Appendix 4

Adaptive Management



Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision Appendix 4 - 1

Appendix 4. Adaptive Management

What is Adaptive Management?

Adaptive management is asystem 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 (FSM 1900, Chapter 1940.5). 

How Does Adaptive Management Work?

Adaptive management seeks to provide a structure to evaluate how to best meet projects short-term and 

long-term goals, and helps answer the basic question: Are our management actions having the predicted 

or desired effects?

Adaptive management is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but one that emphasizes learning while doing. 

Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but a means to more effective decisions. 

Adaptive management requires a measureable objective, monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the 

management practices used in achieving the objective, evaluation to determine if the objective is being

reached, and adaptation based on the results.

Adaptive management requires managers to predict, mitigate, implement, monitor, and adapt (Figure A4-

1). Managers repeat these steps over time to improve their understanding of a system and incorporate 

learning into resource management and protection.

Figure A4-1. Adaptive Management process

Adaptive management seeks to:

1. Allow for adaptation to meet a project’s environmental, social, and economic goals;

2. Involve stakeholders; and

3. Incorporate new knowledge into a transparent and agreed to framework to adjust decision-making as 

conditions change.
Appendix 4—Adaptive Management 

Appendix 4 - 2 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision

Why Apply Adaptive Management to the 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Project?

During the scoping period for the Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide EIS, public comments requested higher 

allocations of service days within the project area (see the FEIS Chapter 1, Significant Issues, Issues 1 

and 2). The Forest Service addressed this issue through the creation of a range of action alternatives, all 

of which would allow for an overall increase in outfitter/guide use from the existing condition (FEIS 

Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail).

The issue of use levels, combined with the Forest’s past experience managing outfitter/guides and 

knowledge of the inevitable changes that occur during implementation based on economic trends, 

peoples’ preferences of recreation activities, and natural changes in ecological systems highlighted the 

need for the development of an adaptive management strategy. 

The adaptive management strategy would allow the Forest to utilize past management experience in the 

project area, while allowing the flexibility to provide additional economic opportunities (increase use), 

while acknowledging that there are still uncertainties surrounding how resources will respond to use 

levels and how that effects visitor experience. Adaptive management would also allow the Forest to 

adjust outfitter/guide allocations (decrease use) in order to better protect resources and to improve visitor 

experience. 

When developing a framework for authorizing outfitter/guide use on the National Forest, a discussion 

between the terms “allocated use” and “actual use” is necessary to understand the impacts and 

impreciseness of the permitting framework. The unit of measurement for allocated and actual use is 

service days. A service day is defined as an allocation of use constituting a day or any part of a day on 

National Forest System lands for which an outfitter or guide provides services to a client. The total 

number of service days is calculated by multiplying each day, or partial day, a client is on NFS lands by 

the number of clients on the trip.

The Shoreline II FEIS presented the analysis of four alternatives on how to allocate a proportion of total 

(outfitter/guide and non-outfitter/guide) visitor capacity to outfitter/guide uses. The remainder of the total 

visitor capacity would be reserved to represent the non-outfitter/guide recreation use that happens on the 

landscape. A business which obtains an outfitter/guide permit is authorized a portion of the total 

outfitter/guide allocation. In a typical use area, there are multiple businesses operating at the same time 

and collectively they utilize the allocation of outfitter/guide use service days. This is referred to as the 

allocated use, or what businesses are authorized to use in a single year.

Actual use is the amount of an individual outfitter/guide’s allocated use that gets utilized by paying clients 

in a single year. Every year, outfitter/guide companies have some degree of uncertainty on how many 

clients they will be able to attract to utilize all their allocated use. These uncertainties typically result 

from global, national and regional economic conditions, weather, and transportation logistics (i.e., the 

number of available seats to transport clients equals the number of service days authorized). Most 

outfitter/guide companies desire an authorization of use at a level greater than their actual use. This offers 

opportunity for business growth if favorable conditions exist, rather than turn clients away or ask the 

agency for more allocated use mid-season. This generally results in a gap where actual use is less than 

the allocated, or authorized, use.

