Final Directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for Forest Service Special Use Permits, 53823-53845 [E8-21618]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53823-53845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC50


Final Directives for Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding 
Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for Forest Service 
Special Use Permits

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of final directives; response to public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is revising directives governing special 
use permits for outfitting and guiding conducted on National Forest 
System lands by simplifying the application and administrative process; 
establishing a flat land use fee for temporary use permits; developing 
a process for allocation of use on a first-come, first-served or 
lottery basis for temporary use permits to facilitate greater 
participation in outfitting and guiding by youth, educational, and 
religious groups; offering the same terms and conditions to educational 
and institutional permit holders as offered to other types of permit 
holders when they operate as a business; and clarifying policy for 
priority use permits governing performance, inspections, and allocation 
of use. In addition, the Forest Service is revising the directives 
governing insurance requirements for Forest Service special use 
permits. Public comment was considered in the development of the final 
directives, and a response to comments is included in this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: These directives are effective October 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The record for these final directives is available for 
inspection at the office of the Director, Recreation, Heritage, and 
Volunteer Resources Staff, USDA, Forest Service, 4th Floor Central, 
Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 
Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to inspect these 
documents are encouraged to call ahead at (202) 205-1426 to facilitate 
access to the building. Copies of documents in the record may be 
requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Holbrook, (202) 205-1426, 
Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Background and Need for the Final Directives
2. Public Comments on the Proposed Directives and Agency Responses
     Overview of Comments
     Response to General Comments
     Response to Comments on Specific Sections of the 
Directives
    FSH 2709.11, section 41.53
    FSH 2709.11, section 37.21b
    FSM 2713.1
     Response to Comments on Regulatory Certifications in 
the Proposed Directives
3. Summary of Revisions to the Final Directives
4. Regulatory Certifications for the Final Directives
     Environmental Impact
     Regulatory Impact
     No Taking Implications
     Civil Justice Reform
     Federalism and Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
     Energy Effects
     Unfunded Mandates
     Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
5. Access to the Final Directives

1. Background and Need for the Final Directives

    Outfitting and guiding conducted on National Forest System lands 
have become one of the chief means for the recreating public to 
experience the outdoors. The Forest Service administers approximately 
5,000 outfitting and guiding permits, authorizing activities ranging 
from guided hunting and fishing trips to jeep tours and outdoor 
leadership programs. The agency anticipates that outfitting and guiding 
will increase in importance as the public's desire for use of Federal 
lands increases and as the agency encourages use by increasingly 
diverse and urban populations, many of whom may lack the equipment and 
skills necessary in the outdoors. Therefore, agency policy needs to 
reflect the public's demand for services while incorporating standard 
business practices and sustaining the natural environment in which 
these activities occur.
    Except for the revision to term length for priority use permits 
(April 14, 2005, 70 FR 19727), outfitting and guiding directives have 
remained relatively unchanged since they were finalized in 1995. Since 
that time, proposed legislation and field implementation of current 
policy have shown the need for updating the directives. The changes 
adopted will be incorporated as appropriate in the standard special use 
permit for outfitting and guiding, form FS-2700-4i, and other 
applicable forms.
    In addition, the Forest Service is updating direction on the 
minimum amount of insurance coverage required for special use permits 
generally, including outfitting and guiding permits.

2. Public Comments on the Proposed Directives and Agency Responses

Overview of Comments

    The proposed directives were published in the Federal Register for 
public notice and comment on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59246). The Forest 
Service received several requests for extension of the comment period 
and published two notices, each of which extended the comment period 
(72 FR 71113; December 14, 2007, and 73 FR 8264; February 13, 2008). 
The comment period closed on March 20, 2008.
    The Forest Service received approximately 480 comments on the 
proposed directives. Respondents fell

[[Page 53824]]

into the following categories: Unguided recreation--249; camps and 
youth organizations--20; universities--11; nonprofit outfitters and 
guides--4; state agencies and officials--5; state outfitting and 
guiding associations--13; national outfitting and guiding 
associations--5; and commercial outfitters and guides--173.

Response to General Comments

    Comments. One respondent opposed the proposed changes in their 
entirety and stated that the directives should be withdrawn.
    A number of respondents opposed the proposed directives because 
they perceived them as granting exclusive access to National Forest 
System (NFS) lands to commercial outfitters and guides at the expense 
of the unguided public and without the opportunity for public input.
    Another respondent believed that the proposed directives were 
seriously flawed because the Forest Service did not collaborate with 
the outfitting and guiding industry in their development, which 
rendered them unworkable. Another respondent recommended that the 
Forest Service consider meeting with key interested parties to ensure 
that the final directives provide a balance for the needs of parties 
seeking permits.
    Another respondent recommended that the proposed directives be 
revised and republished for public notice and comment. One respondent 
supported the inclusion of resource protection in the overall 
objectives of the proposed directives.
    One respondent expressed support for most of the proposed 
directives and viewed them as enhancing the relationship between the 
Forest Service and outfitters and guides.
    Response. The Forest Service disagrees that these directives should 
be withdrawn in their entirety. The outfitting and guiding program is 
not new, and the Forest Service has many years of experience managing 
these services. The changes that will result from implementing these 
directives can be characterized as enhancement of the existing program. 
The directives will not significantly change the types or quantities of 
public services that are being provided. The directives will improve 
access to recreational experiences to some underserved groups and will 
provide a more secure business opportunity for those who intend to 
conduct ongoing operations. The Forest Service believes that these 
directives address resource protection more effectively than current 
policy, but does not believe that inclusion of resource protection in 
the objectives section of the directives is appropriate as it is not 
their principal focus.
    Forest Service special use permits do not grant exclusive use (36 
CFR 251.55(b)).
    The Forest Service followed appropriate procedures for public 
involvement under the Administrative Procedure Act in developing and 
issuing these final directives.
    Many respondents recommended changes to specific sections of the 
proposed directives. The agency is making some changes to the proposed 
directives in response to these comments. Therefore, additional public 
notice and comment are unnecessary. Some of the comments were outside 
the scope of the proposed directives.

