United States Department of Agriculture

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide 

Record of Decision

Forest Service

Alaska Region Tongass National Forest R10-MB-793g August 2017
Cover Photo: A picture of Endicott Arm Glacier taken from the elevation of 1,115 feet. 

NOTE: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; 

however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from 

being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please 

contact the Petersburg Ranger District at (907) 772-3871.
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

Phone: (907) 225-3101

Fax: (907) 228-6215

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

Record of Decision

United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service Alaska Region

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Responsible Official: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

Tongass National Forest

Federal Building

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-6593

(907) 225-3101

For Further Chad VanOrmer, Monument Ranger

Information Contact: Admiralty Island National Monument and

Hoonah Ranger District

8510 Mendenhall Loop Road

Juneau, AK 99801

(907) 586-8800

Carey Case, Team Leader

Petersburg Ranger District

12 North Nordic Drive

Petersburg, AK 99833

(907) 772-3871

Abstract

The Responsible Official has selected Alternative 2 from the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS). This Decision allocates up to 80,305 service days of the estimated total visitor 

capacity of 636,448 service days within the project area to outfitter/guide use.

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision Table of Contents - i

Table of Contents

Record of Decision

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................R-1

Project Area .........................................................................................................................R-1

The Selected Alternative ......................................................................................................R-5

Rationale for the Decision ....................................................................................................R-8

Big Game Guide Management.........................................................................................R-9

Large Group Areas ........................................................................................................R-11

Adaptive Management Strategy.....................................................................................R-12

Wilderness.....................................................................................................................R-12

Resources Considered in Detail and Other Resources ..................................................R-14

Significant Issues ...............................................................................................................R-14

Issue 1 – Effects to Economic Opportunities..................................................................R-14

Issue 2 – Effects to Wilderness Areas and Effects of Commercial Uses on NonCommercial Visitors.......................................................................................................R-14

Issue 3 – Incompatible Commercial Uses ......................................................................R-14

Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................R-15

Alternative 1 – No Action ...............................................................................................R-15

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action.....................................................................................R-15

Alternative 3...................................................................................................................R-15

Alternative 4...................................................................................................................R-15

Environmentally Preferred Alternative............................................................................R-15

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration............................................................R-16

Public Involvement.............................................................................................................R-16

Mitigation ...........................................................................................................................R-16

Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................R-17

Project Record ...................................................................................................................R-17

Map and Number Disclaimer..............................................................................................R-17

Project Consistency with the 2016 Forest Plan ..................................................................R-17

Findings Required by Law and Regulation .........................................................................R-18

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) ..........................................R-18

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended)........................................R-19

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) ..............................................................................R-19

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)............................................................................R-19

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)..................................................R-19
Table of Contents

Table of Contents - ii Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 ............................................................. R-20

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act................................... R-20

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 ......................................................................... R-20

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended).................................. R-20

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended)................................. R-21

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act............................................................................................ R-21

Executive Orders ............................................................................................................... R-21

Executive Order 11593 (Cultural Resources)................................................................. R-21

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains)............................................................................. R-21

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)................................................................................ R-22

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)............................................................ R-22

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational Fisheries) ............................... R-22

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)................................................................ R-22

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) .................................................................... R-22

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination Indian Tribal Governments)..... R-23

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds)....................................................................... R-23

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation) ..... R-23

Federal and State Permits ................................................................................................. R-23

Results of the Objection Process pursuant to 36 CFR 218................................................. R-23

Process for Implementation ............................................................................................... R-24

Implementation Date.......................................................................................................... R-24

Contact Information............................................................................................................ R-25

Responsible Official ........................................................................................................... R-25

Exhibit R-1 Response to the Reviewing Officer’s Instructions ........................................... R-26

List of Tables

Table R-1. Total acres of each use area............................................................................. R-2

Table R-2. Service days by season and use area for the Selected Alternative ................... R-5

List of Figures

Figure R-1. Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide project area map................................................... R-4
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 1

Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) to analyze varying levels of outfitter/guide use allocations on the Tongass National Forest marine 

shoreline zone and associated uplands, and update the 2004 Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision 

to better align with current market demand for non-motorized commercial recreation services. 

The FEIS and draft Record of Decision (ROD) were made available for public review under the 

Predecisional Administrative Review, or objection process, at 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B. The 

Reviewing Officer has reviewed the draft Decision, in accordance with 36 CFR 218.3(a) and 219.56(g), 

and provided instructions. I have complied with the instructions from the Reviewing Officer prior to

signing this ROD. 

Decision

Based on comments received during the scoping period, comments on the DEIS, and input from the Forest 

Service interdisciplinary team, I am selecting Alternative 2, as documented in the FEIS, with certain 

modifications as noted in this ROD. Alternative 2 will hereafter be referred to as the Selected Alternative. 

In making this decision I considered:

• How to best meet the purpose and need for this project

• How to best balance commercial and non-commercial recreational opportunities that provide and 

maintain high-quality recreation experiences without degrading forest resources

• Consistency with the 2016 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan), specifically the need to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives for recreation and tourism, 

and to support local and regional economies

• Issues raised during scoping, public comments on the project, and objections on the draft ROD

• The relative environmental effects and outputs of the No-action Alternative and the three action 

alternatives described in the FEIS

Project Area

The project area includes all areas used for non-motorized outfitter/guide activities that originate from the 

marine shoreline areas in the Admiralty Island National Monument, and Hoonah, Juneau, and Sitka 

Ranger Districts (see Figure R-1). In general, the project area extends one-half mile inland, with further 

extensions inland where specific outfitter/guide activities and locations are accessed from the shoreline 

(i.e. mountain goat/ Sitka black-tail deer hunting, canoe route/portage, freshwater fishing on anadromous 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 2 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

and other fish-bearing streams and lakes, etc.). This includes a large portion of Baranof Island where 

mountain goat and Sitka black-tail deer hunting areas extend inland.

The project area is divided into 48 guide use areas (Table R-1), encompassing 5,944,971 acres of National 

Forest System (NFS) land. This translates to approximately 5,870 miles of shoreline. Of that land, 

approximately 2,899,350 acres are in the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide project area. Appendix 1 provides 

detailed information for each use area, such as total acres and special features.

Areasthat are not part of this analysis:

1. Private lands and other public lands and waters outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (i.e. 

submerged islands, marine waters, Alaska State Parks).

2. The summer (peak) season at the Pack Creek Zoological Area in Admiralty Island National 

Monument, which had a separate Decision on March 21, 2011. The remaining seasons (fall, winter, 

and spring) are included within this analysis.

3. Mitchell, Kanalku, and Favorite Bays in Admiralty Island National Monument are being considered 

under a separate analysis with a Decision expected in 2017.

4. The Kruzof Island Mud Bay and Eagle River motorized and non-motorized trail systems and the Eagle 

River Road large group area, in the Sitka Ranger District, had a separate Decision on April 21, 2015.

Table R-1. Total acres of each use area

Use Area General Location Acres Use Area General Location Acres

01-01 Skagway Area 300,795 04-05A SW Admiralty 61,113

01-02 Haines Area 19,542 04-06A Pybus Bay 55,102

01-03 East Chilkats 361,104 04-06B Eliza Harbor 84,639

01-04A Berners Bay 235,343 04-07A Gambier Bay 119,063

01-04B N. Juneau Coast 49,651 04-07B Cross-Admiralty Canoe Route 86,645

01-04C Taku Inlet 340,133 04-08 NE Admiralty 128,121

01-04D Slocum Inlet 17,211 04-09A Seymour Canal 87,673

01-05A Taku Harbor 19,749 04-09B Pack Creek Zoological Area 65,367

01-05B Port Snettisham 365,841 04-10A Greens Creek 2,543

01-05C Windham Bay 162,229 04-10B NW Admiralty 243,554

01-05D Tracy Arm 330,724 04-11A Port Frederick 112,274

01-05E Fords Terror 24,374 04-11B Freshwater Bay 97,053

01-05F Endicott Arm 367,087 04-12 Tenakee Inlet 314,938

04-01A Gut Bay, Baranof 94,186 04-13 Peril Strait 231,552

04-01B Port Armstrong 74,693 04-14 Slocum Arm 97,053

04-01C Nelson Bay 44,229 04-15A Lisianski 89,631

04-02A Redoubt Lake 45,155 04-15B West Yakobi Island 39,669

04-02B Whale Bay 222,466 04-15C Stag Bay 26,681

04-02C Necker Islands 6,481 04-15D Portlock Harbor 107,939

04-02D SW Baranof 50,534 04-16A Point Adolphus 8,888

04-03 Sitka Area 346,237 04-16B North Chichagof 64,447

04-04A Rodman Bay 75,540 04-16C Idaho Inlet 52,115
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 3

04-04B Kelp Bay 143,995 04-16D Pleasant, Lemesurier, and Inian 

(PLI) Wilderness 23,105

04-04C Baranof Warm

Springs 28,963 04-16E Port Althorp 19,542
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 4 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Figure R-1. Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide project area map
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 5

The Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative allocates up to 80,305 service days of the estimated total visitor capacity of 636,448 

service days, within the project area to outfitter/guide use (Table R-2). These allocations are proposed for 

each use area, by season. The seasons are as follows: fall (September 15 to December 31), winter (January 1 

to March 14), early spring (March 15 to April 24), late spring (April 25 to May 20, or 31), summer (May 21, 

or June 1 to September 14).

