United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Tongass 

National Forest 

R10-MB-710a 

June 2011 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Volume A, DEIS 

Tongass National Forest 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

Ketchikan, Alaska 

Contact: Sue Jennings 

907-723-0477 

  Mail to: comments‐alaska‐tongass‐ketchikan‐mistyfiord@fs.fed.us
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS - Key Acronyms and 

Other Terms 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Plan NAGPRA 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

ADF&G 

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game NEPA 

National Environmental Policy 

Act 

AIRFA 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act NFS National Forest System 

ANCSA 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act NHPA 

National Historic Preservation 

Act 

ANILCA 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act NMFS 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

BMP Best Management Practices NOAA 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations RSNT Remote Setting Nature Tours 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act SD Service Day 

DN Decision Notice SHPO State Historic Preservation 

Officer 

EA Environmental Assessment SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions 

ESA Endangered Species Act SUA Special Use Authorization 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact T&E Threatened and Endangered 

FSH Forest Service Handbook Forest 

Plan 

Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

FSM Forest Service Manual TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

KMRD Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District VCU Value Comparison Unit 

LAC Limits of Acceptable Change 

(process) WA Wilderness Area 

LNT Leave No Trace 

LUD Land Use Designation 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, 

religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Front Cover: Margaret Creek bear viewing site. 

Printed on Recycled Paper


Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest 

 KetchikaQ-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

 3031 Tongass Ave. 

 KetchikaQ, AK 99901 

Responsible Official: Jeffrey DeFreest, District Ranger 

 KetchikaQ-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

For Further Information Susan Jennings, Team Leader, Petersburg Office 

Contact: P.O. %ox 309 

 Petersburg, $K 99833 

 907-772-5864 

_______________________________________________________ 

Abstract 

The USDA Forest Service proposes to authorize outfitter and guide operations and allocate 

53,997 service days annually to guided use in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest. This proposed action authorizes outfitter and guide operations through 

the issuance of special use permits. Adaptive management is being considered which could raise, 

reduce, or adjust the allocation dependent on resource conditions. The actions analyzed in this 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are designed to implement direction contained in 

the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The DEIS describes four 

alternatives that provide different combinations of outfitter and guide allocations in different 

spatial locations. The alternatives would allow for or allocate between 24,245 and 74,005 service 

days annually to outfitters and guides within the project area. The significant issues addressed 

by the alternatives and this EIS include: 1) outfitter and guide economics; 2) areas popular with 

unguided users; 3) historic and cultural properties; 4) wilderness; and 5) wildlife, subsistence, 

and cultural and traditional uses. The preferred alternative at this point is Alternative B, the 

Proposed Action. However, any of the alternatives may be selected in the Record of Decision 

for the Final EIS. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the draft 

environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments 

at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement, thus 

avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their 

participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to 

the reviewers' position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 

(1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised 

until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) 

and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft 

environmental impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the 

merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3).
This page intentionally left blank 
Summary 

 
   
Summary – Page i

SUMMARY 

Introduction ________________________________ 

The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD), U.S. Forest Service, has prepared this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, to analyze how 

to allocate visitor capacity on KMRD. The allocation will set use levels for outfitter and 

guide permits but will not set use levels for unguided visitors. Unguided visitors (those 

people visiting the Tongass National Forest without an outfitter or a guide) can continue to 

enjoy KMRD recreation and subsistence opportunities in the same way they do now. Guided 

users, in this EIS, are those people visiting the Tongass who use the services of an outfitter or 

a guide; as used throughout this EIS, guided use also includes use of an outfitter. This EIS 

discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from 

the proposed action and alternatives. 

Project Area Description ______________________ 

The project area consists of the National Forest System (NFS) lands encompassing the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD) of the Tongass National Forest (Figure 1-

1). The KMRD encompasses over 3.2 million acres of temperate rainforest, mountain peaks, 

glaciers, alpine tundra, muskegs, lakes, rivers, and streams. Approximately two-thirds of 

these acres are in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. It encompasses the 

communities of Ketchikan, Hyder, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Saxman, and Loring. A map 

displaying the project area is presented in Figure 1-2. For the purpose of this project, KMRD 

is divided into 28 recreation use areas1 (see Figure 1-2 and Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 and 

Appendix B). 

Purpose and Need for Action __________________ 

Need 

Since there is a demonstrated need for commercial service(s) and these services are deemed 

appropriate (Appendix A), the Forest Service may issue Special Use Authorizations (SUAs) 

to individual(s) or organization(s) (USDA 2008b, p. 4-46) to provide the services. This 

project proposal also responds to Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction (FSM 2720 

and FSH 2709.11), which allows for issuance of priority use permits after a needs assessment 

and visitor capacity analysis have been completed to identify the public or agency need for 

outfitting and guiding activities and assess the amount of use that may be conducted without 

detrimental social and environmental impacts. Multi-year priority use permits allow 

 

1 Recreation use area boundaries were determined at public meetings in Ketchikan, AK. These use areas were 

used to analyze seasonal visitor capacities and will be used to administer recreation special use permits for the 

KMRD. The use areas only aid in analysis and administration and will not be permanently assigned through the 

Forest Plan or any other planning document. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page ii 

outfitters and guides to make financial commitments necessary to continue providing service 

to the public. 

A District-wide outfitter and guide plan is needed because the current permitting process: 

 Does not satisfy Forest Service direction for issuing long-term priority use permits, 

 Does not provide the District Ranger with a District-wide strategy for reducing 

conflicts between guided and unguided visitors and ensuring a range of recreational 

opportunities are offered across KMRD, 

 Does not allow the Forest Service to respond to special use permit applications in a 

timely manner because, without a comprehensive analysis, each application involves a 

separate analysis and scoping process consistent with the NEPA, and 

 Does not fully address cumulative impacts of outfitter and guide use on forest 

resources, including wilderness character. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this project is to: 

 Determine the amount of outfitter and guide use to allocate for each of the 28 recreation 

use areas on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, 

 Satisfy Forest Service direction for issuance of long-term, priority use permits, 

 Provide opportunities for guided use while minimizing resource impacts and conflicts 

between guided and unguided visitors, 

 Provide standards and indicators for monitoring social conditions across KMRD, 

 Develop an adaptive management strategy for adjusting guided use allocations based on 

monitoring information collected during the life of this plan, 

 Improve the Forest Service’s ability to process permits in a timely manner, and 

 Address cumulative impacts of outfitter and guide use on forest resources, including 

wilderness character. 

Proposed Action ____________________________ 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to authorize 

outfitter and guide operations through the issuance of special use permits based on the 

Determination of Need for Commercial Uses on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

(Appendix A of this EIS, USDA Forest Service 2008a), visitor capacity estimates, and 

guided use allocations for KMRD’s 28 recreation use areas. 

The proposed action would authorize the issuance of outfitter and guide permits for KMRD. 

Of the estimated annual visitor capacity of approximately 148,000 service days, the proposed 

action would allocate 53,997 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on the KMRD 

(5,126 service days in the spring, 44,416 service days in the summer, and 4,455 service days 

in the fall (see Table 2-3, and Figures 2-3 and 2-4 at the end of Chapter 2). The proposed 

action allocates 10 to 75 percent of the visitor capacity in 26 of the recreation use areas to 

outfitters and guides during the summer season and 10 to 50 percent during the spring and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary – Page iii

fall seasons. Outfitting and guiding would not be allowed in two of the 28 recreation use 

areas. 

Due to low actual and anticipated use by outfitters and guides in the winter season (October 

21- April 19) no allocation of use in the winter is being proposed at this time. See Chapter 2, 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives for a full description. 

Under the Proposed Action, all outfitter and guide operations will be subject to area-wide and 

site-specific management elements and mitigation measures to protect natural and historic 

resources and minimize crowding and conflicts between guided and unguided visitors. These 

management elements and mitigations are described in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. 

Issues _____________________________________ 

The following five issues were determined to be significant and within the scope of the 

project decision. The IDT developed alternatives to the Proposed Action to address these 

issues. Additional issues were considered but did not form the basis for an alternative; they 

are discussed under Other Issues and Concerns in Chapter 1. 

Units of measure were defined to identify how each alternative responds to a significant 

issue. Measures are shown in Chapter 1 and discussed in Chapter 3. 

Significant Issues 

Issues for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

project were identified through public and internal scoping. 

Issue 1: 

Limiting the amount and location of outfitter and guide use may not adequately provide for 

industry stability and growth. 

Issue 2: 

Outfitter and guide use may cause crowding, noise, and disturbance, particularly in locations 

popular with unguided users. 

Issue 3: 

Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas may affect 

historic properties, sacred sites and traditional cultural properties. 

Issue 4: 

Noise associated with floatplanes and boats in and around Misty Fiords National Monument 

Wilderness may negatively impact wilderness character. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page iv 

Issue 5: 

Outfitter and guide use may negatively affect wildlife, subsistence uses, and cultural and 

traditional uses. 

Alternative Descriptions ______________________ 

Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the Proposed Action (Alternative B), and two 

other action alternatives are considered in detail. The other action alternatives represent 

different options of satisfying the Purpose and Need by responding with different emphases 

to the significant issues discussed in Chapter 1. Elements Common to all the Action 

Alternatives and Design Elements and Mitigation required by all the action alternatives are 

included in separate sections below and discussed further in Appendix B. Maps of all 

alternatives considered in detail are provided at the end of Chapter 2. 

As described in Public Involvement in Chapter 1 and Appendix E of this EIS, the KetchikanMisty Fiords Ranger District used a Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) public planning 

process prior to NEPA to determine public perceptions, desires, and needs regarding outfitter 

and guide use on the KMRD. This collaborative planning process was used to develop the 

visitor capacity and the proposed action alternative; it also formed the basis for the other 

action alternatives. 

KMRD used public input to learn, define, and adjust the many components used to determine 

visitor capacity and to develop the Proposed Action for this analysis. 

The other action alternatives in this EIS were designed to address resource issues brought 

forward by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and Tribal entities as well as issues brought up 

during scoping, the KMRD open house, and during previous collaborative processes. To see 

full descriptions of the alternatives, see the “Alternative Descriptions” section of this EIS. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

For this analysis, the No Action alternative is the current actual use by outfitters and guides 

on the KMRD. Under this alternative, outfitter and guide special use permits could be issued 

up to the highest actual use, by recreation use area, that occurred between 2005 and 2009. 

See Figure 1-2 for recreation use area locations. District-wide, that highest actual use level is 

24,245 service days per year (calculated by taking the highest use between 2005 and 2009 

per use area per season and adding these highest uses together to get a District total for the 

182-day combined spring/summer/fall seasons). The highest guided use levels have been 741 

service days in the spring, 23,424 service days in the summer, and 80 service days in the fall 

(Table 2-2). Using the current practice, under Alternative A no season of use would be 

identified on the permit. 

A decision for Alternative A would only allow permitting up to the highest use level shown 

in Table 2-2; new NEPA would be required for higher use levels in any recreation use area. 

In Alternative A, use levels are used for comparison and no use is officially allocated to 

outfitters and guides. Alternative A recognizes that changes in permit requests could increase 

or decrease the use. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary – Page v

Management of the outfitter and guide special uses program would continue to allocate 

outfitter and guide use on a case by case basis. New permits or requests from existing permit 

holders to increase use above the highest actual use, shown under column “Alt. A” in Table 

2-2 and 2-6, would require new NEPA. New permits can take a few weeks or several years 

depending on the amount of analysis needed and the availability of specialists to do the 

analysis. 

Existing permit stipulations would continue to be implemented. New design criteria, 

mitigation measures, and stipulations brought forward in Appendix B of this EIS would not 

apply in this alternative. 

Alternative C 

Using the estimated visitor capacity, this alternative allocates half to outfitters and guides in 

all recreation use areas. This equates to an allocation of 74,005 service days annually for 

outfitter and guide use on the KMRD (Table 2-4 and Figure 2-5 at the end of this chapter). 

Alternative C allocates 9,360 service days in the spring, 56,514 service days in the summer, 

and 8,131 service days in the fall for outfitter and guide use. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would allocate 34,904 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on the 

KMRD (see Table 2-5 and Figures 2-6 and 2-7 at the end of this chapter). Alternative D 

allocates 3,341 service days in the spring, 28,655 service days in the summer, and 2,908 

service days in the fall for outfitter and guide use. 

Adaptive management would be implemented in all the action alternatives: 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management is a process of monitoring results and adjusting the chosen action to 

meet desired outcomes. In the future, if a recreation use area nears or exceeds the indicators 

and standards, or if unforeseen and unknown or substantial resource impacts occur as a result 

of implementing the selected alternative, the KMRD will use adaptive management and take 

administrative steps to address the areas of concern. The steps that cause the least impact to 

recreational visitors would be implemented first if there was no immediate threat to resources 

or facilities. Adaptive management may also be used to raise or lower allocation; see 

Chapter 2 of this EIS for details. 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page vi 

Table S-1) Annual Outfitter and Guide Allocation in Service Days by Alternative and 

Use Area (for Alternative A, highest use is displayed for comparison) 

Recreation Use Area 

Service Days 

Authorized 

(in 2009) 

Carrying 

Capacity in 

Service Days 

Annual Service Days Allocated 

Alt. A 

(2005-2009 

Highest Use) 

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

01 West Misty 77 2,366 96 355 1,184 355 

02 Northeast Misty 170 7,425 211 1,114 3,713 372 

03 South Misty 229 6,989 220 1,048 3,495 699 

04 Duke Island 0 2,839 22 0 1,420 0 

05 South Misty Lakes 34 2,075 100 311 1,038 208 

06 Misty Core Lakes 11,268 12,777 9,539 7,922 6,389 1,917 

07 Walker Chickamin 60 1,747 37 262 873 174 

08 Burroughs Unuk 45 1,965 11 294 983 98 

09 Alava Princess 

Manzanita 45 3,550 29 710 1,776 533 

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 247 3,931 155 393 1,966 197 

11 Gravina Island 0 4,259 0 853 2,130 0 

12 Bell Island 370 9,173 275 1,835 4,587 918 

13 East Cleveland 93 4,969 230 994 2,485 248 

14 West Cleveland 100 2,839 13 853 1,420 426 

15 Wilson / Bakewell 183 2,020 54 404 1,010 302 

16 Ketchikan Core SPNW 0 1,419 12 426 710 142 

17 George Carroll Thorne 1599 5,679 813 3,655 2,841 2,571 

18 Central Revilla SPNW 32 5,023 19 1,507 2,512 1,507 

19 North Revilla 65 4,259 37 1,277 2,130 1,277 

20 Hyder SPNW 20 2,129 4 639 1,065 639 

21 Percy Hotspur Mary 

Islands 0 2,129 0 639 1,065 0 

22 Hyder NA 5 1,419 27 710 710 710 

23 Betton Island 8315 15,288 8,431 10,202 7,644 9,841 

24 Ketchikan Core NA 2189 28,392 1,572 11,357 14,196 7,098 

25 South Revilla NA 20 2,839 2 1,895 1,420 1,252 

26 Central Revilla NA 28 2,839 0 1,136 1,420 751 

27 Margaret Bay 2574 4,805 2,322 3,206 2,403 2,670 

28 Naha Bay 0 2,779 14 0 1,420 0 

Total 27,768 147,923 24,245 53,997 74,005 34,905 
Draft Environmental Im

Summary – Page vii

Comparison of Alternatives ___________________ This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Table S-2) Comparison of Alternatives Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects Alt

Eff

Issue 1: Limiting the amount and location of outfitter and guide use may not adequately provide for industry stability and growth. Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area and number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 06 Misty Core Lakes, 11 Gravina Island, 17 George Carroll Thorne, and 27 Margaret Bay (Recreation Use Areas identified by outfitters and guides as desired locations) 

The economics for outfitters and guides will remain the same, 24,245 service days per year. When an outfitter or guide applies for a special use permit, an individual environmental analysis will be completed, which may take several years dependent on the type of application and the availability of resource specialists. There is no room for outfitters and guides to expand their businesses with this level of use. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, current highest use is 12,732 service days per year including 9,258 service days in 06 Misty Core Lakes. 

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase to 53,997 service days annually (all seasons for the entire district). The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 29,752 service days, a 223% increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative B allocates 13,974 service days per year –an overall increase. In 06 Misty Core Lakes, there would be a decrease to 7,318 service days per year. 

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase with this alternative to 74,005 service days annually (all seasons for the entire district) for outfitter and guide use. The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 49,760 service days, a 305% increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative C allocates 10,510 service days per year. This includes an increase in two recreation use areas, and a decrease in two areas. In 06 Misty Core Lakes, there would be a decrease to 4,879 service days per year. 

Serand altedayentavause dayAltto oAltserincrecdecCodecyea
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page viii 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects Alt

Eff

Issue 2: Outfitter and guide use may cause crowding, noise, and disturbance, particularly in locations popular with unguided users (areas 

locations of interest or concern: 04 Duke Island, 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East Cleveland, 17 George Ca24 Ketchikan Core NA, 27 Margaret Bay, and 28 Naha Bay). 

Number of service days on KMRD allocated to outfitters and guides - overall (see Tables 2-6 and 2-7 for individual recreation use areas)

24,245 SDs* 53,997 SDs 74,005 SDs 

Number of service days allocated during the summer to outfitters and guides in unguided users’ areas of interest or concern 

23,424 SDs* 26,472 SDs 30,631 SDs 

Effects to crowding, noise, and disturbance in unguided users’ areas of interest or concern 

Crowding and conflict are more likely under Alternative A than under all of the Action Alternatives because use is growing and design criteria (for Alternatives B, C, and D) would not be implemented and therefore would not minimize conflicts. However, of the alternatives, Alternative A is the least likely to disperse outfitter and guide use into less popular areas on the wilderness and nonwilderness portions of the KMRD and result in negative indirect social effects. 

Minor impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences in areas identified as highly-valued local areas. Design criteria and mitigation measures would ensure that crowding and impacts from outfitter and guide use are minimized in popular locations and attractions within these use areas

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the most effect. However, design criteria and mitigation measures would ensure that crowding and impacts from outfitter and guide use are minimized in popular locations and attractions within these use areas. By limiting the amount of outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, Alternative C has the potential to disperse flightseeing traffic and cause indirect effects to social conditions (e.g. crowding and additional floatplane landings) on adjacent waterways, particularly in Rudyerd Bay and Walker Cove. 

AltlikeimpexphigAltpottrafsocand on lanin R
Draft Environmental Im

Summary – Page ix

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects Alt

Eff

Issue 3: Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas may affect historic properties, sacred sites and Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas 

22 SDs** 639 SDs 2,485 SDs 

Effect to historic properties, sacred sites and traditional cultural properties 

The activities in all four alternatives of this EIS will have No Affect on historic properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. However, commercial use of the “Duke Island area” may affect cultural and traditional uses of the area and has the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the “Duke Island area.” 

No Affect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to Outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of these two use areas which may affect cultural and traditional uses and the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the “Duke Island area.” 

No Affect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to Outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of these two use areas which may affect cultural and traditional uses and the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the “Duke Island area.” 

No Altpotcur

Issue 4: Noise associated with floatplanes and boats in and around Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness may negatively impact wNumber of service days allocated in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness 

10,398 SDs* 12,409 SDs 21,417 SDs 

Number of service days allocated in 06 Misty Core Lakes 

9,539 SDs* 7,922 SDs 6,389 SDs 

Number of service days allocated to Misty Fiords Wilderness outside 06 Misty Core Lakes 

859 SDs* 4,487 SDs 15,028 SDs 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page x 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects Alt

Eff

Effects on opportunities for solitude due to noise 

Alternative A allows for the highest amount of outfitter and guide use in 06 Misty Core Lakes. Guided floatplane tours in this Use Area have, and would continue to have, a major effect (as defined in Table 3-4) on opportunities for solitude in the core area of Misty Fiords. Under Alternative A, outfitter and guide use is the least likely to be dispersed to areas that currently offer a high level of opportunities for solitude. 

Alternative B would improve opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area because it allocates less use to outfitters and guides in this Use Area. Alternative B would have a minor negative effect on opportunities for solitude in the 01 West Misty, 02 Northeast Misty, and 05 South Misty Use Areas, by displacing floatplane traffic to these areas. 

Alternative C would improve opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area but would allow for a significant increase in motorized traffic associated with outfitter and guide floatplane landings in the 01 West Misty and 02 Northeast Misty Use Areas. An increase in floatplane traffic in these areas is inconsistent with Forest Plan direction to not disperse use in wilderness. Effects to wilderness character would be moderate to major. 

AltredfloaCoallomooutlanNoMioppbe 

Issue 5: Outfitter and guide use may negatively affect wildlife, subsistence uses, and cultural and traditional uses. Effects on Wildlife Potential effects to wildlife occur 

when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities overlap with crucial life phases; generally high or highest relative risk to wildlife because no allocation limit except visitor capacity 

Potential effects to wildlife may occur when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities overlap with crucial life phases; generally low or lowest relative risk to wildlife because of the moderate allocation and inclusion of design elements. 

Potential effects to wildlife may occur when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities overlap with crucial life phases; generally high or highest relative risk to wildlife because of the high allocation 

Potoccoutovegenrisk alloele
Draft Environmental Im

Summary – Page xi

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects Alt

Eff

Effects on Subsistence Use 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those resources. Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those resources. Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those resources. Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

Thisigsigsubresabusubchafor Estfoowothe doeelim

Effect to cultural and traditional uses 

Commercial use of the “Duke Island area” may affect cultural and traditional uses of the area 

An increase in the number of service days allocated to Outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of the “Duke Island area” which may affect cultural and traditional uses. 

An increase in the number of service days allocated to Outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of the “Duke Island area” which may affect cultural and traditional uses. 

Altpottradcur

* In Alternative 1, no use will be officially allocated to outfitters and guides. However, highest use numbers are shown here for compari** Use in this area has not been permitted since 1999. However, unplanned use occurred in one year by a guide who had formerly been pdid not realize it was closed. That use was stopped upon discovery and has not occurred again. (Source: Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guided Recreation project Chapter 3 and Resource Reports) 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page xii 

This page left blank intentionally 
Table of Contents 

   
 
Table of Contents – Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need .............................................................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Area Description ................................................................................................................................ 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................................................ 7

Need ...................................................................................................................................7

Purpose ...............................................................................................................................8

Summary of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 8

Decision Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) ...............................................................................11

NEPA Public Involvement ...............................................................................................11

Issues .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Significant Issues .............................................................................................................14

Other Issues and Concerns ...............................................................................................15

Other Agency Permits, Licenses, and Certifications ................................................................................ 19

Planning Record ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Other Related Efforts ................................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 2, Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ................. 23

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 23

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ........................................................... 23

Alternative Development Process .............................................................................................................. 24

No Action (Alternative A) ...............................................................................................28

Proposed Action (Alternative B) .....................................................................................28

Alternative C ....................................................................................................................29

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................29

Alternative Descriptions .............................................................................................................................. 30

Elements and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives ...............................................30

Alternative A (No Action) ...............................................................................................31

Alternative B (Proposed Action) .....................................................................................33

Alternative C ....................................................................................................................35

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................36

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ................................................................37

Adaptive Management .....................................................................................................37

Project Design and Mitigation Measure .................................................................................................... 39

Project Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Table of Contents – Page ii

Botany ..............................................................................................................................40

Fish/Hydrology ................................................................................................................41

Heritage ............................................................................................................................41

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................41

Identification of the Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................. 41

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 42 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 .............................................................................................................. 61

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 61

Analyzing Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 61

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects .........................................................................62

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ..................................................................62

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..........................................................................................63

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..............................................63

Adaptive Management and Effects ..................................................................................64

Analysis of the Alternatives by Issue...............................................................................65

Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................................................ 65

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................65

Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................................66

Wilderness ..................................................................................................................................................... 70

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................71

Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................................80

Recreation ...................................................................................................................................................... 86

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................87

Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................................93

Heritage ....................................................................................................................................................... 101

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................101

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................103

Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................ 105

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................106

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................116

Subsistence Uses ........................................................................................................................................ 133

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................133

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................135

Botany .......................................................................................................................................................... 138

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................138

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................144

Hydrology and Fisheries ............................................................................................................................ 149

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................149

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................151

Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................................................155

Soils, Wetlands, Geology, and Karst ........................................................................................................ 157

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................157

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................157
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents – Page iii

Other Required Disclosures ...................................................................................................................... 159

Chapter 4, Lists ................................................................................. 161

List of Preparers and Contributors ............................................................................................................ 161

Distribution of the EIS ............................................................................................................................... 162

References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 166

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................... 175

Index ............................................................................................................................................................ 179 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Table of Contents – Page iv

This page left blank intentionally 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

 
   
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 1 

CHAPTER 1, PURPOSE AND NEED 

Introduction ________________________________ 

The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD), U.S. Forest Service, has prepared this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, to analyze how 

to allocate visitor capacity on KMRD. The allocation will set use levels for outfitter and 

guide permits but will not set use levels for unguided visitors. Unguided visitors (those 

people visiting the Tongass National Forest without an outfitter or a guide) can continue to 

enjoy KMRD recreation and subsistence opportunities in the same way they do now. Guided 

users, in this EIS, are those people visiting the Tongass who use the services of an outfitter or 

a guide; as used throughout this EIS, guided use also includes use of an outfitter. 

This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would 

result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: 

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need: The section includes information on the purpose of and need 

for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section 

also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and public responses. 

Chapter 2 - Alternatives: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s 

proposed action and compares it to the no-action alternative (Alternative A) and alternatives 

to the proposed action. This discussion also includes project management measures. Finally, 

this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with the 

alternatives. 

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes 

the existing conditions and the environmental effects of implementing the action alternatives 

and no action. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

Chapter 4 - Lists: This section provides a list of document preparers and agencies consulted 

during the development of the environmental analysis, as well as, a list of references used to 

prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Additional documentation, including resource specific detailed descriptions of the project 

area and analyses of the project effects, may be found in the project planning record located 

at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office in Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Project Area Description ______________________ 

The project area consists of the National Forest System (NFS) lands encompassing the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD) of the Tongass National Forest (Figure 1-

1). The KMRD encompasses over 3.2 million acres of temperate rainforest, mountain peaks, 

glaciers, alpine tundra, muskegs, lakes, rivers, and streams. Approximately two-thirds of 

these acres are in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. It encompasses the 

communities of Ketchikan, Hyder, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Saxman, and Loring. A map 

displaying the project area is presented in Figure 1-2. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 2 

Figure 1-1) Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD) Vicinity Map
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 3 

Figure 1-2) Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project Area including Recreation 

Use Areas 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 4 

Back of Figure 1-2 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 5 

For the purpose of this project, KMRD is divided into 28 recreation use areas1 (see Figure 1-

2 and Table 2-1 in Chapter 2). Maps of each recreation use area are in Appendix B of this 

EIS. 

Background ________________________________ 

Visitor capacity, for this project, is the estimated number of users, both guided and unguided, 

that can be accommodated in a given area without a loss in the quality of the recreation 

experience. 

In 2007, the Forest Supervisor determined a need existed for outfitter and guide services 

within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass. The amount, type and extent of services needed are 

determined by the District Ranger prior to issuing outfitter and guide permits in Wilderness 

Areas (Wilderness Act, FSH 2709.11 41.53e, USDA 2007). 

In 2008, a Determination of Need for Commercial Uses on the KMRD (Appendix A, USDA 

Forest Service 2008a) was completed that demonstrated the need for commercially guided 

opportunities on the wilderness and non-wilderness portions of KMRD. The District Ranger 

determined there was a need for the following commercially-guided activities: 

 brown bear, black bear, and mountain goat hunting, 

 floatplane landing tours, 

 freshwater fishing, 

 remote setting nature tours (e.g. hiking, beach activities, sightseeing, wildlife viewing), 

 wildlife viewing at developed sites, 

 camping, 

 road-based nature tours, and 

 institutional use (e.g. youth and education groups). 

Only these guided uses would be permitted through a decision on this analysis. Other types 

of uses would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis with a separate NEPA analysis. 

In September 2008, the Forest Service revised our directives governing special use permits 

for outfitting and guiding conducted on NFS lands (Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 

Chapter 40, Section 41.53). The handbook provides direction that clarified policy on issuing 

and administering temporary and priority use permits. The 2008 revisions did not affect the 

allocation of use but might change how use is distributed. 

Before this NEPA process began, the KMRD conducted a public process to determine public 

perceptions, desires, and needs regarding outfitter and guide use on KMRD. This process was 

based on the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process described in the Public 

Involvement section of this chapter. KMRD wanted to provide an opportunity to residents 

and visitors, outfitters, guides, and other interested parties to be involved. The overall goal 

 

1 Recreation use area boundaries were determined at public meetings in Ketchikan, AK. These use areas were 

used to analyze seasonal visitor capacities and will be used to administer recreation special use permits for the 

KMRD. The use areas only aid in analysis and administration and will not be permanently assigned through the 

Forest Plan or any other planning document. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 6 

of the LAC process was to provide opportunities for enjoyment of NFS lands through guided 

and unguided use while minimizing conflicts and protecting forest resources. The LAC 

process resulted in and ended with development of the proposed action (summarized below 

and described fully in Chapter 2 of this EIS). 

In 2009/2010, it was estimated that the total visitor capacity for Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District is approximately 148,000 service days annually (Visitor Capacity Analysis 

for KMRD, Appendix C of this EIS). This capacity number estimates how many people can 

annually use a given area during the spring, summer, and fall seasons, and was used in 

developing the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action for this analysis (see 

Chapter 2 for alternatives). The visitor capacities are designed as the maximum amount of 

recreation use allowed in order to maintain the standards and guidelines identified during the 

LAC process, however, they are at a “reasonable use level” compared to Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. For a detailed explanation of how the visitor capacity was 

generated, see the Visitor Capacity Analysis in Appendix C of this document. Due to very 

low outfitter and guide use in the winter, winter capacity was not determined and winter use 

by outfitters and guides will not be considered or allocated through this analysis and 

decision. Winter outfitter and guide use will be considered through other analyses on a caseby-case basis. 

Through this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the Ketchikan-Misty 

Fiords District Ranger will decide how much use will be allocated (or distributed) to 

outfitters and guides through special use permits. In allocating use, the District Ranger will 

consider uses that serve the public need for outfitter and guide services in ways that protect 

the natural and cultural resources of the area, and the more primitive social setting desired for 

an “Alaskan experience2

”. The allocation will only set use levels for outfitter and guide 

permits. The action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D – described in Chapter 2 under 

“Alternative Descriptions”) allow for growth of outfitters and guides in most recreation use 

areas. 

Unguided visitors can continue to enjoy KMRD recreation and subsistence opportunities as 

they do now. No known subsistence occurs via outfitters and guides, so changes to 

allocations should not affect access to subsistence resources. This project will not result in a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence 

resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor 

will it change access to or competition for those resources. 

The actions proposed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) respond to the goals and 

objectives outlined in the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, page 

2-13

). The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for authorizing the services of 

qualified outfitters and guides to the public, where the need for the service has been 

 

2

 During the LAC process, the participants felt that most visitors came to Alaska to experience remote areas, 

with vast vistas, clean air, few encounters with others, and abundant wildlife and fish. They described this as the 

Alaskan experience. The Alaskan experience attributes could also be defined as ranging from the Primitive to 

Semi-primitive Motorized ROS Classes (USDA Forest Service 2008b, Appendix I, pages I-1 to I-3). 

3 A range of recreation opportunities is maintained on the Forest from primitive to more urban settings. 

Recreation opportunities will allow for a different type of experience in visual quality, access, remoteness, 

visitor management, on-site recreation development, social encounters, and visitor impacts.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 7 

identified and the use is compatible with the objectives and management direction of the 

affected Land Use Designation (LUD). The Forest Plan Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines 

for Recreation and Tourism state in part: 

“Generally allocate no more than one-half the appropriate 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.” (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b, p. 4-46). 

Congress passed a variety of laws that allow outfitting and guiding services on NFS 

lands. National policy allows the Forest Service to issue either temporary or priority special 

use permits to qualified outfitters and guides. 

Temporary special use permits may be issued for minor, non-recurring outfitting and guiding 

activities in amounts of up to 200 service days in a 180-day period. They are not subject to 

renewal. They may be offered on a first-come, first-served or lottery basis and are issued 

only for intermittent or transient outfitting and guiding conducted on NFS lands (FSH 

2709.11, Chapter 41.53j). 

Priority special use permits may be issued for up to 10 years with a probationary 2-year 

permit term for new priority use permit holders that may be extended for up to 8 years based 

upon satisfactory performance (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 41.53l). 

Priority use permit allocation is based on the highest amount of actual use in 1 calendar year 

during a 5-year period. Permit holders with 1,000 service days or less can acquire an 

additional 25 percent of their highest actual use year and permit holders with more than 1,000 

service days can acquire an additional 15 percent, provided that the total does not exceed the 

allocation when the permit was issued (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 41.53m). This approach to 

reviewing use allocations takes into account market fluctuations, availability of state hunting 

licenses, and natural phenomena. 

This NEPA process does not change the way outfitters and guides are permitted at any 

location, only sets allocation of visitor capacity in service days. It does not designate which 

permitted activities will take place or designate who will get outfitter and guide permits. The 

issuance of permits will continue to follow the variety of laws that allow outfitting and 

guiding services on NFS lands, as stated above. The permit administrators will continue to 

issue permits, approved by the District Ranger, in the same way they are currently issuing 

them. 

Purpose and Need for Action __________________ 

Need 

Since there is a demonstrated need for commercial service(s) and these services are deemed 

appropriate (Appendix A), the Forest Service may issue Special Use Authorizations (SUAs) 

to individual(s) or organization(s) (USDA 2008b, p. 4-46) to provide the services. This 

project proposal also responds to Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction (FSM 2720 

and FSH 2709.11), which allows for issuance of priority use permits after a needs assessment 

and visitor capacity analysis have been completed to identify the public or agency need for 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 8 

outfitting and guiding activities and assess the amount of use that may be conducted without 

detrimental social and environmental impacts. Multi-year priority use permits allow 

outfitters and guides to make financial commitments necessary to continue providing service 

to the public. 

A District-wide outfitter and guide plan is needed because the current permitting process: 

 Does not satisfy Forest Service direction for issuing long-term priority use permits, 

 Does not provide the District Ranger with a District-wide strategy for reducing 

conflicts between guided and unguided visitors and ensuring a range of recreational 

opportunities are offered across KMRD, 

 Does not allow the Forest Service to respond to special use permit applications in a 

timely manner because, without a comprehensive analysis, each application involves a 

separate analysis and scoping process consistent with the NEPA, and 

 Does not fully address cumulative impacts of outfitter and guide use on forest 

resources, including wilderness character. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this project is to: 

 Determine the amount of outfitter and guide use to allocate for each of the 28 recreation 

use areas on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, 

 Satisfy Forest Service direction for issuance of long-term, priority use permits, 

 Provide opportunities for guided use while minimizing resource impacts and conflicts 

between guided and unguided visitors, 

 Provide standards and indicators for monitoring social conditions across KMRD, 

 Develop an adaptive management strategy for adjusting guided use allocations based on 

monitoring information collected during the life of this plan, 

 Improve the Forest Service’s ability to process permits in a timely manner, and 

 Address cumulative impacts of outfitter and guide use on forest resources, including 

wilderness character. 

Summary of the Proposed Action ______________ 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to authorize 

outfitter and guide operations through the issuance of special use permits based on the 

Determination of Need for Commercial Uses on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

(Appendix A of this EIS, USDA Forest Service 2008a), visitor capacity estimates, and 

guided use allocations for KMRD’s 28 recreation use areas (Figure 1-2). 

The proposed action would authorize the issuance of outfitter and guide permits for KMRD. 

Of the estimated annual visitor capacity of approximately 148,000 service days, the proposed 

action would allocate 53,997 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on the KMRD 

(5,126 service days in the spring, 44,416 service days in the summer, and 4,455 service days 

in the fall). The proposed action allocates 10 to 75 percent of the visitor capacity in 26 of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 9 

recreation use areas to outfitters and guides during the summer season and 10 to 50 percent 

during the spring and fall seasons. Outfitting and guiding would not be allowed in two of the 

28 recreation use areas. 

Due to low actual and anticipated use by outfitters and guides in the winter season (October 

21- April 19) no allocation of use in the winter is being proposed at this time. See Chapter 2, 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives for a full description. 

The Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for allocating outfitter and 

guide use. In the Proposed Action, allocations were considered by specific recreation use 

area. For example, some of the wilderness areas are remote and difficult to access and, 

therefore, receive very little unguided use. The predominant historical use in these areas is 

guided use; thus, to allow access to this difficult to reach area, the allocation to outfitters and 

guides was set higher (75%) in the Proposed Action. 

All outfitter and guide operations will be subject to area-wide and site-specific management 

elements and mitigation measures to protect natural and historic resources and minimize 

crowding and conflicts between guided and unguided visitors. These management elements 

and mitigations are described in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. 

For qualified applicants, the District Ranger may issue priority use and temporary use 

permits based on the guided use allocation. 

The Proposed Action includes the ability to use adaptive management to maintain a range of 

quality recreation experiences across KMRD and a balance between guided and unguided 

use. Adaptive management may result in increased or decreased allocations or other 

adjustments for specific recreation use areas based on standards and the level of effects. See 

Chapter 2 for a complete description of the Proposed Action and further information on the 

adaptive management being proposed. 

Decision Framework _________________________ 

The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords District Ranger is the responsible official for this proposal. The 

District Ranger will decide how to manage the outfitter and guide special use program based 

on the total estimated visitor capacity for commercial use. The District Ranger will consider 

protection of forest resources and balance the needs of guided and unguided visitors while 

maintaining a range of quality recreation experiences across KMRD. The District Ranger 

will also decide what activities will trigger additional review. The type of recreation use for 

any given recreation use area will not be established by this document. 

Given the purpose and need, the District Ranger will review the proposed action and the 

other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: 

 Determine whether or not to authorize outfitting and guiding within the 28 recreation 

use areas identified in this document and what types of guided uses would be allowed 

under this decision. 

 The locations, limitations, management, and allocations for outfitter and guide permits 

and opportunities on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District for the next five to ten 

years; 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 10 

 The extent, amount, and location of commercial use to allocate within the Misty Fiords 

National Monument Wilderness Area; 

 How to manage guided use on the KMRD to minimize potential impacts to all 

resources; 

 What, if any, management elements, mitigation measures and monitoring are needed; 

and 

 What proposals will trigger further review by Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members. 

 The District Ranger will also decide whether and how to use adaptive management to 

potentially increase or decrease allocations or make other adjustments for specific 

recreation use areas. 

The District Ranger will not address proposals for development4

 in this document. 

Development proposals, authorized under different Forest Service authorities and policies, 

are beyond the scope of this analysis. 

Mitigation measures will be implemented through permit requirements and provisions, and 

administration and program monitoring. Monitoring will occur during the administration of 

special use permits and as part of the ongoing program of monitoring forest resources 

(sensitive and invasive plants, wilderness campsites, etc). 

When guided use in specific recreation use areas approaches the allocated levels, requests for 

use may be redirected to other locations. If this measure is not sufficient to accommodate 

demand, resulting in a competitive interest, use will be allocated among qualified guides 

through a competitive process. 

Public Involvement __________________________ 

The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process was used to develop the proposed action 

alternative. Public involvement in this project occurred during the LAC process and public 

involvement continues through this EIS. 

A substantial amount of public involvement occurred prior to and during the LAC process. 

Prior to the LAC process, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) office were consulted as the 

Needs Assessment was being developed. As the LAC process got underway, nearly 200 

people participated in one or more of the nine public meetings. Participants included 

individuals, outfitters and guides, agency representatives, tribal representatives, businesses, 

and Forest Service personnel. Additional phone calls and meetings were held with those 

interested in or concerned about particular aspects of the project or the LAC process, such as 

ADF&G, the ANILCA office, and State Representatives. In most cases, concerns were 

resolved through the development of the Proposed Action or they have been brought forward 

into the NEPA process and helped determine alternatives. 

We are now in the NEPA process, which includes analysis of alternatives in a draft and final 

environmental impact statement (EIS). After the analysis, a record of decision (ROD) will be 

issued as described in the Decision Framework section above. The difference between the 

 

4 Development would include construction of cabins, trails, campgrounds, tent platforms, resorts, or any other 

structure or facility. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 11 

processes is analysis and decision. Public involvement for both processes is summarized 

below. The LAC process and results are further described in Appendix E of this EIS. 

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) 

Public participation for this project began in January 2009 with a public meeting at the 

Southeast Alaska Discovery Center in Ketchikan, Alaska. At the meeting, we introduced the 

proposed planning process, discussed project goals, and shared recreation use information. 

 

Following the initial meeting, KMRD started a recreation planning process that followed the 

multi-step LAC planning process. This process involved the public and Forest Service 

managers with the intent to consider both recreation use and resource protection needs. Nine 

additional public meetings occurred that shared information and gathered comments from 

interested individuals. This process relied on a sustained relationship between the Forest 

Service and interested citizens. The meetings took place from January 2009 to April 2010. A 

website was developed and regularly updated to share information about the project and 

process and inform the public about meetings and meeting discussions. That website 

continues to be updated with information from this NEPA process: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/ketchikan/recreationplanning.shtml. 

The goal of the process was to: 1) identify concerns; 2) develop desired future recreation 

conditions for 28 proposed recreation use areas; 3) identify standards and indicators that can 

be used to monitor those conditions; and 4) develop acceptable levels of guided use that can 

be accommodated without exceeding standards related to desired conditions. 

The goals for the process were met (see Appendix E). During the public process, people: 

 identified important recreation values and potential impacts to those values, 

 developed four Recreation Opportunity Zones - Primitive Wilderness, Semi-Primitive 

Wilderness, Semi-Primitive Non-Wilderness, and Natural Accessible – based on 

resource, social, and management conditions, to ensure that the range of desired 

recreation conditions and opportunities that people want are provided (see Alternative 

Development Process Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2 of this EIS), 

 discussed the indicators and standards that will be used to understand and monitor 

recreation use conditions (see Table 2-1, Chapter 2 of this EIS), 

 commented on proposed allocations for guided use that were developed based on the 

above bullets, and 

 identified management actions that could bring conditions up to standard if thresholds 

are approached or met. 

The Proposed Action in this EIS was developed through the LAC process. The other 

alternatives were developed based on issues raised at the LAC or were brought forward by 

public comments during NEPA public involvement or by KMRD resource specialists. 

NEPA Public Involvement 

Federal Register/Federal Announcements: For the environmental analysis part of this 

project, public participation began with publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to complete 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 12 

an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register, September 27, 2010. This NOI 

briefly described the project, provided estimated timelines and contacts for the project, and 

started the comment period on the proposed action developed during the LAC process. 

In addition to the NOI and the following specific activities, the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project has been listed on the Tongass National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions since July 2010; the Schedule of Proposed Actions is available 

on the Internet ( http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/projects.shtml). 

Public Mailing and Other Outreach: On September 28 and 29, 2010, a scoping letter 

providing information and seeking public comment was mailed or emailed to 245 individuals 

and groups that had previously shown interest in Forest Service outfitter and guide projects in 

Ketchikan, Alaska. This included Federal and State agencies; Alaska Native groups like the 

Ketchikan Indian Community, Metlakatla Indian Community, Organized Village of Saxman, 

Tongass Tribe, and Cape Fox Corporation; municipal offices; businesses; interest groups; 

and individuals. Scoping letters were mailed to several additional individuals and groups 

after September 29. Sixteen responses to this mailing were received; the comments are filed 

in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project record. 

Comments were used to determine issues, management alternatives, and to determine what 

information to discuss in the EIS or specialist reports and when to further explain policies or 

procedures. In addition, the project website developed during the collaborative process 

continues to be available with project information and updates: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/ketchikan/recreationplanning.shtml. 

Open Houses: As discussed above, 10 collaborative meetings were held with the public to 

develop the Proposed Action. As NEPA analysis moved forward, an open house meeting 

was held in Ketchikan on October 26, 2010 to provide information to the public about the 

Proposed Action and to further discuss local concerns and interests. Fourteen members of 

the public attended; many attendees provided input (input is documented in the KetchikanMisty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project Record). 

Further public meetings and subsistence hearings are expected to be scheduled in Ketchikan, 

Saxman, Hyder, and Metlakatla during the spring or summer of 2011. 

Local News Media: A news article about the EIS project and announcing the open house 

was printed in the Ketchikan Daily News on October 23-24, 2010. 

Government-to-Government Consultation or Information Sharing: The National 

Historic Preservation Act (1966 as amended) strengthens the relationship between the Forest 

Service and Indian Tribes (defined as federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native 

Corporations and Native Hawaiian Organizations) in consultation regarding site significance 

and the potential effects on historic and archaeological sites. Executive Orders 13084 and 

13175 require that federal agencies consult with tribes during planning activities. 

 June 15 and 17, 2010 - The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District hand delivered or 

mailed letters describing the proposed action and offering the opportunity for 

government-to-government consultation to the Ketchikan Indian Community, 

Metlakatla Indian Community, Organized Village of Saxman, and Cape Fox 

Corporation. 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 13 

 July 6, 2010 – District Ranger plus staff attended the Organized Village of Saxman 

Tribal Council Meeting to share information and discussed the Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan EIS and the letter recently sent to the Tribal Government. 

 July 8, 2010 and February 10, 2011 – District staff attended the Ketchikan Indian 

Community, “Our Way of Life” committee to discuss a variety of projects that included 

the Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS. 

 August 3, 2010 and February 7, 2011 - District staff attended the Organized Village of 

Saxman Tribal Council Meeting to share information on a variety of projects that 

included the Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS. 

 August 9, October 11, and November 8, 2010, January 13 and February 14, 2011 - 

District staff attended the Ketchikan Indian Community Tribal Council meeting to 

discuss a variety of projects that included the Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

EIS. 

 October 14, 2010 - The District Ranger and staff attended the Ketchikan Indian 

Community Tribal Council meeting to discuss a variety of projects that included the 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS; the upcoming Public Open House was 

emphasized. 

 October 26, 2010 - District Ranger plus staff conducted a Public Open House about the 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS that was attended by representatives of the 

Ketchikan Indian Community and the Metlakatla Indian Community. 

 November 2, 29, and 30, 2010 - The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District delivered 

or mailed the quarterly information letters describing current District projects to 

Ketchikan Indian Community, Metlakatla Indian Community, and the Organized 

Village of Saxman. 

The above meetings are generally considered information sharing opportunities. Only one 

Tribal Government has requested and been involved in official Government-to-Government 

consultation on this project to date: 

 February 18, 2011 – The District Ranger and staff attended the Metlakatla Indian 

Community Tribal Council meeting and consulted on a variety of projects that included 

the Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS. The Tribe was particularly concerned 

about recreation use areas 04 Duke Island, 21 Percy Hotspur Mary, and 11 Gravina 

Island. The Tribe requested no outfitter and guide use in those areas. They also asked 

to have the analysis consider additional reduction or mitigation on aircraft in use area 

08 Boroughs/Unuk. 

The Ketchikan Indian Community, Metlakatla Indian Community, Organized Village of 

Saxman, Cape Fox Corporation, and Sealaska Corporation will be sent a copy of this DEIS. 

Meetings and Discussions with Agencies: In November and December of 2010, the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District fisheries department discussed and obtained fisheries 

harvest data from ADF&G. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 14 

Issues _____________________________________ 

For the purposes of this analysis, issues identified during the public involvement process are 

categorized as either significant or non-significant. Significant issues are those directly or 

indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action and represent disputes, disagreements 

or debate about the effects of the proposed action. Significant issues were used to design 

alternatives. 