Response to Comments on Specific Sections of the Directives

FSH 2709.11, section 41.53
41.53a--Authorities
    Comments. Several respondents believed that the Federal Lands 
Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) should not be used as the authority 
for issuing outfitting and guiding permits because doing so would 
provide an incentive to increase commercial use of Federal lands.
    Response. The agency believes that REA is an appropriate authority 
for authorizing outfitting and guiding on Federal lands. REA authorizes 
the Forest Service to issue special recreation permits for specialized 
recreation uses of Federal recreational lands and waters, such as group 
activities, recreation events, and motorized recreational vehicle use 
(16 U.S.C. 6802(h)). Outfitting and guiding is a specialized recreation 
use. This authority has been used since December 2004 by both the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for outfitting and 
guiding permits. The Forest Service does not see any incentive in REA's 
special recreation permit authority for increasing commercial use of 
Federal lands.
41.53b--Objectives
    Comments. Several respondents observed that the Forest Service 
should recognize the important role educational providers play in 
furthering the agency's management goals. These respondents noted that 
nearly all university outdoor programs attempt to provide educational 
and developmental experiences for students that differ from the intent 
and purpose of commercial outfitting and guiding. These respondents 
recommended adding a new objective to encourage outfitting and guiding 
services that facilitate greater participation by youth, educational, 
and religious groups through improved access to temporary use permits 
and assignment of priority use to institutional permit holders. Another 
respondent believed that the Forest Service should be more proactive in 
assisting universities in finding wilderness areas that can support 
more outfitters and guides, for example, by providing a list of 
national forests that can issue more outfitting and guiding permits. 
This same respondent stated that Forest Service employees appear to be 
reluctant to work with universities that want to conduct outfitting and 
guiding.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that it is important to 
recognize the contribution made by educational outfitters and guides. 
Accordingly, in the final directives, the Forest Service has added an 
objective in section 41.53b, paragraph 2, that states: ``Facilitate 
greater participation in the outfitting and guiding program by 
organizations and businesses that work with youth and educational 
groups.'' The agency does not believe that it would be appropriate for 
the directives to address assistance to universities in finding 
suitable wilderness areas for outfitting and guiding. Interested 
parties should work with administrative units and regions to determine 
available opportunities.
41.53c--Policy
    Comments. One respondent stated that a goal of the directives 
should be to broaden the spectrum of services and service providers 
able to meet the demand for guided services. Several respondents 
believed that administrative units should take more initiative in 
evaluating the demand for new recreation and guiding opportunities.
    Response. While the Forest Service agrees that broadening the 
spectrum of services and providers may be appropriate, the agency 
believes that it is best to make this determination case by case 
through a needs assessment, rather than to state that it is always 
appropriate. Additionally, it is not possible to authorize new 
activities without reviewing proposals and applications and conducting 
environmental analysis.
    Comments. One respondent supported proposed section 41.53c, 
paragraph 2, which addresses authorization of permitted access routes. 
Another respondent questioned what was meant by this term.
    Response. The Forest Service added the following definition in 
section

[[Page 53825]]

41.53d for permitted access route: ``Any road or trail that a holder is 
authorized to use under an outfitting and guiding permit or operating 
plan for purposes of pedestrian, stock, or vehicular access.''
    Comment. One respondent suggested revising section 41.53c, 
paragraph 3, to be consistent with the Wilderness Act. This respondent 
suggested prohibiting any development or permanent improvements in 
wilderness areas and stated that the proposed wording was insufficient 
to meet the intent of the Wilderness Act by allowing improvements in 
wilderness areas. The respondent suggested that the wording in the 
current directives at section 41.53b, paragraph 3, be retained and that 
no development, improvements, installations, or caches be allowed in 
wilderness areas for the purpose of convenience to the holder or the 
holder's clients in order to preserve the areas' wilderness character.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees with the respondent that the 
current language in section 41.53b, paragraph 3, is more consistent 
with the Wilderness Act and more accurately reflects the agency's 
intent with regard to improvements in wilderness areas. Therefore, the 
agency has revised proposed section 41.53b, paragraph 3, to restore the 
wording in the current directives.
    Comment. One respondent suggested adding ``other types of permit 
holders'' to proposed section 41.53c, paragraph 4, and using this 
provision to involve outfitters and guides in developing thresholds for 
allocation of priority use.
    Response. The Forest Service has added the phrase ``other 
interested parties'' to the list of individuals and entities in section 
41.53c, paragraph 4, with whom the Forest Service will work to 
encourage outfitters' and guides' compliance with applicable law.
    Comment. One respondent supported the content of proposed section 
41.53c, paragraph 6, regarding not issuing permits to applicants with 
no tangible assets.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that outfitting and guiding 
permits should not be issued to applicants with no tangible assets.
41.53d--Definitions
    Comments--Allocation of Use. One respondent suggested that the 
agency modify the definition of allocation of use to add allocation-
free systems where the unguided public as well as outfitters and guides 
would compete equally for limited use from a common pool. Several 
respondents recommended adding a definition for ``common pool'' or 
``allocation-free use'' to clarify that a common pool is open to the 
unguided public.
    Response. The management of use by the unguided public is beyond 
the scope of these directives. See the response to comments on proposed 
section 41.53e for further detail.
    Comments--Commercial Use or Activity. One respondent agreed that 
intent to make a profit is irrelevant to the determination of whether a 
use or activity is commercial. However, this respondent believed that 
further clarification is necessary regarding the meaning of ``entry or 
participation fee.'' Another respondent recommended revisiting the 
definition of commercial use or activity and stated that tuition for 
educational guiding should not be viewed as the sale of a product. 
Another respondent suggested adopting a more detailed definition of 
commercial use or activity, based on the BLM's definition in its 
policy.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe that modification of 
the definition for commercial use or activity is warranted. The 
definition for this term in the Forest Service's directives is the same 
as the definition in the agency's regulations at 36 CFR 251.51 and is 
consistent with BLM's definition. In addition, the definition for 
commercial use or activity was not proposed for revision and is 
therefore beyond the scope of the proposed directives. Finally, current 
policy at FSH 2709.11, section 37.21k, provides that tuition is 
excluded from revenue for purposes of calculating land use fees for 
outfitting and guiding.
    Comments--Concessionaire. One respondent noted that the term 
``concessionaire'' as used in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2713.1 
governing insurance is not included in the definitions for the 
outfitting and guiding directives. Another respondent wanted 
clarification of the term ``concessionaire.''
    Response. A definition for concessionaire has been added to the 
final directives.
    Comments--Educational Outfitting. Several respondents suggested 
defining educational outfitter and guide separately from outfitter and 
guide, as follows: ``An organization that in conducting outfitting and 
guiding furthers the public interest and that is either a tax-exempt or 
governmental entity.'' These respondents believed that since 
educational outfitters and guides spend most of their time providing 
educational services, they should be differentiated from other 
outfitters and guides, who do not typically provide educational 
services. These respondents also believed that they should not be 
included in the definition of commercial use or activity.
    Response. The Forest Service believes that it is not necessary or 
appropriate to create a new category of use for educational outfitters 
and guides. The definition of outfitting and guiding in the directives 
matches the definition of those terms in the agency's regulations at 36 
CFR 251.51. Arguably, all outfitters and guides further the public 
interest, in that without their services, some recreational activities 
and amenities would be beyond the reach of many members of the public. 
The agency does not believe that outfitters' and guides' non-profit 
status determines whether they derive revenue from the services they 
provide. Under current directives in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 
2709.11, section 37.21k, tuition charged for a program for which 
students earn credit is excluded from revenue for purposes of 
calculation of the land use fee for outfitting and guiding. Finally, 
the definitions for outfitting and guiding were not proposed for 
revision and are therefore beyond the scope of the proposed directives.
    Comments--Interim Temporary Use. One respondent recommended adding 
the following definition for interim temporary use: ``For permits that 
are subject to conversion to priority use, temporary use may be 
authorized for up to five, one-year terms with no limits on the amount 
of use assigned to the permit until the interim temporary use permits 
can be converted to priority use status. The permits may include a 
clause that allows the use to roll over for each year if no significant 
performance, financial, safety, or resource protection issues are 
found. Use may be adjusted from year to year as may be appropriate for 
resource conditions. Use pools for temporary use may also be 
established in accordance with 41.53j (revised).'' Several respondents 
suggested the following definition: ``Authorization of use for a trial 
two-year term for a new outfitter with no prior experience prior to 
issuance of a priority use permit for a full ten-year-term.''
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that a definition is needed for 
temporary use permits that may be eligible for conversion to priority 
use permits, but prefers the term ``transitional priority use,'' which 
is more descriptive of the future use contemplated. Consequently, the 
agency has added the following definition in the final directives: 
``Transitional Priority Use. Interim redesignation of temporary use as 
classified under the Forest Service's June 12, 1995, outfitting and 
guiding policy (60 FR 30830), for holders who

