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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 if the application is filed.

Response.

The proposed and final directives provide for issuance of a permit, rather than a lease or an easement, for wind energy uses. Regardless, the Forest Service's NEPA regulations at 36 CFR part 220 are beyond the scope of these directives.

Provided that extraordinary circumstances are not an issue under 36 CFR 220.6(b), installation of METs under a minimum area site testing and feasibility permit, which involves up to 5 acres of land, may qualify for a CE under 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3)(i). This CE applies to approval of construction of a meteorological sampling site requiring less than 5 contiguous acres of land.

The Agency agrees that a monitoring plan should be required for permits for construction and operation of a wind energy facility, not for site testing and feasibility permits. Therefore, in the final directives, the Agency has removed the requirement for a monitoring plan from the provisions in section 75 governing site testing and feasibility permits.

Section 75.1, paragraph 3a, of the proposed directives stated that if equipment is not installed and operational within 2 years after issuance of a site testing and feasibility permit, the permit shall terminate. In the final directives, the Agency has added the phrase, “unless a written justification for the delay is submitted and accepted by the authorized officer prior to the end of the 2-year period,” to address situations where the delay is caused by circumstances that are beyond the holder's control.

Section 75.1, paragraph 3b, of the final directives states that if test results from METs or other instruments are not reported to the Forest Service within 3 years after issuance of either type of site testing and feasibility permit, the permit shall terminate, unless a request for an extension is submitted at least 6 months before termination and is approved by the authorized officer. In addition, section 75.11, paragraph 1, of the final directives provides that studies on the feasibility of a wind energy project and its environmental compatibility are

required for processing an application for a permit to construct and operate a wind energy facility and must accompany the study plan (sec. 73.31).

Consistent with section 75.1, paragraph 3b, the Agency has clarified section 71, paragraph 1, in the final directives to state that site testing and feasibility permits are issued for a term of up to 3 years, with the option to extend the permit for up to 2 years, pursuant to section 75.1, paragraph 3b.

Comment.

One respondent questioned whether a special use permit was the appropriate mechanism for dealing with wind energy development and suggested that the Forest Service explore other approaches because of the permanent or quasi-permanent aspect of these developments. In particular, this respondent believed that the provisions in the proposed directives concerning wildlife monitoring and adaptive management were weak and questioned whether, once a special use permit was issued, the Forest Service would have sufficient authority to impose new requirements on the permit holder in response to new information that might require substantial and costly modifications to the project.

Response.

Section 501(a)(4) of FLPMA, (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4)) authorizes the Forest Service to grant rights-of-way for the use and occupancy of NFS lands for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR part 251, Subpart B, provide for issuance of permits for rights-of-way granted under FLPMA. Both FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1765(a)(ii)) and Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 251.56(a)(1)(i)(B)) allow the Agency to include terms and conditions that minimize damage to fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the environment.

In addition, the standard forms that will be used to authorize wind energy uses contain a provision that allows the authorized officer to amend the permit in whole or in part at the discretion of the authorized officer, when deemed necessary or desirable to incorporate new terms, conditions, and stipulations that are required by law, regulation, the applicable land management plan, or other management decisions.

Comment.

One respondent believed that the guidance in proposed section 71, paragraph 3, “environmental analysis for each type of wind energy permit should address only the proposed use for that type of permit,” would ensure that environmental analysis for site testing and feasibility permits would be conducted on the larger project area being secured by the site testing and feasibility permit.

Response.

The environmental analysis for each type of wind energy permit should address only the use proposed for that type of permit. For example, environmental analysis for a site testing and feasibility permit should address the proposed use of NFS lands for site testing and feasibility, as opposed to construction and operation of a wind energy facility, which may be proposed at a later time.

Comment.

One respondent suggested increasing the term of a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility from 30 to 40 years or more on the grounds that wind energy development is costly and the return on the investment may not be realized in a 30-year period, and financing may be difficult to obtain if the certainty of the project is unknown after 30 years.

Another respondent noted that the 30-year term for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility was misleading, since once wind turbines, which have a typical life of more than 60 years, are installed, they are essentially permanent because of the cost of removing them.

Response.

The Agency believes that a 30-year term, which is one of the longer terms for Forest Service special use authorizations, is sufficient for purposes of recouping the investment in a wind energy facility and for purposes of obtaining financing. In addition, the use covered by a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility may be reauthorized under 36 CFR 251.64, provided that the facility is still being used for wind energy purposes, is being operated and maintained in accordance with all the provisions of the permit, and is consistent with the decision that approved the facility. In reauthorizing the use, the authorized officer may modify the terms and conditions of the permit to reflect new requirements imposed by current Federal and State land use plans, laws, regulations, or other management decisions.

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.54(e)(1)(iv) preclude authorization of permanent facilities. A wind energy permit will terminate upon expiration, and the use will be discontinued, unless a new permit is issued for the use. In addition, section 77.5 in the final directives provides for restoration of wind energy facility sites upon discontinuation of the use.

72.1—Pre-Proposal Meetings

Comment.

One respondent suggested that a public meeting be held before a wind energy proposal is submitted, so that the public can be involved early in the process. Another respondent stated that the Forest Service should ensure that wind energy proponents provide for adequate public awareness through public meetings and coordination with affected local and State agencies, and that any concerns raised during these efforts should be documented and presented to the Forest Service. One respondent stated that siting and design criteria should be discussed at the beginning of the process, rather than relying on mitigation measures imposed at the end of the process. Another respondent suggested that Forest Service personnel trained in scenery management be included in pre-proposal meetings. One respondent noted that BLM's best management practices for fluid minerals might serve as a model for improving on-site reviews.

Response.

The Agency believes it is not necessary or appropriate to conduct a public meeting before a wind energy proposal is submitted. A pre-proposal meeting between the proponent and the Forest Service is required by 36 CFR 251.54(a) and section 72.1 of the final directives. Under these provisions, a wind energy proponent must contact the Forest Service as early as possible to ensure that the proponent fully understands the implications and requirements associated with a wind energy proposal. The anticipated level of public interest, environmental concerns, siting, and potential effects on the visual resource are included in this exchange. The Forest Service normally utilizes a broad range of resource specialists, including those trained in scenery management, in the proposal development phase. Because a pre-proposal meeting is conducted early in the process, a proposal may not be fully developed at that time. Therefore, public involvement initiated by the Forest Service is not appropriate or required at that point. Per 36 CFR 251.54(e)(6), (g)(1), and (g)(2)(i), public involvement initiated by the Agency is required after a proposal is accepted as an application.

However, a proponent may wish to seek public input in developing a wind energy proposal. The Agency supports public outreach efforts by a proponent in developing a wind energy proposal. Section 73.5 in the final directives directs authorized officers to ensure that wind energy applicants consider conducting meetings to inform the public regarding wind energy development, including the design, operation, and public benefit of a proposed facility.

Comment.

One respondent stated that the Forest Service should require consultation and coordination with State fish and game agencies throughout the process for wind energy development, including pre-screening and pre- and post-development monitoring plans, in addition to the opportunity to comment through the NEPA process. Another respondent suggested specifying a minimum period for development of a wind energy proposal to ensure adequate pre-proposal coordination with appropriate local and State agencies and other stakeholders.

Response.

Section 72.1, paragraph 2g, in the final directives addresses discussion at pre-proposal meetings of consultation and coordination with appropriate State and local agencies and Indian tribes. Section 73.1, paragraph 1, in the final directives provides for coordination and consultation with tribal governments and with regulatory agencies such as FWS regarding wind energy applications. These provisions will help ensure that project reviews and NEPA analyses are coordinated with State, local, and tribal governments and are consistent with State wildlife laws, wildlife plans, and wind energy development guidelines. The Forest Service does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to specify a minimum period for development of a wind energy proposal to ensure adequate pre-proposal coordination with interested parties. Applicable regulations and directives provide sufficient opportunity for coordination by requiring proponents to contact the Forest Service as early as possible.

Comment.

One respondent stated that where federally listed species or their habitat are likely to be impacted by wind energy development, the Forest Service should clarify the Agency's roles and responsibilities with the FWS, including designating a wind energy applicant as a non-Federal representative for purposes of informal consultations under Section 7 of the ESA.

Response.

The authorized officer may choose to designate a wind energy applicant as a non-federal representative pursuant to 50 CFR 502.08 for purposes of informal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. The Forest Service will furnish guidance and supervision and will independently review the scope and contents of the biological assessment. When formal consultation is necessary, it will be conducted by the Forest Service in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA.

72.2—Federal Interagency Coordination

Comment.

