Ask anyone running a BEAD program what keeps them up at night and the answer will likely include familiar themes: construction timelines, supply chain, workforce, matching funds. But just under the surface, for many State Broadband Offices (SBOs), there is another quiet anxiety: Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP).
Under BEAD, EHP is not something the federal government does “to” the states. Eligible Entities and subgrantees do much of the on-the-ground intake, screening, and documentation, while NTIA remains the federal decision-maker responsible for NEPA determinations and federal consultation obligations (including Section 106 and government-to-government Tribal consultation). Ultimately, NTIA signs the environmental decisions, but states design the intake process, collect and validate project information, coordinate with subgrantees and other agencies, and feed the documentation that makes those federal decisions possible.
At the same time, the SBO’s role is not to replace the subgrantee’s responsibility for securing project-level permits and approvals, but to oversee, coordinate, and remove roadblocks so those requirements don’t quietly become the long pole in the tent. In practice, subgrantees obtain the non-federal permits (e.g., USACE authorizations, state wetlands approvals, and local rights-of-way), while federal consultation requirements—such as ESA Section 7—remain NTIA’s responsibility. Recipients (and, where applicable, their designees supporting environmental compliance) can support informal consultation steps as NTIA’s non-federal representatives, but NTIA retains responsibility for any required formal consultation.
Across work with states and subgrantees, a consistent pattern has emerged. It is not the obscure legal nuances that decide whether BEAD EHP goes well. The difference is made by a small set of practical decisions that SBOs make (or do not make) early on.
Here are several elements that can matter most in constructing a successful BEAD post-award EHP program:
Most EHP headaches do not start with NEPA. They start with vague project descriptions.
If an SBO is working from descriptions like “fiber to serve X county” or “middle-mile expansion along Highway Y,” the program is already behind. Environmental review and permitting are inherently location-specific, and ESAPTT is only as strong as the project information fed into it. Because the ESAPTT Project Description Summary is limited to 1,000 characters and may be bulk-uploaded from the Final Proposal, it may need manual editing to be decision-ready for NTIA’s NEPA memo. Without a clear, mapped scope, subgrantees are left guessing about risks, sequencing, and permit needs—and the state is left scrambling to fill gaps later. That’s why SBOs should require subgrantees to submit both a concise project description summary and a complete map-and-narrative package (summary plus detailed descriptions and maps) suitable for NTIA review, with the ESAPTT summary text serving as the basis for NTIA’s NEPA decision memo.
States that are having smoother EHP experiences are those that insist on detailed project information up front: route centerlines in GIS, identification of aerial versus new strand versus trench, locations where poles are being replaced, areas where vegetation will be cleared, and where staging yards and access routes are planned. Maps should also distinguish existing versus new infrastructure and show the full extent of ground disturbance—not just the locations served.
This level of specificity is the appropriate standard from the outset of a BEAD project. When that standard is in place from the beginning, environmental screening stops being a guessing game. NEPA decisions are made on actual, mapped work rather than on general intent. And when the question arises, “What is holding this segment up?” the answer is rarely “The team is still trying to figure out where the project actually is”—whether at the state level or within the subgrantee team.
Many BEAD projects may qualify for a Categorical Exclusion, depending on extraordinary circumstances and resource sensitivities. That is the good news.
The challenge? A single stretch of sensitive land—a wetland crossing, a known archaeological area, tribal trust land, a historic district, critical habitat—can change the whole risk profile of a route and the permitting that the subgrantee will have to manage.
On the historic-preservation side, NTIA’s Program Comment for Federal Communications Projects can streamline Section 106 for many broadband deployments: in qualifying situations, the required documentation can be compiled into a single submittal to the SHPO (and other consulting parties, as applicable) to confirm the APE, document a records check, and record any avoidance conditions—rather than relying on a prolonged back-and-forth process. The Program Comment is not assumed to apply to certain “excepted” resources (including Tribal lands without documented agreement), so projects in those areas may require a different consultation approach.