[[Page 53826]]

meet all the requirements in section 41.53p.
    Comments--Needs Assessment. One respondent recommended modifying 
the definition of needs assessment to include assessment of public 
demand for commercial services in relation to public demand for 
unguided use. Additionally, some respondents stated that excess use 
should be allocated through a common pool open to the unguided public, 
as well as to commercial outfitters and guides.
    Response. The Forest Service generally does not allocate 
noncommercial use. To the extent noncommercial use is allocated (for 
example, in wilderness areas through restrictions on the number of 
people at one time in an area), that type of allocation is beyond the 
scope of these directives. Therefore, the proposed modification of the 
definition of a needs assessment and the proposed allocation of excess 
outfitting and guiding use are not appropriate.
    Comment--Nonrecurring Temporary Use and Nonrecurring Temporary Use 
Pool. One respondent suggested adding the following definition for 
nonrecurring temporary use: ``Authorization of a minor, non-recurring 
outfitting or guiding activity for 1 season or less from non-recurring 
use pools,'' and the following definition for non-recurring temporary 
use pool: ``A pool established for non-recurring temporary uses. The 
amount of use assigned to the pool may be based on the general 
availability of capacity at a resource but without reducing allocations 
from any user segment.''
    Response. The Forest Service believes that the proposed definitions 
are unnecessary because they would be redundant with the definition of 
temporary use.
    Comment--Outfitter. One respondent recommended dropping or 
clarifying the phrase ``for other gain'' in this definition because it 
is ambiguous.
    Response. The agency believes that the phrase ``for other gain'' is 
clear. ``Other gain'' in this context means any value other than cash, 
such as barter, received by holders in exchange for services they 
provide on NFS lands. The Forest Service considers cash and other gain 
obtained by concessionaires in exchange for their services in 
determining and auditing their land use fee.
    Comments--Priority Use. One respondent supported the definition of 
priority use. Another respondent recommended that the term ``priority 
use'' be changed to ``commercial use'' and that the permit term for 
priority use be limited to 5 years.
    Response. The Forest Service is retaining the term ``priority use'' 
to describe long-term allocations of use for outfitting and guiding. 
After many years of use, affected parties are familiar with the term. 
In addition, the term ``commercial use'' would be ambiguous because all 
Forest Service outfitting and guiding permit holders are commercial. 
The term ``priority use'' refers to a subset of those outfitters and 
guides who have a long-term allocation of use. Outfitting and guiding 
permit terms are addressed in the response to comments on proposed 
section 41.53l.
    Comment--Priority Temporary Use. One respondent wanted to add the 
following definition for priority temporary use: ``Authorization of a 
minor outfitting or guiding activity for 1 season or less that may be 
authorized from priority temporary use pools,'' and the following 
definition for priority temporary use pool: ``A pool that may be 
established for access by priority use permittees from redistribution 
of unutilized use allocations from priority use permittees, consistent 
with the provisions in 41.53l. Use may also be contributed voluntarily 
to the pool by priority use permittees.''
    Response. The Forest Service has added a section entitled, 
``Management of Priority Use Pools'' that addresses temporary 
allocation of use to priority use permit holders. Therefore, the 
proposed definitions are unnecessary.
    Comments--Quota. One respondent supported the definition of quota. 
Another respondent suggested adding ``per year'' as another unit of 
measure for use allocations.
    Response. The phrase ``or other unit of measure'' in the definition 
is broad enough to include ``per year'' if that unit of measure were 
appropriate. However, allocations per year are unlikely because they 
generally would not provide sufficient specificity.
    Comment--Renewal. One respondent supported the definition of 
renewal.
    Response. The Forest Service has not proposed changes to and is not 
changing the definition for renewal.
    Comment--Resource Capacity. One respondent supported including the 
definition for resource capacity, since determining resource capacity 
is critical for protecting national forest resources.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that the definition for 
resource capacity is warranted.
    Comments--Service Day. One respondent recommended striking the 
phrase ``multiplied by the number of clients on the trip'' because it 
confuses the concept of a service day with trip capacity. Another 
respondent recommended simplifying the definition of a service day, for 
example, by allocating use for river outfitters and guides in launches, 
rather than service days.
    Response. The agency agrees that the proposed definition of service 
day was confusing and has corrected the last sentence of the definition 
to read: ``The total number of service days is calculated by 
multiplying each service day by the number of clients on the trip.'' 
The directives provide that use may be allocated in service days or 
quotas. Since launches are a type of quota, use may be allocated in 
launches, if appropriate.
    Comments--Temporary Use. One respondent proposed replacing the 
definition of temporary use with 5 new terms: Non-recurring temporary 
use, non-recurring temporary use pool, priority temporary use, priority 
temporary use pool, and interim temporary use. Another respondent 
believed that the definition for temporary use was inappropriate given 
the lack of viable means for converting temporary use to priority use.
    Response. The agency believes that these proposed definitions are 
unnecessary and that the definitions for temporary use and temporary 
use pool adequately address the concepts covered by the proposed 
definitions. The comment regarding conversion of temporary use to 
priority use is addressed in the response to comments on section 
41.53p, Transitional Priority Use.
41.53e--Needs Assessment, Resource Capacity Analysis, and Allocation of 
Use
    Comments Concerning Scope. One respondent stated that it was 
unfortunate that the agency was not including in these provisions 
members of the recreating public who do not utilize outfitting and 
guiding services. Many respondents were concerned that the directives 
would give an advantage to commercial outfitters over members of the 
unguided public. Others suggested that when competitive interest exists 
for the same resources or type of use or when significant changes are 
being considered to current use or demand, a common pool should be 
established for the distribution of outfitting and guiding permits for 
all recreational use groups. One respondent proposed that the Forest 
Service evaluate public demand for unguided recreation before 
evaluating any need for new or increased commercial outfitting and 
guiding services. One respondent stated that all users of the national 
forests should be able to compete equally. Another respondent