The Forest Service Manual establishes a policy to keep allocated (authorized) use in check with actual 

use. Every 5 years each special use authorization undergoes a review to rebalance allocated and actual 

use. Ideally these numbers would be in equilibrium, but the desire for flexibility and growth by the 

industry and maximizing public recreation experiences by the agency make it unlikely. This results in an 

imprecise allocated use-actual use permitting framework.
Adaptive Management—Appendix 4 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision Appendix 4 - 3

This element of uncertainty lends itself to an adaptive approach, which allows for a better assessment of 

use allocations and whether those allocations are meeting the project’s purpose and need. The adaptive 

management strategy would give the Forest a tool to adjust decisions regarding the amount and locations 

of guided use for practical reasons.

In order to monitor conditions in the project area, and provide a base for adaptive management decisions, 

key resource indicators for the project area (crowding, and conflict between user groups) were developed.

Goals and Desired Outcome for the Shoreline II

Adaptive Management Strategy

The Shoreline II FEIS provided the foundation for a collaborative adaptive management strategy to 

inform and improve outfitter/guide use management. The purpose of this plan is to meet the following 

three goals:

1. To provide a structured method to monitor and evaluate the impacts of outfitter/guide use within use 

areas (UAs), in order to help mangers implement actions that keep resource impacts within the range 

analyzed in the EIS.

2. To provide data illustrating existing conditions of key resource indicators (Table A4-2) that describe 

the relationship between outfitter/guide use and their impacts, which will inform adaptive 

management actions.

3. Target limited agency capacity (i.e. financial, staff, etc.) to monitor only specific UAs that fall within 

the adaptive management strategy in order to offer quality recreation experiences and sustain 

economic opportunities.

What is Adaptive Management?

Adaptive management emphasizes joint learning and active partnership between managers, outfitter/guide 

companies, and the public. The goal is to reframe a traditional public-private regulatory relationship into 

a public-private partnership realizing common interests in providing the highest quality national forest 

experiences and supporting local economies. Under the adaptive management strategy for the Shoreline 

II FEIS, holders of outfitter/guide special use permits are required to participate through terms of their 

permits such as reporting actual use data (e.g. numbers of clients, dates, and locations) and voluntarily by 

reporting monitoring data collected in the field as they operate their businesses. Opportunities will also 

be made available for the public to collaborate in data collection to support the adaptive management 

strategy.

The adaptive management strategy is intended to be flexible in that as new information is collected and 

evaluated, the Forest and the public will continually re-examine the goals of the program, monitoring 

strategies, and management actions. The Forest will keep the public engaged on new information and any 

changes to monitoring strategies or use management through the Tongass National Forest website, 

monitoring reports, and public meetings, as needed.
Appendix 4—Adaptive Management 

Appendix 4 - 4 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision

Table A4-1. Phases of Shoreline II Adaptive Management Process

Phase Step or Activity Description

Set-up phase 

of adaptive 

management

Forest Service development of 

adaptive management plan Fall 2015

Stakeholder involvement

Ongoing: The public was introduced to the adaptive 

management plan in winter of 2015/2016 when the DEIS was

published and the comment period initiated. Public meetings 

were held, and written comments accepted during designated 

comment periods.

Monitoring protocols/resource 

indicators

Revised and adjusted based on public input between DEIS

and FEIS.

Iterative phase 

of adaptive 

management

Decision making

Adaptive management may be selected within the Shoreline II 

ROD, with the potential to make future adjustments within 

parameters of the FEIS analysis; metrics were prioritized with 

public input (provided between DEIS and FEIS) and the 

Responsible Official may select final metrics.

Stakeholder involvement

Outfitter/guides, members of the public, and the Forest Service 

collaborate on collecting data to support implementation of 

adaptive management.

Monitoring begins

Once decided to implement adaptive management in a use 

area, a 2-year period of monitoring to gather existing condition 

data is required, before Adaptive Management decisions can 

be instituted. Special use permits will be amended to include 

Adaptive Management requirements for outfitter/guide 

operators in these use areas.

Ongoing monitoring

Monitoring will be conducted as outlined in Table A4-2, and 

reports will be available annually from the Forest Service.

Other reporting outlets may be established through a 

collaborative process with outfitter/guides and public, which 

may include the Forest website or other means.

