Shoreline II Objection Response 20

not obligated to provide an allocation of commercial service days that meets market demand for
‘remote Wilderness experiences or accommodates as many commercially-guided visitors as are
willing to pay. This is simply not a determining factor for the allocation of commercial services
in Wilderness.

Public and agency comments were used to develop a range of alternatives that met the Purpose
and Need and addressed the significant issues, as described in Chapter 1 of the FEIS.
Alternatives 1-4 provide a range of service day allocations in Use Areas along common SCV
itinerary routes during the summer season (FEIS, Volume I, Chapter 2, pp. 2-5 to 2-13). For the
Selected Alternative (Alternative 2), this includes increased allocations in all but one Use Area
(01-05E, Ford’s Terror) when compared to the average actual use during the analyzed five-year
period (FEIS, p. 2-31, Table 2-14, Column 8 compared to Column 3). Objector’s assertion the
Selected Alternative is adverse to the SCV industry is a mischaracterization, considering an
overall increase in commercial allocation across nearly all Use Areas. Furthermore, the
Wilderness Act provides commercial use of Wilderness areas is to be allowed to the “extent
necessary” to realize overall Wilderness goals. Commercial use allocations not meeting market
demand for access to Wilderness Areas should not be conflated as an adverse effect on SCVs -
especially considering the aforementioned overall increase in commercial access provided by the
Selected Alternative.*

For further discussion on whether the Selected Alternative provides an increase in outfitter/guide
service days during seasons or at locations that are relevant to SCVs, and whether the FEIS
adequately explored the adverse effects associated with the decrease in service days in high-
demand Wilderness Use Areas, see my response to Issues 8, above, and 11, below.

Issue 10. Whether the FEIS and the economic analysis considered the best available data in its
assessment of visitor industry growth. Objector asserts:

e The FEIS underestimated the growth of the larger capacity SCV fleet and how that growth
adversely affects smaller capacity SCVs, especially when the Selected Alternative diverts
the smaller capacity SCVs from the Wilderness areas that provide the recreation
experience their clients seek into more crowded Large Group Areas;

e The analysis should have focused on recent growth rather than looking back to data from
2004, because the SCV industry was very different in 2004 (with capacities so large they
exceeded the limits for group sizes in Large-Group Areas) and growth in the post-
recession time period (after 2011) has been higher than that considered in the FEIS;

4 The regulations implementing NEPA provide some guidance regarding what constitutes “adverse impacts” by
indicating they are “impacts which have catastrophic consequences...” (40 C.F.R. 1502.22(b)(3)). Even if the
Selected Alternative is determined to negatively affect the small cruise industry, it does not meet the standard of
catastrophic. It increases commercial access across nearly all Use Areas — albeit not in the exact Use Areas that
might potentially maximize private-sector profit.


Shoreline II Objection Response 41

Wilderness (Id., pp. 3-39 to 3-40, and 3-46). Design Features and Mitigation Measures for the
Wilderness resource focus on minimizing effects from recreation sites and user-created trails in
Wildemess, and no actions are suggested to reduce or minimize impacts to solitude from sights
and sounds outside of Wilderness (Id., pp. 3-47 to 3-48).

The FEIS appropriately considers effects of this quality on existing Wilderness character in
accordance with case law that requires that environmental analyses consider effects from outside
Wilderness on Wilderness character; interagency Wilderness character monitoring protocol; the
ROS user guide, which specifically states that air and waterways should be treated as roads and
that traffic sights and sounds should be used to assess the ROS class setting; and ROS standards
and guidelines that support inclusion of saltwater encounters when they are visible or audible on
the National Forest.

Objector further contends that the Forest lacks statistically reliable data about actual Wilderness
use, and fails to demonstrate any link between guided visitor use and perceived risks to solitude.
The Wilderness Act mandates that the administering agency preserve Wilderness character, and
that commercial services only be provided to the extent necessary for realizing recreational and
other purposes of Wilderness (FEIS, pp. 3-17 to 3-18). These mandates could result in a
constraint on outfitter/guide use as a precautionary means to avoid new or additional
impairments to Wilderness character (Id., Appendix E, p. E-41). The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals has affirmed that under Section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act, the Forest Service may
authorize commercial services only to the extent necessary, and that we must minimize rather
maximize commercial services in Wilderness irrespective of any measured or perceived risks
(High Sierra Hikers Association v.. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9 Circ. 2004)). This ruling
counters Objector’s contention that there must be a proven link between guided use and effects
for any constraint on commercial services in Wilderness to be justified.

The use of an established protocol to monitor the Outstanding Opportunities quality of
Wilderness character is a viable means for assessing social effects (FEIS, Appendix E, pp. E-39
to E-40). Adaptive management, in conjunction with monitoring and Leave No Trace practices,
provides for a means of increasing commercial use (Id., p. E-41).

In response to Objector’s specific concern about statistically reliable data, the forest added a
document to the project record as part of their response to this objection issue — notes from a
meeting with David Cole, Dr. Troy Hall, and recreation professionals in 2011 concerning
solitude monitoring protocol. In my review of this objection issue, I also reviewed the “National
Minimum Protocol for Monitoring Solitude,” which states:

The minimum protocol accepts data that are collected as part of other duties during
scheduled work patrols of the monitoring areas. Because these dates are not randomly
chosen, this is called a convenience sample, and data cannot be used to draw statistically
valid inferences to conditions at other times or to make statistically valid comparisons
across time. The data are still useful, because they can suggest whether opportunities for
solitude are impaired, which could trigger more rigorous sampling in subsequent years.

(Minimum Protocol, p. 6). The Minimum Protocol also states that “by substituting a random
sample for the convenience sample,” the limitation on drawing statistically valid inferences can
be overcome, and that “[iJn situations where managers suspect that opportunities for solitude are


Shoreline II Objection Response 37

Monitoring every access point is feasible only if the wilderness area has relatively few
access points and funding is not restricted; in this case, a rotation strategy is not required.
However, it is more likely that the number of available “observers”—mechanical
counters, human observers, cameras, or registration stations—will be insufficient for
large-scale monitoring.

While Objector does not appear to expect that every access point be monitored, this illustrates
how difficult it is to achieve the kind of monitoring Objector is advocating.

The project record contains meeting notes dated September 15, 2011, where members of the IDT
and other Wilderness staff met to discuss monitoring with David Cole and Troy Hall, each a co-
author of the publications cited above. Those notes state: “[d]on’t get hung up on statistical
significance” and “[o]pportunistic data collection can be strong and can support line officer
decisions” (PR #793_1334, p. 2). These notes also show that the difficulty in conducting the
kind of monitoring Objector advocates for is compounded by the nature of the Wilderness crew’s
(and other crew’s) field work, which is often tied to doing other work besides monitoring.
Monitoring is often conducted while crews are doing campsite inventories, making visitor
contacts, cleaning up sites, etc. If crews are timing their field work around when scheduled
interpretation on tour boats is occurring or the best time to remove invasive plants, than the
monitoring component is often necessarily “opportunistic” (Id.).

I believe all of this information indicates that monitoring has to be done on a “sliding scale” that
accounts for budget, staffing, geographic scales, and logistics. By that, I do not mean to imply
that the agency would not like to obtain more data and collect it in a more rigorous manner, but I
do believe the data collected is suitable for making management decisions.

Objector’s concerns about the Forest Service’s ability to conduct monitoring are reasonable, and
undoubtedly the agency would like a greater presence in the field. That is part of the reason why
one of the goals of the adaptive management strategy for the Shoreline II project is to
supplement Forest Service staff monitoring to include encounter information from the guides.
This monitoring would not be statistically valid either, but there is no requirement for it to be so,
nor have other areas such as KMRD or the MBSW used monitoring methods that were
statistically valid.

Lastly, Objector asserts that the process for potentially reducing guided use due to reports of
conflicts is vague and will be difficult to implement. Appendix 4 to the Draft ROD, Table A4-2,
outlines the criteria that would be used to manage conflicts and use levels. A conflict is defined
“as an instance where two or more individuals or groups who are on NFS lands for the purpose
of recreation encounter each other and have an interaction that results in a diminished recreation
experience” (Id., p. 4-6). I could not find any additional information in.the project record that
provides more specific information explaining what constitutes a conflict, or how that definition
would be “operationalized.” I agree that this could be challenging to implement without
additional information for permit administrators and the guides who are tasked with reporting the
conflicts.


Shoreline II Objection Response 46

In my opinion, the Visitor Capacity Analysis was conducted in accordance with FSH 2709.14,
Chapter 50, and appropriately informed and supported the Shoreline II FEIS. Objector and other
members of the public were provided the opportunity to review and comment on all of the
information in the Shoreline II DEIS and project record.

Issue 17, Whether the Shoreline II FEIS should be supplemented to evaluate the cumulative
effects of the State Forest Management Act (House Bill 232 submitted by Representative Young
on January 3, 2017). Objector asserts:

e This pending legislation would transfer significant portions of federal land on northeast
Baranof and southeast Chichagof Islands to the State of Alaska for timber sales, which
could have significant effects on the recreational use of the Shoreline II project area; and

e The FEIS did not identify, consider, or disclose the effects of this legislation.
Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion
The regulations implementing NEPA at 40 C.F.R. 1508.7 state that:

“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

CEQ’s Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 18, provides further interpretation related to
cumulative effects:

Q. Uncertainties About Indirect Effects of A Proposal. How should uncertainties
about indirect effects of a proposal be addressed, for example, in cases of disposal of
federal lands, when the identity or plans of future landowners is unknown?

A. The EIS must identify all the indirect effects that are known, and make a good faith
effort to explain the effects that are not known but are "reasonably foreseeable."

Section 1508.8(b). In the example, if there is total uncertainty about the identity of future
land owners or the nature of future land uses, then of course, the agency is not required to
engage in speculation or contemplation about their future plans. But, in the ordinary
course of business, people do make judgments based upon reasonably foreseeable
occurrences. It will often be possible to consider the likely purchasers and the
development trends in that area or similar areas in recent years; or the likelihood that the
land will be used for an energy project, shopping center, subdivision, farm or factory. The
agency has the responsibility to make an informed judgment, and to estimate future
impacts on that basis, especially if trends are ascertainable or potential purchasers have
made themselves known. The agency cannot ignore these uncertain, but probable, effects
of its decisions.


Shoreline II Objection Response 14

(FEIS, Appendix E, pp. E-15 to E-15). Based on these comments from ADF&G, APHA, and
individual guides, the Responsible Official removed the provision to allocate brown bear hunts
by specific GUA. The Draft ROD states:

In order to address comments received asking the Forest to not allocate brown bear hunts by
use area and season, I decided to not carry forward that provision in the Selected Alternative
(Changes between Draft and Final p. 2-1). I agree with [ADF&G], [APHA], 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.

(Draft ROD, p. R-9; see also FEIS, Appendix E, pp. E-14 to E-15). As stated in the response to
comments on this issue, while the Responsible Official removed the provision to allocate hunts
by specific GUA and season, the Forest expects guides to strive for distributing their hunts based
on the BBMS recommended number of hunts per GUA (FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-15).

Issue 8. Whether the economic analysis in the FEIS adequately considered visitor demand for
high quality wilderness recreation experiences and the effects on outfitters/guides who provide
these experiences. Objector asserts:

e The analysis failed to adequately address the economic effects on the visitor industry,
specifically small capacity small cruise vessel (SCV) operators;

e The analysis in the FEIS only considered one component of the SCV fleet (SCVs that
carry 50 or more passengers) and excluded a significant number of smaller capacity SCVs
from the analysis;

¢ The economic analysis in the FEIS omitted important information such as SCV cruise
travel routes and visitor demand. Specifically, objectors assert that the analysis failed to
consider visitor trends and ignored market demand for high quality wilderness recreation
experiences (particularly remote setting nature tours) and the need for these operators to
access Wilderness Areas along cruise travel routes);

e The summer season service day increases occur in Large Group Areas that fail to provide
the unique recreation experiences in less crowded areas marketed to and desired by the
visitors guided by these smaller capacity SCVs; and

e The FEIS arbitrarily inflates the benefits of the Selected Alternative and fails to
adequately consider the adverse economic effects on SVS operators by relying on an
analysis that ignores market trends, the interests of guided visitors, and the operational
logistics of small tour operators.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

The Purpose and Need of the Shoreline II project is clearly stated in the FEIS, and represents the
underlying purpose and need to which the Forest Service was responding in proposing the
project. As stated in the FEIS (p. 1-6):


Shoreline IT Objection Response 24

purpose and need — to study the full range of positive and negative effects of every potential
outcome of the Selected Alternative on one particular subsector of the Southeast visitor industry
(i.e., SCVs carrying less than 50 passengers).

Issue 11. Whether the FEIS included a reasonable range of alternatives. Objector asserts that
the range of alternatives included in the FEIS was unreasonable, stating:

The FEIS primarily considered alternatives that reduce guided visitor access to Wilderness
Use Areas utilized by SCV remote setting nature tour operators relative to Alternative 1,
the No-Action Alternative, which the Forest Service deemed incompatible with current
demand and growth, and the FEIS never considered whether the alternatives were
reasonable with regard to the spatial and temporal distribution of these activities;

Two of the three alternatives considered in the FEIS limit guided public access to
Wilderness Use Areas along SCV travel routes, and even the highest guided visitor use
alternative, Alternative 4, does not provide for a sufficient increase relative to
Alternatives 2 and 3 to meet NEPA’s requirement to analyze meaningfully distinct
alternatives and does not meet the intent of that alternative;

The summer season guided service day allocations for the Juneau and Sitka Ranger
Districts do not provide guided visitors with adequate opportunity for quality wilderness
recreation experiences;

The Selected Alternative does not achieve a reasonable balance because it is too restrictive
of guided public access to the highest quality recreation experiences, particularly in
Wilderness and Wilderness National Monument LUDs, and does not meet Tongass Forest
Plan goals and objectives or the purpose and need of the Shoreline II project;

Alternative 3 is unreasonable because it does not meet the purpose and need, includes an
arbitrary saltwater encounter standard, and reduces outfitter/guide allocations to
unacceptable low levels;

The FEIS and Draft ROD should have considered Wilderness zoning, and the reasons for
not considering this alternative relied on an unreasonably narrow geographic scale, do not
meet the obligation to ensure the scientific and professional integrity of the analysis, and
are otherwise arbitrary; and

The alternatives considered for the Shoreline II project are considerably more restrictive
than other Tongass National Forest recreation plans.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

The regulations implementing NEPA at 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a) state that agencies shall
“rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has clarified these regulations,
stating that “what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of the
proposal and the facts in each case” (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions #1b).


Shoreline II Objection Response 42

at risk, they may wish to develop additional monitoring indicators and conduct more intensive
sampling” (Id., p. 3). Lastly, the Minimum Protocol explains that research has found that data
from Wilderness permits:

[O]ften do not provide a good indication of the number of encounters visitors have with
each other. Even if there is a strong relationship between visitation and encounters, the
specific relationship must be established for each travel area, which requires considerable
staff time and statistical analysis.

