCISCO ALAMEDA SAN MATEO STANISLAUS SANTA CLARA MARIPOSA MADERA MERCED SANTA CRUZ FRESNO SAN BENITO INYO TULARE MONTEREY KINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN Pacific Ocean SAN BERNARDINO SANTA BARBARA VENTURA . 0 0 70 100 LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE ORANGE 140 Miles SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL 200 Km Data Source: Service availability data submitted by broadband providers as part of the ARRA-funded State Broadband Initiative. Data as of June 30, 2014. Map prepared by the CPUC, Communications Division, Video Franchising and Broadband Deployment Group, November 18 2014 . MEXICO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mobile Broadband Availability Round 10: Broadband Service, Households and Land Area OREGON DEL NORTE SISKIYOU Counties Served Areas Underserved Areas Unserved Areas with Households MODOC Lakes Highways Areas without Households Total Served Broadband service at least 6 Mbps down and 1.5 Mbps up CALIFORNIA HUMBOLDT SHASTA TRINITY LASSEN Underserved Broadband service slower than 6 Mbps down or 1.5 Mbps up Unserved Either no service available, or internet access is slower than 768 Kbps down or 200 Kbps up Unpopulated Area Households 2014 12,731,223 12,200,830 95.8% 505,284 4.0% 25,109 0.2% -- -- Land Area (Square Miles) 155,779 64,524 41.4% 56,458 36.2% 10,708 6.9% 24,090 15.5% TEHAMA PLUMAS BUTTE GLENN SIERRA MENDOCINO YUBA COLUSA LAKE NEVADA PLACER SUTTER EL DORADO YOLO SONOMA NAPA NEVADA ALPINE SACRAMENTOAMADOR SOLANO CALAVERAS MARIN TUOLUMNE CONTRA COSTA SAN JOAQUIN MONO SAN FRANCISCO ALAMEDA SAN MATEO STANISLAUS SANTA CLARA MARIPOSA MADERA MERCED SANTA CRUZ FRESNO SAN BENITO INYO TULARE MONTEREY KINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN Pacific Ocean SAN BERNARDINO SANTA BARBARA VENTURA . 0 0 70 100 LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE ORANGE 140 Miles SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL 200 Km Data Source: Service availability data submitted by broadband providers as part of the ARRA-funded State Broadband Initiative. Data as of June 30, 2014. Map prepared by the CPUC, Communications Division, Video Franchising and Broadband Deployment Group, November 18 2014 . MEXICO