One respondent stated that the obligation to obtain clearance for obstructions in airspace rests with the FAA, not the Department of Defense (DoD) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and that the FAA does not require obstruction evaluations for most new construction less than 200 feet above ground. Consequently, this respondent recommended notifying proponents of the need for an obstruction evaluation only when their proposal includes project components that would be taller than 200 feet. The respondent also noted that separate FAA environmental analysis of proposed wind energy development should not be necessary because of the environmental analysis of wind energy applications conducted by the Forest Service.

Response.

The Agency agrees that an FAA obstruction evaluation is generally needed only for wind energy construction 200 feet above ground level or within close proximity of an airport, in which case wind energy turbines may interfere with radar. The Agency believes that sections 72.1, paragraph g, and 73.1, paragraph 1, in the final directives adequately address coordination with the FAA in connection with proposed wind energy projects on NFS lands. The Agency believes that it is more appropriate for the FAA, rather than the Forest Service, to provide any additional necessary detail regarding compliance with FAA radar and electronic security requirements in this context. The Agency also agrees that separate FAA environmental analysis of proposed wind energy development is not necessary because of the environmental analysis of wind energy applications that will be conducted by the Forest Service.

Comment.

One respondent stated that the proposed directives need to provide for coordination with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Response.

The Agency does not believe it is necessary to provide for coordination with FERC in connection with wind energy proposals. Proponents are responsible for inter-connection agreements and other aspects of the project that may fall within FERC's preview. FWS, DoD, DHS, the FAA, and the National Weather Service all have an interest in wind energy development because these agencies' activities involve airspace and could be adversely affected by interference with instrumentation.

Comment.

One respondent stated that the proposed directives should provide for coordination with FWS and NMFS as required under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the ESA, the MBTA, and similar requirements under other Federal and State wildlife laws. This respondent also stated that the proposed directives need to provide for consideration of sensitive species and management indicator species in each region in any analysis, assessment, and evaluation related to wind energy development and protection of those species through mitigation measures included in wind energy permits.

One respondent recommended that State fish and wildlife agencies and FWS be consulted regarding the suitability of a proposed site and known wildlife resources in the vicinity. Another respondent stated that the proposed directives circumvent environmental analysis and consultation with FWS and give too much discretion to local Forest Service officials and wind energy permit holders. Another respondent recommended establishing an interagency committee of State and Federal wildlife experts, including representatives from FWS, to assist in review of wind energy applications.

One respondent noted that all federally listed threatened and endangered species and State-protected species and their habitat should be considered in long-term management decisions concerning wind power development. Another respondent stated that wind energy proposals should not be accepted if they destroy or degrade critical habitats for listed threatened and endangered species. This respondent believed that because wind turbines tower high above ridges, the turbines would kill thousands of eagles and hawks soaring on updrafts and would pose an increasing risk to eastern populations of peregrine falcons.

Response.

Section 7 of the ESA and FSM 2670 require the Forest Service to consult with FWS or NMFS regarding any Forest Service action that may affect a threatened or endangered species or its critical habitat. FSM 2670 addresses sensitive species, management indicator species, and other species of management concern. Section 7 consultation occurs concurrently with NEPA analysis and is completed by the time the authorized officer is prepared to issue a NEPA decision document. All consultation, coordination, and project review required under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and E.O. 13186, regarding the responsibilities of Federal agencies to protect migratory birds, are also conducted concurrently with NEPA

analysis and completed before a NEPA decision document is released.

With respect to wind energy development, section 72.1, paragraph g, of the final directives requires the authorized officer at pre-proposal meetings to clarify expectations for coordination and consultation with FWS, NMFS, and State agencies. Additionally, as part of NEPA compliance for wind energy applications, the Forest Service will ask State agencies and Federal wildlife experts for input through the public scoping process. Therefore, the Forest Service does not believe it is necessary to establish an interagency committee of State and Federal wildlife experts to assist in review of wind energy applications.

The final directives contain numerous provisions addressing protection of wildlife. Section 70.5 of the final directives defines “species of management concern” broadly to include federally listed threatened and endangered species; species that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; Forest Service species of concern, species of interest, species of high public interest, and management indicator species; and State-protected species. Section 72.1, paragraph 2g, provides for clarification at pre-proposal meetings of expectations for coordination and consultation with FWS. Section 72.21d addresses siting considerations for species of management concern. To protect birds and bats, section 73.2 provides for avoiding the use of guy wires on METs. Section 73.31, paragraph 1, requires applicants for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility to submit a study plan that includes a review of existing information regarding species of management concern. Section 73.31, paragraph 2, requires applicants to identify information and methods by which to gather information for the development of biological assessments and evaluations of project-specific species of management concern and their habitats.

Section 73.4a addresses in detail species of management concern in the context of construction and operation of wind energy facilities. Section 75.11, paragraph 1d, provides for evaluation of site feasibility for wind energy development relative to bat and bird migration routes and installation of bat detection equipment on METs. Section 75.21, paragraph 6, requires a wildlife monitoring plan for permits for construction and operation of a wind energy facility.

72.31a—General Considerations

This section in the proposed directives addressed general considerations associated with siting wind energy facilities on NFS lands.

Comment.

One respondent stated that before considering wind energy projects for a particular administrative unit, the Forest Service should amend the applicable land management plan to identify those areas that are inappropriate, appropriate, or designated for wind energy development and, with regard to the latter two, those areas that are subject to a higher standard of review before any wind energy project is approved.

Response.

The Agency does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to require programmatic analysis and amendment of land management plans for siting wind energy facilities on NFS lands. The Agency believes that the appropriateness of siting a wind energy facility on a particular administrative unit of the NFS is best addressed in a site-specific manner. However, when land management plans are revised, they should address renewable energy development as needed or appropriate.

Several sections of the final directives address siting of wind energy facilities. For example, siting of wind energy facilities will be discussed at pre-proposal meetings per section 72.1. Section 72.2 addresses siting considerations in the context of screening wind energy proposals. Section 72.2 precludes issuance of permits for wind energy facilities in wilderness areas and wilderness study areas, in wild and scenic river corridors, at national historic sites, on National Historic or National Scenic Trails, in other special areas where Federal law precludes land use for wind energy production, in areas authorized for use by the DoD or one of its agencies, and in areas where DoD, DHS, FAA, or National Weather Service express concern that a proposed wind energy facility would diminish national security, military readiness or suitability of training areas, radar and electronic security, or safety of military or civilian airspace. Sections 72.21 through 72.21e address specific siting considerations in the context of screening wind energy proposals. Section 73.32 states that a wind energy plan of development, which must be submitted by an applicant for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility, is used to determine if a wind energy project is consistent with the applicable land management plan and facilitates the safe and orderly use of land for wind energy production.

Comment.

One respondent stated that the Forest Service should adhere to FWS regulations and NEPA with regard to siting wind turbines.

Response.

FWS's Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines were used to develop the proposed and final directives. However, the Forest Service believes it would not be appropriate to limit the siting of wind turbines to one set of guidelines. The Forest Service must be able to use the most applicable and best information throughout the wind energy permitting process. Sections 71, 72.1, and 74 of the final directives address NEPA compliance in the context of wind energy development on NFS lands.

Comment.

One respondent noted that maps are available which display areas on NFS lands with strong wind resources and recommended that the proposed directives facilitate maximization of wind energy production for those NFS lands that are suitable for that purpose.

Response.

The Agency has determined that renewable energy projects are appropriate uses of NFS lands and will help meet America's energy needs. Pursuant to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528-531), the Forest Service manages NFS lands for multiple uses, without favoring one use over another. The NFS is not reserved for any particular use, nor must every use be accommodated on every acre of NFS lands. Suitability of the proposed location for wind energy facilities will be considered as part of the application process.

Comment.

One respondent commented that the proposed directives should encourage buffer zones around wilderness areas to protect wildlife, viewsheds, and other values protected by wilderness areas. Some respondents provided a list of scenarios where wind energy development should be discouraged. These respondents further recommended that the proposed directives provide for denial of wind energy permits if a finding is made that their impacts cannot be mitigated or that the proposed use would conflict with existing uses or plans for multiple-use areas.

One respondent commented that NEPA allows for unavoidable adverse impacts and that the proposed directives hold wind energy projects to a higher standard than other projects, since section 72.31a, paragraph 7a, states that a wind energy project may be inappropriate if the authorized officer makes a finding that “resource impacts cannot be mitigated.” This respondent recommended stating that a wind

energy project may be inappropriate if the authorized officer makes a finding that adverse resource impacts outweigh the positive impact derived from generating renewable energy.