(Id., p. 15). This limitation is consistent with the Shoreline II FEIS’s statement that
“establishing desired future conditions, indicators, and thresholds, in a public process and then
requiring routine monitoring equally across the project area would prove to be beyond the
capacity of the agency to successfully complete,” and that a targeted monitoring approach and
adaptive management “will focus the limited agency capacity in discrete use areas across the
broad project area” ({FEIS, p. 2-4). The project record will be enhanced with the addition of this
Protocol, which I will direct the Responsible Official to add to the record.

Objector asserts that the FEIS used an arbitrary choice of scale to measure solitude (Shoreline
Use Areas only), and arbitrarily extended the Wilderness “buffer” three miles offshore.
Establishing Shoreline Use Areas as the area for measuring solitude opportunities is not an
arbitrary choice of scale. The project was undertaken expressly to respond to the demand for
commercial recreational services along the accessible shoreline zone, and the project area
includes all areas used for non-motorized outfitter/guide activities that originate from the marine
shoreline areas (FEIS, p. 1-3 and Appendix E, p. E-29). The project focuses on the same scope of
area as the 2004 Shoreline I project (FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-29). Further, the indirect effects of
activities outside the project area are considered in the FEIS (FEIS, p. 3-21). This is
accomplished by two Wilderness Character Monitoring indicators for opportunities for solitude:
“remoteness from sights and sounds of human activity inside the Wilderness” (which would
include Wilderness acres not included in the project area); and “remoteness from sights and
sounds of human activity adjacent to the Wilderness” (which would include saltwater, air, and
non- Wilderness lands) (Id., p. 3-24).

The three-mile “buffer” is also not an arbitrary extension. The 2016 Tongass Forest Plan
(Appendix I) identifies three miles as the appropriate Remoteness setting indicator for the ROS.
The Visitor Capacity Analysis completed to support the Shoreline II project adopts the three-
mile distance because it aligns with the Forest Plan ROS Remoteness setting indicator (FEIS,
Appendix E, p. 44; DEIS, Appendix E, p. 5; Tongass Forest Plan, Appendix I, pp. I-1 to I-3).

Objector asserts that the Forest needed to update the ROS descriptions based on the amount of
marine travel adjacent to Wilderness areas, and that the failure to do so is in violation of the
APA. I disagree. To evaluate changes to ROS across the Forest is beyond the scope of the
project and this EIS. Such a change would have forest-wide implications, and would require a
forest-wide Forest Plan Amendment (FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-43). I believe that all factors
relevant to the proposed project have been considered, and that the project fully complies with
the APA.


Shoreline II Objection Response 5

Prohibiting corporations from holding outfitter/guide special use permits would thus be
inconsistent with Forest Service policy.

As stated in the Draft ROD, special use permits issued to corporations or limited liability
companies (LLCs) will be required to list the number of registered guides who can operate under
those permits (and the names of the guides will be identified in the operating plans and reviewed
by the authorized officer) (Draft ROD, pp. R-6, R-9). This will allow the Forest Service to
manage the number of big game guides consistent with the intent of the BBMS, a comprehensive
management strategy developed by a citizens and agency advisory team for the Alaska Board of
Game in 2000, and to avoid unchecked expansion of the number of registered guides operating
within the project area (Draft ROD, p. R-6; see also FEIS, p. 3-117 and Appendix E, p. E-15).
The Draft ROD (p. R-9) explains:

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

With regard to how many GUAs are authorized in any given permit, the Draft ROD explains that
the Forest Service has, in the past, issued big game guide permits that have a pool of GUAs from
which the permit holder may select annually for operating plan approval (p. R-6). However, this
process resulted in a greater number of user conflicts and does not align well with State of
Alaska regulations. In an attempt to reduce conflict and better align Forest Service permits with
State regulations, future permits will specify the maximum number of GUAs per permit. As
discussed in the Draft ROD (p. R-9):

In consideration of the number of GUAs per permit, currently the State allows for
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
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.

With regard to the transferability of permits, the Forest Service revised its directives governing
special use permits for outfitting and guiding activities conducted on National Forest System
(NFS) lands in 2008 (see Federal Register, Volume 73, Number 181 - Final Directives for
Forest Service Outfitting and Guiding Special Use Permits and Insurance Requirements for
Forest Service Special Use Permits). These directives, which went through public notice and
comment, are in FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50. At Section 53.1m (7.a), the FSH states:

Priority use permit is a privilege acquired by demonstrated acceptable performance and is
not transferable, either upon the sale of the business entity or the sale of a controlling
interest in the business entity.


Shoreline II Objection Response 35

Objector cites the Recreation Use Report (PR #793_1288, p. 244), which states that “[t]he
additional 10 percent allocation results in an average of 0 percent to 2 percent increase in
allocation for the project area for all alternatives” (emphasis added). The inadvertent use of the
word “allocation” in that sentence could be the reason for Objector’s interpretation of low
growth via adaptive management, as the term “capacity” should have been used in that sentence.
A review of spreadsheets in the project record (PR #793_1359 and #793_1360) indicates that
Column H, labeled “AM 110%,” shows the additional use allocated via adaptive management.
Column H indicates that adaptive management provides a 10 percent increase above all of those
allocations. The table below correctly reflects the growth potential with adaptive management.

Allocated Days in Wilderness Use Areas with Adaptive Management

Wilderness Area Average/Highest Alternative2 Alternative2 Alternative 2

Actual Use (No Action) 110%
Tracy Arm, 01-05D 4ani77 183 175 193
Ford's Terror, 01-05 143/176 153 125 138
Endicott Arm, 01-05F 293/467 427 490 539
Gut Bay, 04-018 735/390 311 420 462
SW Admiralty, 04-058 211/284 463 485 534
Pybus Bay, 04-068 573/646 590 675, 649
Eliza Harbor, 04-068 85/176 295 310 341
Gambier Bay, 04-07A 71/133 393 280 308
Cross Admiralty Canoe Route, 04-078 80/114 491 395 435
Total 1746/2463 3306 3355 3599

As shown in the table above, adaptive management could provide 1855 service days of growth
above the average actual use, and 956 service days above the highest year’s actual use. This
represents an increase of 106 and 46 percent, respectively, indicating that there is room for
meaningful growth and that the Selected Alternative clearly meets the purpose and need and
responds to the significant issue of economic opportunity.

Objector asserts that adaptive management would “occur slowly,” and that “the four-year
monitoring period is too long.” While the Draft ROD states that “[a] 2-year period of monitoring
is required before adaptive management decisions can be implemented” (p. 11), Appendix 4
indicates that increases will be phased in at 95 percent of allocation after 2 years of monitoring,
then, after 2 years of additional monitoring, 110 percent of allocation could be authorized (Draft
ROD, Appendix 4, p. 7). For comparison, the KMRD adaptive management plan states that
“[nJo increases to the selected guided use allocations will be made for a minimum of two years
after implementation occurs... This will allow time to monitor the selected allocations before
implementing adaptive management strategies” (K MRD ROD, pp. 9-10) (emphasis added).

With regard to Objector’s concerns relating to the use of the saltwater encounter, see my
response to Issue 15, below.


Shoreline II Objection Response 21

¢ The FEIS failed to respond to public comment and discuss factors affecting current market
demand and industry growth, including the extent to which Federal policy and the
shortage of Forest Service staff and resources have affected the ability of new or
expanding operators to obtain permits, the timeliness of those permits, access to remote
trails and facilities, and the ability of the Forest Service and operators to determine
whether the development of new trails is warranted to meet existing use, strategically
disperse use to decrease the potential for user conflicts in remote areas, and/or minimize
effects on the natural environment; and

¢ The FEIS did not consider the industry perspective that there is more potential for growth
than the FEIS analysis acknowledges, and the growth trends discussed in the FEIS may
not accurately reflect market demand because of the limitations discussed above.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

See my response to Issue 8, above, for a discussion of the adequacy of the economic analysis
completed for the Shoreline II project, particularly the adequacy of the analysis of the effects on
SCV operators. Objector asserts that the FEIS did not adequately consider the best available
information in the assessment of Southeast Alaska visitor industry trends, with particular focus
on SCVs providing remote setting nature tours. Specific points of objection include the
differences between larger and smaller capacity SCVs, the timeframe used to determine the
visitor industry growth rate, agency challenges and effects on service day allocations, and the
perceived limited incorporation of the SCV industry perspective throughout the FEIS analysis.

As discussed above in response to Issue 8, the Socioeconomic Section of the Shoreline II FEIS
contains significant analysis and discussion related to socioeconomics (pp. 3-5 to 3-16),
including the analysis area (pp. 3-5 to 3-9), a regional overview (pp. 3-9 to 3-10), information
about the Southeast Alaska visitor industry, including Tongass National Forest guided clients
(pp. 3-10 to 3-13), and input collected via a commercial recreation providers survey conducted
by the State of Alaska (2000), which remains the most current data regarding the perceptions of
commercial providers on visitation, industry conditions, and activities across the Tongass
National Forest. The FEIS explored large cruise passenger volume (p. 3-10), small cruise visitor
volume p. (3-11), community-level cruise visitation (p. 3-11), and Tongass National Forest
guided clients (p. 3-12). In addition to the broad overview of Southeast Alaska visitor industry
trends and current conditions, the record contains detailed information regarding region-wide
social and economic trends, tourism impacts on Southeast Alaska communities, and State
government cruise ship taxation and permitting data.

The FEIS and project record indicate that the IDT gathered and considered a wide variety of
accurate, reliable, and valid data regarding the Southeast Alaska visitor industry, including data
on large cruise, small cruise, and guided clients. This included ten years of data on the SCV
subsector of the visitor industry, although this data is admittedly limited to ships carrying 50 to
250 passengers (Alaska Department of Conservation, Cruise Ship Program). As data regarding
smaller capacity SCVs (less than 50 passengers) is very limited or privately-held by tourism
businesses, visitor trends in large cruise, larger capacity small cruise (50 — 250 passengers), and
guided clients were considered as proxies for evaluating growth in the smaller capacity cruise


Shoreline II Objection Response 27

Island. These areas had separate NEPA analyses and outfitter/guide allocations that did not count
towards the overall multi-district allocation in Shoreline II. As a result, the capacities and related
outfitter/guide allocations are different.

The 2016 Tongass Forest Plan (p. 4-44) states:

Generally allocate no more than one-half the capacity of the LUD to outfitter/guide
operations. For specific locations, consider different allocations based on historical use,
changing demand, spatial zoning, or temporal zoning.

It is important to note that this standard and guideline does not require that 50 percent of capacity
be allocated, or even considered, for outfitter/guide use. While the Shoreline II FEIS did not
include an alternative that allocated 50 percent of capacity to outfitter/guide use, Alternative 4
was premised on a five percent increase to the proposed action, compounded annually over a
10-year period. The Shoreline FEIS (p. 2-3) specifically notes why one particular allocation
level, 50 percent, was not examined in more detail:

This alternative was not considered [in detail] because it:
e Is not based on known supply and demand and site-specific resource conditions,
e Exceeds the demand for outfitter/guide services,

¢ Will exceed use levels projected in the visitor capacity analysis when combined
with public users, and

¢ Creates negative impacts to local communities through the competition for
resources and recreational activities.

IDT notes from 2014 further indicate that the 50 percent allocation was considered, and provide
some additional rationale for its elimination from detailed study:

Discussion of whether it is a viable alternative to have 50% allocation, Chad does not
think it’s a viable alternative. It was used in the 2004 EIS, but we did not also have the
data/statistics available that we do now. More comfortable looking at data available and
work with that for developing a higher allocation alternative that uses visitor
trends/information. Also look at our capacity to issue permits versus market trend.

(PR #793_0031). In my opinion, the Responsible Official and the IDT adequately considered
an alternative that allocated 50 percent of capacity to outfitter/guide use, and the rationale for
why that alternative was not carried forward and studied in detail is reasonable.

As a secondary assertion regarding the range of alternatives, Objector cites an August 14, 2015
letter from the Responsible Official, Earl Stewart, to Joel Hansen (PR #793_0257) that included
a sentence stating, “[f]requently in landscape scale or programmatic projects such as this...”

to imply that the Shoreline II FEIS is a programmatic analysis which “heightens the need to
consider a broad range of alternatives.” It is important to note the distinction between landscape-
level analyses, which analyze the effects of authorizing activities across a larger landscape, with
programmatic analyses, a term most often used when subsequent, and more site-specific analyses
tier to a programmatic analysis. In this letter, I believe the Responsible Official was noting that


Shoreline II Objection Response 23

meet market demand for remote nature setting tours. While internal practices and resource
allocation (e.g., funding, personnel) are outside the scope of this analysis, I will note that this
landscape-scale analysis across four Ranger Districts to allocate outfitter/guide service days
minimizes the need for individual NEPA analyses for every outfitter/guide proposal and request,
which results in considerable time and cost savings. In addition, the Selected Alternative adopts
an adaptive management approach to resource management by focusing monitoring requirements
and concentrating limited financial resources in Use Areas where existing use is higher and there
is a demand for new use (FEIS, Appendix E, Response to Comments, p. 9).

The Forest Service recognizes the need to monitor and reduce user conflicts, as well as the
resources required to conduct that monitoring. As stated in the Response to Comments (FEIS,
Appendix E, p. 8):

User conflict and incompatible uses between outfitter/guide activities is one of the
significant issues identified in the EIS and is important to the Forest Service to monitor
and resolve. Outfitter/guides and the Forest Service share a common interest to provide
the highest quality recreation experiences possible for the public. Monitoring conflict
between outfitter/guide companies and uses is important to maintaining high quality
visitor experiences.

The Response to Comments (at p. 7) further states:

Adaptive management is intended to be a collaborative process between the agency,
outfitter/guides, and public. It is anticipated that the more outfitter/guides participate in
collecting the information that is needed, the more quickly adaptive management actions
could occur.

Objector asserts that the Forest Service ignored industry perspective on visitor industry trends
and market demand for SCV services. As stated above, the Forest Service considered a wide
variety of information and data regarding state-wide and regional visitor industry trends and
large vessel volume, small vessel volume, and Tongass National Forest guided clients. Public
and agency comments on the DEIS were also considered, and additional information and
literature was added to the project record in response to those comments.

In my opinion, the use of longitudinal visitor volume data, across multiple sectors of the
industry, adequately characterizes overall visitor industry trends and is sufficient for making a
reasoned choice between alternatives.

