April 20, 2017

Beth Pendleton 

Alaska Regional Forester 

USDA Forest Service 

P.O. Box 21628 

Juneau, AK 99802

Re: Shoreline II Final EIS

Dear Ms. Pendleton,

I would like to comment on the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Final EIS. I supplied comments 

to the Draft EIS in April of last year. My wife and I have owned and operated a big game 

guiding business based out of Sitka since the early 90’s.

My objection to the current document is the major change in permit administration for 

hunting guide/outfitters that is laid out in Shoreline II. Although the FEIS on page 1-2 says 

“This NEPA document would not change the way outfitter guides are permitted at any 

location”, based upon discussions with Tongass FS staff, this statement is very much at 

odds with their intentions for the currently permitted hunting guide/outfitters in the Shoreline 

area.

The “Competitive Interest and Prospectus” section on pages 2-15 and 2-16 lists five

references. The first three references are regulatory and policy guidance that would require 

issuance of new, unallocated big game hunts in the Shoreline area through a prospectus 

process. I have no issue with this and the three references do substantiate that process.

However, this paragraph in Shoreline II goes on to apply these same three references, and 

two additional references, to substantiate denying the normal permit renewal process for all 

existing hunting guide/outfitters and subsequently reissuing currently authorized use 

through the same type of prospectus process. The first three references supplied pertain to 

competitive interest for “issuance of new outfitting & guiding permits” and for recovery for 

administrative costs for new use proposals. The last two references given have to do with 

the specifics of renewal of priority use permits such as a change in permit conditions, or a 

change in allocations based upon certain procedures. The only part of these last two 

references that has anything to do with competitive interest and prospectus is FSH 2709.14, 

53.1n(4)(b) which has to do with a limited new allocation which might be created if an 

existing permit holder failed to use his/her allocation. Applying the provisions in FSH 

2709.14, 53.1h(3), which apply strictly to new outfitting and guiding permits, or applying the 

provisions in FSH 2709.14, 53.1m and 1n to justify denying renewal of all current 

authorizations is inconsistent with those same provisions, has the effect of destabilizing the 

hunting guide industry in Southeast Alaska, and is certainly not in the best interest of the 

public.
Permit Renewal Process

In order to issue current authorizations for big game hunts through a prospectus system, the 

Forest Service must first abandon the historic permit renewal process that is well 

documented in the Code of Federal Regulations, the Forest Service Handbook, and the 

Forest Service Manual. The permit renewal process has been in place since the early 90’s 

in the Shoreline area and has resulted in a world class visitor experience for the general 

public, responsible protection of the natural resources, and a stabile hunting guide outfitter 

industry. Competitive interest has existed the entire time and opportunity for new entrants 

has also existed during this same time, as evidenced by who is currently operating.

The permit renewal process is also successfully working in the rest of the Tongass NF, as 

well as the Chugach NF in Alaska. Competitive interest exists in these areas as well and 

yet there is no plan to replace the permit renewal process in those locations with a 

prospectus permitting system.

I have checked with hunting guide outfitters operating in the lower 48 states with Forest 

Service special use permits, in areas with competitive interest, and could find no examples 

of a District Ranger totally abandoning the historic permit renewal process and replacing it 

with a prospectus permitting process.

36 CFR 251.64 which has to do with the special use permit renewal process says “(a) When 

special use authorization provides for renewal, the authorized officer shall renew it where 

such renewal is authorized by law, if the project or facility is still being used for the purpose 

previously authorized, and is being operated and maintained in accordance with all 

provisions of the authorization.” This regulation seems to place a very high priority on the 

historic permit renewal process for currently authorized use. I could find nowhere in 36 CFR 

251 where a prospectus authorization system trumped the permit renewal process for 

existing allocations. The reference to 36 CFR 251.58 on page 2-15 of Shoreline II, which is 

used as justification for a prospectus system, has only to do with recovering administrative 

costs when multiple new proposals are received for a specific use. Permit renewals are not 

new proposals and there are other sections in 36 CFR 251.58 that deal with recovery of 

such renewal costs. In regard to the requirement in 36 CFR 251.64 that existing permits 

must “provide for renewal”, special use permits for hunting guide/outfitters in the Shoreline 

area do provide for renewal. 