Two respondents stated that if another Federal agency raised a concern about a wind energy project, even without any basis, it would be enough to stop the project. These respondents believed that if an unacceptable impact is demonstrated, mitigation measures should be explored before a proposal is rejected. One of these respondents recommended requiring other Federal agencies to demonstrate that anticipated project impacts would be unacceptable based on a technical review conducted through a process that would allow for consideration of concerns raised by all sides.

Response.

The Agency does not believe that buffer zones around wilderness and other special areas are necessary. The proposed actions in the viewshed from designated wilderness areas would include an analysis of the effects on the scenic values for protecting sensitive wilderness areas during the environmental analysis process. It is the viewshed rather than a buffer zone that's more relevant to protecting wilderness values.

In addition, sections 72.31b through 72.31e in the proposed directives and sections 72.21a through 72.21e in the final directives iterate several categories of siting considerations,

e.g.,

impacts on recreation and scenery and wildlife, which must be taken into account in screening wind energy proposals.

Wind energy projects are subject to the same environmental standards as other proposed projects on NFS lands. The Agency has not retained the provision in section 72.31a, paragraph 7a, in the proposed directives because it is duplicative. Sections 72.21a through 72.21e in the final directives adequately address consideration of resource impacts in screening wind energy proposals. In addition, under the initial screening criteria in the special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.54(e)(1)(v), proposed uses may not unreasonably conflict or interfere with other scheduled or authorized uses of the NFS or use of adjacent non-NFS lands. The Agency agrees that if a proposed wind energy facility would cause unacceptable impacts, mitigation measures may be explored to eliminate the impacts or reduce them to an acceptable level.

Proposals for wind energy facilities may be denied, rather than must be denied, in areas where the DoD, DHS, FAA, the National Weather Service expresses concern that a proposed wind energy facility would diminish national security, military readiness or suitability of training areas, radar and electronic security, or safety of military or civilian airspace. Per section 72.1, paragraph g, the likelihood of these types of concerns will be addressed at the pre-proposal meeting. The Agency does not believe it would be appropriate to require other Federal agencies to document concerns they have regarding the effects of a proposed wind energy facility on national security, military readiness or suitability of training areas, radar and electronic security, or safety of military or civilian airspace.

Comment.

One respondent noted that while the proposed directives list various resources to be considered, avoided, and protected, the proposed directives should include species protected under the ESA, State-listed species (including species of “greatest conservation need”), State trust wildlife resources, and Audubon Watchlist species.

Response.

Section 70.5 in the final directives broadly defines species of management concern to include federally listed threatened and endangered species; species that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; Forest Service species of concern, species of interest, species of high public interest, and management indicator species; and State-protected species. Section 72.21d provides for consideration of all species of management concern in screening wind energy proposals, with an emphasis primarily on birds and bats because of their particular vulnerability to METs and wind turbines during flight.

Comment.

One respondent noted that wind power would provide a measure of security and resilience to the tourism industry, since it would diminish the reliance on foreign sources of energy. This respondent also commented that wind power facilities would be an additional tourist attraction that could offer educational opportunities for visitors. Another respondent stated that siting considerations should include educational and demonstration opportunities that wind energy facilities may offer and location and infrastructure requirements necessary to transport power from wind energy facilities to users.

Response.

The Agency supports education and demonstration opportunities that may be offered by wind energy facilities, which could be discussed at the pre-proposal meeting with the authorized officer. However, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to require consideration of education and demonstration opportunities that may be afforded by wind energy facilities. Infrastructure requirements are addressed in sections 73.32 and 75.21, paragraph 3, of the final directives, which address a plan of development for wind energy facilities.

Comment.

One respondent commented that in authorizing long-term wind energy projects, the Forest Service should consider State renewable energy portfolio standards for wind energy development.

Response.

Compliance with applicable State renewable energy portfolio standards for wind energy development is beyond the scope of these directives. The Forest Service's special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.54(d)(5) allow the authorized officer to require any other information and data necessary to determine compliance with requirements for associated clearances, certificates, permits, or licenses and to require suitable terms and conditions to be included in special use authorizations. Standard special use authorization forms require the holder to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards, as well as laws relating to the siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of any authorized facility, improvement, or equipment.

Comment.

One respondent stated that processing of wind energy proposals and applications should be an objective process and that siting and suitability of wind energy facilities is appropriately addressed in the environmental review section of BLM's Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069, “Interim Offsite Compensatory Mitigation for Oil, Gas, Geothermal and Energy Right-of-Way Permits.”

Response.

The Agency agrees that processing of wind energy proposals and applications should be an objective process. The Agency used BLM's Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 in developing the final directives and referenced it in section 70.6, paragraph 4, of the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent believed that the proposed directives represented another attempt to privatize Federal lands. This respondent stated that locating wind turbines in areas that could also support solar energy development might minimize environmental impacts while reducing costs. The respondent also noted that far fewer impacts would result from wind energy development on national grasslands or other uninhabited lands than from wind energy development in national forests.

Response.

Issuance of special use authorizations for wind energy facilities or any other uses does not result in

privatization of Federal lands. The Forest Service's special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.55(b) state that all rights not expressly granted by a special use authorization are retained by the United States, including continuing rights of access to all NFS lands; a continuing right of physical entry to any part of the authorized facilities for inspection, monitoring, or any other purposes or reason consistent with any right or obligation of the United States under any laws or regulation; and the right to require common use of the land or to authorize use by others in any way that is not inconsistent with the holder's rights and privileges, after consultation with all affected parties and agencies. The final directives, including the siting considerations, apply to all NFS lands. The Agency believes it would not be appropriate to create a preference for one type of NFS lands over another with respect to wind energy development.

Comment.

One respondent noted that all facilities associated with a wind energy project on NFS lands should be covered by the proposed directives and suggested clarifying the second sentence of the section 72.31a, paragraph 2, which states, “Other facilities may be required for access, construction, operation, and maintenance,” to make that point explicit.

Response.

The Agency agrees that this sentence needs to be revised to clarify that it applies to wind energy projects. Accordingly, the Agency has revised this sentence, which appears in section 72.21 of the final directives, to read: “Other facilities may be required for access, construction, operation, and maintenance of a wind energy facility.” It is possible that not all facilities required for access, construction, operation, and maintenance of a wind energy facility will be authorized under a wind energy permit. For example, access to a wind energy facility may be authorized under a separate special use authorization granting a right-of-way, and use of NFS roads may be authorized under a road use permit. See sections 73.32, paragraph 8, and 75.22, paragraph 3, in the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent suggested including a statement in the general considerations section that the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of construction of or additions to facilities associated with a wind energy project, including roads, must be considered in evaluating wind energy proposals, regardless of whether these actions will occur on NFS lands.

Response.

The Agency does not believe it is necessary to include the statement suggested by the respondent. Section 74.1 in the final directives provides for compliance with the Forest Service's NEPA procedures at 36 CFR part 220 and FSH 1909.15 in reviewing applications for wind energy facilities. In conducting environmental analysis of these applications, the Agency will take into consideration the cumulative effects associated with the proposed use. In many cases, construction of roads, facilities, and power lines may be connected actions and will be analyzed accordingly, where appropriate, under applicable law.

Comment.

One respondent suggested including in the general considerations section statements from an otherwise unspecified letter dated May 13, 2003. In addition, this respondent recommended (a) revising proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 2, to state that electricity produced by wind turbines “may,” rather than “will likely,” require a generation substation and transmission lines to carry it to a power grid; (b) revising proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 4a, to provide for consideration in assessing site suitability of “other environmental, recreational, or other human resource considerations,” rather than “other environmental or human resource considerations”; (c) revising proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 4c, to provide for consideration in wind energy planning of “the proximity of proposed wind turbines to transmission lines and the need to construct new transmission lines,” rather than “the proximity of proposed wind turbines to transmission lines”; and (d) revising proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 4d, to provide for consideration in wind energy planning of “project area resources and uses sensitive to noise from wind turbines,” rather than “noise from wind turbines.”

A second respondent recommended the following additional suitability factor to proposed 72.31a, paragraph 4a: “the potential impacts, including fragmentation and habitat abandonment, on important wildlife corridors, large contiguous habitat areas, or any globally unique, rare, or threatened ecosystem or habitat type.”

A third respondent recommended revising proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 4a, to provide for consideration in assessing site suitability of “the presence of or habitat for federally or State listed protected species, candidates for such protection, and other species of management concern, as defined in section 70.5,” rather than “the presence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or rare plant habitat.”

Response.