Table R-2: Service days by season and use area for the Selected Alternative

Shoreline II Use Areas

(Service

Days)--

Early

Spring

(Service

Days)--

Late

Spring

(Service

Days)--

Summer

(Service

Days)--Fall

(Service

Days)--

Winter

Total

01-01 Skagway Area 160 145 710 260 125 1,400

01-02 Haines Area 30 25 115 55 20 245

01-03 East Chilkats 140 125 750 160 150 1,325

01-04A Berners Bay 60 55 350 105 50 620

01-04B N. Juneau Coast 105 90 450 155 65 865

01-04C Taku Inlet 125 110 810 170 165 1,380

01-04D Slocum Inlet 30 25 310 70 20 455

01-05A Taku Harbor 60 50 290 55 20 475

01-05B Port Snettisham 220 195 3,080 350 165 4,010

01-05C Windham Bay 115 100 2,070 310 150 2,745

01-05D Tracy Arm 40 35 175 95 0 345

01-05E Fords Terror 40 35 125 70 0 270

01-05F Endicott Arm 95 85 490 105 0 775

04-01A Gut Bay, Baranof 60 55 420 70 0 605

04-01B Port Armstrong 105 90 640 125 115 1,075

04-01C Nelson Bay 35 25 480 65 50 655

04-02A Redoubt Lake 165 145 1,460 315 100 2,185

04-02B Whale Bay 95 85 525 105 0 810

04-02C Necker Islands 165 145 1,410 315 100 2,135

04-02D SW Baranof 110 95 630 365 115 1,315

04-03 Sitka Area 460 410 7,420 1,055 540 9,885

04-04A Rodman Bay 95 60 2,670 100 65 2,990

04-04B Kelp Bay 180 115 6,630 215 165 7,305

04-04C Baranof Warm 

Springs 20 15 235 40 20 330

04-05A SW Admiralty 90 60 485 140 0 775

04-06A Pybus Bay 75 50 675 110 0 910

04-06B Eliza Harbor 95 60 310 110 0 575

04-07A Gambier Bay 45 30 280 110 0 465

04-07B Cross-Admiralty 

Canoe Rte 90 60 395 140 0 685

04-08 NE Admiralty 70 45 320 140 0 575
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 6 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Shoreline II Use Areas

(Service

Days)--

Early

Spring

(Service

Days)--

Late

Spring

(Service

Days)--

Summer

(Service

Days)--Fall

(Service

Days)--

Winter

Total

04-09A Seymour Canal 90 60 320 140 0 610

04-09B Pack Creek 

Zoological Area 90 60 0 140 0 290

04-10A Greens Creek 25 20 250 145 0 440

04-10B NW Admiralty 120 75 415 190 0 800

04-11A Port Frederick 140 90 990 280 130 1,630

04-11B Freshwater Bay 140 90 1,980 950 130 3,290

04-12 Tenakee Inlet 100 65 800 250 200 1,415

04-13 Peril Strait 250 160 5,055 310 230 6,005

04-14 Slocum Arm 70 60 285 120 0 535

04-15A Lisianski 145 130 1,190 280 165 1,910

04-15B West Yakobi Island 50 45 315 65 0 475

04-15C Stag Bay 20 15 105 20 0 160

04-15D Portlock Harbor 50 45 245 120 0 460

04-16A Point Adolphus 215 190 1,460 290 65 2,220

04-16B North Chichagof 110 100 980 140 85 1,415

04-16C Idaho Inlet 435 385 3,045 145 100 4,110

04-16D PLI Wilderness 40 35 265 55 0 395

04-16E Port Althorp 445 395 4,710 310 100 5,960

Totals 5,710 4,640 57,120 9,430 3,405 80,305

The following items were considered common to all action alternatives. To address the purpose and need of 

aligning outfitter/guide permitting to updated national policies set forth in 2008, the following actions are 

adopted as part of the Selected Alternative:

• Number of Guided Brown Bear Hunts: The Selected Alternative will allocate guided brown bear 

hunts in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Unit 4 game management unit (GMU) 

based on the Alaska Board of Game Brown Bear Management Strategy (BBMS 2000). The service 

days used for each hunt are part of the total outfitter/guide allocation proposed for each use area and 

season. The Forest Service will continue to expect guides to strive for distributing their hunts based 

on the BBMS recommended number of guided hunts per Guide Use Area (GUA) (Table 2-5 of the 

FEIS) and ADF&G’s historical percentage of use data during the spring (70 percent) and fall (30 

percent) seasons. The Forest Service will keep any unallocated hunts in reserve until such time when 

biological or population factors allow for these hunts to be reissued in a special use permit. The 

Forest Service will continue to collaborate with the Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB) 

and ADF&G to the maximum extent necessary to manage for healthy populations of wildlife and high 

quality public recreation experiences.

• Change in Ownership Direction: Rescind in its entirety the Outfitter and Guide Change in 

Ownership Direction (Cole, 2009) that established guidance for issuing special use permits to Limited 

Liability Companies (LLCs) and limited the number of hunts and service days in a change of 

outfitter/guide ownership to no more than two-thirds the number held by the previous owner. 

Issuance of future big game guide hunts or service days will be in accordance with existing Forest 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 7

Service policies set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Forest Service Manual, Forest Service 

Handbook or other agency guidance.

• Number of Registered Guides: Continue to follow the guidelines for the number of permitted 

brown bear guides set forth in the BBMS, or any future collaborative planning effort. To maintain a 

high-quality hunt experience and avoid impacts to other users from overcrowding, the BBMS 

recommends that a maximum number of 20 individual registered brown bear guides should be 

permitted to operate in ADF&G GMU 4. Currently, there are 20 registered brown bear guides 

permitted to operate in Unit 4. Therefore, based on the current BBMS, no additional brown bear 

guides will be permitted within the ADF&G Unit 4 portion of the Shoreline II project area unless an 

existing guide relinquishes his or her permit (e.g., change of ownership), or a prospectus is offered. 

Require that special use permits issued to corporations or LLCs for big game guiding identify the 

maximum number of registered guides (brown bear guides and/or other big game guides) that can 

operate under such permit as determined by the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis. For LLCs 

or corporations authorized for brown bear hunting in GMU 4, the cumulative number of registered 

brown bear hunting guides shall align with the recommendations in the BBMS or future collaborative 

efforts. The intent of this action is to avoid unchecked expansion of the number of registered guides 

operating within the project area. 

• Competitive Interest, Prospectus, and Renewal: Federal regulations (36 CFR 251.58(c)(3)(ii)) and 

Forest Service policy (FSM 2712.1; FSH 2709.14, 53.1h(3)) require the issuance of special use 

permits through the use of a prospectus when a competitive interest for outfitter/guide permits exists. 

Therefore, unallocated big game guide hunts or service days where there is competitive interest by 

big game guides will be issued through a prospectus process in accordance with Forest Service 

Manual and Handbook direction. When existing priority use outfitter/guide big game permits expire, 

permit renewal direction will be applied (FSH 2709.14, 53.lm(4 and 5)), unless circumstances warrant 

a reallocation of a portion or all hunts or service days through a prospectus. Circumstances under 

which a prospectus may be implemented include, but are not limited to, the need to reduce the 

number of hunts or service days due to a biological, social, or environmental issue.

The Forest Service will work across Ranger District boundaries and with big game guides to address 

prospectus and change of ownership issues collaboratively. The intent of this process is to provide 

consistency across Districts, and provide the industry a voice in determining how these actions would 

occur in the future.

• Number of Guide Use Areas: Only authorize up to the maximum number of GUAs allowed by 

State of Alaska regulations. The Forest Service has issued big game guide permits that have a pool of 

GUAs from which the permit holder may select annually for operating plan approval. This process 

has resulted in a greater number of user conflicts due to the higher level of unpredictability from year 

to year for other guides operating in the selected GUAs. The maximum number of GUAs per permit 

will be determined by the number of registered guides authorized on the permit and the corresponding 

number of GUAs within which each registered guide is licensed to operate by the State. BBMS 

recommendations and continued coordination with ADF&G will also factor into GUAs authorized on 

permits. 

Large group areas (LGAs) outlined in the FEIS will be included in the Selected Alternative (see ROD 

Appendix 2). In addition, no more than 50 percent of the total outfitter/guide allocation for the use area, by 

season will be allowed at an LGA, with exceptions in use areas with hardened LGA sites. At hardened LGA 

sites, the authorized officer will have the flexibility to authorize more than 50 percent of that season’s use area 

allocation (not to exceed the total outfitter/guide allocation for the season). 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 8 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

I also decided to implement the adaptive management strategy (ROD Appendix 4), which includes a 

monitoring and environmental review process, which would be applied when any use area’s actual use data 

fell within the range of 80 percent to 110 percent of the allocation for any use season (early spring, late spring, 

summer, fall, winter) and there is a request for additional use from an outfitter/guide. 

Design features, mitigation measures, permit stipulations and the historic properties management plan as 

documented in the use area cards (ROD Appendix 1) and large group area cards (ROD Appendix 2), and all 

permit stipulations and BMPs as presented in the ROD Appendix 3, are included as part of the Selected 

Alternative. The implementation of this Decision will occur as existing permits expire and new ones are 

authorized. The Forest Service will not revoke any current permits based on service day allocation as a result 

of this Decision. 