Non-significant issues are those: 1) outside the scope (not related to the effects) of the 

proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level 

decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 

review (Sec. 1506.3)...” 

Sixteen responses to the September 2010 scoping mailing were received. KMRD also had 

internal scoping discussions. Issues were identified during the LAC process, through internal 

scoping, and during scoping. 

Significant Issues 

Issues for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

project were identified through public and internal scoping. Each comment received during 

scoping was considered a potential issue and each comment was evaluated to determine how 

to address the comment. Similar issues were combined into one statement where 

appropriate. The following five issues were determined to be significant and within the 

scope of the project decision. The IDT developed alternatives to the Proposed Action to 

address these issues; Chapter 2 of this DEIS discusses and compares the alternatives. 

Additional issues were considered but did not form the basis for an alternative; they are 

discussed separately below. 

Units of measure were defined to identify how each alternative responds to a significant 

issue. Measures were chosen that were quantitative where possible; predictable; responsive 

to the issue; and linked to cause and effect relationships. These measures describe how the 

alternative affects the resource or resources central to the issue. 

Issue 1: 

Limiting the amount and location of outfitter and guide use may not adequately provide for 

industry stability and growth. 

Measurements: 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 06 Misty Core Lakes, 11 

Gravina Island, 17 George Carroll Thorne, and 27 Margaret Bay recreation use areas 

(these areas were identified during the LAC process by outfitters and guides as 

desirable Recreation Use Areas for guided opportunities). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 15 

Issue 2: 

Outfitter and guide use may cause crowding, noise, and disturbance, particularly in locations 

popular with unguided users. 

Measurements: 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area 

 Number of service days allocated during the summer to outfitters and guides in 04 

Duke Island, 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East Cleveland, 

17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, 24 Ketchikan Core NA, 27 Margaret Bay, 

and 28 Naha Bay (areas identified by unguided users as locations of interest or 

concern) 

Issue 3: 

Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas may affect 

historic properties, sacred sites and traditional cultural properties. 

Measurement: 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 04 Duke and 21 Percy 

Hotspur Mary use areas 

Issue 4: 

Noise associated with floatplanes and boats in and around Misty Fiords National Monument 

Wilderness may negatively impact wilderness character. 

Measurement: 

 Number of service days allocated in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness 

 Effects on opportunities for solitude due to noise 

Issue 5: 

Outfitter and guide use may negatively affect wildlife, subsistence uses, and cultural and 

traditional uses. 

Measurement: 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides 

Other Issues and Concerns 

Each comment received during scoping was considered a potential issue. Some concerns and 

suggestions brought up by the public were considered but determined not to be alternativedriving issues. Some of these issues are already addressed through other processes or 

through protection provided by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (see Elements 

Common to All Action Alternatives in Chapter 2 and Appendix B), or their resolution is 

beyond the scope of this project. Where possible, suggestions about the Ketchikan-Misty 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 16 

Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project were incorporated into the design of the 

Proposed Action and alternatives (see Chapter 2 of this DEIS). Additionally, some concerns 

and suggestions for the analysis were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis for the 

reasons discussed in Chapter 2 of this DEIS (Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Analysis). 

The following issues were considered but determined not to be alternative-driving issues. 

The rationale for why these issues were determined to be non-significant is included below. 

As needed, resource effects related to these concerns are discussed in Chapter 3. 

Issue: Outfitters and guides are concerned that the allocations do not allow for them to 

respond to a sudden demand for large-scale activity. Businesses want to be able to 

respond to arising opportunities quickly – there is a desire to allow for flexibility and 

adaptive management.

 The alternatives respond to this concern at different levels by allocating a range of guided 

capacity. All of the action alternatives allocate more visitor days to guided uses on the 

entire District than the highest average annual use shown in Alternative A, the no action 

alternative. This allows for business growth in most recreation use areas. If an action 

alternative is selected in the decision on this project, when outfitters and guides request 

increased use, permit administrators will be able to respond more quickly to requests 

because service days for the uses covered in this EIS will be available for permitting. If 

adaptive management is selected in the decision, there will be additional opportunities for 

the District Ranger to manage outfitting and guiding with flexibility. However, the time it 

takes for the District and District Ranger to respond may be affected if there a multiple 

requests or staffing levels are low. 

Issue: Unguided users want to retain facilities and access to recreational experiences 

and were concerned about future limitations/regulations 

 A decision on this project would not change facilities or access to recreational 

experiences; it is the same for all alternatives. Unguided users will still be able to access 

the Tongass National Forest now and into the future. Nothing in this process establishes 

regulations. 

 This analysis recognizes that an increase in guided visitors may indirectly affect unguided 

visitors. Chapter 3 analyzes these effects, which could include displacement (the 

unguided visitor moves to a different site) and crowding. Although this concern did not 

drive an alternative, it is considered in the EIS through the analysis of a range of 

alternatives and the analysis of the effects within that range. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 17 

Issue: People are concerned about crowding from guided use near cabin sites and buoys 

(e.g. Fish Creek and Winstanley Island Cabin). 

 The IDT felt that Issue 2 and the mitigation measures specified within the recreation use 

area cards addressed this concern. Management elements on individual recreation use 

cards specify avoidance by or allowance of outfitter and guide cabin use and if buoys are 

available to outfitters and guides (ex. 17 George Carroll Thorne). Some cabins will be 

available for guided use; similar to unguided use, outfitters and guides must reserve 

cabins ahead of time so there should be no conflict with other users (Tables 1-1 and 1-2). 

Although this issue did not drive the development of Alternative D, it does respond to 

this concern. 

Issue: Outfitters and guides would like to see the process for reviewing permit 

applications streamlined in hopes of receiving a permit quicker. 

 By establishing a visitor capacity, identifying site-specific resource concerns, and 

completing this NEPA document, the permit administrators will be able to more quickly 

respond to requests for new permits and increased use for current permits; a decision on 

this NEPA will also allow for the issuance of priority use permits. When this NEPA 

process is complete, KMRDs ability to process requests for permits should be faster. 

Issue: People feel that it is important that people know what to expect regarding social 

conditions when they visit – the Forest Service should improve education and 

information available about different opportunities on KMRD. 

 Increased education regarding the social conditions is not a concern that can drive an 

alternative because it is not site-specific and does not have specific actions for any 

recreation use area. However, the Forest Service will try to improve efforts to educate 

visitors about the types of recreational opportunities and experiences available across 

KMRD through articles and interaction with the public. Additionally, education is one of 

the options that may be used in adaptive management. 

Issue: Outfitters and guides requested that allocation be distributed in various ways 

such as allocating to businesses that are already using an area or specify a certain 

amount of the allocation go to small businesses. 

 The distribution of allocation is not part of this decision and is outside the scope of this 

decision. The distribution of allocated days is determined during permit administration. 

In the case of conflict (where there is more interest for days than are allocated), that 

decision is made through a prospectus. 

Issue: The Forest Service is not developing any indicators and standards related to the 

physical resources (fisheries, water quality, etc.). 

 Standards and guidelines are set at the Forest Planning level in the 2008 Tongass Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The IDT is using the Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines to determine effects to and management of physical resources. Through 

adaptive management, resource specialists can respond to changes in physical conditions 

to protect areas with resource concerns. Areas with known resource concerns can be 

found in Appendix B on the recreation use area cards. These areas are the same for all 

alternatives. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 18 

Issue: Bear hunters would like to see the summer season ending date changed to 

September 15. 

 This analysis used the dates established in the capacity analysis because the majority of 

outfitters and guides have seasons that end around September 30. Also, it is difficult to 

determine which hunt dates to use if we base it on hunting. Primary use of outfitters and 

guides is by cruise ship passengers, so that is basis of the seasons. 

Issue: Establishing capacities and allocations will increase competition and cause the 

entire District to be managed for commercial use. 

 In general, the action alternatives allocate more visitor days than the highest average 

annual use shown in Alternative A, the no action alternative, which will allow for growth 

in most areas. If an alternative is selected that increases competition at a specific 

location, permit administrators will work to resolve those conflicts. This may include 

suggesting the person applying use another location where capacity exists that would 

work for the activity, denying their request for use if there is no capacity, or issuing a 

prospectus to determine who gets the permits. 

 The action alternatives include the ability to use adaptive management to maintain a 

range of quality recreation experiences across the District and a balance between guided 

and unguided use. Adaptive management may result in increased or decreased allocations 

for specific recreation use areas based on standards and the level of effects. All outfitter 

and guide operations will be subject to area-wide and site-specific mitigation measures to 

protect natural and historic resources and minimize crowding and conflicts between 

guided and unguided visitors. 

Issue: Outfitter and guide use will affect wildlife and fish population numbers. 

 ADF&G and the Federal Subsistence Board are the managers of population numbers and 

licenses; the Forest Service manages habitat and social aspects of recreation. 

Nonetheless, the effects to fish and wildlife are included in Chapter 3 of this EIS, and 

effects to wildlife were considered to be part of an issue (Issue 5) and a driver for 

Alternative D. 

The following concerns were not considered to be significant issues because the concern is 

outside the scope of this decision. 

Issue: Recreation Opportunity Zones and indicators and standards established through 

the LAC process will result in future restrictions on motorized boat access for guided 

and unguided visitors. 

 The Forest Plan established the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for the 

management of the Tongass National Forest (USDA 2008b, Forest Plan Appendix I). 

This EIS does not change recreation management established in the Forest Plan. The 

Recreation Opportunity Zones and indicators and standards established by the LAC 

process made it easier for the group to say how they felt outfitter and guide use should be 

managed in specific areas and did not add restrictions to unguided users (Appendix C of 

this document). Nothing in the decision will restrict how people access recreation areas; 

this analysis only sets allocations for the amount of outfitter and guide use that can occur. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 19 

Issue: Certain activities will be given preference over others in areas like 04 Misty Core 

(floatplane landing tours versus hikers seeking solitude in the wilderness); 

 Allocation in this EIS is for all guided visitor days and does not determine what use will 

be permitted where, but how much use is allowed. Everyone would have the same 

opportunity to request the use. 

 During the LAC process the public stated that a recreation emphasis may be desirable in 

some areas or locations, for example the current flightseeing use is high in recreation use 

area 04 Misty Core Lakes. The public suggested this because by concentrating 

flightseeing use in one location, other locations are then available for other activities like 

hikers seeking solitude in the wilderness, which may be in conflict with flightseeing. 

Even though a goal of outfitter and guide management is to provide different types of 

opportunities while minimizing inter-party conflict to the extent possible, the decision on 

what activities will occur in which areas will not be made in this document. 

 The decisions on what to do where will be based on requests from outfitters and guides, 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, resource concerns, outfitter and guide allocations in 

the record of decision, and, ultimately, site-specific decisions by the District Ranger. 

This method provides more flexibility and adaptability to the District Ranger at the time 

of permitting. Who goes where is outside the scope of this document. 

Issue: There will be impacts from activities outside Forest Service jurisdiction – 

airplane traffic in particular. 

 We have no control over activities or areas outside Forest Service jurisdiction, however 

the displacement concern was considered in Alternatives B, C, and D, and the effects are 

discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Issue: This process will affect Forest Service response to people interested in applying 

for State permits for tidelands use. 

 Tideland permitting is outside the scope of this project and would be based on State of 

Alaska policy. 

Issue: The majority of people that visit Misty were not present at the planning meetings 

and have not had a voice in the planning process. 

 The original public meetings developed one alternative, the NEPA process is designed to 

give people a voice in planning process. Additional alternatives may be developed for the 

FEIS based on comments on the DEIS, which gives everyone the right to be heard and 

their concerns considered. 

Other Agency Permits, Licenses, and Certifications 

The Forest Service is not required to obtain permits or licenses to implement this project. 

However, outfitter and guide permit holders are responsible for obtaining necessary permits 

and licenses from federal and state agencies prior to commencing outfitting and guiding. 

Prior to guiding on NFS lands, the Federal Government may require verification of current 

business or operating licenses such as Coast Guard License, State of Alaska Sport Fishing 

License, etc. Outfitter and guide activities involving the taking of fish or game will be 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 20 

implemented under Alaska Board of Game, Alaska Board of Fisheries, and Federal 

Subsistence Board regulations. 

Prior to guiding on NFS lands, State requirements include: 

 that commercial guides are state licensed with the Big Game Commercial Services 

Board (www.commerce.state.ak.us/occ/pgui3.htm), regardless of where they are 

operating; 

 any operator that uses state lands in the course of their commercial activities must 

either register with the Alaska Department of Natural Resource, Division of Mining, 

Land and Water (DMLW) under 11 AAAC 96.018, or obtain a permit under AS 

38.05.850 or lease under AS 38.05.070. More information on commercial day-use 

registration and DMLW authorizations may be found at 

http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/permit_lease/index.cfm; and 

 the operator must also comply with guide regulations issued by the Alaska Department 

of Commerce, Community and Economic Development which address operations 

primarily occurring on state tidelands and related incidental activities occurring on 

federal uplands. Regulation details can be found at 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pgui5.htm. 

Planning Record ____________________________ 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may 

be found in the project planning record located at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

Office in Ketchikan, Alaska. Other reference documents such as the Forest Plan are 

available at the Supervisor's Office in Ketchikan, Alaska. The Forest Plan is also available 

on the Internet and CD-ROM. 

Other Related Efforts ________________________ 

The following past decisions relate to guided use on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District. A statement in bold at the end of each effort explains the relationship between the 

prior effort and the current analysis. 

Existing guided uses have been considered, generally under categorical exclusion with or 

without documentation of the decision. The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and 

Guide Management Plan decision would supersede these past decisions. 

Commercial Uses on Ketchikan Trails Environmental Assessment (EA): A July 1, 2005 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for this analysis 

authorized guided use of three trails (Lunch Creek, Connell Lake, and Ward Creek 

Trails). The decision included restrictions on dates, hours of operation, maximum number 

of clients per group, and number of clients per day. Motorized use of trails, guided 

camping or biking, and guided floatplane landings on trail-accessible lakes were also not 

permitted. The decision also considered guided use on Deer Mountain, Dude Mountain, 

Frog Pond, Perseverance Lake, Pipeline, Minerva Mountain, Salvage Road, Silvis Lakes, 

and Ward Lake trails, but determined that no guided use would be permitted on these 

trails. A decision on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 21 

Plan would incorporate this EA, FONSI, and DN, and continue to implement this 

2005 decision. 

Non-consumptive Commercial Guiding in the Naha Recreation Area: This EA considered 

whether to allow guiding for non-consumptive uses (such as hiking, photography, 

kayaking, camping, and sightseeing) within the Naha Recreation Area. The analysis area 

encompassed the entire Naha River drainage. The April 9, 1997 decision was to leave the 

area closed to commercial use because of overwhelming response from the public that 

outfitter and guide use would compromise the experience of current users of the area. The 

decision stated that the moratorium on guided use for the Naha Recreation Area would 

remain in place until such time that another NEPA decision modified that decision. A 

decision on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

would supersede this 1997 decision, though two of the alternatives analyzed (B and 

D) essentially propose to continue the closure. 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Cabin Use: The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District determined that guided use at some cabins would be allowed. 

Table 1- 1) Non-Wilderness cabins and maximum amount of use currently available 

for outfitter and guide use 

Anchor Pass 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

Blind Pass 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

Helm Bay 20 days/month; Sept. 15 – May 1 only

Helm Creek 20 days/month; Sept. 15 – May 1 only

Phocena Bay 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

Plenty Cutthroat 20 days/month 

Reflection Lake 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

A needs assessment was completed in 2008 that shows a need for guided camping within 

the Wilderness. This allows KMRD to designate cabins for outfitter and guide use. 

Table 1- 2) Wilderness cabins designated for outfitter and guide use 

Alava Bay 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

Checats 20 days/month 

Ella Narrows 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

Hugh Smith Lake 20 days/month 

Humpback Lake 10 days/month; no weekends/holidays

Wilson Narrows 20 days/month 

Winstanley Lake 20 days/month 

A decision on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

would incorporate this allocation and continue to implement this assessment. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 22 

Revision to the EA for the Determination of Issuing Special Use Permits for Sportfishing 

Outfitter and Guide Services Throughout the Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest: 

In March 1998, a Decision Notice was signed by the Craig, Thorne Bay, and KetchikanMisty Fiords District Rangers to limit commercial guiding on streams with moderate 

concern for steelhead from December 1 – May 31. A decision on the Ketchikan-Misty 

Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan would supersede this 1998 decision 

for KMRD.

Margaret Creek Wildlife Site: A prospectus was done for use of the Margaret bear 

viewing platform. A decision on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan would change the use in Margaret Creek area. Thus, depending 

on the alternative, another prospectus may be necessary. 

Fish Creek Wildlife Viewing Site: Hyder Bear Viewing Platform has recently been 

allocated at 50% of the people-at-one-time capacity based on the design of the bear 

viewing platform. A decision on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan would incorporate this allocation and continue to implement this 

decision. 

Access and Travel Management Plan: A decision was made in 2010 about what roads 

would remain open and those that would be closed through the public process for the 

access and travel management plan for KMRD. The subsequent annual version of the 

KMRD Motor Vehicle Use Map is used to display and implement that decision. 

Outfitters and guides may use open roads and open trails (if it is on their permit), but we 

are not changing the status on any roads and therefore not changing access opportunities 

for subsistence, unguided, or guided visitors. A decision on the Ketchikan-Misty 

Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan would continue to implement this 

access and travel management decision. 
Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

   
 
Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 23 

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING 

THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Introduction ________________________________ 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Ketchikan-Misty 

Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan analysis. It includes a description and map of 

each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, 

sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for 

choice among options by the decision maker. Some of the information used to compare the 

alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based 

upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Analysis ____________________________ 

Several alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were not analyzed in 

detail in this EIS. These alternatives are described briefly below, along with the reasons for 

not considering them further. 

Allocate 100% of the recreation capacity to outfitters and guides in some or all areas.

This alternative was not considered in detail because a guided user allocation of 100% would 

stop the unguided public from using public lands. It is unrealistic to assume there are any 

locations on Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD) where unguided visitors do 

not go. Even remote or difficult to access areas may be visited by hunters or adventure 

seekers who like to go where few people have gone. Generally, guided visitors are attracted 

to the same areas as unguided visitors; perhaps they are attracted by the views, fishing, 

hunting, or the desire for a Wilderness experience. No matter what the attraction, guided and 

unguided visitors often visit the same areas. In all alternatives that were considered in detail, 

part of the visitor capacity is available for unguided users. 

Allocate the maximum amount of recreation capacity available to guided use in all areas. 

Three alternatives are being considered in detail that provide for a range of guided 

allocations. Alternative C proposes 50% guided allocation, which is generally the maximum 

allocation available for outfitters and guides according to the Forest Plan. And, Alternatives 

B and D propose higher allocations in some areas for specific reasons. Allocating the 

maximum to guided use in all areas was eliminated from detailed analysis because it is 

similar enough to Alternatives B and C that another alternative was not needed to provide a 

range of alternatives. In addition, adaptive management would allow the Responsible Official 

to provide higher allocations in some areas with total allocation no higher than Alternative C, 

as described in the Adaptive Management section below. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 24 

Maximize outfitter and guide allocations in wilderness. 

This alternative was considered but eliminated for reasons similar to those described under 

maximize guided us in all locations; between Alternatives B, C, and D, another alternative 

that provides for a range of allocations in wilderness was not needed. 

Alternative Development Process ______________ 

As described in Public Involvement in Chapter 1 and Appendix E of this EIS, the KetchikanMisty Fiords Ranger District used a Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) public planning 

process prior to NEPA to determine public perceptions, desires, and needs regarding outfitter 

and guide use on the KMRD. This collaborative planning process was used to develop the 

visitor capacity and the proposed action alternative; it also formed the basis for the other 

action alternatives. 

KMRD used public input to learn, define, and adjust the many components used to determine 

visitor capacity and to develop the Proposed Action for this analysis. 

As described in Appendix E, ten public meetings were held in 2009 and 2010. Meetings built 

on one another. Participants helped identify: 

 28 recreation use areas (shown in Figure 1-2 and Appendix B), 

 four recreation opportunity zones (used to help identify the range of desired recreation 

conditions and opportunities that will be provided across the KMRD; see Figure 2-1), 

 indicators and standards (Table 2-1) that will be used to measure and monitor those 

conditions, and 

 seasonal visitor capacities for the 28 recreation use areas on the KMRD. 

Four recreation opportunity zones were identified: 1) Primitive Wilderness, 2) SemiPrimitive Wilderness, 3) Semi-Primitive Non-Wilderness, and 4) Natural Accessible (Table 

2-1). Indicators are elements of the social setting that change in response to human activities. 

Standards are thresholds that, if exceeded, would constitute unacceptable impact to visitor 

experiences. Two social indicators with four zone-related standards were selected that Forest 

Service staff will continue to monitor as an indication of the visitor experiences offered on 

KMRD in all of the action alternatives (Table 2-1). Appendix E provides an explanation of 

the public process used to establish standards for each of the Recreation Opportunity Zones. 

Monitoring data indicate that existing encounter and guided lake landing levels are far below 

proposed standards in 27 of 28 of the Recreation Use Areas. The only exception is lake 

landings in the 05 Misty Core Lakes Use Area. Forest Plan Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) standards and guidelines would allow for a five- to ten-fold increase in encounter 

levels. Based on professional judgment, and knowledge of existing use patterns, this increase 

may be inconsistent with direction to maintain opportunities for solitude and may not provide 

the type of recreation experience expected by visitors coming to Southeast Alaska. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 25 

Figure 2-1) Recreation Use Areas and Recreation Opportunity Zones 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 26 

Back of Figure 2-1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 27 

Desired future conditions and standards identified during the KMRD Recreation Planning 

Process (see Appendix E) would be adopted under all action alternatives. This is consistent 

with Forest Plan direction to “manage for the adopted ROS class where established ...” (3-

18). This is also consistent with the wilderness management principle of nondegradation. A 

primary objective of wilderness management is to prevent degradation of current 

opportunties for solitude in each wilderness area and restore substandard settings to 

minimum levels, rather than letting all areas deteriorate to a minimum standard (Hendee et al. 

1990). ROS Class Standards identified in the Forest Plan would allow for considerable 

 

1 An encounter is defined as “an individual or group met while on National Forest System (NFS) lands or 

freshwater lakes.” An encounter may occur at a Forest Service cabin, on a trail, or along a shoreline, among 

ther places. It is only a considered an “encounter” when BOTH PARTIES are on National Forest System lands. 

For example, a group in a boat on saltwater passing a group walking on a beach would not be considered an 

encounter, however, a group in a boat on freshwater passing a group walking on a lake shore would be 

considered an encounter. We recognize the need for ongoing administration of public lands, thus “encounters” 

does not include meetings with any federal, state, local or contracted individuals who are working at any of 

these sites. 

2

 Information is based on actual use reports submitted annually by outfitters/guides operating on the KMRD 

under special use permit. If the guided activity requires a drop off and pick up (e.g. a tour where clients are left 

at a location with a guide and later picked up by the pilot), this use will only be counted as one landing for the 

purposes of this monitoring. Guided use reports include information about locations used, number of individuals 

and group visiting each area, method of transportation, and the amount of time spent on National Forest System 

lands. 

Table 2- 1) Indicators and Standards for the four KMRD Recreation Opportunity Zones 

(used in Alternatives B, C, and D) 

Indicator

Recreation Opportunity Zone 

Primitive 

Wilderness 

Semi-Primitive 

Wilderness 

Semi-Primitive NonWilderness 

Natural Accessible 

Standard 

Number of 

encounters1 per 

day during trip 

No encounters 

per day during 

trip 90% of the 

time. 

No more than two 

encounters per day 

during trip 90% of the 

time. 

No more than two 

encounters per day 80% 

of the time. 

No more than eight 

encounters per day 80% 

of the time. 

Number of 

guided 

floatplane 

landings per day 

per lake2

No more than one 

guided floatplane 

landing per day 

per lake 90% of 

the time. 

No more than two 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 90% of the time on 

lakes with public 

recreation cabins 

OR 

No more than five 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 90% of the time on 

lakes without public 

recreation cabins. 

No more than two 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 80% of the time on 

lakes with public 

recreation cabins 

OR 

No more than five 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 80% of the time on 

lakes without public 

recreation cabins. 

No more than eight 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 80% of the time 

during the primary use 

season. 

Note: this standard does 

not apply in the 

Ketchikan Core NA 

Use Area, where guided 

floatplane landings are 

prohibited. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 28 

degradation of opportunities for solitude on both the wilderness and non-wilderness portions 

of KMRD. The only exception is in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area where conditions 

already exceed Forest Plan Standards for the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS Class. 

Further work went into developing an adaptive management proposal using the indicators 

and standards developed during the public process. Monitoring of the selected indicators as 

well as resource concerns would be used to determine if conditions are nearing or exceeding 

standards and where, when, and what type of management actions may be needed or what 

management flexibility is available. 

The other action alternatives in this EIS were designed to address resource issues brought 

forward by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and Tribal entities as well as issues brought up 

during scoping, the KMRD open house, and during previous collaborative processes. The 

following section describes how the alternatives were developed. To see full descriptions of 

the alternatives, see the “Alternative 

Descriptions” section of this chapter. 

No Action (Alternative A) 

Alternative A (No Action) represents the current 

condition of the project area in terms of guided 

use. Since outfitters and guides are currently 

permitted to use KMRD, this alternative allows 

for the high end of recent (2005 through 2009) 

guided use levels (see Alternative A under 

Alternative Descriptions). A no action 

alternative is required in the EIS and serves as 

the baseline for comparing the action 

alternatives. 

Proposed Action (Alternative B) 

Using the LAC planning process described in Appendix E of this EIS, Forest Service staff 

worked with the participants to develop a proposed action that considered guided and 

unguided recreational opportunities, minimized the potential for visitor conflicts, maintained 

quality recreation experiences, and responded to many issues. 

With visitor capacity set, KMRD worked with the public, public input, and input from Forest 

Service recreation planners and specialists to propose guided allocations that fit within those 

capacities. Forest Service staff considered the recreation opportunity zone, types of activities 

taking place in each area and the type of setting desired for those activities, the amount of 

infrastructure available to provide access and protect resources, the amount of unguided and 

subsistence use occurring in each area, and the presence of sensitive cultural resources when 

developing proposed guided use allocations. Three public meetings were held between 

January and March of 2010 that involved participants in discussions about guided allocations 

for each of the 28 use areas. Participants reviewed information about existing and historical 

use levels. Proposed allocations were adjusted upward or downward based on perceived 

demand for additional use and availability of opportunities (upward) or concerns about 

impacts to resources or unguided visitor experience (downward). The outcome of these 

Figure 2-2 Group of Kayakers Heading to Shore
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 29 

meetings was development of a "proposed action" (Alternative B of this EIS) cooperatively 

developed by Forest Service staff and meeting participants. 

Within the Proposed Action, areas proposed for no guided use were related to resource 

(heritage and wildlife) or recreation/competition concerns. Areas proposed for lower guided 

use (10 to 20% allocation) were those areas where the public had concerns about conflicts 

between users or where there was concern that the standards set through the public process 

could not be met without lower allocations. Areas proposed for 75% guided use were those 

areas where the public felt that unguided use was relatively low due to distance from town, 

difficulty in accessing the area, or current guided use was high so unguided users avoided the 

area. During the public meetings, the group discussed how areas are used now and how areas 

may be used in the future. Instead of dispersing guided uses, like flightseeing, to other areas, 

the group felt that having a higher allocation in a few recreation areas and lower allocation in 

others would allow for fewer conflicts with unguided users by keeping the guided users in 

their current use areas. 

Alternative C 

During the public process, the public asked the Forest Service to look at an alternative that 

allocated one-half of the visitor capacity to outfitters and guides as stated in the Forest Plan 

(p. 4-46). 

“Generally allocate no more than one-half the appropriate 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.” (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b, p. 4-46) 

In Alternative C, the use allocation is 50% of the capacity for all recreation use areas. This 

alternative satisfies the request and addresses some concerns about limiting the amount and 

location of guided use and effects to local businesses. This alternative was designed to meet 

the general allocation as stated in Forest Plan but does not take into consideration historical 

use, changing demand, spatial zoning or temporal zoning, nor does it consider resource 

concerns such as wilderness character or historic properties. Effects to these resources are 

analyzed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. Alternative C provides the District Ranger with options 

and an opportunity to look at a range of effects. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D responds to several issues. It was designed to retain wilderness character and 

reduce impacts to historic properties, sacred sites and traditional cultural uses. Alternative D 

also responds to IDT member site-specific resource concerns by lowering allocations in 

specific locations. 

In some wilderness recreation use areas, Alternative D reduces allocations to reduce impacts 

on wilderness; it also provides areas with no or reduced allocation to outfitters and guides in 

places popular with unguided users, and provides higher guided use allocations in some areas 

to provide economic opportunities. This Alternative also responds to concerns about wildlife, 

subsistence, and cultural and traditional uses. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 30 

This alternative emphasizes the retention of wilderness character. It also maintains the 

quality of some local areas for unguided users, by allocating outfitter and guide use to areas 

with fewer users, to limit conflict between user groups. 

Alternative D was developed by looking at current outfitter and guide use, facilities available 

to outfitters and guides (trails, buoys, platforms, shelters) and site-specific resource concerns. 

In Alternative D, the allocations are as high as 75% of the recreation use area’s capacity to 

outfitters and guides. In 23 Betton Island, the 75% allocation is based on historical use, 

demand for sightseeing tours in the area, and allowing business growth close to town. In use 

area 27 Margaret Bay, the 65% allocation was to allow for business growth close to town, 

where facilities are available. 

Alternative Descriptions ______________________ 

Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the Proposed Action (Alternative B), and two 

other action alternatives are considered in detail. The other action alternatives represent 

different options of satisfying the Purpose and Need by responding with different emphases 

to the significant issues discussed in Chapter 1. Elements Common to all the Action 

Alternatives and Design Elements and Mitigation required by all the action alternatives are 

included in separate sections below and discussed further in Appendix B. Maps of all 

alternatives considered in detail are provided at the end of Chapter 2. 

Elements and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives 

Many potential effects can be negated by explaining what will or will not be allowed or 

included in outfitter and guides’ special use permits. Under all alternatives, permitted 

activities will be consistent with federal, state and local laws, regulations and orders and with 

the Forest Plan. In addition, the following project assumptions would be a part of any 

decision that was made and were used by all IDT members in their analysis: 

 The unguided public would not be regulated by this decision. Unguided use and use levels 

are expected to continue at existing levels and locations and, therefore, do not change 

between alternatives. 

 All alternatives authorize outfitter and guide operations through the issuance of special use 

permits using current permitting direction. 

 In all alternatives, for qualified applicants, the District Ranger may issue priority use 

permits based on guided use allocation, for a period of up to 10 years. 

 There will be continued and increased demand for special use permits to conduct outfitter 

and guide activities. 

 Guided visitor activities will be similar to those that are occurring now. Only those 

activities identified in the 2008 Determination of Need for Commercial Uses on the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (appendix A) could be authorized as a result of this 

decision (see “Background” in Chapter 1 of this EIS for the list of permitted activities). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 31 

 The only ground-disturbance associated with the activities identified in the analysis would 

be possible trampling from feet, the footprint of tents, driving on open roads or designated 

OHV trails, and human waste disposal. 

 Any road use associated with access to a permit holder’s authorized locations will be in 

accordance with the most recent Motor Vehicle Use Map in effect at the time the activity 

occurs. 

 Any dock use associated with boat-based access to a permit holder’s authorized locations 

will be restricted to the side/back of a dock to minimize interference with other users of the 

area. 

 Removal/collection of objects or plants would not be authorized, except for hunting and 

fishing as described in this document and the associated resource reports. 

 Any use of firewood would be limited to dead material on the ground and would follow 

Leave No Trace principles. No removal or cutting of live vegetation would occur. 

 Consumptive uses of water (i.e., diversions, dams, etc.) are not allowed. Limited collection 

of drinking water for individual or group use is acceptable. 

 Use higher than the visitor capacity (shown in Table 2-2) would not be allowed in any 

alternative. If higher use (unguided plus guided use) is identified through monitoring in any 

recreation use area, administrative action may be taken to limit outfitter and guide use. 

Unguided visitors would not be limited, unless resource damage is occurring. If resource 

damage is occurring (ex. trail erosion), visitors may be detoured away from the affected 

area until the concern can be resolved. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

For this analysis, the No Action alternative is the current actual use by outfitters and guides 

on the KMRD. Under this alternative, outfitter and guide special use permits could be issued 

up to the highest actual use, by recreation use area, that occurred between 2005 and 2009. 

See Figure 1-2 for recreation use area locations. District-wide, that highest actual use level is 

24,245 service days per year (calculated by taking the highest use between 2005 and 2009 

per use area per season and adding these highest uses together to get a District total for the 

182-day combined spring/summer/fall seasons). The highest guided use levels have been 741 

service days in the spring, 23,424 service days in the summer, and 80 service days in the fall 

(Table 2-2). Using the current practice, under Alternative A no season of use would be 

identified on the permit. 

A decision for Alternative A would only allow permitting up to the highest use level shown 

in Table 2-2; new NEPA would be required for higher use levels in any recreation use area. 

In Alternative A, use levels are used for comparison and no use is officially allocated to 

outfitters and guides. Alternative A recognizes that changes in permit requests could increase 

or decrease the use. 

Management of the outfitter and guide special uses program would continue to allocate 

outfitter and guide use on a case by case basis. New permits or requests from existing permit 

holders to increase use above the highest actual use, shown under column “Alt. A” in Table 

2-2 and 2-6, would require new NEPA. New permits can take a few weeks or several years 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 32 

depending on the amount of analysis needed and the availability of specialists to do the 

analysis. 

Existing permit stipulations would continue to be implemented. New design criteria, 

mitigation measures, and stipulations brought forward in Appendix B of this EIS would not 

apply in this alternative. 

Recreation Use 

Area 

All or 

Part in 

Wilderness 

Spring Season Summer Season Fall Season 

Visitor 

Capacity

Estimate 

(SDs) 

Average 

Guided 

Use 

Annually 

(2005-

2009) 

Alt. A 

Highest 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

Visitor 

Capacity

Estimate 

(SDs) 

Average 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

Alt. A 

Highest 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

(SDs) 

Average 

Guided 

Use 

Annually 

(2005-

2009) 

Alt. A 

Highest 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

01 West Misty Yes 299 <1 2 1,807 48 67 260 11 27 

02 Northeast 

Misty Yes 938 1 3 5,671 138 190 816 4 18 

03 South Misty Yes 883 7 21 5,338 117 186 768 8 13 

04 Duke Island No 359 0 0 2,168 41 221 312 0 0 

05 South Misty 

Lakes Yes 262 0 0 1,585 52 96 228 <1 4 

06 Misty Core 

Lakes Yes 1,615 63 275 9,758 7,676 9,258 1,404 3 6 

07 Walker 

Chickamin Yes 221 <1 1 1,334 25 36 192 0 0 

08 Burroughs 

Unuk Yes 248 <1 1 1,501 5 10 216 0 0 

09 Alava 

Princess 

Manzanita 

Yes 449 0 0 2,711 18 29 390 0 0 

10 Rudyerd 

Winstanley Yes 497 2 8 3,002 91 147 432 0 0 

11 Gravina 

Island No 538 0 0 3,253 0 0 468 0 0 

12 Bell Island No 1,159 11 51 7,006 149 224 1,008 0 0 

13 East 

Cleveland No 628 3 9 3,795 54 221 546 0 0 

14 West 

Cleveland No 359 2 4 2,168 5 9 312 0 0 

15 Wilson / 

Bakewell No 255 0 0 1,543 35 54 222 0 0 

16 Ketchikan 

Core SPNW No 179 0 0 1,084 1 6 156 1 6 

Table 2- 2) Visitor Capacity, Average Annual Guided Use, and Highest Guided 

Annual Use (Alternative A) in Service Days (SD) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 33 

Recreation Use 

Area 

All or 

Part in 

Wilderness 

Spring Season Summer Season Fall Season 

Visitor 

Capacity

Estimate 

(SDs) 

Average 

Guided 

Use 

Annually 

(2005-

2009) 

Alt. A 

Highest 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

Visitor 

Capacity

Estimate 

(SDs) 

Average 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

Alt. A 

Highest 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

(SDs) 

Average 

Guided 

Use 

Annually 

(2005-

2009) 

Alt. A 

Highest 

Guided 

Use 

Annually

(2005-

2009) 

17 George 

Carroll Thorne No 718 4 19 4,337 166 792 624 <1 2 

18 Central 

Revilla SPNW No 635 0 0 3,836 9 18 552 <1 1 

19 North Revilla No 538 <1 2 3,253 17 35 468 0 0 

20 Hyder SPNW No 269 0 0 1,626 1 4 234 0 0 

21 Percy Hotspur 

Mary Islands No 269 0 0 1,626 0 0 234 0 0 

22 Hyder NA No 179 0 0 1,084 7* 27* 156 0 0 

23 Betton Island No 1,932 181 278 11,676 6,921 8,153 1,680 0 0 

24 Ketchikan 

Core NA No 3,588 47 67 21,684 1,249* 1,502* 3,120 2 3 

25 South Revilla 

NA No 359 0 0 2,168 <1 2 312 0 0 

26 Central 

Revilla NA No 359 0 0 2,168 0 0 312 0 0 

27 Margaret Bay No 607 0 0 3,670 1,547 2,322 528 0 0 

28 Naha Bay No 359 0 0 2,168 4 14 312 0 0 

Total 18,701 325 741 113,020 18,340 23,424 16,262 32 80 

Highest Use for All Seasons and All Recreation Use Areas TOTAL = 24,245 Service Days 1

 Use in this area has not been permitted since 1999. However, unplanned use occurred in one year by a guide who had formerly 

been permitted in the area and did not realize it was closed. That use was stopped upon discovery and has not occurred again. 

* Additional use occurs at developed sites in these areas (Hyder bear viewing platform and the Southeast Alaska Discovery 

Center). This use is not reported here nor was capacity or allocation determined for these sites. Current management of these sites 

is expected to continue unchanged. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The proposed action (Alternative B) using the LAC process, developed a proposed action 

that considered guided and unguided recreational opportunities, minimized the potential for 

visitor conflicts, maintained quality recreation experiences, and responded to many issues as 

discussed in Chapter 1 under Public Involvement and as described above under Alternative 

Development Process. Alternative B authorizes outfitter and guide operations through the 

issuance of special use permits based on the public process and input. 

The proposed action would allocate 53,997 service days annually for outfitter and guide use 

on the KMRD (see Table 2-3, and Figures 2-3 and 2-4 at the end of this chapter). The 

proposed action allocates 5,126 service days in the spring, 44,416 service days in the 

summer, and 4,455 service days in the fall for outfitter and guide use. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 34 

Recreation Use Area 

Spring Season Summer Season Fall Season 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

# SDs % # SDs # SDs % # SDs # SDs % # SDs

01 West Misty 299 15 45 1,807 15 271 260 15 39

02 Northeast Misty 938 15 141 5,671 15 851 816 15 122

03 South Misty 883 15 132 5,338 15 801 768 15 115

04 Duke Island 359 0 0 2,168 0 0 312 0 0

05 South Misty Lakes 262 15 39 1,585 15 238 228 15 34

06 Misty Core Lakes 1,615 20 323 9,758 75 7,318 1,404 20 281

07 Walker Chickamin 221 15 33 1,334 15 200 192 15 29

08 Burroughs Unuk 248 15 37 1,501 15 225 216 15 32

09 Alava Princess 

Manzanita 449 20 90 2,711 20 542 390 20 78

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 497 10 50 3,002 10 300 432 10 43

11 Gravina Island 538 20 108 3,253 20 651 468 20 94

12 Bell Island 1,159 20 232 7,006 20 1,401 1,008 20 202

13 East Cleveland 628 20 126 3,795 20 759 546 20 109

14 West Cleveland 359 30 108 2,168 30 651 312 30 94

15 Wilson / Bakewell 255 20 51 1,543 20 309 222 20 44

16 Ketchikan Core 

SPNW 179 30 54 1,084 30 325 156 30 47

17 George Carroll Thorne 718 30 215 4,337 75 3,253 624 30 187

18 Central Revilla SPNW 635 30 190 3,836 30 1,151 552 30 166

19 North Revilla 538 30 161 3,253 30 976 468 30 140

20 Hyder SPNW 269 30 81 1,626 30 488 234 30 70

21 Percy Hotspur Mary 

Islands 269 30 81 1,626 30 488 234 30 70

22 Hyder NA 179 50 90 1,084 50 542 156 50 78

23 Betton Island 1,932 40 773 11,676 75 8,757 1,680 40 672

24 Ketchikan Core NA 3,588 40 1,435 21,684 40 8,674 3,120 40 1,248

25 South Revilla NA 359 40 144 2,168 75 1,626 312 40 125

26 Central Revilla NA 359 40 144 2,168 40 867 312 40 125

27 Margaret Bay 607 40 243 3,670 75 2,752 528 40 211

28 Naha Bay 359 0 0 2,168 0 0 312 0 0

Total 18,701 5,126 113,020 44,416 16,262 4,455

Guided Use Allocation for All Seasons and All Recreation Use Areas TOTAL = 53,997 Service Days 

* Percent is the portion of the Visitor Capacity Estimate allocated to guided use.

Table 2- 3) Proposed Action, Alternative B – Outfitter and Guide Allocations in 

Service Days (SD) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 35 

Alternative C 

Using the estimated visitor capacity, this alternative allocates half to outfitters and guides in 

all recreation use areas. This equates to an allocation of 74,005 service days annually for 

outfitter and guide use on the KMRD (Table 2-4 and Figure 2-5 at the end of this chapter). 

Alternative C allocates 9,360 service days in the spring, 56,514 service days in the summer, 

and 8,131 service days in the fall for outfitter and guide use. 

Recreation Use Area 

Spring Season Summer Season Fall Season 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

# SDs % # SDs # SDs % # SDs # SDs % # SDs

01 West Misty 299 50 150 1,807 50 904 260 50 130

02 Northeast Misty 938 50 469 5,671 50 2,836 816 50 408

03 South Misty 883 50 442 5,338 50 2,669 768 50 384

04 Duke Island 359 50 180 2,168 50 1,084 312 50 156

05 South Misty Lakes 262 50 131 1,585 50 793 228 50 114

06 Misty Core Lakes 1,615 50 808 9,758 50 4,879 1404 50 702

07 Walker Chickamin 221 50 110 1,334 50 667 192 50 96

08 Burroughs Unuk 248 50 124 1,501 50 751 216 50 108

09 Alava Princess Manzanita 449 50 225 2,711 50 1,356 390 50 195

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 497 50 249 3,002 50 1,501 432 50 216

11 Gravina Island 538 50 269 3,253 50 1,627 468 50 234

12 Bell Island 1,159 50 580 7,006 50 3,503 1,008 50 504

13 East Cleveland 628 50 314 3,795 50 1,898 546 50 273

14 West Cleveland 359 50 180 2,168 50 1,084 312 50 156

15 Wilson / Bakewell 255 50 128 1,543 50 771 222 50 111

16 Ketchikan Core SPNW 179 50 90 1,084 50 542 156 50 78

17 George Carroll Thorne 718 50 360 4,337 50 2,169 624 50 312

18 Central Revilla SPNW 635 50 318 3,836 50 1,918 552 50 276

19 North Revilla 538 50 269 3,253 50 1,627 468 50 234

20 Hyder SPNW 269 50 135 1,626 50 813 234 50 117

21 Percy Hotspur Mary Islands 269 50 135 1,626 50 813 234 50 117

22 Hyder NA 179 50 90 1,084 50 542 156 50 78

23 Betton Island 1,932 50 966 11,676 50 5,838 1,680 50 840

24 Ketchikan Core NA 3,588 50 1,794 21,684 50 10,842 3,120 50 1,560

25 South Revilla NA 359 50 180 2,168 50 1,084 312 50 156

26 Central Revilla NA 359 50 180 2,168 50 1,084 312 50 156

27 Margaret Bay 607 50 304 3,670 50 1,835 528 50 264

28 Naha Bay 359 50 180 2,168 50 1,084 312 50 156

 9,360 56,514 8,131

Guided Use Allocation for All Seasons and All Recreation Use Areas TOTAL = 74,005 Service Days 

* Percent is the portion of the Visitor Capacity Estimate allocated to guided use. 

Table 2- 4) Alternative C – Outfitter and Guide Allocated 50% of Visitor Capacity Estimate 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 36 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would allocate 34,904 service days annually for outfitter and guide use on the 

KMRD (see Table 2-5 and Figures 2-6 and 2-7 at the end of this chapter). Alternative D 

allocates 3,341 service days in the spring, 28,655 service days in the summer, and 2,908 

service days in the fall for outfitter and guide use. 

Recreation Use Area 

Spring Season Summer Season Fall Season 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided 

Use 

Allocation 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Estimate 

Guided Use 

Allocation 

# SDs % # SDs # SDs % # SDs # SDs % # SDs 

01 West Misty 299 15 45 1,807 15 271 260 15 39 

02 Northeast Misty 938 5 47 5,671 5 283 816 5 41 

03 South Misty 883 10 88 5,338 10 534 768 10 77 

04 Duke Island 359 0 0 2,168 0 0 312 0 0 

05 South Misty Lakes 262 10 26 1,585 10 159 228 10 23 

06 Misty Core Lakes 1,615 15 242 9,758 15 1,464 1,404 15 211 

07 Walker Chickamin 221 10 22 1,334 10 133 192 10 19 

08 Burroughs Unuk 248 5 12 1,501 5 75 216 5 11 

09 Alava Princess 

Manzanita 449 15 67 2,711 15 407 390 15 59 

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 497 5 25 3,002 5 150 432 5 22 

11 Gravina Island 538 0 0 3,253 0 0 468 0 0 

12 Bell Island 1,159 10 116 7,006 10 701 1,008 10 101 

13 East Cleveland 628 5 31 3,795 5 190 546 5 27 

14 West Cleveland 359 15 54 2,168 15 325 312 15 47 

15 Wilson / Bakewell 255 15 38 1,543 15 231 222 15 33 

16 Ketchikan Core 

SPNW 179 10 18 1,084 10 108 156 10 16 

17 George Carroll 

Thorne 718 30 215 4,337 50 2,169 624 30 187 

18 Central Revilla 

SPNW 635 30 190 3,836 30 1,151 552 30 166 

19 North Revilla 538 30 161 3,253 30 976 468 30 140 

20 Hyder SPNW 269 30 81 1,626 30 488 234 30 70 

21 Percy Hotspur Mary 

Islands 269 0 0 1,626 0 0 234 0 0 

22 Hyder NA 179 50 90 1,084 50 542 156 50 78 

23 Betton Island 1,932 30 580 11,676 75 8,757 1,680 30 504 

24 Ketchikan Core NA 3,588 25 897 21,684 25 5,421 3,120 25 780 

25 South Revilla NA 359 25 90 2,168 50 1,084 312 25 78 

26 Central Revilla NA 359 15 54 2,168 30 650 312 15 47 

27 Margaret Bay 607 25 152 3,670 65 2,386 528 25 132 

28 Naha Bay 359 0 0 2,168 0 0 312 0 0 

 3,341 28,655 2,908 

Guided Use Allocation for All Seasons and All Recreation Use Areas TOTAL = 34,904 Service Days 

Table 2- 5) Alternative D – Outfitter and Guide Allocated Visitor Capacity Estimate 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 37 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 

The following elements would be implemented in all of the action alternatives (Alternatives 

B, C, and D): 

All action alternatives allocate outfitter and guide use for the spring, summer, and fall 

seasons. Season dates are spring: April 20 through May 14 (23 days), summer: May 15 

through September 30 (139 days), and fall: October 1 through October 20 (20 days). No 

allocations are specified for winter use because current and anticipated outfitter and guide 

use levels in the winter are so low that allocations for the winter season were unneeded. 