Without more information, the Agency was unable to locate the letter referenced by the first respondent and was unable to address the comment concerning that letter. The Agency has not made the revision suggested by this respondent to proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 2 (sec. 72.21 in the final directives), because the Agency believes that electricity produced by wind turbines will require a generation substation and transmission lines to carry it to a power grid.

The Agency has included the introductory text of proposed section 72.31a, paragraph 4, in section 72.21 in the final directives. However, the Agency has not retained proposed section 72.31a, paragraphs 4a through 4d, in the final directives or added the suitability factor suggested by the second respondent because they are duplicative. Sections 72.21, 73.3, 73.4, and 75.11, paragraph 1, in the final directives adequately address consideration of resource impacts, the wind resource, proximity of proposed wind turbines to transmission lines, and noise from wind turbines in evaluating wind energy proposals and applications.

The Agency agrees with the third respondent that the definition of species of management concern should include State-protected species and has accordingly revised that definition in section 70.5 of the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent suggested revising section 72.31a, paragraph 6, to state that authorizations for wind energy development will not be issued for development incompatible with specific resource values, including areas of critical environmental concern, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Historic and National Scenic Trails, and areas where resource impacts cannot be mitigated.

Response.

The Agency has addressed this concern in section 72.2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the final directives by providing for denial of proposals for wind energy facilities in wilderness areas and wilderness study areas and in areas authorized for use by the DoD.

72.31b—Recreation and Scenery Considerations

Comment.

Some respondents doubted that 400-foot wind turbines could meet partial retention standards under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Scenery Management System (SMS). These respondents were unsure about the criteria, timing, and process for taking into account these visual and recreation standards in making decisions regarding wind energy facilities.

Response.

“Partial retention” is an obsolete term that was used under the Visual Management System (VMS),

which predated the SMS. In contrast to the SMS, the categories in the VMS described visual goals. For partial retention, the goal was to retain in part the visual character of the landscape. The Agency shifted from the VMS to the SMS (FSM 2380), which is based on scenic integrity,

i.e.,

the current condition of the landscape, rather than visual goals. The Agency found that establishment of visual goals under the VMS tended to predetermine the outcome of the planning process.

Section 72.21a, paragraphs 1 through 4, in the final directives address the use of the ROS in screening wind energy proposals. Section 72.21a, paragraph 5, in the final directives addresses the use of the SMS in screening wind energy proposals.

Comment.

One respondent recommended revising proposed section 72.31b, paragraph 2b, which stated, “Consider how recreational settings could be affected by dust or air quality impacts,” by adding “during construction or maintenance.”

Response.

The Agency agrees with this comment and has added this phrase to the corresponding provision, section 72.21a, paragraph 2b, in the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent recommended including a standard set of restrictions for wind energy development for areas that fall into the most restricted category of visual resource management.

Response.

The SMS does not establish categories for visual resource management. Rather, the SMS employs scenic integrity objectives, which define the degree of deviation from the landscape character that may occur at any given time (FSM 2380.5). Consistent with the SMS, section 72.21a, paragraph 5, in the final directives directs the authorized officer in screening wind energy proposals to assess the value of scenery in the project area, the experience it provides relative to competing resource demands, and the impacts on scenery from project construction and operation.

72.31c—Community Tourism Considerations

Comment.

One respondent stated that community tourism values must be protected and that inclusion of the phrase, “where possible and to the extent practicable” in proposed section 72.31c, paragraph 1, and the word “consider” in proposed section 72.31c, paragraph 2, make these criteria more like guidelines than standards. This respondent also expressed concern that the direction on siting considerations applies only to screening of wind energy proposals and not to processing of wind energy applications.

Response.

Both paragraphs 1 and 2 referenced by the respondent contain guidelines, rather than standards. The qualification “where possible and to the extent practicable” in paragraph 1 is appropriate because it may not always be possible or practicable to manage wind energy uses to protect community tourism values associated with natural scenery, recreation settings, wildlife viewing, fishing, and cultural resources. Paragraph 2 appropriately directs the authorized officer to consider the effects of wind energy uses on tourism values and communities because this section of the directives enumerates siting considerations that need to be taken into account in screening wind energy proposals. Therefore, the Agency has not made the changes suggested by the respondent in the final directives.

Community tourism considerations apply only to screening wind energy proposals, rather than to evaluation of wind energy applications, because community tourism considerations need to be addressed in connection with siting wind energy facilities in the context of a proposal. This approach is reflected in the heading, “Siting Considerations” in section 72.31 in the proposed directives and section 72.21 in the final directives, both of which encompass the section on community tourism considerations. Once a wind energy proposal is accepted as an application, a site has already been determined, and the siting considerations as reflected in a site plan (sec. 73.33 in the final directives) are much more specific.

72.31d—Public Access Considerations

Comment.

One respondent noted that while security and safety should be a priority for protecting wind energy facilities, public access to those facilities should be guaranteed for monitoring adverse impacts of the facilities on wildlife, either residing at or migrating past the site, and their habitat. One respondent stated that the proposed directives should provide additional guidance on avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating habitat abandonment and other impacts of wind energy facilities, including post-construction monitoring of those impacts.

Another respondent commented that security and safety at wind energy facilities would not be benefited by open public access, and that access to those facilities should be controlled by the permit holder and should be limited to authorized staff or approved guided tours.

Response.

The Agency agrees that security and safety should be a priority at wind energy facilities. However, the Agency does not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to guarantee public access to wind energy facilities for purposes of monitoring impacts on wildlife. The Forest Service's special use regulations at 36 CFR 251.55(b)(2) confer on the United States, rather than members of the public, a continuing right of physical entry to authorized facilities for monitoring purposes.

The Agency believes that the final directives provide adequate guidance on avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts on wildlife from wind energy facilities. Specifically, section 75.21, paragraph 6, of the final directives requires applicants for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility to submit a detailed monitoring plan that will become an appendix to the permit. Section 73.32, paragraph 9, in the final directives requires the plan of development that must be submitted by applicants for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility to address potential impacts on existing land uses, including necessary restrictions on public use, which should address effects on Federal and State species of management concern and their habitats. Section 75.21, paragraph 6, of the final directives provides for wildlife monitoring before and after construction of a wind energy facility. Per 36 CFR 251.55(b)(3), the Agency may require common use of NFS lands authorized for wind energy facilities or allow their use by others in any way that is not inconsistent with the holder's rights and privileges, after consultation with all affected parties.

Comment.

One respondent noted that the Forest Service should not allow its hiking trails to be used as service roads for wind energy facilities. This respondent stated that the proposed directives should address road density in critical habitat areas.

Another respondent stated that construction of roads for wind energy projects causes more ground disturbance than construction of typical two-track, unpaved Forest Service roads and thus has a greater impact on fish and wildlife.

Response.

Numerous provisions in the final directives address access to wind energy facilities, including the need for and effects and management of access roads. Section 72.21c in the final directives directs the authorized officer to review road management objectives for NFS roads and trail management objectives for NFS trails (FSM 7714); consider the effect of traffic on NFS

roads and NFS trails needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of wind energy facilities on the ability of those roads and trails to meet their management objectives; and consider the effects of extending the availability of NFS roads that are open seasonally to year-round use for purposes of maintaining wind energy facilities.

Section 73.31, paragraph 6, in the final directives requires applicants for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility to submit a study plan that includes an inventory of existing infrastructure and resource investments such as access roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service or a public road authority.

Section 73.32, paragraph 2, in the final directives requires these applicants to submit a plan of development that describes the proposed location and number of ancillary structures and facilities, including access roads. Section 73.32, paragraph 5, in the final directives requires the plan of development to address needed road or trail access and provides for existing roads to be utilized to the maximum extent feasible. Section 73.32, paragraph 8, in the final directives requires the plan of development to describe management requirements necessary for safe and reliable operation and maintenance, including rights-of-way for access.

NFS trails may be actively managed for more than one mode of travel. However, under 36 CFR 212.51, Forest Service administrative units and ranger districts are designating those NFS trails that are open to motor vehicle use. Therefore, whether an NFS trail managed for hiker/pedestrian use is used as an access road for a wind energy facility would depend at least in part on the trail's management intent and whether the trail has been designated for motor vehicle use. When a trail or segments of a trail encumbering a proposed wind energy facility, this is a connected action for consideration during the environmental analysis process and trail would be re-routed out of the proposed project area for the safety of hikers/pedestrians.

Comment.

A number of respondents were concerned that the proposed language, “Consider the effects of wind energy uses on public access via roads, trails, and waterways,” in proposed section 72.31d sets too low a bar for compliance. These respondents believed that a standard should be established for assessing effects of wind energy uses on public access.