[[Page 53827]]

proposed a common pool for allocation of permits that would be open 
equally to unguided recreationists as well as outfitters and guides and 
issuance of commercial outfitting and guiding permits without an 
allocation of use.
    Several respondents suggested allocating use in service days or 
quotas for unguided as well as guided use, following a resource 
capacity analysis. One respondent stated that allocation of use should 
not be required and should be employed only if necessary for resource 
protection. Another respondent was concerned that outfitters and guides 
would bear the brunt of use restrictions because it is more difficult 
to assess and control use by the general public. One respondent 
believed that the general public and non-permitted groups should be 
subject to the same use restrictions as permitted users, who are 
enabling recreational use by the general public in a way that benefits 
the national forests and the agency.
    One respondent supported new provisions in the directives requiring 
all groups to register with the Forest Service to gain access. This 
respondent believed that this requirement would help manage use and 
mitigate impacts from noncommercial and commercial use. This respondent 
also suggested that all groups utilizing NFS lands be subject to fees 
and stated that these fees would support proper administration, 
resource protection, user education, and law enforcement. One 
respondent suggested that both for-profit and non-profit outfitters and 
guides receive priority with respect to obtaining an allocation if they 
provide educational programs and services, since educational programs 
directly support the agency's mission to educate visitors to the 
national forests. Another respondent suggested making unused service 
days available to priority use outfitters and guides first. Many 
respondents wanted assurance that the proposed directives would not 
require allocation of use in areas where it is not currently required, 
such as on the Deschutes River and in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
(BWCA).
    Response. There appears to be some confusion among respondents 
about the scope of these directives. These directives will be included 
in the Forest Service's Special Uses Handbook (FSH 2709.11) and are 
specific to administration of outfitting and guiding. Outfitting and 
guiding on NFS lands are commercial activities that require a special 
use authorization under 36 CFR 251.50(a) and the Special Uses Handbook. 
These directives do not govern noncommercial recreational activities 
conducted by individuals or groups. Generally, a special use 
authorization is not required for noncommercial recreational 
activities, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, boating, 
hunting, and horseback riding (36 CFR 251.50(c)).
    Moreover, the Forest Service generally does not allocate use for 
noncommercial activities. However, some congressionally designated 
areas are governed by specific statutes, such as the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act, which require the Forest Service to limit recreational use. 
Limits on all recreational use in these areas are determined in the 
planning process for the areas, and a system may be established to 
manage unguided recreation in these areas. For example, the BWCA is a 
congressionally designated wilderness area that has a lottery system 
for unguided recreation. In addition, special use permits are issued to 
commercial outfitters and guides operating in the BWCA. The Forest 
Service does not manage the lower sections of the Deschutes River, 
which are used for recreational river runs. Rather, those sections are 
under the jurisdiction of BLM.
    The Forest Service does not believe that allocation of use for 
commercial operators should be optional. The agency depends on 
allocation of use to quantify and manage outfitters' and guides' use of 
NFS lands. It is not feasible for commercial outfitters and guides to 
plan and market their businesses without knowing how much use they are 
authorized to conduct on NFS lands.
    The agency believes that regulation of commercial and noncommercial 
use pursuant to applicable regulations and directives is sufficient and 
that registration of users of NFS lands is unnecessary. In addition, 
the propriety of registration of users of NFS lands is beyond the scope 
of these directives. The Forest Service may and does charge fees only 
as provided by applicable law.
    As stated above, whether outfitters and guides provide educational 
services is irrelevant to their eligibility for allocation of use under 
the directives. Under the directives, outfitters' and guides' 
eligibility for allocation of use depends on whether they hold a 
priority use (longer-term) permit as opposed to a temporary use 
(shorter-term) permit. The agency believes that qualification for a 
longer-term permit is a more objective and appropriate basis for 
triggering allocation of use than the characteristics of services 
provided.
    The final directives enhance allocation of unused service days and 
quotas for both temporary use and priority use permit holders. See 
sections 41.53k and 41.53n in the final directives.
    Comments Concerning Planning. One respondent stated that the 
proposed directives failed to create a consistent planning process 
linking outfitting needs assessments, resource capacity analysis, and 
use allocation as well as linking all of these to existing standards 
and guidelines in the applicable land management plan, other relevant 
planning documents, and Forest Service policy. Another respondent 
stated that the final directives should require development of 
outfitting and guiding plans.
    Response. It is not the purpose of these directives to address land 
management planning. The Forest Service has separate directives 
governing this topic (see FSM 1921). The basic unit of Forest Service 
planning is the land management plan. To the extent appropriate, land 
management plans may address outfitting and guiding use. When required 
by statute, a plan is prepared for a congressionally designated area 
and is incorporated into the applicable land management plan. 
Wilderness management direction is prepared as a part of the land 
management planning process as required by 36 CFR part 219 and FSM 
1922. Planning is also conducted in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (36 CFR part 220, FSM 1950, and FSH 
1909.15). The applicable land management plan is implemented through 
development of schedules for projects and activities designed to meet 
management standards and guidelines established for the wilderness 
area. Additionally, the agency has directives governing wilderness 
planning (FSM 2322) and river recreation management (FSM 2354). These 
directives should be read in conjunction with the directives on 
outfitting and guiding administration. The Forest Service believes that 
existing planning tools are sufficient and that outfitting and guiding 
land use plans are unnecessary.
    Comments Concerning Public Involvement. One respondent was 
concerned that the proposed directives did not require public 
involvement for an outfitting and guiding needs assessment, resource 
capacity analysis, and use allocation or enumerate how the agency would 
otherwise comply with NEPA during these processes. Various respondents 
noted that decisions to authorize outfitting and guiding should be 
accompanied by environmental analysis that is conducted at the 
appropriate scale (regional, forest, district, or watershed level); 
that includes a needs assessment,