While analysis of effects was completed for the entire KMRD, under the action alternatives 

some permit actions would require additional review by the IDT to assure that effects remain 

within expectations. If the actions are within expectation, no further documentation would be 

required before permits are issued. Proposals requiring additional review in Alternatives B, 

C, and D are displayed in Appendix B in Table B-1. 

All action alternatives would use the recreation use areas shown in Figure 1-2, recreation 

opportunity zones shown in Figure 2-2, and the indicators and standards shown in Table 2-1 

for implementation. 

Adaptive management would be implemented in all the action alternatives. 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management is a process of monitoring results and adjusting the chosen action to 

meet desired outcomes. In the future, if a recreation use area nears or exceeds the indicators 

and standards, or if unforeseen and unknown or substantial resource impacts occur as a result 

of implementing the selected alternative, the KMRD will use adaptive management and take 

administrative steps to address the areas of concern. The steps that cause the least impact to 

recreational visitors would be implemented first if there was no immediate threat to resources 

or facilities. Potential administrative steps include: 

 Provide information for unguided visitors about the recreation settings that can be 

expected in different use areas and locations, 

 Encourage guided and unguided use in less crowded areas with similar recreation 

opportunities and during the spring and fall when use levels are lower, 

 Identify additional sites for guided and unguided groups, 

 Encourage outfitters and guides to voluntarily coordinate their schedules, 

 Limit guided users’ length of stay, 

 Require guided groups to use designated sites, 

 Limit guided use on weekends and holidays, 

 Reduce guide use allocation, and/or 

 Implement resource-specific measures to mitigate impacts to resources (see Appendix D). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 38 

KMRD will also consider increasing allocations. If a recreation use area nears the allocation 

and an outfitter or guide requests additional days, the District Ranger may grant them based 

on a review by resource specialists and by following the criteria listed below. However, this 

analysis only considers and allows allocations at or below the highest allocation per use area 

shown in Tables 2-3 through 2-5 above, and the highest guided use allocation for all 

recreation use areas total. Thus, Adaptive Management would only allow a total guided 

allocation at or below 74,005 service days and no individual area would go higher than the 

highest allocation per use area analyzed in this EIS. When demand for guided use exceeds 

allocation and an increase is not possible in a recreation use area, the Forest Service will 

issue a prospectus to determine the most qualified applicant to provide services. 

Criteria for Adjusting Guided Use 

The following criteria would be used to adjust guided use during the implementation of the 

EIS, rather than having to wait until formal NEPA review is completed. 

Increase the Guided Use Allocation: The guided use allocation for a recreation use area may 

be increased to accommodate additional guided use on a temporary basis (authorized by a 

one-year transitional priority use permit) at the discretion of the District Ranger if ALL of 

the following occur: 

1. Encounter rates do not exceed standard displayed in Table 2-1, 

2. Number of guided lake landings do not exceed standard in Table 2-1, 

3. No substantial3 resource issues are identified during the resource specialist review, 

4. Evaluation of the number/content of complaints indicates that additional use can be 

accommodated while meeting management objectives, and 

5. For additional use proposed in Wilderness, the proposed use cannot be 

accommodated on non-wilderness portions of KMRD. 

If two years pass without items 1-5 being noted, the Recreation Use Area’s guided use 

allocation may be increased to include the additional use and a priority use permit can be 

issued at the discretion of the District Ranger. 

Decrease the Guided Use Allocation or Implement Other Adaptive Management Options: 

Guided use allocation for a recreation use area may be decreased or other adaptive 

management options may be implemented if ANY of the following occur: 

1. Encounter rates exceed standard displayed in Table 2-1, 

2. Number of guided lake landings exceed standard in Table 2-1, 

3. Substantial resource issue(s) is/are identified during the resource specialist review, or 

4. Evaluation of the number/content of complaints indicates that a decrease in guided 

use allocation is needed to meet management objectives. 

 

3

 Substantial is defined differently for each resource, that is why a resource specialist review is included in the adaptive 

management criteria. More information is available on the resource analysis in the resource reports in the project record. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 39 

At the discretion of the District Ranger, management actions such as education, voluntary 

outfitter and guide scheduling, and mandatory outfitter and guide permit stipulations may be 

used prior to decreasing the guided use allocation. 

Increases and decreases in use and other adaptive management adjustments will be at the 

District Ranger’s discretion. New NEPA analysis would be needed for outfitter and guide 

use if the District Ranger desired to go outside of the parameters described here. 

Project Design and Mitigation Measure _________ 

The action alternatives are designed to minimize environmental effects and meet Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. Some measures are required in all areas. The design elements and 

mitigation measures required within outfitter and guide special use permits are located in 

Appendix B of this document, Recreation Use Area Cards. These design elements and 

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

administration of the permits. 

Project Monitoring ___________________________ 

Monitoring and evaluation provide the public and the Forest Service with information on the 

progress and results of implementing National Forest management decisions. Monitoring and 

evaluation comprise an essential feedback mechanism to help be responsive to changing 

conditions. There are two distinct types of monitoring: implementation and effectiveness. 

Implementation monitoring determines if the permitted activities comply with adopted 

standards and guidelines: “Did we do what we said we would?” Effectiveness monitoring 

determines whether the standards and guidelines achieve desired results: “Were the results 

what we expected?”

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be accomplished through the 

administration of the special use permits issued as a result of this decision. These measures 

include: 

1. Special use permits authorized will be monitored as described in Forest Service 

Handbook 2709.11. This monitoring will consist of routine inspections for permit 

compliance and compliance with State and Federal regulations. 

2. Field inspections of a permit holder's operations or approved use will be necessary to 

ensure compliance with permit provisions. Inspections of approved use areas would 

provide information regarding site conditions and whether or not additional 

administrative actions are required. 

3. Permit holders are required to provide actual use reports4

 to the Forest Service within 30 

days of the end of their operating season. 

4.Information provided by the yearly use reports will be compiled and available to all 

resource disciplines or other areas as requested. 

 

4 Actual use reports A form completed by outfitter and guide permit holders and submitted to the District Office at the end 

of the holder’s operating season. The form includes the following information: date(s) of use, number of clients, location(s), 

and a description of the activity(s) at each location. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 40 

5. KMRD permit administrators will monitor outfitter and guide use annually based on 

information provided by permit holders in the actual use report. 

6. KMRD staff conducts wilderness solitude monitoring to asses opportunities for solitude 

and to document effects to wilderness character in Misty Fiords National Monument 

Wilderness (MFNMW). Annual monitoring includes; social encounter monitoring, 

guided aircraft landings, outfitter and guide use, sound monitoring, trail and cabin use 

monitoring and dispersed campsite monitoring. This monitoring is completed using the 

protocol established in the MFNMW Solitude Monitoring Protocol (2011 – an appendix 

of the resource specialist report for Wilderness). Monitoring information supports the 

KMRD Outfitter and Guide EIS, Wilderness 10 Year Stewardship Challenge, Tongass 

Forest Plan wilderness character monitoring, and KMRD outfitter and guide 

administration. 

7.While conducting the wilderness solitude monitoring, the recreation staff also looks for 

invasive plant species and notes any wildlife species or areas of interest, like goshawk, 

osprey, oystercatchers, sea lions haulouts, and bald eagle nests. Wildlife-related 

sightings are reported to the KMRD wildlife biologist. If any invasive plant species are 

seen, the staff reports these to the KMRD botanist. The district botanist works closely 

with the recreation staff to identify all plants of interest. 

8. Starting in 2011, the soils and fisheries resource specialists have requested that the 

recreation staff look at trampling, soil compaction, soil puddling, or soil mineral 

exposure that results in the degradation of the site such that it results in an undesired 

recreation condition as defined by the recreation staff and any disturbance of over 100 

square feet, resulting in soil erosion that reaches a drainage channel or other water body. 

9. Social encounter monitoring will ensure that standards established for the Primitive 

Wilderness and Semi-Primitive Wilderness Recreation Opportunity zones are not 

exceeded in specific locations or Recreation Use Areas. KMRD staff will also continue 

monitoring trail and cabin use. 

Adaptive Management requires clearly identified intended outcomes and monitoring to 

determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes. 

Implementation and monitoring of special use permits is a part of the ongoing management 

of resources at the district level. The programs and strategies used to manage resources 

include education and awareness, field visits, site inspections, and visitor feedback. Methods 

may vary depending upon resources that are impacted. 

Resource-specific monitoring is also required, as discussed below. 

Botany 

All outfitter and guide recreation use will be periodically monitored by Forest Service 

personnel. Impacts to vegetation will be recorded during site visits. If a sensitive plant or 

lichen or rare plant is found, the KMRD botanist will be notified. The botanist will assess 

the population health and extent. If impacts are determined to negatively affect the viability 

of the population, mitigation measures will be implemented. If an invasive plant is found, 

the KMRD botanist will be notified. The botanist will assess the population density and 

extent of the infestation. Mitigation recommendations will be made if the population is 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 41 

determined to be a threat to natural, cultural, or recreational resources. The botanist will 

communicate with the permit administrator. Permits may be modified to implement 

mitigations or closures, or to address increases or decreases in allocations as proposed in 

adaptive management. 

Fish/Hydrology 

No formal or scheduled monitoring by the KMRD fish biologist or hydrologist is required. 

Monitoring conducted as part of permit administration, random site visits by district 

personnel and site condition reports from the public are sufficient to notice impacts to other 

resources, especially botany and soils, which indirectly affect water resources. If impacts are 

noted, the KMRD fish biologist or hydrologist will be consulted. The fish biologist or 

hydrologist will work with the permit administrator to assess and prescribe mitigation 

measures. 

If mitigation measures are implemented, a monitoring plan would be developed at that time. 

Heritage 

To verify affect assumptions KMRD archeologists will continue to periodically visit a 

sample of guided use areas and follow standard monitoring protocols. This periodic 

monitoring will ensure that conducting such activities do not adversely affect cultural 

resources through soil disturbance, rutting, compaction, and erosion. Monitoring will also 

address issues of future commercial use that may increase the potential for looting or 

inadvertent disturbance of heritage resources. District archeologists will conduct a visual 

inspection of the guided use area, focusing particular attention on areas with known heritage 

resources or that are located in high sensitivity areas for potential heritage resources. Soil 

probes and other subsurface tests may be used to determine the integrity of buried sites. 

Photographic reference and GPS waypoints may be established at each monitored location to 

serve as a visual baseline as future visits are made. Information gathered during monitoring 

will be recorded in our Ketchikan-Misty Fiord Sites database. Maps, drawings, photos, and 

other references will also be collected to gauge future site conditions. Guide use report 

information will help us to continue to monitor known guide use areas more effectively.

Wildlife 

The KMRD wildlife biologist will accompany permit administrators on some routine field 

inspections to check compliance, general effectiveness of mitigations, and analytical 

assumptions. Information from guide use reports, site condition reports, and other sources 

may help focus field visits on potential problem areas. If impacts are noted, the KMRD 

wildlife biologist will be consulted and work with the permit administrator to assess and 

prescribe mitigation measures. 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative ________ 

Alternative B, the Proposed Action, is the Agency preferred alternative. However, please 

review all alternatives since any alternative, combination of alternatives, or a new alternative 

within the range of these alternatives may be selected in the final decision. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 42 

Comparison of Alternatives ___________________ 

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Tables 2-6 

and 2-7 compare alternative allocations quantitatively. Table 2-8 is focused on the different 

alternative effects that can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively. 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 43 

Recreation Use Area 

Service 

Days 

Authorized 

(in 2009) 

Carrying 

Capacity in 

Service 

Days 

Annual Service Days Allocated 

Alt. A 

(2005-2009 

Highest 

Use) 

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

01 West Misty 77 2,366 96 355 1,184 355 

02 Northeast Misty 170 7,425 211 1,114 3,713 372 

03 South Misty 229 6,989 220 1,048 3,495 699 

04 Duke Island 0 2,839 22 0 1,420 0 

05 South Misty Lakes 34 2,075 100 311 1,038 208 

06 Misty Core Lakes 11,268 12,777 9,539 7,922 6,389 1,917 

07 Walker Chickamin 60 1,747 37 262 873 174 

08 Burroughs Unuk 45 1,965 11 294 983 98 

09 Alava Princess 

Manzanita 45 3,550 29 710 1,776 533 

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 247 3,931 155 393 1,966 197 

11 Gravina Island 0 4,259 0 853 2,130 0 

12 Bell Island 370 9,173 275 1,835 4,587 918 

13 East Cleveland 93 4,969 230 994 2,485 248 

14 West Cleveland 100 2,839 13 853 1,420 426 

15 Wilson / Bakewell 183 2,020 54 404 1,010 302 

16 Ketchikan Core 

SPNW 0 1,419 12 426 710 142 

17 George Carroll 

Thorne 1599 5,679 813 3,655 2,841 2,571 

18 Central Revilla 

SPNW 32 5,023 19 1,507 2,512 1,507 

19 North Revilla 65 4,259 37 1,277 2,130 1,277 

20 Hyder SPNW 20 2,129 4 639 1,065 639 

21 Percy Hotspur Mary 

Islands 0 2,129 0 639 1,065 0 

22 Hyder NA 5 1,419 27 710 710 710 

23 Betton Island 8315 15,288 8,431 10,202 7,644 9,841 

24 Ketchikan Core NA 2189 28,392 1,572 11,357 14,196 7,098 

25 South Revilla NA 20 2,839 2 1,895 1,420 1,252 

26 Central Revilla NA 28 2,839 0 1,136 1,420 751 

27 Margaret Bay 2574 4,805 2,322 3,206 2,403 2,670 

28 Naha Bay 0 2,779 14 0 1,420 0 

Total 27,768 147,923 24,245 53,997 74,005 34,905 

Table 2- 6) Annual Outfitter and Guide Allocation in Service Days by Alternative and 

Use Area (for Alternative A, highest use is displayed for comparison) 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 44 

Recreation Use Area Spring Summer 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B 

# 

SDs* # SDs # SDs # SDs # SDs* # SDs # SDs # SDs # SDs* # SDs 

01 West Misty 2 45 150 45 67 271 904 271 27 39 02 Northeast Misty 3 141 469 47 190 851 2,836 284 18 122 03 South Misty 21 132 442 88 186 801 2,669 534 13 115 04 Duke Island 0 0 180 0 22 0 1,084 0 0 0 05 South Misty Lakes 0 39 131 26 96 238 793 159 4 34 06 Misty Core Lakes 275 323 808 242 9,258 7,318 4,879 1,464 6 281 07 Walker Chickamin 1 33 110 22 36 200 667 133 0 29 08 Burroughs Unuk 1 37 124 12 10 225 751 75 0 32 09 Alava Princess Manzanita 0 90 225 67 29 542 1,356 407 0 78 10 Rudyerd Winstanley 8 50 249 25 147 300 1,501 150 0 43 11 Gravina Island 0 108 269 0 0 651 1,627 0 0 94 12 Bell Island 51 232 580 116 224 1,401 3,503 701 0 202 13 East Cleveland 9 126 314 31 221 759 1,898 190 0 109 14 West Cleveland 4 108 180 54 9 651 1,084 325 0 94 15 Wilson / Bakewell 0 51 128 38 54 309 771 231 0 44 16 Ketchikan Core SPNW 0 54 90 18 6 325 542 108 6 47 17 George Carroll Thorne 19 215 360 215 792 3,253 2,169 2,169 2 187 18 Central Revilla SPNW 0 190 318 190 18 1,151 1,918 1,151 1 166 19 North Revilla 2 161 269 161 35 976 1,627 976 0 140 20 Hyder SPNW 0 81 135 81 4 488 813 488 0 70 21 Percy Hotspur Mary Islands 0 81 135 0 0 488 813 0 0 70 

Table 2- 7) Annual Outfitter and Guide Allocation in Service Days by Alternative, Use Area, and Season (fo

highest use is displayed for comparison) 
Draft Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 45 

Recreation Use Area Spring Summer 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B 

# 

SDs* # SDs # SDs # SDs # SDs* # SDs # SDs # SDs # SDs* # SDs 

22 Hyder NA 0 90 90 90 27* 542 542 542 0 78 23 Betton Island 278 773 966 580 8,153 8,757 5,838 8,757 0 672 24 Ketchikan Core NA 67 1,435 1,794 897 1,502* 8,674 10,842 5,421 3 1,248 25 South Revilla NA 0 144 180 90 2 1,626 1,084 1,084 0 125 26 Central Revilla NA 0 144 180 54 0 867 1,084 650 0 125 27 Margaret Bay 0 243 304 152 2,322 2,752 1,835 2,386 0 211 28 Naha Bay 0 0 180 0 14 0 1,084 0 0 0 Total Allocated by Season 741* 5,126 9,360 3341 2,338 44,416 56,514 28,656 80 4,455 *In Alternative 1, no use will be officially allocated to outfitters and guides. However, highest use numbers are shown here for comparisAlternative 1 above for the full description of this alternative.
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 46 

Table 2- 8) Comparison of Alternatives 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects 

Issue 1: Limiting the amount and location of outfitter and guide use may not adequately provide for industry stability and growth. Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area and number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 06 Misty Core Lakes, 11 Gravina Island, 17 George Carroll Thorne, and 27 Margaret Bay (Recreation Use Areas identified by outfitters and guides as desired locations) 

The economics for outfitters and guides will remain the same, 24,245 service days per year. When an outfitter or guide applies for a special use permit, an individual environmental analysis will be completed, which may take several years dependent on the type of application and the availability of resource specialists. There is no room for outfitters and guides to expand their businesses with this level of use. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, current highest use is 12,732 service days per year including 9,258 service days in 06 Misty Core Lakes.

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase to 53,997 service days annually (all seasons for the entire district). The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 29,752 service days, a 223% increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative B allocates 13,974 service days per year –an overall increase. In 06 Misty Core Lakes, there would be a decrease to 7,318 service days per year.

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase with this alternative to 74,005 service days annually (all seasons for the entire district) for outfitter and guide use. The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 49,760 service days, a 305% increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative C allocates 10,510 service days per year. This includes an increase in two recreation use areas, and a decrease in two areas. In 06 Misty Core Lakes, there would be a decrease to 4,879 service days per year.

SouwseseTouby inargu6TredeMbe da

Issue 2: Outfitter and guide use may cause crowding, noise, and disturbance, particularly in locations popular with unguided users (areas 

as locations of interest or concern: 04 Duke Island, 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East Cleveland, 17 George 

Island, 24 Ketchikan Core NA, 27 Margaret Bay, and 28 Naha Bay).Number of service days on KMRD allocated to outfitters and guides - overall (see Tables 2-6 and 2-7 for individual recreation use areas)

24,245 SDs* 53,997 SDs 74,005 SDs 
Draft Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 47 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects 

Number of service days allocated during the summer to outfitters and guides in unguided users’ areas of interest or concern

23,424 SDs* 26,472 SDs 30,631 SDs 

Effects to crowding, noise, and disturbance in unguided users’ areas of interest or concern 

Crowding and conflict are more likely under Alternative A than under all of the Action Alternatives because use is growing and design criteria (for Alternatives B, C, and D) would not be implemented and therefore would not minimize conflicts. However, of the alternatives, Alternative A is the least likely to disperse outfitter and guide use into less popular areas on the wilderness and nonwilderness portions of the KMRD and result in negative indirect social effects. 

Minor impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences in areas identified as highly-valued local areas. Design criteria and mitigation measures would ensure that crowding and impacts from outfitter and guide use are minimized in popular locations and attractions within these use areas

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the most effect. However, design criteria and mitigation measures would ensure that crowding and impacts from outfitter and guide use are minimized in popular locations and attractions within these use areas. By limiting the amount of outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, Alternative C has the potential to disperse flightseeing traffic and cause indirect effects to social conditions (e.g. crowding and additional floatplane landings) on adjacent waterways, particularly in Rudyerd Bay and Walker Cove. 

AliimexhiApotrto crflwlapaW

Issue 3: Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas may affect historic properties, sacred sites anNumber of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas 

22 SDs** 639 SDs 2,485 SDs 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 48 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects 

Effect to historic properties, sacred sites and traditional cultural properties 

The activities in all four alternatives of this EIS will have No Affect on historic properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. However, commercial use of the “Duke Island area” may affect cultural and traditional uses of the area and has the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the “Duke Island area.”

No Affect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of these two use areas which may affect cultural and traditional uses and the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the “Duke Island area.”

No Affect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of these two use areas which may affect cultural and traditional uses and the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the “Duke Island area.”

NApothm

Issue 4: Noise associated with floatplanes and boats in and around Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness may negatively impact Number of service days allocated in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness 

10,398 SDs* 12,409 SDs 21,417 SDs 

Number of service days allocated in 06 Misty Core Lakes 

9,539 SDs* 7,922 SDs 6,389 SDs 

Number of service days allocated to Misty Fiords Wilderness outside 06 Misty Core Lakes 

859 SDs* 4,487 SDs 15,028 SDs 
Draft Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 49 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects 

Effects on opportunities for solitude due to noise 

Alternative A allows for the highest amount of outfitter and guide use in 06 Misty Core Lakes. Guided floatplane tours in this Use Area have, and would continue to have, a major effect (as defined in Table 3-4) on opportunities for solitude in the core area of Misty Fiords. Under Alternative A, outfitter and guide use is the least likely to be dispersed to areas that currently offer a high level of opportunities for solitude. 

Alternative B would improve opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area because it allocates less use to outfitters and guides in this Use Area. Alternative B would have a minor negative effect on opportunities for solitude in the 01 West Misty, 02 Northeast Misty, and 05 South Misty Use Areas, by displacing floatplane traffic to these areas. 

Alternative C would improve opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area but would allow for a significant increase in motorized traffic associated with outfitter and guide floatplane landings in the 01 West Misty and 02 Northeast Misty Use Areas. An increase in floatplane traffic in these areas is inconsistent with Forest Plan direction to not disperse use in wilderness. Effects to wilderness character would be moderate to major.

Asifrin AsmtranthMAfo

Issue 5: Outfitter and guide use may negatively affect wildlife, subsistence uses, and cultural and traditional uses.Effects on Wildlife Potential effects to wildlife 

occur when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities overlap with crucial life phases; generally high or highest relative risk to wildlife because no allocation limit except visitor capacity

Potential effects to wildlife may occur when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities overlap with crucial life phases; generally low or lowest relative risk to wildlife because of the moderate allocation and inclusion of design elements.

Potential effects to wildlife may occur when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities overlap with crucial life phases; generally high or highest relative risk to wildlife because of the high allocation

Pocouovgrilode
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 50 

Issues and Resources Alternative A Effects Alternative B Effects Alternative C Effects 

Effects on Subsistence Use 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those resources. Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those resources. Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those resources. Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

TsisisusuwdireacthEfowthdoel

Effect to cultural and traditional uses 

Commercial use of the “Duke Island area” may affect cultural and traditional uses of the area 

An increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of the “Duke Island area” which may affect cultural and traditional uses.

An increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of the “Duke Island area” which may affect cultural and traditional uses.

Apoancu

* In Alternative 1, no use will be officially allocated to outfitters and guides. However, highest use numbers are shown here for compari** Use in this area has not been permitted since 1999. However, unplanned use occurred in one year by a guide who had formerly been pdid not realize it was closed. That use was stopped upon discovery and has not occurred again. (Source: Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guided Recreation project Chapter 3 and Resource Reports) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 51 

Figure 2-3 – Alternative B, Proposed Action, Spring and Fall Outfitter and Guide Allocations 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 52 

Back of Fig. 2-3 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 53 

Figure 2-4 – Alternative B, Proposed Action, Summer Outfitter and Guide Allocations 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 54 

Back of Fig. 2-4 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 55 

Figure 2-5 – Alternative C, Spring, Summer, and Fall Outfitter and Guide Allocations 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 56 

Back of fig. 2-5 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 57 

Figure 2-6 – Alternative D, Spring and Fall Outfitter and Guide Allocations 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 58 

Back of fig. 2-6 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 59 

Figure 2-7 – Alternative D, Summer Outfitter and Guide Allocations 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 60 

Back of Fig. 2-7
Chapter 3 

Environment and Effects

   
   
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 61 

CHAPTER 3, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction ____________________________ 

This chapter briefly describes the affected environment of the project area and the 

potential changes to the environment due to implementation of the alternatives. It also 

presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in 

Table 2-2 in Chapter 2. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are disclosed. Effects are 

quantified where possible, but qualitative discussions are also included. 

The following discussion of resources and potential effects associated with each of the 

alternatives uses existing information included in the Forest Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS); other project Environmental Assessments (EAs); project-specific 

resource reports and related information; roads analyses; and other sources as indicated. 

Where applicable, such information is briefly summarized and referenced to minimize 

duplication. 

This EIS hereby incorporates, by reference, the project planning record and resource 

reports contained in the planning record (40 CFR 1502.21). The planning record for this 

project includes all project-specific information, including resource reports and other 

results of field investigations used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EIS. 

Reports such as Water and Fisheries Resources, Botany Resource Report, Invasive Plant 

Species Risk Assessment, Heritage Resources, and Recreation, as well as Biological 

Evaluations for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species were prepared for the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project. Resource reports 

contain the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and 

technical documentation that the resource specialists relied upon to reach the conclusions 

in this EIS. The planning record also contains information resulting from public 

involvement efforts. In addition, the 2008 Determination of Need for the KetchikanMisty Fiords Ranger District (Appendix A of this EIS) and KMRD Visitor Capacity 

Analysis (Appendix C of this EIS) provide additional background for this analysis. The 

planning record is located at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office in 

Ketchikan, Alaska, and is available for review during regular business hours. Information 

from the record is available upon request. 

Analyzing Effects _______________________ 

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the 

physical, biological, social, and economic environment. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) include a number of specific categories to use for the analysis of environmental 

consequences. Several of these categories are applicable to the analysis of the proposed 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 62 

project and alternatives. They form the basis of much of the analysis that follows and 

are explained briefly below. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Effects disclosed in this document are organized into three categories: direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects. Direct environmental effects occur at the same time and place as 

the initial cause or action. Indirect effects occur later in time or are spatially removed 

from the action. Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of actions, when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking 

place over a period of time. Effects are disclosed below by resource. 

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of activities to consider when analyzing 

the cumulative effects of this project. The project list included but was not limited to: 

 timber sales (Traitors Cove TS, Spit Point, Hyder Salvage, and Free use), 

 hydroelectric (Soule River, Shelokum, and Whitman Lake) 

 mining exploration (Duke Island), 

 Impacts from activities adjacent to National Forest System (NFS) lands (e.g. 

motorized boat traffic, commercial fishing, overflights, etc), 

 Unintended effects on saltwater conditions (may be an indirect effect of limiting 

flights on lakes), 

 Board of Game, Federal Subsistence Board, and Board of Fisheries decisions, 

 land exchanges, 

 Sealaska selections: the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and potential 

for passage of a new Sealaska Lands Bill, and 

 other activities on KMRD. 

The list of cumulative effects considerations is available in the project record. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

Short-term uses, and their effects, are those activities that occur annually or within the 

first few years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability 

of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project 

has been implemented. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and the National 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 63 

Forest Management Act, all renewable resources are to be managed so that they are 

available for future generations. 

Guided use is expected to have minimal effect on trees and tree growth, but could affect 

plants, the spread of invasive plants, and wildlife. Long-term productivity of resources is 

expected to be maintained through the application of resource protection measures 

(project design elements and mitigation measures) and adaptive management as described 

in Chapter 2 and Appendix B.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Implementation of an action alternative may cause some adverse environmental effects 

that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result 

from managing the land for one resource at the expense of the use or condition of one or 

several other resources. Many adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated, or avoided by 

limiting the extent or duration of effects. The interdisciplinary procedure used to 

identify specific management activities was designed to eliminate or minimize adverse 

consequences. The application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), project-specific project design and mitigation 

measures, and monitoring are all intended to further limit the extent, severity, and 

duration of potential effects. Such measures are discussed throughout this chapter. 

Regardless of the use of these measures, some adverse effects will occur. The purpose of 

this chapter is to fully disclose these effects. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those 

that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in 

forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. 

Generally, the use of rock for construction or the loss of the only known population of a 

plant would be an irreversible commitment of that resource since the rock is no longer in 

the ground or the plant no longer exists. A lower allocation of service days to outfitters 

and guides is a loss of business productivity, which is an irretrievable commitment of 

resources. 

No irreversible commitments are expected if items in Appendix B and adaptive 

management (Chapter 2) are implemented. The action alternatives would reduce the 

amount of potential guided use in one recreation use area (06 Misty Core Lakes) but 

substantially increase potential guided use in most other areas. There would be an 

irretrievable loss of business productivity in one location; it may be offset by the gains in 

other locations. The loss of solitude and primitive experience in wilderness may be 

irretrievable to individuals who are visiting while floatplanes and other users use the area. 

This loss is currently occurring but is reduced to some degree in Alternatives B and D, 

and increased in many places in Alternative C. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 64 

Adaptive Management and Effects 

Adaptive management is defined in the code of federal regulations (CFR) as: 

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. (36 CFR 220.3)

There is some level of uncertainty in describing and analyzing recreational use. Due to 

conditions varying from weather to wildlife sightings to the state of financial markets, the 

location, type, and amount of recreational use in any area changes irregularly. Because 

recreational use is a combination of guided and unguided use, recreation use can be 

highly regulated and tracked or minimally regulated or tracked. Additionally, no studies 

in Southeast Alaska are available to equate recreational use levels to levels of effects on 

resources. While monitoring and other studies have been used here to determine and 

estimate the effect of various levels of recreation use, there remains uncertainty about the 

effect that various levels of use will have on biological and socioeconomic conditions. 

Uncertainty creates a need for a mechanism through which the Forest Service can make 

incremental adjustments to outfitter and guide management over time, as information is 

gained about how area resources are reacting to current management. That mechanism is 

adaptive management. 

In this analysis, adaptive management could be used to increase the guided allocation, 

decrease the allocation, or maintain allocation with adjustments to outfitter and guide 

management. For example, if monitoring shows that all resources have no concerns and 

are not being negatively affected, adaptive management may be used to increase 

allocation (as described in Chapter 2). If monitoring shows that a resource is being 

negatively affected, the guided allocation may be reduced at that site, or, for example, 

guided use may be eliminated from that site or other management measures may be used 

to correct resource issues (see Chapter 2, Adaptive Management and Appendix D for 

potential adaptive management measures). 

For this analysis, adaptive management has the potential negative or positive effects of 

the highest potential guided use by area or by alternative and the effect of making 

adjustments to guided use to meet resource concerns. All specialists analyzed the 

potential effects of the highest guided use levels through analysis of individual areas and 

allocation totals in Alternatives A, B, C, and D. Additionally, specialists analyzed the 

effect of making adjustments to guided use in their individual resource analyses. IDT 

members recognize that increasing allocations would increase the risk or the potential for 

negative effects from overuse. However, with the expectation that adaptive management 

measures would be used to adjust outfitter and guide management as needed, IDT 

members assumed that adaptive management would be used to maintain or improve 

resource conditions. Thus, while guided use may increase, negative and positive effects 

are not expected to go beyond what was analyzed in this EIS. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 65 

As described in Chapter 2 the adaptive management process would allow for changes in 

management of guided use without further NEPA analysis, unless designated thresholds 

are reached. 

Analysis of the Alternatives by Issue 

In the following sections we describe the environmental effects of each of our 

alternatives as they relate to the significant issues for this project. Thus, the analysis of 

effects has been organized with socioeconomics first, followed by wilderness, recreation, 

heritage, wildlife, and subsistence. The other resources, on which effects may occur, are 

discussed in this chapter; these resources are organized in alphabetical order. 

Concerns, suggestions, and design recommendations are discussed as they relate to the 

project’s affected environment and potential effects of the alternatives on resources. 

Socioeconomics ________________________ 

Affected Environment 

This analysis considers the economic effects of the alternatives. Social effects are 

considered in the Recreation, Wilderness, and Heritage sections of this EIS. The Forest 

Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS, USDA Forest Service 2008c) states 

that outfitter and guide activity will probably increase in the next few years. The Forest 

Plan FEIS also states that, ‘shore excursions have become an integral part of the cruise 

ship experience... and approximately 83 percent of cruise visitors participated in at least 

one tour... .’ (page 3-378). The Forest Plan FEIS does not estimate how the outfitter and 

guide activity will increase in the next few years, so we cannot estimate changes in the 

number of permits requested; although, we do think that “...shore excursions will remain 

an integral part of the cruise ship experience”. For this analysis, we looked at the number 

of service days allocated and assumed any increase in outfitter and guide activity would 

fall within the number of days allocated for at least one of the action alternatives. 

This analysis considers both total allocation by alternative and effects to economics 

related to: 

Issue 1: Limiting the amount and location of outfitter and guide use may not 

adequately provide for industry stability and growth. 

Issue 1 was developed by the public during the LAC process. In addition to concerns 

about limiting the amount of outfitter and guide use related to providing adequate 

industry stability and growth, the public was concerned about four specific areas where 

economics were a concern. Participants identified four areas of concern. These areas 

provide commercial opportunities close to town (e.g. Gravina and George Carroll 

Thorne), unique scenic opportunities (e.g. Misty Core Lakes Use Area), and unique 

recreation opportunities (e.g. bear viewing at Margaret). The measurements listed in 

Chapter 1 for this issue are: 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 66 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in 06 Misty Core Lakes, 11 

Gravina Island, 17 George Carroll Thorne, and 27 Margaret Bay Recreation Use 

Areas (areas identified by outfitters and guides as desired locations) 

District-wide, the highest actual use by outfitters and guides, by recreation use area, that 

occurred between 2005 and 2009 is 24,245 service days per year (calculated by taking the 

highest use between 2005 and 2009 per use area per season and adding these highest uses 

together to get a District total for the 182-day combined spring/summer/fall seasons). 

The value of outfitter and guide services is different for various permit holders. For 

example, in 2002 per-client per-hunt fees for brown bear hunts ranged from $850 to 

$17,900 (Alexander 2008, pg 4) and the 2002 mean client-day charge for freshwater 

fishing and small game and waterfowl hunting was about $294 (Ibid, pg 8), and 

sightseeing tours can average about $337 per person per day (Dugan, Fay, and Colt, 

2007, pg 13). Additionally, we cannot accurately predict the number or type of permits 

that will be authorized in the future. Thus, dollar amounts were not used for the 

comparison. Comparison is limited to the number of service days. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The analysis is based on the comparison table in Chapter 2, Table 2-7 of this DEIS, 

which compares the number of service days per recreation use area by alternative and 

season. The direct and indirect effects are not easily separated so will be discussed 

together here. Direct and indirect effects are listed for each alternative and include: 

 the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides in all recreation use 

areas, 

 a comparison of the summer season (the season of concern) for the four concern areas 

listed in the Issue 1 measurements (Table 3-1), 

 a list of other areas within the alternative where allocations are below Alternative A 

(highest use), and 

 a conclusion on economic effects. 

Overall, Alternative C allocates the most service days to outfitters and guides (Table 2-6) 

thus, would be the most economically advantageous for all outfitters and guides across 

KMRD. However, Alternative B allocates the most service days in the areas of concern 

(Table 3-1) listed in Issue 1 measurements, which would be most advantageous to 

outfitters and guides using the areas of concern. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 67 

Table 3- 1) Number of Service Days Allocated to Outfitters and Guides in Areas of 

Concern in Issue 1 

Recreation Use Area Summer 

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

# SDs # SDs # SDs # SDs 

06 Misty Core Lakes 9,258 7,318 4,879 1,464 

11 Gravina Island 0 651 1,627 0 

17 George Carroll Thorne 792 3,253 2,169 2,169 

27 Margaret Bay 2,322 2,752 1,835 2,386 

Total for concern areas 12,372 13,974 10,510 6,019 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and indirect effects on the economic opportunities for outfitters and guides will 

remain the same. When an outfitter or guide applies for a new special use permit on the 

national forest, the permit administrators will complete an individual environmental 

analysis, which can take a short time or several years to issue dependent on the type of 

application and the availability of resource specialists to do resource analysis. The level 

of use that would be authorized, if Alternative A is selected, is 24,245 service days per 

year (calculated by taking the highest use between 2005 and 2009 per use area per season 

and adding these highest uses together to get a District total for the 182-day combined 

spring/summer/fall seasons). Use would be limited to this level unless site specific NEPA 

is completed. 

Outfitter and guide use in the areas of concern will remain the same. All of the other 

recreation use area service days will remain the same. 

It would be more difficult for the outfitter and guide industry to expand under these 

conditions since each new request for special use permits will require individual NEPA 

analysis. 

Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) 

For all of the action alternatives, the outfitter and guide industry can expand since there 

are more allocated service days then the highest use, in most recreation use areas. With 

the action alternatives, if an outfitter or guide requests a new special use permit and there 

are service days still available, an individual NEPA analysis would not be required unless 

the activity type or location are new (i.e. the activity does not currently occur on KMRD 

or the site has not been used for outfitter or guide activities). 

In Alternatives B and D, the allocation for 04 Duke Island and 28 Naha are 0, which is 

lower than the high use in Alternative A. 04 Duke Island shows a high summer use of 22 

service days and Naha shows a high summer use of 14 service days from 2005 to 2009. 

 Outfitter and guide use has not been permitted by the KMRD on 04 Duke Island since 

2000. The high use that shows up in Alternative A was from a long term permit 

holder that was authorized use in several areas including 04 Duke Island and had not 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 68 

been told about the closure to outfitters and guides; the permit has since been changed 

to reflect the closed status of Duke Island. Alternatives B and D continue the policy 

of not permitting outfitter and guide use on 04 Duke Island, so there should be no 

new impact on outfitters and guides. 

 Outfitter and guide use is also not permitted in the 28 Naha area due to high local use. 

The high use of 14 days in Alternative A occurred in the upper lakes, out of the high 

local use areas. Alternatives B and D continue the policy of not permitting outfitter 

and guide use at Naha, so there should be no new impact on outfitters and guides. 

The allocation of guided use in 04 Duke Island and 28 Naha in Alternative C was used to 

show effects in these areas, to respond to public requests, and to get feedback from the 

public on whether or not to continue to exclude these areas from outfitter and guide 

permitted activities. 

Alternative B 

With Alternative B the economic opportunities for outfitters and guides increase to 

53,997 service days annually from the 24,245 service days in Alternative A. The service 

days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 29,752 service days, a 223% 

increase, over the highest use from 2005 to 2009. 

In each of the areas of concern listed in Issue 1, there is room for growth, except summer 

use in 06 Misty Core Lakes (Table 3-1), which has a high use of 9,258 service days in 

Alternative A compared to the allocated 7,318 summer service days in Alternative B. 

Since there is room for growth in other locations on KMRD, outfitters and guides may be 

able to move their operations to other areas and not lose business. If outfitter and guide 

use cannot move, then outfitters and guides would lose 1,940 summer service days 

annually in the areas of concern. The value of the service days is dependent on the type of 

permitted activity. 

In areas that are not a concern listed in Issue 1, 04 Duke Island and 28 Naha allocate 

lower summer use than the highest use shown in Alternative A, as explained above. 

In Alternative B, there are opportunities for outfitters and guides to expand their 

businesses compared to Alternative A. Of the three areas with lower use allocated in 

Alternative B than Alternative A, only 06 Misty Core Lakes is a concern area with a total 

decrease of 1,940 summer service days annually. 

Alternative C 

With Alternative C, the direct and indirect effects on the economic opportunities of 

outfitters and guides increases with to 74,005 service days annually from the 24,245 

service days per year in Alternative 1. The service days available for outfitter and guide 

use increases by 49,760 service days, a 305% increase, over the highest use from 2005 to 

2009. 

In two of the areas of concern listed in Issue 1, there is room for growth. Summer use in 

06 Misty Core Lakes and 27 Margaret Bay is lower than Alternative A. In Alternative A, 

06 Misty Core Lakes, has a high use of 9,258 summer service days compared to 4,879 

allocated summer service days in Alternative C, a difference of 4,379 service days. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 69 

(Table 3-1) For 27 Margaret Bay, Alternative A has a high use of 2,322 summer service 

days compared to 1,835 summer service days allocated in Alternative C, a difference of 

487 service days. 

Since there is room for growth in other locations on KMRD, outfitters and guides may be 

able to move their operations to other areas on KMRD. If outfitter and guide use cannot 

be moved to other locations, then overall the outfitters and guides would have a decrease 

over the highest use of 2,322 summer service days in the areas of concern. The value of 

the service days is dependent on the type of permitted activity is in the area. 

In areas that are not a concern listed in Issue 1, 23 Betton Island allocates summer use 

lower than the highest summer use shown in Alternative A. For Betton Island, 

Alternative A shows a high summer use of 8,153 service days and Alternative C allocates 

5,838 summer service days, a difference of 2,315 summer service days. 

Alternative C has the highest annual use allocation of all of the alternatives. There is 

room for outfitter and guide business growth in all but three areas in the summer. The 

three areas with lower use allocated in Alternative C than Alternative A, 06 Misty Core 

Lakes and 27 Margaret Bay, and 23 Betton Island, have a total decrease of 4,637 summer 

service days. 

Alternative D 

With Alternative D, the direct and indirect effects on the economic opportunities of 

outfitters and guides increases to 34,905 service days annually over the 24,245 service 

days per year in Alternative A. The service days available for outfitter and guide use 

increases by 10,660 service days, a 144% increase, over the highest use from 2005 to 

2009. 

In each of the areas of concern listed in Issue 1, there is room for growth, except for 

summer 06 Misty Core Lakes. Alternative A has a high use of 9,258 summer service days 

compared to 1,464 summer service days that would be allocated in Alternative D for 06 

Misty Core Lakes a difference of 7,794 service days (Table 3-1). 

Since there is room for growth in other locations on KMRD, outfitters and guides may be 

able to move their operations to other areas on KMRD. However, since most of the use in 

06 Misty Core Lakes is flightseeing, it may be difficult to move 7,794 summer service 

days of flightseeing to other locations on KMRD, because of the special conditions that 

airplane landings require. The value of the service days is dependent on the type of 

permitted activity is in the area. 

In areas that are not a concern listed in Issue 1, 04 Duke Island, 13 East Cleveland, and 

28 Naha allocate lower summer use than the highest summer use shown in Alternative A. 

As stated above, outfitter and guide use has not been permitted by KMRD at 04 Duke 

Island and 28 Naha. For 13 East Cleveland, Alternative A shows a high summer use of 

221 service days and Alternative D allocates 190 summer service days. This is a loss of 

31 summer service days. 

In Alternative D, there are opportunities for outfitters and guides to expand their 

businesses compared to Alternative A. Of the four areas with lower use allocated in 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 70 

Alternative D than Alternative A, 06 Misty Core Lakes and 13 East Cleveland have a 

total decrease 7,825 summer service days annually. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of activities to consider when analyzing 

the cumulative effects of this project. As stated earlier, the projects list included timber 

sales, hydroelectric and mining exploration, Board of Game and Board of Federal 

Subsistence decisions, land exchanges, and the Sealaska selections and Bill. None of the 

activities listed in the items to consider in cumulative effects was considered in the 

socioeconomics analysis. The socioeconomics analysis only considered the number of 

service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area since these numbers 

are not expected to change due to the listed projects, although use locations may change. 

The projects would not impact the socioeconomic cumulative effects. The socioeconomic 

analysis did incorporate past documents and plans including decisions on Guided Use of 

Cabins, Naha, Margaret Bay, Hyder, the Discovery Center, and Trail use. 

Alternative C has the highest overall service day allocation for all of the recreation use 

areas on KMRD. Alternative B allocates the highest number of summer service days in 

the areas of concern, although, fewer summer service days in 06 Misty Core Lakes than 

Alternative A. 

Alternative A has the fewest service days and the longest permit procedure for outfitters 

and guides since, new NEPA would have to be completed for each new permit request. 

Alternative D has the lowest number of service days allocated and the fewest summer 

service days in the areas of concern of any alternative. 

Wilderness _____________________________ 

More than 2/3 of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District’s 3,262,549 acres are in the 

federally-designated Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness (Misty Fiords). Since 

wilderness encompasses most of KMRD, the existing condition and effects on wilderness 

are discussed first in this EIS; the recreation resource section follows the wilderness 

section. 

This analysis addresses Issue 4: 

Issue 4: Noise associated with floatplanes and boats in and around Misty Fiords 

National Monument Wilderness may negatively impact wilderness character. 

The measurements listed in Chapter 1 for this issue are: 

 Number of service days allocated in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness 

 Effects on opportunities for solitude due to noise 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 71 

Access was a key factor in determining the need for commercial outfitter and guide 

services on the wilderness and non-wilderness portions of the KMRD. Due to distance, 

weather, terrain, and the type of recreational opportunities pursued on KMRD, outfitting 

and guiding service are often needed to provide safe access for the general public. 

Unguided access is also limited by the need to acquire, maintain, and operate expensive, 

specialized equipment, such as boats and floatplanes. The needs assessment for KMRD 

was completed in 2008 (USDA Forest Service) and is attached to this EIS as Appendix 

A. 

One challenge of wilderness stewardship is that decisions or actions taken to protect one 

aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect (Landres et al. 2008). For 

example, a management decision to restrict guided use in a location or require the use of 

designated campsites may protect opportunities for solitude, but also reduce opportunities 

for primitive or unconfined recreation. All effects are described here. 

Affected Environment 

This analysis assumes that: 

 future use patterns, including the type of activities occurring, the method of transport 

used, and the spatial and temporal distribution of use, will be similar to existing 

patterns of use. (The actual number of service days available will change by 

alternative but the use patterns, activities occurring, and the method of transport 

should remain the same.) 

 group sizes and average length of stay on NFS lands will be similar to existing 

patterns of use based on recreation opportunities available in an area and mode of 

transport used. 

Comprised of 2,142,907 acres, Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness (Misty 

Fiords) is a vast, largely intact ecosystem offering a unique combination of features, 

including steep, granite walls rising from protected fjords, forested mountains, glaciers, 

numerous alpine and subalpine lakes, and an abundance of fish and wildlife. Misty Fiords 

was designated a National Monument in 1978 by Jimmy Carter. In 1980, with passage of 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Misty Fiords became a 

federally-designated wilderness area. 

The large amount of land available in Misty Fiords provides a diversity of recreation 

attractions and opportunities. Most recreation activities take place in, and depend on, 

settings that are primarily undeveloped and widely dispersed. The entire area is wild and 

remote, with no road access available. Recreation facilities, primarily public recreation 

cabins, shelters, trails, and buoys, are limited. People visiting Misty Fiords generally 

expect a wilderness experience characterized by opportunities to experience solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Recreation activities in the analysis area cover a broad spectrum of uses, including 

sightseeing, wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, kayaking, camping, and hiking. Marine 

waterways are also used for boating, crabbing, shrimping, and personal and commercial 

fishing. Marine and terrestrial wildlife is abundant in Misty Fiords and visitors’ often 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 72 

have the opportunity to see bald eagles, brown and black bear, mountain goats, and 

whales, among other species. Visitors also come to view the dramatic scenery, 

particularly in the area surrounding Punchbowl Cove. 