Rationale for the Decision

The Selected Alternative meets the purpose and need for this project, and was developed to balance

commercial and non-commercial recreational opportunities, yet providing and maintaining high-quality 

recreation experiences without degrading forest resources. My decision to implement the Selected Alternative 

conforms to the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), Forest Service Handbook, 

Wilderness Act, and other applicable laws and regulations as presented in the section “Findings Required by 

Law and Regulation” in this ROD. See also Project Consistency with the 2016 Forest Plan, p. R-17. The 

analysis contained in the Shoreline II EIS is based on the best available science, and was an interdisciplinary 

effort that included input from the public, federally recognized tribes, and other State and Federal agencies. 

When making this decision, I considered the trade-off between resource protection, the preservation of 

wilderness characteristics, economic growth and stability, as well as social values. I considered concerns 

raised through scoping, at public meetings and during comment periods, including the objection period, and 

incorporated this input where feasible. 

Since the 2004 Shoreline Outfitter/Guide ROD (represented by Alternative 1) the need for outfitter/guide 

services in the project area has expanded in terms of number of visitors and the types of services being 

offered. There is continued demand for institutional outfitter/guide services (e.g., schools and therapy 

groups), and seven use areas are at 80 percent or more of their allocation during one or more seasons, causing

outfitter/guides to disperse to areas that have traditionally been less used. The fleet of small to mid-size cruise 

ships desiring to outfit/guide on the Tongass National Forest, and the demand for outfitted/guided big game 

hunting continues, and in turn traditionally low-use seasons (April-May; September-October) are seeing more 

use, with additional interest for outfitter/guide use in the winter season (January-March). At some locations, 

outfitter/guide permit holders have requested to operate beyond the 1⁄2-mile zone. The Selected Alternative 

was designed to address the needs and changes in the project area discussed above, and to respond to a wide 

span of public comments (see pgs. 1-16 to 1-17 of the FEIS) ranging from requests for additional use and 

increased economic opportunities within specific use areas and/or wilderness areas, to concerns related to 

crowding within use areas from expanded outfitter/guide use. It was developed by taking the allocations 

allotted under Alternative 1 and increasing or decreasing them based on factors such as changes or trends in 

outfitter/guide use since the 2004 Decision, subsistence patterns, proximity to communities, known or 

potential resource impacts, and whether the area was, or has become, popular with local users.

The Selected Alternative seeks to address the significant issue of economic opportunity for existing and new 

outfitter/guide operations through the allocation of additional service days, and while at 80,305 days it offers 

fewer service days to outfitter/guides than Alternative 4 at 130,655 days, it allocates more service days than 

does Alternative 1 (47,449 days) or Alternative 3 (63,940 days). 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 9

While the Selected Alternative doesn’t offer growth opportunities for the visitor industry to the extent of 

Alternative 4, by providing a lower overall allocation of service days it better addresses the issue of crowding

from expanded outfitter/guide use. The Selected Alternative will further addresses this issue through the 

application of mitigation measures developed to protect areas where noncommercial use is prevalent, and by 

reducing allocations during the late spring season to alleviate incompatible outfitter/guide uses during that 

period. 

Overall, I find that the Selected Alternative allows for a balance of sustainable commercial and noncommercial recreational opportunities in the project area, provides opportunity for economic growth in the 

commercial recreation industry, and will preserve a quality experience for both commercial and noncommercial users. It provides this beneficial mix of opportunities for the public, and business opportunities 

for outfitter and guides in accordance with existing laws, regulations, policies, and the capabilities of the land,

while meeting the purpose and need for this project. It also equally addresses the Forest Plan goals and 

objectives for recreation and tourism, which are: 

• Provide for a range of recreation opportunities consistent with public demand, emphasizing locally 

popular recreation places and those important to the tourism industry. 

• Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local and regional economies 

of Southeast Alaska. 

The following items are key considerations in my decision.

Big Game Guide Management

I am aware, based on public comments and cooperative efforts with the ADF&G and BGCSB that big game 

guiding is an important service provided on the Tongass National Forest. Successfully implementing the big 

game guide management proposals included in the Selected Alternative depends on the continued 

collaboration and cooperation of State and Federal agencies, outfitter/guides, and the public.

Each of these entities plays a key role in the system for managing big game guiding. The ADF&G is 

responsible for managing wildlife populations and issuing hunting permits to the public, the BGCSB is 

responsible for adopting guide regulations and issuing guide licenses, and the Forest Service is responsible for 

managing the habitat and authorizing the amount and type of use on National Forest System lands for 

outfitter/guides. I intend to continue to work together to successfully implement not only the Selected 

Alternative, but to continue to uphold recommendations agreed upon by all entities in the Game Management 

Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Strategy.

In making this decision, I have considered the proposals specific to big game guide management as presented 

in the DEIS, and have reviewed the updates to these proposals made in the FEIS based on public comments. 

My primary interests for future management of big game guiding through the permit process are to provide 

high quality and safe recreation experiences for the public, consistency in how big game guide permits are 

administered among Districts, and transparency and fairness for issuing future big game guide permits in 

accordance with Forest Service regulations and policies. I feel that the proposals for big game guide 

management included in the Selected Alternative strive to meet these intentions. 

During public meetings, the DEIS comment period, and objections, I was made aware of opposition to the 

proposal to issue future big game guide permits where there is competitive interest through a prospectus after 

2023. However, some commenters did express support for a prospectus in Game Management Unit (GMU) 1 

where there are currently unallocated hunts available. 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 10 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Federal regulations (36 CFR 251.58(c)(3)(ii)) and Forest Service policy (FSM 2712.1; FSH 2709.14, 

53.1h(3)) require the use of a prospectus when a competitive interest exists. Competitive interest exists when 

there are multiple individuals or entities interested in attaining big game guide permits and not all of them can 

be accommodated (i.e., when demand exceeds supply). In the case of big game hunts in the Shoreline II 

project area, at the time of this ROD there is competitive interest for guided hunts for all big game species 

except Sitka black-tailed deer. 

Following the release of the draft ROD, I met with objectors, and considering their concerns, I modified my 

decision to better align with national policy so that the prospectus process will be used primarily for 

unallocated big game guide hunts or service days where there is competitive interest by big game guides. 

Currently, GMU 1 presents the best opportunity to offer an additional allocation of big game guide hunts or 

service days to new and/or existing outfitter/guides. It is my intent to use the prospectus process to establish 

new opportunities for big game outfitter/guide services within areas in GMU 1. Implementation will depend 

on staff and budget capacity to collaborate with ADF&G on development and execution of a prospectus.

I further modified the Decision to clarify that when existing priority use outfitter/guide big game permits 

expire, permit renewal direction will be applied (FSH 2709.14, 53.lm(4 and 5)), unless circumstances warrant 

a reallocation of a portion or all hunts or service days through a prospectus. This clarification establishes 

better alignment with national policy on permit renewal. During implementation of this Decision, it is my 

goal to further establish collaborative relationships among State and federal managers, the public, and big 

game outfitter/guides to address issues and create opportunities that further implement the goals of the Forest 

Plan.

My decision to rescind, in its entirety, the Outfitter and Guide Change in Ownership Direction (Cole, 2009) 

marks a success in big game management made possible through collaborative efforts among the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, big game guides, and the Forest Service. The intent of the 1/3 holdback policy

was in part to reduce the number of allocated hunts in GMU 4, in order to meet the recommendations of the 

BBMS. Thanks to this successful collaboration, those recommendations have been met, and this policy is no 

longer necessary.

I acknowledge the comments received from big game guides that do not agree with requiring special use 

permits to identify the maximum number of registered guides that can operate under a permit issued to a 

corporation or LLC as determined by the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis. Commenters felt that 

this would provide line officers “unilateral authority” to determine how many guides could operate under each 

permit, without giving guides the right to have input on those decisions. Commenters also felt that the 

alignment of GUAs allowed per permit targeted specific operators and was biased specifically against larger 

operators.

The purpose of requiring the identification of the number of registered guides per permit is to avoid 

unchecked expansion of the number of registered guides operating within the project area and to remain 

within the BBMS recommended total of 20 individual registered guides. Permits that are issued to 

individuals are clearly permitting only one registered guide for big game hunting activities. Since 

corporations or LLCs are not necessarily individual persons, this action will clearly specify the number of 

registered guides authorized to operate under the permit. The individual names of registered guides will

continue to be identified in the operating plan and reviewed for approval by the authorized officer (FEIS 3-

89). This provision also allows the Forest to avoid overcrowding and maintain a high-quality hunt 

experience.

In consideration of the number of GUAs per permit, currently the State allows for each registered big game 

guides to identify up to three GUAs to conduct guided hunts. The provision to specify a maximum number of 

GUAs per permit is intended to provide consistency in how permits are issued between Districts and further 

align Forest Service permits with State regulations. The maximum number of GUAs per permit will be 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 11

determined by the number of registered guides authorized on the permit and the corresponding number of 

GUAs each registered guide is licensed to operate by the State. BBMS recommendations and continued 

coordination with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game will also factor into identifying GUAs authorized 

on permits.

In order to address comments received asking the Forest Service to not allocate brown bear hunts by use area 

and season, I decided to not carry forward that provision in the Selected Alternative (FEIS, Changes between 

Draft and Final p. 2-1). I agree with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the Alaska Professional Hunters 

Association, and individual guides that allocating brown bear hunts by use area and season would create more 

problems than it would solve, particularly with regard to the increased likelihood of female brown bear 

mortality.