In summary, the FEIS considered the best available information and data regarding the visitor
industry, but that does not mean the data is perfect or complete. Project decisions cannot be
postponed until complete and perfect information is obtained. Decision-makers must decide
whether the “best available” information is sufficient for making a reasoned choice between
alternatives. In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that small capacity SCVs (less than 50
passengers) experience the same general growth trend as other subsectors of the visitor industry,
including large cruise, small cruise, and guided clients. This is the best available information,
represents a reasonable estimation, and was appropriately applied for analytical and decision-
making purposes. It is not practical nor feasible — and not within the scope of the


Shoreline II Objection Response 36

Objector asserts that the Forest Service must obtain the necessary data, preferably statistically
“reliable” data, to inform its adaptive management decisions. To support this assertion, Objector
cites several project records (PR #793_0227, #793_0291, and #793_1288) which he believes
demonstrate there are constraints in the Forest Service’s ability to conduct monitoring. These
constraints include limited funding, short staffing, and incomplete data. While these are valid
factors affecting the Forest’s ability to monitor encounters in the field, there is information in the
record demonstrating that monitoring of encounters has been occurring at numerous Use Areas,
including several used by Objector. The Wilderness Resource Report completed for the
Shoreline IT project (PR #793_1292, pp. 33-34) contains information indicating that Tongass
staff are in the field monitoring “in-wilderness” use (only on NFS uplands). Table 17 of the
Report shows that the days monitored varied by year (likely due to budget/staffing issues).
Assuming a 106-day monitoring period per year, Tracy Arm was monitored 50 days out of 424
days (12 percent), Ford’s Terror (5 percent), and Endicott Arm (12 percent). Other wilderness
monitoring encounter data is also depicted. This monitoring data of “in-wilderness” encounters
indicates that encounters are very low (0.1 encounters/day in Tracy Arm and Ford’s Terror, and
0.0 in Endicott Arm), with the Kootznoowoo encounter rate being slightly higher than other
areas (0.4 encounters/day). For the Gut Bay Use Area (04-01A) in the South Baranof
Wilderness, there were 63 days of monitoring out of 424 days (15 percent), with a total of 33
encounters (0.5 encounters/day). Most of that use appeared to be in Red Bluff Bay. These
encounter levels are considered low in relation to the Tongass Forest Plan standard of meeting
less than three parties per day (2016 Forest Plan, Appendix I, p. 1).

Objector refers to the KMRD Outfitter and Guide FEIS in numerous places of its objection, but
that FEIS did not have “statistically valid” encounter monitoring information (KMRD FEIS,

pp. 43-44), due to the scale of the area (3.2 million acres) and limited staffing and budget. The
Forest Service is currently conducting an analysis for the Maroon Bells—Snowmass Wilderness
(MBSW), which includes an adaptive management component (PR #793_ 1335). The MBSW is
approximately 184,000 acres, and the encounter monitoring data is obtained from Wilderness
ranger observations, which is not a “statistically valid” approach either (PR # 793_1336,
Appendix 2, p. 2). Additional monitoring data in the MBSW will continue to be collected as
adaptive management is implemented.

Objector also cites several scientific publications implying that statistically valid monitoring is a
requirement. While statistically valid monitoring is certainly a goal, A Guide to Monitoring
Wilderness Encounters (PR # 793_0440, p. 37) provides an example from the Bob Marshall
Wilderness Complex, noting that their encounter monitoring “exemplifies the most prevalent
monitoring strategy currently implemented by managers: convenience sampling utilizing
wilderness staff on routine patrols.” It also notes that “[t]he protocol development for encounters
monitoring is very detailed and has been refined over time to clarify operationally challenging
nuances inherent in encounter monitoring...” (Id.).

A second citation, Wilderness Recreation Use Estimation (PR #793_0283, p. 49), notes that there
are disadvantages to random sampling, stating “[i]t may be difficult or extremely expensive to
implement because all potential sample items must be able to be inventoried or listed.” The
section titled Field Sampling Strategies (p. 57) states:


Shoreline II Objection Response 18

using best available information is also commonly extended to project analysis and decision-
making. Specifically related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, the
regulations implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.24 similarly state:

Agencies shall ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the
discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements. They shall identify any
methodologies used and shall make explicit references by footnote to the scientific and
other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.

For the Shoreline II analysis, the IDT gathered a wide variety of accurate, reliable, and valid data
regarding the Southeast Alaska visitor industry, including large cruise, small cruise, and guided
clients. This included an analysis of ten years of data regarding the SCV subsector of the visitor
industry, although admittedly the data is limited to ships carrying 50 to 250 passengers (Alaska
Department of Conservation, Cruise Ship Program) because accurate and reliable data regarding
small capacity SCVs (less than 50 passengers) is very limited or generally privately-held.

Objector provides a valid concern regarding the limited analysis of one subsector of the visitor
industry — small capacity SCVs carrying less than 50 passengers. The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, comprehensively and routinely tracks SCV activity and publishes
summary reports on an annual basis, but this data targets ships carrying 50 to 250

passengers. As the Objector highlighted, the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development published one special report, Alaska’s Small Cruise Vessel Market
(2014), but this report admits that the “lack of data on the SCV market is one of the challenges”
(p. 5). The aforementioned report does not aggregate information by SCV size, notes additional
data limitations, and is in general alignment with overall industry trends as presented by Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation’s SCV data and reports. The IDT consulted
multiple data sources, including Alaska’s Small Cruise Vessel Market (2014), to develop a ten-
year perspective of the Southeast Alaska visitor and cruise industry. Notably, there is no data to
indicate that trends between subsectors of the SCV industry substantially differ, and all data
sources reflect similar long-term growth trends with some volatility. In my opinion, the use of
longitudinal visitor volume data, across multiple sectors of the industry, adequately characterizes
overall visitor industry trends and is sufficient for making a reasoned choice between
alternatives.

The FEIS considered the best available information and data regarding the visitor industry, but
that does not mean the data is perfect or complete. Project decisions cannot be postponed until
complete and perfect information is obtained. Decision-makers must decide whether the “best
available” information is sufficient for making project decisions. It is reasonable to assume that
small capacity SCVs (less than 50 passengers) experience the same general growth trend as other
subsectors of the visitor industry, including large cruise, small cruise, and guided clients. This is
the best available information, represents a reasonable estimation, and was appropriately applied
for analytical and decision-making purposes. Of noteworthy importance, the range of alternatives
included an alternative (Alternative 4) that provided a significant increase in allocation to the
outfitter/guide sector, but was not selected for a variety of reasons memorialized in IDT meeting
notes. This decision is further explained in the Draft ROD, which discusses balancing
commercial and non-commercial interests and considering tradeoffs.


Shoreline II Objection Response 10

The Responsible Official’s Draft ROD for the Shoreline II project restricts commercial use by
outfitters and guides for hunting and fishing in limited areas of the Tongass National Forest in
order to reduce user conflicts in the vicinity of certain subsistence communities. This restriction
of commercial use does not set the season for hunting or fishing, close areas to hunting or
fishing, set bag limits, or otherwise specify where or how game or fish may be taken. Thus, it is
not in conflict with the State’s authority, The Draft ROD for the Shoreline II project does make a
reasonable accommodation for subsistence users, consistent with ANILCA, and does balance
commercial and non-commercial recreation use across the project area, consistent with the
Tongass Forest Plan and Forest Service policy relating to recreation special uses.

Issue 6. Whether the Forest Service’s internal Wilderness Commercial Needs Assessment
(WCNA) process unnecessarily forecloses guided use and economic opportunities, Objector
asserts:

¢ The WCNAs may not adequately consider all possible uses that are compatible with the
Wilderness Act;

e The current WCNA process does not consider mitigation measures that would reduce or
eliminate effects on wildemess resources or other uses; and

¢ The internal decisions on WCNAs affect the management of public lands, individual
guiding operators, and the overall economy of Southeast Alaska, and the public did not
have the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft WCNAs to inform both the analysis
and the decision on these assessments.

Objector: State of Alaska

Discussion

With regard to whether the WCNAs adequately consider all possible uses that are compatible
with the Wilderness Act, the Shoreline II FEIS and project record clearly articulate the
constraints the Wilderness Act of 1964 places on the consideration of guided use opportunities in
Wilderness, specifically that such uses can be allowed “only to the extent necessary for activities
which are proper for realizing the recreational or other purposes of wilderness” (FEIS, pp. 3-25
to 3-26). The FEIS and project record describe how the Shoreline II project fits in the context of
these Wilderness Act constraints (FEIS, p. 3-18; Wilderness Resource Report, PR #793_1292,
pp. 6 to 7). Further, the Executive Summary to each WCNA states that the WCNA “pertains
solely to recreation commercial service activities,” and that it “does not consider other
commercial or noncommercial uses” (FEIS, Appendix F, pp. F-2, F-24, F-77, F-103). Due to the
constraints of the Wilderness Act, the WCNAs and the Shoreline II FEIS did not consider all
possible uses that are compatible with Wilderness; rather, the analyses were limited to
considering the extent to which recreation commercial services in Wilderness were necessary to
realize the purposes of the Wilderness Act. The WCNAs for the project area’s six Wilderness
Areas determined that there was a need for outfitter/guide services conducting remote setting
nature tours, camping, and freshwater fishing and hunting. These commercial services help
realize the purposes of Wilderness in a manner compatible with the preservation of Wilderness
character (FEIS, p. 3-29).


Shoreline IT Objection Response 33

demonstrate that the Responsible Official considered all of the comments and concerns he heard
expressed throughout the Shoreline II project planning process, and selected an alternative, with
appropriate mitigation measures, that he believed best achieved the balance needed to manage
multiple types of outfitter/guides competing for the same locations at the same time.

Issue 14. Whether the Draft ROD’s reliance on the adaptive management strategy is reasonable.
Objector asserts:

e The draft ROD’s assertion that adaptive management could mitigate adverse effects on the
guided public and outfitter/guides is arbitrary;

e The adaptive management framework does not provide for service day increases that
would provide for growth and economic stability, and even if it did, it would require at
least four years of monitoring before the additional use could be authorized;

¢ The use of the saltwater encounter standard poses a risk of decreasing or closing areas to
guided public access, particularly to Primitive and Semi-Primitive non-motorized
recreation experiences, and use of this metric could have significant effects on guides
because the Forest Service conceivably could eliminate guided public use from many
Wilderness Use Areas along cruise routes and fishing grounds even if the encounters have
nothing to do with guided public use;

¢ The Draft ROD is arbitrary because the FEIS fails to explain how the monitoring program
will collect statistically reliable data, and the failure to adequately explain the program
violates NFMA;

e Data collected through opportunistic or convenience sampling is not statistically reliable,
the FEIS fails to assess the amount of data needed to provide precise encounter estimates,
and the monitoring program will inflate encounter rates by including administrative
encounters;

¢ The FEIS failed to evaluate the feasibility and cost of adaptive management, including the
availability of staff, budget trends, and other factors related to recreation management
funding on the Tongass, and failed to evaluate and disclose whether cost-recovery fees
would be so high as to discourage outfitter/guides from pursuing adaptive management, in
violation of NEPA and the APA; and

e The adaptive management component that would reduce guided access based on reports
of conflicts is vague and difficult to implement without implicating administrative due
process concems, and could unfairly punish guides and the unguided public in general for
improper conduct by one operator.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

The Forest Service NEPA regulations include guidance on adaptive management at
36 C.F.R. 220.3, which states that adaptive management is:


Shoreline II Objection Response 30

information on these effects (and potential defense of life and property mortalities due to
encounters with people), concluding that the effects of all four alternatives on bears are expected
to be minor, with individuals noticeably affected due to harvest and repeated disturbance.
Alternative 4 would result in the greatest risk of disturbance to bears, followed by Alternatives 2,
3, and | (Id., p. 3-139), The FEIS acknowledges that “[a]]l alternatives allocate total use well
above the current actual use, which could result in greater disturbance to bear if actual use
increases to allocation levels” (Id.).

The FEIS also considered the potential cumulative effects on bears, considering the effects of
past land management activities, guided and unguided recreational activities, hunting, activities
on non-NFS lands, ete. (pp. 3-147 to 3-148). The FEIS (at 3-148) concluded:

The most substantial cumulative effects of this project on wildlife are guided harvest of
big game species, particularly brown bears and mountain goats. Outfitters and guides
permitted under this project would harvest a substantial portion of the total harvest of
these two species within the analysis area. There are no differences between alternatives
in management and expected harvest for big game species, so there would be no
differences in expected cumulative effects between alternatives.

The effects of all outfitter/guide use on bears is addressed through the varying allocations of
service days in each action alternative, site-specific design features, and through the separation
of the current (No-Action) single spring season into “early” and “late” spring seasons common to
all action alternatives. Essentially, the “early spring” season would be March 15 to April 24, and
the “late spring” season would be April 25 to May 20 (inside waters) or May 31 (outside coast).
There would be reduced service days allocated in the popular late spring season, in an effort to
reduce conflicts between hunting outfitter/guides and wildlife viewing/nature tour operators
(FEIS, Summary, p. 4; see also FEIS, p. 2-22).

Based on my review of the Shoreline Il FEIS, Draft ROD, and project record, I believe the
record demonstrates that the Responsible Official appropriately considered the No-Action
Alternative, and the analysis of the effects of that alternative and other alternatives on bears and
bear habitat was adequate.

In an effort to help objectors and the public understand the trade-offs between the alternatives, I
am directing the Responsible Official to 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.

Issue 13. Whether the significant issues for the Shoreline II FEIS were reasonable, and whether
the Forest Service appropriately responded to those issues. Objector asserts:

e The FEIS should have considered guided public access to Wilderness Use Areas a
significant issue in the FEIS, and failed to adequately consider the effects of the project on
guided visitors;


Shoreline II Objection Response 7

¢ The apparent justification for the fishing closures relate to social concerns that guided use
could affect subsistence users, although the FEIS does not explain why these concerns
cannot be mitigated and why there are not similar concerns in other areas where guided
use and subsistence use occurs;

e Existing fishing closures in place since the 2004 Shoreline FEIS and ROD are not
identified in the Shoreline II FEIS, nor is there any discussion or analysis of the
effectiveness of these closures and whether they are achieving their intended goal;

¢ Despite the Forest Service’s commitment to work cooperatively with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G), the Forest Service did not consult with
ADF&G on the hunting or fisheries-related closures;

¢ Closing areas to guided opportunities is improper and illegal, bars local residents from
accessing food, and is inconsistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA);

e Prohibiting guided hunting and fishing in these areas based on unsubstantiated concerns
circumvents the existing regulatory processes of the Alaska Boards of Game and
Fisheries, the Federal Subsistence Board, and/or the authority of ADF&G.

Objectors: State of Alaska APHA
Glacier Guides

Discussion

As discussed above in response to Issues | and 2, the Forest Service administers permits for
outfitter/guide activities conducted on NFS lands in accordance with direction in FSH 2709.14,
Chapter 50 (Recreation Special Uses Handbook). This Handbook includes direction to
“[dJetermine the allocation of use between outfitted and guided and non-outfitted and guided
visitors” (at 53.1 (3)), and provides that outfitting and guiding activities must be “consistent
with the applicable land management plan” (53.1¢ (1)).

The Tongass Forest Plan provides direction for the administration of public outfitter/guide
services on the Forest. In particular, the Plan states that outfitter/guide operations should be
authorized in consideration of various criteria, including:

e Adverse impacts to popular or high-valued local areas with outfitter/guide operations are
minimized;

¢ The operations can be carried out in a manner that is compatible with existing or
expected use by the non-guided public; and

e Adverse impacts to subsistence users are minimized.
(Tongass Forest Plan, p. 4-44, REC3, II.A.3(c)(2)(c), (e), and (f).