Marine waterways serve as the ‘roads’ to and around Misty Fiords. Recreation access is 

primarily via boats and floatplanes. A unique and challenging aspect of wilderness 

management in Misty Fiords is that the adjacent waterways allow for motorized boat 

traffic and floatplane access along many sections of the shoreline boundary. Others 

access the area using floatplanes that land on subalpine and alpine lakes. A large 

percentage of the floatplane use in Misty Fiords is associated with commercial 

flightseeing tours. Unguided visitors access Misty Fiords using small kayaks (often first 

transported to remote locations using motorized boats), or personal motor or sailboats. 

Charter planes are also hired by unguided visitors to access public recreation cabins. 

Much of Misty Fiords is either inaccessible or not suitable for recreation because of 

difficult and steep terrain, wetlands, and icefields. Recreation use is unevenly distributed 

spatially and temporally due to the access and weather limitations. Guided and unguided 

use tends to be concentrated in accessible areas with particularly attractive features or 

recreation opportunities. Use is concentrated along accessible shorelines, river and stream 

bottoms, and around subalpine and alpine lakes and neighboring areas (Forest Plan FEIS, 

USDA Forest service 2008c, 3-365). Use patterns are also associated with protected boat 

anchorages, boat landings, and aircraft landing sites. Access is primarily via floatplane 

and motorized boat. Guided and unguided use is concentrated during the summer months. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

The Forest Plan (Appendix 1) uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to help 

identify, quantify, and describe the types of recreation settings that the Tongass National 

Forest provides. The ROS is an inventory tool used to describe existing conditions of 

recreation opportunities. Standards and guidelines for each ROS class describe the 

physical, social, and managerial settings available and are used to guide management 

activities in order to maintain or attain a defined range of recreation opportunities. 

Eighty-three percent of Misty Fiords is allocated to the Primitive ROS Class. Social 

encounter standards for the Primitive ROS Class indicate that users will meet less than 

three parties per day during trip (Forest Plan, Appendix 1, I-1). Approximately ten 

percent of Misty Fiords is allocated to the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Class and 

seven percent to the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS Class. Standards for the SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS Classes indicate that users 

will meet less than six parties per day in wilderness (Forest Plan, Appendix 1, I-1). 

ROS allocations will not change with implementation of any alternative or component of 

a decision on this EIS. 

The standards used for monitoring and adjusting allocations in this EIS are based on 

social conditions. These standards were developed with input from the public during the 

LAC process (see Chapter 2). The standards set for monitoring and adjustment may be a 

little more limiting than the limits set by ROS. These standards are for this EIS only and 

will not be used to change the Forest Plan or in other planning projects. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 73 

Wilderness Character 

The Forest Service has applied the legal definition provided in the Wilderness Act to 

identify and define these four qualities of wilderness character (Landres et al. 2008): 

 Untrammeled - the wilderness is free from modern human control or manipulation; 

 Natural – the wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of 

modern civilization. 

 Undeveloped – the wilderness is undeveloped and without permanent improvements 

or human habitation; 

 Solitude or a primitive or unconfined type of recreation- this quality is about the 

opportunity for people to experience wilderness. 

These qualities comprise an approximation of wilderness character for wilderness 

planning, stewardship, and monitoring (Landres et al. 2008). They apply to all designated 

wilderness areas regardless of unique place-specific attributes. While individual 

wilderness laws (e.g. ANILCA) may include specific exceptions or provisions that apply 

to the use of a particular area, federal law requires that managers preserve the wilderness 

character of each designated area. 

The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” This quality of wilderness character is 

about the opportunity for people to experience wilderness and is degraded by settings that 

reduce these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, 

recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior (Landres et al. 

2008). 

The qualities of wilderness character likely to be affected by outfitter and guide use are 

the natural quality and the opportunity to experience solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. This analysis will focus on the effects of the alternatives 

on opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Effects to the natural 

quality of wilderness character are addressed in the natural resources reports and sections 

of this EIS. No additional structures, installations, or habitations are proposed under any 

of the alternatives. Wilderness resource effects related to the use of motorized equipment 

will be addressed under opportunities for solitude. 

Many factors contribute to the experience of solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation (Landres et al. 2008). Some of these factors are beyond the control or influence 

of managers (e.g. attributes of the physical landscape). However, managers can influence 

relevant factors such as use levels, types and patterns of use, and types of restrictions 

imposed. Indicators that can be used to understand the affected environment and potential 

direct and indirect effects are amount of visitor use, encounter rates, extent and 

magnitude of impacts on the natural soundscape from motorized boat and airplane traffic, 

and the type and extent of management restrictions on guided users (Landres et al. 2008). 

One of the measurements used to compare effects on wilderness is service days in all of 

Misty Fiords. Much of the analysis focuses on the 06 Misty Core Lakes Recreation Use 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 74 

Area because 95% of the guided use is occurring in that use area and the use is 

flightseeing, which has a negative effect on wilderness character and opportunities for 

solitude. The effects are described below. 

Recreation Use and Use Levels 

Local residents infrequently use outfitters and guides (FEIS, 3-382) and tend to use their 

own boats and equipment to reach the Forest. Personal boats are often smaller than 

charter boats used by nonresidents, resulting in visiting groups of residents generally 

being smaller than nonresident groups (FEIS, 3-382). Residents who traditionally use an 

area may be discouraged by the presence of guided groups in the same area (FEIS, 3-

375). Resident recreation demand is influenced by local population levels (FEIS, 3-373). 

The population of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough decreased by eight percent between 

2000 and 2009 (State of Alaska Community Database Online). 

Guided and unguided visitors tend to use similar locations based on access and the types 

of scenery and recreation experiences available. One exception is in the 06 Misty Core 

Lake Use Area. Because unguided visitors use motorized boats as a means of transport 

more commonly than floatplanes, remote lakes in this Use Area (those that can only be 

accessed via floatplane) are used predominantly by guided visitors. 

The average annual guided use in Misty Fiords between 2005 and 2009 was 8,273 service 

days, and the highest annual guided use during this time period was 10,398 service days 

(Table 3-2). Both residents and nonresidents use the services of outfitters and guides, but 

nonresidents tend to use them more often because they do not have the local knowledge 

or necessary equipment (FEIS, 3-382). 

Table 3- 2) Average guided use and highest guided use in service days for Misty 

Fiords, 2005-2009 

Recreation Use Area Highest Annual Guided 

Use in Service Days 

Average Annual Guided 

Use in Service Days 

01 West Misty 96 60 

02 Northeast Misty 211 143 

03 South Misty 220 132 

05 South Misty Lakes 100 53 

06 Misty Core Lakes 9,539 7,742 

07 Walker Chickamin 37 26 

08 Burroughs Unuk 11 6 

09 Alava Princess Ella 

Manzanita 29 18 

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 155 93 

TOTAL 10,398 8,273 

Ninety-four percent of the total guided use in Misty Fiords is for floatplane landing tours, 

which occur primarily during the summer season. Nine commercial operations are 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 75 

authorized to conduct this activity in Misty Fiords. The Forest Service recognizes that 

floatplane operators provide a service to visitors in terms of sightseeing and access. 

Floatplane landing tours primarily occur in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, although 

they also occur in the 01 West Misty, 02 Northeast Misty, 03 South Misty, and 05 South 

Misty Lakes Use Areas. Nooya Lake is the most popular destination for floatplane 

landing tours (Table 3-3); between 2005 and 2009 an average of 546 landings annually 

were reported at Nooya Lake by outfitters and guides. Big Goat and Manzoni Lakes 

receive the second and third highest use, respectively. There was a downward trend in the 

number of floatplane landing tours occurring between 2005 and 2009. In 2005, 1,586 

landings occurred in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, and in 2009, 1,076 landings 

occurred (almost a one-third reduction in the number of guided landings). 

Some floatplane operators have increased their use of saltwater landings in Rudyerd Bay 

and Walker Cover during this time period. Landing on saltwater does not require a Forest 

Service permit and there are no fees charged for the activity. In addition, there are 

excellent wildlife viewing opportunities on saltwater. The public has expressed concerns 

about the increase in use along these waterways, along with concerns that management 

attempts to limit or reduce outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, 

will cause these bays to become increasingly crowded and impacted by noise associated 

with floatplane traffic. 

Outfitters and guides are generally limited to two landings per day on lakes without 

public recreation cabins. Lakes with public recreation cabins are authorized for use only 

as alternate landing locations in poor weather and emergency situations and outfitters and 

guides are limited to one landing per day on lakes with cabins. Based on current permit 

stipulations, if all operators decided to use the same lake on the same day, up to 20 

landings could occur on lakes without public recreation cabins and up to nine landings 

could occur on lakes with public recreation cabins. Table 3-3 provides information about 

the average and highest number of guided floatplane landings occurring daily on each 

lake in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area during the summer season, between 2005 and 

2009. The Forest Plan does not provide standards related to guided floatplane landings in 

wilderness. 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 76 

Table 3- 3) Average number and highest number of guided floatplane landings 

per day per lake1 during the summer season in the 06 Misty Core 

Lakes Use Area, 2005-2009 

Lake Cabin2

(Y/N) 

Shelter 

(Y/N) 

Trail 

(Y/N) 

Daily Average3

(# of landings) 

Highest Daily 

(# of landings) 

Nooya Lake N Y Y 3.8 20 

Big Goat Lake N N N 1.9 11 

Manzoni Lake N N N 1.25 14 

Ella Lake Y N N .03 1 

Grace Lake N N N .21 2 

Little Goat Lake N N N .06 2 

Manzanita Lake Y N Y .10 2 

Mirror Lake N N N .05 2 

Punchbowl Lake N Y Y .70 10 

Walker Lake N N N .60 7 

Wilson Lake N N N .18 4 

Winstanley Lake Y Y Y 0.0 1 

1

 Only the lakes where floatplane landings occurred between 2005 and 2009 are included in this 

list. 

2 Includes only public recreation cabins that are available on the National Recreation Reservation 

Service 

3 Its important to note that weather conditions result in floatplane landings being concentrated on 

good weather days; averages may not provide an accurate picture of conditions on the lakes since 

they are not evenly distributed throughout the summer season. 

Guided floatplane landings are scheduled to accommodate cruise ship passengers and are 

limited by weather and visibility factors many days of the summer season. Use is 

concentrated in the morning, on lower elevation lakes, and on good weather days. 

Opportunities to experience solitude are greater during the afternoon (and evening for 

overnight visitors) and on bad weather days. Landings are also dependent on having icefree conditions on the lakes, which results in less use on high-elevation lakes during the 

early part of the summer season. 

Many of the permit holders are single plane operators and although they are permitted to 

land on each of the lakes up to once or twice per day, they can only provide two or three 

guided tours daily. Most of the operators also provide other types of guided services 

around KMRD (e.g. guided fishing, wildlife viewing) and on neighboring areas of the 

Tongass (e.g. Anan Creek on the Wrangell Ranger District). The amount of use 

authorized for guided floatplane tours therefore consistently exceeds the amount of actual 

guided use reported (by anywhere from 3,300 to 6,700 service days per year since 2005). 

Outfitter and guides have requested shoreline use on lakes outside of the 06 Misty Core 

Lakes Use Area, but these requests have not been authorized due to management 

concerns about dispersing use and impacts from floatplane landing tours in Misty Fiords. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 77 

The public has expressed concern about the impacts of floatplane traffic (overflights and 

guided landing tours) on visitor experiences in Misty Fiords, particularly on lakes with 

public recreation cabins and/or shelters and on lakes that are accessible via trail from 

saltwater. Unguided visitors are less likely to access lakes via floatplane because of cost 

and equipment needs. However, some resident and unguided visitors access the lakes via 

trails from saltwater or hire floatplane transport services to stay at public recreation 

cabins. KMRD staff have received complaints from unguided visitors about crowding 

and airplane traffic on Nooya and Punchbowl Lakes. Both of these lakes are accessible 

via trails and have public use shelters available. 

The number of big game guides and guided hunts authorized on the KMRD varies 

annually, but is lower than many areas of Southeast Alaska. District personnel coordinate 

with the local Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Biologist when requests 

for big game hunting are received. Average guided hunting group size is small (one to 

two clients). Hunters are dispersed across large areas, have low tolerance for encounters, 

and may spend multiple (typically five to ten) days on NFS lands. 

Guided black and brown bear hunting are popular in the 02 Northeast Misty, 03 South 

Misty, 07 Walker Chickamin, and 08 Burroughs Unuk Use Areas. Most guided bear 

hunting occurs in May, so there is about a two week overlap with the beginning of the 

summer season. Most of the guided bear hunting is boat-based and thus takes place along 

the shorelines. Conflicts have been reported between guides engaged in bear hunting and 

bear viewing activities in the Misty Fiords, although these conflicts are minimized by the 

timing of activities. 

Mountain goat hunting typically occurs in September and October, with limited overlap 

at the end of the summer season. Guided goat hunting occurs in the alpine environments 

in the 01 West Misty, 02 Northeast Misty, 03 South Misty, and 06 Misty Core Lakes. 

Alpine areas are accessed via floatplane and use is concentrated in areas around subalpine 

and alpine lakes. 

Guided fishing occurs in all Use Areas within Misty Fiords. Between 2005 and 2009, 

approximately 328 service days were reported for this activity annually. During that time 

period, twenty-four percent of the total guided fishing occurring on the KMRD occurred 

in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area (approximately 149 service days reported annually 

in this Use Area). 

Motorized transport associated with guided fishing activities can impact opportunities for 

solitude in Misty Fiords. There is also the potential for guided floatplane landing 

activities to negatively impact guided fishing groups’ experiences, particularly in the 06 

Misty Core Lakes Use Area, given the overlap in their areas and season of use. 

Remote setting nature tours in Misty Fiords include guided hiking on remote trails, beach 

use, and wildlife viewing at undeveloped locations. Access is primarily by motorized 

boat. Many businesses that provide boat access for wildlife viewing have a low tolerance 

for the presence of other groups in the same area (FEIS, 3-375). 

Guided use is authorized on all of the remote trails in Misty Fiords. These activities are 

accessed primarily via motorized or non-motorized boat (sea kayak), and occasionally via 

floatplane. Beach use on New Eddystone Rock in the 09 Alava Princess Manzanita Use 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 78 

Area has also been reported with an average guided group size of 8.7; this is generally 

higher than guided group sizes for other activities occurring in Misty Fiords. 

Guided camping in Misty Fiords is primarily associated with groups on multi-day sea 

kayaking trips and is concentrated in the 10 Rudyerd Winstanley and 07 Walker 

Chickamin Use Areas. Due to the limited number of campsites and anchoring locations in 

the Use Areas, crowding occurs at popular sites such as Punchbowl Cove, Hut Point (at 

the entrance to Walker Cove), and in the area surrounding the Winstanley Island public 

recreation cabin. Guided and unguided groups often use these locations to base camp for 

multiple nights and access trails and recreation opportunities in the vicinity. 

Guided use of cabins in wilderness is consistent with the KMRD Determination of Need 

for Commercial Services and is authorized on a limited basis. Table 1-1, Chapter 1 

provides information about the public use cabins in Misty Fiords that are available for 

guided use. With the exception of Alava Bay Cabin, all of the cabins available for 

outfitter and guide use receive a low amount of use. Alava Bay cabin receives a medium 

amount of use and was reserved an average of 35 nights per year during the same time 

period. The public has expressed concern about outfitter and guide use near the Alava 

Bay cabin diminishing the recreational experience for unguided visitors staying at the 

cabin. 

A privately-owned float in Rudyerd Bay (authorized by the State of Alaska) is also used 

by campers in this area, although floatplane traffic and congestion around the float can be 

heavy during the morning hours and visitors have had conflicts with pilots using the float. 

Monitoring and Monitoring Results 

It is difficult to monitor resident and unguided visitor use in Misty Fiords due to the large 

number of dispersed and undeveloped recreation resources available across KMRD 

(FEIS, 3-372). Unguided visitors use boats and planes to access dispersed recreation 

opportunities along extensive coastlines and backcountry areas, which presents a 

challenge to managers trying to quantify visitor use or understand temporal and spatial 

use patterns. Much of the information regarding unguided use has historically been based 

on long-term observations, anecdotal information, and professional estimates (FEIS, 3-

372). Monitoring information about social encounters, trail use, and public recreation 

cabin use also provides valuable information about resident and unguided use. 

Encounter monitoring efforts are focused in areas where the public has expressed 

concerns about crowding or noise impacts from motorized transport (primarily 

floatplanes). Encounter monitoring information provides an idea of the number of social 

encounters a visitor can expect to experience in an area and can be used to monitor social 

conditions as well as educate visitors about the types of opportunities available across 

KMRD. 

Encounter monitoring data collected in Misty Fiords indicates that encounter rates are 

generally far below standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan, with the 

exception of encounter rates in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area (which averaged 2.01 

groups per day). The average number of encounters per day during the summer season 

ranges from zero to 0.7 groups per day in the remaining six Use Areas in Misty Fiords 

where encounter monitoring has occurred. Conditions at two locations in the 06 Misty 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 79 

Core Lakes Use Area, Nooya Lake and Big Goat Lake, exceeded Forest Plan Standards 

44 percent and eight percent of the days monitored between 2005 and 2009, respectively. 

Encounters documented for the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area are primarily encounters 

with landing floatplanes at lakes being used for guided lake landing tours. 

For the purposes of this monitoring, an encounter is defined as “an individual or group 

met while on National Forest System (NFS) lands or freshwater lakes.” An encounter 

may occur at a Forest Service cabin, on a trail, or along a shoreline, among other places. 

It is only a considered an “encounter” when both groups are on NFS lands. When groups 

or individuals meet employees doing administrative work (such as staffing a fish weir or 

monitoring a campsite), this is not and would not be counted as an encounter. 

KMRD staff implemented a sound monitoring program in 2008 using a digital audio 

recorder, external batteries, and a small microphone. The goal of the program is to 

evaluate the impacts from motorized transport and use in Misty Fiords. This information 

helps determine if the wilderness is being managed to provide outstanding opportunities 

for solitude. 

No guided floatplane landing tours were reported on Ella Lake in 2008 and 2009; all 

sounds events recorded were associated with overflight traffic in the Ella Lake drainage. 

An average of 60 guided floatplane landings were reported annually on Punchbowl Lake 

in 2008 and 2009 (versus 423 landings on Nooya Lake), but the area is heavily impacted 

by noise from overhead flights. 

Lakes within the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area were more heavily impacted by the 

high-intensity sound events associated with floatplane landings and take-offs, although 

the total percent of time when motorized sound was audible was similar to lakes 

monitored in other Use Areas. Data indicate an average of eight landings per day on 

Nooya Lake, which is higher than estimates based on outfitter and guide reports. This 

discrepancy may be a result of the sampling methodology or it may indicate that guided 

use is being under-reported. On a typical summer day at Nooya Lake, for example, a 

visitor can expect to experience 16 high-intensity sound events (defined as events that 

make it difficult to have conversational speech) between morning and early afternoon and 

each of these sound events will last approximately 6 seconds. At Punchbowl Lake, where 

opportunities for solitude are impacted by overflights and landings, a visitor can expect to 

hear approximately 33 lower-intensity sound events (defined as clearly audible events 

that do not interrupt speech at five feet distance) between the morning and afternoon. 

Lakes monitored outside of the Misty Core Lakes Use Area were far less impacted by 

sounds associated with motorized travel, indicating a higher opportunity to experience 

solitude in these areas. While some motorized activities occur in the air and on saltwater, 

and are outside of Forest Service jurisdiction, other activities such as flightseeing landing 

tours on lakes are authorized by the Forest Service. Noise from these activities result in a 

decrease of opportunities for solitude. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 80 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The following definitions are used to describe relative levels of effects on wilderness 

character (Table 3-4). 

Table 3- 4) Definitions for Levels of Effects to Wilderness Character 

Quality of 

Wilderness 

Character 

Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Opportunities 

for Solitude 

Impact would be 

imperceptible/ 

immeasurable, 

limited in extent 

(localized), and 

infrequent. 

Impact would be 

perceptible/ 

measurable, but 

limited in extent 

(localized), and 

infrequent. 

Impact would be 

readily apparent, 

less limited in 

extent (affecting 

an entire Use 

Area), and occur 

weekly during 

the primary use 

season. 

Impact would be 

highly 

noticeable, 

extensive 

(affecting 

multiple Use 

Areas), and 

occur on most 

days during the 

primary use 

season. 

Wilderness Character (Opportunities for Primitive and 

Unconfined Recreation) 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Primitive and unconfined recreation has been interpreted to encompass travel by 

primitive non-motorized and non-mechanical means, reliance on personal skills versus 

facilities or outside help, and attributes such as self-discovery, exploration, and freedom 

from managerial controls (Landres et al. 2008, Roggenbuck 2004, Hendee and Dawson 

2002). Primitive and unconfined environments provide ideal opportunities for the 

physical and mental challenges associated with adventure, including real consequence for 

mistakes, and the personal growth that results from facing or overcoming obstacles 

(Borrie 2000; Dustin and McAvoy 2000). 

Misty Fiords is largely undeveloped and opportunities to experience self-discovery, 

challenge and freedom from managerial controls abound. There are 11 public recreation 

cabins, five shelters, 25 miles of trails, and nine buoys that facilitate access to and 

enjoyment of Misty Fiords. Most visitors traveling to Alaska expect to find it in a wild 

and “unspoiled” state, but they also expect some level of infrastructure and development 

to facilitate use (FEIS, 3-365). No additional facility or trail development is proposed 

under any of the Alternatives. 

The use of outfitters and guides, however, reduces the need for visitors to obtain personal 

skills related to travel and camping in primitive areas, and can negatively affect attributes 

of wilderness character such as opportunities for self-discovery and exploration. The use 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 81 

of outfitters and guides has also reduced the need for primitive travel, as most guided use 

in Misty Fiords is via floatplane. 

Alternative D would allow the least amount of outfitter and guide use in Misty Fiords 

(4,553 service days annually). Under Alternative D, visitors would be more reliant on 

personal skills and opportunities for self-discovery and exploration would increase. 

Alternatives A, B, and C would allow for a higher amount of outfitter and guide use 

(10,398, 12,409, and 21,417 service days, respectively), which would reduce the need for 

primitive travel and visitor reliance on personal skills. 

Wilderness Character (Encounters and Soundscape) 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Encounters 

Under Alternative A, conditions in Misty Fiords would continue to be evaluated for 

comparison to standards provided in the Forest Plan for the Primitive, Semi-Primitive and 

Non-Motorized, and Primitive Motorized ROS Classes. Encounter levels at popular lakes 

in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area (e.g. Nooya and Big Goat Lake) are expected to 

continue to exceed the standards identified in the Forest Plan for the Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS Class. Encounter levels in other Use Areas are considerably below Forest 

Plan standards, although localized crowding may occur in the 10 Rudyerd Winstanley 

Use Area. Because Alternative A does not adopt revised standards for monitoring 

opportunities for solitude in Misty Fiords, it would allow for the greatest increase in 

encounter levels across all areas except the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, where 

conditions already exceed standards provided in the Forest Plan. 

Under Alternative A, for example, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the 10 

Rudyerd Winstanley Use Area (Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS Class) would allow for 

encounter levels to increase by approximately 500% compared to current conditions. 

Concerns about crowding in this Use Area have already been expressed by the public. 

This significant increase in encounter rates would be inconsistent with public comments 

indicating that social conditions should, at a minimum, remain similar to current 

conditions. 

Because Alternative A would not apply design elements and mitigation measures 

common to Alternatives B, C, and D, the likelihood of crowding near Winstanley Island 

public recreation cabin and on the Low Lake / Big Lake and Gokachin Trails would be 

higher than under the Action Alternatives. Encounter monitoring information from the 

West Misty Use Area (Low Lake/Big Lake and Gokachin Trail) indicates that encounter 

rates are generally low (average of 0.22 encounters per day). Encounter rates in the 10 

Rudyerd Winstanley Use Area are higher (average of 0.7 encounters per day) and the 

public has expressed concern about crowding in the area around Winstanley Island cabin. 

Soundscape 

Floatplanes are the primary method of transport for outfitter and guide activities in the 01 

West Misty, 02 Northeast Misty, 05 South Misty Lakes, and 06 Misty Core Lakes Use 

Areas. Under Alternative A, outfitter and guide use would continue to have a minor affect 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 82 

(as defined in Table 3-4) on opportunities for solitude in the 01 West Misty, 02 Northeast 

Misty, and 05 South Misty Use Areas because of the low amount of use occurring. 

Alternative A allows for the highest amount of outfitter and guide use on lakes in the 06 

Misty Core Lakes Use Area. Guided floatplane tours in this Use Area have, and would 

continue to have, a major effect on opportunities for solitude in Misty Fiords. 

Because Alternative A would allocate the most service days to outfitters and guide in the 

06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, it would be the least likely to disperse this use, and 

related noise impacts, into less popular Use Areas in Misty Fiords and onto adjacent 

waterways. 

Alternatives B and D 

Encounters 

Alternative B and D would increase opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes 

Use Area. In Alternative B, conditions in 06 Misty Core Lakes would be monitored to 

ensure that encounter rates do not exceed the standard of “no more than two encounters 

per day during trip 80% of the time” (standard adopted for the Semi-Primitive Wilderness 

opportunity zone under all of the Action Alternatives). 

Alternative B would have a minor negative effect on opportunities for solitude in all other 

Use Areas in Misty Fiords; encounter rates would not, however, exceed standards 

adopted for the Primitive and Semi-Primitive recreation opportunity zones. Outfitter and 

guide allocations under Alternative B may cause infrequent, localized crowding in the 10 

Rudyerd Winstanley and 07 Walker Chickamin Use Areas due to the limited number of 

campsites and accessible recreation sites available. 

Alternative D would increase opportunities for solitude across all Use Areas in Misty 

Fiords. Given the already low encounter rates in most parts of Misty Fiords, positive 

effects will be negligible in all but the 06 Misty Core Lakes, 07 Walker Chickamin, and 

10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas. Alternative D would best address public concerns 

about crowding in these areas. 

Alternative B allocates 300 service days to outfitter and guide use in the 10 Rudyerd 

Winstanley Use Area and 200 service days to outfitter and guide use in the 07 Walker 

Chickamin Use Area during the summer season, which is more than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative D, and substantially less than Alternative C. Compared to the 

No Action Alternative, Alternative A would allow for approximately 43 and 70 

additional guided groups annually, respectively, in these Use Areas during the 139-day 

summer season (based on average guided group size in those areas, not including the 

guide). 

Soundscape 

Alternative B would have a minor negative effect on opportunities for solitude in the 01 

West Misty, 02 Northeast Misty, and 05 South Misty Use Areas. Alternative B would 

improve opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area because it 

allocates less use to outfitters and guides in this Use Area, where the predominant guided 

activity is floatplane landing tours. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 83 

Alternative D would allow for a small increase in motorized traffic associated with 

outfitter and guide floatplane landings in the 01 West Misty (259 service days), 02 

Northeast Misty (73 service days), and 05 South Misty Use Areas (59 service days). 

Effects on opportunities for solitude would be minor. Alternative D would significantly 

reduce the effects from guided floatplane landings in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area. 

Alternative C 

Encounters 

Alternative C would increase opportunities for solitude in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use 

Area, where conditions would be monitored to ensure that encounter rates do not exceed 

the standard adopted for the semi-primitive wilderness opportunity zone under all Action 

Alternatives. 

If outfitter and guide use levels reached full allocations provided under Alternative C, the 

additional guided use would result in moderate to major effects on opportunities for 

solitude throughout Misty Fiords. Use Areas that are more difficult to access and have 

more dispersed recreation opportunities (02 Northeast Misty and 03 South Misty) would 

experience moderate effects. Major effects would occur in all other Use Areas. 

Alternative C may be inconsistent with standards developed during the KMRD 

Recreation Planning Project for encounter rates in the primitive wilderness and semiprimitive wilderness opportunity zones. 

The public has expressed concern about crowding in the 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use 

Area during the summer season. Alternative C allocates 1,501 service days in this Use 

Area to guided use during the summer season, which is more than under any other 

alternative. Alternative C would allow for approximately 1,354 additional service days 

for outfitter and guide use in comparison to the No Action Alternative. Given the 

concentrated nature of recreation activities in this area, and the limited number of 

accessible locations for recreating and camping, Alternative C would allow for major 

negative effects to opportunities for solitude within the 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use Area. 

Soundscape 

Alternative C would allow for a significant increase in motorized traffic associated with 

outfitter and guide floatplane landings in the 01 West Misty and 02 Northeast Misty Use 

Areas (increase of 1,088 service days and 2,625 service days, respectively). An increase 

in floatplane traffic in these areas is inconsistent with Forest Plan direction to not disperse 

use in wilderness. Effects to wilderness character would be moderate. 

Recreation Use and Use Levels 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

The highest guided use in Misty Fiords between 2005 and 2009 was 10,398 service days 

per year (Table 3-5). This guided use level was used for comparison of the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives B, C, and D, with recognition that demand for guided use 

will most likely increase over time and guided use would not be authorized in excess of 

the annual visitor capacity for Misty Fiords (42,825 service days). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 84 

Table 3- 5) Annual guided use allocations1 by alternative for recreation use areas 

in Misty Fiords 

Recreation Use Area 

2005-

2009 

Highest 

Use 

Visitor 

Capacity 

Alt A 

(No 

Action) 

Alt B 

(Proposed 

Action) 

Alt C Alt D 

#SDs #SDs #SDs #SDs #SDs #SDs 

01 West Misty 96 2,366 0 355 1,184 355 

02 Northeast Misty 211 7,425 0 1,114 3,713 372 

03 South Misty 220 6,989 0 1,048 3,495 699 

05 South Misty Lakes 100 2,075 0 311 1,038 208 

06 Misty Core Lakes 9,539 12,777 0 7,922 6,389 1,917 

07 Walker Chickamin 37 1,747 0 262 873 174 

08 Burroughs Unuk 11 1,965 0 294 983 98 

09 Alava Princess 

Manzanita 29 3,550 0 710 1,776 533 

10 Rudyerd Winstanley 155 3,931 0 393 1,966 197 

TOTAL 10,398 42,825 0 12,409 21,417 4,553 

1 Comparison is based on total guided use allocations for the spring, summer, and fall seasons. 

Alternative A would allow for less overall outfitter and guide use in Misty Fiords than 

Alternatives B and C and considerably more outfitter and guide use than Alternative D 

(Table 3-6). Alternative A would allow for the highest amount of outfitter and guide use 

in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area (9,539 service days annually), an area popular for 

floatplane landing tours. Alternative A would therefore be the least likely to disperse 

outfitter and guide use and impacts to less popular areas and to adjacent waterways. 

Average guided group size in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area is 5.4 people per group. 

A reduction of 1,617 service days in Alternative B would result in approximately 300 less 

plane landings per year in this Use Area. Limiting guided use in the 06 Misty Core Lake 

Use Area may disperse guided use and impacts to less popular areas in Misty Fiords and 

increase the number of floatplane landings on saltwater in Rudyerd Bay (10 Rudyerd 

Winstanley Use Area) and Walker Cove (07 Walker Chickamin Use Area). 

In Alternative C, the reduction of 4,660 guided service days would result in 

approximately 863 less landings per year in 06 Misty Core Lakes. In Alternative D, the 

reduction of 8,075 service days would result in approximately 1,495 less landings per 

year in this Use Area. 

Like Alternative B, this may disperse guided use and impacts to less popular areas in 

Misty Fiords. The likelihood of dispersing use into other wilderness locations is highest 

under Alternative C because of the allocation reduction in 06 Misty Core Lakes and the 

allowance of considerable growth in all other wilderness Use Areas. Alternative C also 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 85 

allow for the highest amount of outfitter and guide use and impacts during the spring and 

fall seasons. 

Indirect effects on wilderness, however, would be minimized in Alternative D because 

Alternative D provides for the least amount of outfitter and guide use in Misty Fiords. In 

Alternative D, outfitter and guide activity may become concentrated on marine 

waterways. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Activities, including those unrelated to outfitters and guides, occurring on NFS lands, 

non-NFS lands, along marine waterways, and in the airspace surrounding NFS lands in 

Misty Fiords, have the potential to impact wilderness character and diminish or improve 

opportunities for solitude. 

Landowners on the Unuk River have expressed concern about the potential for an 

increase in outfitter and guide use in the 08 Burrough Unuk Use Area. Alternatives B and 

C would allow for 283 and 740 additional service days (respectively) for guided use in 

the 08 Burroughs Unuk River. Alternative D would reduce unguided use in the Area. 

Motorized boat traffic is concentrated along the shorelines of the 05 South Misty, 07 

Walker Chickamin, 09 Alava Princess Ella Manzanita, and 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use 

Areas. Saltwater activities are not under Forest Service jurisdiction. All Action 

Alternatives could result in an increase in outfitter and guide use in areas where saltwater 

traffic is currently concentrated. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would allow 

for the highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area so 

would have the least impact in areas already affected by saltwater traffic. 

Noise impacts from aircraft overflights and saltwater landings are concentrated in the 01 

West Misty, 06 Misty Core Lakes, 09 Alava Princess Ella Manzanita, and 10 Rudyerd 

Winstanley Use Areas. Alternative B allocates a total of 8,920 service days annually to 

outfitter and guide use in these four areas, compared to 9,819, 9,380, and 2,376 for 

Alternatives A, C, and D, respectively. Alternative D could have a major effect on 

opportunities for solitude in the saltwater areas of Misty Fiords, primarily Rudyerd Bay 

and Walker Cove. Alternative A would be the least likely to cause indirect impacts in 

saltwater areas. 

A limited amount of information is available about unguided use in Misty Fiords. 

Dispersed recreation site monitoring and information collected about trail and public 

recreation cabin use indicates that unguided use is concentrated in the 09 Alava Princess 

Ella Manzanita and 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas, particularly in areas surrounding 

trails and public recreation cabins. The amount of annual use allocated to outfitters and 

guides in these two Use Areas under Alternatives A, B, C, and D is 184, 1,103, 2,857, 

and 512 service days, respectively. Alternative A would allow for the least amount of 

impact from outfitter and guide activities in areas of Misty Fiords that are popular among 

unguided visitors. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 86 

One exception is on the trail-accessible lakes in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area (e.g. 

Punchbowl Lake Trail). Alternative A would allow for the highest amount of impact from 

outfitter and guide activities in this the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, which is used 

predominantly by outfitters and guides. 

The Forest Service has been using the Bakewell Lake public recreation cabin as an 

administrative site for the past several years in support of the Bakewell Lake Coho 

Recolonization Project. This project, including the fish rearing structures in Bakewell 

Lake and use of motorized equipment in support of the project, diminishes wilderness 

character in the 05 South Misty Lakes Use Area. If recolonization efforts succeed, there 

is also a potential for an increase in interest in guided fishing opportunities in this Use 

Area. All Action Alternatives could result in an increase in outfitter and guide use in this 

Use Area. 

ADF&G maintains two administrative facilities in Misty Fiords, one on the Hugh Smith 

Lake (05 South Misty Lakes Use Area) and one on the Unuk River (08 Burroughs Unuk 

Use Area). Administrative facilities diminish the undeveloped quality of wilderness 

character, but are provided for in ANILCA and their use and maintenance (the presence 

of staff) are not included in “encounter” monitoring data. Monitoring data collected by 

ADF&G staff indicate that encounter rates in the area surrounding these administrative 

facilities are within standards for the primitive recreation opportunity zone. All Action 

Alternatives could result in an increase in outfitter and guide use in these Use Areas. 

The Red Alders (09 Alava Princess Ella Manzanita Use Area) and Wilson Narrows (06 

Misty Core Lakes Use Area) public recreation cabins are scheduled to be 

decommissioned and have been taken off of the reservation system. Removal of the 

cabins will enhance wilderness character in these areas and provide additional 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. Ella Lake (Red Alders Cabin) and 

Wilson Lake (Wilson Narrows Cabin) each have two public use cabins. This change will 

not result in any changes to the number of guided floatplane landings authorized on the 

lakes. 

Recreation _____________________________ 

This recreation analysis addresses Issue 2: 

Issue 2: Outfitter and guide use may cause crowding, noise, and disturbance, 

particularly in locations popular with unguided users (including those involved in 

subsistence activities). 

This analysis will focus on how outfitter and guide use will affect recreation 

opportunities and social conditions in areas that are popular with the unguided public. 

The measurements used to describe the effects of the alternatives on the recreation 

resource are: 

 Number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides by recreation use area 

 Number of service days allocated during the summer to outfitters and guides in 04 

Duke Island, 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East 

Cleveland, 17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, 24 Ketchikan Core NA, 27 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 87 

Margaret Bay, and 28 Naha Bay (areas identified by unguided users as locations of 

interest or concern) 

This analysis will also address the extent to which the alternatives meet the project 

purpose and need by providing a range of recreation opportunities for guided and 

unguided users across KMRD, minimizing conflicts between guided and unguided users, 

and providing standards and indicators for monitoring social conditions. 

The analysis area does not include road-accessible developed sites, including developed 

campgrounds in the Ward Lake Recreation Area and the Southeast Alaska Discovery 

Center in downtown Ketchikan, and the Fish Creek Wildlife Observation Site near 

Hyder. 

Affected Environment 

As described under Wilderness above, more than 2/3 of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District’s 3,262,549 acres are in the federally-designated Misty Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness (Misty Fiords). Where reasonable, information and discussion in 

the Wilderness section will be referenced to reduce redundancy. 

The KMRD area offers visitors a unique combination of features, including an island and 

marine environment with 2,199 miles of shoreline, forested mountains, protected fiords, 

glaciers, numerous subalpine and alpine lakes, and an abundance of fish and wildlife. 

Community road systems are limited and provide access to recreation sites and attractions 

near the communities of Ketchikan, Saxman, and Hyder. The KMRD Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) displays National Forest System roads and OHV trails open to public 

motor vehicle use. Remote road systems (100.1 miles) and OHV trails (36.7 miles) exist 

in locations where timber harvest has taken place. Brown Mountain Road. is accessible 

via the Ketchikan-area road system and has been used for guided jeep tours. Use of the 

remote road systems and OHV trail systems is concentrated in the fall and predominantly 

associated with unguided hunters. Guided use of remote road systems is infrequent 

except in the 27 Margaret Bay Use Area. 

Much of the KMRD is either inaccessible or not suitable for recreation. White and Stynes 

(2010) note that two distinguishing characteristics of national forest recreation in Alaska 

are the large number of dispersed and undeveloped recreation resources and the great 

potential for the use of boats and planes to access dispersed recreation opportunities 

along extensive coastlines and backcountry areas. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

As described in Wilderness, the Forest Plan uses the ROS to help identify, quantify, and 

describe the types of recreation settings that the Tongass NF provides. Overall, 70 

percent of the KMRD is allocated to the Primitive ROS Class with most of this in 

wilderness as described above. Approximately 24 percent is allocated to the SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS classes. The remaining six 

percent is allocated to the Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, and Rural ROS classes. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 88 

Recreation Use and Use Levels 

The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District surrounds the coastal communities of 

Ketchikan and Saxman (Revillagigedo Island), Metlakatla (Annette Island), Meyers 

Chuck (Cleveland Peninsula), Loring (Naha Bay), and Hyder (mainland). Many residents 

of Southeast Alaska place a high value on the quality and availability of outdoor 

recreation opportunities in the region (Forest Plan FEIS, USDA Forest service 2008c, 3-

373) and purposefully live in proximity to remote, undeveloped areas as a part of their 

lifestyle (FEIS, 3-365). Local residents engage in dispersed recreation activities on NFS 

lands and along adjacent waterways. 

Visitors come to Southeast Alaska to experience the sense of wildness, rugged beauty and 

solitude, and many of the recreation and tourism attractions occur in remote, undeveloped 

portions of KMRD. Similarly, the recreational settings and subsistence opportunities 

offered are an important part of many Alaskan residents’ lifestyle. 

Recreation use is not evenly distributed across the forest or throughout the year. Guided 

and unguided use tends to be concentrated in accessible areas with particularly attractive 

features or recreation opportunities. Use is concentrated during the summer season and 

along accessible shorelines, river and stream bottoms, and around subalpine and alpine 

lakes and neighboring areas (FEIS, 3-365). Use patterns are also associated with 

protected boat anchorages, boat landings, and aircraft landing sites. 

Approximately 265 dispersed recreation sites have been inventoried on the KMRD. 

Dispersed recreation sites are areas that exhibit visible and measurable impacts from 

people camping or otherwise using NFS lands. Typical impacts at dispersed sites include 

firewood removal, fire ring construction, trampling of vegetation, burned or eroded soil, 

nails in trees, and human litter or waste. Dispersed recreation sites are used by both 

guided and unguided visitors. 

KMRD Recreation Facilities 

A current inventory of Forest Service facilities on KMRD is presented in Table 3-6. 

Recreation facilities play an important role in facilitating public use and enjoyment on 

NFS lands on KMRD. All facilities are available for unguided use; some facilities are 

available for guided use such as roads, trails, visitor centers, wildlife observation sites, 

and some public recreation cabins. 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 89 

Table 3- 6) KMRD Recreation Facilities 

Type of Facility Number 

 Anchor Buoys - Wilderness 9 

 Anchor Buoys - Nonwilderness 12 

Campground Developments 3 

 Number of Sites 44 

Interpretive Sites (Visitor Centers) 1 

Wildlife / Fish Viewing Sites 2 

 Public Recreation Cabins - Wilderness 12 

 Public Recreation Cabins - Nonwilderness 13 

 Shelters - Wilderness 5 

 Shelters - Nonwilderness 5 

 Trails (number of miles) - Ketchikan vicinity 37.8 

 Trails (number of miles) - Remote 43.5 

 NFS Road (number of miles) - Ketchikan 

vicinity 

8.4 

 NFS Road (number of miles) - Remote 100.1 

 Off-Highway Vehicle Trails (number of 

miles) - Ketchikan vicinity 

0 

 Off-Highway Vehicle Trails (number of 

miles) - Remote trails 

36.7 

Guided Use 

There has been substantial growth in the number of visitors to Southeast Alaska since the 

early 1990s. Summer visitors more than doubled between 1993 and 2006 (MacDowell 

Group et al. 2007). Scenery and sightseeing are consistently among the top features 

attracting visitors to Alaska (McDowell Group 2005). Many of these visitors experience 

the Tongass passively, without actively using the Forest for recreational purposes. For 

those who do use the national forest, visits are often a small component (1/2-day 

excursion) of a broader tourism trip (via cruise ship) to Alaska (White and Stynes 2010). 

In addition, many of the popular recreation and tourism activities, such as saltwater 

fishing, flightseeing, and sea kayaking, do not take place on NFS lands. 

Approximately 2/3 of the non-residents visiting Alaska by cruise ship use a guide or 

outfitter at some point during their trip (White and Stynes 2010). Between 2000 and 

2009, the number of outfitters/guides permitted by the KMRD increased from 23 to 58 

and guided use has increased from approximately 13,000 to 16,366 visitor service days 

annually. In 2009, approximately 43% of the guided use on KMRD occurred in Misty 

Fiords National Monument Wilderness. The growth in the tourism industry around 

Ketchikan has contributed to much of these increases. It is reasonable to assume that 

demand for special use permits to conduct outfitter and guide operations on the KMRD 

will continue to increase. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 90 

Guided use on the KMRD is largely concentrated in the 06 Misty Core Lakes, 23 Betton 

Island, 24 Ketchikan Core NA, and 27 Margaret Bay Use Areas. The most common 

guided activities are floatplane landing tours and remote setting nature tours. Floatplane 

landing tours account for approximately 94 percent of the use in Misty Fiords. Demand 

for outfitter and guide activities in the portions of KMRD that are easily accessed from 

Ketchikan has increased and there is concern about the impacts of this increased use on 

unguided visitors in popular areas. 

Outfitters and guides reported using 183 locations on the KMRD between 2005 and 2009. 

These locations often overlap with inventoried dispersed recreation sites. With the 

exception of several easily accessible locations (e.g. Betton Island and Ward Creek), 

developed recreation sites (e.g. Margaret Bay and Fish Creek Wildlife Observation Site), 

and lakes used for floatplane landing tours (e.g. Nooya Lake and Big Goat Lake), use at 

most outfitter and guide locations is typically infrequent (zero to five groups per year). 

The range of activities and types of recreation experiences offered by outfitters and 

guides can lead to conflicts when incompatible activities occur in close proximity. 

Comments received during the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Planning Project highlighted 

conflicts between people engaged in incompatible activities (wildlife viewing and 

hunting). Comments also noted that the activities of large, guided operations can detract 

from the setting and experience of smaller groups, both guided and unguided. Some small 

tour guides also expressed concern that they are being displaced from their traditional use 

areas by larger commercial operators. 

Except for road-based nature tours, guided uses are generally the same as those described 

under wilderness, though additional areas are used: 

 Guided goat hunting occurs in the alpine environments in the 01 West Misty, 02 

Northeast Misty, 03 South Misty, 06 Misty Core Lakes, 12 Bell Island, 16 Ketchikan 

Core SPNW, and 17 George Carroll Thorne Use Areas. 

 Between 2005 and 2009, guided fishing occurred in 18 of the 28 Use Areas. The 

highest amount of guided fishing District-wide was 639 service days (206 groups) in 

2007. Between 2005 and 2009, guided fishing was concentrated in the 06 Misty Core 

Lakes (24% of total guided fishing use), 12 Bell Island (18% of total guided fishing 

use), and 24 Ketchikan Core NA (20% of total guided fishing use) Use Areas. Many 

of the streams on the KMRD are relatively short and provide a limited number of 

fishing opportunities. Concerns have been raised about streams and guided use in the 

following areas: 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island (Bostwick Creek), 17 George 

Carroll Thorne (Fish Creek and Carroll Creek), 24 Ketchikan Core NA (Ward Creek), 

and 28 Naha Bay (Naha Creek) Use Areas. The State of Alaska manages fish 

populations, but the Forest Service is reponsible for managing outfitter and guide use 

in a manner that maintains the social conditions desired on District streams and 

minimizes conflicts between visitors. 

 Ninety-eight percent of KMRD-wide guided floatplane landings occur at 15 lakes in 

the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area as described above under Wilderness. A smaller 

number of guided floatplane landings also occur in the 01 West Misty, 02 Northeast 

Misty, 03 South Misty, 05 South Misty Lakes, 12 Bell Island, 17 George Carroll 

Thorne and 18 Central Revilla SPNW Use Areas. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 91 

 The highest amount of remote setting nature tour guided use that occurred between 

2005 and 2009 was 7,604 service days (598 groups) in 2008. During this time period, 

remote setting nature tours occurred in 12 of KMRD’s 28 Recreation Use Areas. This 

type of guided use is concentrated in the 06 Misty Core Lakes, 17 George Carroll 

Thorne, and 23 Betton Island Use Areas. Access is by floatplane (06 Misty Core 

Lakes) or motorized boat (17 George Caroll Thorne and 23 Betton Island). The public 

has expressed concern about the high levels of guided activity at two locations in the 

23 Betton Island Use Area, both of which provide excellent day use and camping 

opportunities that are relatively accessible from town. 