[[Page 53828]]

resource capacity analysis, and a reasonable range of alternatives for 
allocation of use to make the allocation process transparent; and that 
allows for public involvement, efficient analysis of cumulative 
impacts, development of more effective mitigation, and regional 
assessment of educational outfitting and guiding needs and providers. 
One respondent also noted that the Forest Service needs to address 
analysis of cumulative impacts at the appropriate temporal and spatial 
scales and compliance with other relevant statutes, including the 
Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act.
    Several respondents were concerned about NEPA compliance associated 
with issuance of temporary use permits and noted that the proposed 
directives are silent on this issue. One respondent noted that 
environmental analysis associated with many recreation-related 
activities remains incomplete because it is time-consuming and 
expensive. One respondent believed that issuance of temporary use 
permits under the proposed directives without environmental analysis 
would simplify administration of the outfitting and guiding program and 
reduce agency costs. One respondent noted that a perception exists that 
NEPA and cost recovery requirements do not apply to temporary use 
permits.
    Response. There appears to be confusion among respondents regarding 
the trigger for environmental analysis and the relationship among a 
needs assessment, a capacity analysis, and an environmental analysis. 
The Forest Service has separate directives governing environmental 
policy and procedures (see FSH 1909.15). These directives govern 
environmental analysis, scoping, and public participation and should be 
read in conjunction with these directives. Comments regarding public 
involvement and environmental analysis related to outfitting and 
guiding permits are therefore beyond the scope of these directives.
    Needs assessments and resource capacity analyses are not agency 
decisions subject to environmental analysis. Rather, they are 
analytical tools that inform an agency decision. For example, a needs 
assessment could support a decision to issue a permit. A needs 
assessment also could support a decision to amend a land management 
plan. Additionally, a needs assessment and resource capacity analysis 
are typically used to develop a river management plan. The outfitting 
and guiding directives are intentionally flexible with regard to 
selection of the geographical area to be analyzed for efficient 
outfitting and guiding administration because the authorized officer is 
in the best position to determine the appropriate scope of analysis.
    Decisions that are made to authorize use pursuant to a needs 
assessment and resource capacity analysis, including issuance of 
permits, amendments of land management plans, and allocations of use in 
plans, are subject to NEPA. The Forest Service complies with applicable 
law and policy, including NEPA, in making these decisions.
    Comments Concerning Resource Capacity Analysis. One respondent 
supported the direction to base allocations of use on accurate resource 
capacity analyses and needs assessments. One respondent recommended 
revising section 41.53e, paragraph 1b, to provide for review of 
previous needs assessments ``with new public input'' when reauthorizing 
use. One respondent stated that where a needs assessment identifies 
over-capacity, no new outfitting and guiding should be considered. One 
respondent recommended that section 41.53e be revised to require 
completion of a resource capacity analysis, followed by a needs 
assessment, and use of the information gained from these analyses in 
making decisions on allocation of use. One respondent believed that 
this section implied that all future wilderness, wild and scenic river, 
and land management plans would include allocations for priority and 
temporary use and that these allocations should be based on capacity 
studies and needs assessments.
    One respondent believed that the directives should require 
development and implementation of allocation plans before, rather than 
after, resource capacity has been reached. This respondent wondered who 
would determine when information regarding resource capacity is 
reliable and when resource capacity has been reached. One respondent 
recommended revising section 41.53e, paragraph 2, to require that a 
resource capacity analysis be performed to assess the amount of use and 
types of activities that may be conducted without detrimental 
environmental or social impacts prior to establishing any quotas or 
allocating service days in permits.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that when complexity warrants, 
such as when multiple proposals are submitted for limited resources or 
when coordinated review of proposals is otherwise required, allocations 
of use should be supported by a resource capacity analysis and needs 
assessment.
    However, a resource capacity analysis and needs assessment are not 
necessary for simple situations. Resource capacity analyses and needs 
assessments are costly, and decisions to revisit them need to be 
efficient.
    If a resource capacity analysis identifies over-capacity, no 
additional use will be authorized, and existing use may be reduced. 
Either a resource capacity analysis or a needs assessment may eliminate 
a proposal from further analysis. The authorized officer has the 
discretion to determine which analysis to conduct first for management 
efficiency.
    The purpose of a resource capacity analysis is to quantify the 
amount and type of activities that can be accommodated in a 
geographical area. When multiple entities want to use the same area or 
when multiple activities are proposed in the same area, it is necessary 
to evaluate the variety of uses proposed and to determine which ones to 
accommodate. For example, 15 entities may submit proposals when there 
is capacity for only 5 entities, in which case, applicants will be 
selected competitively (for priority use) or by lottery (for temporary 
use). As stated above, resource capacity analyses are not subject to 
environmental analysis.
    The agency has modified section 41.53e, paragraph 2, to clarify 
that when monitoring indicates that impacts associated with use may 
exceed desired conditions, a resource capacity analysis should be 
conducted.
    Comments Concerning Needs Assessments Generally. One respondent 
stated that needs assessments should be timely, based on sound science, 
and involve public scoping. One respondent encouraged the agency to 
assess public demand based on accurate visitor information and prior to 
assessing the need for commercial services. Another respondent stated 
that the allocation of service days to a large extent is arbitrary 
because it is based on a needs assessment that might not have a 
scientific basis and that service days may be increased when there is 
no need for additional services. One respondent believed that visitor 
preference surveys should not be the only means to determine use 
allocations because these surveys fail to measure the preferences of 
future visitors or past visitors who have been displaced from an area 
due to use trends. Another respondent wondered how the agency would 
acquire data on use by public and institutional groups that are not 
currently authorized to operate for purposes of performing accurate 
needs assessments.