As discussed in the Draft ROD for the Shoreline II project, the purpose and need for the
Shoreline II project was, in part, to “[balance] commercial and non-commercial recreational
opportunities” (Draft ROD, p. R-7). In making his decision, the Responsible Official considered


Shoreline II Objection Response 6

However, the FSH (at 7.d) goes on to state:

The party who acquires ownership of or a controlling interest in the business entity may
be issued a permit if the authorized officer determines that the prospective holder meets
Forest Service requirements, including financial and technical capability.

The Forest Service also addressed this issue in the preamble to the 2008 directives, stating “a
comparable permit will be issued to the purchaser of the assets of a priority use permit if the
purchaser is technically and financially qualified” (73 Fed. Reg. 181 at 53830). Thus, while
permits do not automatically transfer upon sale or transfer of a priority use permit holder’s
business, the Forest Service is directed to issue a comparable permit if it determines that the
purchaser or party with controlling interest is financially and technically qualified to operate the
permit.

Theard and understand the concerns of the individual permit holders at the objection resolution
meeting with regard to corporate permit holders, the number of GUAs they can operate under,
and the transferability of priority use permits. However, based on my review of the record and
Forest Service policy regarding outfitter/guide special use permits, I believe the Tongass is
appropriately and equitably administering these permits. As acknowledged at the meeting, there
is no Forest Service direction that would prohibit any individual permit holder from seeking
corporate status; that is a business decision of the permit holder. Should any permit holder be
unable to operate his/her permit due to medical or other unexpected reasons, it is within the
Authorized Officer’s discretion to work with the permit holder to amend the permit if the permit
holder identifies a qualified outfitter/guide to operate under the permit. Finally, if the business is
sold to a qualified entity and that entity applies for a Forest Service permit, under current
direction, the Authorized Officer has discretion to issue that entity a comparable permit if it is
financially and technically qualified.

Issues 4 and 5. Whether guided deer hunting and fishing closures were adequately identified and
justified in the Draft ROD and FEIS, and whether they are consistent with the Alaska Boards of
Game and Fisheries and/or Federal Subsistence Board processes. Objectors assert:

e The deer hunting closures in Use Areas 04-05A (SW Admiralty) and 04-11A (Port
Frederick) were not correctly identified in the DEIS, therefore objectors were not aware of
them until the release of the FEIS;

¢ The FEIS does not discuss the Port Frederick guided hunting closure, and the discussion
about the SW Admiralty closure merely discusses the speculative potential for
competition between guided hunters and subsistence users;

¢ The Forest Service has not identified specific concerns about public safety, subsistence
harvest, or the effects of guided hunts on deer, and as the closure only affects guided hunts
and not unguided hunts, the Forest Service’s rationale for the closures is unreasonable;

© The fishing closures in Use Areas 04-02B (Whale Bay), 04-12 (Tenakee Inlet), and
04-14 (Slocum Arm) were only discussed in the subsistence section of the DEIS, even
though the closures affect guided use;


Shoreline II Objection Response 19

In summary, the Shoreline II FEIS and project record demonstrate an economic analysis of
sufficient breadth and depth for the overall project area to support a reasoned decision between
alternatives. It is not practical nor feasible — and not within the scope of the Purpose and Need —
to study the full range of the positive and negative effects of every potential outcome of the
alternatives on one particular subsector of the Southeast Alaska cruise industry. The Selected
Alternative offers SCVs focused on Wildemess recreation experiences increased opportunity
across all six project Wilderness Areas, while adhering to the Wilderness Act by considering
commercial use in Wilderness to the extent necessary, and provides for visitor industry growth
and stability and increased guided public access to Wilderness Use Areas. I believe that the
Responsible Official’s proposed decision is reasonable, and that it demonstrates a thorough
consideration of the trade-offs between resource protection, the preservation of Wilderness
characteristics, economic growth and stability, and social values.

See also my response to Issues 11 and 15, below.

Issue 9. Whether the economic analysis in the FEIS and the assertions in the Draft ROD
accurately present the allocated service day increases in the Selected Alternative. Objector
asserts:

e The Draft ROD is arbitrary because it relies on service day increases that are irrelevant to
an important segment of SCVs who provide remote setting nature tours and would not
provide for the experiences marketed to and desired by guided visitors (including
meaningless increases in winter, fall and early spring; in large group areas; and in use
areas on the outer coast, in areas that lack protected anchorages, or in areas that require
lengthy travel times); and

e The FEIS arbitrarily inflates the benefits of the Selected Alternative and fails to
adequately consider the adverse economic effects on SCV operators by concealing the
reduction/decrease in service day allocations in Wilderness Use Areas that these operators
would actually use.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

See my response to Issue 8, above, for a discussion of the adequacy of the economic analysis
completed for the Shoreline II project, particularly the adequacy of the analysis of the effects on
SCV operators, and whether the Selected Alternative represents an adequate balance of resource
protection, the preservation of Wilderness characteristics, economic growth and stability, and
social values. As stated in that response, Objector’s assertion that the Selected Alternative only
offers opportunities for Wilderness-focused SCVs “on the rough outer coast, in winter, or in
Large Group Areas” is a mischaracterization. During the high-use summer season and across all
six project Wilderness Areas, proposed commercial allocation increases offer additional
economic opportunity compared to the 2011-2015 annual average of actual commercial use (see
the table on page 17 of this response). In short, all four Shoreline II alternatives increase
wilderness recreation commercial use opportunities compared to the 2011-2015 annual average
of actual use during the high-use summer season. Objector asserts that these increases will not
meet demand for Wilderness experiences. However, as discussed above, the Forest Service is


Shoreline II Objection Response 9

natural resources and public health and safety, consistent with the applicable forest land and
tesource management plan. The Forest Service, therefore, determines who, where, and how
commercial use or activity occurs, considering effects on natural resources and the interests of
the public.

In contrast, the State of Alaska directs the utilization, development, and conservation of natural
resources belonging to the State, including fish and game. The Boards of Game and Fisheries
are responsible for the conservation and development of the fisheries and wildlife resources of
the State, which include establishing seasons, defining areas for taking game or fish, setting bag
limits, and regulating methods and means of harvest. Among the primary functions of ADF&G
is the implementation of the management direction established by the Boards. For the purposes
of the management of fish and game, the Federal subsistence program is guided by Section 804
of ANILCA, which stipulates “the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for non-wasteful
subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for
other purposes.”

As stated above, the Responsible Official’s decision attempts to balance commercial and non-
commercial recreational opportunities, considering the input he heard from the public, federally
recognized tribes, and other State and Federal agencies and concerns raised through scoping, at
public meetings, and during comment periods (Draft ROD, p. R-7). For example, during
government-to-government consultation in preparation for the DEIS for the Shoreline II project,
the Forest received comments from the Angoon Community Association and the Sitka Tribe of
Alaska (STA) expressing concerns about conflicts and competition for deer between subsistence
and guided hunters in the vicinity of Angoon on Admiralty Island and conflicts between guides
and STA members using sockeye and coho salmon streams during subsistence harvests in those
streams (PR #793_0223, PR #793_0340, PR #793_0423, PR #793_0810, PR #793_1274, and
PR #793_1080). Other public comments also noted conflicts and/or requested that the Forest
Service consider measures to reduce the effects of commercial use on non-commercial users.
For example:

e¢ PR#793_0954: Commenter requests that the Forest Service consider timing windows for
commercial use activities (e.g., sockeye at Lake Eva) —i.e., no guided use authorized
during certain times.

e¢ PR#793_0964: Commenter states, “[t]hese areas and areas like them, i.e. rural w/a small
town can be very heavily impacted by recreation commercial use in many
ways. Competition with subsistence is one of them.” Commenter goes on to state that
“... there must remain areas, especially salmon streams that will never have rec/com
use.” Commenter specifically refers to Tenakee Inlet and Freshwater Bay.

¢ PR#793_1042 and PR #793_1043: Commenter requests consideration of off-days from
commercial use in South Baranof and West Chichagof Yakobi Wilderness areas, stating
that they use these areas for subsistence gathering.

While many of the objectors indicated they did not believe there was evidence of conflicts
between guided use and non-guided use, I believe the record suggests otherwise, and it was
appropriate for the Responsible Official to consider these comments in making his decision on
where and how commercial outfitter/guide use will occur in the Shoreline II project area.


Shoreline II Objection Response 25

Objector suggests that the range of alternatives considered for the Shoreline II project was
flawed because two of the alternatives reduce guided public access to Wilderness Use Areas,
particularly those used by SCVs along primary travel routes, and even the highest guided visitor
use alternative, Alternative 4, does not provide for a sufficient increase to meet NEPA’s
requirement for meaningfully distinct alternatives.

Table 2-14 in the FEIS (p. 2-31) displays the differences in commercial service days between the
No-Action and the action alternatives, and includes information on the actual use in the various
Use Areas. Those numbers are shown in the table below for just the nine Use Areas of concern
expressed by Objector. For the purposes of comparison, and because the management seasons
changed between Shoreline I and II, the comparison of use is just for the summer season
(primary use season) and the areas by alternative identified by Objector (p. 29 of the objection).

Wilderness Use Areas of Concern to The Boat Company

Service Days - Summer
Wilderness Area Average/Highest Alternative 1 Alternative2 —Alternative3 Alternative 4

Actual Use {No Action)
Tracy Arm, 01-05D 47/77 183 175 135 285
Ford’s Terror, 01-05E 143/176 153 125 3s 200
Endicott Arm, 01-05F 293/467 427 490 370 800
Gut Bay, 04-018 235/390 311 420 315 680
‘SW Admiralty, 04-058 211/284 463 485 365 790
Pybus Bay, 04-06A 573/646 590 675 510 1100
Eliza Harbor, 04-068 85/176 295 310 235 505
Gambier Bay, 04-074 77/133 393 280 210 450
Cross Admiralty Canoe Route, 04-078 80/114 491 395 300 645
Total 1744/2463 3306 3355 2535 5455

In my opinion, these numbers indicate that there is a range of commercial use allocated in these
Use Areas between the alternatives. For Alternative 2, the table indicates that commercial service
days in four of the nine Use Areas would decrease when compared to the No-Action Alternative,
although the overall increase in service days for these nine Use Areas is 49 service days.
Alternative 3 would almost uniformly reduce commercial use across the Use Areas identified by
Objector. This alternative was developed to minimize crowding and incompatible uses

(FEIS, p. 2-9). The overall number of commercial service days for these nine Use Areas in
Alternative 3 decreased by 771 service days. Alternative 4 would allow for increases in
commercial use in these Use Areas, with an increase of 2149 service days. The range of use in
the three action alternatives include a difference of 2920 service days (ranging from a reduction
of 771 service days to an increase of 2149 service days for the nine Use Areas used by Objector).

When the commercial service day allocations are compared to the average and highest actual use
levels, five of the Use Area allocations in the No-Action Alternative exceed the highest actual
use (Tracy Arm, SW Admiralty, Eliza Harbor, Gambier Bay, and Cross Admiralty Canoe
Route), and all nine of them exceed the average actual use between 2010 and 2014. For
Alternative 2, eight of the nine Use Areas have service day allocations that exceed that average,


Response to Objections,
Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Project

Introduction

This is my response to the eight objections I received to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision (Draft ROD) for the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide
(Shoreline I) project. The Draft ROD was released by the Tongass Forest Supervisor, who is
the Responsible Official for the project. In accordance with Forest Service regulations at

36 C.F.R. 218.3(a), Iam the Reviewing Officer for the objections that were filed.

I received the following objections to the Shoreline II project:

No. 17-10-00-0001 A218: submitted by Bruce and Ann-Marie Parker,
Parker Guide Service;

No. 17-10-00-0002 A218: submitted by Keegan McCarthy,
Coastal Alaska Adventures;

No. 17-10-00-0003 A218: submitted by Brad Dennison,
Alaska Coastal Outfitters;

No. 17-10-00-0004 A218: submitted by Zach and Alisha Decker,
Glacier Guides, Inc.;

No. 17-10-00-0005 A218: submitted by Hans Baertle,
Southeast Alaska Guiding, LLC;

No. 17-10-00-0006 A218: submitted by Paul Olson,
The Boat Company;

No. 17-10-00-0003 A218: submitted by Susan Magee,
State of Alaska ANILCA Program Coordinator; and

No. 17-10-00-0004 A218: submitted by John Thor Stacey,
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA).

T have conducted a review of the objections and the Shoreline II Draft ROD, FEIS, and project
record in accordance with the pre-decisional, administrative review procedures at 36 C.F.R. 218,
Subparts A and B. This is my consolidated response to the objections that were received.

Background

The Shoreline II project area includes all areas that are used for non-motorized outfitter/guide
activities originating from the marine shoreline areas in the Admiralty National Monument and
the Hoonah, Juneau, and Sitka Ranger Districts of the Tongass National Forest. 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 (such as goat and deer
hunting, canoe routes and portage, freshwater fishing on anadromous and other fish-bearing
streams and lakes, etc.). This includes a large portion of Baranof Island, where goat and deer
hunting areas extend inland.

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 6


Shoreline 1! Objection Response 48

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.

8) Add the National Minimum Protocol for Monitoring Solitude, discussed on pages 41-42
and 44 of this response, to the project record.

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.

Once the Responsible Official has complied with these instructions, he may proceed with signing
the Final ROD for the Shoreline II project (36 C.F.R. 218.12(b)).

My review constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture
with regard to the objections raised to the Shoreline II project. No further review from any other
Forest Service or USDA official is available (36 C.F.R. 218.11(b)(2)).

Whews 8. Apunme Guy 10, ROIF

REBECCA S. NOURSE DATE
Reviewing Officer



Shoreline II Objection Response 12

had the opportunity to comment on the Shoreline II project several times during the NEPA
process. The WCNAs were included as appendices to the DEIS and FEIS, thus allowing the
public to review the analyses. The public also had the opportunity to comment upon proposed
changes to outfitter and guide administration as a result of the WCNA analyses.

The FEIS clearly explained why and how the WCNAs were developed (FEIS, pp. 1-8, 3-17 to
3-18), but I do believe that the Draft ROD and/or FEIS could have more effectively explained
how the WCNAs informed the FEIS and the decision being made.

In my opinion, the WCNAs do not unnecessarily foreclose guided use and economic
opportunities in Wilderness Areas. The rationale provided by the Responsible Official for why
only recreational commercial service activities were considered in Wilderness is reasonable and
supported by the record. So, too, is the range of mitigation measures, BMPs, and adaptive
management included with the Selected Alternative to reduce or eliminate effects on Wilderness
resources or other users. The use of WCNAs as an internal analysis tool is proper; no changes to
commercial activities were implemented as a result of the WCNAs. Once such changes were .
proposed, the Forest initiated the NEPA process and provided adequate opportunity for public
review and comment, in accordance with NEPA.

That being said, WCNAs are intended to be living documents. As stated in the FEIS
(Appendix F, pp. F-3 and F-26):

It is recognized that wilderness conditions and factors that affect them may change, as
well as market demands for various commercial service activities. When substantial
changes occur in natural systems and/or commercial recreation services markets, this
assessment will be updated accordingly.

Appendix E of the FEIS (p. E-45) also acknowledges that WCNAs may be updated when
changes occur in recreation commercial services markets, and offers the following potential
remedy for a portion of this objection issue:

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.

