Final Directives for Forest Service Wind Energy Special Use Authorizations, Forest Service Manual 2720, Forest Service Handbooks 2609.13 and 2709.11, 47354-47390 [2011-19673]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47354-47390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19673]



[[Page 47353]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 150

August 4, 2011

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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





Forest Service





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





Final Directives for Forest Service Wind Energy Special Use 
Authorizations, Forest Service Manual 2720, Forest Service Handbooks 
2609.13 and 2709.11; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / 
Notices

[[Page 47354]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC61


Final Directives for Forest Service Wind Energy Special Use 
Authorizations, Forest Service Manual 2720, Forest Service Handbooks 
2609.13 and 2709.11

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is amending its internal directives for 
special use authorizations and wildlife monitoring. The amendments 
provide direction and guidance specific to wind energy projects on 
National Forest System (NFS) lands. These amendments supplement, rather 
than supplant or duplicate, existing special use and wildlife 
directives to address issues specifically associated with siting, 
processing proposals and applications, and issuing special use permits 
for wind energy uses. The directives ensure consistent and adequate 
analyses for evaluating wind energy proposals and applications and 
issuing wind energy permits. Public comment was considered in 
development of the final directives, and a response to comments is 
included in this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: These final directives are effective August 4, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: The record for these final directives is available for 
inspection at the office of the Director, Lands Staff, USDA, Forest 
Service, 4th Floor South, 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) 205-1256 to facilitate access to the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Johnson, Minerals and Geology 
Management, (703) 605-4793, or Julett Denton, Lands Staff, (202) 205-
1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background and Need for the Final Directives

Background

    The Forest Service is responsible for managing approximately 193 
million acres of NFS lands. To date, the Forest Service has issued over 
74,000 special use authorizations on NFS lands covering more than 180 
types of uses. Wind energy uses are governed by the Forest Service's 
special use regulations at 36 CFR part 251, subpart B. Wind energy 
proposals and applications are currently processed in accordance with 
36 CFR 251.54 and direction in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2726 and 
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, governing administration of 
special uses.
    The final directives add a new chapter 70, ``Wind Energy Uses,'' to 
the Special Uses Handbook, FSH 2709.11, and a new chapter 80, 
``Monitoring at Wind Energy Sites,'' to the Wildlife Monitoring 
Handbook, FSH 2609.13. These new chapters supplement, rather than 
supplant or duplicate, existing special use and wildlife directives. In 
particular, new chapter 70 provides direction on siting, processing 
proposals and applications, and issuing permits for wind energy uses. 
New chapter 80 provides specific guidance on wildlife monitoring at 
wind energy sites before, during, and after construction. The direction 
in chapter 70 is similar to the procedures established by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for 
managing wind energy uses on public lands. In addition, the directives 
make corresponding revisions to FSM 2726, ``Energy Generation and 
Transmission,'' and FSH 2709.11, chapter 40, ``Special Uses 
Administration.''

Need for Wind Energy Directives

    The emphasis on development of alternative energy sources in the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and increasing industry interest in 
development of wind energy facilities on NFS lands have prompted the 
Forest Service to issue directives that address issues specifically 
associated with siting wind energy uses, processing wind energy 
proposals and applications, and issuing wind energy permits.
    The final wind energy directives provide a consistent framework and 
terminology for making decisions regarding proposals and applications 
for wind energy uses. Specifically, the directives provide guidance on 
siting wind energy turbines, evaluating a variety of resource 
interests, and addressing issues specifically associated with wind 
energy in the special use permitting process. These issues include 
potential effects on scenery, national security, significant cultural 
resources, and wildlife, especially migratory birds and bats.

2. Public Comments on the Proposed Directives and Agency Responses

    The proposed directives were published in the Federal Register on 
September 24, 2007, (72 FR 54233), with a 60-day public comment period. 
The comment period was extended an additional 60 days to January 23, 
2008. The Forest Service received 5,630 comments on the proposed 
directives. Approximately 5,500 of the comments were form letters, 
while the remaining letters consisted of original comments or form 
letters with additional comments. Close to 50 comments were received 
which could not be specifically tied to any particular topic or section 
of the proposed directives, but rather expressed general opposition or 
general support for the proposed directives. The Agency considered all 
timely received comments in development of the final directives.

Response to General Comments

    Comment. One respondent stated that the proposed directives fail to 
consider the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA); National Forest Management Act (NFMA); Executive Order (E.O.) 
13212, which states increased production and transmission of energy in 
a safe and environmentally sound manner is essential; and E.O. 13123, 
which charges each agency to strive to expand the use of renewable 
energy in its facilities. Another respondent stated that wind energy 
projects should be treated the same as any other proposed use of 
Federal lands, that is, they should be subject to applicable law, 
including FLPMA, NFMA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 
and thorough programmatic and site-specific analysis and public 
participation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    Response. Wind energy proposals, applications, and authorizations 
are subject to all applicable Federal law, including NEPA, the ESA, the 
MBTA, and the NHPA. Wind energy authorizations will be issued under 
FLPMA, consistent with the applicable land management plan, which is 
developed pursuant to NFMA. The Agency believes that the proposed and 
final directives are consistent with E.O. 13212, as they facilitate 
authorization of wind energy projects in a safe and environmentally 
sound manner. The Agency does not believe that E.O. 13123 applies to 
these directives, as it addresses the use of energy in federally owned 
facilities.
    Comment. Several respondents believed that the proposed directives 
failed to take into account the requirements of the NHPA.
    Response. The Agency agrees and has corrected this omission in the 
final directives by adding direction regarding

[[Page 47355]]

the NHPA to sections 70.5, ``Definitions,'' and 72.21e, ``Historic 
Properties and Cultural Considerations.''
    Comment. One respondent stated that the impacts of the proposed 
directives on treaty rights and trust resources must be considered and 
analyzed under both NEPA and the NHPA.
    Response. Each analysis conducted for a wind energy facility will 
adhere to applicable Agency NEPA procedures and applicable law, 
including treaty and reserved rights and the NHPA.
    Comment. Several respondents suggested that the Agency revise the 
phrase ``minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values'' in 36 CFR 
part 254, Subpart B, to state that projects must be designed to meet 
established scenic integrity objectives.
    Response. The Agency has not proposed any revisions to the 
regulations at 36 CFR part 254, subpart B. Therefore, this comment is 
beyond the scope of these directives and was not considered in 
development of the final directives.