 Guided camping on the KMRD is typically associated with sea kayaking and occurs 

at dispersed sites along KMRD’s shoreline. Between 2005 and 2009, guided camping 

was reported in 11 of KMRD’s 28 Use Areas. Nearly all of it occurs in wilderness as 

described above. Guided camping also occurs in association with remote setting 

nature tours in the subalpine/alpine portions of the 12 Bell Island Use Area. No 

guided camping is authorized in areas accessible via the Ketchikan-area road system. 

Roads provide additional access and recreation opportunities outside wilderness. Roadbased nature tours on the KMRD include the following types of activities: jeep tours on 

the Forest Service road system (Brown Mountain Road) and hiking on trails accessed via 

the Ketchikan-area road system. The highest amount of road-based nature tour guided use 

that occurred between 2005 and 2009 was 1,288 service days (179 groups) in 2006. 

During this time period, road-based nature tours occurred in two of KMRD’s 28 

Recreation Use Areas, the 16 Ketchikan Core SPNW and 24 Ketchikan Core NA Use 

Areas. 

In 2005, KMRD completed the Commercial Uses on Ketchikan Trails Environmental 

Assessment (EA), which considered the authorization of guided use on 12 trails 

accessible via the Ketchikan road system. The Decision Notice authorized guided use on 

three of the 12 trails analyzed: Lunch Creek, Connell Lake, and Ward Creek Trails (see 

Chapter 1 and the Project Record for more details). Public comments received during the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Planning Project indicate that Ketchikan-area residents are 

satisfied with this decision and are concerned that any increase in guided use on roadaccessible trails would cause crowding and negatively impact unguided recreation 

experiences. 

Visitor Experience 

Between 2009 and 2010, KMRD staff involved the public in a multi-step, Limits of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) – based recreation planning process. Ten public meetings 

were held in Ketchikan, Alaska to learn about the recreation opportunities desired across 

KMRD and related concerns. Comments received during this planning process informed 

this analysis by bringing attention to Use Areas and locations where concerns about 

crowding and displacement of unguided visitors exist. 

A small number of informal visitor interviews conducted in 2008 and 2009 targeted 

unguided visitors in an effort to obtain information about visitor perceptions and 

experiences on the KMRD. The average length of visit for those interviewed was four 

days. Visitors reported that the best part of their experiences was scenery (62%), 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 92 

remoteness/solitude (42%), wildlife viewing (31%), and availability of visitor facilities 

(23%). Visitors reported that the most negative part of their experience was the motorized 

boat and floatplane traffic (27%), lack of additional visitor facilities (15%), lack of 

information available about the area (12%), and campsite/cabin condition (12%). 

Popular and High-Valued Local Areas 

Forest Plan direction is to minimize adverse impacts to popular or high-valued local areas 

when authorizing outfitter and guide use (p. 4-46). The following use areas, or specific 

locations or attractions within these areas, have been identified by the public as popular 

or high-valued local areas: 04 Duke Island, 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 

Bell Island, 13 East Cleveland, 17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, 24 

Ketchikan Core NA, 27 Margaret Bay, and 28 Naha Bay. These areas are generally more 

accessible than more remote portions of the KMRD (with the exception of the 04 Duke 

Island and 08 Burroughs Bay Use Areas) and often provide unique recreation 

opportunities, such as hot springs or exceptional wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Use areas identified as popular or high-valued local areas often provide unique recreation 

and subsistence activities. For example, the 08 Burroughs Unuk Use Area has a moose 

population, which provides a unique hunting opportunity on KMRD. The 12 Bell Island 

Use Area offers trail-accessible hot springs and a historic shelter on Lake Shelokum. The 

Naha River has a steelhead run, making it a popular area during spring and fall fishing 

seasons. 

Interparty conflict is often a larger concern for visitors than the numbers of visitors 

present or crowding (Manning 1985). Studies have found that recreation conflict is 

related to a number of variables, including visitor motivations, social values, perceived 

similarity of groups or activities, type and level of technology used, level of experience, 

tolerance for sharing resources, and expectations for encountering other types of activity 

groups (Manning 1999). Research suggests that zoning or separating recreation groups or 

activities can be an effective approach to managing recreation conflict (Manning 1999). 

Comments received throughout the KMRD recreation planning process helped Forest 

Service staff identify locations and use areas where conflicts between guided and 

unguided visitors are a concern and identify Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures for 

outfitter and guide management that minimize the impacts of guided use on popular or 

highly-valued local areas without unnecessarily restricting guided opportunities. 

Monitoring and Monitoring Results 

As described under Wilderness, substantial monitoring of social conditions has occurred 

on KMRD. 

Encounter monitoring has occurred in 15 of the 28 Recreation Use Areas on the KMRD, 

including 8 of the non-wilderness Use Areas. Encounter monitoring data collected 

outside of wilderness indicates that encounter rates are generally far below standards and 

guidelines established in the Forest Plan. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 93 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The measurement used to analyze the effects of the No Action Alternative and 

Alternatives B, C, and D on unguided visitors’ experiences overall is the number of 

service days allocated by Recreation Use Area. Tables 2-6 and 2-7 in Chapter 2 display 

those numbers in comparative format. 

The measurement used to analyze the effects of the No Action Alternative and 

Alternatives B, C, and D on unguided visitors’ experiences in highly-valued local areas is 

the number of service days allocated during the summer to outfitters and guides in 

recreation use areas identified by unguided users as locations of interest or concern 

(Table 3-7). In these areas, the effects comparison is based on outfitter and guide 

allocations for the summer season when crowding and conflicts between guided and 

unguided visitors are more likely. Outfitter and guide use during the spring and fall 

seasons is generally low and crowding and visitor conflicts during these seasons are 

unlikely. 

Table 3- 7) Summer guided use allocations1 for Recreation Use Areas identified 

by the public as areas of interest or concern. 

Recreation Use Area 

2005-2009 

Highest Use 

in Summer 

Visitor 

Capacity in 

Summer 

Alt A (No 

Action) 

Alt B 

(Proposed 

Action)1

Alt C1

 Alt D1

#SDs #SDs #SDs #SDs #SDs #SDs 

04 Duke Island 22 2,168 0 0 1,084 0 

08 Burroughs Unuk 10 1,501 0 225 751 75 

11 Gravina Island 0 3,253 0 651 1,627 0 

12 Bell Island 224 7,006 0 1,401 3,503 701 

13 East Cleveland 221 3,795 0 759 1,898 190 

17 George Carroll 

Thorne 792 4,337 0 3,253 2,169 2,169 

23 Betton Island 8153 11,676 0 8,757 5,838 8,757 

24 Ketchikan Core 

NA 1,502 21,684 0 8,674 10,842 5,421 

27 Margaret Bay 2322 3,670 0 2,752 1,835 2,386 

28 Naha Bay 14 2,168 0 0 1,084 0 

Total 23,424 61,258 0 26,472 30,631 19,699 

1 Comparison is based on the summer season (May15th through September 30th). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 94 

Recreation Use and Use Levels 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Between 2005 and 2009, the highest amount of guided use during the summer season in 

KMRD’s ten highly-valued local areas was 23,424 service days, which is less than the 

amount of use that would be allocated to outfitters and guides under Alternatives B, C, 

and D (Table 3-7). The effects comparison is based on outfitter and guide allocations for 

the summer season when crowding and conflicts between guided and unguided visitors 

are more likely. Outfitter and guide use during the spring and fall seasons is generally 

low and crowding and visitor conflicts during these seasons are unlikely. 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, does not set guided use allocations for 

Recreation Use Areas on KMRD. Proposals for outfitter and guide permits would 

continue to be processed individually in accordance with direction in the Forest Service 

Special Uses Handbook (FSH 2709.11). FSH direction for renewing outfitter and guide 

permits is to authorize use consistent with the level of use utilized effectively under the 

former permit (FSH2709.11, p.33). Therefore, it can be anticipated that in the short-term 

about 23,424 visitor days could be authorized. 

In addition to renewing outfitter and guide permits, the KMRD processes new permit 

applications each year. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of outfitters and guides 

permitted by the KMRD increased from 23 to 58, an average increase of 3.5 outfitters 

and guides annually. During this same time, annual guided use on KMRD increased from 

13,000 to 16,366 service days, an average increase of 337 service days annually. It is 

reasonable to assume that demand for special use permits to conduct outfitter and guide 

operations on the KMRD will continue to increase. 

Use Levels 

Based on guided use levels between 2005 and 2009, Alternative A would allow for less 

outfitter and guide use District-wide than Alternatives B, C, and D. Between 2005 and 

2009 the highest annual outfitter and guide use on KMRD was 27,954 service days (for 

the spring, summer, and fall seasons). Alternatives B, C, and D allocate 53,997, 74,005, 

and 34,905 service days to outfitter and guide use, respectively. 

The highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area 

between 2005 and 2006 was 9,539 service days annually. Alternative A allows for a 

higher amount of outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area than 

Alternatives B, C, and D (Table 3-7). The public has expressed concern that limiting 

outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area would disperse outfitter and 

guide use into less popular areas on the wilderness and non-wilderness portions of 

KMRD. Alternative A is the least likely to result in negative indirect social effects as a 

result of dispersing outfitter and guide use in this Use Area. 

Highly-valued Local Areas 

Alternative A would not apply the Design Elements and Mitigation Measures identified 

in the EIS, Appendix B to existing permits. Alternative A would also not result in the 

adoption of revised standards for monitoring social conditions on the wilderness and nonwilderness portion of KMRD (Table 2-1, Chapter 2), or the adaptive management 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 95 

approach described under Elements Common to All Action Alternatives in Chapter 2 of 

this EIS. Crowding and conflicts between guided and unguided visitors would occur or 

may begin to occur in popular areas: 

 Bostwick Bay (11 Gravina Island Use Area), 

 Bailey Bay hot springs (12 Bell Island Use Area), Helm Bay (13 East Cleveland Use 

Area), 

 Fish Creek and the Low Lake / Big Lake Trail system (17 George Carroll Thorne) 

 and Tatoosh, Back, Hump, Pup, Grant, Stack, Moser, Cache, and Cedar Islands in the 

23 Betton Island Use Area. 

Crowding and conflict are more likely under Alternative A than under all of the Action 

Alternatives because use is growing and design criteria (for Alternatives B, C, and D) 

would not be implemented and therefore would not minimize conflicts. 

The highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 08 Burroughs Unuk, 12 Bell Island, 

17 George Carroll Thorne, and 24 Ketchikan Core NA Use Areas combined between 

2005 and 2009 (during the summer season) was 2,528 service days (see Table 3-7). 

Alternatives B, C, and D would allocate 13,553, 17,265, and 8,366 service days, 

respectively, to outfitter and guide use in these four highly-valued local areas. 

The highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 04 Duke Island Use Area between 

2005 and 2009 was 22 service days during the summer season. No outfitter and guide use 

was reported during the spring and fall seasons. Alternative A would essentially allow a 

small amount of outfitter and guide use in the 04 Duke Island Area related to past 

accidental use as shown in Chapter 2. Encounter rates in this Use Area are below the 

Primitive ROS Class Standards identified in the Forest Plan. Alternative A would have a 

negligible impact on encounter rates and unguided visitor experiences in the 04 Duke 

Island Use Area. 

No outfitter and guide use occurred in the 11 Gravina Island Use Area between 2005 and 

2009. Alternatives A and D do not allocate any use in this Use Area to outfitters and 

guides. Encounter rates in this Use Area are below the ROS Class Standards identified in 

the Forest Plan. 

The highest amount of guided use in the 13 East Cleveland Use Area between 2005 and 

2009 was 221 service days during the summer season. This is less use than would be 

allocated to outfitters and guides under Alternatives B and C, and more than under 

Alternative D. Encounter rates in this Use Area are currently below ROS Class Standards 

identified in the Forest Plan. The public has expressed concern, however, about crowding 

in this area, particularly in popular bays (e.g. Helm Bay). 

The highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 23 Betton Island Use Area between 

2005 and 2009 (during the summer season) was 8,153 service days during the summer 

season. This is less use than would be allocated to outfitters and guides under 

Alternatives B and D, and more than under Alternative C (Table 3-7). The 23 Betton 

Island Use Area is popular with guided and unguided visitors and the public has 

expressed concern that guided use negatively impacts recreation experiences and has 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 96 

resulted in displacement of unguided visitors. Monitoring information has not been 

collected for encounter rates in the 23 Betton Island Use Area. 

The highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 27 Margaret Bay Use Area between 

2005 and 2009 (during the summers season) was 2,322 service days. This is less use than 

would be allocated to outfitters and guides under Alternatives B and D and more than 

under Alternative C. Most outfitter and guide use in this area occurs between July 15th

and September 15th, so conflicts with unguided visitors accessing the area for hunting 

during the fall season are minimized. Nonetheless, several public comments indicate that 

there is conflict between different types of visitors in the Margaret Bay Use Area, 

particularly visitors participating in wildlife viewing activities and those hunting in the 

area. No encounter monitoring data has been collected for the 27 Margaret Bay Use Area, 

but encounters are relatively common during the bear viewing season. 

The highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 28 Naha Bay Use Area between 

2005 and 2009 (during the summers season) was 14 service days (Heckman Lake and 

Roosevelt Lagoon in 2004-2006). Alternatives B and D do not allocate use to outfitters 

and guides in this area. Alternative C allocates 1,084 service days (during the summer 

season) to outfitters and guides in this Use Area. Naha Bay Use Area is used by unguided 

resident and nonresident visitors during the spring, fall, and summer months. Encounter 

monitoring information has not been collected for this Use Area, but Forest Service 

cabins and trails in the Use Area receive a high amount of use. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Use Levels 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) would allow for more outfitter and guide use District 

wide than Alternatives A and D, and less than Alternative C. Alternative B allocates 

53,997 service days annually to outfitters and guides, compared to 74,005 service days 

allocated to outfitter and guide use under Alternative C and 34,905 service days allocated 

to outfitter and guide use under Alternative D. Alternative B would allow for a 93 percent 

increase in outfitter and guide use annually across the KMRD. 

Alternative B allocates 75% of the summer season capacity in the 06 Misty Core Lakes, 

17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, 25 South Revilla NA, and 27 Margaret Bay 

Use Areas to outfitters and guides. A large amount of guided use occurred in the 06 

Misty Core Lakes, 23 Betton Island, and 27 Margaret Bay Use Areas between 2005 and 

2009; the 75% allocation to outfitters and guides would allow for the high level 

(approximately the average use between 2005 and 2009) of outfitter and guide use 

historically occurring in these areas to continue. Outfitters and guides have also 

expressed an interest in providing additional guided opportunities in areas close to town. 

The 75% allocation in the 17 George Carroll Thorne and 25 South Revilla NA Use Areas 

would allow for growth in the outfitter and guide industry in areas relatively accessible 

from Ketchikan. Design criteria and mitigation measures adopted under Alternative B 

would reduce impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences in these areas. 

Highly-valued Local Areas 

Alternative B allocates 26,472 service days to outfitters and guides (summer season) in 

the ten highly-valued local areas identified on the KMRD (Table 3-8). This allocation 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 97 

would allow for a 13 percent increase in outfitter and guide use in highly-valued local 

areas (during the summer season). Alternative B allows for more outfitter and guide use 

in these ten areas than Alternative D and less than Alternative C. Outfitter and guide 

allocations under Alternative B would result in minor impacts to unguided visitors’ 

experiences in areas identified as highly-valued local areas. Design criteria and mitigation 

measures would ensure that crowding and impacts from outfitter and guide use are 

minimized in popular locations and attractions within these use areas (e.g. Bostwick Bay, 

Bailey Bay hot springs, and the Ketchikan-area trail system). 

Alternative B allocates more use to outfitters and guides in the 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 

Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East Cleveland, and 24 Ketchikan Core NA Use Areas 

than Alternatives A (No Action) and D, and less than Alternative C. Alternative B does 

not allocate use to outfitters and guides in the 04 Duke Island or 28 Naha Bay Use Areas. 

Alternative B allocates more use to outfitters and guides in the 17 George Carroll Thorne, 

23 Betton Island, and 27 Margaret Bay Use Areas than Alternatives A, C, or D. Outfitters 

and guides have expressed an interest in increasing use in the 17 George Carroll Thorne 

Use Area, which is relatively accessible from town. Design criteria and mitigation 

measures adopted under all action alternatives will minimize the impacts of additional 

guided use on unguided visitors’ experiences in the 17 George Carroll Thorne Use Area. 

Alternative B would also allow for an increase in outfitter and guide use in the 23 Betton 

Island Use Area (increase of 604 service days during the summer season) and the 27 

Margaret Bay Use Area (increase of 430 service days during the season). Alternative B 

will have minor impacts on unguided visitors’ experiences because of the design criteria 

and mitigation measures that will be adopted to reduce the likelihood of crowding and 

conflict between guided and unguided visitors in popular locations (e.g. Fish Creek cabin 

and nearby trails and smaller islands in the 23 Betton Island Use Area.) 

Alternative C 

Use Levels 

Alternative C would allocate 74,005 service days annually to outfitter and guide use on 

the KMRD. Alternative C allocates more service days to outfitter and guide use than 

Alternative B (53,997 service days) and Alternative D (34,905 service days). Alternative 

B would allow for a 160 percent increase in guided use annually across the KMRD when 

compared to the highest amount of outfitter and guide use between 2005 and 2009. 

Alternative C is the only alternative that would not establish any Use Areas where 100 

percent of the visitor capacity is allocated to unguided use. 

Alternative C would allocate 6,389 service days in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area to 

outfitters and guides annually, which is less than the highest amount of guided use 

between 2005 and 2009 (9,539 serviced days) and the amount allocated to guided use 

under Alternatives B (7,922 service days), and more than the amount of guided use 

allocated under Alternative D (1,917 serviced days). By limiting the amount of outfitter 

and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, Alternative C has the potential to 

disperse flightseeing traffic and cause indirect effects to social conditions (e.g. crowding 

and additional floatplane landings) on adjacent waterways, particularly in Rudyerd Bay 

and Walker Cove. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 98 

Highly-valued Local Areas 

Under Alternative C, outfitter and guide use in highly-valued local areas would be 

permitted to increase approximately 30 percent compared to the highest amount of use 

between 2005 and 2009. Alternative C allows for a larger amount of outfitter and guide 

use in the 04 Duke Island, 08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East 

Cleveland, 24 Ketchikan Core NA and 28 Naha Bay Use Areas than Alternatives B and 

D. 

Alternative C allocates 9,842 service days during the summer season to outfitter and 

guide use in the 17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, and 27 Margaret Bay Use 

Areas, which is less than the highest amount of summer use in these areas between 2005 

and 2009 (11,267 service days) and less than would be allocated to outfitters and guides 

for the summer season in the three use areas under Alternatives B (14,762 service days) 

and D (13,312 serviced days). 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the most effect. However, Design criteria 

and mitigation measures would ensure that crowding and impacts from outfitter and 

guide use are minimized in popular locations and attractions within these use areas. 

Alternative D 

Use Levels 

Alternative D allocates 34,905 service days annually to outfitter and guide use on the 

KMRD, which is more guided use than occurred between 2005 and 2009 (27,954 service 

days) and less guided use than would be allocated under Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative D would allow for an overall 25 percent increase in outfitter and guide use 

across KMRD. Alternative D would allow for an increase in outfitter and guide use in all 

Use Areas except the 04 Duke Island, 06 Misty Core Lakes, 11 Gravina Island, 13 East 

Cleveland, and 28 Naha Bay Use Areas. 

Alternative D allocates 1,464 service days in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area to 

outfitters and guides annually, which is less than the highest amount of guided use 

between 2005 and 2009 (9,539 serviced days) and the amount allocated to guided use 

under Alternatives B (7,922 service days) and C (4,879 service days). By limiting the 

amount of outfitter and guide use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area, Alternative C has 

the highest potential to disperse flightseeing traffic and cause indirect effects to social 

conditions (e.g. crowding and additional floatplane landings) on waterways adjacent to 

NFS lands in Misty Fiords, particularly in Rudyerd Bay and Walker Cove. 

Highly-valued Local Areas 

Alternative D allocates 19,699 service days to outfitters and guides (during the summer 

season) in the ten highly-valued local areas on the KMRD, which is over 3,500 visitor 

days (about 16 percent) less than the highest amount of outfitter and guide use that 

occurred annually between 2005 and 2009 and less than would be allocated to outfitters 

and guides under Alternatives B and C. Alternative D therefore has the least likelihood of 

having a negative impact on unguided visitors’ experiences in areas identified as highlyvalued local areas. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 99 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Timber management activities could result in temporary road closures that seasonally 

impact guided and unguided recreation access, particularly on the Margaret Bay road 

system, Brown Mountain Road, Shelter road system, and roads surrounding Hyder, AK. 

Hydroelectric and Mining Development 

Soule River hydroelectric development, in the 20 Hyder SPNW Use Area, would flood 

areas used for a small amount of guided hunting and fishing. Development related to the 

hydroelectric project may increase access and demand for guided use. The highest 

amount of outfitter and guide use in this Use Area between 2005 and 2009 was 27 service 

days. All action alternatives allow for a growth of outfitter and guide use in the 20 Hyder 

SPNW Use Area if additional recreation opportunities become available. 

Mining activities in the Duke Island area, in combination with an increase in outfitter and 

guide use (Alternatives A and C), would have a moderate impact on unguided visitors’ 

experiences in this Use Area, which is important for cultural and subsistence activities. 

Activities Occurring Adjacent to NFS Lands 

Activities occurring on non-NFS lands, along marine waterways, and in the airspace 

surrounding NFS lands on the KMRD have the potential to impact recreation experiences 

and opportunities for solitude on the wilderness and non-wilderness portions of KMRD. 

During the summer season, motorized boat traffic is concentrated along the shorelines of 

the 05 South Misty, 07 Walker Chickamin, 09 Alava Princess Ella Manzanita, 10 

Rudyerd Winstanley, 11 Gravina Island, 13 East Cleveland, and 23 Betton Island Use 

Areas. The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over activities occurring on 

saltwater. The amount of annual use allocated to outfitters and guides in these seven Use 

Areas under Alternative A, B, C, and D is 8,815, 12,580, 15,640, and 10,171 service 

days, respectively. All alternatives could result in an increase in outfitter and guide use in 

areas where saltwater traffic is currently concentrated. Alternative D would allow for the 

least increase in outfitter and guide use in areas impacted by motorized boat traffic on 

saltwater. 

On the non-wilderness portion of KMRD, noise impacts from aircraft overflights and 

saltwater landings are concentrated in the 17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, 25 

South Revilla NA, and 27 Margaret Bay Use Areas. Between 2005 and 2009, the highest 

amount of outfitter and guide use in these four Use Areas was 11,269 service days. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would allow for 14,929, 10,926, and 13,845 service days, 

respectively. 

Unguided Recreation Use on NFS Lands in Misty Fiords 

A limited amount of information is available about unguided use on the KMRD. 

Dispersed recreation site monitoring and information collected about trail and public 

recreation cabin use indicates that unguided use on the non-wilderness portion of KMRD 

is highest in areas identified as high-valued local Use Areas (Table 3-8). Between 2005 

and 2009, the highest amount of guided use during the summer season in KMRD’s ten 

highly-valued local areas was 23,424 service days, which is less than the amount of use 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 100 

that would be allocated to outfitters and guides under Alternatives B and C. Social 

encounters and guided lake landing rates will be monitored to ensure that social 

conditions in these use areas do not exceed established standards. 

Dispersed recreation site monitoring and information collected about trail and public 

recreation cabin use indicates that unguided use in Misty Fiords is concentrated in the 09 

Alava Princess Ella Manzanita and 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas, particularly in 

areas surrounding trails and public recreation cabins. The amount of annual use allocated 

to outfitters and guides in these two Use Areas under Alternatives B, C, and D is 1,103, 

2,857, and 512 service days, respectively. Alternative A would allow for the least amount 

of impact from outfitter and guide activities in areas of Misty Fiords that are popular 

among unguided visitors. One exception is on the trail-accessible lakes in the 06 Misty 

Core Lakes Use Area (e.g. Punchbowl Lake Trail). Alternative A would allow for the 

highest amount of impact from outfitter and guide activities in this the 06 Misty Core 

Lakes Use Area, which is used predominantly by outfitters and guides. 

Bakewell Lake Coho Recolonization Project 

The coho salmon recolonization project at Bakewell Lake may increase demand for 

outfitter and guide use in the 05 South Misty Lakes Use Area. Encounter rates in this area 

are currently below Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the Semi-Primitive NonMotorized ROS Class. Monitoring will ensure that encounter rates do not exceed 

standards identified in the Forest Plan or standards adopted under any of the Action 

Alternatives. 

Road Extension from Harriet Hunt Lake to the Forest Service road system in 

Shelter Cove 

There is a proposal to extend a State road from Harriet Hunt Lake to the Forest Service 

road system in Shelter Cove. If opened to the public, this road would increase access and 

opportunities for dispersed recreation in the 16 Ketchikan Core SPNW and 17 George 

Carroll Thorne Use Areas. Improved access to George Inlet, Carroll Inlet, and Thorne 

Arm, may result in crowding along the coastline. Between 2005 and 2009, the highest 

amount of outfitter and guide use in this Use Area during the summer season was 792 

service days. Alternative B allocates 3,253 service days to outfitters and guides in this 

Use Area for the summer season and Alternatives C and D allocate 2,169 service days to 

outfitters and guides. 

Improvements to the Hyder Road System 

The Alaska Department of Transportation plans to pave the road accessing Hyder and the 

Fish Creek Wildlife Viewing Site from Stewart, British Columbia in 2012. Paving may 

result in additional demand for guided and unguided recreation opportunities in the 20 

Hyder SPNW and 22 Hyder NA Use Areas. All of the action alternatives allow for 

considerable growth in outfitter and guide use of this area. Encounter rates will be 

monitored to ensure that they do not exceed established standards. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 101 

Heritage _______________________________ 

This analysis considers the effects of the alternatives on heritage resources. This analysis 

also considers proposed allocations by alternative as they relate to two issues, Issues 3 

and 5: 

 Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas 

may affect historic properties, sacred sites and traditional cultural properties. 

 Outfitter and guide use may negatively affect wildlife, subsistence uses, and cultural 

and traditional uses. 

Affected Environment 

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) as defined in Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act is the geographic area(s) within which a Federal project may directly or 

indirectly affect the character of heritage resources eligible to the National Register of 

Historic Places. For this project, the APE includes the National Forest Lands within the 

KMRD boundaries. 

The Native Peoples of this area have left their mark on the land evidenced by a variety of 

sites including villages, seasonal villages or campsites, middens, fish traps and weirs, 

rock art, sacred and religious areas, and subsistence or resource gathering places. The 

Cape Fox, Tongass, and Tsimshian peoples continue to recreate, hunt, and gather on 

these lands which make up the APE today. 

The historical period in Southeast Alaska began in 1741 when Aleksei Chirikov, a 

member of Russia's Second Kamchatka Expedition under Vitus Bering, sighted land 

somewhere between Yakobi and Chichagof islands. Since then, enterprises including 

fishing, mining, fur farming, timber harvest, and tourism have developed in the analysis 

area and left evidence on the land (Arndt et al 1987). 

The ~200 archaeological surveys conducted between 1974 and 2010 have covered over 

24,909 acres and resulted in the location and documentation of 561 Alaska Heritage 

Research Sites (AHRS) within the APE. Out of the 561 AHRS sites (also known as 

Historic Properties) 461 are either listed, determined eligible or are potentially eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places. Many of these surveys were conducted along 

the ~2,444 miles of coastline within the APE but a significant number were conducted 

further inland in relationship to proposed projects including; timber harvest activities, 

roads, trails, cabin construction/maintenance, and various special use permits including 

those issued to guides. 

Under Executive Order 13007 the Organized Village of Saxman and the Ketchikan 

Indian Community have declared that the “Duke Island area” which includes 04 Duke 

and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas as sacred. The un-recognized Tongass Tribe has 

voiced the same concerns for the one of the areas. In response to these concerns, the 

Forest Service has not allowed any new on the ground use by outfitters and guides in 

these two use areas since 1999 (see Table 3-8). Historic properties in the “Duke Island 

area” include old village sites, summer camps, graves of shamans and other important 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 102 

people, shamanistic encounter and dreaming sites, traditional hunting and gathering 

areas, battlefields and fort sites. Warriors in Tlingit culture are highly venerated some are 

cultural heroes and places associated with their deeds and deaths are long remembered. 

Tribal members have told the Forest Service that locations in the “Duke Island area” are 

equivalent to “Gettysburg.” Therefore many historic properties located throughout the 

“Duke Island area” are also considered sacred. 

Traditionally this area has also been a traditional hunting and gathering area for local 

Tribes for thousands of years. These traditions are linked to ancestral lifestyles, oral 

traditions, migrations, villages, and other cultural sites. This traditional use continues to 

this day and remains important for transmitting cultural knowledge from the Elders to the 

young which, educates the youth about natural resources, their uses, methods of 

harvesting, processing, and the imperatives for a balance between consumption and the 

continued regeneration of resources. 

Since 1991 KMRD archaeologists have been working with the KMRD Recreation 

Department and have implemented an inventory and monitoring program to assess the 

potential effects on historic properties from non-guided recreationalists and guided 

activities throughout the KMRD. Since then, District archaeologists together with 

recreation specialists have monitored numerous guided and non-guided campsites as well 

as their day use activity areas. Most of the recreational sites monitored have been in the 

high sensitivity zone for cultural resources as defined by our Programmatic Agreements 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. As of 2010 no adverse effects to historic properties have been observed at 

any of the guided campsites or day use areas where historic properties were also located 

at or nearby. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 103 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Table 3- 8) Annual guided use allocations1 for Recreation Use Areas identified as 

areas of concern for Heritage. 

Recreation Use Area 

Service Days 

Authorized (in 

2009) 

Visitor 

Capacity in 

Service Days 

Annual Service Days Allocated 

Alt A 

(2005-

2009 

Highest 

Use) 

Alt B Alt C Alt D 

04 Duke Island 0 2,839 22* 0 1,420 0

21 Percy Hotspur Mary 

Islands 

0 2,129 0 639 1,065 0 

Total 0 4,968 22* 639 2,485 0 

*Use in this area has not been permitted since 1999. However, unplanned use occurred in one year by a 

guide who had formerly been permitted in the area and did not realize it was closed. That use was stopped 

upon discovery and has not occurred again. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Potential effects to cultural resource sites due to human activities come primarily from 

vandalism or theft. Sites can be dug up, looted, or destroyed. Guide permits require the 

protection of cultural resources and therefore permitted guided use has little, if any, direct 

effect. Concentrated recreation use at a cultural resources site can also cause indirect 

effects such as site trampling, increased erosion, and disturbance and displacement of 

cultural artifacts. For example, trampling the surrounding area can result in site erosion or 

plant cover loss, thereby exposing the site to weathering. Effects on historic properties 

from guided recreation can be eliminated or reduced by avoiding the cultural resources 

sites or by using mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts. 

Guided use will not occur uniformly across the analysis area. Effects on cultural 

resources will be mitigated through permit stipulations such as the use of Leave No Trace 

practices, oversight, and enforcement of pertinent cultural resource laws and regulations, 

interpretation, and use restrictions where necessary. A monitoring program can help 

assure that proposed activities do not affect cultural resources through soil disturbance, 

rutting, compaction, and erosion. Monitoring also addresses issues of commercial use that 

may increase the potential for deliberate looting or inadvertent disturbance of fragile sites 

Table 3-8 displays the potential outfitter and guide allocation in the “Duke Island Area” 

(Use Area 4 Duke Island and Use Area 21 Percy Hotspur Mary Islands). This area has 

been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional 

Cultural Property (CRM Report # 2011100552001). This same area has also been 

declared sacred by local tribes. As a result, there is potential for adverse affects to the 

Duke Island Area Traditional Cultural Property and sacred sites if service days are 

allowed under Alternatives B or C. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 104 

Under our Third Programmatic Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, And The Alaska State Historic 

Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage Program Management On National Forests In 

The State Of Alaska, the KMRD archeologist has determined that the activities proposed 

under Alternatives A or D where no service days are allowed in the “Duke Island Area” 

(Use Area 4 and Use Area 21) for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Outfitter 

Guide EIS will have no affect on properties eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Any future proposed guided activities that are not listed in their permits or that have the 

potential to disturb the ground will continue to receive a case-by-case section 106 review 

by the KMRD archaeologist. 

Most of the eligible sites are buried below the present ground surface and are not visible; 

The primary mitigating factors are; that no ground disturbance will be allowed; permit 

holders will be required to follow all heritage protection laws, use Leave Leave No Trace

principles include provisions protecting fragile heritage resources. Additionally, guides 

will provide the Forest Service with the locations of the campsites they used throughout 

the season. This will enable archaeologists to monitor the effects of campsite use. 

Any cultural resources encountered during guided activities should be left as found and 

reported to the permit administrator who should then notify the KMRD archaeologist. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Based on past monitoring of known cultural resource sites and recreation use, no 

cumulative effects on cultural resources from the commercial recreation proposed in the 

four alternatives are anticipated beyond the natural decaying process. The types of nonground-disturbing recreation activities and the relatively low levels of use over the 

analysis area as a whole combined with mitigation measures, administrative oversight, 

and enforcement of regulations are expected to result in minimal effects. Therefore: 

cumulative effects for all of the alternatives are not likely to result in adverse impacts to 

the cultural resources. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 105 

Wildlife ________________________________ 

This wildlife section addresses the effect of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan on: 

 species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their designated critical 

habitat, 

 sensitive species listed by the Alaska Region (FSM 2670), 

 management indicator species (MIS) as required by FSM 2621, and 

 other native and desired non-native wildlife species of concern (FSM 2620.1). 

Wildlife resource concerns are directly related to Issue 5 of this EIS: 

Issue 5: Outfitter and guide use may negatively affect wildlife, subsistence uses, 

and cultural and traditional uses. 

Concerns and design criteria to lessen effects form the basis of this analysis and the 

remainder of this report. This report will measure effects through the number of service 

days allocated to outfitters and guides as well as a relative comparison of alternatives by 

resource. 

Potential effects to wildlife occur when disturbance from outfitter and guide activities 

overlap with crucial life phases: overwintering when body reserves are limited, 

reproduction and young rearing when disturbance can further deplete body resources 

and/or cause abandonment of young, and summer/fall foraging where animals are trying 

to put on fat reserves in preparation of migration and/or the winter season. These 

functions will be described by species in the Affected Environment Section and analyzed 

in the Environmental Effects Section. 

This Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter-Guide Management Plan wildlife analysis tiers to 

the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008b), the accompanying Forest Plan 

Amendment FEIS (2008c, herein FEIS), and the Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Reports. 

An integrated conservation strategy was developed to provide habitat to maintain viable 

populations of native and desired non-native wildlife species and subspecies that may be 

associated with old-growth forests (USDA Forest Service 2008b, pp. 3-174 and 3-175). 

The conservation strategy includes two major components: the system of large, medium 

and small old-growth reserves (OGRs) distributed throughout the Tongass National 

Forest and a series of standards and guidelines applicable to those portions of the Tongass 

open to potential development to protect important habitat components and provide oldgrowth forest habitat connectivity. OGRs will not be modified nor will any ground 

disturbing outfitter and guide activities be authorized in the Record of Decision for this 

project. Therefore, OGRs will not be discussed further in this document. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 106 

Affected Environment 

Introduction 

The wildlife analysis area for direct and indirect effects of this project includes NFS lands 

on KMRD and the immediately adjacent marine environment that would be used by 

permitted outfitters and guides to access sites. The cumulative effects area is the same 

boundary, but includes non-NFS lands. These areas are appropriate for wildlife analysis 

since KMRD permitted activities do not overlap onto other districts and the area is large 

enough to cover home ranges. KMRD is part of ADF&G Game Management Unit 

(GMU) 1 with most of KMRD within subunit 1A; the northwestern portion of Cleveland 

Peninsula falls within subunit 1B. 

Recreational use is not distributed equally due to visitor use patterns; some areas have 

intensive disturbance whereas others have less intensive disturbance (Leung and Marion 

2000). Outfitter and guide use on KMRD is generally restricted to four habitat types due 

to access: the beach/estuary fringe accessible by boat or floatplane, the subalpine/alpine 

habitat accessed by floatplanes or developed trails, forested habitat adjacent to the beach 

fringe, roads or trails, and riparian habitat along streams that can be accessed by boat, 

floatplane, roads, or trails. Areas further away from access points would be less used. 

Beach fringe is the strip of land within a 1,000-foot horizontal distance inland from the 

saltwater shoreline, not including estuaries. It is a transitional zone between land and 

water, salt water and fresh water, and vegetated and non-vegetated conditions. Estuary 

fringe is the land within 1,000-foot horizontal distance around river mouths or estuaries. 

Both the beach and estuary fringe have great value to wildlife, particularly bears, bald 

eagles, swans, other waterfowl and shorebirds, river otters, mink, marten, and Sitka 

black-tailed deer, because of its aquatic and vegetative diversity. KMRD contains over 

2,400 miles of shoreline and associated beach/estuary fringe habitat. 

Alpine habitat is located at and above tree line and characterized by short, windswept 

perennial shrubs, short, leaning conifers, and heath dominated peat bogs. Alpine-adapted 

fauna in Southeast include mountain goat, rock ptarmigan and American pipit. Alpine 

ridges are favored thoroughfares for deer, goat, bear, wolves and wolverine. Subalpine 

habitat is locate just below alpine and contains forage abundant meadows and tree cover. 

Old-growth forests typically possess the following characteristics: large trees with wide 

variation in tree size and spacing; large snags and fallen trees; a high incidence of trees 

with broken or deformed tops, and multiple canopy layers, canopy gaps and patchy 

understory. Old-growth forests are important habitat for many species of wildlife, 

including brown bears and bald eagles. Old-growth forest is important to this analysis as 

wildlife species and outfitters and guide client use extend beyond the 1000-foot 

beach/estuary fringe and immediate riparian zone. 

Riparian habitat occurs along rivers, streams, and shorelines of lakes and contains 

elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. These areas are important for species 

such as bears, waterfowl, and shorebirds. 

Assumptions for the wildlife analysis are the same as those displayed in Chapter 2 under 

Alternative Descriptions, except as described here: 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 107 

 Recreation Use seasons (Spring 4/20-5/14, Summer 5/15-9/30, Fall 10/1-10/20) do 

not correspond with hunting seasons or wildlife breeding, foraging, migrating, or 

wintering lifecycles. Therefore, effects are based on the total allocated service days 

instead of service days by individual recreational use season. 

 For the purpose of this analysis, outfitter and guide activities were expected to 

continue to increase and reach allocation levels whereas unguided use would remain 

static or increase more slowly. This led to the assumption that outfitter and guide 

activities are more likely to occur, would occur more frequently, and would therefore 

pose a greater risk to wildlife than unguided use. Many of the outfitter and guide 

activities occur in areas less accessible to the general public (further from Ketchikan 

or requiring larger boats or aircraft). Unguided use on NFS lands is currently not 

quantified or easily quantifiable. However, the population of the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borough decreased by 8 percent between 2000 and 2009 and is 6 percent lower than 

it was in 1990 (Alaska Community Database Online). This lower local population and 

the slower increase in independent travelers led to the assumption that non-guided use 

would be less likely to reach unguided use allocations, be in smaller groups, be 

predominantly on the weekends or limited evening hours due to work schedules, and 

have lower risk to wildlife. 

 Very little conclusive research on how specific numbers of recreationists disturbed or 

changed wildlife response were found and none came from Alaska. Although some 

activities, such as guided fishing, would likely not occur in large group sizes, this EIS 

does not set outfitter and guide allocations by activity. Therefore, I assumed 

maximum group size when considering potential for wildlife disturbance. Group size 

in Misty Fiords Wilderness is limited to no more than 12 persons (including guide) 

for outfitter and guide activities (USDA Forest Service 2008b REC3.A.4, pg. 3-20). 

Outside of wilderness group size should generally be limited to 12 to 20 people 

(USDA Forest Service 2008b REC3.II.A.3, pg. 4-46). 

Due to known disturbance factors, Leave No Trace Principles for Wildlife include 

“Avoid wildlife during sensitive times: mating, nesting, raising young, or winter”. Given 

the variety of wildlife species on KMRD, avoidance would have to occur during the 

entire recreational season. Therefore, it is unlikely that Leave No Trace principles for 

wildlife would be implemented to the level that would avoid all disturbance. Design 

criteria and Forest Plan Standards and Guideline buffer requirements should lessen, but 

not alleviate impacts. 

Level Of Influence In Determining Effects 

Numerous studies have identified a variety of factors that influence both the vulnerability 

of wildlife and the frequency of wildlife response to human disturbance. Although 

disturbance has been heavily studied, research on thresholds is lacking; wildlife responses 

are relatively unpredictable and may vary even within a given species (Cline et al. 2007). 

As a result, standardized terms (IE: minor, moderate, or major) are not used for this 

analysis. Consequently, an alternative ranking system based upon allocated service days 

was used. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 108 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

The only listed species known to occur in the vicinity of KMRD are limited to the marine 

environment. Therefore, species not occurring within Southeast Alaska inside waters 

and/or the southern portion of the Tongass National Forest were dropped from further 

analysis. Species known or suspected to occur within the action area were analyzed 

further. These species are displayed in Table 3-9. There is no critical habitat designated 

within or adjacent to KMRD. 

Table 3- 9) Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Sensitive Species Occurring 

in the KMRD vicinity 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 

Steller sea lion (Eastern DPS) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 

Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii Candidate Species 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi R10 Sensitive Species 

Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani R10 Sensitive Species 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales occur worldwide in all major oceans. They inhabit temperate and 

tropical waters in the winter and cool, coastal waters spring through fall. They generally 

inhabit waters over continental shelves and in summer are relatively close to shore. 

Dahlheim et al. (2009) list them as feeding in Southeast Alaskan panhandle waters from 

about May through December, although some have been seen every month of the year. 

Prey is zooplankton and small schooling fish. They are regularly sighted in the Inside 

Passage and coastal waters of the Southeast Alaska panhandle from Queen Charlotte 

Sound north to Prince William Sound. 

Humpback whales are the most abundant of the eight species of endangered whales that 

occur in Southeast Alaska waters. Relatively high densities of humpback whales occur 

throughout much of Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia (Allen and Angliss 

2010). Dahlheim et al. (2009) reported a 10.6 percent annual increase in the humpback 

whale population in southeast Alaska during their 17 year study. The recovery plans for 

the humpback whale identified six known or potential, categories of human impacts to 

these species: 1) hunting, 2) entrapment and entanglement in fishing gear, 3) collisions 

with ships, 4) acoustic disturbance, 5) habitat degradation, and 6) competition for 

resources with humans (NMFS 1991). Acoustic disturbance, the most likely effect from 

guided activities, includes all types of marine vessels and low-flying aircraft. Whale 

response to noise varies and is correlated to size, behavior, and composition of the whales 

at the time of disturbance. Responses have ranged from leaving or avoiding feeding and 

nursery areas to becoming habituated to vessel traffic and its noise. Habituation, 

however, may cause humpbacks to be more vulnerable to vessel strikes (2008 FEIS, 

Appendix F). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 109 

Steller Sea Lion 

Two distinct population segments (DPS) are recognized within the United States in 1997: 

the western DPS, located west of Cape Suckling (144oW) and classified as endangered 

and the eastern DPS, located east of Cape Suckling, is classified as threatened (NMFS 

2008). KMRD occurs solely within the eastern DPS. Rookeries (used for breeding and 

pupping) usually occur on remote islands with difficult human access. Haulouts (areas 

used during other portions of the year) may overlap with rookeries, but also include other 

rocks, reefs, beaches, jetties, breakwaters, navigational markers, floating docks, and ice 

flows. Rookeries and haulouts are used consistently year after year. Ocean use ranges 

from nearshore out to the continental shelf. Schooling fish including walleye pollock, 

salmon, and eulachon, cephalopod mollusks and invertebrates comprise the majority of 

the diet; seals and sea otters are occasionally taken. Critical habitat for Steller sea lions 

was designated by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1993 and includes a 20 

nautical mile buffer around all major haulouts and rookeries, as well as associated 

terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas. 

Small sea lion haulouts occur on Easterly Island, immediately west of Emerald Bay (14 

West Cleveland Recreational Use Area) and on Grindall Island, off the south tip of 

Kasaan Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island west of the action area. Sealions have 

occasionally been hauled out on rocks at Nose Point (18 Central Revilla SPNW 

Recreational Use Area). None of these haulouts are designated as critical habitat. 

No threats to continued recovery are currently identified for the eastern DPS given the 

long term sustained growth of the population as a whole. 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are found in deep, offshore waters of all major oceans. Fin whales are 

migratory, moving seasonally into and out of high-latitude feeding areas, but the overall 

migration pattern is complex, and specific routes have not been documented (NMFS 

website). Within the U.S. waters in the Pacific, fin whales are found seasonally off the 

coast of North America and in the Bering Sea during the summer (Allen and Angliss 

2010). Fin whales were observed by Dahlheim et al. (2009) off the southern tip of Prince 

of Wales Island and in lower Clarence Strait (near Gravina Island) in areas exposed to the 

open ocean or in channels in close proximity to open ocean. They assumed that fin 

whales move in and out of the waters of Southeast Alaska on a seasonal basis, since they 

could find no reports on the winter occurrence of fin whales in Southeast Alaska. 

Although most populations were depleted by modern whaling in the mid-twentieth 

century, there are still tens of thousands of fin whales worldwide (NMFS 2006). Threats 

to fin whales are similar to those for humpback whales. Negative responses of fin whales 

to whale watching and other boating traffic such as substantially reduced dive time and 

foraging has been documented in north Atlantic populations. Increased tourist trade in 

southeast Alaska has the potential to cause similar results. 

Yellow-billed Loon 

Yellow-billed loons nest exclusively in coastal and inland low-lying tundra 62-74° N 

latitude,, in association with permanent, fish-bearing lakes (USFWS 2006). Specific 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 110 

characteristics of wintering habitats are not well known, but the species normally occurs 

in protected near shore marine waters (USFWS 2006). Migration and wintering habitat 

quality are also important to yellow-billed loon conservation, especially adequate fish 

populations for food and low pollution levels (USFWS 2006). Heinl and Piston (2009) 

list yellow-billed loons as a rare migrant and winter visitant, and a casual summer 

visitant. They list average arrival time as mid-October with variable numbers present 

through mid-April. They have only three summer records, all of single birds in alternate 

plumage: Anchor Pass June 11, 1999, Carroll Inlet June 20, 1999, and Clarence 

Strait/Gravina, July 9, 2005. Three young of the year were observed at Whipple Creek in 

February 2011. Yellow-billed loon populations are vulnerable due to a combination of 

low starting population size, low reproductive rate, and very specific breeding habitat 

requirements (USFWS 2006). 

Queen Charlotte Goshawk 

Goshawks generally occur in dense mature or old growth aspen, conifer, or mixed forests. 

In Southeast Alaska, goshawks preferentially use high and medium volume old growth 

forest and avoid non-forested, clear-cut, and regenerating areas (Federal Register 2007). 

Goshawk nests have been found in eight recreation use areas: 11 Gravina, 12 Bell Island, 

17 George/Carroll/Thorne, 18 Central Revilla SPNW, 19 North Revilla, 25 South Revilla 

NA, 26 Central Revilla NA, and 27 Margaret Bay. No existing outfitter and guide use 

sites are within close proximity to these known nests. Goshawks have been sighted at 

numerous other locations, but the nests have not been found. The major threat to 

goshawks is the loss of old growth habitat due to logging. Goshawks are also susceptible 

to human disturbance during nesting period. A low reproductive rate makes recovery 

slow. 