I believe this language should also be included in the Final ROD and the individual WCNAs to
clarify the process and procedures that would be followed to evaluate new commercial use
requests. I also believe that an additional statement should be added to the ROD to concisely
explain how the WCNAs were used to inform the decision. This would help the public better
understand and follow the process that was used for evaluating commercial recreation services in
Wilderness Use Areas.


Shoreline II Objection Response ll

Objector suggests that the Forest Service failed to consider mitigation measures that could be
applied to a specific activity (such as limiting hours of operation), such that the activity might
then be acceptable for consideration as a necessary activity in the WCNA. Objector further
suggests that rather than categorically dismissing an entire class of activity, the Forest Service
should look at proposals on a case-by-case basis to see if they can be mitigated enough to be
considered. While the process proposed by Objector is one that is used for commercial uses on
non-Wilderness NFS lands, such an approach cannot be used for designated Wilderness.
Mitigating first and then determining necessity ignores the intentional limitations placed on the
administering agency by the Wilderness Act.

Regarding mitigation measures more generally, the Draft ROD, FEIS, and project record
demonstrate that the Responsible Official considered mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate
effects on Wildemess resources or other uses (Draft ROD, p. R-15; FEIS, p. 3-25). Appendix 1
to the Draft ROD includes a “Design Feature and Mitigations” section for each outfitter and
guide Use Area, including those Use Areas in Wilderness, which identifies the mitigation and/or
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to reduce effects (see also FEIS,
pp. 3-47 to 3-48). Appendix 3 to the FEIS includes stipulations and BMPs to effectively mitigate
the effects of various outfitter and guide activities. The FEIS states that mitigation measures
would be put in place to preserve Wilderness character, and that, generally, higher allocations of
commercial use require more mitigation measures to ensure less impairment of the Wilderness
resource (FEIS, p. 3-26).

Chapter 2 of the FEIS discusses adaptive management strategies that will also be used to
mitigate the effects of actual use. For example, adaptive management requires the Forest Service
to take action if monitoring determines that encounters exceed recreation opportunity spectrum
(ROS) standards (including Wilderness standards). If ROS standards are exceeded, various
adaptive management actions would be triggered, including “no additional use” or “reduction in
use” options (FEIS, pp. 2-17 to 2-20). In response to comments on the DEIS, the FEIS stated
that outfitter and guide use would be limited through mitigation measures where non-commercial
use is prevalent, and that adaptive management would be implemented when actual use
approaches capacity in a Use Area (FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-43).

With regard to whether the public had the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft WCNAs
to inform both the analysis and the decision on these assessments, the Executive Summaries for
all but one of the WCNAs included in Appendix F of the DEIS and Appendix F of the FEIS state
that the WCNA “is an internal analysis” and that it “does not determine the extent and amount of
recreation commercial use that may authorized” (FEIS, Appendix F, pp. F-3, F-25, F-78, F-104).
The one WCNA (Id., p. F-48) states instead:

A commercial needs assessment is not a decision document subject to environmental
analysis. Rather, it is an analytical tool.... The decision to allocate a portion of the visitor
capacity to outfitted and guided visitors, as well as the decision to issue or renew outfitter
and guide permits, will be accomplished through an environmental analysis in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The WCNAs were internal analyses that did not result in a change of management or
administration of outfitter and guide activities. It is through the proposed action and alternatives,
analyzed in the Shoreline II FEIS, that the Forest Service proposed these changes, and the public


Shoreline II Objection Response 44

The FEIS relied on interagency Wilderness character monitoring protocols for its analysis. These
protocols are intended to focus monitoring on the mandate in the Wilderness Act to provide for
outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, and to monitor
these changes over time rather than monitoring in an attempt to understand people’s experiences,
perceptions, or motivations in Wilderness (Keeping it Wild 2, p. 52, PR #793_0878). The
Tongass WCM Plan (2012) discusses how opportunities for solitude vary from place to place
within designated Wilderness Areas on the Tongass, and identifies where outstanding
opportunities are at risk or not at risk (FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-35; Tongass WCM Plan,

pp. 2-5, 10-42).

In my opinion, the analysis in the FEIS relied on appropriate encounter indicators. Using
Wilderness character monitoring measures, including saltwater encounters, is consistent with
interagency protocol (Keeping it Wild 2), Forest Plan ROS standards and guidelines (which
consider the effects from off-Forest resources), the Forest’s 2012 WCM Plan, and with NEPA
requirements as affirmed by Federal court rulings. There does not need to be a proven link
between guided use and effects to justify a constraint placed on commercial services. Rather, the
Wilderness Act of 1964 directs us to authorize no more permits than “the extent necessary” to
achieve the recreational and other purposes of the Wilderness Act (Section 4(d)(6) of the
Wilderness Act; High Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell, 390 F.3" 630 (9th Circ. 2004)).

The “National Minimum Protocol for Monitoring Solitude” will be added to the project record to
better respond to Objector’s concerns regarding statistically reliable data about actual Wilderness
use and demonstrated links between guided visitor use and perceived risks to solitude.
Specifically, that monitoring conducted from convenience sampling is still useful because it can
suggest whether opportunities for solitude are impaired, which could trigger more rigorous
sampling in subsequent years. The initial assessment of measures is intended to establish a
baseline to which later assessments can be compared to determine trends.

Issue 16. Whether the visitor capacity analysis for the Shoreline II FEIS was sufficient. Objector
asserts:

e The capacity analysis relies on unsupported assumptions that overestimate effects at
recreation use sites and thus underestimates an appropriate level of both guided and
unguided public access;

¢ The service day calculations rely, in part, on the assumption that only one group can be
accommodated per day at any given location, when, in fact, a location may be able to
accommodate several groups in one day; and

e The Forest Service never provided any meaningful opportunity for public comment on the
visitor capacity analysis, in violation of NEPA.

Objector: The Boat Company


Shoreline II Objection Response 32

during the comment period related to the need to balance guided and unguided users (FEIS,
Appendix E, p. 20), increased allocations by Wilderness Area (Id., p. 38), and the benefits of
outfitter/guides, including those expressed by The Boat Company’s clients (Id., pp. 47-48).

Objector asserts that guided public access to Wilderness should have been a significant issue. I
believe this subset of use was sufficiently addressed in the overall analysis of Wilderness and
non-Wilderness Use Areas, and in the Socioeconomic section of the FEIS. See my responses to
Issues 8-10 above, and Issue 15 below, for further discussion of the socioeconomic analysis
conducted for the FEIS and how Wilderness issues were considered in the analysis.

The determination of what issues are considered significant issues is one of the roles of the
Responsible Official, based on all the internal and external comments received and whether the
Responsible Official believes alternatives to the proposed action and/or mitigation measures
should be developed to respond to them. He could have made guided public access to Wilderness
a significant issue, but he believed it would be sufficiently addressed in the overall analysis. I
believe this was reasonable, and that issues and concerns related to the appropriate level of
guided public access to the project area’s Wilderness Areas have been adequately addressed in
the Shoreline II FEIS and project record.

The Objector also raised several issues relating to incompatible uses and seasons of use, and how
they were addressed in the FEIS. The FEIS recognizes the potential conflicts between some user
groups. For example, the FEIS (p. 3-83) states, “[iJn actuality, any encounter during a brown
bear hunt may result in an unacceptable effect on the hunt,” but the FEIS goes on to state that
“overlapping incompatible uses can be addressed through guide communication and
coordination... [which] is the responsibility of the outfitter/guide representatives operating the
project area.” As discussed in the FEIS, “[t]he splitting of the spring season into two different
timeframes is an effort to avoid compounding any potential conflicts with hunting outfitter/
guides” (p. 2-22).

Mitigation, such as timing restrictions, may benefit the recreation experience of guided users and
alleviate conflicts between outfitter/guides offering different experiences to their clients (hunting
versus wildlife viewing). If competitive interest exists for a particular location, the Forest
Service may solicit applications through issuance of a prospectus. Prospectus offerings can be
designed to separate incompatible uses by space or time, to maximize the recreation experience,
and to minimize resource and social impacts.

As part of implementing the adaptive management strategy, the Forest Service will work with
outfitter/guides to broadly adopt communication channels that will help reduce conflicts in the
field. Currently, a growing number of guides are sharing their intentions on an electronic
platform (i.e., listserv, email, etc.) as to where and when they will travel. This has proven to
result in better cooperation amongst guides and fewer conflicts. As these communications
channels develop, the Forest Service will encourage their use.

Upon review of the objection, it appears that Objector’s primary concern is that they did not get
as much opportunity to use certain seasons as they had hoped, primarily the late spring season,
which is the main season for brown bear hunts. The Draft ROD, FEIS, and project record


Shoreline II Objection Response 31

© Incompatible commercial uses (conflicts between bear hunting and wildlife viewing/
nature tour operators) was a significant issue in the FEIS, but the handling of the shoulder
season to respond to this issue is overly restrictive and will preclude SCV operators from
accessing many Use Areas (Wilderness and non-Wilderness) along cruise routes during
the late spring season when those operations commence;

© Division of the spring season into early and late spring results in a substantial decrease in
the number of service days available to SCV operators, bear guides, and other
outfitter/guides who all begin operations primarily during the late spring season; and

* The decision to prioritize guided bear hunting over other outfitter/guide uses is arbitrary,
and the Forest Service could have used less restrictive means, such as permit stipulations
that require avoidance of bays used by hunting guides, to respond to this issue.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

The regulations implementing NEPA at 40 C.F.R. 1501.7 state that “there shall be an early and
open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the
significant issues related to a proposed action.” This process is called scoping, and includes both
external and internal scoping. As stated in the Shoreline FEIS (p. 1-15), significant issues are
used to formulate and design alternatives to the proposed action, prescribe mitigation measures,
and analyze significant effects.

The Shoreline II FEIS discusses how issues were identified in the project planning process, how
significant issues were identified, and the reasons why other issues weren’t considered
alternative-driving issues (FEIS, pp. 1-11 to 1-18). The significant issues identified for the
Shoreline II project included:

e Effects to Economic Opportunities;

e Effects to Wilderness Areas and Effects of Commercial Uses on Non-Commercial
Visitors; and

¢ Incompatible Commercial Uses.

(FEIS, pp. 1-16 to 1-17). The regulations implementing NEPA at 40 C.F.R. 1502.2(b) state:

Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance. There shall be only brief
discussion of other than significant issues. As in a finding of no significant impact, there
should only be enough discussion to show why more study is not warranted.

While the NEPA regulations seek to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives,
issues can arise from a variety of sources and there is no specific guidance about how to
gauge an issue’s significance.

For the Shoreline II project, the project area included Wilderness and non-Wilderness Use
Areas, and the FEIS considered the effects on guided and unguided visitors in these Use
Areas. Appendix E to the FEIS (Response to Comments) responded to concerns expressed


Shoreline II Objection Response 8

“input from the public, federally recognized tribes, and other State and Federal agencies” and
“concerns raised through scoping, at public meetings and during comment periods” (Id.). The
Responsible Official stated:

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 find that the Selected Alternative provides a beneficial mix of recreation
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.

(Id., pp. R-7 to R-8). The Responsible Official also considered the effects of the Shoreline II
project on subsistence users, in accordance with Section 810 of ANILCA (Id., p. R-15). As
objectors point out, the Draft ROD includes various “Design Features and Mitigation” in certain
Use Areas to minimize effects on non-commercial and subsistence users. These include the
following measures:

e Use Area 04-02B, Whale Bay — restrictions on guided sport fishing during weekend and
holidays in certain areas, and capping guided use at 2015 levels (with no new authorized
guided use) in certain areas;

e Use Area 04-05A, SW Admiralty — new guided hunting prohibited (does not affect
existing authorizations);

e Use Area 04-11A, Port Frederick — new guided deer hunting prohibited (does not affect
existing authorizations);

e Use Area 04-12, Tenakee Inlet — restrictions on guided sport fishing during weekend and
holidays in certain areas; and

e Use Area 04-14, Slocum Arm ~ restrictions on guided sport fishing during weekend and
holidays in certain areas.

The rationale for these mitigation measures could have been better articulated in the Draft ROD,
but it is clear that they were developed in an effort to minimize adverse effects on subsistence
and other non-guided users, and to prevent negative social interactions and access issues (such as
having too many boats/users in one location during high-use periods) (see, for example, Draft
ROD, Appendix 1, pp. 1-60 to 1-62, 1-86 to 1-87, 1-116 to 1-117, 1-123 to 1-125, and 1-131 to
1-133; see also project record (PR) #793_1288). In my opinion, these mitigation measures
represent a reasoned approach to balancing commercial and non-commercial activities in areas
that have been identified as important subsistence and non-commercial use areas, consistent with
direction in the Tongass Forest Plan and FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50.

Objectors contend that these mitigation measures circumvent the authorities of the Alaska
Boards of Game and Fisheries, ADF&G, and/or the Federal Subsistence Board. I disagree. The
Forest Service has authority to regulate commercial uses or activities occurring on NFS lands,
including individuals or entities providing commercial outfitting/guiding services (see Organic
Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 477-482, 551); Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6802(h)); Term Permit Act of 1915 (16 U.S.C. 497); and
regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 251). Special use authorizations are issued in a manner that protects


Shoreline IT Objection Response 22

vessel sector (less than 50 passengers). There is no reliable and valid data indicating that growth
rates differ substantially between the larger and smaller capacity SCV industry subsectors.
Using longitudinal visitor volume data, across multiple sectors of the industry, adequately
characterizes overall visitor industry trends and is sufficient for making a reasoned choice
between alternatives.

Objector asserts that the FEIS did not differentiate or understand the relationship between larger
and smaller capacity SCVs, nor discuss the effects of a growing larger capacity fleet on the
smaller capacity fleet in terms of the allocation of service days in Wilderness Use Areas between
the two small cruise subsectors. It is important to note that the FEIS is a landscape-scale analysis
that considered the effects of allocating service days for outfitter/guide services without
differentiating between the size of operations. As stated in Chapter | of the FEIS, “[i]t does not
designate which authorized activities would take place or designate who would receive
outfitter/guide permits” (FEIS, p. 1-2). The authorization of service days occurs outside the
NEPA process in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies for special uses.

Although the Shoreline II FEIS and Draft ROD do not specify which types of operations would
receive service day allocations, the FEIS (Chapter 1) recognizes the increase in the fleet of small
to mid-sized cruise ships desiring to provide outfitter/guide services in the project area as part of
the Purpose and Need statement (p. 1-6). In an effort to respond to this desire, Alternatives 1-4
provide a range of service day allocations in Use Areas along common SCV itinerary routes
during the summer season (FEIS, Volume I, Chapter 2, pp. 2-5 to 2-13). For the Selected
Alternative (Alternative 2), this includes increased allocations in all but one Use Area (01-05E,
Ford’s Terror) when compared to the average actual use during the analyzed five-year period
(FEIS, p. 2-31, Table 2-14, Column 8 compared to Column 3).