Decisionmaking Process and Methods

    Comment. Several respondents recommended that the Forest Service 
prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for wind 
energy development on NFS lands. These respondents noted that pending 
completion of the PEIS, individual projects could proceed based on 
project-specific environmental analysis, such as an environmental 
assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These 
respondents further stated that once the PEIS is completed, an EA would 
be appropriate for most wind energy projects on NFS lands. These 
respondents believed that in not preparing a PEIS, the Forest Service 
has not complied with NEPA because the Agency has not analyzed or 
disclosed the cumulative effects of current Forest Service wind energy 
proposals.
    Response. The Forest Service has chosen not to prepare a PEIS for 
wind energy development on NFS lands. Given the diversity of NFS lands 
and their uses, the Forest Service believes it will be more efficient 
and effective to look at each proposed wind energy site and assess the 
potential effects of the proposed use as it relates to that site. The 
Agency does not believe the preparation of a programmatic NEPA document 
will save time or inform decisionmakers, since it will still be 
necessary to analyze the site-specific environmental effects at each 
project site.
    NEPA does not require preparation of a PEIS for the Forest 
Service's wind energy program. Rather, NEPA requires assessment of an 
agency's proposed actions and the Forest Service believes that wind 
energy projects should be decided on a site-specific basis for the 
reasons stated above. The level of analysis required will vary 
depending on site-specific circumstances. After a wind energy proposal 
passes screening and is accepted as an application, the Agency will 
analyze its effects consistent with NEPA. In preparing an EA or EIS, 
the Agency examines the cumulative effects of the proposal (including 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on the 
affected environment, per 36 CFR 220.4(f).
    Comment. Multiple respondents noted that the proposed directives 
minimally reference best management practices (BMPs) and recommended 
that the Forest Service develop BMPs and standards as part of 
developing a PEIS on wind energy development. These respondents 
recommended that the Forest Service review BLM's Wind Energy 
Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments, which 
established policies and BMPs for administration of wind energy 
projects and minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These 
respondents stated that Forest Service review of this document would 
foster a uniform approach to renewable energy production on Federal 
lands. This respondent further stated that additional stipulations 
could be developed as needed to address site-specific concerns on the 
basis of the relevant land management plan, other mitigation guidance, 
and mitigation measures identified in the PEIS.
    One respondent stated that the proposed directives have little in 
common with BLM's wind energy policy, despite assertions that the 
Forest Service's directives would closely track BLM's policy, and that 
BLM's policy should be included in the list of references in FSH 
2709.11, section 70.6.
    Another respondent stated that the proposed directives, like BLM's 
PEIS, should require development of detailed BMPs for monitoring and 
site selection on a State or regional level as soon as possible. 
Another respondent suggested Forest Service-wide standards and review 
for all wind energy projects, including meteorological towers (METs) 
and wind energy facilities, on NFS lands. This respondent further 
stated that the national standards should be fine-tuned to site-
specific conditions, such as wildlife habitat, topography, and climate.
    Response. The Agency is familiar with BLM's 2005 wind energy policy 
and the BMPs and mitigation measures contained in the policy. BLM's 
wind energy policy was one of the sources used to develop the Forest 
Service's wind energy directives.
    The Forest Service's wind energy directives closely track BLM's 
wind energy policy. Some provisions in the Forest Service's directives 
are worded differently to be consistent with Forest Service procedures. 
Some provisions, such as section 75.12 regarding the need to ascertain 
the existence of competitive interest, are required by Forest Service 
regulations (36 CFR 51.58(c)(3)(ii)).
    Nothing in the final directives precludes the authorized officer 
from using additional information contained in BLM's wind energy 
policy. To clarify this intent, the Agency has added BLM's 2005 wind 
energy policy to the list of references in section 70.6 in the final 
directives.
    The Forest Service does not believe that it would be efficient or 
effective for wind energy development on NFS lands to develop 
programmatic BMPs and standards that would require amendments to Forest 
Service land management plans.
    Comment. Several respondents stated that a programmatic EIS for 
wind energy development is essential to assess economic effects on 
community tourism considerations alone.
    Response. The Forest Service has chosen a different approach. The 
Forest Service recognizes the potential value of a programmatic 
approach for planning purposes, however the opportunity for utility 
scale renewable energy development projects on the national forest 
system lands is fairly limited. The Agency believes it is more cost 
efficient and effective to look at each proposed site individually and 
assess the potential effects at that particular site and, if 
appropriate, address the socioeconomic impacts as part of the NEPA 
process. Once a wind energy application has been accepted, the Agency 
will analyze the effects of the proposed use in accordance with the 
Agency's NEPA procedures at 36 CFR part 220 and FSH 1909.15.
    To be useful, the NEPA document would need to provide a level of 
detail that would be the equivalent of a site-specific NEPA document. A 
programmatic EIS does not provide this level of site specific detail.
    Comment. Several respondents noted that significant benefits from a 
coordinated permit process would be realized if each Regional Forester 
would appoint a single person or small team to coordinate wind energy 
projects for all regions and process all wind energy project 
applications. These respondents

[[Page 47356]]