Assessment, learning and 

feedback

Ongoing, with periodic stakeholder meetings to discuss

monitoring results throughout the life of the project.

How Would Adaptive Management Changes

Occur for this Project?

Adaptive management will be applied to outfitter/guide allocations described for the Selected Alternative 

and designed to meet the Shoreline II project’s purpose and need. More specifically, the adaptive 

management strategy may be implemented when any use area’s actual use data fall within the range of 80

percent to 110 percent of the allocation for any use season (early spring, late spring, summer, fall, winter) 

and there is a request for additional use from an outfitter/guide. Outfitter/guides requesting use that

implements adaptive management may be subject to additional fees under cost recovery regulations.

Actual use data is the information that the outfitter/guides are required to report to the Forest Service at 

the end of every operating season. The actual use data provides specific information about activity 

location, client numbers hosted at each location, and the date the activity occurred. Actual use data is 

entered into an outfitter/guide database managed by the Forest Service. The outfitter/guide database is 

used to track trends of actual use, determine specific locations that receive intensive use, provide 

information that determine whether new applications for authorized use will be approved, and influence 

where monitoring may be necessary. Concerns regarding inaccurate self-reporting of actual use data are 

alleviated by policy that directs the Forest Service to reduce authorized use to what is actually used and to 
Adaptive Management—Appendix 4 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision Appendix 4 - 5

charge a fee for what is authorized in the permit. Under-reporting of actual use results in the reduction of 

an individual guide’s allocation; over-reporting of use requires the guide to pay more for their permit.

The decision space for this adaptive management framework is when any UA for any season has between 

80 percent and 110 percent of its allocation utilized in actual use. To ensure adequate existing condition 

data is collected, decisions based on the adaptive management strategy will not be implemented until at 

least 2 years after the Record of Decision. The priority for collecting existing condition information will 

be in those use areas and use seasons that currently have 75 percent to 80 percent of the allocation utilized 

in actual use and there is a request from an outfitter/guide for additional allocated use.

While the authorized officer may take action in response to monitoring data collected, the Forest Service 

could not, under any scenario, authorize more than 110 percent of the allocated use (the maximum 

number of days in the Selected Alternative) through adaptive management, unless additional National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is completed (see the NEPA Review section).

The following sections describe the components of the adaptive management strategy, and the associated 

monitoring plan that would provide the information used to determine which/or what sort of adaptive 

action(s) could occur.

What is a Monitoring Plan?

A monitoring plan standardizes the process used to determine resource status to identify

appropriate management actions through the use of monitoring data.

A monitoring plan helps structure and guide decision making by linking the definition of project-specific 

resource indicators, monitoring, and triggers/thresholds to assessment results, which in turn determine 

adaptive actions. An effective monitoring plan should be designed to ensure that resource parameters are 

adequately measured, provide a timeframe for actions, and be appropriately focused by outlining relevant 

resource indicators.

What Components Would the Shoreline II

Monitoring Plan Include?

Resource Indicators

In order to evaluate the impacts of this project and to make adjustments to allocated use in a UA and 

season, two resource indicators have been developed. Resource indicators are measurable attributes that 

identify which factors would initially guide data collection and provide a link between the projects overall 

goals and the desired resource outcomes. For this project, the resource indicators are a reflection of the 

public issues that drove the various action alternatives: crowding and user conflict. These resource 

indicators (see Table A4-2) will be measured whenever monitoring data is collected.

Monitoringof Resource Indicators

Monitoring is defined as anything necessary and appropriate to determine the accuracy of impact 

predictions, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Monitoring provides the ability to adequately 

evaluate the effects of potential adaptive measures to allow for mid-course corrections to the UA 

allocation, without requiring new or supplemental NEPA review. Without monitoring there would be no 

improved understanding of conditions or responses to management actions, and therefore, no informed 

adjustment of on-the-ground practices. Effective monitoring is required to reduce uncertainty, and to 

determine how and when subsequent action will be taken.
Appendix 4—Adaptive Management 

Appendix 4 - 6 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision

Monitoring:

• Provides data to evaluate progress towards achieving project objectives;

• Increases understanding of resource dynamics;

• Allows for an evaluation of impacts predicted and those actually occurring; and

• Provides a basis/justification for adjusting management actions.