Objector also criticizes the overall timeframe used to summarize Southeast Alaska visitor
industry trends by subsector. The Socioeconomics Section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS used a
variety of timeframes dependent upon availability of information and the reliability and validity
of that information. There is little publically-available information regarding SCVs, including
total capacity, actual passengers, and longitudinal growth. The best available information is the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Cruise Ship Program data, which is
collected as part of a wastewater discharge permitting process. This data, however, is only
available for vessels carrying 50 — 250 passengers. The IDT selected a longer timeframe to
consider in the analysis to more accurately reflect long-term longitudinal change and minimize
outlier years for a small industry subsector. Notably, recession-era outlying years were removed
from the analysis due to the widely-recognized economic effects of the national recession on the
Southeast Alaska visitor industry. The data indicates SCV capacity, and passengers, can
significantly vary year-to-year, but is generally increasing over time. Using Objector’s post-
recession timeframe is the equivalent of selecting years that best reflect their preferences to
inform Forest Service decision-making. While Objector indicates post-recession years have
yielded strong growth for the SCV industry, data over a longer period of time indicates the
industry subsector is subject to significant year-to-year volume variation.

Objector also asserts that challenges associated with Forest Service internal practices, resource
allocation, and limited resources have negatively affected the agency’s ability to process permits,
manage resources, and resolve user conflicts, ultimately affecting the ability of SCV operators to


Shoreline II Objection Response 39

e The FEIS failed to consider effects on other legitimate users of Wilderness who may not
require solitude on every acre at all times, and never considered visitor perspectives that
might demonstrate a more diverse view on elements of a quality Wilderness experience.

Objector: The Boat Company

Discussion

Objector raises numerous issues with regard to the analysis of the project’s effects on Wilderness
and the encounter indicators used in that analysis. One such issue is the Forest Service use of the
saltwater encounter standard, which Objector asserts generates significantly different results and
overestimates the number of encounters relevant to Wilderness solitude experiences.

Encounter and remoteness standards are included in the Tongass Forest Plan under the setting
indicators for each ROS class (Tongass Forest Plan, Appendix I). These setting indicators
identify, quantify, and describe the types of recreation settings that the Tongass provides. Project
analyses use the ROS standards and guidelines to better understand project effects, identify
mitigation needs, and inform the decision maker. For Primitive ROS classes on the Tongass, a
three-mile distance (including saltwater) is established for the remoteness setting indicator, and
less than three groups per day is established for the encounters indicator (Id., p. I-1)..

Designated Wilderness Areas have additional requirements beyond the Tongass Forest Plan ROS
standards and guidelines. Specifically, the Wilderness Act of 1964 states that agencies shall
preserve outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. The
Tongass developed a Wilderness Character Monitoring (WCM) Plan in 2012. Attachment D to
that Plan establishes more rigorous standards for encounters than those in the Forest Plan.
Specifically, they add a rating for the level of effect of each encounter — high, medium, or low
(high meaning a very disruptive effect and low meaning the encounter had little effect on the
observer) — and require observers to document whether the encounter was within or outside of
Wilderness (Tongass WCM Plan, Attachment D, p. 7). They define “outstanding opportunities
for solitude” as having low potential for encounters on forest lands and saltwater travel routes
(4 of 5 days with no “medium” or “high” impact encounters) (Id., pp. 2-3).

Taken together with the three-mile ROS remoteness setting indicator, this means that vessels
encountered within three miles of primitive areas are most likely going to be low-impact
encounters and therefore would not be noted as impairing Wilderness character. While such
distant encounters would not count under the ROS encounters indicator, they very well might
count under the remoteness setting indicator, depending on the frequency of the encounters.
Therefore, saltwater encounters might indeed be overestimated if only ROS standards and
guidelines are used in Wilderness. However, because of the outstanding opportunities for
solitude monitoring standard, we may actually be allowing more saltwater encounters because
many of them are low impact.

Interagency Wilderness character monitoring protocols instruct us to select measures based on
their relevance to Wilderness character, regardless of managerial control or jurisdiction (Keeping
it Wild 2, Landres et al. 2015, p. 21, PR #793_0878). Case law affirms that NEPA analyses must
consider impacts to Wilderness character from sources outside of Wilderness (Izaak Walton
League of America v. Tidwell, 2015 WL 632140 (D. Minn. 2015); Vermonters for a Clean


Shoreline II Objection Response 40

Environment v, Madrid, 73 F.Supp.3" 417 (D. Vt. 2014)). As stated in the FEIS Response to
Comments, the initial assessment of measures is intended to establish a baseline to which later
assessments can be compared to determine trends (FEIS, Appendix E, pp. E-31 to E-32). Data
from the encounter intensity measure simply informs managers as to how intensely encounters
are or are not impinging on opportunities for solitude. Informed managers still must decide if a
response is necessary, and what kind of response would be appropriate (Id., p. E-34).

Using Wilderness character monitoring measures, including saltwater encounters, is consistent
with interagency protocol (Keeping it Wild 2, PR #793_0878), Forest Plan ROS standards and
guidelines (which consider the effects of off-Forest resources), the Forest’s 2012 WCM Plan,
and with NEPA requirements, as affirmed by Federal court rulings.

Objector also asserts that the Forest has arbitrarily reversed agency policy and practices for
measuring encounters as set forth in the Forest Plan, and have violated NEPA and NFMA by
establishing a new standard. I disagree. Upon review of the FEIS and project record, I found no
evidence of a reversal of agency policy and practices for measuring encounters. Encounter
monitoring complies with Forest Plan ROS standards where an encounter indicator is identified
for each ROS class. The Shoreline II project’s use of encounters to measure solitude is
compatible with Forest Plan direction to limit encounters to the ROS-specified encounter rate
(less than three groups per day in Primitive ROS to maintain primitive experiences) (Tongass
Forest Plan, pp. 3-15 to 3-16). Additionally, the Forest Plan directs the forest to provide a range
of wildland recreation opportunities within Wilderness, and the project does not preclude a range
of recreation opportunities — from primitive, unsupported recreation to motorized access with
commercial support.

The use of WCM indicators as a means for measuring and interpreting the effect and condition of
encounters within and adjacent to Wilderness on Wilderness character is not a reversal or change
in agency policy or practice. Interagency Wilderness character monitoring protocols have been in
place since 2008, and provide a nationally consistent approach to describing and assessing trends
in Wilderness character across the full extent of the National Wilderness Preservation System. I
find no evidence of violating NEPA or NFMA by using Wildemess character monitoring
indicators as a standard for measuring the effects of encounters in and adjacent to Wilderness on
Wilderness character.

Objector also asserts that the FEIS failed to consider relevant factors such as historic marine
traffic, or make a rational connection between off-Wilderness social encounters and in-
Wilderness guided public use. Saltwater and other types of encounters from outside Wilderness
(such as air and non- Wilderness lands) are included in the existing condition via the Wilderness
Character Monitoring indicator “remoteness of sights and sounds of human activity adjacent to
the Wilderness.” The FEIS analyzes the existing condition of this indicator (sights and sounds of
human activity adjacent to Wilderness), and whether it would change under any of the four
alternatives (FEIS, pp. 3-30, 3-34 to 3-36, and 3-42). This analysis does not ignore the long-
standing history of marine use in these areas; rather, the FEIS simply assesses the indirect effects
such use is having on Wilderness character, as measured by the indicator “remoteness of sights
and sounds of human activity adjacent to Wilderness.” The FEIS concluded that increased
saltwater encounters are not the primary driver for degradation of Wilderness character; rather,
degradation is most often due to recreation sites, user-created trails, and encounters within


Shoreline II Objection Response 28

both landscape scale and programmatic analyses have challenges with site-specificity. He is not
stating that the Shoreline II project is programmatic. In fact, later in the same paragraph, he
refers to the project solely as a landscape scale analysis. Furthermore, the original Shoreline
FEIS was not a programmatic analysis, so there is no reason to believe that Shoreline II is or
should have been a programmatic analysis. The Shoreline II FEIS is a landscape scale analysis;
as a result, the assertion that the range of alternatives should be broadened because the analysis is
programmatic is not accurate.

With regard to Objector’s assertion that the saltwater encounter standard is arbitrary, see my
response to Issue 15, below. As stated in that response, I believe the analysis in the FEIS relied
on appropriate encounter indicators. Using Wilderness character monitoring measures, including
saltwater encounters, is consistent with interagency protocol, Forest Plan ROS standards and
guidelines (which consider the effects from off-Forest resources), the Forest’s 2012 Wilderness
Character Monitoring Plan, and with NEPA requirements as affirmed by Federal court rulings.

In my opinion, the range of alternatives considered in the Shoreline II FEIS was reasonable,
given the purpose and need, the significant issues identified for the project, relevant Forest Plan
guidance, and the facts in this case.

Issue 12. Whether the FEIS and draft ROD adequately considered the No-Action Alternative.
Objector asserts:

¢ The No-Action Alternative was a reasonable alternative, given that only 16,000 service
days out of 47,449 available service days are currently used in the project area, and the
FEIS and draft ROD did not explain how the No-Action Alternative is inadequate to meet
the growth trends in Southeast Alaska; and

e The No-Action Alternative is necessary to preserve bear habitat, and because the number
of guided hunts in the project area will not increase, any further increase in service days
will only increase non-hunting uses, which will have an adverse effect on bear and bear
habitat.

Objector: Glacier Guides

Discussion
The regulations implementing NEPA at 40 C.F.R. 1505.2(b) state that a ROD shall:

(a) State what the decision was. (b) Identify all alternatives considered by the agency in
reaching its decision, specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to
be environmentally preferable. An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives
based on relevant factors including economic and technical considerations and agency
statutory missions. An agency shall identify and discuss all such factors including any
essential considerations of national policy which were balanced by the agency in making
its decision and state how those considerations entered into its decision.

Additional direction for a ROD can be found in FSH 1909.15, Chapter 20, Section 26.21(4),
which states that “[a]ll alternatives considered (including the no-action) should be briefly
discussed with specific references to the EIS.”


Shoreline II Objection Response 4

Based on my review of the comments received on the DEIS and the Forest’s response to those
comments (Appendix E to the FEIS), I recognize that there are other outfitters/guides who may
have supported the idea that all hunts, including previously allocated hunts, would be reallocated
through a prospectus process as early as 2023. Under the current management strategy of the
BBMS and the fact that most of the hunts have been allocated to existing priority use permit
holders, as well as the need to follow applicable permit renewal direction for these priority use
permits at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.14, 53.1m (4 and 5), the ability of new guides to
obtain brown bear hunts in GMU 4 will be limited. However, there are currently unallocated
hunts available in GMU 1 that may be available to other outfitters/guides, and I am instructing
the Responsible Official to consider allocation of those hunts, in a manner consistent with Forest
Service policy and special use direction, as the Shoreline II project is implemented.

Issue 3. Whether corporations should be allowed to hold and/or transfer permits and operate
within “pooled” Guide Use Areas (GUAs). Objectors assert:

e Allowing multiple guides to work under a corporate name with several GUAs to choose
from creates conflict amongst guides in the field, displaces other guides and users, and
leads to favoritism and bias towards guides operating as a corporation rather than
individual permit holders;

e Allowing corporations to hold permits circumvents permit transferability issues (including
inheritance or sale of permit), which means that corporations have a significant advantage
over individual permit holders, and the Forest Service should not allow permits to be
transferred as it negatively affects the resources, leads to questions of fairness and legality,
and does not allow the opportunity for new entrants;

e Allowing corporations to hold permits could provide a benefit to permit holders in some
circumstances (it would allow a business to stay afloat if personal/health issues affected its
ability to operate in a given year), but they should not be allowed for the expansion of a
business or use area; and

e Allowing corporations to hold permits allows too many GUAs to be combined under one
permit, and the Forest Service should adhere to its plan of three GUAs per permit.

Objectors: Parker Guide Service Coastal Alaska Adventures
Southeast Alaska Guiding

Discussion

The ability of a corporation to hold and transfer permits was another topic discussed at the
objection resolution meeting, with some objectors expressing concerns (both at the meeting and
in their objections) that individual permit holders were at a disadvantage compared to
corporations, which had more flexibility in operating the permit and could hunt in a broader
range of GUAs. While I understand these objectors’ concerns, FSH 2709.11 (Special Uses
Handbook), Chapter 10, Section 11.14 clearly states:

Unless specifically excepted, individuals, business entities, corporations, partnerships,
associations, municipalities, or agencies of Federal, State, or local governments may hold
a special use authorization.


Shoreline II Objection Response 47

Objector asserts that this pending legislation would transfer significant portions of NFS land on

northeast Baranof and southeast Chichagof Islands to the State of Alaska for timber sales, which
could have significant effects on the recreational use of the Shoreline II project area. As a result,
Objector asserts that the FEIS must identify, consider, and disclose the effects of this legislation.

This legislation was introduced on January 3, 2017, as Objector notes, but did not identify any
specific parcels that would become part of the State forest. As of February 10, 2017, the
legislation had been referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
(https://www.congress. gov/bill/1 15th-congress/house-bill/232/text). It has not had any
committee hearings or been voted on by either the House or Senate. Exhibit 12 to the objection
is a map apparently based on work of the Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force in 2012 to indicate
lands that could be included in the legislation, although it is unclear whether this map was
provided to Representative Young or otherwise included with the drafted legislation.

For a project or activity to be considered reasonably foreseeable, an agency must have enough
information to be able to meaningfully evaluate the effects. In this case, no maps or land
descriptions are part of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, legislation that has not made its
way out of committee is considered a long way from being signed into law. At this point, this
legislation is not considered reasonably foreseeable and any attempt by the Forest Service to
assess the effects of it would be speculative.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the FEIS and project record sufficiently support the Responsible Official’s
proposed decision with regard to all of the issues raised in the objections. By copy of this
response, I am directing the Responsible Official to complete the following before signing the
Final ROD for the Shoreline I 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.


Shoreline II Objection Response 45

Discussion

FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53.1f (Needs Assessment, Resource Capacity Analysis, and
Allocation of Use) provides limited direction for preparing an analysis to determine capacity. It
states, “[w]hen monitoring demonstrates that impacts associated with use may exceed desired
conditions, conduct a resource capacity analysis to assess the amount of use and types of
activities that may be conducted without detrimental environmental and associated impacts.”

The information to prepare the Visitor Capacity Analysis for the Shoreline IT project was
gathered during public scoping, but the analysis itself is not a NEPA analysis or decision
document. Rather, it is used to inform and support the NEPA analysis, which required public
involvement and an opportunity for objection.

As explained in Appendix E of the FEIS (Response to Comments, p. E-26), when preparing the
Shoreline II project Visitor Capacity Analysis, the Forest acknowledged that its development
involved some uncertainty. The information was generated by a number of sources, including
outfitter/guide annual meetings, worksheet mailings, public meetings, and in-person contacts.
This site-specific information was directly fed into the identification of capacity locations and
the formula deriving overall visitor capacity for each use area.