SBOs that are doing this well treat “extraordinary circumstances” as conditions to identify early. Rather than waiting for NTIA or another agency to flag a problem, they make early resource screening part of their standard intake and part of the subgrantee design process:
When those questions are baked into the front end of the program—and into the subgrantee packet—the conversation shifts. The focus is no longer, “Will this project be hit with an EA?” but, together with the subgrantee, “What is the smart way to route or document this segment so the program stays on the quickest defensible path and keeps permitting manageable?”
When schedules slip, attention often turns first to construction: crews, materials, weather. For many BEAD projects, however, EHP permitting is the true long pole in the tent.
A USACE 404 authorization, a state wetlands permit, a coastal zone consistency review, a local right-of-way approval—each has its own clock, with its own prerequisites and bottlenecks. ESA Section 7 is different: it is a federal consultation led by NTIA, typically supported by project documentation and field inputs from the recipient/subgrantee team. Non-federal permits are almost always the responsibility of the subgrantee to obtain, but if the state is not paying attention, they can quietly stall projects for months.
SBOs that keep their programs moving treat permits as schedule-critical activities that require oversight, not paperwork that happens in the background:
The payoff is straightforward: the program no longer faces surprise conversations such as “That permit can take months” arising two weeks before planned construction. Instead, potential issues surface early, and the state can help the subgrantee navigate alternatives or elevate the issue.
One of the most common structural mistakes in permitting for infrastructure grants is the “one giant NEPA project” mindset. An SBO treats an entire county or multi-county build as a single environmental project area. On paper, that approach feels tidy. In practice, it guarantees that the simplest work will be delayed by the most complex.
Consider a subgrant that includes:
If all of that is bundled into one NEPA package, the easy pieces are stuck waiting for the hardest piece to clear—and the ISP’s entire permitting and construction plan becomes jammed up behind that single segment.
In contrast, more strategic SBOs and subgrantees deliberately segment NEPA project areas in a collaborative fashion so that low-risk segments can move forward quickly while higher-risk ones go through more detailed review and more intensive permitting. subgrantees then build construction and permitting schedules around that segmentation, rather than treating the whole award as “all or nothing.” Segmentation should reflect how the build will actually be implemented and still support effects analysis at an appropriate scale.
This is not just a technical choice; it is a program-level philosophy. It signals that the SBO is willing to invest additional thought and structure up front to avoid the “everything waits for the worst case” outcome—and to give ISPs a realistic pathway to start building while the hardest segments work their way through NEPA and permits.
Under BEAD, subgrantees are not only building networks; they are stewards of public funds operating within a dense web of federal and state requirements. Most are intent on complying. What slows progress is unclear expectations—especially about who is responsible for which permits, and what the state expects to see and track.
When ISPs are uncertain about what environmental data is required, what level of mapping is sufficient, which permits must be obtained, how those permits relate to NEPA, or when everything must be in place; the default is guesswork. Guesswork leads to resubmittals, delays, and frustration on both sides.
The best-run programs address this through a clear, repeatable EHP packet for subgrantees. Rather than a dense legal tome, the packet lays out a concise set of expectations in practical terms:
This level of clarity does more than protect the state. It helps turn subgrantees into effective partners, enabling appropriate staffing, realistic sequencing of design and permitting, and a shared understanding of the goalposts. It also gives subgrantees confidence that the SBO will be engaged in addressing interagency roadblocks, rather than leaving individual projects to resolve issues alone.
Most SBO teams are already juggling program design, application rounds, post-award monitoring, stakeholder expectations, and a long list of federal reporting obligations. Standing up a robust EHP program on top of that—one that keeps NEPA, ISP permitting, and construction aligned—is a significant undertaking for any in-house team.
This is where outside support can accelerate progress.
CQI is a partnership between CostQuest Associates, Quadra Partners, and ITG Communications. Together, this team supports state broadband offices by:
For SBOs that are interested in strengthening this part of their BEAD implementation, CQI can facilitate an EHP readiness discussion, review current practices, and outline practical steps toward a more resilient post-award EHP program.
EHP—and the associated permitting activity managed by subgrantees—does not have to be the reason projects slow down. With the right structure in place, these activities can instead become some of the strongest indicators that a BEAD program is set up to deliver: on time, on budget, and with fewer surprises.