Finally, the Selected Alternative and the provisions related to big game management will align this Decision

with current regulation and policy, provide a fair and equitable means for allocating big game hunts, and will 

help the Forest provide the best services possible for the public. When implementing this decision, I 

encourage the Ranger Districts, National Monument, State of Alaska and big game guides to hold an annual 

integrated meeting to discuss current operational challenges and opportunities for mutual success.

Large Group Areas

I considered the effects on all resources described in the FEIS when including large group areas (LGAs) in the 

Selected Alternative. I weighed public concerns related to allowing sufficient use at LGAs to accommodate

projected growth of the cruise industry over time, balanced by concerns that this use will lead to increased 

wildlife disturbance, crowding and reduced opportunities for solitude or a lessened “wilderness experience”

for clients of smaller operators, and unoutfitted/unguided users in areas where LGAs are located.

One of the Shoreline II project objectives is to provide a range of recreation opportunities consistent with 

public demand (FEIS p. 1-6). The Selected Alternative provides a range of outfitter/guide allocations, 

including increased allocations at large group areas. LGAs serve an important role for the tourism industry, 

by providing a place to take large groups of visitors at one time to experience the Tongass National Forest. 

These sites were included in the Shoreline ROD (2004) and in this analysis, with seven additional LGAs 

being identified (FEIS p. 2-16). 

Identification of LGAs are meant to reduce, to the maximum extent possible, any adverse impacts to natural 

or cultural resources (see ROD Appendix 2, Large Group Areas, and FEIS Table 3-26). LGAs are located in 

Forest Plan LUDs where higher use and larger groups are allowed (see Appendix 2, p. A2-1), and most LGAs 

have site conditions, such as hardened surfaces, that allow for high volumes of visitors. Hardened LGA sites 

are those with a natural or imported surface material, such as crushed rock or boardwalks, which greatly 

reduces soil disturbance from people walking within the site. All LGAs are outside of congressionally 

designated wilderness areas, because they are designed for large groups that exceed wilderness group size 

standards. Wilderness, Wilderness Monument, and Remote Recreation LUDs comprise approximately 48 

percent of the project area.

I find that large group areas are a vital component in meeting the goals and objectives for the Shoreline II 

project (FEIS p. 1-6) in that they contribute to the range of recreation opportunities offered within the project 

area. They are consistent with the Forest Plan LUD and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) standards 

and guidelines, and allow the Forest Service to meet requests for increased allocations for larger groups while 

protecting resource conditions in those areas. 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 12 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Adaptive Management Strategy

The use of adaptive management in managing outfitter/guide use is a relatively new and evolving tool that is 

designed to meet a specific need for a project. In this case, the purpose and need for the Shoreline II project 

stated a need to “balance commercial and non-commercial recreational opportunities and to provide and 

maintain high quality recreation experiences without degrading forest resources.” The project’s purpose and 

need also described changes in the past 10 years with the tourism industry and market demand. I feel that 

including adaptive management in the final Decision allows the Forest Service flexibility in order to be better 

able to balance changing tourism market demands while protecting resources.

The adaptive management strategy framework allows the Forest Service, outfitter/guides and the public to 

learn and adapt together during the implementation of this Decision. It provides resource indicators based on 

issues raised by the public, a process to inform and arrive at decisions related to adaptive management 

actions, while also providing a strategy to focus monitoring efforts during times of declining budgets. 

I believe the adaptive management strategy’s use of a 10 percent increase allowed within individual use areas

(when resource conditions allow), combined with the overall allocation of total service days made available 

by the Selected Alternative meets public requests for higher use within the project area as a whole, and allows 

for flexibility to accommodate future requests for additional use by outfitter/guides.

During the objection process, the Objection Reviewing Officer asked that conflict, as used in the relation to 

adaptive management monitoring, be better defined in order to clarify what would constitute a conflict, and in 

turn how conflict reporting will be more uniformly applied across the four Ranger Districts in the project area 

during implementation. 

The definition of conflict has been updated in Appendix 4, pg. 7 to read: “Conflicts are defined as an instance 

where two or more individuals or groups who are on, or intend to utilize, NFS lands interact and fail to 

coordinate shared use of the area to the satisfaction of both groups. User groups may include outfitter/guides, 

other commercial users, subsistence users, researchers, other agencies, and public groups. Recordable 

conflicts can occur between two or more groups, and must be reported to the Forest Service in a reasonable 

timeframe.”

Conflict monitoring and reporting will occur annually, in the use area and season of concern (operating season 

where 80 percent of the allocated use is utilized by actual use) through ad-hoc field monitoring by Forest 

Service staff (meaning a field trip to specifically monitor for conflict in the field will not be required) and 

reports from user groups. The method of reporting will be standardized across all four districts to include 

date, time, location, parties involved, activity at the time of conflict, and whether there was an effort made by 

outfitter/guides to resolve the conflict. Data will be entered into the outfitter/guide database by the district 

receiving the report. See Appendix 4 pgs. 6 –10 for additional information.

To act as a guide, an implementation plan has been completed to ensure adaptive management is implemented 

as outlined in this Decision. The plan is intended to provide a consistent outline for permit administrators and 

interdisciplinary team members as they collaborate with outfitter/guides and members of the public to 

collectively monitor and implement adaptive management decisions together.

Finally, I am committed to working with outfitter/guides, the public, and other stakeholders during 

implementation of this project to broadly adopt communication channels that will help reduce conflict and 

increase high-quality visitor experiences in the field. This project has many opportunities for collaboration 

toward a common interest through practices such as cross-District industry and stakeholder meetings, citizen 

science in field data collection, using internet based tools for working across large geographic areas, and 

learning and improving through adaptive management. Some of these practices are available for immediate 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 13

implementation, while others will take some time to develop. The success of this project relies on our 

commitment to work together. 

Wilderness

Wilderness is managed, in part, to provide unique recreation experiences in accordance to the 1964 

Wilderness Act and enabling legislation. I intend through this Decision to maintain and enhance opportunities 

for the public to use and enjoy wilderness through the assistance of outfitter/guides while equally upholding

other aspects of wilderness character. 

I considered the effects of the Selected Alternative on wilderness resources, based on direction provided in the 

Forest Plan, the Wilderness Commercial Needs Assessments (DEIS and FEIS, Appendix F), Visitor Capacity 

Analysis (DEIS, Appendix E), and the FEIS. Under the Wilderness Act, commercial services may be 

authorized in wilderness to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or 

other wilderness purposes of the areas. The six Wilderness Commercial Needs Assessments (WCNAs) are an 

internal analysis tool that helped inform my decision by determining which type of commercial services, if 

any, are necessary to help realize purposes of the Wilderness Act. The analyses for these six wilderness areas 

found that there is a need for outfitter/guide services to provide remote-setting nature tours, camping, 

freshwater fishing and hunting experiences. 

However, the WCNAs do not determine the extent or amount of outfitter/guide commercial use that may be 

allocated. The decision to allocate a portion of the visitor capacity to outfitter/guides is accomplished through 

an environmental analysis and subsequent Decision. Thus, determining the extent necessary for commercial 

outfitter/guide services in wilderness is a multistage process consisting of the aforementioned four documents, 

including the applicable regulations and policies contained therein. This comprehensive approach forms the 

basis for the Selected Alternative’s allocations within wilderness areas. 

In order to address concerns raised in the objections process, I have clarified how we would address proposals 

for new outfitter/guide activities not considered in the current WCNAs. I have supplemented the language to 

the WCNAs which affirms that newly proposed activities would either fall under an existing category for 

which a determination of need had already been made, or comprise a new category for which a determination 

of need would be made and the WCNAs subsequently updated. This allows for the WCNAs to be 

supplemented in the future to address commercial outfitter/guide uses that may not have been considered in 

this analysis. The updated WCNAs are in the project record.

In making this decision, I reviewed public input contending that the number of service days allocated in the 

Selected Alternative could have been increased substantially, while still addressing resource concerns related 

to increased use. Commenters also stated that by not allocating a reasonable number of service days within 

wilderness areas, the costs of small cruise ship operators would increase, in turn adversely affecting the 

public’s ability to access wilderness areas. I also considered how higher allocation levels could affect 

wilderness characteristics.

The Selected Alternative provides for an additional 32,856 service days above the current allocation of 47,449 

service days made available under the 2004 Shoreline ROD, a 69 percent increase from the current condition. 

For the high-use summer season, the Selected Alternative also allows for a 155 percent increase over the 

2011-2015 average summer actual use in the Kootznoowoo Wilderness on Admiralty Island, a 140 percent 

increase for the South Baranof Wilderness, and a 48 percent increase for the Tracy Arm – Ford’s Terror 

Wilderness. Use could more than double for the Kootznoowoo and South Baranof wilderness areas under this 

Decision, and increase by half the current levels for the Tracy Arm – Ford’s Terror Wilderness. 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 14 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

When considering the increased allocation of service days within wilderness areas described above, resource 

effects as disclosed in the FEIS, mitigation measures, and adaptive management, I find that the Selected 

Alternative allows for ample growth of commercial outfitter/guide services while still maintaining wilderness 

character and high-quality recreation. 