Response.

Given the variety of situations on NFS lands, the Agency does not believe it is appropriate to establish a standard for assessing effects of wind energy facilities on public access to NFS lands. However, the Agency agrees that more guidance is needed in this provision with respect to management of NFS roads and NFS trails. Consequently, in section 72.21c of the final directives, the Agency has added the following:

Review road management objectives for NFS roads and trail management objectives for NFS trails (FSM 7714). Consider the effect of traffic on NFS roads and NFS trails needed for construction, operation, and maintenance of wind energy facilities on the ability of those roads and trails to meet their management objectives. Consider the effects of extending the availability of NFS roads that are open seasonally to year-round use for purposes of maintaining wind energy facilities.

72.31e—Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plant Considerations

Comment.

One respondent stated that the proposed directives should be as precise as possible in identifying which plant and animal species should be considered for each particular investigation or analytical or monitoring activity associated with wind energy uses. Other respondents expressed concern about harmful effects of wind energy development on butterflies and big game migration routes.

Response.

Since the wind energy directives are national in scope, the species that could be impacted by wind energy uses will vary by geographic region. The proposed and final directives specifically address bats, birds, and species of management concern, which is broadly defined in the final directives to include federally listed threatened and endangered species; species that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; Forest Service species of concern, species of interest, species of high public interest, and management indicator species; and State-protected species. More specific lists of species and species groups will be made at the local level during the scoping process for each proposed wind energy facility.

Comment.

One respondent stated that wind turbines in migratory areas do not necessarily pose a risk to avian species and that migration corridors need to be delineated by the Forest Service based on scientific studies or evaluated in project-level avian surveys. This respondent recommended using “minimize” throughout proposed section 72.31e or qualifying the entire section with the phrase, “to the extent commercially practicable.”

Numerous respondents expressed concerns regarding the effect of wind energy facilities on bats, particularly during their migration and hibernation periods. These respondents cited studies that indicate a high risk of bat mortality, especially along Appalachian ridges, from wind energy uses and stated that hibernating bats could be susceptible to detonations during wind energy facility construction. One respondent noted that wind energy structures can alter movement patterns of birds and wildlife and shift their distribution. This respondent stated that grassland and shrubland birds in particular avoid tall structures and can be significantly displaced by wind energy structures.

Another respondent recommended enumerating in the proposed directives those areas where there are large numbers of one or more bird species of management concern. This respondent noted that micrositing decisions on wind energy development would minimize impacts on birds.

One respondent stated that decisions regarding turbine placement should take into account species' foraging strategies and flight patterns, as well as topography, wind patterns, prey density, and all seasons of a species' habitat, including migratory as well as wintering areas.

Another respondent recommended not just avoiding placement of METs in sensitive habitats, but avoiding placement of METs in locations where they would adversely impact sensitive habitats, including buffer zones.

One respondent wanted the general considerations in proposed section 72.31a, paragraphs 4, 6, and 7, to apply to proposed section 72.31e.

Response.

The Forest Service is aware of potential effects on wildlife from wind power development, especially the susceptibility of bats and birds to collision with wind energy facilities. Numerous studies, including those cited in section 70.6 in the final directives, document known and potential risks to birds and bats from wind energy facilities. The Agency is also aware of the important role that bats and bird play in the health of the human environment.

Accordingly, the Agency has expanded the provisions in the final directives regarding the need for careful evaluation of environmental conditions, landscape features, and habitats that attract concentrations of birds, bats, and other species of management concern. See sections 72.21; 72.21d; 73.31, paragraphs 1 and 2; 73.4a; and 75.21, paragraph 6. In particular, section 72.21d, paragraph 1, in the final directives lists examples of protected and ecologically sensitive areas,

including critical habitat of wildlife protected under Federal or State law; nests of hawks, eagle, falcons, and owls; and prairie or shrub-steppe grouse breeding grounds. Given the diversity of protected and ecologically sensitive areas on NFS lands, the Agency believes it is more appropriate to provide examples than to list specific areas. Site evaluations and all other relevant information needed to evaluate the potential effects of wind energy development on species of management concern and their habitats will be analyzed through the NEPA process.

The final directives are not intended to provide a comprehensive list of all the potential effects of wind energy development on species of management concern and their habitats, nor are the final directives intended to identify all measures that may be taken to avoid or mitigate those effects. The intent of the final directives is to highlight some of the more widely known wildlife issues associated with wind energy development and recommendations for addressing them, primarily regarding susceptibility of birds and bats to aerial collisions with wind power facilities such as METs, guy wires, and turbine towers and blades.

The Agency believes that section 72.21d, paragraph 1, in the final directives adequately addresses sensitive habitats. This provision directs authorized officers to locate METs, roads, wind turbines, and other necessary facilities away from protected areas or where ecological resources are known to be sensitive to human activities and lists specific examples of these areas.

Proposed section 72.31a (sec. 72.21 in the final directives) addresses general considerations associated with siting wind energy uses at the proposal stage. Proposed sections 72.31b through 72.31e (sec. 72.21a through 72.21e in the final directives) address specific considerations associated with siting wind energy uses at the proposal stage.

Comment.

One respondent stated that there are no known bat migration corridors. Another respondent commented that “migration corridor” is too broad a term for purposes of proposed section 72.31e, which this respondent believed appears to provide for blanket avoidance of birds and bats. This respondent noted that bird and bat collisions with wind turbines are more likely where birds and bats are within the height range of the turbines or funneled along geographical features in the vicinity of the turbines.

Another respondent objected to the statement in the proposed directives to avoid locating METs and wind energy facilities in bird or bat migration corridors, on the grounds that there is insufficient information to indicate that wind energy projects have significant impacts on areas with migratory birds and bats. This respondent believed that these areas should not be off-limits to wind energy development. Rather, this respondent believed that wind energy projects in these areas should be monitored to determine if they pose a significant risk to migratory species.

One respondent stated that many documented bird migration corridors are so broad as to be regional or State-wide, rather than site-specific, which makes the reference to “documented bird or bat migration corridors” in the proposed directives less meaningful.

Response.

Daily or seasonal bat flight pathways may be discovered through pre-construction surveys. The Agency agrees that “migration corridor” is too imprecise a term and has removed it from section 72.21d, paragraph 1, in the final directives. In addition, for clarity, the Agency has included examples of protected and ecologically sensitive areas. As a siting consideration for species of management concern, this paragraph now states:

Locate METs, roads, wind turbines, and other necessary facilities away from protected areas or where ecological resources are known to be sensitive to human activities. Examples of such areas include wetlands, riparian zones, streams, lakes, bogs, or fens; globally unique, rare or threatened ecosystems; critical habitat of wildlife protected under Federal or State law; nests of hawks, eagle, falcons, and owls; and prairie or shrub-steppe grouse breeding grounds.

As currently written, this provision does not provide for blanket avoidance of birds and bats. Rather, this provision states that METs, roads, wind turbines, and other necessary wind energy facilities should not be installed in protected areas or where ecological resources are known to be sensitive to human activities. To address the problem of funneling migrants, the Agency has added the following to section 72.21d in the final directives:

Avoid or minimize the placement of wind turbines in areas where topography and landscape features may funnel nocturnal migrants, such as over mountain passes, along river corridors, or ridge tops.

Comment.

One respondent commented that it was inappropriate to recommend categorically that areas of fog and mist be avoided, given the lack of scientific evidence that wind energy development in those areas results in higher avian or bat mortality or that bat navigation is disrupted by mist and fog or guy wires on METs.

Response.

The Agency believes that fog and mist can increase avian and bat mortality. However, the Agency agrees that the statement in proposed section 72.31e, paragraph 2, was too broad. Consequently, the Agency has qualified the statement in corresponding section 72.21d, paragraph 2, in the final directives to read:

Avoid or minimize the placement of wind turbines in areas with a high incidence of frontal weather events that lead to frequent fog or mist if existing information indicates a high risk to migratory birds or bats during these weather events.

73.11a—Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plant Considerations

Comment.

One respondent suggested that since the guidance in this section was similar to FWS voluntary guidelines, they should be referenced.

Response.

FWS's Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines was one of the sources used to develop the final directives. This source is cited in sections 70.6 and 73.4 in the final directives.

Comment.

Some respondents stated that applications for wind energy uses that would have unacceptable impacts on wildlife should be denied and that analysis of cumulative impacts should be emphasized where regional trends for wind energy development have the potential to impact migratory populations.

Other respondents suggested speed limits for motor vehicles to minimize wildlife mortality; addressing migratory patterns of all species that may be impacted, including big game; addressing the impacts on entire populations, not just individual animals; and providing barriers or adding humanly inaudible sirens or whistles to divert wildlife from rotor blades.