Monitoring results may also suggest that other metrics need to be evaluated, that other resources should 

be evaluated, or that adjustments to the way resources are monitored should be made.

Monitoring of the resource indicators for this project will be conducted by the Forest staff, in 

collaboration with outfitter/guides, and public and would occur as outlined below:

Crowding - Monitor the use area and use season of concern annually for the first 2 years to establish an 

existing condition estimate of the number of encounters per day. Then monitor biannually until data and 

impact relationship remains stable for three consecutive data points.

Conflict - Annually monitor use area and season conflicts through ad-hoc field monitoring and reports 

from the public and outfitter/guide businesses.

Triggers

Triggers or thresholds define a resource condition that would initiate adaptive action(s) based on the 

outcome of monitoring information (i.e. if this trigger is met, then that (adaptive action occurs).

The triggers in the Shoreline II project were established by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) based on 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines or their individual resource analyses. Triggers are when monitoring 

data exceeds the prescribed threshold, an adaptive action could be implemented. The adaptive action is 

either to increase, hold constant, or decrease the allocation of outfitter/guide use in a UA and season.

The trigger for monitoring the key indicator for crowding is described as “encounters with or amongst 

outfitter/guides and public groups exceed the Forest Plan ROS standards and guidelines within the use 

area more than 20% of the season of concern.” Encounters are defined as when a person or group located 

on NFS lands becomes aware of the presence of another person or group located on or adjacent to 

NFS lands. The use areas are illustrated in the FEIS, Chapter 1, Figure 1-1 and the use seasons are 

described in Chapter 2, Tables 2-1 through 2-4. The trigger of “20% or more of the use season” is derived 

from past practice in the 2004 Shoreline project and in this adaptive management strategy, which gets 

implemented when 80 percent of the allocated use is utilized by outfitter/guides and 20 percent remains 

available. In general, the interdisciplinary team agreed that it was acceptable to meet the trigger at least 

80 percent of the time before resources become degraded to the point where adaptive management action 

is necessary.

The trigger for monitoring the key indicator for conflict is described as “conflicts between user groups 

result in a diminished recreation experience and are recorded in any 2 of 5 year period in any single use 

area and season.” Conflicts are 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. User groups are defined as outfitter/guides or public groups. 

Recordable conflicts can occur between two or more outfitter/guide groups, two or more public 

individuals or groups, or between outfitter/guides and public individuals or groups. The use areas are 

illustrated in the FEIS, Chapter 1, Figure 1-1 and the use seasons are described in Chapter 2, Tables 2-1 

through 2-4. 
Adaptive Management—Appendix 4 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision Appendix 4 - 7

Adaptive Actions

Adaptive actions are actions that will be taken when certain conditions (triggers/thresholds) are or are not 

met. For this project, the adaptive actions primarily result in increasing or decreasing the allocation in the 

Selected Alternative when actual use reaches between 80 percent and 110 percent of the allocation. 

Management actions may also involve other practices employed by outfitter/guides such as 

communication and coordination with each other or avoidance of certain areas to mitigate certain site 

specific impacts. The acceptable range of management actions, except the adjustment of allocations 

where use has reached between 80 percent and 110 percent, can change through time, as stakeholder 

perspectives and resource conditions evolve, legal requirements change, and new information becomes 

available.

A list of typical management action are provided in this document. Future actions would be tailored to 

respond to the specific/identified impact to the affected resource. An appropriate response would be 

evaluated within the Forest Service’s capacity to utilize all available information, best science and 

coordination with appropriate agency specialists and outfitter guides.

The resource indicators displayed below in Table A4-2 have been selected to represent key resource 

concerns, and are tied to the issues brought forward by the public during scoping. These issues are 

tied directly to each alternative developed for analysis, including the Selected Alternative. The indicators 

selected for monitoring are capable of showing trends over time and will respond to adaptive actions in 

line with the overall desired condition of the project area.