In designated wilderness areas, where it is prohibited to mine, log, build roads and conduct other commercial 

enterprises, allocating the type and amount of use allowed for outfitter/guide activities represents the biggest 

potential for affecting wilderness character. The Selected Alternative was designed considering factors such 

as use, enjoyment, crowding and preservation. The Wilderness Act provides for both use and enjoyment and 

an enduring resource of wilderness with the underlying charge to preserve wilderness character. I believe that 

the increased allocations in the Selected Alternative meet the intent of the Wilderness Act "to the extent 

necessary" provision, while still allowing for increased use within wilderness areas and the project area as a 

whole, and provide a balanced approach to crowding and overuse.

Resources Considered in Detail and Other Resources

I have considered the effects of this project on several additional resources, including socioeconomics, 

recreation, heritage, wildlife, subsistence, threatened endangered sensitive and rare plants, invasive plants, 

hydrology and fisheries, soils and wetlands. Effects of this Decision to these resources are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Other resources likely to remain unaffected by the proposed action or alternatives, or 

not affected to a significant degree, such as climate change, are also discussed briefly in Chapter 3, p. 3-3. 

Significant Issues

Issues identified for the Shoreline II Outfitter and Guide project through external and internal scoping were 

addressed through the development of three action alternatives and a no-action alternative. 

Issue 1 – Effects to Economic Opportunities

Issue 1 addresses concerns that the number of service days included in the Selected Alternative (80,305) 

would not adequately provide for economic stability and growth within the region. 

The allocation of the Selected Alternative is based on visitor industry trends, which shows consistent and 

increasing growth within the region, and current use levels in the project area. Currently the number of 

allocated service days available is 47,449. The Selected Alternative increases available service days by 

32,856 service days, a 69 percent increase. I believe this allows a reasonable balance of economic 

opportunity, and growth to new and existing outfitter and guide operations.

Issue 2 – Effects to Wilderness Areas and Effects of 

Commercial Uses on Non-Commercial Visitors

Comments were received during public scoping expressing concern related to increased outfitter/guide use in 

areas that historically have had low use. Commenters felt that the Forest Service should do more to limit 

outfitter/guide operations so that “wild” places (wilderness areas) are not overcrowded; outside of wilderness, 

concerns were expressed about outfitter/guide use causing crowding, noise, and disturbance in locations 

popular with non-commercial visitors. 

The Selected Alternative offers lower outfitter/guide allocations for use areas in designated wilderness and 

remote areas than does Alternative 1 and Alternative 4, and limits commercial use where noncommercial use 

is prevalent. This addresses the issue of crowding, and provides a balance between use by commercial 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 15

services and avoiding the degradation of wilderness character. It allocates commercial use to the “extent 

necessary” per the Wilderness Act, while still providing for quality wilderness visitor experiences. 

Issue 3 – Incompatible Commercial Uses

Comments were received stating concerns about incompatible outfitter/guide uses (e.g., bear hunting and 

wildlife viewing/nature tour operators) that overlap in time and space, particularly during the spring and fall 

seasons, and result in conflict and diminished recreation experiences. 

This issue is addressed through the varying allocations of service days in the Selected Alternative, sitespecific design features, and through the separation of the spring season into “early” and “late” spring “subseasons”. The allocations for each season for the Selected Alternative allocations are split proportionally 

based on the number of days in each “sub-season”. Reducing service days allocated in the late spring season 

is intended to address the issue. 

This issue is also addressed outside of this analysis through prospectus, permit stipulations, and permit 

administration.

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Four alternatives were considered in detail in the FEIS. All alternatives respond to the purpose and need. All 

action alternatives respond to the issues identified in varying degrees as discussed in the Shoreline II 

Outfitter/Guide FEIS. A brief summary of each of the alternatives analyzed in detail in the FEIS is included

below. More-specific details are available in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Alternative 1 - No Action

The No-action Alternative is based on the Selected Alternative documented in the 2004 Shoreline Outfitter/

Guide Record of Decision, and provides a total of 47,449 service days in the project area. The No-action 

Alternative would continue the existing management practices of the outfitter/guide special uses management 

program. The No-action Alternative has a lower total number of service days than any of the action 

alternatives, including the Selected Alternative. Under this alternative there would be no winter, or early 

spring season. This alternative used service days as the unit of measure rather than group days.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the Selected Alternative. See page R-5 (The Selected Alternative) for discussion related to the 

selection of this alternative.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to concerns expressed about the increasing overlap of uses 

incompatible with each other, such as bear hunting, wildlife viewing, and increased small cruise ship activity. 

It addressed the issue of loss of solitude and crowding by proposing lower outfitter/guide allocations for use 

areas in designated wilderness and in remote areas. It proposed to allocate a total of 63,940 service days 

across the project area. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was developed to emphasize support for local and regional economies by increasing 

opportunities for outfitters/guides, and allocated the highest number of service days (130,655) to 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 16 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

outfitter/guide use. It was calculated by applying a 5 percent increase to the proposed action and compounded 

annually over a 10-year period. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, would result in the least environmental disturbance and is therefore 

the environmentally preferred alternative. The No-action Alternative would continue the existing 

management practices of the outfitter/guide special uses management program as determined in the 2004 

Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision, and has a lower total number of service days than any of the 

action alternatives, including the Selected Alternative. A lower number of service days equates to less use onthe-ground in the project area, which would provide the greatest resource protection of all alternatives 

considered.

Alternatives Eliminated From Further 

Consideration

Several additional alternatives were proposed internally or by the public during scoping and review of the 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide FEIS. These alternatives, while considered, were not carried forward for detailed 

analysis. More discussion of these alternatives is located in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Study.

Public Involvement

Public involvement has been instrumental in identifying issues and developing alternatives for the Shoreline 

II Outfitter/Guide project. Public meetings, Federal Register notices, newspaper ads, government-togovernment consultation, group and individual meetings, and the Tongass National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions were used to seek input for this project. 

On April 1, 2012, the project was first listed in the 4th quarter of the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the 

Tongass National Forest. From 2012 to 2016, informal meetings were held regarding the project with 

members of the public and stakeholder groups. During the same period, government-to-government 

consultation, meetings, reviews, and professional dialogue also occurred with other Federal and State 

agencies.

The Notice of Availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2016, starting 

the 45-day public comment period. A legal notice was published on January 28, 2014 in the Ketchikan Daily 

News, the newspaper of record. In response to requests from the public, the comment period was extended to 

April 25, 2016. A total of 129 comments were received during the DEIS comment period. Responses to 

comments on the Draft EIS are in Appendix E of the Final EIS. Chapter 1 of the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide 

FEIS provides detailed information concerning public involvement and tribal consultation, as well as the 

timing of public involvement activities that occurred prior to the Notice of Availability and release of the 

FEIS.

The Notice of Availability for the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2017 and a legal 

notice for the FEIS and Draft ROD published in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record for this 

project, on March 10, 2017. Copies of the FEIS and Draft ROD were mailed to Federal and State agencies, 

federally recognized tribal governments, and any other offices, organizations, and individuals who requested 

them, and made available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=38181. A complete list of all 

members of the public, groups, and agencies that received a copy of the FEIS is located in Chapter 4 of the 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 17

FEIS. Submitted literature and public comments are available in the project record and online. Publication of 

the legal notice began the 45-day objection period (36 CFR Part 218, subparts A and B) on the Draft ROD. 

Eight objection letters were received on the Draft ROD and can be viewed on the project webpage 

at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=38181. 

Mitigation

The analysis documented in the FEIS discloses the possible adverse effects of implementing the actions 

proposed under each alternative. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines were followed to mitigate or reduce 

these effects. This direction was applied in the development of the project alternatives, including the Selected 

Alternative. The Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide FEIS discusses specific mitigation measures for the project by 

Use Area (Appendix A), Large Group Areas (including a historic properties management plan, in Appendix 

B), and by outlining permit-specific stipulations (Appendix C).

As part of my decision, I have include all mitigation measures as described in the FEIS, and discussed above. 

ROD Appendices 1-4: Use Area Cards (Appendix 1), Large Group Areas (Appendix 2), Stipulations and 

BMPs (Appendix 3) and Adaptive Management (Appendix 4) are included as part of this Decision.

Monitoring

Monitoring involves gathering data and information and observing the results of management activities. 

Monitoring activities can be divided into project-specific and Forest Plan monitoring and is required under 

NFMA to evaluate Forest Plans (36 CFR 219.12). The Forest Monitoring Program outlines what monitoring 

activities occur as part of Forest Plan implementation, as noted on page 38 of the 2016 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. Project-specific monitoring is a separate activity outlined in 

each decision document and may supplement forest-wide monitoring. More information can be found 

here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/Monitoring. Monitoring items that apply to the Selected 

Alternative are part of this Decision and will be implemented. All monitoring requirements being adopted 

specific to this Decision are outlined within the historic properties management plan included in Large Group 

Areas, Appendix 2 and Adaptive Management, Appendix 4. 

Project Record

The project record includes the DEIS, FEIS, materials produced or used during the environmental analysis, 

such as relevant references, data and analysis plus all material incorporated by reference, such as the Forest 

Plan and supporting documentation. The project record is available electronically upon request from the 

Petersburg Ranger District office in Petersburg, Alaska.

Map and Number Disclaimer 

All map products in this document are reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the Forest 

Service. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS products for 

purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest 

Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. For more 

information, contact the Petersburg Ranger District.

In addition, the accuracy of calculations made from GIS layers varies with the quality of the mapping itself. 