The Visitor Capacity Analysis explains the reasoning for balance in using both liberal and
conservative assumptions in the analysis:

The visitor capacity calculation is based on the conservative assumption that only
one group can be accommodated at each Capacity Location each day during the
season. In reality, a location may be able to accommodate several groups in one day
without negative impacts to visitor experience. For example, a group may spend two
hours hiking a trail in the morning and then depart, and other groups may arrive to
hike the trail throughout the remainder of the same day. Conversely, the visitor
capacity calculation is also based on the assumption that each location can be used
each day of the spring, summer, fall, and winter seasons. In reality, many locations
are not used regularly; factors such as weather, snow cover, and availability of
desired recreation opportunities (e.g., fish runs) influence the amount of use that
occurs, or does not occur, in a particular location each day. As a result, a balance is
created by including both liberal and conservative assumptions in the visitor capacity
calculations. The formula described results in a reasonable number of people that
can be accommodated in a given Use Area and season, without detriment to the
resource or visitor experience.

Forest Service handbook direction for preparing resource capacity analyses is
limited. These analyses are used to assess the amount and types of activities that
may be conducted without detrimental environmental and associated impacts. They
are not decision documents but rather are used to support the analysis and decisions
in NEPA documents, such as the Shoreline II analysis. In the analysis, a formula
was used that to describe results in a reasonable number of people that can be
accommodated in a given Use Area and season, without detriment to the resource or
visitor experience.


Shoreline II Objection Response 15

The purpose of this action is to manage outfitter/guide use on the Tongass National
Forest Shoreline II project area consistent with the Forest Plan. A decision is needed to
determine outfitter/guide use allocations for the project area. This is necessary to balance
commercial and non-commercial recreational opportunities and to provide and maintain
high-quality recreation experiences without degrading forest resources.

In the Draft ROD for the Shoreline II project, the Responsible Official described the factors he
considered in selecting an alternative that he believed met this purpose and need, including the
“trade-offs between resource protection, the preservation of wilderness characteristics, economic
growth and stability, as well as social values” (Draft ROD, p. R-7). The Draft ROD indicated his
belief that “[t]he selected alternative addresses the significant issues of economic opportunity for
existing and new outfitter/guide operations by offering an overall 69 percent increase over the
existing condition...” (Id.), and that “this allows a reasonable balance of economic opportunity,
and growth to new and existing outfitter and guide operations,” as well as a “balance between
use by commercial services and avoiding the degradation of wilderness character” (Id., p. R-12).

Objector asserts the economic analysis in the FEIS failed to comprehensively study the Southeast
Alaska visitor industry, with particular focus on very small capacity SCVs, carrying less than 50
passengers, providing remote setting nature tours in Wilderness Use Areas. They further assert
that the analysis failed to consider consumer preferences and overall market demand for remote
setting nature tours, SCV visitor trends, and the economic effects of the Selected Alternative on
small capacity SCV operators. These issues are addressed in the discussion below.

Chapter 3 of the Shoreline II FEIS contains significant analysis and discussion related to
socioeconomics (pp. 3-5 to 3-16) and Wilderness (pp. 3-17 to 3-48). The Socioeconomic
Section of the FEIS includes discussion related to the analysis area (pp. 3-5 to 3-9), a regional
overview (pp. 3-9 to 3-10), the Southeast Alaska visitor industry (pp. 3-10 to 3-13), Tongass
National Forest guided clients (p. 3-12), and input collected via a commercial recreation
providers survey conducted by the State of Alaska (2000), which remains the most current data
regarding the perceptions of commercial providers in terms of visitation, industry conditions, and
activities across the Tongass National Forest. Of noteworthy importance, the Southeast Alaska
visitor industry analysis explored large cruise passenger volume (p. 3-10), small cruise visitor
volume (p. 3-11), community-level cruise visitation (p. 3-11), and Tongass National Forest
guided clients (p. 3-12). In addition to the broad overview of Southeast Alaska visitor industry
trends and current conditions in the FEIS, the record contains additional detailed information
regarding region-wide social and economic trends, tourism impacts on Southeast Alaska
communities, and state government cruise ship taxation and permitting data.

The Wilderness Section of the FEIS provides significant discussion related to Wilderness
character monitoring, Wilderness commercial needs, and determining the “extent necessary” per
the Wilderness Act (1964) (pp. 3-19 to 2-26). The Wilderness Section also provides discussion
of the affected environment by Use Area (pp. 3-26 to 3-27). Of particular relevance, the FEIS
summarizes the current condition of Wilderness characteristics for the Wilderness Areas within
the Shoreline II project area (pp. 3-29 to 3-36). In addition to the broad overview of Wilderness
character monitoring and the “extent necessary” determination in the FEIS, the project record
contains more information regarding Use Areas, past allocations, and proposed growth in
commercial use across all four alternatives.


Shoreline II Objection Response 17

While Objector may perceive Alternative 2 as a loss of economic opportunity when compared to
Alternative 1, it is not lost economic opportunity when compared to actual commercial use
patterns over a five-year historical period. The Responsible Official employed a reasonable
approach to assessing SCV economic opportunity by comparing Alternative 2 to actual use
patterns. The Responsible Official was also reasonable in selecting Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives for recreation and tourism and to support
local and regional economies because it considered tradeoffs and balanced economic opportunity
with preserving Wilderness characteristics (FEIS, p. 1-6). See my response to Issue 11, below,
for further discussion regarding the adequacy of the range of alternatives, including a focused
comparison between alternatives.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 strives to secure for the American people an enduring resource of
Wilderness (Wilderness Act, Section 2(a)). The fundamental mandate of the law is to preserve
the Wilderness character of congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas (Wilderness Act,
Section 4(b)). The Act affirms Wilderness qualities and checks degrading agents (Sections 2(c)
and 4(c)). Commercial enterprise and permanent roads are prohibited as degrading agents, except
as caveated in the law (Section 4(c)). The caveat for commercial enterprise is the constrained
allowance that commercial services may be allowed to the extent necessary for proper activities
that realize the purposes of the Act. Section 4(d)(6) of the Act requires administering agencies to
authorize commercial services only to the extent necessary; in other words, no additional
commercial services may be authorized than are necessary to meet Wilderness Act goals. This
constraint is unique to designated Wilderness, and intentionally limits agency discretion for
authorizing commercial services in order to fulfill the obligation to preserve Wilderness
character.

In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that this caveated provision
provides for the minimum number of permits necessary to realize Wilderness Act goals (High
Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, (9" Circ. 2004)). The Shoreline I
Wilderness Resource Report notes “the extent necessary” may vary as long as proper mitigation
measures are in place to ensure the preservation of Wilderness character (PR #793_ 1292, p. 8),
and several alternatives offering a range of commercial use allocations were considered. Of
noteworthy importance, Wilderness Act language requires that the approach to authorizing
commercial services in Wilderness be a constraining rather than maximizing exercise
(Wilderness Act, Section 4(d)(6); see also High Sierra Hikers). Therefore, Objector’s contention
regarding not providing an allocation that meets market demand for remote experiences — or,
accommodating as many commercially-guided visitors as are willing to pay — is not a
determining factor for the allocation of commercial services in Wilderness?.

With regard to the information used in the Shoreline II analysis, FSH 1909.12 provides guidance
related to determining and utilizing the best available scientific information for forest planning
purposes, including provisions regarding accuracy, reliability, and validity. While FSH 1909.12
targets best available scientific information for forest planning purposes, the intent and spirit of

> Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, commenting on the DEIS, made this exact point, and criticized
the Forest Service for purportedly using market demand as a consideration for allocating commercial use in wilderness.


Shoreline I Objection Response 3

Issues 1 and 2. Whether all big game hunts should be allocated through a prospectus process
by the year 2023, and whether that aspect of the decision in the Draft ROD is consistent with
Federal regulations and Forest Service policy.

Objectors: Parker Guide Service Coastal Alaska Adventures
Alaska Coastal Outfitters APHA
Glacier Guides

Discussion

Issues 1 and 2, as described in Attachment 1 to the Shoreline II objection resolution meeting
agenda, included several different points raised by five of the objectors, all relating to the
proposed management of big game hunts in the Shoreline II project area. As discussed at the
objection resolution meeting on June 21, 2017, the Responsible Official held several informal
discussions with the eligible objectors on this point. Based on those discussions, the Responsible
Official proposed replacing the language in the two paragraphs under the bulleted point
“Competitive Interest and Prospectus,” on page R-6 of the Draft ROD, with the following
language:

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,
53.1h(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, 53.1m(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 Responsible Official also recognized the need to work with the outfitter/guide operators
collaboratively during implementation of the Shoreline II project, and has agreed to add the
following language to the Final ROD to document that recognition:

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 would be to provide consistency across Districts, and provide the industry a voice
in determining how these actions would occur in the future.

Based on what I heard at the objection resolution meeting, I believe the changes that will be
reflected in the Final ROD, as described above, resolve objectors’ concerns on Issues | and 2,
and will make the final decision more consistent with Federal regulations and Forest Service
policy with regard to priority outfitter/guide permits and the management of big game hunts or
service days on the Tongass National Forest.


Shoreline II Objection Response 38

The incorporation of adaptive management into the Shoreline II FEIS was the subject of much
deliberation among team members. The discussion included how much to increase use, the
timeframe for implementation, monitoring considerations, flexibility for the outfitter/guides, etc.
(PR #793_0036, #793_0258, #793_290, and #793_0291). However, the use of adaptive
management does not come with requirements that growth occur at a prescribed rate. I believe
the information in the FEIS and project record demonstrates that the proposed use of adaptive
management was sufficiently evaluated, that the IDT and Responsible Official considered a host
of factors, and that it provides for meaningful increases for outfitter/guides in the majority of the
Use Areas.

Because of the vagueness of the term “conflict,” I am directing the Responsible Official to better
define what constitutes a conflict, and to better describe how conflict reporting will be more
uniformly applied across the four Ranger Districts. This information should be included in the
adaptive management implementation plan.

Issue 15. Whether the analysis of Wilderness effects in the FEIS relied on appropriate encounter
indicators. Objectors assert:

e The FEIS’s saltwater encounter standard generates significantly different results from
those collected by other Tongass Wilderness managers, and overestimates the number of
encounters that are actually relevant to Wilderness solitude experiences;

e The FEIS and Draft ROD arbitrarily reverse agency policy and practices for measuring
encounters (as set forth in the Tongass Forest Plan), without adequately explaining the
basis for change, and violate NEPA and NFMA by establishing a new standard without
adequate analysis, justification, and public participation;

e The FEIS failed to consider relevant factors, such as historic marine traffic by cruise
ships, fishing vessels, private yachts, and tugs and barges associated with the timber
industry in marine travel routes adjacent to Wilderness, or make a rational connection
between off-Wilderness social encounters and in- Wilderness guided public use;

e The Forest Service lacks statistically reliable data about actual Wilderness use, and
fails to demonstrate any link between guided visitor use and perceived risks to solitude
opportunities;

e The FEIS used an arbitrary choice of scale to measure solitude opportunities, and this
scale excluded hundreds of thousands of acres of upland Wilderness acres at the same
time it arbitrarily extended the Wilderness “buffer” three miles offshore;

e The Forest Service’s own data and conclusions demonstrate a need to update the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) descriptions based on the amount of marine
travel adjacent to Wilderness areas, yet the FEIS failed to consider and evaluate whether
such changes are necessary, in violation of the APA;

e The FEIS erred in assuming that managing for solitude would preserve other Wilderness
values, failed to recognize the distinction between opportunities for solitude and
opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, and failed to consider and disclose
professional interpretations of and relevant literature about the “outstanding opportunities”
clause of the Wilderness Act; and


Shoreline IT Objection Response 26

as well as the highest actual use level during that period. Alternative 3’s service day allocations
exceed the historic high use in five of the nine Use Areas, and exceed the average use in seven of
nine Use Areas. All nine of the Use Areas in Alternative 4 have service day allocations that far
exceed the highest actual and average actual use totals.

While Alternative 2 may appear to be similar to the No-Action Alternative in terms of total
commercial service days allocated in these nine Use Areas in the summer season, the overall
range in the service days allocated to commercial use in all of the alternatives indicates that a
reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the FEIS. Looking beyond Objector’s specific
assertions about these nine Use Areas, the FEIS allows for an increase in use during the summer
season of 48 to 155 percent (using average actual use) for the three main Wilderness Areas used
by Objector. For the six Wilderness Areas in the project area, the summer season commercial
service day increases range from 167 to 334 percent (FEIS, Appendix E, p. 12).

The Response to Comments (FEIS, Appendix E, pp. E-12 and E-49 to E-50) provides an
explanation of the commercial service day allocations by alternative for several of Objector’s
Use Areas. For example, these responses indicate that factors such as the number of public use
cabins, private lodges, and inholdings contributed to the Pybus Bay (04-06A) allocation.

Objector’s assertion that the range of alternatives is not reasonable is based primarily on its
belief that there is not enough room for growth along its Wilderness travel routes. As the
information above indicates, the FEIS considered commercial service day allocations that would
provide room for business to expand, depending on the alternative and the Use Area. The fact
that the Selected Alternative does not provide all the opportunities/service days Objector seeks
does not make the range of alternatives unreasonable.

Objector asserts that the Shoreline II FEIS should have included alternatives with outfitter/guide
allocations similar to those used for allocating outfitter/guide use on the Ketchikan — Misty
Fiords Ranger District (KMRD). The outfitter/guide allocations in the KMRD FEIS ranged from
23 to 50 percent of capacity.

The FEIS explained why a KMRD-type of analysis was not used for the Shoreline II project in
the Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study discussion (pp. 2-3 and 2-4).
That section of the FEIS specifically addressed why a 50 percent outfitter/guide allocation was
not brought forth for detailed consideration, and provided rationale for why the Shoreline I FEIS
used a different planning framework instead. Direct comparisons of outfitter/guide allocations
between the KMRD FEIS and Shoreline II FEIS are difficult because there are different
acreages, miles of shoreline, use patterns, types of use, seasons, etc. The KMRD analysis
included interior portions (more than one-half mile inland) of the land base, while Shoreline II
largely did not (one of the primary exceptions being on Baranof Island for hunting). For
example, the KMRD project included float plane landings on lakes more than one-half mile
inland, which accounted for one-third of the District’s total guided use KMRD FEIS, p. 1-70).
This type of use is very different than what occurs in the Shoreline II analysis area. In addition,
the Shoreline II FEIS excluded popular areas in the Pack Creek Zoological Area and Kruzof


Shoreline II Objection Response 2

The Responsible Official indicated that he intends to select Alternative 2 from the Shoreline II
FEIS [Draft ROD, p. R-1]. Specifically, the proposed decision would allocate up to 80,305
service days to outfitter/guide use (by Use Area and season, as displayed in Table R-2 of the
Draft ROD, pp. R-4 to R-5). The Selected Alternative also adopts actions that were common to
all action alternatives to ensure that big game outfitter/guide permits follow the guidelines set
forth in the Game Management Unit (GMU) 4 Brown Bear Management Strategy (BBMS,
2000), and to better align big game outfitter/guide permits on the Tongass National Forest with
updated national Forest Service policies related to recreation special uses management (Id.,
pp. R-5 to R-7).