Table A4-2. Resource indicators and corresponding adaptive actions

Resource: 

Indicator Monitoring Threshold/Trigger Adaptive Action

Recreation & 

Wilderness: 

Crowding

Monitor the use 

area and use 

season of concern 

annually for the first 

2 years to establish 

a baseline estimate 

of the number of 

encounters per 

day. Then monitor 

biannually until 

data and impact 

relationship 

remains stable for 

three consecutive 

data points.

Encounters with or 

amongst 

outfitter/guides and 

public groups 

exceed the Forest 

Plan ROS 

standards and 

guidelines at one or 

more use locations 

more than 20% of 

the season of 

concern.

Require guides to monitor and report the number of 

encounters per day in their actual use report.

If monitoring data is below threshold, authorize up to 

95 percent of the use area allocation. Continue 

monitoring annually for 2 years. If data remains 

below the threshold, authorize up to the maximum 

110 percent of the use area allocation.

If monitoring data exceeds the threshold, do not 

authorize additional use and implement the following 

actions in priority order to the point where the 

threshold/trigger is achieved:

Encourage outfitter/guide communication to 

coordinate activities to certain days/times to reduce 

encounters.

Outfitter/guides voluntarily reduce the number of 

authorized service days.

Agency formally revokes authorized service days 

proportionally from all outfitter/guides using the use 

area.

Recreation: 

Conflict 

between user 

groups

Annually monitor 

use area and 

season conflicts 

through ad-hoc 

field monitoring and 

reports from the 

public and 

outfitter/guide 

businesses.

Conflicts between 

user groups result 

in a diminished 

recreation 

experience and are 

recorded in any 2 

of 5 year period in 

any single use area 

and season.

Require outfitter/guides to report the number of 

conflicts that result in a diminished recreation 

experience for their clients or public in their actual 

use report.

If monitoring data is below threshold, authorize up to 

95 percent of the use area allocation. Continue 

monitoring annually for 2 years. If data remains 

below the threshold, authorize up to 110 percent of 

the use area allocation.
Appendix 4—Adaptive Management 

Appendix 4 - 8 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision

Resource: 

Indicator Monitoring Threshold/Trigger Adaptive Action

If monitoring data exceeds the threshold, do not 

authorize additional use and implement the following 

actions in priority order to the point where the 

threshold/trigger is achieved:

Encourage outfitter/guide communication to 

coordinate activities to certain days/times to 

eliminate conflict.

Outfitter/guides voluntarily reduce the authorized 

number of service days.

Agency formally revokes service days proportionally 

from all outfitter/guides utilizing the use area.

Data Collection and Documentation Prior to 

Implementation

Resource indicator monitoring data will be input and housed in the Outfitter and Guide database, and the 

results will be published in the Tongass National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report, and will also 

be available upon request from the Forest Service. 

Data will be provided to, and reviewed by an interdisciplinary team located on the District where the UA 

being proposed for adaptive management is located (see NEPA and Environmental Review below). The 

District Ranger will work with the IDT to provide a consolidated response to the Responsible Official for 

approval prior to implementation.

Permit stipulations, BMPs and mitigation measures will be evaluated on a site-specific basis, as part of 

the special use permitting process. Management considerations and mitigations are noted on the use area, 

and large group area cards located in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively, and project-specific Stipulations 

and BMPs related to guided use are located in Appendix 3.

Scope of Work during Implementation

Project-level monitoring is a commitment of resources to manage the National Forest. The estimated 

scope of work to implement adaptive management in the first 2 to 5 years is shown below. Adaptive 

management would be employed when 80 percent of the allocated use is utilized by actual use. 

Optimally, monitoring would start at 75 percent, so that there is a level of certainty regarding future 

management between agency and outfitter/guide businesses. This scope of work is based on the number 

of use areas and season that will be at 75 percent or higher.

The annual cost of implementing adaptive management for the Selected Alternative would be about

$12,970. This estimated cost, as described in the FEIS, could be further off-set through cost recovery 

authorities by charging outfitter/guides who request additional use a fee and/or further cooperation for 

voluntary data collection with permitted outfitter/guides. The adaptive management strategy is more 

feasible than the 2004 Shoreline FEIS/ROD monitoring requirements because it focuses the monitoring 

requirements in discrete use areas as opposed to the whole project area, therefore concentrating financial 

resources in use areas where existing use is higher and there is a demand for new use.