[[Page 53829]]

    Several respondents stated that the Forest Service should confer 
with or defer to states when issuing or limiting permits involving 
fishing and hunting. One respondent believed that the proposed 
directives would weaken the role a needs assessment plays in 
determining the appropriateness of issuing outfitting and guiding 
permits for hunting.
    Another respondent proposed revising section 41.53e, paragraph 3, 
to read: ``Determine the allocation of use between outfitted and guided 
visitors and self-outfitted, non-guided visitors,'' and striking the 
last sentence regarding allocation of temporary use. One respondent 
stated that temporary use pools should not be formed by decreasing the 
allocation of use to the public or by increasing allocations of use, 
but rather by employing unused commercial allocations. Another 
respondent believed that educational outfitters and guides need to be 
given preference in allocations of use so that they can provide 
essential safety, land ethics, and educational services the Forest 
Service cannot provide. One respondent underscored the importance of 
treating all users equitably when making choices about the levels of 
use in a needs assessment.
    Yet another respondent suggested that no change be made to any 
priority use allocations until a resource capacity analysis has been 
completed. One respondent recommended that a resource capacity analysis 
be conducted before renewal of priority use permits.
    Response. The purpose of a needs assessment in the context of 
commercial outfitting and guiding is to evaluate the need for a public 
service. The public may have a need for outfitting and guiding services 
(e.g., guidance, skills, or equipment necessary to access certain 
amenities or conduct certain recreational activities) or the agency may 
have a need for these services (e.g., to reduce incidents that involve 
search and rescue or to promote leave no trace ethics). If there is no 
need for these services, an outfitting and guiding proposal will not be 
accepted.
    The agency agrees that needs assessments should be timely and based 
on sound information. The Forest Service has two scientifically based 
methods for surveying public recreation needs: National Visitor Use 
Monitoring, which involves systematically interviewing clients on site 
for each national forest and national grassland, and the National 
Survey on Recreation and the Environment, which involves interviewing 
the general public by telephone. In addition to these resources, local 
managers can rely on their experience regarding the types of requests 
they receive for recreational use, public comments, and field 
observation of recreational use.
    The Forest Service coordinates with state fish and wildlife 
agencies when evaluating the need for outfitting and guiding. The 
states' projected animal harvest levels are a key component of a needs 
assessment. The agency does not believe that these final directives 
will weaken the role of a needs assessment in determining the 
appropriateness of authorizing outfitting and guiding for hunting. 
Rather, the agency believes these directives will enhance consistency 
in the use of needs assessments.
    The agency knows from discussions with youth groups, camps, and 
universities which use or would like to use NFS lands that access to 
outfitting and guiding permits could be improved by creating a 
sustainable reserve of use for short-term temporary permits. One of the 
objectives of preparing these directives was to simplify the process 
for issuing temporary use permits so as to increase public access to 
NFS lands and outfitting and guiding opportunities. The agency believes 
that the final directives strike a balance between supporting current 
and future outfitters and guides and establishing a process that will 
improve public access to recreational opportunities and public service. 
Sections 41.53k and 41.53n in the final directives address formation 
and operation of temporary and priority use pools. These pools will be 
formed from unemployed use. The appropriate distribution of priority 
use, temporary use, and unguided use will be determined on a site-
specific basis using processes outlined in these and existing 
directives. The agency does not believe that it is appropriate to 
establish preferences for allocation of use based on the 
characteristics of the services provided.
    A decision to adjust allocation of use in or to renew a priority 
use permit is separate from a decision to authorize use. The allocation 
of use in a priority use permit is a privilege that can be lost through 
non-use. Under certain conditions, the agency may shift unemployed use 
to another outfitter. See section 41.53m. Priority use permits are 
renewable, provided that certain conditions are met. See section 
41.53l.
    Comments Concerning Needs Assessments and Wilderness Areas. Several 
respondents advised that when conducting a needs assessment for 
outfitting and guiding in a wilderness area, the agency should assess 
whether these activities are necessary and proper for realizing the 
recreational or other wilderness purposes of the area and the extent to 
which the activities may or may not be authorized consistent with 
maintaining the wilderness character of the area. These respondents 
recommended that the agency evaluate the spatial and temporal scope of 
commercial services to be authorized and document the wilderness 
purpose achieved by those services.
    Another respondent proposed revising the directives to state that 
outfitting and guiding are nonconforming uses in wilderness areas that 
should not impair their wilderness character. One respondent objected 
to authorization of commercial use in all congressionally designated 
areas. Another respondent believed that the proposed directives were 
inconsistent with the intent of the Wilderness Act with regard to 
allocation of use to outfitters and guides in wilderness areas.
    Another respondent believed that needs assessments for wilderness 
areas must balance guided activities, such as hunting and equestrian 
trips, with unguided activities, such as backpacking and hiking. 
Another respondent believed that the increase in motorized use has 
caused more conflicts with quiet activities like backpacking and 
hiking, and that therefore more service days in wilderness areas are 
required. Yet another respondent stated that the mission of youth and 
university-based programs is aligned with wilderness areas and that 
these programs need more service days in wilderness areas.
    Response. Before commercial activities, including outfitting and 
guiding, are authorized in a wilderness area, a needs assessment must 
be completed that addresses the extent to which the activities are 
necessary for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes 
of the area. An environmental analysis, possibly including a capacity 
analysis, must also be completed to analyze the effects of the proposed 
activities on the wilderness character of the area. Both of these 
requirements are addressed in the final directives in sections 41.53e, 
paragraph 1a, and 41.53h, paragraph 3. The Wilderness Act and agency 
wilderness policy require that wilderness character be preserved.
    The Forest Service disagrees that outfitting and guiding is a non-
conforming use of wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act specifically 
allows for commercial services to be performed in wilderness areas to 
the extent they are necessary and proper for realizing the recreational 
or other wilderness purposes of the areas.