The Tongass National Forest considered three additional alternatives in the FEIS for the
Shoreline II project, including the No-Action Alternative (allocated outfitter/guide use would

remain at the levels authorized in 2004) and two other action alternatives (see, for example,
FEIS, pp. 2-5 to 2-13).

The Shoreline II project has been on the Tongass Schedule of Proposed Actions since

April 2012, and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register
on June 16, 2014. An updated NOI was published on June 25, 2015 to reflect a new
interdisciplinary team (IDT) leader, identify a new Responsible Official, include an adaptive
management proposal, and increase the proposed allocated service days.

The Draft EIS (DEIS) for the Shoreline II project was released to the public in January 2016, and
the Forest Supervisor released the Draft ROD for the project to the public for a 45-day objection
period pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 218.7 in March 2017. As discussed above, eight objections were
received.

On June 21, 2017, the Responsible Official and I met with objectors to discuss and clarify issues,
agree on facts, and explore opportunities for resolution, All objectors were given an opportunity
to speak on the issues they raised in their objections, which were grouped by topic areas on the
agenda for the meeting. These discussions helped to clarify my understanding of the issues and
any remedies suggested by the objectors, some of which will be discussed in my specific
responses to the issues below. I appreciate the time offered by the objectors and the open, candid
discussions, and encourage the objectors and the Responsible Official to continue to engage with
each other as the Shoreline II project is implemented.

Response

The pre-decisional, administrative review regulations state that | must provide a written response
to objections that sets forth the reasons for my response; however, this response need not be a
point by point response (36 C.F.R. 218.11(b)). The Responsible Official and I have thoroughly
reviewed the Shoreline II project in light of the issues raised in the objections. While my
response may not cover all of the specific points raised by the objectors, I have considered and
reviewed all of the issues and suggested remedies in the objections received on the project.
Summary statements of the issues (17 different issue statements) were provided to all of the
objectors as an attachment to the agenda for the objection resolution meeting. The discussions
below are in response to those issues, although some of them have been further consolidated in
this response.


Shoreline II Objection Response 34

A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and
monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if not,
to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or re-
evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about
natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain.”

In addition, 36 C.F.R. 220.5(e)(2) states:

An adaptive management proposal or alternative must clearly identify the adjustment(s)
that may be made when monitoring during project implementation indicates that the
action is not having its intended effect, or is causing unintended consequences and
undesirable effects. The EIS must disclose not only the effect of the proposed action or
alternative but also the effect of the adjustment.

Additional adaptive management guidance is in FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 14.1.

The Selected Alternative in the Draft ROD implements the adaptive management strategy
(Appendix 4 to the ROD), which would be applied when the actual use in any Use Area fell
within the range of 80 to 110 percent of the allocation for any use season and there is a request
for additional use from an outfitter/guide (Draft ROD, p. R-7). In choosing to implement the
adaptive management strategy, the Responsible Official acknowledged that “the use of adaptive
management in managing outfitter/guide use is a relatively new and evolving tool,” but stated
that it “allows the Forest Service to be flexible and able to seek a balance during a time of
changing tourism market demands and the potential impacts to resources” (Draft ROD, p. R-10).

Objector asserts that the potential adaptive management service day increases are “too small to
meaningfully provide economic opportunities and stability for outfitter guides” and, as a result,
do not meet the purpose and need. As displayed in the table below (and also discussed above in
response to Issue 11), the amount of growth potential between the No-Action Alternative and the
Selected Alternative (with adaptive management) in some Wilderness Use Areas is limited. In
fact, the number of allocated service days actually decrease in three of the nine Use Areas used
by Objector, when compared to the No- Action Alternative. However, the Responsible Official
also had to consider actual use when determining whether there were growth opportunities, so a
comparison of the Selected Alternative with the average actual use and historical high level of
use is appropriate.

A review of average actual use numbers indicates that the Selected Alternative’s allocated
service days, with adaptive management, allow for increased use in eight of the nine Use Areas,
with substantial increases in some cases. Ford’s Terror is the only Use Area where an increase
does not occur.> Using the highest actual use for comparison, the same eight Use Areas allow
growth. Although the level of growth is much less in some areas (such as Endicott Arm and
Pybus Bay), other areas still show opportunities for good growth (such as Gambier Bay and
Tracy Arm).

° As stated in Appendix | to the Draft ROD, outfitter/guide use is limited in this area “to prevent additional site
hardening and to preserve remoteness from human activity for unguided use” (Draft ROD, Appendix 1, p. 1-37).


Shoreline I Objection Response 43

Objector also asserts that the Forest erred in assuming that managing for solitude would preserve
other Wilderness recreation values. The FEIS does not assume that managing for solitude is the
same as Wilderness recreation values, rather that solitude is a component of such values. The
project itself is intended to manage outfitter and guide use on a portion of the Tongass National
Forest, including in Wilderness areas, “to balance commercial and non-commercial recreational
opportunities and to provide and maintain high-quality recreation experiences without degrading
forest resources” (FEIS, p. 1-6). The FEIS cites the sections of the Wilderness Act that
acknowledge Wilderness has recreational and other public purposes, and that commercial
services can be provided to the extent necessary for realizing these purposes (Id., pp. 3-17 to
3-19). Further, each of the WCNAs included in Appendix F of the FEIS found a need for
outfitter/guide services such as remote setting nature tours, camping, and freshwater fishing and
hunting, in each of the Wilderness area within the project area (FEIS, p. 3-29).

With regard to the assertion that the FEIS failed to distinguish between opportunities for solitude
and opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, primitive and unconfined recreation
was considered in the existing condition and effects analysis using two indicators: “facilities that
decrease self-reliance” and “management restrictions on visitor behavior” (FEIS, pp. 3-23, 3-34
to 3-36). The analysis concluded that these two indicators would not be affected by any of the
alternatives considered in the FEIS, and therefore the analysis would instead focus on the two
solitude indicators (Id., p. 3-38; Wilderness Resource Report, p. 47, PR #793_1292). This was
not done to ignore the qualities of primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities, but because
the analysis demonstrated there would be no effect to these qualities, Also, the currently high
quality of primitive and unconfined opportunities offsets more degraded solitude opportunities to
result in a moderate (2 areas) to good (4 areas) current condition, and that these measures
combine to comprise the overall Outstanding Opportunities Quality of Wilderness character
(FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-30).

With regard to whether the FEIS considered and disclosed professional interpretations and
relevant literature about the outstanding opportunities clause, the FEIS relied on the Wilderness
Act of 1964 and the work of Landres, et al. 2015 (Keeping it Wild 2) to define and interpret what
is meant by outstanding opportunities (Wilderness Resource Report, pp. 12-14, PR #793_ 1292;
see also PR #793_0878). This approach was disclosed in the FEIS (FEIS, pp. 3-21 to 3-23, and
3-27 to 3-28, and Appendix E, p. E-31).

Finally, Objector asserts that the FEIS failed to consider the effects on other legitimate users of
Wilderness who may not require solitude on every acre at all times, and never considered visitor
perspectives that might demonstrate a more diverse view. The Tongass Forest Plan identifies the
number of encounters and allowable group sizes for three Wilderness ROS classifications (Forest
Plan, p. 3-16 and Appendix I, pp. I-1 to I-3). The FEIS strives to meet Forest Plan ROS direction,
and determined that it can do so while also allowing for an increase in outfitter/guide allocations
in all six Wilderness areas in the project area (FEIS Appendix E, p. E-31). After considering
visitor capacity, resource conditions, mitigation measures, and adaptive management, the
Shoreline II FEIS included and analyzed four alternatives that afford increases in Wilderness
outfitter/guide use over average actual use.


Shoreline II Objection Response 29

In discussing the purpose and need for action, the Shoreline II FEIS (p. 1-6) provided
information about why the No-Action Alternative was not considered adequate:

The need for outfitter/guide services has expanded both in terms of numbers of visitors
and types of services being offered, and there is also continued demand for institutional
outfitter/guide services (e.g. schools and therapy groups). There has also been an increase
in 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. Also,
the 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).
Seven use areas are at 80 percent or more of their allocation during one or more seasons,
and outfitter/guides are dispersing to areas traditionally less used.

In addition, the FEIS noted:

¢ [While the total capacity exceeds total demand, outfitter/guide recreation use may be near
or at capacity in some specific use areas. Allocations may be limited in some alternatives
and seasons, causing some outfitter/guides to move to other locations if they desire to
maintain or increase their operations (FEIS, pp. 3-14 to 3-15).

¢ [The No-Action] does not allow room to grow the outfitter/guide sector (Id., p. 3-16).

¢ All action alternatives allow for stability in outfitter/guide use across the analysis area as a
whole (Id., p. 3-16).

As discussed in the FEIS, the No-Action Alternative represents the current allocation of
outfitter/guide service days and provides a meaningful comparison of the action alternatives
(FEIS, p. 2-4). In other words, it is a baseline and represents the current conditions. The
purpose and need for the project considers those conditions and identifies the need for
change, and the proposed action and the other alternatives considered represent different
ways of responding to that need and the significant issues identified for the project.
Although a ROD commonly provides information about why other alternatives were not
selected, there is no requirement for it to discuss alternatives other than the Selected
Alternative. In my opinion, the discussion in the FEIS about the purpose and need for the
project (ie., why the existing condition (No Action) is not adequate) and additional
discussion in the environmental effects section about the effects of the No-Action Alternative
demonstrate an adequate consideration of that alternative.

With regard to Objector’s concerns about the effects on bears and bear habitat, the Shoreline II
FEIS considered the effects of increased outfitter/guide access on bears. As stated in the FEIS,
the two main effects of outfitter/guide activities on bears are mortality associated with guided
hunts, and disturbance at key foraging areas such as grass flats in the spring and salmon streams
in the fall (FEIS, p. 3-137). Mortality due to guided harvest is assumed the same across all
alternatives, and the FEIS discusses these effects (Id., p. 3-138). As noted in the FEIS (ld.), aside
from mortality due to harvest, the primary direct and indirect effects on bears are related to
disturbance to bears by the presence of people in their habitats. Outfitter/guide use under all
alternatives has the potential to disturb or displace bears, which can alter social patterns and
affect energy balance and overall bear fitness or survival (Id.). The FEIS provides more specific


Shoreline II Objection Response 13

Issue 7. Whether guides should be allowed the flexibility to use their hunts in any of their
permitted GUAs. Objector asserts:

e Limited flexibility (at District Ranger discretion) might be okay, but guides should not be
allowed to choose what GUAs to operate in as it is not good for the resource and can
disrupt other users; and

¢ The Forest service should cap use by GUA to properly manage the resource and avoid
conflicts in the field.

Objector: Coastal Alaska Adventures

Discussion

As discussed above in response to Issue 3, the Forest Service has, in the past, issued big game
guide permits that have a pool of GUAs from which the permit holder may select annually for
operating plan approval (Draft ROD, p. R-6). This process resulted in a greater number of user
conflicts and does not align well with State of Alaska regulations. In an attempt to reduce
conflict and better align Forest Service permits with State regulations, future permits will specify
the maximum number of GUAs per permit. This number will be determined by the number of
registered guides authorized on the permit, and the GUAs within which each registered guide is
licensed to operate by the State. BBMS recommendations and continued coordination with
ADF&G and the Big Game Commercial Services Board will also factor into identifying the
GUAs authorized on permits (Id., p. R-9). This process will better align with State regulations
and should help reduce conflicts in the field.

With regard to capping use by GUA, the Draft EIS for the Shoreline II project included a
provision to allocate hunts by GUA. Several commenters opposed this provision, with
comments including (but not limited to):

¢ “[T]his would diminish the experience they would be able to offer their clients, cause
conflict between guides, and is not beneficial to the resource as a higher harvest of small
and/or female bears would be the result.”

¢ This “goes against Board of Game findings that are incorporated into the [BBMS], and
that brown bears be ‘managed by major island grouping, and not by GUA.””

© “Access to multiple GUAs during a hunt also allows guides to avoid conflict by
dispersing over larger areas. It also provides flexibility when guides encounter bad
weather, residents, or tourists. Forcing a guide to stay within a single GUA for an entire
‘hunt’ needlessly reduces the likelihood of a successful hunt and is a recipe for conflict
while removing the current means of avoiding it.”

e “There is no evidence that management by GUA will enhance the bear population or the
wilderness experience of our clients.”

e “Further, this artificial allocation of hunts could push hunters close to the sow harvest
maximums, which is the opposite of the intention of the BBMS.”


Shoreline II Objection Response 16

Objector’s assertion that the Forest Service only offered opportunities for Wilderness-focused
SCVs “on the rough outer coast, in winter, or in Large Group Areas” (Objection, p. 15) is a
mischaracterization. During the high-use summer season and across all six project Wilderness
Areas, the proposed commercial allocation increases offer increased economic opportunity
compared to the 2011-2015 annual average of actual commercial use (see the table below).
All four Shoreline II alternatives proposed increased Wilderness recreation commercial use
opportunities compared to the 2011-2015 annual average of actual use during the high-use
summer season (PR #793_ 1357).

More specifically, the Shoreline II FEIS considered commercial use allocations for 19 Use
Areas within congressionally-designated Wilderness across four alternatives, which equates to
76 possible Use Area allocations for Wilderness recreation commercial use.’ When looking at
the high-use summer season for those 76 possible allocations, 70 (92 percent) included increased
commercial use compared to the 2011-2015 annual average of actual commercial use, with 58
(76 percent) more than doubling the total commercial allocation.” In short, 92 percent of all

Use Areas include commercial use allocation increases, with three-quarters more than doubling
the total allocation. This represents a substantial increase in commercial use compared to the
2011-2015 annual average of actual commercial use.

Wilderness Areas - Actual Outfitter/Guide Use versus Proposed Commercial Allocation Increase

Wilderness Area Surrent alternative _Alternative2__Alternative3__ Alternative 4
Actual Use
pori-z015 MNerease Over Increase Over Increase Over Increase Over
War 2011-2015 2011-2015 2011-2015 2011-2015
pene, Average Average ‘Average Average
Actual Use Summer Summer Summer Summer
Actual Use Actual Use Actual Use Actual Use
Tracy Arm — Ford’s Terror/Chuck River 535 43% 48% 12% 140%
South Baranof 394 125% 140% 80% 290%
Kootznoowoo 1355 312% 155% 92% 314%
West Chichagof-Yakobi 57 1612% 1567% 1163% 2628%
Pleasant, Lemesurier, Inian 60 478% 342% 233% 625%
Total 2401 257% 167% 180% 334%

In sum, Objector’s assertion that the Shoreline II commercial use allocations in Wilderness Use
Areas reduce opportunities for SCVs is contradicted by the project record, actual use data, and
other analysis in the project record. Compared to recent history of outfitter/guide actual use, all
alternatives provide an overall increase in commercial use in Wilderness across nearly all Use
Areas. When compared to the five-year annual average of actual commercial use in Wilderness,
all four alternatives increase commercial access during the high-use summer season and in nearly
all Use Areas (PR #793_1357).

"A 20" use area, the 04-09B Pack Creek Zoological Area, has a separate review and commercial
allocation process.

? Project record includes summary tables summarizing allocation increases across all 76 Wilderness
Use Areas for all four alternatives.