The estimated costs in the following tables are 2016 numbers and do not account for any future inflation.
Adaptive Management—Appendix 4 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision Appendix 4 - 9

Table A4-3. Selected Alternative (Alternative 2) use areas where adaptive management strategy would be

employed in first 2 to 5 years of implementation

District Use Area Season Actual Use

2010-2014

Proposed

Allocation

Proportion

(Percent)

JRD 01-05E Fords Terror Summer 293 125 234

ANM 04-10A Greens Creek Summer 190 250 76

Crowding: 

• JRD: 1 Day x $5,885/Day = $5,885

• ANM: 1 Day x $5,885/Day = $5,885

• Total = $11,770

Conflict:

• JRD: 1 Day x $600/Day = $600

• ANM: 1 Day x $600/Day = $600

• Total = $1,200

TOTAL Selected Alternative = $12,970

Resources to Implement Monitoring that Supports an 

Adaptive Management Decision

Resource Indicator: Crowding

Activity: It is expected that there will be at least one field monitoring trip necessary per year to complete 

Forest Service monitoring for crowding. Forest Service data collection will support and validate data 

provided by guide companies. Special use permit administrator accounts for collecting and entering data 

provided by a guide.

Resource Cost/Unit Total Units Total Cost

Recreation/ Wilderness Specialist (GS-09) $300/day 2 $600

Recreation/ Wilderness Technician (GS-07) $250/day 5 $1,000

Recreation/Wilderness Technician (GS-05) $225/day 5 $1,125

Special Use Permit Administrator (GS-09) $300/day 1 $300

Transportation $2,500 1 $2,500

Field Subsistence $60/day 6 $360

Total $5,885

Resource Indicator: Conflict between User Groups

Activity: Monitoring data will primarily be collected through reports from guides or public who 

experience conflict. Field monitoring will be ad-hoc, meaning a field trip to specifically monitor for 

conflicts in the field will not be conducted. Forest Service employees in the field for other purposes will 

ad-hoc monitor for conflicts.

Resource Cost/Unit Total Units Total Cost

Special Use Permit Administrator $300/day 2 $600

Total $600
Appendix 4—Adaptive Management 

Appendix 4 - 10 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision

Additional Resource Monitoring

Project-level monitoring (implementation monitoring) within the project area will be focused in use areas 

that are being considered for adaptive management (those within the 80 percent actual use criteria). 

While this monitoring will not initiate adaptive management, it will be used to inform the adaptive 

management decision.

If the monitoring identifies site-specific resource concerns, then permit stipulations, BMPs and mitigation 

measures will be included as part of the special use permitting process. If new mitigation measures are 

needed to address site-specific issues, those will be developed and included in permits issued for those 

areas.

Types of project-level monitoring that would occur in use areas where adaptive management is being 

considered are outlined below, and are also discussed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Heritage

Forest Service archaeologists annually will monitor a sample of ten permitted use areas throughout the 

project area, including use areas considered for adaptive management, using standard archaeological 

monitoring and inventory procedures. These areas will be examined based on: 1) if any known historic 

properties are in the immediate vicinity, 2) the location’s level of archaeological sensitivity, and 3) type of 

activities being permitted. Camping is considered the activity with the most potential to impact historic 

properties and camping sites will be given a high priority for monitoring. Active touring is the second 

activity of concern for impact to historic properties. Outfitted/guided use area monitoring will include 

pedestrian transects, with soil probes and test units to determine if buried cultural remains are being 

impacted. 

Wildlife 

Monitoring for effects that might occur if allocation number increase would relate to behavior response 

from wildlife (i.e. displacement, avoidance and/or habituated). Forest Service biologists would work with 

the permit officer to develop surveys for outfitter guides within targeted use areas. Surveys will look to 

answer questions about raptor nest abandonment, shorebird displacement, bear habituation and other 

animal responses. 

Botany

Infestations of highly invasive plants and sites of potential new infestations would be monitored for 

frequent use by outfitter/guides at least once during the summer growing season for evidence of direct or 

indirect adverse impacts, including new infestations or spread of existing infestations. Sensitive and rare 

plants occurrences will also be monitored once during the summer growing season to for evidence of 

impacts such as trampled or crushed individuals, soil erosion, compaction, or loss of vegetation cover. 