Black Oystercatcher 

Black oystercatcher breeding habitat is the high tide margin of the inter-tidal zone and 

includes mixed sand and gravel beaches, cobble and gravel beaches, exposed rocky 

headlands, rocky islets, and tidewater glacial moraines within close proximity to dense 

mussel beds; they avoid brushy and forested habitats (Gotthardt and Coray 2005). Pairs 

nest just above the high-tide line and use the inter-tidal zone to feed themselves and their 

chicks. In winter, flocks of black oystercatchers concentrate on protected, ice-free tidal 

flats with dense mussel beds. 

Black oystercatchers breed along the exposed, outer islands of southeast Alaska and is 

known to nest as close as Snail Rock, Revillagigedo Channel near Boca de Quadra (Heinl 

and Piston 2009). They are also known to occur on and around Duke Island (Swarth 

1909, and personal observations). They are rarely found in the protected inside waters 

near Ketchikan (10 records, March–August). Black Oystercatchers have a small global 

population with estimates of 8,500 – 11,000 individuals. 

The Black Oystercatcher’s small population size and complete dependence upon a 

narrow coastal band throughout their life cycle places this species at risk to human and 

other mammalian disturbance. Black oystercatcher populations appear to be regulated by 

the availability of quality foraging and nesting habitat. Because they are confined to 

specific shoreline habitat and congregate during the winter, they are vulnerable to natural 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 111 

and human disturbances. Threats include predation, recreational disturbances, flooding, 

vessel wakes, and shoreline contamination (Tessler et al. 2007). Nest location data 

indicate extensive overlap between nesting territories and remote shoreline campsites and 

documented oystercatcher decline (USDA Forest Service 2009). Human-induced 

disturbance is the most important factor limiting population growth in some parts of the 

species range. Human-induced habitat alteration is suspected of causing local extirpations 

from islands around Sitka, AK (Andres and Falxa 1995). Increasing commercial and 

recreational vessel traffic and growing recreational use at breeding sites including 

increased human presence by campers, kayakers, and fishermen in remote coastal areas 

can interfere with parental care and foraging, may result in nest abandonment, and 

increases the likelihood that nests and eggs will be inadvertently trampled. 

Management Indicator Species 

FSM 2621.3 requires the effects of a proposed action to Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) be assessed and that the Forest Plan requirements, goals and objectives for these 

species are met at the project level (FSM 2621.4). MIS are vertebrates or invertebrate 

species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely 

response of other species with similar habitat requirements (FSM 2631.3). 

Thirteen wildlife MIS were selected for the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2008b, pp. 3-

230 to 3-241). All are associated with productive old-growth forest (POG). Six of the 

MIS also specifically use riparian habitats and five of the species use estuarine habitats. 

Since habitat changes would be negligible through this project, those MIS species 

affected mainly by habitat loss or change in road density will not be discussed further in 

this analysis. 

Those MIS species likely to be affected by guided activities and recreation use were 

selected for detailed analysis. Rationale for selection is displayed in Table 3-10. 

Table 3- 10) MIS Selected for Further Analysis and Rationale for Selection 

Species Habitat Description and Rationale for Selection 

Mountain goat Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are species of local interest that can be 

affected by aircraft and human disturbance during critical life phases. 

Brown bear and 

Black bear 

Brown bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) are species of local 

interest related to outfitter and guide activities of wildlife viewing and guided hunting. 

They can be affected by human disturbance during critical life phases. 

Bald eagle Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are species of National interest. Primary nesting 

habitat occurs in a narrow fringe along the beach. Nesting eagles can be impacted by 

nearby recreational activities. 

Mountain Goat 

Mountain goats were originally limited to the mainland portion of KMRD, but were 

successfully transplanted onto Revillagigedo Island in 1983 and 1991 (Porter 2008a). 

Mountain goats utilize cliffs, alpine and subalpine habitats, and adjacent old-growth 

forest. Steep glacial valleys and peaks in GMU 1A provide important escape terrain from 

predators; nutritional forage is found in alpine meadows (Porter 2008a). During the peak 

growing season (August-October), mountain goats may gain 10-15 lbs of body mass per 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 112 

month; however, during winter mountain goats are in a negative energy balance and are 

dependent upon fat and protein reserves built up during summer (White 2008). Mountain 

goats are known to be sensitive to human disturbance and particularly disturbance by 

aircraft (Foster and Rahs 1983, Festa-Bianchet and Côté 2008, Goldstein et al. 2005). 

ADF&G does not have a solid population estimate for GMU 1A, but numbers appear to 

be moderately high and stable based upon long-term aerial surveys (Porter 2008a). Nonresidents who hunt mountain goat must be accompanied in the field by an Alaska 

licensed guide or Alaska resident 19 years or older who is within the second-degree of 

kindred (2010-2011 Alaska Hunting Regulations). Approximately 15 percent of goat 

hunters in GMU 1A between 1996 and 2006 were non-residents and many are selective 

for trophy size goats (Porter 2008a). The majority of guided hunts on KMRD takes place 

in Misty Fiords with almost all guided hunts using alpine lakes areas for access and base 

camps. Although goats are present on Revillagigedo, access is limited. The Cleveland 

Peninsula south of Yes Bay/Santa Anna was closed to all hunting (resident, non-resident, 

and subsistence) in 2003 due to conservation concerns. There is potential for conflicts 

between floatplane landing tours and goat hunters using the same alpine lakes (Needs 

Assessment). There are currently three mountain goat guides with long-term priority 

permits on KMRD with a total of 14 hunts authorized. 

Brown and Black Bear 

Within KMRD, brown bear populations are generally restricted to the mainland (Misty 

Fiords and Cleveland Peninsula) although individuals, generally single males, are 

infrequently found on Revillagigedo Island. Black bears occur throughout KMRD. 

Brown and black bears are important both for hunting (including both guided and nonguided hunting) and to the recreation and tourism industry of Southeast Alaska. Both 

bears use areas from sea level to the alpine and are habitat generalists. Most quality bear 

habitat within Misty Fiord occurs in a relatively narrow band of between saltwater and 

high elevation peaks and ice fields; habitat on the Cleveland Peninsula is similar to the 

island portions of KMRD with broader valleys and lower peaks (Porter 2008b). 

The late-summer season has been identified as the most critical or limiting period for 

brown bears when they must build up energy reserves that are adequate to survive the 

winter and successfully reproduce (Schoen and Gende 2007, Flynn et al. 2007). Riparian 

areas and salmon bearing streams are also highly important to black bear (Schoen and 

Peacock 2007, Peacock 2004 PhD Thesis). During this season, bears concentrate along 

low elevation valley bottoms and salmon streams where their efforts focus on consuming 

large quantities of fish. Cover for visual obscurity, provided by riparian buffers or 

forested vegetation, is important for minimizing interactions among bears and between 

humans and bears with bears twice as likely to be displaced from open areas (Flynn et al. 

2007, Suring et al. 1998). In areas where brown and black bear coexist, black bear tend to 

be pushed into lower quality habitat or smaller streams. Bears frequent the sedge and 

grass beaches and lakeshores during the spring to forage on grasses and sedges as they 

emerge from their dens. Visibility along the beach makes them accessible and vulnerable 

to boat-based hunters. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 113 

The Needs Assessment acknowledges remote setting nature tours and guided fishing 

often occur in tidal and riparian areas where the possibility of a bear encounter may be 

higher. Floatplane landing tours may disturb bears feeding at the inlets and outlets of 

lakes or shorelines. Brown bears have also been known to react more strongly to hikers in 

remote areas than to motorized activities with the majority of full charges occurring on 

trails that receiving little human use (Wittinger 1999). Camping, hiking, and photography 

can also be stressful to bears (Warner 1987b). 

Non-residents who hunt brown bear must be accompanied in the field by an Alaska 

licensed guide or Alaska resident 19 years or older who is within the second-degree of 

kindred (2010-2011 Alaska Hunting Regulations). ADF&G does not have quantitative 

population data available for GMU 1, but anticipates that the current brown bear DNA 

research occurring on the Unuk and Bradfield will allow them to more accurately 

estimate brown bear populations throughout the region (Scott 2007). Over concerns of 

increasing harvest in GMU 1, ADF&G requested the Forest Service to follow the brown 

bear moratorium model implemented in GMU 4 and restrict the growing number of 

guides. This moratorium on the number of guides and number of hunts was implemented 

in GMU 1 starting in 2001 (Scott 2007). There are currently 3 brown bear guides on 

KMRD with a total of 9 hunts authorized. Since brown bear populations on KMRD only 

occur on the mainland, hunting access is by boat. 

Black bears have long been hunted in GMU 1A for trophies and food and annual harvest 

has increased from roughly 25 bears/year in the 1970s to an average of 78 bears/year 

between 2000-2006 [range 55 to 103] (Porter 2008b). Hunter access has generally been 

by boat with floatplane access a distant second. Porter attributed fluctuations in annual 

harvest to human activity and weather during hunting season rather than changes in bear 

numbers. There is no guide requirement for non-resident black bear hunters and most 

non-residents have traditionally hunted without a guide in GMU 1A. In contrast 45% of 

the harvest in GMU 1B was taken by guided hunters, but overall harvest levels ranged 

from 7 to 30 bear during the period 1995-2006 (Lowell 2008). More emphasis was placed 

on black bear populations with regulatory changes made at the November 2010 Alaska 

Board of Game meeting. Citing concerns about black bear numbers in GMU 1-3 in 

Southeast Alaska, the Board of Game adopted a drawing permit hunt for nonresident 

black bear hunters who do not hunt with guides. Resident hunters and nonresident hunters 

who employ a guide were not affected by the new regulation, but, in exchange, guides 

agreed to a reduced hunt allocation based upon their average actual harvest 2008-2010 

(ADF&G January, 6 2011 letter to Forrest Cole.). 

Clashes between hunters and bear viewing guides/clients at Margaret Creek (within 27 

Margaret Bay Recreation Use Area) have occurred in recent years and continue to occur. 

The Alaska Board of Game enacted a regulation in November 2010, prohibiting black 

bear hunting within 1⁄4 mile of Margaret Creek. The road system and area around Hyder, 

AK is closed to all bear hunting to enhance bear viewing opportunities (Scott 2007). 

Bald Eagle 

Bald eagles nest in mature or old-growth trees, snags, cliffs, and rock promontories, 

along saltwater shorelines and mainland rivers with a dominant view of the surrounding 

landscape (USFWS 2009). Where disturbance is minimal, habitat tends to be composed 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 114 

of a narrow strip of land along the coast that provides large trees suitable for nesting, 

fishing, and loafing (USFWS 2009). In Southeast Alaska, over 90 percent of known nests 

are in the beach/estuary buffer within 500 feet of saltwater. Approximately 2,450 miles of 

shoreline occur within KMRD. Over 700 bald eagle nests have been mapped on KMRD 

although FWS has not updated the information for the Ketchikan area for several years 

and data is lacking for much of Misty Fiords. 

Eagles breeding in coastal Alaska remain in the vicinity of their nest sites throughout the 

year (USFWS 2009). The nesting period in Alaska begins with courtship and nest 

building in February and ends when the young fledge by late August into early 

September (FWS 2009). Eagle sensitivity to humans varies, with eagles being most 

sensitive to human disturbance during the courtship through egg laying phases (USFWS 

2009). Sensitivity also varies among individuals within each phase. This variability may 

be related to a number of factors, including visibility of the activity, its duration and noise 

level, extent of the area affected by the activity, the eagle pair’s prior experiences with 

humans, and tolerance of the individual nesting pair (USFWS 2009). 

Other Species of Concern 

The following species have specific Forest Plan Standards and Guideline disturbance 

buffers and/or represent a suite of species affected by recreational activities. 

Swans, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds 

Numerous winter swan surveys have been conducted on KMRD since the 1960s 

providing information on swans and other wintering waterfowl (KMRD wildlife atlas and 

observation database). Most trumpeter swans begin arriving in October with spring 

migration occurring in April. 

Trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) winter in sheltered bay and estuaries, lakes, and 

ponds and usually move to large lakes and estuaries once the weather turns cold (Slater 

2006). There is little information about the effects of human activities to swans on 

wintering grounds, but disturbances that disrupt winter foraging activities or cause 

frequent movements from resting areas may decrease overall condition or even cause 

mortality (Slater 2006). The breeding range is concentrated along the Gulf of Alaska, but 

young cygnets were observed near the mouth of Traitors Cove in 2005 and have been 

reported on Duke Island. Due to swan sensitivity to human disturbance, wetlands 

otherwise suitable for trumpeter swan but subject to disturbance by human activity, are 

likely to be avoided by swans, (Slater 2006, Henson and Grant 1991). Swans may also 

abandon their nest and eggs in breeding areas that are frequently disturbed (Slater 2006). 

Henson and Grant (1991) found that swans on the Copper River Delta, Alaska, were 

often alerted by aircraft overflights, vehicle traffic, and pedestrian activities. 

Over 25 waterfowl species and over 30 shorebird species have been documented near 

Ketchikan with many more listed as rare or casual visitors (Heinl and Piston 2009a). 

Waterfowl migrate through or winter in the larger bays, estuaries, rivers, on KMRD; 

lakes are used in the spring and fall with winter use dependent upon weather and more 

specifically ice conditions. Shorebirds are found in many of the same areas along the 

beach/estuary fringe. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 115 

Migrating and breeding seasons overlap with spring, summer, and fall recreation seasons. 

Therefore, this suite of birds can be affected by outfitter and guide activities. 

Herons 

Heinl and Piston (2009b) list great blue herons (Ardea herodias fannini) as uncommon 

residents and a slightly more common winter visitant with numbers generally the highest 

from September to May. Habitat for great blue herons is tidal sloughs, estuaries and 

beaches, shallow lakes, lower reaches of salmon spawning streams, large freshwater 

ponds and marshes; nests are located in upper parts of trees or rarely in bushes or on the 

ground (Armstrong 1995). Butler and Baudin (1999) reported that nests are often built in 

colonies and most nests are within 3 km [1.9 mi] of coastal foraging habitats. Research 

has shown that great blue herons are negatively affected by human disturbance, 

particularly during breeding and fledgling periods (Carlson and McLean 1996, Butler and 

Baudin 2000, Carney and Sydeman 1999, Boyle and Sampson 1985, Gains et al. 2003). 

Peregrine Falcon 

Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus peali) nests are generally situated on ledges of 

vertical rocky cliffs, 65 to 900 feet in height, sheltered by overhanging grass, rocks, tree 

roots, salal, or mosses; some nests are found on grassy benches of rocky bluffs (FEIS, pg. 

3-229). Most nests occur near large seabird colonies on the outer coastline or nearby 

islands. Heinl and Piston (2009b) list them as a rare migrant and casual or very rare 

winter and summer visitant. Peregrine falcons were observed on Duke Island in 

summer/fall of 2010. It has not yet been determined if they were nesting. 

Osprey 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are limited to riparian areas adjacent to larger lakes, rivers, 

beaver ponds, coastal beaches, or large estuaries with abundant fish populations. They 

winter in Mexico and Central and South America then migrate to Alaska in April and 

September (VanDaele 2008, Heinl and Piston 2009). Osprey are naturally rare in 

Southeast Alaska and may be at the northern periphery of the range; competition with 

bald eagles may be a limiting factor (FEIS, pg. 3-229). Heinl and Piston 2009b) list 

ospreys as an uncommon migrant, rare summer visitant, and possible breeder. Osprey 

frequently adapt to human activities, but any disturbances which keep adults from their 

nests in May or June may cause the eggs or young nestlings to become chilled and die 

(VanDaele 2008). Osprey have been sighted repeatedly at Perseverance Lake and at Naha 

River, Jordan Lake, Hassler Island, Ella Bay, Manzanita Lake, Margaret Lake, and 

Orchard Lake (Heinl and Piston 2009b, KMRD observation database). 

Endemic Small Mammals 

Southeast Alaska has been found to be a region with an especially high degree of 

endemism in its small mammal fauna. Southern red-backed voles (Myodes [formerly 

Clethrionomys] grapperi) are the only endemic listed for the middle and southern inner 

island complex which includes KMRD (MacDonald and Cook 2007). Southern redbacked voles are mainly nocturnal and are active year-long. According to MacDonald 

and Cook (2007), Myodes grapperi solus only occurs on Revillagigedo Island. Preferred 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 116 

habitat is cool, mesic deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forests, with large amount of 

ground cover; muskegs, sedge marshes, and shrubby habitats are also used (NatureServe 

2010). However, Smith et al. (2005) found that southern red-back voles were positively 

correlated with the percent cover of deciduous shrubs and decayed down wood in the 

understory, but that peatland mixed–conifer forest habitat contributed little to breeding 

populations in southeast Alaska. 

Migratory Birds 

Over 100 species of birds migrate from the lower 48 states, Central and South America, 

to nesting, breeding, and rearing grounds in Alaska. Most of the birds fly to the interior or 

northern Alaska and only pass through southeast Alaska on their way to the breeding 

grounds (FEIS, pg.3-244). Of the migratory bird species of management concern listed in 

the Forest Plan (FEIS, pg.3-244) or listed in the FWS Region 7 [Alaska] Birds of 

Conservation Concern (2008), 43 were reported by Heinl and Piston (2009a) as occurring 

in the Ketchikan area (Attachment B). Many use forested habitat; other important habitats 

include shrub thickets, marshes, cliffs, beach and tidal flats, rocky and shores and reefs, 

and inshore and offshore waters. 

Environmental Consequences 

Blanc et al. (2006) summarize multiple studies that document disturbance to wildlife is 

more intense when activities are dispersed. 

In all alternatives, adaptive management principles could be used to adjust outfitter and 

guide allocations identified in the selected alternative under specific conditions (see EIS, 

Chapter 2). Allocations could be adjusted within individual use areas, but increases 

would not go above the highest outfitter and guide allocation analyzed for that use area. 

Total allocations would remain less than or equal to the 74,005 service days allocated 

under Alternative C. Adaptive management could increase the risk to wildlife under a 

specific alternative, but not above the highest risk analyzed. Use of the adaptive 

management measures for wildlife shown in Appendix D would lessen the impact to the 

species specified in the adaptive management measure. 

Alternative A is not consistent with all Forest Plan Wildlife Standards and Guidelines. 

Current permit guidelines call for aircraft to maintain 1,500 feet from wildlife, but they 

generally do not contain necessary stipulations to prevent disturbance from other 

activities or implement no disturbance buffers for many species. These design criteria 

would not be added to Alternative A under this Environmental Impact Statement. 

With the inclusion of the design criteria in Appendix B and species specific mitigation 

measures, Alternatives B, C, and D would be compliant with regulations and Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. 

Since outfitters and guides are required to comply with all Federal regulations, the project 

would be consistent with the Endangered Species Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, and 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Enforcement of these regulations is under the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 117 

jurisdiction of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA fisheries), and the US Coast Guard. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives and All Species 

Direct and indirect effects occur from outfitter and guide activities and connected actions 

that adversely affect individuals, their young, or their habitat. General disturbance effects 

on wildlife from recreational activities have been well documented, but not quantified. 

The indirect impacts of recreation on wildlife are even less understood than the direct 

impacts (Cole and Landres 1995). Boyle and Sampson (1985) recognized that impacts 

were occurring, but acknowledged that management was hampered by the complexity of 

cause-and-effect relationships and the incompleteness of existing information. Cole 

(1993) states that recreational impacts on wildlife are not usually obvious, are difficult to 

study, and are poorly understood. Taylor and Knight (2003) document similar lack of 

information on the area of influence from various recreational activities. Tempel et al. 

(2008) compiled current research and summarize effects: 

1) if an activity elicits a significant behavioral response from individuals, occurs 

frequently, and/or is widespread, long-term impacts to the reproduction and survival of 

individuals is possible, 

2) If a large enough number of individuals is negatively affected by recreation, impacts at 

the population level can occur, 

3) if impacted wildlife populations have important interactions with other species, 

community impacts are also possible. 

Direct effects from recreation include intentional or unintentional wildlife harassment, 

alteration of wildlife behavior, and displacement from food, water, and shelter (Leung 

and Marion 2000). According to Blanc et al. (2006), the main effect of disturbance is a 

change in behavior whether it is associated with movement and escape or not; effects can 

be physiological or behavioral. Physiological effects include increased heart rate and 

respiration, increased oxygen consumption, increased body temperature, and increased 

metabolism (Cline et al. 2007). Gill et al. (2001) state the decision to move away from 

disturbance or not is complex and dependent upon the quality of the habitat individuals 

are currently occupying, the distance to and quality of other suitable sites, the relative risk 

of predation, the density of competitors in alternative sites, and the investment required to 

establish a new territory. Indirect effects include reduced health and fitness, reduced 

reproductive rates, increased mortality, composition change (Leung and Marion 2000, 

Taylor and Knight 2003, Cole and Landres 1995). Many immediate disturbance 

responses are appear to be short-term; however, little is known about the long-term 

effects of recreational disturbance on energy balance or survival rates (Cole 1993). 

Indirect impacts occur wherever and whenever recreational use occurs (Cline et al. 2007). 

Cline et al. (2007) went on to state that indirect effects typically occur over a long period 

of time and affect a broader ecological scale than wildlife disturbance. They occur 

through normal recreation activities such as hiking, biking, hunting, and fishing where 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 118 

recreationists have the potential to negatively impact the physical environment (e.g., 

trampling vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, disturbances due to noise and motion, 

pollution, nutrition loading, and introduction of non-native invasive plant species). While 

indirect impacts such as trampling has been studied extensively from an ecological 

condition, their impacts on wildlife still are not fully understood (Cline et al. 2007). 

Boyle and Sampson (1985) reviewed 166 research articles of which 163 documented 

negative effects of recreational activity on wildlife: 52 on hiking and camping, 37 on 

boating, 27 on wildlife viewing and photography, 20 on off road vehicle use, 12 on 

snowmobile use, 8 on shore recreation and swimming, and 7 on rock climbing. Leung 

and Marion (2000) state that the mere presence of visitors may harm wildlife by 

displacing them from essential habitats or disrupting their raising of young and that trails 

and campsites may cause a landscape fragmentation effect possibly interfering with 

movement of some animal species. Visitors hiking on trails may disturb wildlife, 

displacing them from trail corridors during times temporarily or permanently. Likewise, 

camping can disrupt normal wildlife activities, attract animals, or alter wildlife habitat 

through vegetation and soil impacts causing wildlife to avoid areas with campsites 

(Leung and Marion 2000, Boyle and Sampson 1985). Most vegetation damage occurs 

quickly at low and moderate levels of visitor use (Leung and Marion 2000). Monz (1998) 

found that campsites on beaches and on forest understory in Prince William Sound, 

Alaska, were very susceptible to vegetation loss. Cole and Landres (1995) report to 

vegetation and soils caused by human trampling during hiking, camping, fishing, nature 

tours, and off road vehicles. 

Direct impacts from fishing include disturbance, entanglement with fishing lines and 

ingestion of lead sinkers; indirect impacts associated with fishing include vegetation 

trampling, boating disturbance, introduction of non-native species (Cline et al. 2007). 

Wildlife viewing and photography intentionally approach wildlife which can be more 

disturbing than accidental encounters since encounters are generally more frequent and of 

longer duration (Boyle and Sampson 1985, Cline et al. 2007). 

Motorized recreation can have direct effects from collisions with wildlife and indirect 

effects including noise, pollution, habitat degradation, disturbance, and harassment (Cline 

et al. 2007). Aircraft disturbance on mountain goats is well documented and will be 

discussed in more detail in the mountain goat section. 

In light of the above information, all authorized outfitter and guide activities identified in 

the Needs Assessment (Appendix A) and being considered under this management plan 

could cause disturbance to wildlife. 

Because quantitative evaluation of recreation effects was not possible owing to data 

limitations for many species, the wildlife biologist developed a risk ranking based upon 

the number of service days allocated to outfitter and guide activities and the assumptions 

at the beginning of this document. Specifically, that the risk of disturbing wildlife would 

increase as the number of days allocated to outfitter and guide activities increased. This is 

similar to the assumption in Gaines et al. (2003) that as recreational demand increases, 

effects on wildlife also increase over space and time and that increasing recreational use 

results in decreasing species persistence and maintenance of ecosystem processes and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 119 

function (Figure 3-1). The risk ranking is shown in Table 3-13. Effects to individual 

species listed in the Affected Environment section of this document follow the table. 

Figure 3-1) Assumed relationship between increasing recreational demand and species persistence 

and maintenance of ecosystem processes and functions (Gaines et al. 2003) 

 

 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Based upon the analysis in the biological evaluation (BE in the Project Record), the 

biologist made the following determinations on the effects of the proposed actions on 

endangered, threatened, and proposed species selected for detailed analysis (Table 3-11). 

Rationale for selection is displayed in Table 3-10. 

Table 3- 11) Determination of Effect for Federally listed or R10 Sensitive wildlife 

species known or suspected to occur in the vicinity of the KetchikanMisty Fiords Ranger District 

Federally Listed Species or 

R10 Sensitive Species 

Alternative Determination 

Humpback whale All Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Fin whale All Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Steller sea lion All Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Yellow-billed loon All Not likely to jeopardize candidate species 

Queen Charlotte goshawk 

All 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend 

to federal listing or a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing 

Black oystercatcher 

All 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend 

to federal listing or a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing 

species persistence and maintenance of

ecosystem processes and function

Low High

Low Recreational Demamd                        High
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 120 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Humpback Whale and Fin Whale 

None of the ten authorized outfitter and guide activities would degrade the marine 

environment. Potential effects come from the interdependent action of using boats and 

floatplanes to access outfitter and guide use sites. Whale response to noise varies and is 

correlated to size, behavior, and composition of the whales at the time of disturbance. 

Responses have ranged from leaving or avoiding feeding and nursery areas to becoming 

habituated to vessel traffic and its noise. Habituation, however, may cause humpbacks to 

be more vulnerable to vessel strikes (2008 FEIS). Forest-wide standards and guidelines 

direct the Forest Service to ensure that Forest Service permitted or approved activities are 

conducted in a manner consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered 

Species Act, and NMFS regulations for approaching whales, dolphins, and porpoise. 

"Taking" of whales is prohibited; "taking" includes harassing or pursuing, or attempting 

any such activity (USDA Forest Service 2008b WILD4.B pg. 4-99). The effects of 

interrelated unguided use would also come from boat and possibly floatplane access. 

Actual levels of use are unknown, and cannot be reliably predicted for the future. NMFS 

and the Coast Guard have enforcement jurisdiction over unguided users. 

Steller Sea Lion 

The KMRD Outfitter and Guide Management Plan action area occurs within the eastern 

DPS; therefore, analysis is limited to that stock. No critical habitat has been designated 

within KMRD. Similar to the humpback whales analysis, none of the ten authorized 

outfitter and guide activities would degrade the marine environment. Potential effects to 

come from the interdependent action of using boats and floatplanes to access outfitter and 

guide use sites. The effects of the interrelated unguided use would also come from boat 

and possibly floatplane access. Harassment or displacement of sea lions from preferred 

habitats by human activities such as boating, recreation, aircraft, was identified as a 

concern with regard to long-term conservation in the Biological Assessment conducted 

for Forest Plan (2008 FEIS, pg. F-12). NMFS identified similar threats in the 2008 

updated recovery plan for Steller sea lions, but acknowledged that there is not currently 

enough information to quantify effects. 

At present, the most likely threats to the eastern DPS are development, increased 

disturbance and habitat destruction, increases in the magnitude or distribution of 

commercial or recreation fisheries, and environmental change. Disturbance from 

increased human use of remote areas in Southeast Alaska represent a potential threat in 

the future but little is known about the potential impacts from changes to the physical 

environment, disturbance from vessel traffic, and tourism related activities. Temporary 

movements from areas of disturbance have been documented and rookeries subject to 

repeated disturbance may be permanently abandoned. Because of lack of information, it 

is not possible to quantify these threats (NMFS 2008). NMFS goes on to state that the 

potential threat from increased human disturbance highlights the need to keep regulatory 

mechanisms such as the MMPA in place to protect sea lions. 

Yellow-billed Loon 

There is no tundra nesting or breeding habitat anywhere within the KMRD action area. 

Yellow billed loons could occur in the marine waters surrounding KMRD during the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 121 

winter, but effects of the proposed action or interrelated or interdependent activities 

would be negligible since there is little overlap in seasons (April 20-October 20 use 

versus mid-October through mid-April loon occurrence). 

Queen Charlotte Goshawk 

None of the ten authorized outfitter and guide activities would alter productive oldgrowth habitat. Instead, effects would come from human disturbance in close proximity 

to nesting goshawks. Some of these areas are used by outfitter and guides and could be 

impacted before actual nests could be located and buffered. Potential effects of other 

natural and manmade factors were analyzed in the listing package and were determined 

to be limited across the landscape in Southeast Alaska and were not expected to have 

population-level impacts on the Queen Charlotte goshawk (Federal Register 2007). 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to minimize disturbance during the nesting season 

have been included as permit design stipulations. 

Black Oystercatcher 

Black oystercatchers generally occur on outer exposed coastlines, but are known to nest 

on shores within 03 South Misty, 04 Duke, and 21 Percy/Hotspur/Mary Recreation Use 

Areas. The majority of outfitter and guide activities within these areas utilizes the 

shoreline in some capacity during nesting and young rearing periods and therefore, has 

the potential to impact black oystercatchers. Documented disturbance impacts include 

disruption of courtship and breeding activities, abandonment of nests or fledglings, 

trampling or swamping of nests, reduction in the amount of parental care of young, 

reduction in the amount of time spent foraging and foraging success, increased predation, 

and/or desertion of otherwise suitable habitat (Tessler et al. 2007, Gotthardt and Coray 

2005, USDA Forest Service 2009, Andres and Falxa 1995, Chatwin [master’s thesis] 

2010). 

Table 3- 12) Relative risk of impacting Black Oystercatcher 

Relative Risk

Less Risk More Risk 

Alternative A X 

Alternative B X 

Alternative C X 

Alternative D X 

Alternative D would have the least impact on black oystercatchers (Table 3-12) since it 

would allocate zero service days to outfitters and guides in 04 Duke, and 21 

Percy/Hotspur/Mary Recreation Use Areas (e.g.: within the Duke Island Special Interest 

Area [Zoological] LUD). However, Alternative D would allocate 699 service days on 03 

South Misty which could lead to the impacts mentioned above. Alternative B has the 

second lowest risk since it also would not allocate days on 04 Duke or 21 

Percy/Hotspur/Mary Recreation Use Areas, but would allocate 1,048 service days on 03 

South Misty. These alternatives protect two out of the three known areas where black 

oystercatchers occur on KMRD.
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 122 

Table 3- 13) Alternative Risk Ranking for Wildlife by Recreation Use Area 

Recreation Use Area Acres Carrying Capacity 2005-2009 Highest Use (Existing Alt A) Alt B Proposed Action Alt C Alt D Highest Risk 

01 West Misty 193,421 2,366 96 355 1,184 355 A C 

02 Northeast Misty 1,301,579 7,425 211 1,114 3,713 372 A C 03 South Misty 629,903 6,989 220 1,048 3,495 699 A C 

04 Duke Island 37,643 2,839 22 0 1,420 0 A C 

05 South Misty Lakes 14,927 2,075 100 311 1,038 208 A C 

06 Misty Core Lakes 57,862 12,777 9,539 7,922 6,389 1,917 A B 

07 Walker Chickamin 14,339 1,747 37 262 873 174 A C 

08 Burroughs Unuk 29,846 1,965 11 294 983 98 A C 09 Alava Princess Manzanita 20,597 3,550 29 710 1,776 533 A C 10 Rudyerd Winstanley 20,548 3,931 155 393 1,966 197 A C 

11 Gravina Island 39,720 4,259 0 853 2,130 0 C B 12 Bell Island 137,866 9,173 275 1,835 4,587 918 A C 13 East Cleveland 87,530 4,969 230 994 2,485 248 A C 14 West Cleveland 74,108 2,839 13 853 1,420 426 A C 

15Wilson / Bakewell 13,319 2,020 54 404 1,010 302 A C 16 Ketchikan Core SPNW 46,978 1,419 12 426 710 142 A C 17 George Carroll Thorne 137,531 5,679 813 3,655 2,841 2,571 A B 18 Central Revilla SPNW 93,308 5,023 19 1,507 2,512 1,507 A C 19 North Revilla 70,560 4,259 37 1,277 2,130 1,277 A C 

20 Hyder SPNW 121,378 2,129 4 639 1,065 639 A C 

21 Percy Hotspur Mary 7,014 2,129 0 639 1,065 0 A C 

22 Hyder NA 7,235 1,419 27 710 710 710 A B,C,D 

23 Betton Island 4,990 15,288 8,431 10,202 7,644 9,841 A B 

24 Ketchikan Core NA 19,190 28,392 1,572 11,357 14,196 7,098 A C 25 South Revilla NA 40,181 2,839 2 1,895 1,420 1,252 A B 26 Central Revilla NA 15,462 2,839 0 1,136 1,420 751 A C 

27 Margaret Bay 9,822 4,805 2,322 3,206 2,403 2,670 A B 

28 Naha Bay 5,498 2,779 14 0 1,420 0 A C 

Total 3,252,354 147,923 24,245 53,997 74,005 34,905 A* C 

Total Service Days Alternative 

[1] With Alternative 1, no use w ill be allocated to outfitters and guides. Special Use Permits w ould be issued on a case by case. Use could reach capaSource: WL_RPT_Use_Table.xlsx compliled from final _alternative_comparison.xlsx
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 123 

Alternative A ranks second highest in risk to black oystercatchers since it has more 

widespread use. Very little outfitter and guide use has been authorized on 04 Duke in the past 

5 years (20 service days in 2005) or on 21 Percy/Hotspur/Mary (0 service days), but up to 

223 service days have been issued on 03 South Misty. 

Alternative C has the greatest risk since it would allocates the greatest number of service 

days (50% of capacity) to outfitters and guides in all three areas where black oystercatchers 

are known to occur on KMRD. Therefore, it could have substantial adverse impacts on black 

oystercatcher populations on KMRD, affecting the southernmost portion of its range on the 

Tongass. Potential suitable habitat occurs along outer coastlines elsewhere on the Tongass, 

although few surveys have been conducted in southeast Alaska (Tessler et al. 2007) 

Management Indicator Species 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Mountain Goat 

Although Alternative A (No Action) currently has the least number of total service days 

overall, it currently has the highest amount of service days in 06 Misty Core lakes and has no 

outfitter and guide allocation ceiling other than visitor capacity (Table 3-13 above). Existing 

permits could increase 25 percent based upon current FSH direction or more with additional 

NEPA. Since the activity in 06 Misty Core lakes is predominantly floatplane landing tours 

and aircraft present the greatest risk of disturbance to goats, outfitter and guide use under 

Alternative A has the highest risk of disturbing mountain goats causing stress related health 

issues, abandonment of kids, injury related deaths. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

aircraft to maintain 1,500 feet from goats lessen some potential impact, but the distance is 

much less than the 1,500 to 2,000 meter horizontal (4921 ft to 6562 ft) and 1,500 meter 

vertical distance (4921 ft) recommended by more recent research to lessen disturbance 

effects (see below). Alternatives B and C fall mid-range with Alternative B having less total 

service days allocated to outfitters and guides, but having more days allocated within 06 

Misty Core lakes. Alternative D has the second lowest total service days allocated to outfitter 

and guide activities and the lowest allocation of service days in 06 Misty Core lakes. 

Therefore in order of risk to disturb mountain goats I ranked Alternative A as the highest, 

followed by Alternative B, then Alternative C, with Alternative D the lowest risk to mountain 

goats. 

The amount of guided goat hunting on KMRD is consistent with ADF&G objectives. Goat 

populations are thought to be moderately high and stable (Porter 2008a). Mountain goat 

research is occurring in southeast Alaska that should yield more accurate population 

estimates. To protect mountain goat populations since currently levels of guided goat hunting 

appear sustainable, no additional goat hunts or re-allocation of existing hunts should occur 

until these research results are finalized. 

Important lifecycle timeframes (key foraging, breeding, wintering, kidding seasons) for 

mountain goats in Alaska occur August through mid June. This overlaps with the majority of 

the recreation season being analyzed plus the winter season. Therefore, impacts from 

recreational activities involving aircraft or hiking or camping in the alpine have the potential 

to disturb mountain goats. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 124 

Mountain goats appear to react to human disturbance to a higher degree than most ungulates 

with nannies being most sensitive to disturbance during the kidding and post-kidding seasons 

(BC Mgt Plan 2010). They also state that intense single disturbances and chronic stress from 

repeated disturbances can be expected to produce short- and long-term health effects on 

populations. Even when there is no overt sign of disturbance such as running, increased heart 

rate can result in excessive energy expenditure (Canfield et al. 1999). 

Human proximity can cause disturbance that varies from short term (e.g., increased vigilance 

and short flight response) to long term displacement from preferred habitat or changes in 

population demographics (BC Mgt Plan 2010). Foster and Rahs (1983) recommended that 

humans remain quiet and out of view (or quiet and still, if in view) to reduce stress-responses 

created from human-goat confrontations. 

Floatplane landing tours are the most common outfitter and guide activity in Misty Fiords 

National Monument Wilderness representing approximately 94 percent of the use. The Forest 

Plan provides standards and guidelines to maintain kidding and winter habitat and to manage 

disturbance from aircraft flights. However, research recommends aircraft maintain greater 

distance than Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Festa-Bianchet and Côté (2008) 

recommend aircraft maintain a 2 kilometer [~6,600 ft] distance from goats. Goats in their 

long-term study showed strong negative responses (walking or running more than 100m [328 

ft] or remaining alert for more than 10 minutes) to helicopters within 500 meters [1,640 ft]. 

All goats still exhibited distinct disturbance behavior from aircraft >1,500 meters [4,921 ft] 

away. Responses included kids being temporarily separated from their mothers, one nanny 

breaking a leg while fleeing a helicopter, and several cases of panicked goats running at full 

speed over cliffs or precipitous terrain. 

Fixed-wing aircraft appeared to be slightly less disruptive than helicopters for Dall sheep in 

the Yukon (Frid 2003), but little data is available comparing mountain goat response. 

Increases in mountain goat movement were observed during fixed wing telemetry flights 

(Poole and Heard 1998 as cited in BC Mgt Plan 2010). The goats Foster and Rahs (1983) 

observed in their Stikine River study appeared to be equally nervous and as highly excitable 

in response to helicopter, airplane, and human activity. Mountain goats frequently (83 

percent) exhibited disruptive behavioral patterns in response to human disturbances. Both 

moderate and severe flight stress-responses also occurred under local (401-1600 m [1316 ft -

5249 ft]) encounters. Individual goats were noted to respond differently to varying intensities 

of disturbance, possibly due to the degree of previous stress encounters. To completely avoid 

harassment, Foster and Rahs also recommended a 2 kilometer [~6,600 ft] buffer, particularly 

in regions of elevated human activity. The BC Mgt Plan (2010) identifies 5 studies that 

recommend the 2 kilometer buffer for both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft and 3 others 

that recommend a 1,500 meter buffer (4,921 ft). 

Brown and Black Bears 

Outfitter and 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. 

However, it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the presence of people recreating 

within bear habitats will disturb individual bears or cause long-term population viability 

problems. Alternative A has the greatest risk of disturbing bears of any alternative since it 

does not incorporate design features for limiting disturbance to bears in estuaries, grass flats 

or along salmon streams. Alternative A currently has the lowest number of service days, but 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 125 

has the potential to increase to the highest number (i.e.: approach visitor capacity) since 

allocations are not set. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the highest overall risk, 

followed by Alternative B, with Alternative D having the lowest risk overall. Recent 

improvements to the Titan Trail Bridge (22 Hyder NA) could result in it becoming an 

additional viewing platform and change use patterns of individual bears. 

Recreational Use Area 27 Margaret is the exception to the general ranking. Given the interest 

in Margaret over the past several years and its proximity to Ketchikan, Alternative A has the 

highest risk to bears. Since physiological and long-term impacts to bears are difficult to 

measure, more emphasis could be place on social factors such as site capacity and visitor 

interaction rather than loss of bear foraging opportunity. Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative B presents the highest risk to bears at the Margaret viewing site since it allocates 

the greatest number of service days to that use area and bear viewing is the main activity in 

that area. Alternative D is the next highest; Alternative C would have the least risk. 

The level of guided brown bear hunting currently authorized on KMRD is consistent with 

ADF&G objectives pending final research results from the Unuk River – Bradfield Canal 

study. With the existing moratorium on additional guides and hunts (Scott 2007), 

consumptive recreational impacts to brown bears from guided hunting would remain 

unchanged. More emphasis was placed on black bear populations with regulatory changes 

made at the November 2010 Board of Game meeting. Implementing a moratorium on guided 

black bear hunts on KMRD is consistent with the population concerns and BOG action. The 

Board of Game also closed an area within 1⁄4 mile of Margaret Creek to bear hunting in 

response to requests from tour guides at the Margaret bear viewing site. This had minimal 

effect on black bear hunting guides who generally have not used that area because of the high 

number of tourists. 

The effects of non-consumptive recreation activities on bears, such as viewing from boats 

(ranging from cruise ships to one-person kayaks) and floatplanes or established bear-viewing 

areas have been documented. Other recreation activities such as bike riding, sightseeing, 

camping, hiking, picnicking, and fishing that occur in bear habitats also have an effect. Since 

habitat and disturbance factors are similar for both brown and black bears, I combined these 

species for effects analysis. Most research in Alaska dealt with brown bears, but available 

information on black bears support similar habitat and disturbance. I identified two concerns 

for bears: disturbance at key foraging areas such as grassy flats in the spring and salmon 

streams in the fall (Schoen and Gende 2007, Schoen and Peacock 2007, Flynn et al. 2007) 

and displacement of bears from bear viewing activities. Both can cause altered behavior 

during crucial times when bears need to amass body weight to survive (Chi and Gilbert 1999, 

Warner 1987a, Warner 1987b, Schoen and Gende 2007, Schoen and Peacock 2007). 

Foraging: 

Nutrition is the most important factor determining reproductive success in black bears since 

undernourished females will not successfully reproduce (Olsen 1999). Malnutrition can also 

affect reproduction and cause mortality in brown bear (Wittinger 1999). The importance of 

access to an abundant, high-quality food resource such as salmon was significantly correlated 

with adult female body size, reproductive success and litter size, and population density 

(Hilderbrand et al. 1999). Hilderbrand et al. (1999) concluded that availability of meat, 

particularly salmon, greatly influences habitat quality for brown bears at both the individual 

level and the population level. They also stated that as bears are restricted to increasingly 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 126 

fewer fishing sites, greater competition and risk of predation could prevent smaller bears and 

females with offspring from exploiting spawning salmon, which could lead to increased 

mortality. 

Warner (1987a) found that the number of brown bear on the Brooks River, southwestern 

Alaska, was negatively correlated with the number of fishermen during salmon runs. Bears 

either left the river or learned to grab fish at the end of a fisherman’s line causing safety 

issues. In Montana, White et al. (1999) found that brown bears disturbed by climbers in the 

alpine spent 53 percent less time foraging, 52 percent more time moving within the foraging 

area, and 23 percent more time behaving aggressively, compared to when they were not 

disturbed. This resulted in reduced energy intake and additional energy expenditure which 

can in turn affect animal fitness and survival. 

Crupi (2003 master’s thesis) studied the effects of recreational activities on bears on the 

Chilkoot River near Haines, Alaska and found that brown bear activity was clearly influence 

by human activity. Nearly every aspect of bear activity and foraging behavior was negatively 

impacted by human activity, particularly as human use at the site continued to increase. Bear 

activity was 40 percent greater when humans were absent and bears were frequently 

displaced by human activity. When humans were absent or more than 100 meters [328 ft] 

away, bears in their study caught almost 3 times as many fish and 71 percent more live fish 

(higher energy content); only sub-adult bears (lowest social order) were closer than 100 

meters. Bears spent less time fishing when humans were present or, in some cases, left 

foraging areas in the morning and only returned in the evening after activities ceased. Bears 

captured more salmon with less effort during daylight hours without human presence than 

they did during the early morning or late evening, possibly due to better visual detection of 

salmon. Crupi (2003 master’s thesis) concluded that if human activity continued to expand 

and infringe upon foraging opportunities, then decreased bear activity and population 

productivity could be expected. 

Effects of disturbance during the denning season is more variable with some bears apparently 

tolerant of human disturbance although energetic costs have rarely been studied. 

Bear Viewing Sites: 

Habituation can have negative impacts in unregulated areas if bears associate humans with 

food but habituation at highly regulated viewing sites may not displace bears from foraging 

areas (Wittinger 1999). This was true at Pack Creek, Admiralty Island in southeast Alaska 

where bears appeared to be habituated to human presence and associated humans with food 

(Warner 1987b). Conversely, other literature on bears is split with some studies showing 

bears habituate to humans and human activity whereas other studies document substantial 

bear disturbance and avoidance of areas with high human use and development (Chi and 

Gilbert 1999). They summarize additional studies which showed that when visitor numbers 

were unrestricted, disturbance could exceed the threshold of even the most tolerant bears. In 

their study at Anan Creek just north of KMRD, Chi and Gilbert (1999) found that most males 

fished exclusively or >75% of their time at the upper falls away from the viewing site; 

roughly half of the females fished exclusively at the upper falls, two fished exclusively at the 

lower falls by the viewing site and the remaining females used both falls with more use 

occurring at the lower falls when they had cubs. This fit with other research where males 

select the best habitat and females with cubs select lesser habitat to avoid the threat and 

competition of large males (Warner 1987a, Warner 1987b). Visitor numbers acted as a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 127 

ceiling; habituated black bears at the viewing site were more tolerant of humans that nonhabituated bears at the upper site, but spending less time fishing as visitor group size reached 

or exceeded 15 people. Social activity increased as numbers increased and loud talking 

further disturbed bears at the viewing site. Brown bears at Anan fished both falls, but did so 

before visitors arrived in the morning or after they left in the evening (Chi and Gilbert 1999). 

They concluded that their data documented the importance of having alternative foraging 

sites where bears can fish without human disturbance or distraction and recommended 1) that 

placing restrictions on group size, 2) establishing fixed viewing hours, and 3) screening 

visitors from bears using blinds or hidden platforms could lessen disturbance impacts to 

bears. Crupi (2003 master’s thesis) suggested implementing temporal and spatial restrictions 

to give bears access to secure foraging sites while providing for a safe, sustainable, high 

quality bear viewing program. Marshall (2008 Master’s thesis) also found that bears 

consumed 24 percent less salmon on the Fishing Branch River, Yukon Territory, when 

visitors were present and spent roughly 17 percent less time fishing. Marshall also found 

similar bear distributions with some bears only at visitor free sites and others apparently 

habituated to viewers. 

The results of these studies are consistent with what I have observed at the Margaret viewing 

site in Recreation Use Area 27 Margaret Bay. Bears would feed at the falls below the 

observation platform until they sensed tour groups approaching. At that point, many bears 

would move into the surrounding forest until groups left, then return to the falls after groups 

left. Sows with cubs were frequently seen at the lower road bridge, but since visitor use has 

increased and expanded to both the upper and lower bridges, I have seen, and the tour 

operators have reported, less bears. Margaret Creek is a short, isolated salmon stream. If 

bears are displaced from the creek, it may affect bear condition, reproduction, and overall 

size of that population. It is unknown at this point if the few bears observed in 2010 is the 

result of several years of increasing visitor use or weather related factors. 