[[Page 53830]]

    The appropriate distribution of priority use, temporary use, and 
unguided use in wilderness areas will be determined on a site-specific 
basis using processes outlined in these and existing directives. The 
Forest Service does not believe that more service days in wilderness 
areas are required because of a growth in motorized recreational use. 
The amount of service days allotted in wilderness areas will be based 
on the need to provide an outfitted and guided experience in wilderness 
areas, while preserving their wilderness character.
    The Forest Service believes that the mission of many for-profit as 
well as non-profit outfitters and guides is aligned with wilderness 
areas and that all these operators can provide the public with a 
successful wilderness experience. Therefore, the agency does not 
believe that youth and university-based programs need more service days 
in wilderness areas based on the mission of these programs.
    Comments Concerning Needs Assessments and Quotas. A respondent 
recommended that quotas be applied equally to all recreational uses and 
that outfitters and guides not be permitted to have larger group sizes. 
Another respondent stated that allocation of trailhead entries in a 
wilderness management plan is more important than allocation of service 
days.
    Response. How much use to allocate to various recreational users 
and outfitters and guides is determined by a needs assessment. 
Distribution of an equal amount to all may not be the best method of 
serving the public. Under these directives, the authorized officer has 
discretion to determine whether to manage use by service days or 
quotas. A limit on trailhead entries is a quota, which, like service 
days, is a way of measuring use.
41.53f--When Permits Are Required
    Comments. One respondent recommended changing the terminology in 
section 41.53f, paragraph 1, from ``priority use'' to ``commercial 
use.''
    Another respondent suggested that the final directives provide 
clear and consistent direction to the field on development and issuance 
of the new temporary use permit.
    Response. In the final directives, the Forest Service has retained 
the term ``priority use'' to describe permits that are issued for a 
period of up to 10 years to provide commercial public services. Current 
directives state that (1) Priority use is intended for ongoing 
operations, (2) priority use permits will be reissued if there is 
sustained satisfactory performance by the holder, and (3) a comparable 
permit will be issued to the purchaser of the assets of a holder of a 
priority use permit if the purchaser is technically and financially 
qualified. Since outfitters and guides are familiar with the term 
``priority use'' and its meaning and since the Forest Service is not 
changing the characteristics of priority use, it is not necessary to 
change the term.
    There will be a standard national form for temporary use permits. 
Additionally, the Forest Service plans to conduct training on the new 
directives, including use of the new form.
41.53g--Issuance of New Outfitting and Guiding Permits
    Comment. One respondent recommended adding language to section 
41.53g, paragraphs 2a through 2e, 3, and 4, to allow outfitting and 
guiding only after the needs for unguided recreation have been met.
    Response. The agency does not believe that it is appropriate to 
supplant site-specific needs assessments with a presumption that 
unguided recreation should take precedence over guided recreation.
    Comments. One respondent supported limiting use when required for 
protection of national forest resources. However, this respondent 
requested additional information about competitive issuance of permits 
and was concerned about the administrative and financial burden, 
particularly for small outfitting and guiding operations, of responding 
to a prospectus.
    Another respondent was concerned about migration toward competitive 
issuance of priority use permits because of the lack of standard 
procedures for making selections. One respondent believed that the 
agency should clarify policy on competitive issuance of permits. Other 
respondents were concerned about how the agency makes selections in a 
competitive process when applicants are similarly qualified. These 
respondents supported the use of performance-related criteria in 
selection decisions.
    Some respondents observed that the return to the Federal government 
should not be a selection criterion, and others were concerned that 
financial capability would become the tie-breaking factor. Another 
respondent recommended consideration of past experience, knowledge of 
the area, financial capability, economic viability of existing holders, 
performance record, return to the Federal government, and other factors 
in selecting the most qualified applicant. One respondent recommended 
adding the consideration of interpretive skills, educational skills, 
and performance record, including use of leave no trace techniques, to 
the list of evaluation criteria.
    One respondent noted that since institutional outfitters and guides 
do not earn as much revenue as for-profit outfitters and guides, 
institutional outfitters and guides are at a disadvantage in a 
competitive process, which requires submission of a proposed land use 
fee based on a percentage of revenues.
    Response. It has been a long-standing policy of the Forest Service 
to offer new business opportunities competitively when there are 
multiple interested parties and not all of them can be accommodated 
(FSM 2712.1). That policy is now codified at 36 CFR 251.58(c)(3)(ii). 
FSM 2712.1, paragraph 3, lists the following evaluation criteria for 
applications submitted in response to a prospectus: Kind and quality of 
services proposed in terms of meeting public need; the applicant's 
experience in this or related fields and the applicant's qualifications 
to fully satisfy the public need for service; verification of financial 
resources; and return to the government. These directives supersede 
paragraph 3 of FSM 2712.1 and include the following as evaluation 
criteria for selecting among applicants for an outfitting and guiding 
permit: the applicant's experience, knowledge of the area to be 
authorized, financial capability, performance record as an outfitter or 
guide, and other pertinent factors. To address the concern regarding 
the competitive disadvantage of institutional outfitters and guides, 
the agency has revised section 41.53g, paragraph 3a, to clarify that 
return to the government is not a selection criterion for outfitting 
and guiding permits at this time.
    When a prospectus is being prepared, the authorized officer has the 
discretion to determine the type of services desired and may make the 
provision of those services a requirement for applicants. For example, 
the prospectus may require interpretation, education, or instruction of 
leave no trace ethics.
41.53h--Applications for Outfitting and Guiding Permits
    Comments. One respondent asked that the directives include a 
description of an applicant's qualifications for both priority and 
temporary use. Another asked that a description of an applicant's 
qualifications be included in the application form. Additionally, some 
respondents suggested that qualifications for first aid and emergency 
evacuation procedures for backcountry be described in the application 
form.