Numbers presented in tables in this document may not sum correctly due to rounding. Other slight anomalies 

due to rounding may also occur. Therefore, all numbers should be considered as approximate.
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 18 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Project Consistency with the 2016 Forest Plan

The 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (2016 Forest Plan) amended the 2008 Forest Plan. 

The 2008 Forest Plan was developed under a prior planning regulation (1982 Planning Rule) and was 

amended pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). Project consistency with plan components is 

governed by 36 CFR 219.15(d).

For a plan developed or revised under a prior planning regulation that is amended pursuant to the 2012 

Planning Rule, the consistency requirement is as follows: 

1. The 2012 Planning Rule consistency provisions at 36 CFR 219.15(d ) apply only to plan 

component(s) added or modified in conformance with, and as defined by, the 2012 Planning Rule; 

with respect to other plan provisions, the Forest Service's prior interpretation of consistency, that 

projects need only be consistent with plan standards and guidelines, applies. 

2. The Forest Service's prior interpretation of consistency, that projects need only be consistent with 

plan standards and guidelines, and not the 2012 Planning Rule consistency provisions at 36 CFR 

219.15(d), also applies when an amendment developed and approved under the 2012 Planning Rule 

does not change the text of the plan direction but simply applies existing plan direction to a different, 

or additional, area or areas within the plan area. 

(FSH 1909.12, Ch. 20, sec. 21.33)

The Selected Alternative includes specific requirements to avoid or minimize environmental impacts and must 

be complied with by law, regulation, or policy. These design features include, but are not limited to best 

management practices (BMPs), Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and standard operating procedures. The 

Selected Alternative was designed in exact accord with all applicable LUD-specific and forest-wide standards 

and guidelines in Chapters 3 and 4 of the 2016 Forest Plan. 

Since Shoreline II does not propose timber harvest, young-growth management, renewable energy 

development, or transportation systems corridors development, these Chapter 5 plan components are not 

applicable. The Selected Alternative complies with all of the applicable forest-wide wildlife plan components 

in Chapter 5 of the 2016 Forest Plan as follows: 

G-WILD-02 (Bald Eagle Habitat)

Although good sources of active bald eagle nest locations are not available, nests are evenly distributed along 

the coastal shorelines and an estimated 91 percent occur within the beach and estuary buffer. The latest 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines will be followed when authorizing any special use permit in the 

vicinity of known bald eagle nests.

S-WILD-03 (Aleutian Tern)

The special use permit will include the following stipulations:

• Maintain a 250 meter [820 foot] no-disturbance distance from seabird colonies on upland habitats.

• Collect and dispose of all garbage.

• Provide clients with educational materials on shorebirds (to include Aleutian Tern) to explain forest 

management activities related to these species.
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 19

S-WILD-04 (Black Oystercatcher)

The special use permit will contain the following stipulation:

• Maintain a 330-foot distance from waterfowl or shorebird intertidal concentration or nesting areas.

Findings Required By Law and Regulation

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

An ANILCA Section 810 and 811 subsistence evaluation was conducted. As noted in the Subsistence section 

(FEIS p. 3-155), the primary subsistence resource that may be significantly affected by Forest Plan actions is 

Sitka black-tailed deer. Competition between guided hunters and subsistence users would be the same under 

all alternatives. At current levels of guided deer hunting and allocations, and with the mitigation in place 

around Angoon (Appendix A, p. 87), competition between guided hunters and subsistence users is not 

expected to be significant. Based on the MIS analysis for deer, no significant change in deer distribution or 

abundance is expected to result from implementing any of the alternatives. No restrictions to subsistence 

users’ access to subsistence resources in proposed under any alternative. Under all alternatives, this project 

could slightly increase competition for deer, by improving access for non-subsistence users to important 

subsistence areas. However, this increase is not expected to be significant. Therefore, this evaluation 

concludes that all alternatives shall not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on 

subsistence uses (FEIS p. 3-158 and 159). 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended) 

In conjunction with the National Bald Eagle Guidelines, the USFWS Alaska Region (USFWS 2009a) has 

identified step-by-step guidelines to assist in determining if activity near an eagle nest is likely to “take” or 

disturb bald eagles. 

Analysis concluded that no activities are proposed within disturbance avoidance zones listed in the USFWS 

conservation measures for avoiding take, under any alternative. Therefore, I have determined that there 

would be no direct or indirect adverse effects on bald eagle habitat or bald eagles under the Selected 

Alternative with required timing restrictions. Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects to eagles, 

there will be no take and a permit will not be necessary as described in 50 CFR § 22.26.

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) 

I have determined that emissions from the implementation of the Selected Alternative will not exceed State of 

Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50).

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended) 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 323) directs the Forest Service to avoid alteration of and new 

construction on wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. Due to the large percentage of wetlands in 

the Shoreline II project area it is impossible to avoid wetlands; however, all wetlands are avoided to the extent 

practicable. Where wetlands cannot be avoided, State-approved best management practices (BMPs) and the 

fifteen Federal baseline provisions (33 CFR 323) will be used to minimize effects to the wetland. Special 

consideration is given to avoiding high-value wetlands. Any infrastructure or hardening in wetlands will 

require a Section 404 permit (FEIS p. 198). 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 20 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) 

A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared (June 15, 2016) for the Shoreline II project consistent with 

USDA Forest Service threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant and animal species policy (FSM 

2670). The BA determined that the project is “not likely to adversely affect” T&E species which includes 

humpback whales, sperm whales, western Distinct Population Segment of the Steller sea lions, or listed 

salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon species. After continued consultation with the Forest Service, NMFS 

concurred on October 21, 2016 with the determination of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” 

humpback whales, sperm whales, western Distinct Population Segment of the Steller sea lions, or listed 

salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon species. 

A Biological Evaluation (BE) (October 31, 2016) assessed the effects by alternative on R10 sensitive species 

and T&E species. The BE determined that that this project “may affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect the humpback and sperm whales and western DPS of the Steller sea lion.” The determination for 

R10 sensitive species is “may impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning 

area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing” for black oystercatchers, Queen Charlotte goshawks, and 

eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion. A BE was also prepared for TES plants (December 7, 2015). No T&E 

plants are known or suspected to occur in the project area. The determination for the six sensitive plant 

species known to occur in the project area is “may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability of any sensitive plant species”.

The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluations are part of the project record. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

There are no known caves located in the project area. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The potential effects of the project on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were included in Chapter 3 of the DEIS 

and the FEIS. This discussion includes reference to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act that

requires the Forest Service to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on projects that

may affect EFH. It also includes a description of EFH in the project area, a description of the proposed

activities, an analysis of the potential adverse effects of the actions on EFH and the managed species, Forest 

Service conclusions on the effects of the action on EFH, and a description of the measures that will protect 

these essential habitats.

I have reviewed the potential effects of the project on EFH discussed in the FEIS Chapter 3 and I have 

determined that this project may adversely affect EFH (FEIS p. 191). However, the effects to aquatic 

resources, as described in the FEIS and specialist reports, will be minimal or virtually immeasurable. By 

implementing Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and outfitter/guide permit 

stipulations, effects to EFH should not occur. Additional impacts to EFH may occur only from unforeseen 

events. 

The DEIS was provided to the NMFS in January of 2016 to formally initiate the consultation process 

according to the agreement dated June 26, 2007 between the Forest Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. NMFS warranted that no formal consultation was needed and chose not to respond citing that “no 

comments were necessary” (personal communication with Jeanne Hanson NOAA January 12, 2017). 

According to the June 2007 agreement (EFH Consultation Process, Item 5) on p. 4, if NMFS does not respond 

within the established comment period [45 days for an EIS] without a Forest Service-approved time 

extension, consultation is ended and no further correspondence is necessary. 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 21

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative are determined to “may affect, but not likely to adversely 

affect” marine mammals. Marine mammal viewing guidelines administered by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) and enforced by the Coast Guard are sufficient for their protection. Outfitters and guides are 

required to follow provisions on Marine Wildlife Guidelines, including special prohibitions on approaching 

humpback whales in Alaska as defined in 50 CFR 224.103.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended) 

The Selected Alternative fully complies with the 2016 Forest Plan. This project incorporates all applicable 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and management area prescriptions as they apply to the project area, and 

complies with Forest Plan goals and objectives. All required interagency review and coordination have been 

accomplished; new or revised measures resulting from this review have been incorporated. Application of 

Forest Plan direction for the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide project ensures compliance at the project level.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) 

The Determination of Effect for this Shoreline II EIS was prepared and submitted to the Alaska State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) for concurrence. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA it was 

determined that no sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be adversely effected as a 

result of this Decision if all stipulations and mitigations, which are described in the FEIS Chapter 3 and 

Appendices A, B and C (ROD Appendices 1, 2, and 3) are implemented. The primary mitigation factors are 

that the types of activities allowed under this Decision are generally not ground disturbing, permit holders and 

their clients will be encouraged to use Leave No Trace principles, and all permits will contain the Standard 

“Archeological-Paleontological Discoveries Clause” (R10-X106). Additionally, historic property 

management plans will be developed for those large group areas that contain historic properties prior to reissuing permits or upon new application for use of the large group area.

The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with a signed letter on December 1, 2015 with the 

conditional finding of “No Adverse Effect” (Bittner, 2015). Consultation has been completed for the FEIS.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

There are six river systems within the project area that were recommend by the Forest Plan for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic River System. Congressional action to designate these rivers has not occurred. 