Bald Eagle 

Over 90 percent of nests on the Tongass occur within the beach buffer. While legal 

regulations (16 USC 668-668d and 50 CFR 22.26) prohibit recreational activities within a 

minimum of 330 feet from nests from March 1 through August 31, research has documented 

recreational disturbance effects over 1,500 feet away. Therefore, alterations in eagle behavior 

from outfitter and guide activities in the beach/estuary fringe would still occur under all 

alternatives. Alternative A presents the highest risk as permits only prohibit camping within 

the 330 foot zone. Alternative C has the second highest risk followed by Alternatives B and 

D, respectively. Exceptions occur in 17 George, Carroll, Thorne and 23 Betton - Island 

Recreation Use Areas where Alternative B would have higher risk of disturbing eagles than 

Alternative C. 

Identified threats to bald eagles include destruction of nesting habitat and excessive nest 

disturbance by humans. Bald eagles may respond in a variety ways when disturbed by human 

activities. During the nest building period, eagles may inadequately construct or repair their 

nest, may expend energy defending the nest rather than tending to their young, or may 

abandon the nest, all of which can lead to failed nesting attempts. 

Steidl and Anthony (2000) studied the effects of recreational activity on bald eagles in 

interior Alaska. Eagle behavior changed substantially when campers camped for 24 hours 

100 meters [~330 feet or minimum required by regulation] from a nest as opposed to camps 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 128 

500 meters [1,640 ft] from the nest. The camps at 330 feet caused eagles to spend 53 percent 

less time preening, 56 percent less time sleeping, 50 percent less time maintaining the nest, 

30 percent less time feeding themselves or their young, and adults spent 24 percent more 

time away from the nest. Reduced prey levels can affect nestlings by limiting growth rate, 

prolonging nestling and fledgling dates, and influence survival. Although some eagles 

habituate to constant noise, Steidl and Anthony (2000) found that eagles in their study did not 

habituate to recreational activities. Frequent, short duration trips had greater impact than 

stays of several days, but eagles still vocalized twice as much suggesting that while behavior 

was more normal, the eagles were still agitated. Steidl and Anthony (2000) theorized that 

relatively infrequent, repeated, short duration disturbance within the breeding territory could 

have cumulative effects on adults and affect developing young. 

Human activities at nests that cause any of these responses and lead to injury, a decrease in 

productivity, or nest abandonment are considered disturbance and are thus a violation of the 

Bald Eagle Protection Act (USFWS 2009). 

Other Species of Concern 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Swans, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds 

Duke (04) and 21 Percy, Hotspur, Mary Recreational Use Areas are designated a Special 

Interest Area Land Use Designation (Duke Island Zoological Area) because of the extensive 

numbers of waterfowl, sea birds and migratory birds using the area, nesting sandhill cranes 

and trumpeter swans, fragile habitat, and other unique wildlife. Special Interest Zoological 

Areas contain unique or significant animals, animal groups, or animal communities, habitat, 

location, life history, ecology, environment, rarity, or other features. These two Recreation 

Use areas along with 03 South Misty contain the only known nesting of the R10 Sensitive 

Species, black oystercatcher, on KMRD (see BA/BE for detailed discussion of black 

oystercatchers). As discussed below, many shorebirds and waterfowl are impacted by 

recreational activities. Very minimal outfitter and guide use has occurred on 04 Duke in the 

past and zero use on 21 Percy, Hotspur, Mary (Table 3-13), but additional use up to visitor 

capacity could be authorized on a case-by-case basis under Alternative A with additional 

NEPA. Design criteria implementing Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are not included 

in existing permits thus increasing the risk under Alternative A. Alternative C would have the 

second greatest risk to swans, waterfowl, and shorebirds nesting and wintering in the Duke 

Zoological Area by allocating 50 percent of the visitor capacity to outfitter and guide 

activities (1,420 and 1,065 service day to 04 Duke and 21 Percy, Hotspur, Mary Recreational 

Use Areas, respectively). Alternative D would not allocate service days to outfitter and 

guides within the zoological area (04 Duke and 21 Percy, Hotspur, Mary Recreational Use 

Areas); therefore it would have no risk. Alternatives B would also allocate 0 service days on 

04 Duke, but would allocate 639 service days on 21 Percy, Hotspur, Mary Recreational Use 

Areas. Therefore, Alternative B would have an intermediate level of risk to extensive 

numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds within the Duke Zoological Area. 

Within the other recreation use areas, Alternative A currently has about the lowest service 

days, but could have the highest use with additional NEPA and does not implement design 

criteria buffers for reducing disturbance. Alternatives C generally has the second highest risk 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 129 

to swans, waterfowl, and shorebirds, Alternative B the third highest, and Alternatives D has 

the lowest risk. Disturbance from recreational activities would occur which could disrupt 

birds at outfitter and guide sites and lead to lowered reproduction or displacement. 

Although the summering population of trumpeter swans continues to increase in Alaska, the 

rapidly expanding tourist industry presents an additional challenge for effective swan 

conservation in Alaska (Conant et al. 2007). Recreational activities, both motorized (boats, 

ATVs, floatplanes, and vehicles) and non-motorized, can reduce habitat availability and 

quality for trumpeter swans in breeding and non-breeding areas, and are thus considered 

significant threats (Slater 2006). Henson and Grant (1991) found that floatplanes at altitudes 

above 2,000 feet and passing vehicle traffic caused swans to temporarily stop activities, but 

did not cause incubating females to leave the nest; vehicles that stopped elicited greater 

disturbance responses. Pedestrian activities elicited the greatest response from incubating and 

brood-rearing trumpeters in their study. Such disturbances frequently led to recesses by 

incubating females, uncharacteristic brood movements, and significant behavioral changes. 

Females took longer recesses when disturbed and spent less time feeding and preening which 

can lead to increased nest predation rates, increased embryo mortality or retarded 

development due to egg exposure, changes in female energy budgets, and avoidance of 

otherwise suitable habitat (Henson and Grant 1991). The availability and quality of wintering 

habitat is one of the greatest threats to swans, but there is little information about the effects 

of human activities to swans on wintering grounds (Slater 2006). However, Slater (2006) 

stated that human activities that disturb swans on breeding grounds likely affect swan 

behavior on wintering grounds. Disturbances that disrupted winter foraging activities or 

caused frequent movements from resting areas may decrease overall condition or even cause 

mortality. Slater (2006) also recognized that swans in poorer condition on the wintering 

grounds may have higher mortality during a severe winter event or epizootic outbreaks. 

Human disturbance associated with recreational activities negatively affects waterfowl and 

shorebirds (Gaines et al. 1993, Henson and Grant 1991, Boyle and Sampson 1985, Klein et 

al. 1995, Haaman et al. 1999). Effects included declining numbers of breeding pairs, 

increased nest abandonment, egg mortality from exposure, increased predation of eggs and 

hatchlings, depressed feeding rates on wintering grounds, and avoidance of otherwise 

suitable habitat. Conflicts often arise because shorelines, beaches, sandbars, and islands used 

by foraging and loafing waterbirds are also attractive to outdoor recreationists and ecotourists 

(Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Over time, effects from human disturbance can result in 

declining waterfowl populations (Haaman et al. 1999). Most breeding waterfowl either fast 

entirely during incubation or depend to some extent on food resources found on the breeding 

grounds; these critical resources are obtained prior to egg-laying or during short feeding 

recesses taken during incubation; therefore disturbance may also put additional stress on an 

already energetically stressed females (Henson and Grant 1991). Migrating and wintering 

waterfowl attempt to conserve energy by minimizing flight time and maximizing foraging 

time. Human disturbance may force waterfowl to change food habits, forage only at night, or 

desert the feeding area (Haaman et al. 1999). They also reported that large flocks tended to 

be more susceptible to disturbance than small flocks. Similar to other studies, they 

documented that resident waterfowl were less responsive to human disturbance than 

migrants. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 130 

Multiple studies have correlated human disturbance with changes in shorebird productivity or 

distribution, but few have identified the mechanisms through which reproductive failure 

might occur or quantify the impacts (Carney and Sydeman 1999). Boyle and Sampson (1985) 

reported disruption of shorebird breeding and/or movement to lower quality habitat from 

beach and shore recreationists. Carney and Sydeman (1999), however, documented more 

variable effects. Many shorebirds, such as fulmars, cormorants, gulls, terns, and pelicans, 

exhibited substantially reduced breeding success whereas other species such as albatrosses 

and shearwaters showed little to no effect or became habituated to repeated human presence. 

Haaman et al. (1999) found similar results with recreational activities leading to flushing 

from nesting habitat, degraded shoreline habitat from vegetative trampling and boat wake, 

decreased foraging time due to displacement, nest abandonment, and increases in chick 

mortality. Chatwin (2010 master’s thesis) studied off shore disturbance from motor boats and 

kayaks and found that most seabird species were not disturbed if boats and kayaks remained 

at least 70 meters [230 ft] offshore. However, Chatwin (2010 master’s thesis) re-confirmed 

that surface-nesting seabirds are particularly vulnerable to land-based disturbance and 

recommended that viewers not go ashore at seabird nest or roost sites. Conversely, studies of 

impacts of motorboats and personal watercraft by Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) showed that 

buffers of 150 meters [~500 ft] were necessary to prevent flushing, nest abandonment, or 

other altered behavior. 

Herons 

Alternative A could increase from the lowest overall service days to the highest and does not 

implement design criteria. Current permits do not contain Forest Plan buffers for reducing 

disturbance. Therefore, it has the highest risk to heron persistence. Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative C would have the greatest potential risk since it generally allocates the greatest 

number of service days followed by Alternatives B and D, respectively. 

Research has shown that great blue herons are negatively affected by human disturbance, 

particularly during breeding and fledgling periods (Carlson and McLean 1996, Butler and 

Baudin 2000, Carney and Sydeman 1999, Boyle and Sampson 1985, Gains et al. 2003). 

Human activity near the rookery can cause breeding failure and limit the maintenance of 

heron populations. The number of fledglings raised in heron colonies with frequent human 

disturbance was substantially lower than at colonies with no disturbance (Butler and Baudin 

2000, Carney and Sydeman 1999). Vennesland (2010) found some instances of seasonal 

habituation in British Columbia where herons became less responsive to very low levels of 

human disturbance as the nesting season progressed, but response was stronger the following 

year indicating that habituation did not hold between nesting periods. They cautioned that 

their results should not be applied to larger group disturbance and that other studies where 

herons were apparently habituated to human presence still had lower nesting success that 

areas without disturbance. Carney and Sydeman (1999) assert that wildlife photographers and 

viewers can be particularly disruptive since they approach birds in the colony and spend 

more time in close proximity; other activities such as hiking are potentially less disruptive if 

they are further away and/or involve less time, but may also be less predictable and tend to 

occur during the summer breeding season. 

Peregrine Falcon 

Alternative C would allocate 50 percent of the visitor capacity of 04 Duke Island to outfitter 

and guides and have the greatest potential risk to peregrines on Duke Island since it is a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 131 

remote setting and birds are not habituated to human disturbance. Alternative A has the 

second highest risk; minimal outfitter and guide activity has occurred in the past and it is 

unlikely many case-by-case permits would be approved given the cultural significance of the 

island. Alternatives B and D have no risk as they do not permit outfitter and guide use (zero 

service days allocated). 

Peregrine falcons were observed on Duke Island in summer/fall of 2010. According to 

Cooper and Beauchesne (2004) and White et al. (2002) peregrine falcons show a range of 

tolerance to disturbance. Those that nest in more urban areas tolerate noise whereas those in 

more remote areas are more subject to human disturbance particularly during the breeding 

season. 

Osprey 

Alternative A generally has the least amount of service days. However, it could have the 

highest use and would not implement design criteria buffers for reducing disturbance. 

Alternative C would have the next greatest risk followed by Alternatives B and D, 

respectively. 

Osprey frequently adapt to human activities, but any disturbances which keep adults from 

their nests in May or June may cause the eggs or young nestlings to become chilled and die 

(Van Daele 2008). Levenson and Koplin (1984) concluded where possible, human activity 

(including recreational use) near nesting ospreys should be minimized and not initiated after 

ospreys have commenced nesting. 

Design criteria: Report any osprey nests or sightings to KMRD biologist for follow-up. 

Maintain a minimum 330-foot radius buffer zone around any osprey nest tree to reduce 

disturbance effects. 

Endemic Small Mammals 

Alternative A currently has the least amount of service days, but has the potential to increase 

the most on a case-by-case basis. Alternative C would have the greatest potential risk of the 

action alternatives since it generally allocates the greatest number of service days followed 

by Alternatives B and D. 

Studies of recreation impacts on small mammals are uncommon and are limited mainly to 

rodents and bats (Tempel et al. 2008). They further summarized research from multiple 

authors showing that because of their smaller home ranges, small mammals can be affected 

by localized recreation impacts on vegetation and soils. The southern red-backed vole 

(Myodes gapperi solus) is the only endemic species reported to occur within the project area. 

They are nocturnal so foraging normally occurs when most recreational activities, other than 

camping, are absent. No outfitter and guide activities that would cut or remove habitat for 

endemic species would be authorized in permits issued under the Record of Decision for this 

project. However, some trampling of vegetation would occur from human use and tent 

placement which could affect the dense understory cover preferred by the voles. Limited 

firewood use could remove some of the down wood preferred by voles, but impacts would be 

isolated to limited areas. Individuals could be temporarily disturbed by intermittent human 

presence and noise or displaced by trampling and campsites, but these impacts would be 

confined to a fraction of the total habitat available across KMRD. Therefore, potential 

impacts to endemic species would be limited within the proximity of specific outfitter and 

guide use sites. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 132 

Migratory Birds 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Alternative A has the least amount of total service days currently, but has the potential to 

increase the most on a case-by-case basis with additional NEPA. Alternative C has the 

second greatest risk followed by Alternatives B and D, respectively. 

Migratory birds would be most susceptible to disturbance from recreational activities 

occurring during the nesting/fledging period which generally begins in mid-April and ends 

about mid-July when young birds have fledged. This overlaps with Spring and Summer 

recreational use seasons, so disturbance is possible during sensitive breeding periods. The 

magnitude of effects would likely vary depending on the individual bird species. Haaman et 

al. (1999) summarize studies showing that recreational activity may disrupt breeding activity 

and displace birds. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

All Wildlife Species 

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the outfitter and guide activities 

added to other relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

The wildlife biologist considered the complete list of projects identified as having potential 

cumulative effects and selected those that related to recreational disturbance of wildlife. 

From the general and species specific research findings in direct effects, cumulative 

disturbance effects are similar for all species (i.e.: behavioral, physiological, disruption, or 

abandonment). Therefore, the biologist lumped the species together for cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Cumulative effects relevant to wildlife include guided and unguided recreational activities on 

KMRD within the overall visitor capacity (147,923 service days), winter recreational use, 

recreational use on non-NFS ownerships within the KMRD analysis boundary, flight-seeing 

tours and marine based tours not within Forest Service jurisdiction, and consumptive use of 

wildlife. Since visitor capacity is the same for all alternatives, cumulative effects would not 

vary by alternative. The amount of unguided and unregulated use cannot be quantified as not 

all residents or visitors engage in outdoor recreational activities. 

Unguided persons engaging in floatplane landing tours, freshwater fishing, hiking, beach 

activities, sightseeing, wildlife viewing at developed sites, camping, road-based activities 

would have disturbance effects similar to those analyzed for outfitter and guides, but 

cumulative effects would add to the amount of disturbance and the area affected. A greater 

number of animals would be disturbed by recreationists since generalized outfitter and guide 

locations could also receive use from the general public and additional areas along the beach, 

roads, trails, lakes, and streams receive use based upon recreation monitoring. In addition to 

direct disturbance of individuals, unguided use would cause additional trampling and other 

site disturbance further reducing the quality and/or quantity of available habitat. Additional 

impacts to wildlife populations would occur from similar activities on non-NFS lands. For 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 133 

marine-based species, all non-NFS related activities are part of or add to acoustical 

disturbance and potential temporary displacement of whales and sea lions and other marine 

species. 

Unregulated activities such as flightseeing and marine based sightseeing/viewing tours would 

have a greater potential for disturbing mountain goats, bears, waterfowl, and shorebirds since 

they are only regulated by safety regulations and not on how far they have to remain from 

wildlife. They are prohibited by federal regulation from approaching or impacting marine 

mammals or nesting bald eagles although enforcement personnel are limited. Tours in Misty 

Fiords and more specifically Rudyerd Bay could impact seabird colonies. 

Consumptive use of wildlife (i.e.: hunting and trapping) would reduce wildlife populations, 

but are levels are regulated by ADF&G Board of Game and the Federal Subsistence Board to 

maintain sustainable population levels. Any conservation concerns would be addressed by 

emergency closure order or regulatory changes. 

Winter recreational activities have the potential to impact wildlife when energy reserves are 

critical to survival. Research was included under direct effects where available since wildlife 

lifecycles do not correlate to the recreational use seasons. Outfitter and guide requests for the 

winter season would require separate NEPA before a permit could be issued. Impacts to 

wildlife would be analyzed based on the specific proposal. Unguided use such as 

snowmobiling on KMRD or adjacent non-NFS lands have a high probability of disturbing 

wildlife and causing additional energy expenditure from fright/flight response. This could 

reduce overall condition of the animal and affect reproductive success the following year or 

lead to mortality. 

Activities such as commercial fishing may occasionally disturb shorebirds or waterfowl, but 

this would be minimal to their overall operation and more likely to occur at anchorages or 

during recreational breaks. Charter boat fishing would potentially have a greater effect as 

sightseeing and viewing could be included in the activity as opportunities occurred. Effects 

would be similar to other boating effects described in direct effects. Distance maintained 

from shorebird colonies or other species of interest would depend upon safety considerations 

not regulation. 

Subsistence Uses _______________________ 

Affected Environment 

Subsistence issues identified during public scoping were centered mainly on social impacts, 

addressed under Recreation in this EIS. Encounter monitoring information provides an idea 

of the number of social encounters a visitor can expect to experience in an area and can be 

used to monitor social conditions across KMRD. 

Encounter monitoring has occurred in 15 of the 28 Recreation Use Areas on the KMRD, 

including 8 of the non-wilderness Use Areas. Encounter monitoring data collected in Misty 

Fiords and outside of wilderness indicates that encounter rates are generally far below 

standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 134 

For the purposes of this monitoring, an encounter is defined as “an individual or group met 

while on National Forest System (NFS) lands or freshwater lakes.” An encounter may occur 

at a Forest Service cabin, on a trail, or along a shoreline, among other places. It is only a 

considered an “encounter” when both groups are on NFS lands. When groups or individuals 

meet employees doing administrative work (such as staffing a fish weir or monitoring a 

campsite), this is not and would not be counted as an encounter. 

Although some recreationists perceive that there is crowding, monitoring shows that the rates 

are generally below the established level. Through monitoring and adaptive management, the 

levels of encounters will remain within the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for all 

alternatives. 

Traditionally most of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District has been a hunting and 

gathering area for the local Tribes for thousands of years. In addition, specific subsistence 

areas, such as Gravina Island, were identified as important. This section focuses on 

evaluating the potential effects on subsistence uses and needs. 

Title VII, Sec. 802 (1) states 

“...consistent with sound management principles, and the conservation of healthy 

populations of fish and wildlife, the utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to cause 

the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of 

the resources of such lands. ” 

Title VII, Sec. 810 states: 

“In determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, 

occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any provision of law authorizing such 

actions, the head of the Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over such lands or 

his designee shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on 

subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be 

achieved, and other alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or 

disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes. ” 

Access 

An ANILCA 810 analysis commonly focuses on those food-related resources most likely to 

be affected by habitat degradation associated with management activities and addresses three 

factors related to subsistence uses: 1) access to resources; 2) resources distribution and 

abundance; and 3) competition for the use of resources. The evaluation determines whether 

subsistence uses within the project area or portions thereof may be significantly restricted. 

This evaluation shall, at a minimum, address whether or not there is likely to be: 

 A reduction in subsistence uses due to factors such as direct - impacts on the resource, 

adverse impacts on habitat, or increased competition for the resources. 

 A reduction in the subsistence uses due to changes in availability of fish and wildlife 

resources caused by an alteration in migration or location. 

 A reduction in subsistence uses due to limitations on the access to harvestable resources, 

such as by physical or legal barriers. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 135 

Wildlife 

In terms of wildlife, subsistence use of the following terrestrial wildlife species occurs within 

the project area: deer, moose, black and brown bear, furbearers, small game, and waterfowl. 

These species were considered in this analysis. Deer are of major importance as a subsistence 

resource in Southeast Alaska; deer hunting is not allowed as a guided use except as allowed 

under under state regulations as a lesser species. See the wildlife section of this EIS for 

additional information on existing conditions related to wildlife. 

Fisheries 

Subsistence and personal use harvest of fishes occurs in both marine and freshwater 

environments. The State of Alaska manages all personal use and saltwater subsistence 

harvest, and the Tongass National Forest regulates the subsistence harvest of fishes within 

the freshwaters of its jurisdiction. 

There are known personal use and subsistence harvest areas in freshwaters within the 

analysis area. The areas are located within Recreation Use Areas 03 South Misty, 08 

Burroughs Unuk, 12 Bell Island, 16 Ketchikan Core SPNW and 28 Naha Bay. These areas 

have the highest potential to be adversely affected by guided use sport fishing. 

Sockeye salmon are the species harvested the most in subsistence and personal use fisheries 

in the Ketchikan area. The majority of harvest occurs under the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game administered subsistence and personal use fisheries. There is little subsistence or 

personal use harvest of coho salmon, trout and Dolly Varden across KMRD (ADF&G 

unpublished data). Harvest of eulachon occurs in both salt and freshwaters and is 

administered through state and federal regulations. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Access 

Section 811(a) of ANILCA requires that 

“...rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to 

subsistence resources on the public lands.” 

As an independent subsistence access provision, Section 811(b) states 

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, the Secretary shall 

permit... snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for [subsistence] purposes by local residents, subject to 

reasonable regulation.”
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 136 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Wildlife 

KMRD completed an Access and Travel Management analysis with a Decision Notice on 

July 11, 2008. All alternatives in this project will follow and implement the road, trail, and 

area decisions in that decision notice. Access to Forest Service administered lands follows 

the KMRD Access and Travel Management Plan decision and its impacts to subsistence uses 

and activities were analyzed at that time. This EIS does not alter that decision. 

In some areas, transporters (essentially a person hired to drop people off and pick people up) 

are employed by subsistence users to access hunting or fishing sites. On the KMRD, there is 

no known transporter use to gather subsistence resources. If someone chose to use a 

transporter, the Forest Service would consider them unguided users since transporters would 

not be regulated by with this decision. Thus, access for people transported to areas on KMRD 

would not change. 

Generally, guided and unguided use tends to be concentrated in accessible areas with 

particularly attractive features or recreation opportunities. Use is concentrated along 

accessible shorelines, river and stream bottoms, and around subalpine and alpine lakes and 

neighboring areas (Forest Plan FEIS, 3-365). Use patterns are also associated with protected 

boat anchorages, boat landings, and aircraft landing sites. Access is primarily via floatplane 

and motorized boat. Guided and unguided use is concentrated during the summer months, 

when weather is most conducive to forest use. 

Nothing in this analysis will change how unguided visitors access subsistence resources. 

Access will remain the same because this analysis does not close roads and trails, or 

eliminate docks and buoys. No changes in physical access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) 

will occur under any alternative. Access via outfitters and guides generally increases from the 

current conditions in the action alternatives (although this use is not known to occur on 

KMRD). Subsistence access would still be available and would not be restricted. Outfitters 

and guides permitted to use Forest Service docks and buoys do not have exclusive use or 

access and must share use with other recreationists. 

Fisheries 

Access to fisheries resources by subsistence users would not be affected by this NEPA 

decision. Access to Forest Service administered lands follows the KMRD Access and Travel 

Management Plan decision and its impacts to subsistence uses and activities were analyzed at 

that time. This EIS does not alter that decision. 

Distribution and Abundance 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Wildlife 

While disturbance could result in shifts in wildlife use patterns at specific outfitter and guide 

locations, these are not expected to be substantial enough to affect overall wildlife 

distribution at the Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) or Game Management Unit (GMU) level. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 137 

Habitat alteration from ground disturbance would be limited to trampling by feet, tent 

footprints, and human waste disposal (DEIS, Chapter 2) and would not affect overall habitat 

capability or wildlife abundance. 

Consumptive uses of wildlife are regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board and the Alaska 

Board of Game. By including the Subsistence Board and Board of Game decisions, this 

document will maintain abundance of wildlife for subsistence across KMRD. 

Fisheries 

Distribution of trout, salmon and char would not be affected by guided use. Recreational 

activities authorized under special use permits are not ground disturbing and would not affect 

fisheries in a manner to alter their distribution across the project area. 

Guided users and subsistence users can target the same resource, especially salmon. Across 

the analysis area measurable impacts to the abundance of trout, salmon and char from guided 

use would not occur. Therefore, guided use would not affect fisheries subsistence resources 

in terms of abundance. For example, reported harvest of sockeye by permitted outfitters and 

guides was less than 10 during the period 2005-2009. Approximately 9,000 sockeye were 

harvested in the same period by subsistence and personal use individuals. Exact numbers of 

subsistence-harvested salmon cannot be reported due to certain laws. 

Alternative A has the lowest number of service days for outfitters and guides, thus, would be 

the best alternative for maintaining the subsistence resource abundance. Alternative D 

includes lower guided allocations in those areas that were mentioned as important to 

subsistence use so it is the most advantageous for wildlife subsistence abundance of the 

action alternatives. Alternative B has the next lowest allocation of guided visitors and 

Alternative C has the highest allocation. 

Competition 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Wildlife 

Of all subsistence species important to local residents, competition for resources with guided 

users is most likely to occur for species that are commonly targeted by hunting and fishing 

guides. Deer hunting will not be allowed as a guided use in any alternative except as allowed 

under state regulations as a lesser species. This should minimize competition for this 

important species. Wildlife like mountain goat and black bear and salmon and steelhead are 

the most likely subsistence resources that could be restricted through competition with 

guided users. 

With the current moratoriums on brown and black bear guides and hunts and the 

implementation of mountain goat design criteria on hunts on KMRD under this EIS, there 

would be no change in competition between rural and non-rural hunters for terrestrial 

wildlife resources. Competition from a social interaction standpoint could occur between 

rural subsistence users and outfitters and guides at beach locations or other key access points, 

such as alpine lakes. Should competition for wildlife resources occur, subsistence activities 

would have priority over other uses, as defined in ANILCA, and adaptive management 

would be utilized to resolve the conflict. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 138 

Fisheries 

Competition for salmon could occur, however; the above sockeye example shows the risk of 

competition is relatively low. Should competition for fisheries resources occur, subsistence 

activities would have priority over other uses, as defined in ANILCA, and adaptive 

management would be utilized to resolve the conflict. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

There are no anticipated impacts to abundance or distribution of wildlife or fisheries 

resources, nor to competition for or access to wildlife or fisheries subsistence resources. 

Based on no anticipated impact to abundance, distribution, access and minimal risk for 

competition, Alternatives A, B, C and D would not negatively impact subsistence and 

personal use subsistence resources. However, it is acknowledged outfitted and guided 

recreational activities have the potential to negatively affect subsistence and personal use 

fisheries activities in terms of social encounters. 

ANILCA 810 Subsistence Determination 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on 

subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or 

distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for those 

resources. 

ANILCA 810 and 811 Access to Resources 

Established modes of access (by foot, boat, vehicle, and ATV) would remain available under 

all the alternatives since this project does not close roads, trails, or eliminate docks or buoys. 

Botany ________________________________ 

Affected Environment 

Vegetation present in the project area is diverse. The elevation ranges from sea level to 

alpine, at approximately 2,500 feet. Vegetation is characterized by the abundance and 

movement of water. Well drained surfaces support coastal temperate rainforest while poorly 

drained surfaces support wetlands (Schoen and Dovichin 2007). A variety of habitats are 

present within the project area. 

This analysis addresses sensitive plant and lichen species (USDA 2009), rare plants, and 

invasive plants. It tiers to the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants and Lichen, Invasive 

Plant Risk Assessment, and Botany Resource Report in the Project Record for this project. It 

is assumed general vegetation would be impacted by guided use. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 139 

Botanical field surveys with various intensity levels have occurred in scattered locations 

across KMRD. The national database Natural Resource Information Systems (NRIS) is the 

record for all botanical surveys and sensitive plant and lichen, rare plant, and invasive plant 

occurrences on the Tongass National Forest. All surveys were conducted by qualified 

botanists familiar with the flora of Southeast Alaska. Not all surveys were conducted at a 

time suitable for all species identification. As of November 11, 2010, 1,725 acres of KMRD 

have been examined in 231 surveys for sensitive and rare plants and/or lichen. Most of these 

surveys occurred within areas proposed for timber sales. Ninety-nine surveys for invasive 

plants have been documented on the KMRD. Most of these surveys occurred along roadways 

or in areas of human disturbance. 

During the summer of 2010, fourteen outfitter and guide sites were surveyed or monitored 

for sensitive species, rare plants, and invasive plants. Surveys were general in intensity level, 

completed at the appropriate time of year for identifying species, and conducted by a botanist 

familiar with the flora of Southeast Alaska. 

Threatened and Endangered Plants 

Threatened and endangered species are those listed in accordance with the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. No federal or state listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species 

are known to occur on the Tongass. The only federally listed plant by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in Alaska is the Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum C. 

Christensen). Listed as endangered, it is only known from Adak Island in the Aleutian Island 

chain and is not expected to occur in the Tongass. No formal consultation is required. The 

Aleutian shield fern will not be addressed any further in this document 

Sensitive Plants and Lichen 

Sensitive species are defined as those plant species whose population viability is a concern, 

as evidenced by: 1) current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; 

and, 2) current or predicted reduction in a species existing distribution (FSM 2670.5.19). 

These are protected by USDA Forest Service regulations and manual direction. There are 

seventeen plants and one lichen species on the Alaska Region’s Sensitive Species List 

(2009). For the remainder of this analysis, sensitive plants and lichen will be referred to as 

sensitive plants. Of these eighteen species, five are documented and known to occur on the 

KMRD and six are suspected to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat in the project 

area (Table 3-14). The seven species that are not known or suspected to occur within the 

project area will not be discussed further. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 140 

Table 3- 14) Potential Sensitive Plant and Lichen Habitat within the Project Area 

Plant Name General Habitat 

Scientific Name 

Common Name

Species documented in Project Area (found in KMRD) Upper beach meadow Well drained open areas Beach/ forest ecotone Forest ed

ge 

ForestO

pen forest

Streamside, riverbank Bo

g

Heath Dry meadow Wet meadow Alpine and subalpine Talus slo

pes 

Rock outcro

p

Ultramafic Estuaries 

Botrychium spathulatum 

spatulate moonwort X X X 

Cirsium edule var. 

macounii 

edible thistle

X 

X X X 

Cypripedium montanum 

mountain lady’s slipper X X X

Cypripedium parviflorum 

var. pubescens large 

yellow lady’s slipper

X X X 

Ligusticum calderi 

Calder’s loveage X X X X 

Lobaria amplissima 

Lichen, no common name

X X 

Piperia unalascensis 

Alaska rein orchid

X X X X X X

Platanthera orbiculata 

Lesser round-leaved orchid

X X X X X

Polystichum kruckebergii 

Kruckeberg’s swordfern

X X X X

Sidalcea hendersonii 

Henderson’s 

checkermallow

X X X

Tanacetum bipinnatum 

subsp. huronense 

dune tansy

X 

Within the project area, approximately 133 sensitive plant and lichen populations are 

documented. These populations occupy approximately thirteen acres of the entire project 

area. - Thirty populations occur within one mile of known outfitter and guide sites, including 

the only four populations of edible thistle (Cirsium edule var. macounii) on the Forest. None 

of these known occurrences coincide with reported existing recreation use sites. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 141 

Four populations of edible thistle have been documented in Misty Fiords Wilderness, all at 

high elevations. During the summer of 2010, a known population was revisited. This 

population occurs within a quarter mile of a documented outfitter and guide recreation site in 

recreation use area 06 Misty Core Lakes. The site was heavily trampled. No plants were 

found. In at least one location, recreation use appeared to have affected one population of 

sensitive plants. Sensitive plant habitat was present in or near all sites surveyed. 

Most areas on KMRD would not have concentrated use and would not be affected by guided 

use. However, much of the high probability sensitive plant habitat is located in the most 

accessible and desirable locations for recreation such as the beach fringe and along the shore 

of alpine lakes. Suitable habitat for known and suspected sensitive plants is present 

throughout the project area; sensitive species may occur at unsurveyed existing and future 

guided use sites. 

Impacts of guided use on sensitive plants or suitable habitats are not and have never been 

specifically monitored. Guided groups may use several locations in a day, but are required to 

report only one use location. Permits are not for a specific location, but are open-ended, and 

allow outfitter and guides the discretion and flexibility to visit any location within and around 

the outfitter and guide site and/or use area. Thus, specific information on all use, like 

location, frequency of use, number of people, and type of use, is not known, particularly for 

partial days. With little information available, it is unknown what effects guided use is 

having on sensitive plants and/or their suitable habitats. 

Rare Plants 

Rare species are vascular plants: 

1) ranked by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program to be vulnerable to extirpation from 

the state (AKNHP 2008); 

2) are known or suspected to occur within the proposed project area; 

3) determined to be rare on the Tongass National Forest and not yet given a state 

ranking; 

4) have population viability concerns on the Tongass, but are not on the sensitive plant 

list; and, 

5) have been or are being raised as an issue because of rarity or conservation concerns. 

The AKNHP Vascular Plant Tracking List contains 354 species (2008). Only the 21 plant 

species considered to be rare and documented to occur within the project area will be 

analyzed further (Table 3-15). One species, Cirsium brevistylum, not previously known to 

occur in the state of Alaska and not yet given a state ranking is addressed as rare. Three 

conifers designated rare by the Forest Plan are included in this analysis: Abies lasiocarpa, 

Abies amabilis, and Taxus brevifolia. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 142 

Table 3- 15) Rare Plants Present Within the Project Area 

Abies amabilis Lobelia dortmanna 

Abies lasiocarpa Lonicera involucrata 

Ambrosia chamissonis Maianthemum stellatum 

Asplenium trichomanes Mimulus lewisii 

Brasenia schreberi Monotropa uniflora 

Cirsium brevistylum Poa laxiflora 

Galium kamtschaticum Schoenoplectus subterminalis 

Glyceria leptostachya Taxus brevifolia 

Isoetes occidentalis Tiarella trifoliata var. lacinata 

Lactuca biennis Viola sempervirens 

Listera convallarioides 

Within the project area, approximately 123 rare plant populations are documented. These 

populations occupy approximately fifteen acres of the entire project area. Eighteen 

populations occur within one mile of known outfitter and guide sites. These species are found 

in many types of habitats including lake, pond, and stream edges, beaches, moist old-growth 

forest, subalpine, and alpine sites. Suitable habitat for known rare plants is present 

throughout the project area; rare species may occur at unsurveyed existing and future 

outfitter and guide use sites. Similar to sensitive plants, with little information available, it is 

unknown what effects guided use is having on rare plants and/or their suitable habitats 

Invasive Plant Species 

For this analysis, an invasive species is non-native, aggressive, difficult to manage, and 

successful at reproduction. Appendix C of the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment for this project 

(Project Record) lists the Tongass National Forest High Priority Invasive Species targeted for 

control on the Forest. Rank is based on the Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native 

Plants of Alaska (USDA 2008d). The ranking process takes into account ecosystem impacts, 

biological attributes, distribution, and control measures. The more invasive a species is, the 

higher the ranked score. 

There are over 3,000 invasive plant occurrence records within the project area. 2230 of these 

records are documented within 1 mile of an outfitter and guide recreation site. Most of these 

occurrences are presence/absence data and do not depict the actual spatial extent of the 

infestations. Some of these documented occurrences occur outside of NFS Lands. These 

records are retained because of their proximity and the potential for dispersal onto NFS 

lands. 

Tongass National Forest High Priority Invasive species are located throughout the project 

area. Some populations are located in areas that receive high service day use. Seven hundred 

twenty-two of the documented occurrences are Tongass National Forest High Priority 

invasive plants. At this time, no invasive plant populations are continuously being treated on 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 143 

a yearly basis. Table 3-16 depicts which Tongass National Forest High Priority invasive plant 

species are documented within the project area. 

Table 3- 16) High Priority Invasive Plant Species Documented Within the Project Area 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Rank 

0-100 

(low-high)1

actively controlling these plants where feasible 

Cirsium arvensis Canada thistle 76 

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle 61 

Hieracium aurantiacum and 

Hieracium caespitosum

orange hawkweed, devil's paintbrush 

and meadow hawkweed 79 

Hieracium lachenalii Common hawkweed Not Ranked2

Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort 63 

Sonchus arvensis ssp. uliginosis Perennial sowthistle 73 

Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb & 

Zucc. Japanese knotweed 87 

actively controlling these plants only in certain locations

Crepis tectorum narrow-leaf hawk's beard 54 

Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy, white daisy 61 

Melilotus alba Medikus white sweetclover 80 

Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover, king's crown 65 

Phalaris arundicacea reed canarygrass 83 

Tanacetum vulgare common tansy 57 

1

 USDA 2008d 

Weeds spread more easily in some habitats than in others and weed spread is influenced by 

many factors. Areas of high disturbance, moderate soil moisture and pH, and lack of shading 

are at a higher risk of weed invasion than shaded areas or areas of low disturbance. A vector 

is a pathway that makes possible the movement of invasive plant species. In addition to 

natural, uncontrollable vectors like wind, water movement and wildlife, guided and unguided 

recreationists and other forest users can also spread weeds. Additionally, on the ground 

impact may alter habitat influences and increase the spread of invasive plant species. 

Recent surveys detected invasive plant species at 5 of the fourteen outfitter guide locations 

surveyed in 2009 (see Table 3-17). New infestations of weeds were found at 2 of these 5 

sites. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 144 

Table 3- 17) 2010 Surveys of Outfitter and Guide Recreation Use Sites Within the 

Project Area 

Recreation 

Use Area 

Outfitter and Guide 

Recreation Site 

Recreation Permitted 

Guided Use Invasive Plant Species Detected* 

06 Big Goat Lake Cabin Floatplane landing Plantago major 

New infestation since 2009 site visit 

16 Brown Mountain Road Remote nature viewing 

Digitalis purpurea, Hieracium 

aurantiacum, Hypochaeris radicata, 

Leucanthemum vulgare, Phalaris 

arundinacea, Poa annua, Plantago 

major, Ranunculus repens, Trifolium 

repens, Taraxacum officinale 

09 Manzanita Dispersed 

Campsites Kayaking, camping Plantago major 

10 Checats Trailhead Hiking Plantago major 

27 Margaret Bear 

Viewing Platform 

Remote nature viewing, 

hiking, transport 

Digitalis purpurea, Hypochaeris 

radicata, Leucanthemum vulgare, 

Phalaris arundinacea, Poa annua, 

Plantago major, Ranunculus repens, 

Trifolium repens, Taraxacum 

officinale 

Three new infestations since 2008 site 

visit

*Bold denotes high priority invasive plant species 

Surveys at Big Goat Lake Cabin and Margaret Bear Viewing platform found new invasive 

species infestations not documented in previous surveys. The survey of Manzanita dispersed 

campsite found an invasive species at a site that had never been surveyed before. These data 

indicate the presence of vectors at each of these recreation sites that are introducing invasive 

species. 

Environmental Consequences 

Sensitive and Rare Plants 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This document analyzes impacts to vegetation in the preferred general habitats that are 

suitable for sensitive plants and lichen and rare plant species. Each action alternative would 

increase service day allocations without field verification for presence/absence of sensitive or 

rare plants. KMRD permit administrators would not authorize outfitter and guide use in any 

sensitive or rare plant population area, unless approved by the KMRD botanist 

Potential direct and indirect effects to undocumented sensitive or rare plants and/or their 

suitable habitats from the activities associated with guided recreation use include (de 

Gouvenian 1996, Knight, et al. 1995, Leung and Marion 2000, Marion 1991): 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 145 

 Trampling, crushing, or uprooting as a result of hiking, walking, camping, or turbidity 

from floatplanes or motorboats can cause physical damage, injury, or death to individual 

plants or habitats. When a plant is injured, its viability is compromised. A plant’s ability 

to optimally produce food, store food, reproduce, compete for nutrients, counter pests and 

herbivory, all contribute to viability. Depending upon the growth form of the plant, or the 

habitat it occurs within, some plants are more vulnerable to injury than others. 

 Unauthorized vegetation cutting or removal as a result of firewood collection, 

campsite creation, trail creation, keepsake/memento collection can cause physical 

damage, and/or injury, and/or death by removal of species that grow on individual trees, 

removal of shrubs or herbs for mementoes, thus compromising the viability of the 

individual. Modifications to trees can result is a loss of habitat and/or death for the 

sensitive lichen. 

 Invasive species introduction as a result of transport of reproductive material, mainly 

inadvertently and unknowingly. Introduction and establishment of invasive species by 

unknowingly transporting and releasing non-native reproductive and vegetative material 

into pristine habitats leads to competition for resources between native and non-native 

species. Non-native species have a higher likelihood of surviving due to the lack of 

herbivores, available niche, favorable growing conditions, lack of endophytic fungi, and 

the increase of suitable, disturbed habitat. 

 Vegetation composition alteration as a result of a disturbance. Disturbance is a 

temporary change in environmental conditions resulting in a change in ecosystem 

conditions. A natural disturbance is caused by nature, such as an avalanche or wind throw 

event. An artificial disturbance is caused by man, such as trail construction, logging, or 

campsite establishment. There are many actions that are considered disturbances, such as 

invasive species introduction, changes in soil composition, loss of vegetation. Some plant 

species favor disturbances. While other plant species favor old growth conditions lacking 

disturbance. When vegetation composition changes, the habitat type present at a site also 

changes. 

 Hydrologic pattern alteration as a result of trampling, hiking, and/or camping. Changes 

in the hydrologic pattern by way of redirecting water flow, reducing or increasing site 

moisture levels, and/or changes in water levels can affect the availability of water for 

plant growth and functions. 

 Solar exposure alteration as a result of vegetation composition changes. Changes in 

vegetation composition by loss of canopy species or conversion of vegetation type can 

result in the opening or closing of the canopy. Changes in canopy cover results in 

increased or decreased solar exposure. The viability of plants is directly related to amount 

of sunlight and/or shading. 

 Inorganic composition alteration as a result of camping, hiking, and/or unauthorized 

collection. Changes in inorganic composition by the movement and/or modification of 

abiotic features, such as rocks and minerals, can affect plant viability. Some plants grow 

directly on rocks or from cracks in rocks. 

 Soil alteration as a result of trampling. Changes in the physical and/or chemical 

characteristics of soil, including aeration, moisture, strength, temperature, nutrient 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 146 

availability, and microorganisms, can affect plant root growth and functions.(de 

Gouvenian 1996) 

 Organic litter alteration as a result of firewood collection and/or pulverized from 

trampling. Changes in physical presence and/or spatial distribution of litter can affect 

plants relationships with beneficial microorganisms. The viability of some plants depends 

on the presence of their mutualistic fungi. Decomposers release nutrients back into the 

soil. Without these species, nutrient availability at a site decreases. 

 Air quality alterations as a result of pollution from aircraft or watercraft. Changes in air 

quality from an increase in dust, gases, or fumes are toxic to some lichen species over 

time. 

 Water quality alterations as a result of soil erosion, fecal matter contamination, 

pollution from watercraft or floating aircraft. Changes in the quality of freshwater by 

increases in organic matter content, or amount of soluble free oxygen can affect the 

viability of submerged aquatic plant species. These changes are also referred to as 

eutrophication. 

The intensity of the impact to the vegetation at a site is directly related to the type of 

recreation use a site receives. Hiking and camping are the recreational activities most likely 

to impact sensitive and rare plants. Hiking is a component of hunting, freshwater fishing 

from a shoreline, remote nature viewing, road-based nature tours, and floatplane landing 

tours. Camping is a component of hunting, fishing, and remote nature viewing. 

The susceptibility to disturbance or durability of the vegetation can influence the 

accommodation of recreation use a site receives. The resilience and resistance of an 

individual plant species is dependent on its morphology and habitat. Each species and habitat 

has a different threshold to disturbances before impacts occur. Some plant species and their 

habitats are more vulnerable, while others are more hardy or quick to recover. 

Habitats dominated by non-woody plants are more susceptible to impacts from trampling. It 

takes fewer service days before vegetation cover decreases than habitats dominated by 

shrubs. Upland habitats dominated by short grasses are the least susceptible to impacts from 

trampling. Characteristics of plants that promote resistance to trampling include short stature, 

large size, tufted or bunched habits of growth, stems that are woody or wiry and flexible, and 

leaves that are tough and/or growing in basal rosettes (Cole and Trull 1992). 

The first few visits to a dispersed recreation site result in the majority of cumulative 

disturbance to plant and soil communities (Monz 1998). Amplitude of use (the amount of use 

and duration of use a site receives) can have a direct relationship with the amount of impacts 

a site receives. Increase in the amount of use an individual site receives increases the 

likelihood of impacts. Increasing the size of a group at an individual site increases the 

likelihood of impacts. Outfitters and guides are encouraged to follow Leave No Trace 

principles (LNT 2008). LNT recommends dispersing use before impacts to vegetation are 

visible. Outfitter and guides are authorized service days to visit the same site annually. 

Accumulation of concentrated use can negate the effects of Leave No Trace on fragile 

sensitive and rare species habitats. 

Alternatives B and C could lead to guided use in areas where there has been very little or no 

guided use in the past. Based on the trends of outfitter and guides visiting the same site 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 147 

annually, it is likely new dispersed sites would be created and heavy impacts to vegetation 

would result in areas without durable surfaces. If use occurs in habitat suitable for sensitive 

or rare plants, then habitat would be impacted. A direct correlation occurs between increased 

use allocation and increased impacts to vegetation/habitats (Leung and Marion 2000). 

Some sites used by outfitters and guides are hardened (for example, developed trails, viewing 

sites, roads). Effects to sensitive and rare plants and their habitat would be minimal at these 

sites if guided visitors stay within the hardened area. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D – Sensitive Plants 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area or a trend toward federal listing of all sensitive plants. 

Alternative C has the highest risk of effects to botany resources followed by Alternatives B, 

D, then A. 

Adaptive management would allow any action alternative the ability to increase or decrease 

allocations for any use area based on observed or measured impacts, or lack thereof, to 

resources, facilities, and/or social standards as a result of guided use. Ultimately, adaptive 

management makes any action alternative equal in likelihood of risk, independent of the 

initial, selected authorized annual allocation. Adaptive management would, however, provide 

the opportunity to implement mitigation recommendations in response to unforeseen impacts 

to sensitive plant populations or suitable habitat. 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D – Rare Plants 

Alternatives B and C would allow guided use in areas where there has been very little or no 

guided use in the past. Based on the trends of outfitter and guides visiting the same site 

annually, it is likely new dispersed sites would be created and heavy impacts to vegetation 

would result in areas without durable surfaces. If use occurs in habitat suitable for rare plants, 

then habitat would be impacted. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Potential cumulative effects to sensitive or rare plants and/or their suitable habitats from the 

activities associated with guided recreation use include (de Gouvenian 1996, Knight, et al. 