Response.

Several provisions in the final directives address potential effects on wildlife, including cumulative effects, at the application stage. Section 73.4a, paragraph 7, directs authorized officers to ensure that applicants assess effects on wildlife, as applicable, and lists specific items that at a minimum should be considered in assessing these effects. Section 73.4a, paragraph 8, directs authorized officers to ensure that applicants consider the effects of proposed wind energy uses on bats and birds that are continental migrants, semi- or regional migrants, or year-round residents; habitat use and requirements; seasonal use; and migration activity. Section 73.4a, paragraph 9, directs authorized officers to ensure that applicants include in

their assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on migrant birds and bats all factors routinely assessed for resident species, including susceptibility to mortality from collision with or electrocution from proposed project facilities and seasonal variation in the effects that construction or operation of wind energy facilities may have on these species.

The Agency does not believe it is necessary or appropriate for the final directives to establish a speed limit for motor vehicles accessing wind energy uses; to address migratory patterns of all species that may be impacted; to address potential impacts on entire wildlife populations; or to require applicants to provide barriers or add humanly inaudible sirens or whistles to divert wildlife from rotor blades. These issues are more appropriately handled generally in the final directives (see sec. 73.32, para. 8, governing road management objectives, and sec. 73.4a, paras. 4, 5, 8, and 9, governing avoidance of bird and bat collisions and other effects on wildlife) and addressed as needed in greater specificity case by case.

Comment.

Several respondents stated that the direction in proposed section 73.11a, paragraph 1, to avoid use of guy wires on METs would result in greater resource impacts due to the need to construct a larger concrete foundation for METs. These respondents also stated that the direction to avoid guy wires on METs “to the maximum extent possible” was too qualified to permit assessment of resource impacts associated with the use of a larger concrete foundation for METs.

Several respondents suggested revisions to the provision requiring avoidance of guy wires on METs to the maximum extent possible. One respondent suggested requiring the use of bird flight diverters or markers on taller METs when guy wires are necessary. Another respondent stated that minimizing the height of METs would reduce the necessity for guy wires and lights and the potential for bird and bat collisions. One respondent recommended the use of monopole over lattice towers to reduce the potential for collisions and perching. One respondent noted that tower height seems to have a direct effect on bat mortality and suggested encouraging the use of shorter turbine towers, consistent with rotor size.

Response.

In response to these comments, the Agency has replaced the phrase “to the maximum extent possible” with the phrase “if feasible” in the final directives. The Agency has made other revisions to this provision to address the potential for bird and bat collisions. Section 73.2 in the final directives states:

To reduce bat and bird mortality, require applicants to avoid the use of guy wires on METs, if feasible. If applicants propose to use guy wires, require applicants to mark them with bird-deterrent devices when possible (see “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines: The State of the Art in 1996,” as updated in 2000). To reduce potential effects on scenery, require applicants to limit the height of METs to a functional minimum.

With respect to the type and height of turbine towers, section 73.4a, paragraph 5, in the final directives directs authorized officers to ensure that applicants design wind energy structures, including utility poles and wires, to discourage perching or nesting by birds.

Comment.

Some respondents noted that the direction in proposed section 73.11a, paragraph 2, to locate placement of wind turbines, roads, and ancillary facilities in the least environmentally sensitive areas does not take into account where the wind resource is located and other engineering realities. These respondents also expressed concern regarding the lack of a definition for the term “the least environmentally sensitive areas.”

Other respondents suggested that “environmentally sensitive areas” should include grassland habitats, shrublands, prairies, shorelines, cliffs, estuaries, old growth forests, aspen stands, talus, and wildlife breeding, brooding, and roosting areas and that habitat fragmentation, climate change adaptability, and avoidance and other behavioral impacts on species sensitive from the presence of vertical structures should be considered.

Response.

In response to these comments, in the final directives, the Agency has replaced “locate wind turbines, roads, and ancillary facilities in the least environmentally sensitive areas, such as away from” with “locate wind turbines, roads, and ancillary facilities away from protected and sensitive areas such as.” In addition, the Agency has added more examples of protected and sensitive habitats.

Comment.

One respondent stated that guidance in proposed section 73.11a, paragraph 3, to avoid areas with a high incidence of fog and mist should not be limited to protecting birds and bats during migration, but should also include resident birds and bats. Another respondent suggested removing the phrase “to the maximum extent possible” with regard to avoiding placement of wind turbines in areas with a high incidence of fog and mist.

Several respondents suggested strengthening direction in section 73.11a, paragraph 4, in the proposed directives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential for bird and bat collisions by configuring wind turbines to avoid landscape features known to attract migrating wildlife. Several respondents suggested adding the word “fully” prior to “mitigate” so that it is clear that mitigation will be comprehensive and complete. With respect to the qualification to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential for bird and bat collisions if site studies show that placing wind turbines in that location would have adverse impacts, one respondent stated that the proposed directives must specify how these studies would be utilized in site design, evaluating wind energy applications, wind energy operations, wildlife monitoring, and mitigation of adverse effects on wildlife.

Another respondent recommended that the Forest Service adopt the published, updated Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines to minimize electrocutions and collisions by avian species.

Response.

Resident species are included in the definition of species of management concern in section 70.6 in the final directives. In addition, section 73.4a, paragraph 8, in the final directives directs the authorized officer to consider the effects of proposed wind energy uses on bats and birds that are year-round residents and their habitat use and requirements.

The Agency agrees that the statement in proposed section 73.11a, paragraph 3, was too broad. Consequently, the Agency has removed the phrase “to the maximum extent possible” from corresponding section 72.21d, paragraph 2, in the final directives.

The Agency has revised the final directives to remove site studies as a precondition for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the potential for bird and bat collisions with wind turbines. Specifically, section 73.4a, paragraph 3, in the final directives states:

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential for bird and bat collisions by configuring wind turbines to avoid natural and man-made landscape features and habitats known to attract or concentrate wildlife, particularly if site surveys demonstrate that such placement would create adverse impacts.

Section 73.4a, paragraphs 3a and 3b, enumerate factors relevant to the consideration of the potential for bird and bat collisions. The Agency has declined to add the word “fully” before “mitigate” because it would be difficult to show full mitigation of the potential for bird and bat collisions.

In addition, in assessing effects of proposed wind energy uses on species of management concern, paragraphs 6a and 6b direct the authorized officer to consider site climate and weather patterns, facility footprint, configuration of the facility within the landscape, and potential impacts on species migrating to or dwelling in the proposed project area, as well as the presence or proximity of natural and man-made landscape features and habitats that attract, congregate or concentrate wildlife.

The Agency used the APLIC guidelines in developing the guidance in section 73.4a, paragraph 3, in the final directives regarding avoidance of bird and bat collisions. Section 73.4a, paragraph 4, directs authorized officers to ensure that applicants use the 2006 APLIC recommendations for design of above-ground lines, transformers, and conductors. All applicable APLIC guidelines may be used during project-specific environmental analysis. In addition, the Agency has included the APLIC guidelines as a reference in section 70.6 in the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent suggested changing “to discourage use as perching or nesting substrates” to “discourage use as roosting or nesting substrates” in paragraph 6, since bats roost, rather than perch.

Response.

The Agency has not made this change, since there is no indication that bats roost on wind energy substrates.

Comment.

Respondents generally supported burial of utility lines provided for in proposed section 73.11a, paragraph 7. Some respondents suggested removing the phrase “where possible” in connection with burial of utility and distribution lines to minimize visual disturbance and impacts on wildlife. Other respondents noted the need for aerial distribution lines over sensitive or rare habitat, where the effects on wildlife from ground disturbance would be greater than the effects on wildlife from use of aerial distribution lines.

One respondent recommended replacing the phrase “to lessen impacts and disturbance to wildlife” with “when such action would reduce rather that increase ecological impacts.” This respondent also recommended adding the following sentence: “Ensure that original soils and native vegetation are restored to their original condition following any burial of utility and transmission lines and that adequate measures are taken to preclude the colonization and/or spread of invasive species.”

Response.

There may be situations where it is not possible to bury utility and distribution lines. Therefore, the Agency has retained the phrase “where possible” in section 73.4a, paragraph 6, in the final directives. In these situations, aerial distribution lines may be appropriate. Both the proposed and final directives direct the authorized officer to use existing utility corridors and structures to the extent practical and to avoid development of new infrastructure.