stated that having a single point of contact between the Forest Service 
and the wind industry would help ensure that best practices are used 
and applied consistently across the NFS.
    Response. For large wind energy projects, the Agency will designate 
a single point of contact to facilitate coordination. The Agency does 
not believe it is appropriate to commit to regional processing of wind 
energy applications, since the regional offices may not have sufficient 
staff for that purpose. In addition, since the supporting environmental 
analysis for wind energy applications must be site-specific, it may not 
make sense to consolidate processing of proposals and applications for 
wind energy projects.
    Comment. One respondent stated that the approach to wind energy 
projects in the proposed directives was reactive, rather than 
proactive, in that the Agency would be merely responding case-by-case 
to each application submitted by commercial wind energy developers. 
This respondent recommended that the Agency develop national siting 
criteria for wind energy projects and an inventory of areas in the NFS 
that may be suitable for wind energy projects. This respondent believed 
that this approach would eliminate analysis in the permitting process 
and allow the Agency to direct wind energy proponents to areas most 
suitable for wind energy projects.
    Response. The proposed and final directives establish a 
comprehensive, orderly approach to siting wind energy facilities, 
evaluating resource interests, and addressing specific issues 
associated with wind energy permits. Moreover, the Agency does not 
believe it is necessary to establish an inventory of areas on NFS lands 
that may be suitable for wind energy projects because sufficient wind 
energy information regarding the NFS generally is available from the 
U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This 
coordination with the U. S. Department of Energy's National Renewable 
Laboratory simplifies the process in not duplicating efforts and 
providing consistency in innovation and technologies for setting 
renewable energy development opportunities.''
    Comment. Several respondents suggested that the Agency incorporate 
into the proposed directives the wind power guidelines produced by the 
Wind Energy Turbines Guidelines Advisory Committee, which consists of 
representatives from State and Federal agencies and the wind energy 
industry.
    Response. The Forest Service recognizes that recommendations from 
the Wind Energy Turbines Guidelines Advisory Committee will be used to 
revise the 2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)'s Interim 
Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines. 
However, the Forest Service believes it would not be appropriate to 
limit the siting of wind turbines to one set of guidelines which 
specifically address only wildlife impacts from wind turbines. In 
addition, the final directives do not preclude the Forest Service from 
using any newly developed Federal guidelines, recommendations, or other 
relevant scientific publications regarding wind energy projects as they 
become available.
    Comment. One respondent commented that under the ESA and E.O. 
13186, the Forest Service has an obligation to consult with FWS and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and prepare a biological 
assessment prior to issuance of any wind energy permits.
    Another respondent commented that under Section 7 of the ESA, 
special use authorizations must be consistent with the applicable land 
management plan and must be issued only after the Forest Service has 
consulted with FWS. In those cases where issuance of the authorization 
may affect a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a 
comprehensive analysis under NEPA must be completed.
    Response. Forest Service policy at FSM 2670 requires the Agency to 
consult with FWS or NMFS, as applicable, regarding any Forest Service 
action that may affect any federally listed threatened or endangered 
species or their critical habitats. Section 72.1 in the final 
directives directs the authorized officer to clarify expectations for 
coordination and consultation with FWS and NMFS with a wind energy 
proponent at the pre-proposal meeting. Consultation and coordination 
under Section 7 of the ESA should occur concurrently with environmental 
analysis pursuant to NEPA and should be completed by the time the 
authorized officer is prepared to issue a NEPA decision document. 
Sections 73.31, paragraph 2, and 73.4a, paragraph 1, in the final 
directives address biological evaluations and assessments for purposes 
of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. The Forest Service's 
special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.54(e)(1)(ii) require all 
proposals, including wind energy proposals, to be consistent with 
standards and guidelines in the applicable land management plan.

Decisionmaking Philosophy

    Comment. One respondent suggested that the Forest Service identify 
wind energy corridors or zones during development of land management 
plans. This respondent believed that this approach would allow for 
public participation in wind energy development on NFS lands at the 
forest-wide rather than only at the project level, as well as for 
assessment of the cumulative impacts of multiple wind energy projects 
on a given national forest.
    Response. Land management plans may be amended or revised as 
appropriate to address opportunities for wind energy development. In 
addition, the authorized officer may utilize the energy right-of-way 
corridors on Federal lands in 11 western states identified under 
Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to require 
identification of wind energy corridors in land management plans, as it 
may be more efficient and effective to assess potential effects only at 
the project level, given the variety of uses of NFS lands.
    Comment. One respondent stated that since wind energy technology is 
rapidly evolving, land management plans may not be sufficient for 
purposes of evaluating wind energy projects. As an example, this 
respondent cited the Cherokee National Forest Plan, which was most 
recently updated in 2004, and noted that there have been significant 
changes in wind energy technology in the intervening years.
    Response. The authorized officer may, but is not required to, amend 
a land management plan at any time to address opportunities for wind 
energy development and the best available science regarding wind energy 
development on NFS lands. Land management plans tend to provide general 
guidance on siting decisions. However, land management plans need not 
address wind energy development specifically in order for it to occur 
on NFS lands. Adequate environmental analysis may be conducted at the 
site-specific level, consistent with the final directives.

Public Involvement

    Comment. Multiple respondents stated that the Forest Service did 
not adequately include input from various industry organizations and 
State agencies in development of the proposed directives.
    Response. The Agency believes that the appropriate way to obtain 
input from industry organizations and State

[[Page 47357]]

agencies in the development of wind energy directives is through the 
public notice and comment process and has done so in the development of 
these directives.
    Comment. Another respondent stated that the proposed directives 
failed to involve the various State agencies in assessing the impact of 
industrial wind power.
    Response. Wind energy applications will undergo project-specific 
environmental analysis, as appropriate. In accordance with FSM 1501.2, 
section 72.1 in the final directives provides for consultation and 
coordination early in the NEPA process with appropriate State and local 
agencies and Indian tribes. This early consultation and coordination 
will help ensure that the requisite environmental analysis for wind 
energy projects is consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, 
wildlife plans, and wind energy project guidelines.
    Comment. One respondent suggested that the Agency consider 
formation of a citizen's advisory board, consisting of representatives 
from communities potentially impacted by wind energy projects, to 
advise the Agency regarding development of wind energy directives.
    Response. The public input obtained through the notice and comment 
process combined with Agency's own knowledge, expertise and research 
have resulted in development of final directives that can effectively 
guide the Agency employees who will be reviewing wind energy proposals 
and applications and issuing wind energy authorizations. The chartering 
of a citizen advisory board under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
would not be cost effective and would prolong the development of wind 
energy directives and therefore, is unwarranted in this case.