[[Page 53831]]

    One respondent noted that applicants should be required to state 
and document their experience in providing services. One respondent 
suggested enumerating what an applicant must submit.
    One respondent recommended deleting the phrase ``proposed number of 
service days or quotas'' from section 41.53h, paragraph 2. Another 
respondent believed that it was not appropriate to let applicants for 
outfitting and guiding permits identify the service days or quotas they 
need without considering the need of the unguided public. One 
respondent suggested that schools complete one application each year 
for uses they conduct in multiple forests.
    Response. Special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.54(d) and Forest 
Service directives at FSH 2709.11, section 12.31, address the content 
of proposals and the information required from a proponent or applicant 
to determine technical and financial qualifications. These regulations 
and directives should be read in conjunction with these final 
directives. One of these requirements is a project description, which 
for outfitting and guiding must include the amount of use an applicant 
proposes to conduct. Authorized officers need the discretion to 
determine specific qualifications and knowledge appropriate or 
necessary for a particular operation in a particular location. 
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to predetermine those 
qualifications.
    The Washington Office and Regional Offices of the Forest Service 
are not staffed to allow for submission of a single proposal and 
application for outfitters and guides who propose to conduct operations 
on multiple forests. In addition, since the supporting environmental 
analysis for outfitting and guiding applications must be site-specific, 
it does not make sense to consolidate proposals and applications for 
outfitting and guiding.
41.53i--Requirements for Temporary and Priority Use Permits
    Comments. Many respondents proposed that there be no assigned sites 
set aside specifically for outfitters and guides. These respondents 
believed that assigning sites would conflict with unguided use of 
Federals lands and that it is inappropriate to set aside assigned sites 
for outfitters and guides, since their services are not available to 
the general public free of charge.
    Response. Assignment of sites is a management tool available to the 
authorized officer. These directives describe how to address assignment 
of sites in a permit; these directives do not require or effect 
assignment of sites. Assignment of sites is a site-specific decision. 
Current Forest Service directives already provide for assignment of 
sites to outfitters and guides (see FSH 2709.11, sec. 37.05 and 
37.21h). The topic is included in section 41.53i for purposes of 
administrative efficiency.
    Comments. One respondent objected to the requirement in section 
41.53i, paragraph 4, to submit a report on actual use within 30 days of 
the close of the operating season on the grounds that it is unnecessary 
and contrary to local practice. Another respondent suggested revising 
section 41.53i, paragraph 4, to provide for submission of the report at 
the beginning of each operating season or when needed.
    Response. The requirement to report actual use within 30 days of 
the end of the operating season is necessary for timely reconciliation 
of land use fees and was not proposed for revision.
41.53i, Paragraph 5--Contracts for Ancillary Services and Equipment
    Comments. One respondent supported section 41.53i, paragraph 5, 
which authorizes outfitters and guides to contract for ancillary 
services. Another respondent agreed that permit holders should be 
responsible for the actions of their subcontractors. This respondent 
also believed that the directives should recognize holders' use of 
volunteers, as well as employees.
    Another respondent requested clarification as to which services 
would be deemed ancillary and wondered whether services provided by 
faculty members who are contractors rather than full-time employees 
would be considered ancillary. One respondent noted that most Montana 
fishing outfitters and guides use licensed guides as independent 
contractors, rather than hiring guides as employees; that to be 
certified by the Montana Department of Labor and Industry as an 
independent contractor, contractors must not be under the direct 
control of the contracting party, as they would be classified as 
employees; and that unless paragraphs 4 and 5b of section 41.53i are 
revised, they will prevent Montana outfitters and guides from using 
independent contractors under their special use permits. Another 
respondent requested that the directives encompass arrangements that 
enable holders to provide a range of unique opportunities to the 
public, such as contracting for the services of a guest speaker or 
instructor.
    Another respondent believed that contracted services should be 
provided by other permitted outfitters and guides, and that it was not 
appropriate to cede management of trips to a holder who has no 
experience. Another respondent believed that many insurers would not 
cover the activities of subcontractors and wanted to add language to 
section 41.53i, paragraph 5b(2), to read: ``The contracted guide or 
outfitter who already holds a permit at the resource has all required 
state licenses and appropriate Forest Service permits.''
    One respondent believed that section 41.53i, paragraph 5c, which 
authorizes contracting for additional services and equipment in 
emergencies, was too restrictive in requiring those services and 
equipment to be provided by another permit holder. This respondent was 
concerned that additional services and equipment might not be available 
from another holder. One respondent stated that the Forest Service 
should not dictate to private businesses whom they can employ.
    Another respondent believed that the requirement that the 
contracting holder exercise management authority over day-to-day 
operations, including guiding services, could void the contracted 
guide's liability insurance and suggested striking section 41.53i, 
paragraph 5b(4).
    Some respondents questioned the requirement for an insurance policy 
endorsement for contractors who provide ancillary services and 
equipment. Another questioned the requirement in section 41.53i, 
paragraph 5a(3), for a holder to submit a contract for ancillary 
services at the beginning of the operating season. This respondent 
noted that the need for ancillary services may not be identified until 
the last minute. One respondent was concerned that section 41.53i, 
paragraph 5c, would encourage illegal sublicensing of permits.
    Response. The Forest Service developed the provisions authorizing 
contracts for ancillary services and equipment in response to requests 
from holders, who believe that the existing directives, which do not 
allow these contracts, are too restrictive. In order for legal 
requirements to be met, permit holders must remain responsible for all 
activities authorized by their permit and may not circumvent their 
responsibili