Section 73.32, paragraph 7, in the final directives addresses control of invasive species in the plan of development. Section 77.3, paragraphs 1 and 2, in the final directives address control of invasive species during construction and site restoration after construction of a wind energy facility.

73.11b—Scenery Management

Comment.

One respondent stated that although it is impossible to mitigate all of the visual impact of wind energy projects, thoughtful siting and use of best practices can greatly reduce the impact. This respondent suggested referencing BLM's Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069, “Interim Offsite Compensatory Mitigation for Oil, Gas, Geothermal and Energy Right-of-Way Permits,” regarding micrositing and suitability of wind energy projects.

Response.

The Agency agrees and has included this reference in section 70.6 in the final directives.

Comment.

Several respondents objected to the requirement in proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 2, for applicants to integrate wind turbine arrays and design into the surrounding landscape. These respondents believed that scenery management decisions regarding wind energy projects should be based on professional judgment regarding whether a particular facility will (a) Result in undue harm to valuable aesthetic resources in a particular setting; (b) significantly degrade scenic resources; (c) visually degrade an area valued for its wildness and remoteness; and/or (d) be at a scale, in terms of wind turbine height or number of turbines, that overwhelms the landscape.

One respondent suggested that the Forest Service balance any potential aesthetic impacts with the environmental benefits of a wind power project in terms of reducing global warming and emissions.

One respondent asked whether proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 5, provides for meeting scenic integrity objectives or merely enumerates sources that may be consulted in connection with that goal.

One respondent recommended using a 10-mile radius for non-sensitive landscapes and a 20-mile radius for mountain ridgelines and other sensitive landscapes in analyzing visual impacts of wind energy facilities. This respondent also wanted the visual impact of wind energy projects on wilderness and other restricted areas to be taken into account and to meet the scenic integrity objectives for those areas. In addition, this respondent recommended requiring visual simulations prior to approval of wind energy uses.

Response.

Section 73.4b, paragraph 2, of the final directives requires authorized officers to ensure that applicants consult a variety of sources in planning, designing, and siting wind energy structures and facilities, including USDA Handbook #701 (Landscape Aesthetics), FS-710 (The Built Environment Image Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands), and FSM 2380, which contains the SMS.

The SMS establishes 3 levels of observer distance zones: the foreground, middle ground, and background. The background includes areas seen from 4 miles to the horizon. Consistent with the SMS, section 73.4b, paragraph 1, in the final directives requires authorized officers to ensure that applicants integrate wind turbine strings and design into the surrounding landscape, considering the scenic integrity objectives of the applicable land management plan, and where the scenic integrity objectives may not be met, to ensure that applicants consider offsite mitigation opportunities. When scenic integrity objectives are established, wilderness and other special areas are considered. The final directives provide for visual simulations in sections 73.32, paragraph 12, and 73.4b, paragraph 1b.

Comment.

With regard to the provision regarding limiting the height of METs in proposed 73.11b, paragraph 1, one respondent suggested defining the phrase “proper functioning” or replacing it with “for accurate measurement of wind speed and direction.”

Response.

The Agency has not included this provision in the final directives.

Comment.

With respect to proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 2, one respondent questioned whether ensuring that applicants consider turbine clustering would undermine wind energy projects from an engineering and financial standpoint. Another respondent suggested removing the phrase “where appropriate” in connection with this direction.

The second respondent also suggested specifying key design elements, including visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, the proportion and color of wind turbines, and the prohibition of commercial messages; using rigorous viewshed mapping, photographic and virtual simulations, computer simulations, and field inventory techniques that illustrate sensitive and scenic viewpoints and that show with reasonable accuracy the visibility of proposed wind energy facilities; prioritizing elimination or reduction of lighting, consistent with FAA requirements,

e.g.,

through use of light-colored wind turbine generators; designing and configuring wind turbines to provide visual order among clusters of turbines; designing and configuring rotor blades, nacelles, and turbine towers to create visual uniformity in their shape, color, and size; and properly maintaining wind turbine generators.

Response.

In section 73.4b, paragraph 1, in the final directives, the Agency replaced the sentence, “Where appropriate, consider turbine clustering,” with the sentence, “Where SIOs may not be met, consider off-site mitigation opportunities.”

The Agency agrees with the other changes suggested by the second respondent and has incorporated them in section 73.4b, paragraph 1, in the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent suggested that the environmental analysis for wind energy facilities should address visual impacts resulting from air pollution and additional transmission lines from fossil fuel power plants. This respondent stated that the proposed directives should provide for consideration of the views of a representative sample, rather than a vocal minority, of people visually impacted by wind energy projects.

Response.

NEPA requires assessment of site-specific effects. 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). If an EA or EIS is required, the Forest Service will seek public input in connection with the environmental analysis.

Comment.

Some respondents believed that the direction in proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 6, to ensure that applicants avoid placing substations or large buildings at high elevations and along skylines that are visible to the public should apply to wind turbines as well. These respondents also stated that any direction regarding the location, design, or concealment of electrical substations should note that the first priority with regard to these structures is safety.

Response.

The Agency has not expanded this provision, which appears in section 73.4b, paragraph 3, in the final directives, to apply to wind turbines. Each wind energy project will be analyzed at the site-specific level, and it may or may not be appropriate to place wind turbines at highly visible elevations or along skylines that are visible to the public. Safety is addressed in section 73.32, paragraphs 6 and 8, in the final directives.

Comment.

One respondent suggested adding a cross-reference in proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 7, regarding burial of distribution lines for scenery management, to proposed section 73.11a, paragraph 7, regarding burial of distribution lines for wildlife management. This respondent also suggesting qualifying the requirement in proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 7, with the phrase “where feasible.”

Response.

The Agency does not believe that a cross-reference in proposed section 73.11b, paragraph 7 (sec. 73.4b, para. 4, in the final directives) is necessary. However, to be consistent with the provision regarding burial of distribution lines for wildlife management in section 73.4a, paragraph 6, in the final directives, the Agency has qualified section 73.4b, paragraph 4, in the final directives to state: “Where possible, bury utility and distribution lines to minimize visual disturbance.” In addition, the Agency has added a paragraph regarding consideration of SIOs in the location, design, and construction of the power line connecting a wind energy project to the energy grid.

73.11c—Noise Management

Comment.

One respondent noted that medical studies have shown many adverse effects on nearby residents from the sounds and shadows from wind turbine blades.

Response.

The proposed and final directives (proposed section 73.11c) and final section 73.4c require authorized officers to ensure that applicants minimize noise where possible and practical and, if possible and practical, minimize the amplitude of wind turbine and associated generator noise using available sound dampening technologies. In particular, these provisions require authorized officers to ensure that applicants restrict noise to 10 decibels above background noise levels, when possible, at nearby residences and campsites, in or near habitats of wildlife known to be sensitive to noise during reproductive, roosting, or hibernation, or where habitat abandonment may be an issue. These provisions also require authorized officers to ensure that applicants provide for comparisons of noise measurements of planned equipment during wind turbine operation with background noise levels in the project area over a 24-hour period.

Comment.

Some respondents suggested removing the words “when possible” and “where possible” from proposed section 73.11c and revising proposed paragraph 2a to require restriction of noise to 10 decibels above background noise levels at nearby residences and campsites and in wildlife habitat. Other respondents believed that in the vicinity of residences, hiking trails, and campgrounds, even 10 decibels above background noise levels is unacceptable, especially at night. Two respondents suggested that the proposed directives provide for measurement of and limitations on infrasound (low frequency noise inaudible to humans) and high frequency sound. Other respondents commented that the noise level in this provision was impossible to measure and recommended a fixed limit, such as 50 decibels, near residences, critical habitat, and campgrounds. These respondents also suggested setting a fixed decibel level at a fixed distance from wind turbines, as prescribed in the corresponding environmental analysis. These respondents noted that acoustic shielding is already included on wind turbines and therefore suggested revising proposed paragraph 2c, which provided for minimizing wind turbine noise through the use of acoustic shielding in nacelles and associated facilities, if technologically feasible.

Response.

The Agency does not believe it would be appropriate to establish specific noise restrictions in the final directives because the appropriate level of noise restrictions is a site-specific decision that needs to be based on local conditions. Section 73.4c, paragraph 2, in the final directives provides for minimizing the amplitude of wind turbine and associated generator noise using available noise dampening technologies, rather than acoustic shielding. Ten decibels above the background noise level was selected based on FWS's

Interim Guidelines on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts From Wind Turbines. The Agency believes it is not necessary to address infrasound and high frequency sound in this context.

Comment.

One respondent noted that the noise level from construction of wind energy facilities would be harmful to and could drive away wildlife that would not later return.