Use of Science

    Comment. One respondent stated that Forest Service regulations 
require the Agency to consider the best available science when 
implementing a land management plan, yet the proposed directives fail 
to use the best available science in prescribing direction to Forest 
Service decisionmakers.
    Response. The Forest Service used the best available science in 
developing the proposed and final directives. The proposed and final 
directives were reviewed by numerous Forest Service specialists 
Agencywide with substantial expertise in natural resource management 
and research and development. The Forest Service sought advice from FWS 
and BLM staff experienced in wind energy facility development and 
management and from scientists with expertise on bird and bat migration 
ecology.
    The directives were derived from a number of sources, including 
several peer-reviewed publications, such as FWS's ``Interim Guidelines 
to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines;'' BLM's 
``Best Management Practices and Mitigation for Wind Power 
Development;'' and the American Wind Energy Association's Wind Energy 
Siting Handbook. These sources and others listed in section 70.6 of the 
final directives contain useful information regarding wind energy 
facilities. Section 72.21 of the final directives enumerates sources 
that may be consulted in connection with siting of wind energy 
facilities. The authorized officer may also use any applicable existing 
or newly developed Federal, State, or non-governmental guidelines, 
recommendations, and relevant scientific publications in implementing 
the final directives.
    Comment. One respondent recommended using recognized site 
assessment protocols that are based on the best available science and 
that include ecological attractiveness evaluations, i.e., that assess 
ecological magnets and other conditions that draw birds and bats to 
specific sites. This respondent noted that this information is 
available from the closest FWS Ecological Services field office, as 
well as from State fish and wildlife or natural resource agencies.
    Response. The Agency agrees that the authorized officer should use 
the best available science and information in assessing suitability of 
sites proposed for wind energy development, including effects on 
habitat and landscape features and conditions that attract birds and 
bats. This approach is reflected in sections 73.31 and 73.4a in the 
final directives. In addition to Forest Service records, the authorized 
officer may gather information for site evaluations and other 
environmental analysis from the local FWS Ecological Services field 
office; State fish and wildlife or natural resource agencies; non-
governmental entities; and sources such as Natureserve's Vista Support 
System, State Heritage databases, State Comprehensive Wildlife Plans, 
and the Audubon Society's list of important bird areas.
    Comment. Several respondents recommended that the Agency carefully 
consider infrastructure and carbon audits in reviewing wind energy 
applications.
    Response. The Agency will address all relevant issues in the NEPA 
process. Infrastructure (transmission lines and ancillary facilities) 
and carbon audits (carbon footprint) are two examples of issues that 
may be applicable and appropriate during site-specific environmental 
analysis.
    Comment. One respondent cited a report issued by the British 
Government stating that roughly 20 percent of wind farms generate noise 
complaints. This respondent advocated minimizing noise impacts by 
utilizing important design principles, such as installation of blades 
that turn on the upwind side of the towers to avoid the pressure 
differential that causes rhythmic thumping as the blades pass the 
tower. The respondent cautioned against inaccurate assessment of noise 
and recommended using proper microphone shielding techniques so that 
existing ambient noise is properly measured, as well as referring to a 
2006 study addressing the impact of atmospheric conditions on night-
time noise levels so that those levels are properly measured.
    Response. Section 73.4c in the final directives requires the 
authorized officer to ensure that wind energy applicants minimize noise 
where possible and practical and, if possible and practical, minimize 
the amplitude of wind turbine and associated generator noise using 
available noise dampening technologies. In particular, section 73.4c, 
paragraph 2a, requires the authorized officer to ensure that wherever 
possible, applicants restrict noise to 10 decibels above the background 
noise level at nearby residences and campsites, in or near habitats of 
wildlife known to be sensitive to noise during reproduction, roosting, 
or hibernation, or where habitat abandonment may be an issue. Section 
73.4c, paragraph 2b, requires the authorized officer to ensure that 
applicants provide for comparison of noise measurements of proposed 
equipment during wind turbine operation with the background noise level 
in the project area over a 24-hour period.

Purpose and Need

    Comment. Several respondents commented that under NEPA a clear and 
compelling purpose and need must be identified for any project and that 
the Agency should require that a compelling case be made for the use of 
NFS lands versus non-NFS lands for wind energy projects. These 
respondents asked the Agency to explain the apparent change in this 
long-standing special uses policy, which they believed was reflected in 
the proposed directives.
    Response. Under NEPA, it is up to the Agency to determine the 
purpose and need of a project. Current directives

[[Page 47358]]

require authorized officers to analyze the need to use NFS lands in 
evaluating a special use proposal (FSM 2703.1, para. 3), as well as the 
appropriateness of the use on NFS lands (FSM 2703.1, para. 4). In 
addition, current directives provide for denial of proposals that can 
reasonably be accommodated on non-NFS lands (FSM 2703.2, para. 3). 
Current directives at FSM 2703.2 also direct the authorized officer not 
to authorize the use of NFS lands simply because it affords the 
applicant a lower cost and less restrictive location than non-NFS 
lands. These directives apply to all special uses, including wind 
energy development.
    The preceding directives need to be read in conjunction with the 
final directives, which direct authorized officers to authorize wind 
energy facilities on NFS lands to help meet America's energy needs (FSM 
2726.02a, para. 1) and to facilitate wind energy development when it is 
consistent with managing NFS lands to sustain the multiple uses of its 
renewable resources while maintaining the long-term productivity of the 
land (FSM 2726.02a, para. 3).
    Comment. One respondent noted that the January 2005 assessment of 
renewable energy potential on NFS lands conducted by the Forest Service 
and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory shows that other renewable energy sources offer better 
potential than wind energy.
    Response. Wind energy is an important potential source of renewable 
energy on NFS lands. The Agency recognizes that other potential sources 
of renewable energy on NFS lands are also important and is developing 
directives on hydrological, geothermal, and solar energy facilities on 
NFS lands. Each project will be decided on its own merits.