Soils/Wetlands

An ecologist or soil scientist will work with permit administrators to evaluate impacts to soils and 

wetlands. Monitoring will occur in “unhardened” large group areas with more than 30 percent sensitive 

soils or non-forested wetlands. This includes Fanshaw, Fowler Creek, Fox Creek, Katzehin Falls, Mallard 

Cove, Pinta Cove, Point Coke, Sand Bay, Saook Bay, Sunny Cove, West Gilbert Bay, and Sashin Lake 

Trail. 
Adaptive Management—Appendix 4 

Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision Appendix 4 - 11

Aquatics

Monitoring site visits would be designed to ascertain similar resource impairments as identified for 

Soils/Wetlands and Botany (i.e. bank slumping and vegetation loss due to trampling).

NEPA and Environmental Review

An interdisciplinary review will be done for all proposed adaptive management actions. 

The NEPA and Environmental Review Worksheet shall be completed before an adaptive action can be 

taken, and adaptive actions will be considered no sooner than 2 years after the Record of Decision has 

been issued, to ensure existing condition data has been collected. Monitoring results will be handled as 

outlined in the Data Collection and Documentation section.

The implementation sheet below outlines a structured format for documenting and approving adaptive 

actions. The District Ranger, and the Responsible Official, will determine if additional environmental 

review is necessary.

NEPA Review

Once it is determined a potential increase/decrease in allocated use is necessary or desirable to better 

achieve adaptive management objectives, a NEPA Review will be conducted to determine what, if any, 

additional environmental compliance may be required. Through this screening process, the following will 

be determined:

• Is the increase or decrease in proposed use expected to be consistent with the range of effects (direct, 

indirect, and cumulative) disclosed, and analyzed in the EIS, given current environmental concerns, 

interests, and resource values?

• Is the existing analysis valid in light of any new information or circumstances since the decision was 

signed?

This review will be documented on the NEPA and Environmental Review worksheet.

The environmental effects associated with the adaptive management strategy, for all resources, have been 

analyzed and are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Environmental Review

The purpose of the environmental review is to determine how proposed adaptive management actions 

(increase, or decrease of allocated use in individual use areas (UAs)) would affect resources. If resource 

specialists find the effects of implementing the adaptive action is within the effects described in the 

Shoreline II EIS during the NEPA Review, and the District Ranger and Responsible Official concur with 

the finding of the IDT, a subsequent environmental review would not be needed prior to approval of the 

action.

Additional mitigation measures may be identified during the review process, but if any resource concern 

cannot be successfully mitigated or does not conform to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the 

proposed action would not be implemented under the Shoreline II Outfitter and Guide EIS, and a separate 

NEPA analysis would be required. The requirement to prepare a supplemental analysis would continue to 

apply when the adapting responses, and their effects, exceed the scope of the NEPA analysis.
Appendix 4—Adaptive Management 

Appendix 4 - 12 Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Draft Record of Decision

NEPA and Environmental Review Worksheet

Guide Use Area: Season of Concern:

Located in a Wilderness Area: Y/N

Current Allocation:

Proposed Allocation:

NEPA Review

Please supply resource-specific answers to the following questions:

• Would the effects of implementing this action (direct/indirect/cumulative) match those described in

NEPA analysis for each resource?

• Have conditions changed (i.e., new listed species in project area; new invasive species in project

area; change in regulation)? If so, describe.

• Are there specific mitigation measures needed?

• Is there a need to review new information (FSH 1909.15 Section 18)?

Environmental Review

Heritage:

Wildlife/Subsistence:

Recreation:

Hydrology/Fisheries:

Botany:

Invasive Plants:

Soils and Wetlands:

Wilderness:

I have reviewed the activities proposed for the Shoreline II Guide Use Area . 

Based on my review, the decision to is consistent with the 

Shoreline II Outfitter and Guide Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

X

 District Ranger

X

 Forest Supervisor
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by 

USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal 

Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA 

office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the 

form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter 

to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.