Response.

Section 75.21 in the final directives requires applicants to submit a monitoring plan prepared in consultation with the authorized officer that will become part of the permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility. Section 75.21, paragraph 6a, in the final directives lists as an item that may need to be addressed in the monitoring plan the effects of wind turbine construction and operation on species of management concern and their habitats.

73.11d—Lighting

Comment.

Some respondents believed that any flashing lights on top of 400-foot towers would be a source of light pollution and that any high-intensity lighting should be turned off unless needed for specific tasks. These respondents also recommended that the proposed directives include a statement that compliance with FAA requirements cannot be used to justify a failure to meet scenic integrity objectives.

Response.

The Agency has clarified requirements regarding lighting for wind energy facilities. For example, proposed section 73.11d directed authorized officers to ensure that applicants use the minimum amount of warning lights required by the FAA. Section 73.4d in the final directives directs authorized officers to ensure that, unless otherwise required by the FAA, applicants mark approximately 1 in 5 turbines with duel red-strobe lights on the top of the nacelles of marked turbines and that under no circumstance should L-180 lights be used. Section 73.4b addresses scenic integrity objectives in the context of authorization of a wind energy facility.

Comment.

Several respondents supported FAA and FWS guidelines providing for use of red strobe lights for wind energy facilities. These respondents recommended that only the minimum number and intensity of strobe lights be used and suggested including a reference to the FWS guidelines at

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/towers/comtow.html

in the proposed directives.

Response.

The FAA and FWS guidelines regarding wind energy uses recommend marking approximately 1 in 5 turbines with duel red-strobe lights on the top of the nacelles of marked turbines and that under no circumstance should L-180 lights be used. Section 73.11d in the proposed directives and section 73.4d in the final directives are consistent with these guidelines. In addition, section 73.4d, paragraph 2, in the final directives directs authorized officers to ensure that, unless otherwise required by the FAA, applicants use the minimum intensity and maximum “off” phase (

i.e.,

20 flashes per minute) that effectively marks the facility boundary and turbines within the project site, making the facility visible to pilots at night. The Agency has included a reference to the FWS guidelines in section 70.6 of the final directives.

73.12—Public Outreach

Comment.

Several respondents recommended changing “ensure that applicants consider conducting public meetings” to “ensure that applicants conduct public meetings.” One respondent believed that this provision was redundant, since public meetings were already included in the NEPA process. Another respondent noted that the proposed directives should address public education, as well as public outreach, regarding wind energy uses on NFS lands.

Response.

The Agency does not believe it is appropriate or necessary to ensure that applicants conduct public meetings. Proposed section 73.12 (sec. 73.5 in the final directives) addresses public outreach conducted by applicants. Therefore, proposed section 73.12 does not duplicate public meetings conducted by the Forest Service during the NEPA process. Public meetings conducted by the Forest Service during the NEPA process may be educational.

73.2—Application Requirements for a Permit for Construction and Operation of a Wind Energy Facility

Comment.

One respondent stated that the proposed directives were disconnected from how wind energy projects are actually financed and developed. For example, the proposed directives allowed the Agency to require that wind turbines be moved after a project is already in operation. This respondent believed that the possibility of required wind turbine relocation would preclude financing of wind energy projects. The respondent stated that to avoid unnecessary administrative costs, the proposed directives should encourage the use of private sector practices and standardization of commercial terms and conditions in wind energy permits.

Response.

Like the proposed directives, the final directives require the authorized officer to ensure that applicants for a permit for the construction and operation of a wind energy facility submit a study plan (sec. 73.31), plan of development (sec. 73.32), and site plan (sec. 73.33). These documents must take into consideration placement of and site disturbance from proposed wind turbines, facilities, access roads, trails, utility corridors, and other facilities.

Section 77.4, paragraph 8, in the final directives directs authorized officers to ensure that holders of wind energy permits use results from multi-year monitoring to adjust operations to mitigate or eliminate impacts on species of management concern and their habitats, while still achieving the energy production objectives for the facility.

73.21—Study Plan

Comment.

One respondent stated that the purpose and timing of the study plan were unclear and that the proposed directives required applicants to gather environmental information for the study plan that should be collected later in the NEPA process. This respondent also noted that the Forest Service already has inventories of improvements, resources, and existing conditions and management plans and that applicants should not be responsible for updating or duplicating this work.

Response.

The requirements in section 73.21 in the proposed directives (section 73.31 in the final directives) are necessary for the authorized officer to evaluate wind energy applications fully during environmental analysis. The inventories and other information compiled in the study plan are specific to each proposed use and relate to assessment of potential impacts on wildlife, other uses, and valid outstanding rights.

Comment.

Several respondents recommended the following changes to proposed section 73.21: (1) In the introductory paragraph, changing the phrase “submit a study plan which enumerates and provides a brief description of the methodologies for the studies required” to “submit a study plan which specifies and describes the methodologies and studies required;” (2) requiring submission of actual studies and underlying data, and stating that the studies described in the study plan must, rather than should, enable the authorized officer to evaluate the application fully during environmental analysis; (3) in proposed paragraph 2, adding a reference to duration and timing in connection with the presence of certain species, critical habitats, or

other important habitat features; (4) in proposed paragraph 6, changing “an inventory of improvements and resource investments, such as distribution lines, powerlines and other utilities, access roads, reforestation, restoration, wildlife habitat structures, and fencing” to “an inventory of facilities, such as power lines and other utilities and resource management activities such as reforestation, restoration, habitat structures and fencing”; (5) in proposed paragraph 7, changing “an inventory and assessment of the existing project area” to “an inventory and assessment of the proposed project area”; and (6) in proposed paragraph 8, after “a review of land ownership records,” adding “and evidence of easements or negotiations for access to private inholdings.”

Other respondents suggested referring specifically to habitat mapping; raptor nest surveys; general avian use surveys; and wildlife impacts, including loss, modification, fragmentation, and abandonment of forest, grassland, and sage-steppe habitat, increase in edge, potential increase in nest parasitism and predation, potential for reduced nesting and breeding densities, attraction to modified habitats, and other potential effects on wildlife behavior.

Response.

In response to these comments, the Agency has revised the introductory paragraph to proposed section 73.21 (sec. 73.31 in the final directives) to require study plans to provide a brief description of the studies required for processing the application, including the methodologies to be used in needed studies. In addition, the Agency has revised proposed section 73.21, paragraph 7 (sec. 73.31, para. 7, in the final directives) to require study plans to include an inventory and assessment of the landscape using the SMS or an alternate visualization technique suitable for assessing potential impacts on scenery. The Agency has revised proposed section 73.21, paragraph 8 (sec. 73.31, para. 8, in the final directives) to require study plans to include a review of land ownership records, noting any valid outstanding rights, including mining claims and land use authorizations.

With respect to submission of actual data, as opposed to descriptions of studies, section 74.3 in the final directives directs authorized officers to require applicants for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility to submit sufficiently detailed wind energy data to support environmental analysis of the application and to allow evaluation of the proposed development. In addition, section 75.4, paragraph 2, in the final directives directs authorized officers to ensure before issuance of a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility that applicants have submitted a study plan that includes survey outcomes from site testing and feasibility studies.

Similar to proposed section 73.21, paragraphs 1 and 2, section 73.31, paragraphs 1 and 2, in the final directives require study plans to include:

1. A review of existing information regarding identified species of management concern, including habitat use, location, or presence in the study area, and identification of ecologically sensitive areas in or near the study area, including landscape and topographical features known to attract or concentrate birds or bats;

2. Identification of information and methods by which to gather information for the development of biological assessments and evaluations of project-specific species of management concern and their habitats;

The Agency believes that these provisions are broad enough to encompass habitat mapping, raptor nest surveys, general avian use surveys, and wildlife impacts and that it is not necessary to reference these studies specifically in the final directives.

73.22—Plan of Development

Comment.

Some respondents were unsure of the meaning and intent of proposed section 73.22, paragraph 9, which addressed proposed alteration of existing uses. With respect to proposed section 73.22, paragraph 13, which required photo-realistic simulations of all wind energy facilities, one respondent stated that it would be impractical to prepare photo-realistic simulations other than for wind turbines. This respondent also noted that proposed section 73.22 should provide for a preliminary plan of development as part of an application and a revised plan of development that includes mitigation measures identified in the NEPA decision document for the project. Another respondent requested that “should” be changed to “must” in paragraphs 5, 7, and 11.

Response.

In response to these comments, the Agency has clarified proposed section 73.22, paragraph 9 (sec. 73.32, para. 9, in the final directives) by removi

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.