Need for Environmental Analysis

    Comment. One respondent believed that the proposed directives 
should link implementation of wind energy projects to NEPA requirements 
for environmental analysis, including assessment of cumulative effects.
    Response. Sections 74 and 74.1 require the Agency to comply with 
NEPA and Forest Service NEPA procedures in processing applications for 
wind energy permits. Agency NEPA procedures are enumerated in 36 CFR 
part 220, with additional guidance in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15. These 
procedures describe requirements for analysis and documentation, as 
well as implementation of decisions and monitoring of direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects.
    Comment. One respondent commented that the proposed directives do 
not clearly articulate that a site-specific environmental analysis will 
be required for all projects; that the proposed directives should 
require an EIS for all large-scale wind energy projects; that the 
proposed directives should clarify when, where, and how NEPA 
requirements and all natural resource objectives in the applicable land 
management plan will be met; and that NEPA should be strictly adhered 
to before any wind turbine construction proceeds.
    One respondent requested that environmental analysis be conducted 
at every level of a wind energy project, including prior to erection of 
METs. This respondent recommended review of guidelines for construction 
of METs issued by the State of Washington's Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, which this respondent believed were more comprehensive than 
those in the proposed directives.
    Some respondents believed an EIS with a 90-day public comment 
period was warranted for every proposed wind energy facility on NFS 
lands.
    Response. Section 74.1 of the final directives expressly provides 
that each wind energy application, including applications for 
installation of METs (site testing and feasibility permits), is subject 
to NEPA. Section 74.1 of the final directives states: ``Environmental 
analysis for wind energy applications must comply with Agency NEPA 
procedures at 36 CFR part 220 and FSH 1909.15 and should be 
commensurate with the activities proposed and potential effects 
anticipated.''
    The appropriate level of environmental documentation--EIS, EA, or 
categorical exclusion (CE) from documentation in an EA or EIS -- 
depends on the anticipated significance of the environmental effects of 
the proposed action and is therefore site-specific. Therefore, it is 
not appropriate for the final directives to require an EIS for all wind 
energy projects or to specify when, where, and how NEPA requirements 
and all natural resource objectives in the applicable land management 
plan will be met. As wind energy proposals are analyzed, resource 
specialists will utilize a wide range of information, including the 
variety of State guidelines that are available. If an EIS is required, 
the Agency would provide at least 45 days for public comment. The 
responsible official has the discretion to extend the public comment 
period.
    Comment. Multiple respondents objected to 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3), which 
authorizes a CE for approval, modification, and continuation of minor 
special uses, including METs, using less than 5 contiguous acres of 
land. These respondents stated that wind energy development on NFS 
lands does not warrant this low level of environmental analysis and 
public disclosure and that no wind energy activities should be subject 
to a CE.
    Response. The Agency has not proposed revising 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3) 
in connection with these directives. Therefore, these comments are 
beyond the scope of these directives. The Agency's experience with 
installation of METs in many locations on NFS lands has shown that 
reliance on a CE for this activity is often warranted. The analysis 
conducted to comply with the Agency's NEPA regulations will be based on 
site-specific information and anticipated environmental effects. 
Provided that extraordinary circumstances are not an issue under 36 CFR 
220.6(b), the CE in 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3)(i) may apply to applications for 
minimum area site testing and feasibility permits, which involve up to 
5 acres. Per section 75.11, paragraph 2, in the final directives, 
issuance of a site testing and feasibility permit does not ensure 
issuance of a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy 
facility. Applications for construction and operation of a wind energy 
permit are subject to further environmental analysis, as appropriate.
    Comment. One respondent stated that permit applications that are 
limited to road or transmission line access across NFS lands should not 
require the same level of environmental analysis as wind energy 
projects and that an EA should be sufficient for most roads and 
transmission lines.
    Response. The environmental analysis required for a wind energy 
application must consider connected actions, i.e., actions that (1) 
automatically trigger other actions which may require an EIS, (2) 
cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 
simultaneously, or (3) are interdependent parts of a larger action and 
depend on the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 
1508.25(a)(1)(i)-(iii)). In the case of a wind energy application, 
access roads and transmission lines likely would be connected actions 
and likely would be analyzed in connection with the proposed wind 
energy use. Accordingly, section 71 in the final directives states that 
environmental analyses for each wind energy permit should address the 
connected actions essential to enabling the proposed wind energy use 
and that

[[Page 47359]]

connected actions for a permit for the construction and operation of a 
wind energy facility might include reconstruction of an NFS road to 
accommodate oversized vehicles needed to move wind turbine components 
and construction of a power line to connect the proposed site with the 
existing energy grid.
    Comment. One respondent noted that some of these projects will be 
influenced by the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) initiatives, 
which distribute costs and concentrate environmental damage.
    Response. The Agency is aware of State RPS initiatives. State RPS 
initiatives in part would require energy providers to produce a 
percentage of electricity from renewable resources. State RPS 
initiatives are consistent with the Federal focus on renewable energy 
sources, which prompted development of these directives.
    Comment. One respondent stated that E.O. 13212 sets a national 
policy for Federal agencies to expedite review of new energy projects 
on Federal lands and that the proposed directives would hamper review 
and authorization of new wind energy projects.
    Response. Establishing a standard framework for reviewing 
considerations that affect wind energy development and review of 
proposals and applications for wind energy projects will enhance Agency 
efficiency. In addition, these final directives do not impose any new 
requirements on wind energy projects. While E.O. 13212 encourages 
expediting new energy projects, it does not exempt agencies from 
compliance with applicable law, such as NEPA and the ESA. NEPA, the 
ESA, and other Federal laws impose requirements regardless of whether 
these directives are promulgated. The complexity of proposals and 
applications will influence the time frame for their review.
    Comment. Citing Citizen for Better Forestry v. United States 
Department of Agriculture. 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2007), 
one respondent stated that under the ESA, the Forest Service must 
formally consult with FWS or the NMFS when developing regulations that 
may affect Federally listed threatened or endangered species.
    Response. Citizens for Better Forestry v. United States Department 
of Agriculture. 481 F. Supp.2d 1059. 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2007). involved a 
regulation that revised species viability and diversity requirements 
for national forest management. The court held the rule could have 
indirectly affected listed species in the NFS. In contrast, the final 
directives provide additional guidance to Agency employees on siting 
wind energy facilities and addressing issues specifically associated 
with proposals and applications for wind energy uses on NFS lands. The 
final directives do not have the effect of a rule. Rather, they merely 
overlay an existing regulatory and policy framework for authorizing 
special uses on NFS lands. Thus, issuance of the final directives does 
not require formal or informal consultation with FWS or NMFS. In 
addition, the directives remind authorized officers and others of their 
responsibilities under the ESA to consult on wind energy projects as 
applicable.