Priority Use Permits

Most, if not all, of the current special use permits for hunting guides in the Shoreline area 

are priority use permits. Such permits have a special significance in the Forest Service 

Handbook. FSH 2709.14, 53.1m(4), in a section entitled (Issuance of Priority Use Permits, 

says “When a priority use permit terminates ... the permit is subject to renewal without 

competition, provided that the use authorized is consistent with the applicable land 

management plan, applicable laws and regulations, and the terms of the permit and the 

holder has performed satisfactorily ...” FSH 2709.14, 53.1m(4) very explicitly acknowledges

competitive interest but in so doing does not abandon the permit renewal process, in fact 
quite the opposite in giving instruction to renew “without competition”. This is consistent 

with the understanding that hunting guide/outfitters in the Shoreline area have had for a 

couple of decades that the hunt authorizations in their priority permits could not be taken 

away and given to someone else unless they broke the law or failed to perform in some 

other way.

Shoreline II references two other provisions in the FS Handbook relating to renewal of 

priority use permits, as justification for denying the permit renewal process and replacing it 

with a prospectus allocation system:

a. FSH 2709.14, 53.1m(5). “In renewing a priority use permit, the authorized officer may 

prescribe new terms and conditions. Make any changes to use allocations in 

accordance with section 53.1n, paragraph 3.” Obviously the authorizing officer may 

make changes to the permit conditions, and over the years we have seen conditions 

change. However, it is illogical to suggest that a provision that begins with “In 

renewing a priority use permit ...” that the authorizing officer would include a 

provision that the permit cannot be renewed.

b. FSH 2709.14, 53.1n(3-4). Item 3 in this section is simply mathematically determining 

the allocation on the renewed permit based upon the highest use during the past 5 

years plus 15%. Item 4 is just a list of options for reallocating the portion of the prior 

permit’s allocation. This would be a new allocation based upon the mathematics in 

Item 3. It does not in any way suggest that the entire allocation be denied renewal.

Alaska-Specific Provisions for Permit Renewal

In addition to the special policy provisions for renewal of priority permits, there are 

additional, Alaska-specific, provisions for permit renewal for priority permit holders who are 

providing sport hunting services. FSH 2709.14, 53.1m(6) says, “When a priority use permit 

for activities other than sport hunting and fishing in a Conservation System Unit in 

Alaska expires, the permit must not be reissued if there is a need to limit use and there is 

competitive interest by preferred operators in providing visitor services.”

In other words, even in a case where some unforeseen factor would limit available use to a 

point where even the existing priority use permit holders resulted in an over-allocation, even 

in that case hunting guide outfitters and fishing guide outfitters in Alaska would have their 

permits reissued through the historic renewal process. The significance here is that, not 

even competitive interest among priority use permit holders would result in denial of a 

permit renewal request for hunting guide outfitters in Alaska.

FSH 2709.14, 53.1h

Of the five references given on page 2-15,16 of Shoreline II, FSH 2709.14, 53.1h(3) has the 

most to do with competitive interest and prospectus allocation. However, the entire section 

of FSH 2709.14, 53.1h is entitled “Issuance of New Outfitting and Guiding Permits and there 

is consistency throughout the section that these provisions apply to new permits, not 

renewal of existing priority use allocations. Priority use renewal is covered elsewhere, i.e. in 

section FSH 2709.14, 53.1m and n, as noted previously.
In summary, the plan outlined on page 2-15 and 2-16 of Shoreline II which would abandon 

the existing permit renewal process for priority special use permits currently held by hunting 

guide outfitters and replace it with a new prospectus allocation system, would result in 

destabilization of the current big game guiding industry in Southeast Alaska and in a lower 

quality visitor experience on average as more experienced guides are forced to close shop 

and less experienced guides begin the trial and error process of learning “the ropes” without 

the benefit of experienced direction. Having the best interest of the public in mind, in itself 

would advise against a total upset of the current mix of experienced permit holders.

Such a change in permit administration for hunting guide/outfitters in the Shoreline area is 

also inconsistent with Forest Service policy elsewhere on the Tongass NF, elsewhere on NF 

lands in Alaska, and elsewhere on NF lands in the lower 48. Expanding the prospectus 

allocation system to deny renewal of all priority use permits currently held by hunting guides 

in the Shoreline area also appears to conflict with the guidance in 36 CFR 251.64, FSH 

2709.14, 53.1h, FSH 2709.14, 53.1m(4), and FSH 2709.14, 53.1m(6).

I would ask you to modify the section on pages 2-15 and 2-16 entitled “Competitive Interest 

and Prospectus” to strike all wording in this section immediately following “... in accordance 

with Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction.” Doing so would apply the concept of 

competitive interest and prospectus solely to new, unauthorized use in accordance with the 

FS Handbook. Allocation of currently authorized hunts would then continue to be managed 

through the permit renewal process that has been in place for many years, also in 

accordance with the FS Handbook and with 36 CFR 251.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Brad Dennison 

Alaska Coastal Outfitters 

505 1st Street Sitka, AK 99835