No effect is expected with the implementation of Selected Alternative that would cause these river segments 

to deviate from the desired condition as described in the Forest Plan, or preclude them from eventual 

inclusion by Congress in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Very little guided or outfitted use has occurred along the project area river segments during the 

implementation of the 2004 Shoreline project. This is not expected to change with the implementation of the 

Selected Alternative. 

Recreation and tourism use and activities will continue to be managed to maintain an enduring wildland and 

free-flowing river resource. The agency will continue to provide for access and use consistent with the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 22 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Executive Orders 

Executive Order 11593 (Cultural Resources) 

Executive Order 11593 directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to 

nominate to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) all Federally owned properties that meet the 

criteria, to use due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that 

Federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of properties not Federally 

owned. This project considered impacts to historic properties as part of the National Historic Preservation 

Act compliance and thus satisfies the requirements of Executive Order 11593.

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) 

Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and 

short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. The Selected 

Alternative does not allow outfitters and guides to build any permanent development in floodplains within the 

Shoreline II project area. It is expected that none of the outfitter and guide activities will affect velocity or 

location of flows or width and depth of water. Therefore, no measurable short or long-term effects for 

floodplains are anticipated during implementation of the Selected Alternative.

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) 

Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 

adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. No outfitter or guide activities 

that result in long-term impacts (filling, dredging, etc.) to wetlands are authorized under this document 

(USDA Forest Service Manual 2527.01-04).

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to address whether a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes is 

likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives. This order also directs agencies to consider 

patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife.

None of the alternatives are expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on the health or

well-being of the minority or low-income populations that use the project area. Any changes in consumption

patterns and wild food resources, as well as other project effects, would be equally applicable to the general 

population.

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational

Fisheries) 

Executive Order 12962 requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed activities on aquatic 

systems and recreational fisheries. The Selected Alternative minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through 

project design, application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation 

measures. Recreational fishing opportunities will remain essentially the same as the current condition.

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 

Executive Order 13007 directs Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of American 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 23

such sacred sites. In a government-to-government relationship, the tribal government is responsible for 

notifying the agency of the existence of a sacred site. A sacred site is defined as a site that has sacred 

significance due to established religious beliefs or ceremonial uses, and which has specific, discrete, and 

delineated location, which has been identified by the tribe. The Selected Alternative protects traditional 

cultural properties and sacred sites.

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) 

Executive Order 13112 requires Federal agencies (in part) to evaluate whether the proposed activities will 

affect the status of invasive species, and to not carry out activities that promote the introduction or spread of 

invasive species unless it has determined that the benefits of such action outweigh the potential harm caused 

by invasive species, and that all feasible and prudent measure to minimize risk of harm will be taken in 

conjunction with the actions.

The Selected Alternative implements specific measures to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive 

species. See Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of this ROD.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments) 

Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, sovereignty, and tribal 

rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribes on 

proposed actions with tribal implications.

Throughout the span of the Shoreline II project, the District and Monument Rangers and I have 

communicated through letters, council meetings and informal discussions with the tribes within the project 

area. Tribal consultation does not imply that the tribes endorse the Selected Alternative or any of the 

alternatives. For further information related to tribal consultation see Chapter 1 of the FEIS.

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936 and 1972) prohibits the taking of migratory birds, 

unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior.

The Decision will not have a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any migratory bird species in 

the project area.

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and

Wildlife Conservation) 

Executive Order 13443 directs Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting 

opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. The analysis considered and disclosed 

the effects on hunting activities.

The Selected Alternative will maintain the current hunting opportunities by adhering to the Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines that maintain habitat for hunted species.
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 24 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Federal and State Permits

Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are listed at the end of Chapter 1 in 

the FEIS.

Results of the Objection Process pursuant to 36 CFR 218 

A legal notice was published March 10, 2017, that began a 45-day objection period for the draft ROD. Eight

objections were filed, by outfitter/guides, the State of Alaska, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, and 

Mr. Paul Olson for The Boat Company and received between April 12 and 24, 2017. I, the Responsible 

Official, met with objectors on June 21, 2017 to discuss objection points and possible remedies. The objectors 

spoke on the issues they raised in their objections, which were grouped by topic areas on the meeting agenda. 

The discussions helped to clarify my understanding of the issues and any remedies suggested by the 

objectors, and helped further the relationship among the parties, and I encourage the dialogue to continue as 

the Shoreline II project is implemented. On July 10, 2017, the Reviewing Officer issued a written response to 

the objectors detailing how the points raised in these objections have been addressed, which also included 

nine specific instructions to me, the Responsible Official, pursuant to 36 CFR 218.11(b). The written 

response to the objections, and my response to the nine specific instructions therein have been added to the 

project record. My response to the Reviewing Officer’s instructions is attached to this ROD as Exhibit R-1.

The Reviewing Officer’s response indicated I could move forward with this decision to authorize the Selected 

Alternative for the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide project once I have complied with these instructions (39 CFR 

218.12(b)).

Process for Implementation

Special use permits will be issued to authorize the outfitter/guide activities discussed at the allocation levels 

provided in this Decision. This project will be implemented in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) direction for Recreation Special Uses in FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, and in FSH 2709.11, Special Uses 

Handbook. This direction provides a bridge between project planning and implementation and will ensure 

execution of the actions, environmental standards, and mitigations approved by this Decision, and compliance 

with other laws. All applicable BMPs will be applied to the Selected Alternative.

Implementation of all activities authorized by this Record of Decision will be monitored to ensure that they 

are carried out as planned and described in the FEIS and this ROD. These design elements and mitigation 

measures will be implemented through outfitter and guide permit conditions, operating plan standards, and 

administration of the permits. 

Appendix 1 of this Record of Decision contains the Selected Alternative’s use area cards. These cards are an 

integral part of this Decision because they document the specific resource concerns, design elements, and 

mitigation measures that will be implemented through outfitter and guide permit conditions and 

administration of the permits. These cards will be used during the implementation process to assure that all 

aspects of the project are implemented and that resource effects will not be greater than those described in the 

FEIS.

Implementation Date

Implementation of Decisions subject to the objection process may commence immediately after the Decision 

is signed. There is not a requirement to publish notification of the Decision.
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 25

Contact Information

For additional information concerning this Decision, contact Chad VanOrmer, Ranger, Admiralty National 

Monument and Hoonah Ranger District, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK, 99835 or 

(907) 586-8800.

Responsible Official
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 26 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Exhibit R-1

Response to the Reviewing Officer’s Instructions for Required Actions for the 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Results of the Objection Process Pursuant to 36 CFR 218

The Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide draft Record of Decision (ROD) was subject to review and objection 

pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B regulations (the objection process). Eight objections were received 

during the objection filing period, from Parker Guide Service, Coastal Alaska Adventures, Alaska Coastal 

Outfitters, Glacier Guides, Southeast Alaska Guiding LLC, The Boat Company, State of Alaska ANLICA 

program coordinator, and Alaska Professional Hunters Association. Based on the objection points raised, the 

Reviewing Officer summarized 17 issue statements covering a number of issues, grouped by topic area. 

Objection Resolution Meeting

On June 21, 2017, the Responsible Official and Reviewing Officer met with the objectors to discuss the issues 

raised in the objections. All objectors were given an opportunity to present their concerns. This meeting 

helped clarify the issues and remedies suggested by the objectors, and the objectors are encouraged to 

continue discussion with the Forest Service as the project is implemented.

Written Response to Objections and Instructions to Forest

After a deliberative and extensive review of concerns raised and remedies suggested by objectors, on July 10, 

2017 the Reviewing Officer, Deputy Regional Forester Rebecca Nourse issued a letter to the objectors that 

responded to their objection points, summarized as 17 different issue statements. That response letter is 

available online at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=38181. The letter also provided me with 

instructions to address and update certain areas in the analysis that were brought up during the objection 

process. Specifically, this letter directed me to complete the following nine items before signing the final 

ROD for the Shoreline II project: 

1) Replace the language under the bulleted point "Competitive Interest and Prospectus," on page R-6 

of the Draft ROD, with the agreed-upon language identified on page 3 of this response: 

Competitive Interest, Prospectus, and Renewal: Federal regulations (36 C.F.R. 251.58(c)(3)(ii)) 

and Forest Service policy (FSM 2712.1; FSH 2709.14, 53.lh(3)) require the issuance of special 

use permits through the use of a prospectus when a competitive interest for outfitter/guide 

permits exists. Therefore, unallocated big game guide hunts or service days where there is 

competitive interest by big game guides will be issued through a prospectus process in 

accordance with Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction. When existing priority use 

outfitter/guide big game permits expire, permit renewal direction will be applied (FSH 2709.14, 

53.lm(4 and 5)), unless circumstances warrant a reallocation of a portion or all hunts or service 

days through a prospectus. Circumstances under which a prospectus may be implemented 

include, but are not limited to, the need to reduce the number of hunts or service days due to a 

biological, social, or environmental issue. 

Forest response: This language has been added to page 7 of the ROD. This paragraph replaces the 

previous language which had stated that all permits would expire no later than 2023 and would be reissued 

through a prospectus process. That language has been removed and replaced with language that aligns 

better with national policy. 