Issues That Should Be Addressed

    Comment. One respondent stated that the Forest Service should be 
cautious in providing for mitigation of adverse effects. This 
respondent believed that offsite and compensatory mitigation should be 
provided for through environmental analysis and utilized to help 
restore other portions of the landscape, so as to minimize the 
cumulative impact on the visual environment.
    Response. Section 74.1 in the final directives provides that all 
wind energy applications are subject to NEPA and the Forest Service's 
NEPA regulations at 36 CFR part 220 and NEPA procedures at FSH 1909.15. 
Pursuant to these authorities, each wind energy application will be 
subject to scoping to determine the appropriate level of environmental 
analysis and documentation. In addition, per section 73.4b in the final 
directives, visual impacts associated with wind energy applications 
will be evaluated using the SMS.
    Comment. One respondent suggested providing for additional public 
comment on the proposed directives.
    Response. The Agency believes that the 60-day initial comment 
period, followed by a 60-day extension, was sufficient to provide for 
adequate public input on development of the final directives and is 
therefore issuing these final directives.
    Comment. One respondent commented that the siting of wind energy 
facilities and associated infrastructure should take into consideration 
the need to protect the ability of species to adapt to climate change.
    Response. The Agency is developing a strategic framework for 
climate change. Once completed, the strategic framework for climate 
change will be used as a guide when climate change is identified as an 
issue during environmental analysis.
    Comment. One respondent expressed a concern that exercise of the 
power of eminent domain would be necessary to route power lines for 
wind energy facilities beyond the boundaries of the NFS.
    Response. The Agency believes the exercise of the power of eminent 
domain to route power lines for wind energy facilities across private 
lands is beyond the scope of these directives.
    Comment. One respondent commented that holders of ski area permits 
should have the exclusive right to develop wind energy resources on the 
NFS lands covered by their ski area permits, given their long-term 
capital investments, the potential for interference with their 
operations, and safety and access concerns. This respondent analogized 
the exclusive right that ski area permit holders should have in this 
context to the withdrawal of ski areas on NFS lands from all forms of 
appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws 
pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing under the National Forest 
Ski Area Permit Fee Act. This respondent noted that ski area permit 
holders may choose to collaborate with other entities in wind energy 
development, but that the permit holders must remain in control.
    Response. Pursuant to 36 CFR 251.54(e)(1)(iv) and 251.55, Forest 
Service special use permits do not grant exclusive use. The Agency may 
use or allow others to use any part of a permit area for any purpose 
that is not inconsistent with the holder's existing rights and 
privileges, after consultation with all affected parties and agencies 
(36 CFR 251.55(b)). If wind energy development is proposed within a ski 
area, the Agency would consult with all affected parties and agencies. 
If it is determined that both uses can coexist, it would be important 
to plan, design, and operate both uses to be compatible. Additionally, 
the Agency could modify a ski area boundary to exclude land suitable 
for wind energy development.

Technical and Editorial Comments

    Comment. One respondent suggested that the Agency strengthen key 
provisions in the proposed directives by the substituting ``shall'' for 
``should'' and that not doing so would allow authorized officers to set 
up monitoring programs that might not appropriately measure the 
environmental impacts of wind energy proposals.
    Response. In the final directives, the Agency has substituted the 
word ``must'' for ``should'' in sections 72.21d governing species of 
management concern; 73.1 governing application

[[Page 47360]]

requirements for all wind energy permits; and 73.31 governing study 
plans. Elsewhere, imposing a mandatory duty on the Forest Service is 
inappropriate, given the need for the Agency to retain discretion in 
exercising its authorities.

Natural Resource Management

    Comment. Several respondents expressed opposition to the proposed 
directives because they believed wind energy development on NFS lands 
would disrupt geological and hydrological conditions and cause 
deforestation, erosion, and pollution, resulting in adverse impacts on 
wildlife and humans.
    Response. The proposed and final directives at FSH 2709.11, section 
72.1, reference a number of items the authorized officer must clarify 
with proponents at a pre-proposal meeting. In addition, the proposed 
and final directives at FSH 2709.11, section 72.2, describe the 
screening process and criteria for evaluating a wind energy proposal. 
Potential infrastructure effects, deforestation, and erosion and the 
other issues identified by the respondent may be addressed at these 
stages. In addition, wind energy proposals that are accepted as 
applications will be analyzed as appropriate pursuant to NEPA. If any 
unique site-specific factors are present, they will be considered as 
part of the analysis of environmental effects in the NEPA process. 
Where applicable, the scoping process will provide another opportunity 
for public involvement.
    Comment. One respondent suggested that the Agency conduct an 
analysis of the impacts of wind energy projects on fire control and 
firefighting and that the Agency require mitigation measures to 
minimize these impacts.
    Response. For the reasons given in an earlier response, the Agency 
chose not to conduct a PEIS for wind energy projects. Any site-specific 
analyses conducted on wind energy projects will take into consideration 
environmental effects of the proposed action, including potential 
impacts on fire control, as applicable, in accordance with the Agency's 
NEPA procedures.