2) Add language to the Final ROD documenting the Forest Service commitment to work across District 

boundaries and with big game guides to address prospectus and change of ownership issues 

collaboratively. The intent of this process would be to provide consistency across Districts, and 
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 27

provide the industry a voice in determining how these actions would occur in the future. 

Forest response: The following language has been added to page 7 of the ROD: 

“The Forest Service will work across District boundaries and with big game guides to address prospectus 

and change of ownership issues collaboratively. The intent of this process is to provide consistency 

across Districts, and provide the industry a voice in determining how these actions would occur in the 

future.”

3) Consider allocating the currently available and unallocated hunts in GMU 1, in a manner consistent 

with Forest Service policy and special use direction.

Forest response: Language on page 9 and 10 of the ROD has been clarified to state that:

“After meeting with objectors and considering their concerns, I modified my decision to better align 

with national policy so that the prospectus process will be used primarily for unallocated big game 

guide hunts or service days where there is competitive interest by big game guides. Currently, GMU 1 

presents the best opportunity to offer an additional allocation of big game guide hunts or service days 

to new and/or existing outfitter/guides. It is my intent to use the prospectus process to establish new 

opportunities for big game outfitter/guide services within areas in GMU 1. Implementation will 

depend on staff and budget capacity to collaborate with ADF&G on development and execution of a 

prospectus.”

4) Add language to the Final ROD and the individual WCNAs to clarify the process and procedures that 

would be followed to evaluate new commercial use requests.

Forest response: Appendix E of the FEIS (p. E-45) acknowledges that WCNAs may be updated when 

changes occur in recreation commercial services markets. The following language has also been added to 

the WCNAs: 

“A new activity would constitute a change in commercial recreation service markets and warrant 

further consideration. The submission process (submitting the proposed new activity for review) 

would be the same as for all special use applications. Administrators would examine whether the 

newly proposed activity fits under existing categories (remote setting nature tours, camping, fishing, 

hunting and floatplane landing tours) in the wilderness commercial needs assessment, and if so, they 

would consider it similarly. If not, then a further assessment would be required as to what the new 

category is and finding whether or not there is a need for it in wilderness. This finding would be 

reflected in an updated Wilderness Commercial Needs Assessment. Either way, a new activity would 

be considered.”

The following clarification has been added to page 13 of the final ROD: 

“In order to address concerns raised in the objections process, I have clarified how we would address 

proposals for new outfitter/guide activities not considered in the current WCNAs. I have 

supplemented the language to the WCNAs which affirms that newly proposed activities would either 

fall under an existing category for which a determination of need had already been made, or comprise a 

new category for which a determination of need would be made and the WCNAs subsequently 

updated. This allows for the WCNAs to be supplemented in the future to address commercial 

outfitter/guide uses that may not have been considered in this analysis.”

5) Add a statement to the Final ROD to concisely explain how the WCNAs were used to inform the 

decision to help the public better understand and follow the process that was used for evaluating 

commercial recreation services in Wilderness Use Areas.
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 28 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

Forest response: The following clarification has been added to page 12 of the final ROD:

“The six Wilderness Commercial Needs Assessments (WCNAs) are an internal analysis tool that helped 

inform my decision by determining which type of commercial services, if any, are necessary to help 

realize purposes of the Wilderness Act. The analyses for these six wilderness areas found that there is a 

need for outfitter/guide services to provide remote-setting nature tours, camping, freshwater fishing and 

hunting experiences. 

However, the WCNAs do not determine the extent or amount of outfitter/guide commercial use that may 

be allocated. The decision to allocate a portion of the visitor capacity to outfitter/guides is accomplished 

through the FEIS. Thus determining the extent necessary for commercial outfitter/guide services in 

wilderness is a multistage process consisting of the aforementioned four documents, including the 

applicable regulations and policies contained therein. This comprehensive approach forms the basis for 

the Selected Alternative’s allocations within wilderness areas.”

6) Add additional discussion in the Final ROD as to why he believes that Alternative 2, rather than 

Alternative 1 or the other alternatives, can best provide for balanced and sustainable recreation in the 

project area.

Forest response: Additional language as follows has been included on page 8-9 of the final ROD to clarify 

this point: 

“Since the 2004 Shoreline Outfitter/Guide ROD (represented by Alternative 1) the need for 

outfitter/guide services in the project area has expanded in terms of number of visitors and the types of 

services being offered. There is continued demand for institutional outfitter/guide services (e.g., schools 

and therapy groups), and seven use areas are at 80 percent or more of their allocation during one or more 

seasons, causing outfitter/guides to disperse to areas that have traditionally been less used. The fleet of 

small to mid-size cruise ships desiring to outfit/guide on the Tongass National Forest, and the demand 

for outfitted/guided big game hunting continues, and in turn traditionally low-use seasons (April-May; 

September-October) are seeing more use, with additional interest for outfitter/guide use in the winter 

season (January-March). At some locations, outfitter/guide permit holders have requested to operate 

beyond the one half-mile zone. The Selected Alternative was designed to address the needs and changes 

in the project area discussed above, and to respond to a wide span of public comments (see pgs. 1-16 to 

1-17 of the FEIS) ranging from requests for additional use and increased economic opportunities within 

specific use areas and/or wilderness areas, to concerns related to crowding within use areas from 

expanded outfitter/guide use. It was developed by taking the allocations allotted under Alternative 1 and 

increasing or decreasing them based on factors such as changes or trends in outfitter/guide use since the 

2004 Decision, subsistence patterns, proximity to communities, known or potential resource impacts, 

and whether the area was, or has become popular with local users.

The Selected Alternative seeks to address the significant issue of economic opportunity for existing and 

new outfitter/guide operations through the allocation of additional service days, and while at 80,305 

days it offers fewer service days to outfitter/guides than Alternative 4 at 130,655 days, it allocates more 

service days than does Alternative 1 (47,449 days) or Alternative 3 (63,940 days). 

While the Selected Alternative doesn’t offer growth opportunities for the visitor industry to the extent of 

Alternative 4, by providing a lower overall allocation of service days it better addresses the issue of 

crowding from expanded outfitter/guide use. The Selected Alternative will further addresses this issue

through the application of mitigation measures developed to protect areas where noncommercial use is 

prevalent, and by reducing allocations during the late spring season to alleviate incompatible 

outfitter/guide uses during that period. 

Overall, I find that the Selected Alternative allows for a balance of sustainable commercial and non-
Record of Decision

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision R - 29

commercial recreational opportunities in the project area, provides opportunity for economic growth in 

the commercial recreation industry, and will preserve a quality experience for both commercial and noncommercial users. It provides this beneficial mix of opportunities for the public, and business 

opportunities for outfitter and guides in accordance with existing laws, regulations, policies, and the 

capabilities of the land, while meeting the purpose and need for this project. It also equally addresses 

the Forest Plan goals and objectives for recreation and tourism, which are: 

• Provide for a range of recreation opportunities consistent with public demand, emphasizing locally 

popular recreation places and those important to the tourism industry. 

• Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local and regional 

economies of Southeast Alaska.”

7) Add language to the adaptive management implementation plan to better define what constitutes a 

conflict, and to better describe how conflict reporting will be more uniformly applied across the four 

Ranger Districts.

Forest response: The definition of conflict has been updated in Appendix 4, page 7 to read:

“Conflicts are defined as an instance where two or more individuals or groups who are on, or intend to 

utilize, NFS lands interact and fail to coordinate shared use of the area to the satisfaction of both 

groups. User groups may include outfitter/guides, other commercial users, subsistence users, researchers, 

other agencies, and public groups. Recordable conflicts can occur between two or more groups, and must 

be reported to the Forest Service in a reasonable timeframe.”

The method of reporting conflicts has been updated to specify that reporting will be standardized across all 

four districts to include date, time, location, parties involved, activity at the time of conflict, and whether there 

was an effort made by outfitter/guides to resolve the conflict. Data will be entered into the outfitter/guide 

database by the district receiving the report. See Appendix 4, pages 6 –10 for additional information.

The implementation guide for adaptive management is consistent with the information that has been updated 

in Appendix 4 of the final Decision, and is located in the project record. It will also be made available to 

permit administrators, interdisciplinary team members, outfitter/guides and interested members of the public 

to ensure consistent implementation of adaptive management as outlined in the final Decision.

8) Add the National Minimum Protocol for Monitoring Solitude, discussed on pages 41-42 and 44 of this 

response, to the project record.

Forest response: This is included in the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide project record as record 793_0900, 

U.S. Forest Service National Minimum Protocol for Monitoring Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude, 

05/15/2014.

9) Add language to the Final ROD documenting the Forest Service commitment to working with 

outfitter/guides to broadly adopt communication channels that will help reduce conflicts in the field.

Forest response: The following language has been added to page 13 of the final ROD to clarify this point: 

“I am committed to working with outfitter/guides, the public, and other stakeholders during 

implementation of this project to broadly adopt communication channels that will help reduce conflict and 

increase high-quality visitor experiences in the field. This project has many opportunities for 

collaboration toward a common interest through practices such as cross-district industry and stakeholder 

meetings, citizen science in field data collection, using internet based tools for working across large 
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide

R - 30 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Record of Decision

geographic areas, and learning and improving through adaptive management. Some of these practices are 

available for immediate implementation, while others will take some time to develop. The success of this 

project relies on our commitment to work together.”

Summary

In response to the Reviewing Officer’s letter and instructions, I have completed these updates and 

clarifications to the Shoreline II Record of Decision.