Socioeconomic Concerns

    Comment. Several respondents commented that output from wind energy 
facilities on NFS lands would address local energy needs and would 
result in a cost savings to consumers. Other respondents stated that 
there is absolutely no guarantee that the output from wind energy 
facilities on NFS lands would be available to local communities or that 
wind energy produced from these facilities would provide cost savings 
or tax revenue for State or local residents. Some respondents believed 
that wind energy projects would produce insufficient energy to warrant 
the sacrifice of acres of NFS lands. One respondent stated that Federal 
lands should not be destroyed to satisfy the energy demands of 
population centers in other parts of the country. One respondent stated 
that wind turbines cannot generate sufficient power and must rely on 
backup generation from conventional power plants and therefore will do 
nothing to help meet America's energy needs.
    One respondent stated that wind turbines must be placed where they 
will have the least impact on beautiful areas in the NFS, so as to 
protect local economies that rely on tourism and to preserve the 
psychological benefit these areas confer on those who cherish the 
national forests. Another respondent questioned the Forest Service's 
determination that the proposed directives would not have an economic 
impact on small businesses, given the likely effect of wind energy 
development on numerous businesses, such as tourism and real estate, 
that rely on access to or pristine views of NFS lands. This respondent 
believed that it would be highly unlikely that the benefit of wind 
power would compensate for even the most minimal environmental and 
economic costs. One respondent believed that wind energy projects would 
not produce enough jobs to offset their negative effects, such as 
diminished property values and decreased recreational use due to 
disturbance of pristine national forests and wildlife habitats. One 
respondent believed that electrical power derived from wind energy 
would be most effective from a cost and reliability perspective along 
coastlines and near population centers, rather than on NFS lands. 
Another respondent was concerned about the large size of wind turbines, 
the number required for wind energy facilities, and their distant 
location from population centers. This respondent stated that small 
wind turbines and solar panels should be located along highways near 
population centers, not in national forests. One respondent believed 
that in assessing each wind energy proposal, authorized officers should 
consider its potential psychological, physical, and spiritual impacts 
on the next seven generations, as well as its impacts on natural 
resources. One respondent was concerned that wind energy development 
would result in further industrialization of the eastern United States.
    Response. Consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Agency 
has determined that renewable energy projects are appropriate uses of 
NFS lands and will help meet America's energy needs. These final 
directives provide Agency employees with guidance and a consistent 
framework for consideration of relevant factors for siting wind energy 
projects and consideration of wind energy proposals.
    FSH 2709.11, section 72.21, addresses siting considerations for 
initial screening of wind energy proposals and review of wind energy 
applications. FSH 2709.11, section 73.4b, in the final directives 
requires authorized officers to ensure that applicants integrate wind 
turbine strings and design into the surrounding landscape, based on the 
scenic integrity objectives in the applicable land management plan. FSH 
2709.11, section 73.32, paragraph 12, in the final directives requires 
authorized officers to ensure that applicants produce a visual 
simulation depicting the scale, scope, and visual effects of all 
components of their proposed wind energy project.
    Consistent with applicable law, authorized officers will address 
the potential effects of wind energy projects, including effects on 
recreational values, cultural resources, scenery, public access, and 
public safety, in environmental analysis conducted on wind energy 
applications. Authorized officers will consider the number of acres 
proposed for use at pre-proposal meetings, during screening of 
proposals, and during review of applications, including environmental 
analysis. Impacts for the next seven generations may not be reasonably 
foreseeable. NEPA and its implementing regulations require analysis of 
reasonably foreseeable impacts, and the Agency will comply with that 
requirement in its site-specific NEPA analysis.

Response to Comments on FSM 2726

    Comment. One respondent recommended adding recreation and scenic 
impacts to the list of detrimental impacts to be minimized, so that FSM 
2726 would provide for minimizing detrimental social, recreational, 
scenic, and environmental impacts, including direct, indirect and 
cumulative impacts.
    Response. Proposed and final FSM 2726 do not provide a list of 
detrimental impacts to be minimized. Nevertheless, impacts on 
recreation and scenery will be analyzed at the site-specific project 
level as appropriate.
    Comment. One respondent suggested that the authorized officer 
delegate

[[Page 47361]]

determination of the appropriate environmental analysis for wind energy 
projects to resource specialists to prevent delays in initiating 
studies.
    Response. The basic principles for delegation of authority are in 
FSM 1230 and are further enumerated throughout the Forest Service 
Directive System. Unless specifically delegated, the authority to make 
decisions rests with Regional Foresters, Forest or Grassland 
Supervisors, and District Rangers, not resource specialists. FSM 
2726.04b, paragraph 4, provides for delegation of wind energy 
authorities from the Regional Forester to the Forest Supervisor as 
provided in FSM 2704.33. The authorized officer utilizes the expertise 
of resource specialists, as needed, to inform decisions, including 
decisions regarding appropriate environmental analysis and 
documentation.
    Comment. One respondent recommended mentioning species that are 
listed or are candidates for listing as endangered in FSM 2726.02a, 
paragraph 5, and adding FWS to the list of Federal agencies with a 
coordination role in FSM 2726.21a, paragraph 1.
    Response. FSM 2726.02a, paragraph 5, already directs authorized 
officers to consider species of management concern, which includes 
threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats in siting 
wind energy facilities.
    The Agency agrees with the second recommendation and has added FWS 
and NMFS to the list of agencies in FSM 2726.21a, paragraph 1. The list 
is not comprehensive; there are other Federal agencies that may be 
contacted regarding protected species, including NMFS.

Response to Comments on FSH 2709.11, Chapter 70

70.1--Authority

    Comment. One respondent suggested adding to the list of authorities 
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the ESA, E.O. 13186, the 
MBTA, and NEPA.
    Response. This section addresses the Forest Service's authority to 
issue permits for wind energy uses on NFS lands, which is in section 
501(a)(4) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4), and to recover costs in 
connection with processing wind energy applications and monitoring wind 
energy permits, which is in section 504(g) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 
1764(g)). FSH 2709.11, sections 73.4 and 74.1, in the final directives 
addresses compliance with NEPA, the ESA, and other environmental laws 
in connection with authorizing wind energy uses.

70.2--Objectives

    Comment. Several respondents disagreed that wind energy development 
would reduce the United States' dependence on foreign energy sources 
and thus believed that wind energy development was inappropriate on NFS 
lands. These respondents noted that wind energy components produced 
outside the United States would require more fossil fuel for their 
manufacture and transport than would be saved from the generation of 
wind energy. These respondents further noted that wind energy 
facilities in Europe have not replaced or caused the closing of any 
fossil fuel plants.
    Response. In response to this comment, the Agency believes wind 
energy would help reduce net fossil fuel consumption and promote clean 
air. In addition has revised section 70.2 to read:

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes the Forest Service's 
role in meeting the renewable energy goals of the United States. 
Consistent with Agency policies and procedures, the use and 
occupancy of NFS lands for alternative energy production, such as 
wind energy development, are appropriate and will help meet the 
energy needs of the United States. For additional objectives 
regarding wind energy facilities see FSM 2726.02a.

70.5--Definitions

    Comment. Some respondents indicated that a better definition for 
``adaptive management'' was needed.
    Response. The Agency has removed the definition for ``adaptive 
management'' because that term is not used in chapter 70.
    Comment. One respondent suggested replacing all references to 
``significant cultural resources'' with ``historic properties'' because 
historic properties are listed or eligible for listing in the National 
Register for Historic Places, and their significance is presumed.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that historic properties are a 
type of cultural resource and that the significance of cultural 
resources as defined in the final directives is presumed. Accordingly, 
the Agency has revised the definition for ``cultural resource'' and 
added a definition for ``historic property,'' to read as follows:

    Cultural Resource. A product or location of human activity, 
occupation, or use identifiable through field survey, historical 
documentation, or oral evidence, including prehistoric, 
archaeological, or architectural sites and structures, historic 
properties, sacred sites and objects, and traditional cultural 
properties.
    Historic Property. Any prehistoric or historic district, site, 
building, structure, or object included or eligible for inclusion in 
the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, 
records, and remains that are related to and located within these 
properties.

    Comment. One respondent believed the proposed definition for the 
phrase ``reasonably foreseeable future actions'' as ``those activities 
not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or 
identified proposals,'' was too narrow. Specifically, this respondent 
believed that the phrase ``not yet undertaken'' would eliminate from 
evaluation those effects that have taken place and will continue; that 
there were reasonably foreseeable future actions that would occur even 
in the absence of ``existing decisions, funding, or identified 
proposals;'' and that these actions would have effects and must be 
evaluated.
    Response. The phrase ``reasonably foreseeable future actions'' is 
defined in the Forest Service's NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.3. The 
definition for this phrase was vetted by the public, other Federal 
agencies, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) prior to its 
adoption. The Forest Service's NEPA regulations are beyond the scope of 
the wind energy directives.
    Comment. One respondent objected to the definition for ``site 
plan'' on the grounds that it would require siting individual wind 
turbines, rather than turbine corridors. This respondent stated that it 
is impossible to identify specific turbine locations at the application 
stage when the turbine model to be used and overall project capacity 
are still unknown. The respondent further noted that most State and 
county agencies require applicants to site turbine corridors, rather 
than individual turbines, for this reason.
    Response. In response to this comment, the Agency has modified the 
definition for ``site plan'' in the final directives to read:

    A scaled, two-dimensional graphic representation of the location 
of all proposed wind turbines, buildings, service areas, roads, 
structures, and other elements of a wind energy facility that are 
displayed in relationship to existing site features, such as 
topography, major vegetation, water bodies, and constructed 
elements.

    Comment. One respondent suggested that the Agency remove the word 
``generally'' from the definition of ``species of management concern,'' 
so that migratory bird and bat species are included.
    Some respondents suggested expanding the definition for species of 
management concern to include species that are listed or that are 
candidates for listing by States as endangered or threatened. One 
respondent

[[Page 47362]]

recommended that the definition for species of management concern be 
limited to species protected under Federal law.
    Other respondents suggested including a wide variety of species 
without regard to Federal or State status, such as raptors, grassland 
gallinaceous bird species, ground-nesting bird species that exhibit 
significant avoidance or other behavioral modifications and habitat 
fragmentation in response to vertical structures, and big game, such as 
elk and deer. Additionally, respondents cautioned that care must be 
taken to avoid placement of wind energy facilities in big game 
migration corridors, critical fawning or calving grounds, or winter 
habitat.
    Response. In the final directives, the Agency has removed the word 
``generally'' from the definition for ``species of management 
concern.''
    The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to limit species of 
management concern to those protected by Federal law. Therefore, the 
Agency has added State-protected species to the definition for clarity. 
Species of management concern may be any single species or group of 
species (e.g., big-game, small game, upland game birds, amphibians, 
reptiles, and butterflies) and their corresponding habitats that may be 
affected by the proposed project and that therefore should be included 
in the site-specific environmental analysis.
    Project-specific species of management concern may be identified by 
reviewing the applicable land management plan; Regional Forester 
sensitive species list; interagency species recovery or management 
plans; and State wildlife action plans. Species or groups of species 
may also be identified through consultation with other Federal 
agencies, State agencies, and tribal and local governments; public 
scoping and involvement; site testing and feasibility evaluations; and 
pre-construction survey and inventory.
    Comment. Some respondents wanted the proposed directives to include 
definitions for ``blade-swept area,'' ``turbine array,'' ``wind farm or 
park,'' and ``wind resource area.''
    Response. The Forest Service has not included definitions for these 
terms because they do not appear in the final directives.

70.6--References

    Comment. One respondent suggested referencing FWS's Interim 
Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines; 
the Government Accountability Office's 2005 Wind Audit Recommendations; 
and any FWS public documents available on wind and wildlife 
interactions.
    Response. The Forest Service used the FWS's Interim Guidelines to 
Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines in developing 
the Forest Service's proposed and final wind energy directives. These 
guidelines are cited in section 70.6, along with all other sources used 
to develop the directives.
    The authorized officer may use any applicable Federal, State, and 
non-governmental guidelines, recommendations, and scientific 
publications in connection with NEPA compliance and review of proposals 
and applications and issuance of permits for wind energy uses.
    Comment. Several respondents suggested additional references for 
inclusion in the proposed directives.
    Response. After careful review, the Agency has added two references 
cited by these respondents, including Assessing Impacts of Wind Energy 
Development on Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document 
and the FWS's Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts 
From Wind Turbines to section 70.6 in the final directives.

71--Types of Wind Energy Permits

    Comment. One respondent stated that if the proposed regulation at 
36 CFR 220.6(d)(10)(ii) allowing for conversion of an existing special 
use authorization, such as a permit, to a new type of special use 
authorization, such as a lease or easement, without creation of a 
project or case file or decision memo is promulgated, the Forest 
Service should preclude its application to wind energy permits. This 
respondent reasoned that special use permits, leases, and easements are 
very different legal instruments and are not interchangeable. The 
respondent believed if this regulation applied to wind energy permits, 
it would allow conversion of a 30-year wind energy facility permit to 
an easement or a lease, which often has a longer term or may be granted 
in perpetuity. This respondent believed that an authorization with this 
type of term could set a dangerous precedent in permanently removing 
public access to NFS lands without public notice.
    Another respondent stated that unless METs require new road 
construction, they should be eligible for a CE from documentation in an 
EA or EIS or less detailed environmental analysis. This respondent was 
concerned that the provisions regarding site testing and feasibility 
permits in the proposed directives appeared to require a wildlife 
monitoring plan for installation of METs, as well as all the studies 
needed to process an application for a permit to construct and operate 
a wind energy facility. This respondent stated that since METs are 
temporary structures with minimal impact, no environmental or cultural 
resources studies should be required for applications for site testing 
and feasibility permits. This respondent also stated that studies 
needed to process an application for a wind energy permit should be 
required only