1995, Leung and Marion 2000, Marion 1991): 

 Vegetation/habitat loss as a result of any combination of direct and/or indirect effects. 

Loss of vegetation and/or habitat as a result of modification decreases the available 

suitable habitat for sensitive species. Vegetation and/or habitat loss can result from 

the interactions of trampling, crushing, cutting, alterations to soil, alterations to 

hydrology, alterations to water quality, alterations to air quality, etc. Loss occurs 

when vegetation is impacted beyond recovery. 

 Microclimate alteration as a result of any combination of direct and/or indirect 

effects. Altered microclimate as a result of habitat modification decreases the 

available suitable habitat for sensitive species. An altered microclimate can result 

from changes in solar exposure, alterations in hydrologic patterns, alterations in soil 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 148 

microbial and fungal activities, decreased air quality, decreased water quality, loss of 

ground cover, loss of organic litter, loss of mineral soil, and increased sediment 

movement. 

The impacts from recreation use can be expected to accumulate over time. Visitor capacity is 

the sum of outfitter and guide use and unguided use. Visitor capacity is six times greater than 

the average high use depicted in Alternative A. It is not possible to quantify how much, 

where and when impacts would occur or the magnitude of these impacts. Impacts to sensitive 

and rare plants from recreation use may be expected to increase with the increase of service 

days. 

Invasive Plant Species 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

As described under sensitive plants, habitat may be altered in some locations by outfitter 

guide use. Most invasives prefer disturbance for seed germination or vegetative growth. In 

areas with vegetation death or loss, competition from native species is greatly reduced. 

Without competition from native species, invasives are able to flourish and spread 

uncontrolled throughout the area of disturbance. 

Recreation users may serve as direct vectors for spreading invasive species. Invasive species 

are introduced to the recreation site on the clothing or gear. They are spread at recreation 

sites by recreationist who walk or drive through the infestation. Vehicles used at some 

remote recreation sites are brought into these sites from a city. Vehicles can carry invasive 

species reproductive material. 

Some Tongass National Forest High Priority Invasive species populations are located in areas 

that receive high service day use. Based on survey inventory data, the risk of invasive species 

introduction, establishment, and/or spread at current guided use levels is low. The risk 

increases with the increase in number of service days allocated. 

Permits are not for a specific location, but are open-ended, and allow outfitters and guides the 

discretion and flexibility to visit any location within and around the outfitter and guide site 

and/or use area. Alternatives B, C, and D would allow outfitter and guides the ability to visit 

new sites, without additional NEPA analysis or field surveys. Most outfitter and guides are 

based out of the city Ketchikan, recreation use area 24, the use area most extensively 

surveyed and with the most documented invasive species, and Tongass National Forest High 

Priority invasive species. Due to the high use from Ketchikan, the potential for outfitter and 

guides to visit a site with a known invasive plant population is extremely high. 

Alternatives B, C, and D contain project design measures to prevent the introduction, 

establishment, and spread of invasive species by vectors associated with the project actions. 

These measures do not pertain to alternative A. Project design measures are described in 

Appendix B of this document. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 149 

Table 3-18 ranks each alternative by amount of risk of invasive species introduction, 

establishment, and spread. 

Table 3- 18) Alternative Risk Ranking for Invasive Species Introduction 

Alternative Risk 

D Low 

A Moderate 

B Moderate 

C High 

Adaptive management would allow any action alternative the ability to increase or decrease 

allocations for any use area based on observed or measured impacts, or lack thereof, to 

resources, facilities, and/or social standards as a result of guided use. Ultimately, adaptive 

management makes any action alternative equal in likelihood of risk, independent of the 

initial, selected authorized annual allocation. Adaptive management would, however, provide 

the opportunity to implement mitigation recommendations in response to unforeseen impacts 

from the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive plants. 

Hydrology and Fisheries _________________ 

Affected Environment 

The condition of and effects to fisheries are tied to the condition of and effects to hydrology. 

Thus, both resources are discussed here. In general the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G) manages fisheries populations and the USFS manages fisheries habitats. This 

analysis focuses on fisheries habitat, however; discussion on fish and fish populations were 

included to provide a better picture of the fishery resource. 

Hydrology 

The approximate 3.2 million acres within the KMRD contains numerous watersheds of 

varying size and complexity. The streams and lakes are physically complex due the moisture 

of island and mainland environments, steep topography, variable geology and past and 

present glacial activity. Systems range from single islands to large mainland systems. Within 

the project area there are over 4,800 miles of fish bearing stream and over 26,500 acres of 

lakes. 

The largest stream and river systems are located on the mainland and are driven by glacial 

processes in the north with a transition to rain and snow driven systems in the south. The 

glacial systems are colored by glacial silt and most rain and snow systems are colored by 

tannins leached out of adjacent lands. Most in-stream habitats are formed and controlled by 

bedrock and large woody debris input. In addition to these physical controls, beavers (Castor 

canadensis) can play a key role in altering stream channel morphology. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 150 

Overall, systems tend to be resistant and resilient to most disturbances aside from 

indiscriminate land management practices or major natural occurrences like landslides and 

wind throw. 

Fisheries 

Salmon, Trout, and Char 

All five species of Pacific salmon are found within the project area. Pink (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha), chum (O. keta), sockeye (O. nerka), coho (O. kisutch), and king (O. 

tshawytscha) salmon can all be found at certain times of year in area freshwaters. Pink and 

chum salmon end to prefer lower gradient and larger streams, but can be found in most 

accessible streams. Sockeye salmon are typically found in watersheds containing large lakes 

as the juvenile of this species mostly rears in these habitats. Coho are widely distributed 

across KMRD. They are extremely adaptable and can exploit a wide range of fresh water 

habitats. King salmon are only found in a few systems on the KMRD. 

Resident and anadromous populations of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), 

coastal rainbow trout (O. mykiss irideus) and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) are 

likely stable due to general harvest restrictions published by ADF&G in 2010. The ADF&G 

manages cutthroat for limited harvest and Dolly Varden for liberal harvest with additional 

restrictions in place to protect particularly high quality fisheries. However, it is known that 

cutthroat are particularly susceptible to sport fishing over-harvest, and despite conservative 

restrictions, population declines can still occur when sport fishing pressure increases 

(Gresswell and Harding 1997). 

Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout, and are a prized sport fish. Steelhead 

tend to prefer medium-sized and larger stream systems with abundant areas of turbulent, 

well-oxygenated flows (i.e., riffles) (Bisson et al. 1998). Recent data suggest steelhead 

populations throughout Southeast Alaska were more abundant than they are now (Lohr and 

Bryant 1999; Harding and Love 2008). The KMRD populations are likely stable with annual 

fluctuations due to no changes in fishing regulations by ADF&G. Regardless, it appears 

evident that steelhead populations are or can be highly sensitive to high levels of sport 

fishing pressure, especially when regulations allow for moderate harvest. Local areas of 

interest for steelhead include but are not limited to Fish Creek in Thorne Arm (17 George 

Carrol Thorne), Ward Creek (24 Ketchikan Core) and the Naha River (28 Naha Bay). 

Salmon and trout populations appear stable (allowing for annual population fluctuations) 

across the analysis area and the majority of salmon harvest occurs in salt waters outside the 

jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

Management Indicator Species, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species, and Invasive Species 

The 2008 Forest Plan lists four species of fish as Management Indicator Species (MIS): pink 

salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden, and cutthroat trout. These species are well distributed 

throughout the project area in appropriate habitats. 

Guided use would not affect Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species in fresh 

waters because there are no TES species present. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 151 

There are no known invasive species such as New Zealand mud snail, Quagga mussel or 

whirling disease present at this time, but there is risk of their introduction. 

Environmental Consequences 

The following definitions are used to describe relative levels of effect for fisheries and 

hydrology. 

Minimal – No measureable effects resulting from outfitted and guided activities to other 

resource areas which affect fisheries resources are occurring, and no measurable change in 

fisheries habitats is detectable. 

Minor – Effects resulting from outfitted and guided activities to other resource areas which 

indirectly affect fisheries resources may be occurring, but no measurable change is 

detectable. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The following description of effects assumes Forest Plan direction and applicable BMPs are 

being followed and met. If standards, guidelines and BMPs were not being met there would 

be additional environmental effects not considered in this document. 

In summary, all alternatives would affect hydrology resources across the KMRD. Streams, 

lakes and water quality would be affected at varying levels across the analysis area. These 

effects would not be measurable due to BMPs and standards and guidelines being 

incorporated into each alternative. BMPs and standards and guidelines provide adequate 

protection for hydrology resources. All alternatives will achieve state water quality standards. 

Guided use authorized under any alternative would not affect water quantity. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Hydrology 

The No Action Alternative allocates no portion of the visitor capacity to outfitters and 

guides. Recreational activities have, are and would continue to occur. The calculated visitor 

capacity applies to each Recreational Use Area, but Adaptive Management would not be 

implemented. In this analysis, hydrology is ultimately concerned with impacts from 

recreational activities, regardless of being caused by guided users or unguided users. 

Therefore, visitor capacity is a logical measure to assess effects and compare alternatives. 

Alternative A would cause effects to hydrological resources in all 28 Recreational Use Areas. 

Riparian areas would be subject to damage and loss of vegetation. Loss of vegetative cover in 

the riparian zone can lead to a wide range of impacts. The impacts include, but are not 

limited to; streambank and lake shore alteration, increased erosion, increased sedimentation, 

increased water temperature and increased pollution (Clark and Gibbons 1991). 

The risk and level of impact to hydrological resources from outfitted and guided activities 

would vary across the analysis area, and would be most severe in areas that are heavily used, 

in high demand, provide easy access, have existing infrastructure and are sensitive to impacts 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 152 

associated with recreational activities (Clark and Gibbons 1991). Areas where recreational 

use is concentrated around waterbodies and streams are at higher risk. At this time, 206 

recreation use sites have been recorded in the 28 Recreation Use Areas. Impact and risk to 

hydrological resources is not the same at each site, however; impacts to some resource areas 

that can indirectly affect water have been recorded. Despite the acknowledged effects, 

Alternative A meets Forest Plan standards and guidelines, thus minimizing risk. 

Alternative A would continue to contribute minimal to minor amounts of sedimentation to 

streams and lakes. Localized effects would be most obvious in pools, backwaters and mouths 

of streams entering lakes. It is expected this minor effect would not be detectable over 

background levels a short distance downstream or on deltas. Periods of higher flow would 

scour these areas and redistribute the sediment. As a result, it would be unlikely to detect 

changes in fine sediment and attribute them to recreational use. 

Recreational activity would continue to affect channel morphology within and downstream 

of the location of use. Recreational activity is known to affect many aspects of channel 

morphology (Clark and Gibbons 1991). 

Outfitted and guided recreation would affect vegetation within the riparian zone. Physical 

damage to vegetation by trampling would continue to occur. Loss of vegetation would occur 

in small localized areas such as campsites, user generated trails and stream access points. 

Damage and loss of vegetation can lead to a wide range of responses in the riparian area as 

well as the stream (Kauffman and Krueger 1984, Abouguendia 2001). Responses include but 

are not limited to; decreased water quality, increased water temperature and alteration of 

stream flow patterns. The effects of these responses may include reduced dissolved oxygen 

levels, increased risk of disease bearing pathogens being present in the water, increased 

evaporation, alteration of food webs and a reduction or loss of habitat for aquatic species. 

Alternative A would not change the risk of bacterial contamination from human waste. 

Meeting BMPs and proper management of human waste would negate the risk of recreational 

activities leading to a measurable degradation in water quality. 

Current recreational use that meets BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would 

maintain existing aquatic resource conditions within the project area. The intent of BMPs and 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines is to provide adequate protection for a resource area. 

Combining these sources of direction would provide protection for and minimize risk to 

watershed health. 

In summary, the No Action Alternative would continue to authorize guided recreational use 

across KMRD and each new request would require a separate NEPA analysis. The visitor 

capacity would apply and serve to cap overall recreational use. Effects to streams, lakes, 

riparian areas and water quality would continue. Water quantity would not be affected. 

Fisheries 

Riparian and stream systems are complicated, and dynamic making it difficult to write the 

exact effects recreation activities has on them. However, it is generally accepted that 

recreational activities can affect water resources (Clark and Gibbons 1991), which in turn 

affect fisheries. Based upon the types of recreational activities occurring on KMRD and 

knowledge of district personnel it is realistic to suggest recreational activity produces similar 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 153 

influences, causes and impacts to fisheries resources as those documented in research. Many 

of the effects to fisheries are indirect effects and would be expressed following effects to 

other resource areas such as hydrology and botany. 

Continuing guided use would have effects to fish. Guided use would also affect soils, riparian 

areas, riparian vegetation, and stream channels, which ultimately affect fish habitat and 

populations. Meeting BMPs and Forest Plan direction would minimize these effects. 

Effects to fisheries and fish habitat would continue. Trout, char and salmon would be 

subjected to harvest and some level of indirect mortality caused by catch-and-release fishing. 

Habitats would be affected at some unknown level by causative agents such as 

sedimentation. Research has documented recreation caused effects to riparian vegetation 

(Marion and Cole 1996) which in turn can indirectly affect fish habitat and fish. Heavily used 

areas within the riparian zone would be most likely to contribute to affects to fisheries. 

Describing the exact level of effect is not possible due to the indirect nature of cause-andeffect relationships between recreational activities and fisheries. Some immeasurable level of 

simplification of habitats would occur. Watersheds are dynamic and attributing measurable 

incremental impacts on fisheries to prescribed levels of guided use is doubtful. 

The level of harvest and incidental mortality appear low enough to maintain self-sustaining 

fish populations. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game manages fisheries populations 

within the analysis area and would make adjustments to regulations as they see fit. 

Current management does not authorize guided use in 28 Naha Bay. Implementation of 

Alternative A would allow guided sport fishing in Patching Lake. A series of migration 

barriers prevent salmon and steelhead from reaching Patching Lake. A population of resident 

cutthroat and Dolly Varden exists in the lake. Patching Lake is sufficiently removed from the 

popular steelhead and salmon fishing areas lower in the Naha River drainage that interactions 

between guided and unguided users would be minimized. 

Guided sport fishing poses a risk of introducing an invasive species like New Zealand mud 

snail, or whirling disease. These aquatic invasive can be transported on fishing gear and 

remain viable for a considerable length of time when removed from water. Alternative A 

poses the highest risk of introducing an aquatic invasive species because no current permit 

stipulations or mitigations exist to minimize risk. 

In summary, the No Action Alternative would continue to affect fish and fish habitats. 

Effects to habitats would be immeasurable when BMPs and Forest Plan direction are met. 

The risk of introducing an aquatic invasive species is higher in this alternative because no 

current mitigative measures are included in permits. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

Hydrology 

Alternatives B, C, and D allocate recreational use to outfitters and guides across the 26, 28, 

and 24 Recreation Use Areas, respectively. Visitor capacity applies to all areas and adaptive 

management would be implemented in all areas. Hydrology resources can be affected by 

guided or unguided recreational use. Research documenting the impacts of recreational 

activities does not differentiate between guided and unguided use. There is insufficient data 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 154 

on unguided use to predict total actual use on KMRD therefore visitor capacity is used to set 

the upper limit of anticipated recreation use. 

The visitor capacity is the same in all the alternatives. Effects such as loss of or damage to 

riparian vegetation and streambank disturbance would continue. These effects would be 

localized, discontinuous, and occur as long as recreational use continued in the project area. 

Potential effects of recreational use on streams, lakes, riparian vegetation, water quantity and 

water quality would be the same as the effects of Alternative A above. 

In most instances, adaptive management minimizes risk to hydrological resources by 

allowing resource managers to respond quickly and appropriately to situations. Adaptive 

management allows managers to select from a wide range of potential solutions, monitor for 

desired results and adjust management accordingly. This strategy reduces the risk of 

affecting streams, lakes, riparian areas, water quantity and water quality. For aquatic 

resources, Alternatives B, C, and D pose lesser risk than Alternative A from a management 

implementation perspective. Alternatives B, C, and D include adaptive management, which 

allows managers to more rapidly and effectively deal with aquatic resource issues than 

Alternative A. All the action alternatives (B, C, and D) include adaptive management; thus 

they have the same level of risk when it comes to management implementation. 

Briefly, Alternative B, C, and D allocate a portion of the recreation visitor capacity to 

outfitters and guides while recognizing unguided use would occur. Continuing recreational 

use would have effects to streams, lakes, riparian vegetation and water quality. Water 

quantity would not be affected. Meeting BMPs and Forest Plan direction would minimize 

these effects. Alternative s B, C, and D would meet desired conditions at the same pace due 

to the same BMPs and standards and guidelines being applied. The inclusion of adaptive 

management allows managers to more rapidly respond to aquatic issues when they occur. If 

allocated numbers were increased under adaptive management principles there would be a 

higher risk of affecting hydrology resources. 

Fisheries 

The action alternatives, Alternative B through Alternative D, would cause effects to fisheries 

resources. Regardless of percent of capacity or actual number allocated the same Forest Plan 

direction and BMPs would be applied with the intent of minimizing or negating effects. 

However, risk of affecting fisheries resources differs due to differing allocations. Potential 

effects of recreational use on streams, lakes, riparian vegetation, water quantity, water 

quality, and fisheries would be the same as the effects of Alternative A above. 

The alternatives do have different levels of risk of effects. Alternative C has the highest risk 

of affecting fisheries resources when compared to the other action alternatives (B and D). 

This alternative allocates the highest number of service days to guided use and presents the 

highest risk of affecting fisheries resources. Alternative C would meet desired conditions at a 

slower pace than Alternative B and Alternative D due to increased numbers of outfitted and 

guided clients potentially occurring across the analysis area. 

The Proposed Action would meet desired conditions more rapidly than Alternative A (No 

Action) and Alternative C, but not as quickly as Alternative D regarding risk of affecting 

fisheries. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 155 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, the cleaning of wading equipment prior to use in fresh waters 

administered by KMRD will help reduce the risk of introducing an aquatic invasive species 

to fresh waters in the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Hydrology and Fisheries 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Cumulative effects boundary for hydrology and fisheries resources is the 149 sixth level 

watersheds. Although the alternatives affect hydrology and fisheries resources at the 206 

documented recreational sites, a clearer picture of watershed condition is obtained by looking 

at the watershed scale. 

Past and current recreational activity and land management practices, including past timber 

harvest, have contributed to the existing condition in the analysis area. The continuation of 

guided recreational use under these alternatives would not add cumulatively to those impacts. 

Best Management Practices and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be implemented 

and would provide adequate protection for hydrological and fisheries resources. All the 

alternatives would cause effects to fisheries. The potential level and magnitude of effects 

would be the same due to capacity being the same. With the capacity for a given area being 

the same in each alternative there is no difference in cumulative effect risk between 

alternatives. With adequate protection, measurable incremental effects would not occur, 

therefore, implementing the No Action Alternative or the action alternatives would not add 

cumulatively to existing impacts. Because effects would be non-existent or immeasurable, 

they would not add cumulatively to effects from Timber Sales, Hydropower development or 

Mining exploration. 

It is acknowledged that negative effects will occur at small discontinuous locations during 

the life of this document. Monitoring is designed to identify areas where negative impacts 

may occur and gives managers the ability to adapt management at that site to meet resource 

needs and issues. Quickly addressing resource issues will minimize the risk of recording a 

measurable effect to hydrology resources. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is the water and substrate necessary for fish spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The marine EFH in Alaska includes estuarine and 

marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

The freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of 

water currently and historically accessible to salmon. EFH for Pacific salmon recognizes six 

critical life history stages: (1) spawning and incubation of eggs, (2) juvenile rearing, (3) 

winter and summer rearing during freshwater residency, (4) juvenile migration between 

freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats, (5) marine residency of immature and maturing 

adults, and (6) adult spawning migration. Habitat requirements within these periods can 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 156 

differ significantly and any modification of the habitat within these periods can adversely 

affect EFH. 

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

states that all federal agencies must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The Act promotes the 

protection of EFH through review, assessment, and mitigation of activities that may 

adversely affect these habitats. On August 25, 2000 the Forest Service, Alaska Region, and 

NMFS came to an agreement on how consultation will be accomplished in Alaska. 

The project areas include the entire land area of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

of the Tongass National Forest. The streams and lakes within the project area support a 

variety of anadromous and resident fish species. Anadromous species that spawn in 

freshwater streams or lakes in the project area include: pink salmon (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha), chum salmon (O. keta), sockeye salmon, (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), 

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), steelhead (rainbow) 

trout (O. mykiss), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma). The project area also supports 

resident populations of coastal cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden char, and nongame fish species including sculpin (Cottus spp.) and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus 

aculeatus). 

The analysis area provides a large amount of EFH and includes all of the freshwaters within 

the lands administered by Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Since no Marine Access 

Facilities would be utilized, marine habitats would not be affected and are therefore not 

analyzed with either project. 

The EIS would authorize a variety of outfitted and guided activities around the Ranger 

District. The Fisheries and Hydrology sections of the EIS specifically examines the effects of 

outfitted and guided sport fishing, which is the primary activity that would affect EFH, on the 

aquatic resources. 

Conclusions 

The Forest Service believes that the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan may adversely affect EFH. However, the effects to aquatic resources, as 

described in the EIS and specialist reports, will be minimal or virtually immeasurable. 

Implementing Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, and 

Outfitter and Guide permit stipulations will eliminate nearly all effects on EFH. Additional 

impacts to EFH may occur only from unforeseen events. 

Soils, Wetlands, Geology, and Karst _______ 

Affected Environment 

Soil productivity is defined as the capacity of soil to support plants due to inherent chemical, 

physical, and biological properties. Surface erosion is the movement of soil via water 

movement at the soil surface.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 157 

Wetlands are defined as: "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or 

groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated 

soil conditions" (40 CFR 230.41(a)(1)). 

Floodplains are composed of naturally eroded sediments carried by a stream or river and 

deposited in slack-water sections of channels during high-water periods. Floodplains are 

considered to be areas subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 

The soils wetland and floodplains analysis areas for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is 

the entire KMRD. If effects were thought to be greater than slight, separation would have 

been by the 149 sixth level watersheds. 

Past and current recreational activity and land management practices, including past timber 

harvest, have contributed to the existing condition in the analysis area. Past outfitter guide 

use has not resulted in any reported significant impacts on soils, wetlands, or floodplains 

within Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Trails and campsites are maintained to 

standard. Soil erosion and soil puddling is minimal, and when recognized trails are rerouted 

or the area hardened to avoid resource damage. COE 404 permits are obtained before fill is 

placed in wetlands. 

Environmental Consequences 

All alternatives and activities conform to standards and guidelines and comply with the Clean 

Water Act and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. No extraordinary circumstances exist 

related to soils, wetlands, or floodplains and the proposed activities. No land-disturbing 

activities are proposed by this EIS. 

Degree of impact definitions for soil and wetland resources are as follows: 

Slight - Impact does not affect the overall con dition of the resource. F or example, wetland 

function, soil productivity, or sediment production are essentially identical to the undisturbed 

or otherwise existing condition on a watershed scale. 

Moderate - Impact has a m easurable or noticeable effect that m ay affect the overall 

condition of the resource. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Soils 

Effects on the soil resource would be slight from proposed activities for all alternatives. 

Building of roads or trails, cutting or yarding of trees or vegetation, or building of structures 

are not proposed and are not authorized through this project. Minor loss of vegetation might 

occur in some places from heavy foot traffic but soil erosion and resulting depositions would 

be slight on soil resources. Slight impacts on soil productivity may occur from compaction in 

small, heavily used areas. Adaptive management allows for action to correct unanticipated 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 158 

effects, further reducing concern over effects on soil resources. Proposed activities would 

avoid areas of active mass wasting (landslides). 

Wetlands 

Effects on wetlands would be slight from proposed activities for all alternatives. Filling or 

draining of wetlands are not proposed and are not authorized through this project. Minor loss 

of vegetation might occur in some places from heavy foot traffic but alteration of wetland 

function would be slight. Adaptive management allows for action to correct unanticipated 

effects, further reducing concern over effects on wetland resources 

Karst 

This EIS does not include use or visitation of caves. However, increased recreational usage 

may result in the opportunistic discovery and visitation of caves. Adaptive management may 

have to be used to restrict use of specific areas should they experience unpermitted use. 

Nevertheless, it is expected that effects on caves would be slight. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Past and current recreational activity and land management practices, including past timber 

harvest, have contributed to the existing condition in the analysis area. The continuation of 

guided recreational use under these alternatives would not add cumulatively to those impacts. 

All the alternatives would cause slight effects to soil and wetland resources. The potential 

level and magnitude of effects would be the same due to capacity being the same. With the 

capacity for a given area being the same in each alternative there is no difference in 

cumulative effect risk between alternatives. Because effects would be so slight, they would 

not add cumulatively to effects from timber sales, hydropower development or mining 

exploration. 

It is acknowledged that negative effects will occur at small discontinuous locations during 

the life of this document. Monitoring is designed to identify areas where negative impacts 

may occur and gives managers the ability to apply adaptive management at that site to meet 

resource needs and issues. Quickly addressing resource issues will minimize the risk of 

recording a measurable effect to soil or wetland resources. 

Adaptive Management 

Reducing user days on a damaged site, generally will not remediate a site. Rather, use should 

be eliminated or the site should be hardened. As recreation sites are discovered or planned, 

follow BMPs 16.1(Recreation Facilities Planning and Location), 16.4(Trail Construction and 

Maintenance), and 12.5(Wetland Identification, Evaluation, and Protection). Moving 

campsites to upland sites may alleviate some impacts. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 159 

Other Required Disclosures _______________ 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 

draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other 

environmental review laws and executive orders.” 

Endangered Species Act 

None of the alternatives is anticipated to have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any 

threatened or endangered species in or outside the project area. Biological Evaluations (BE) 

are included in the planning record. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Under our Third Programmatic Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, And The Alaska State Historic 

Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage Program Management On National Forests In The 

State Of Alaska, the KMRD archeologist has determined that the activities proposed in all 

four alternatives for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Outfitter Guide EIS will 

have No Affect on historic properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Any future proposed guided activities that are not listed in their permits or that have the 

potential to disturb the ground will continue to receive a case-by-case section 106 review by 

the KMRD archaeologist. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

An ANILCA Section 810 and 811 subsistence evaluation was conducted. No significant 

restrictions on the abundance and distribution of, access to, or competition for subsistence 

resources in the project area are anticipated. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, activities conducted by the 

Forest Service that affect the coastal zone must be consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable policies of the Alaska Coastal Management Program 

(ACMP). In addition, activities affecting the coastal zone that are conducted by non-federal 

parties under a Forest Service permit must also be consistent with the ACMP. The types of 

Forest Service permits that the State of Alaska and the Forest Service have agreed are likely 

to affect the coastal zone—and therefore require ACMP consistency review of the permit 

applicant's proposal—are listed in section 302 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between the State and the Forest Service on CZMA/ACMP consistency reviews. The types of 

special use permits that will be authorized for issuance by this decision are not among those 

listed in the MOU as requiring ACMP review. 

The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Outfitter and Guide Management Plan will not 

issue permits but is a "Federal agency activity" to decide how many of such permits to issue, 

and where. Since the State and Forest Service agree that the issuance of the permits doesn't 

have coastal effects, an action to determine how many permits will be issued and where also 

cannot have coastal effects. Since we will have no coastal effects, we do not plan to issue a 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 160 

consistency determination or a negative determination, which is consistent with how other 

Forest Service projects that determined how many permits to issue handled the process. 

Executive Order 13175 (2000) and 13084 (1998): Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

EOs 13084 and 13175 direct federal agencies to work with tribal governments in policy 

development and project implementation where significant tribal interests are affected by 

federal policies or undertakings. KMRD has had several contacts and discussions with 

affected Tribal governments (Chapter 1, Public Involvement). Resolution of questions and 

concerns discussed at meetings is ongoing. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (hereafter 

referred to in this section as “the Act”) requires consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service on activities that may affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined 

as "those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity." EFH for Pacific salmon includes marine waters, intertidal habitats, and 

freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish. Marine EFH for the salmon fisheries in 

Alaska includes all estuarine and marine areas utilized by Pacific salmon of Alaska origin, 

extending from the influence of tidewater and tidally submerged habitats to the limits of the 

U.S. exclusive economic zone. The Act promotes the protection of these habitats through 

review, assessment, and mitigation of activities that may adversely affect these habitats. 

This Draft EIS satisfies the consultation requirements by providing a description and 

assessment of EFH in the project areas, a description of each alternative and its potential 

impacts on these habitats, and a description of the mitigation measures that would be 

implemented to protect these habitats. The formal consultation will start when NMFS 

receives a copy of the EIS with the EFH Assessment. NMFS may then respond in writing as 

to whether it concurs with the findings of the assessment or make conservation 

recommendations. The USDA Forest Service must respond to any recommendations made by 

NMFS within 30 days. For specific information about the affected resources and the 

alternatives under consideration, please refer to this EIS. 

 
Chapter 4 

Lists

   
   
Chapter 4, Lists – Page 161 

CHAPTER 4, LISTS 

This chapter contains lists of those consulted during development of this EIS, those receiving 

this EIS, references used in developing this EIS, and a glossary of the more technical words 

used in this EIS. Additional references were used in developing resource reports and other 

documents in the Project Record. An index of the EIS is found at the end of this chapter. 

List of Preparers and Contributors _________ 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS: 

Contributor Title and Office Years FS 

Experience 

Project Role / 

Expertise 

Susan Jennings ID Team Leader, Supervisor’s Office 24 ID Team Leader, Socioeconomics 

Jeannie 

Blackmore Lands Specialist, KMRD 31 Lands 

Lorelei 

Haukness 

Recreation Planner, Wilderness 

Specialist, KMRD 12 Wilderness, Recreation, Special Uses 

Shauna Hee Botanist, KMRD 4 

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plants and 

Invasive Plants 

Michelle Putz Writer/Editor, Supervisor’s Office 20 Writer/Editor 

Jill Reeck Wildlife Biologist, KMRD 31 Wildlife and 

Subsistence 

Peter Roginski Fisheries Biologist, KMRD 8 Fisheries and 

Subsistence 

Darin Silkworth Soil Scientist, Supervisor’s Office 7 Soils, Wetlands, and 

Karst 

Martin Stanford Archaeologist, KMRD 15 Cultural Resources 

Cathy Tighe Special Use Permit Administrator, 

KMRD 22 Special Use Permits 

Will Young Hydrologist, KMRD 10 Water Resources 

OTHER FOREST SERVICE CONTRIBUTORS: 

Dennis Chester, Wildlife Biologist 

Jacob Hofman, GIS, Inventory and Monitoring 

Karen Brand, Recreation Staff Officer 

Rob Reeck, Tribal Liaison 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 162 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, 

tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this EIS: 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

Alaska Coastal Management Program, Division of Coastal and Ocean Management 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

TRIBES AND CORPORATIONS: 

Cape Fox Corp. 

Ketchikan Indian Community 

Metlakatla Indian Community 

Organized Village of Saxman 

Distribution of the EIS ___________________ 

This EIS has been distributed in several formats: hard copies, compact discs, and via the 

internet. Those receiving the EIS in more than one format have only been listed once in the 

lists below. 

List of EIS Recipients 

This EIS has been distributed in hard copy or compact disc format to individuals who 

specifically requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to Federal 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations 

representing a wide range of views. The following agencies, organizations, and individuals 

were provided with a copy of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter/Guide Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, ANILCA Program 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Coastal & Ocean Management 

 (State of Alaska) Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Ketchikan 

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office, Juneau 

USDA National Agriculture Library 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 163 

TRIBES AND TRIBAL CORPORATIONS: 

Cape Fox Corp. 

Ketchikan Indian Community 

Metlakatla Indian Community 

Organized Village of Saxman 

LIBRARIES: 

Metlakatla Centennial Library 

USDA Forestry Service Library 

Alaska State Library 

Hyder Public Library 

Ketchikan Public Library 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES: 

Earthjustice 

Meyers Chuck Community Association 

Tenacious Charters 

Tongass Tribe 

INDIVIDUALS 

A.J. Slagle 

Barry Christensen 

Jay Rhodes 

List of EIS Notifications 

The following agencies, businesses, and organizations were sent a letter, email, or postcard 

with information about the EIS and notifying them of the website location of this EIS. 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air and Water Quality 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Wildlife Conservation 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Office of Habitat Management and Permitting 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, & Water 

Alaska State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Alaska State Department of Public Safety 

Alaska State Parks 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

City of Ketchikan 

City of Saxman 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 164 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Highway Administration 

Hyder Community Association 

Juneau Reg. Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

Ketchikan Parks and Recreation 

Mayor, City of Ketchikan 

Mayor, City of Metlakatla 

Mayor, City of Thorne Bay 

Mayor, Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Management 

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division 

US Coast Guard 

US Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance 

US Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service 

US Congress 

US House of Representatives 

US Senate 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

USDA Forest Service 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, District Offices 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator 

Wrangell Cooperative Association 

TRIBES, TRIBAL CORPORATIONS, AND OTHER TRIBAL ENTITIES: 

Alaska Native Brotherhood / Native Sisterhood Camp 15 

Alaska Native Brotherhood / Native Sisterhood Camp 14 

Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska 

Saanya Kwan - Tei Kweidi 

Sealaska Corporation 

Tlingit & Haida Community Council 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES: 

Alaska Center for the Environment 

Alaska Discovery RV Tours, Ltd. 

Alaska Glacier Adventures 

Alaska Hummer Adventures 

Alaska Natural Mystic 

Alaska Peak and Seas 

Alaska Rainforest Campaign 

Alaska Sportfishing Adventures, LLC / 

Action Jackson Charters 

Alaska Travel Adventures, Inc. 

Allen Marine Tours 

American Safari Cruises, LLC 

Anchor Excursions dba Snow Goose 

Baranof Skiff Excursions 

Bluewater Adventures, Ltd. 

Carlin Air 

Carro-Flagg Enterprises, Inc. 

Cascadia Wildlands Project 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 165 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Cleveland Coalition 

Concerned Alaskans for Resources and the 

Environment 

Crane Adventures, LLC 

Dalin Charters/Guiding 

Ducks Unlimited 

Explore Alaska Charters 

Family Air 

Farwest Research 

Fish Creek Tours 

FSEEE 

Greenpeace 

Hallco, Inc. 

Hidden Inlet Resort 

International Chamber of Commerce 

Island Wings 

Kayak Transport Company 

Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce 

Ketchikan Daily News 

Ketchikan Homebuilders Association 

Ketchikan Off-Road 

Ketchikan Outdoors Recreation and Trails 

Coalition 

Ketchikan Rod & Gun Club 

Ketchikan Snowmobiling Club 

Ketchikan Sport & Wildlife Club 

Ketchikan Visitors Bureau 

Ketchikan Volunteer Rescue Squad 

Ketchikan Yacht Club 

KRBD Radio 

KTKN Radio 

Lindblad Expeditions, Inc. 

Marble Creek Farms and Tongass 

Substance Screening 

Midnight Sun Adventure Tours 

Mink Bay Lodge 

Mirror Lake Fishing Club 

Misty Fiords LLC 

Misty Fjords Air & Outfitting 

Muskeg Excursions 

Naha Bay Outdoor Adventures 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nature Trek Canada 

Panhandle Motorcycle Adventures 

Premiere International Corporation 

Primo Expeditions 

Promech Air 

RdM Pilot/Guide 

Rogue Charters 

Salmon Falls Resort 

Saltery Lodge 

SE AK Regional Subsistence Council 

Seaport Limousine Ltd. 

Seawind Aviation 

Sierra Club 

Silver King Charters 

Sitka Conservation Society 

Snow's Cove, Inc. 

Sockeye Sam's 

South Tongass Fire Department 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

Southeast Alaska Flyfishing 

Southeast Alaska Guide Service 

Southeast Alaska Resources 

Southeast Aviation 

Southeast Exposure Sea Kayak Company 

Southeast Sea Kayaks 

Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture 

Association, Inc. (SSRAA) 

Sportsman Paradise Tours 

Stabbert Maritime 

Taquan Air 

Taquan Air & AK Rainforest Sanctuary 

The Boat Company 

The Nature Conservancy in AK 

The Wilderness Society 

Tongass Conservation Society 

Tongass Rainforest Expeditions 

Tongass Tribe 

Trout Unlimited 

U.S. Borax, Inc. c/o Rio Tinto Minerals 

Upstream Dreams 

West Travel, Inc. dba Cruise West 

Westcoast Adventure Tours, Inc. 

Yes Bay Lodge, Inc. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 166 

INDIVIDUALS 

Andrew Pankow 

Andy Mathews 

Art Johnson 

Bev Davies 

Bill Green 

Brad Finney 

Charles Stout 

Charlie Reynolds 

Chris Stack 

Cindy Wagner 

Dale Pihlman 

Dave Hashagen 

Dick Hamlin 

Dick Hunlin 

Elmer Makua 

Eric Lunde 

Floyd Crocker 

George Cook 

George Porter 

James Benson 

James Stanley 

Jean Public 

Jerry Scudero 

Jim Pomplun 

John Stedman 

Keith Wadley 

Ken Teune 

Lee & Winona Wallace 

Lyle Stack 

Mark Adams 

Marvin Charles 

Matthew Williams 

Merlene Hawkins 

Mike Cessnun 

Mike Sallee 

MJ Turek 

Nick Hashagen 

Nora DeWitt 

Peter Dwyer 

Philip Stage 

Reid Parker 

Robert Hickman 

Robert Scherer 

Scott Foster 

Shaun Hearn 

Steve and Laura Huffine 

Steve Hoffman 

Steve Patton 

Steven McClaren 

Todd Bright 

Tom Skultka 

References Cited _______________________ 

The following references were cited in this EIS. Additional items are cited in specialists’ 

reports. Those references are found in the individual specialist reports. 

Alaska Community Database Online. State of Alaska, Dept. Commerce. Accessed January 

10, 2011. Internet: http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm

Abouguendia, Z. 2001. Livestock grazing and riparian areas: a literature review. Grazing 

and pasture technology program, Regina, Saskatchewan. 

Ackerman, R.E., K.C. Reid, J.D. Gallison, and M.E. Roe. 1985. Archaeology of Heceta 

Island: A Survey of 16 Timber Harvest Units in the Tongass National Forest, 

Southeastern Alaska. Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State 

University, Pullman, Washington. 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 167 

Allen. B. M., and R. P. Angliss. 2010. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2009. U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-206, 276 p. Internet: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2009.pdf

Andres, B.A. and G.A. Falxa. 1995. Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). The birds 

of North America online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Internet: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/155 

Armstrong, R. H. 1995. Guide to the birds of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage, 

AK. 322 pp. 

BC Mgt Plan 2010 – Mountain Goat Management Team. 2010. Management Plan for the 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. 

Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 87 pp. 

Bisson, P. A., K. Sullivan and J. L. Nielsen. 1988 Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and body 

form of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout in streams. 1988. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:262-273. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of nonconsumptive leisure disturbance to wildlife. Rve. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 61:117-131. 

Internet: http://www.cebc.cnrs.fr/publipdf/2006/BRETV61.pdf

Borrie, W.T. 2000. Impacts of technology on the meaning of wilderness. In Personal, 

Societal, and Ecological Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress 

Proceedings on Recreation, Management, and Allocation, Volume II; 1998 Oct 24-

29, Bangalore, India (A.E. Watson, G.H. Aplet, and J.C. Hendee, compilers). 

Proceedings RMRS-P-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 87-88. 

Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Sampson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A 

Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3781422 

Butler, R.W., and P. D. Baudin. 2000. Status and conservation stewardship of the Pacific 

great blue heron in Canada. in L. M. Darling, ed. Proceedings of a Conference on the 

Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15 - 19 

Feb.,1999. Vol. 1, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. and 

University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 490pp. 

Canfield, J. E., L. J. Lyon, J. M. Hillis, and M. J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Pages 6.1–

6.25 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky 

Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on 

Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Carlson, B. A. and E. B McLean. 1996. Buffer zones and disturbance types as predictors of 

fledging success in great blue herons, Ardea herodias. Colonial Waterbirds, Vol. 19, 

No. 1 (1996), pp. 124-127. Internet: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1521816

Carney, K. M., and W. J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting 

colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology, 

22(1):68-79. Internet: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1521995
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 168 

Chatwin, T. 2010. Set-back distances to protect nesting and roosting seabirds off Vancouver 

Island from boat disturbance. Masters thesis, Royal Roads University, Victoria, 

British Columbia, Canada. Internet: 

http://dspace.royalroads.ca/docs/bitstream/handle/10170/375/Chatwin,%20Trudy.pdf

?sequence=1

Chi, D. K., and B. K. Gilbert. 1999. Habitat security for Alaskan black bears at key foraging 

sites: are there thresholds for human disturbance? In: A Selection of Papers from the 

Eleventh International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Graz, Austria, 

September 1997, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee, April 1998. Ursus 11:225-237. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3873005

Clark, R.N. and D.R. Gibbons. 1991. Recreation. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19:459-482. 

Cline, R., Sexton, N., and Stewart, S.C., 2007, A human-dimensions review of humanwildlife disturbance: a literature review of impacts, frameworks, and management 

solutions: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1111, 88 p. Internet: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/21567/21567.pdf

Cole, D. N. 1993. Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation. In: D.S. 

Smith and P.C. Hellmund, eds., Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear 

conservation areas. 1993. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 24:105-122. 

Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. In Knight, R 

L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists-coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press: Chapter 11, 183-202. 

Cole, David N. and Trull, Susan J. 1992. Quantifying Vegetation Response to Recreational 

Disturbance in the North Cascades, Washington. Northwest Science. Vol. 66: 229-

236. 

Conant, B., J. I. Hodges, D. J. Groves, and J. G. King. 2007. Alaska trumpeter swan status 

report 2005. Waterfowl Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK. 8 

pp. 

Cooper, J. M., and S. M. Beauchesne. 2004. Status of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus) in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry Water, Land and Air Protection, 

Biodiversity Branch, Victoria BC. Wildlife Bulletin B-115. 38pp. Internet: 

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/statusrpts/b115.pdf

Crupi, A. P. 2003. Foraging behavior and habitat use patterns of brown bears (Ursus arctos) 

in relation to human activity and salmon abundance on a coastal Alaskan salmon 

stream. Master’s thesis, Utah State Univ. 174 pp. Internet: 

http://cbears.bearfoundation.org/crupithesisusu.pdf

Dahlheim, M.E., P.A. White, and J.M. Waite. 2009. Cetaceans of Southeast Alaska: 

distribution and seasonal occurrence. Journal of Biogeography 36: 410–426. 

de Gouvenian, Roland C. 1996. Indirect Impacts of Soil Trampling on Tree Growth and 

Plant Succession in the North Cascade Mountains of Washington. Biological 

Conservation. Vol. 75: 279-287. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 169 

Dugan, D., G. Fay, and S. Colt. 2007. Nature-Based Tourism in Southeast Alaska: Results 

from 2005 and 2006 Field Study. Institute of Social and Economic Research 

University of Alaska Anchorage and Eco-Systems. March 20, 2007. 

Dustin, D.L. and L.H. McAvoy. 2000. Of what avail are forty freedoms: the significance of 

wilderness in the 21st century. International Journal of Wilderness 6(2): 25-26. 

Festa-Bianchet, M. and S. D. Côté. 2008. Mountain goats: ecology, behavior, and 

conservation of an alpine ungulate. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Flynn, R. W., S. B. Lewis, L. R. Beier, and G. W. Pendelton. 2007. Brown bear use of 

riparian and beach zones on Northeast Chichagof Island: implications for streamside 

management in coastal Alaska. Alaska Dept Fish Game Wildlife Research Final 

Report, Douglas, AK. 90 pp. 

Foster, B. R. and E. Y. Rahs. 1983. Mountain goat response to hydroelectric exploration in 

northwestern British Columbia. Environmental Management 7:189–197 

Frid, A. 2003. Dall’s sheep responses to overflights by helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. 

Biological Conservation 110:387–399. 

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of 

linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National 

Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. 79 pp. 

Gill, J. A., K. Norris, and W. J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioral responses may not reflect 

the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 97(2):

265-268. 

Goldstein, M. I., A. J. Poe, E. Cooper, D. Youkey, B. A. Brown, and T. L. McDonald. 2005. 

Mountain goat response to helicopter overflights in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

33:688–699. 

Gotthardt, T.A. and C.A. Coray. 2005. Black oystercatcher. Alaska Natural Heritage 

Program, Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska 

Anchorage, AK. Internet: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu 

Gresswell, R. E. and R. D. Harding. 1997. Role of special angling regulations in 

maintaining and rebuilding sea-run coastal cutthroat trout populations. Pages 151-156 

in J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and R. E. Gresswell, editors, Sea-run cutthroat trout: 

biology, management, and future conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries 

Society. 

Haaman, , B., H. Johnston, P. McClelland, S. Johnson, L. Kelly, and J. Gobielle. 1999. Birds. 

Pages 3.1-3.34 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on 

Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation 

on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Harding, R. D. and D. C. Love. 2008. Southeast Alaska steelhead snorkel surveys of 

regional index streams, 2004 and 2005. Fishery Data Services No. 08-19. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Juneau. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 170 

Heinl, S.C., and A. W. Piston. 2009a. Birds of the Ketchikan area, Alaska Checklist. Internet: 

http://www.juneau-audubonsociety.org/Birds/Check%20Lists/Ketchikan%20Checklist%202009.pdf

Heinl, S.C., and A. W. Piston. 2009b. Birds of the Ketchikan area, Southeast Alaska. 

Western Birds 40(2):1-99. 

Hendee, J.C. and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness management: stewardship and protection 

of resources and values, third edition. Golden CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 

Henson, P., and T. A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan 

breeding behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(3):248-257. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782513

Hilderbrand, , G. V., C. C. Schwartz, C. T. Robbins, M. E. Jacoby, T. A. Hanley, S. M. 

Arthur, and C. Servheen. 1999. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body 

size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 132-138. 

Island Wings Service web page. 2011. Misty Fjords & Glaciers Flightseeing Tours 

Ketchikan, Alaska. 

Kauffman, J. B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and 

Streamside Management Implications a Review. Journal of Range Management 

35(5):430-438. 

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution 

of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9(6):1454-1465. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2387190

Knight, Richard L., Gutzweiller, Kevin J., eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists -- 

Coexistence Through Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island Press: 

Chp 11, 183-202. 

Landres, P., C. Barns, J.G. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, C. S. McCasland, L. Merigliano, 

J. Seastrand, and R. Swain. 2008. Keeping it wild: an interagency strategy to monitor 

trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 77p. 

Leave No Trace website. Accessed January 18, 2011. Internet: 

http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles.php

Levenson, H. and J. R. Koplin. 1984. Effects of human activity on productivity of nesting 

ospreys. Journal Wildlife Management 48(4):1374-1377. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3801800

Leung, Y. and J. L Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a stateof-knowledge review. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5:23-48. 

Lohr, S. C. and M. D. Bryant. 1999. Biological characteristics and population status of 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR407. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 29 p. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 171 

Lowell, R. E. 2008. Subunit 1A black bear management report. Pages 19–29 in P. Harper, 

editor. Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–

30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 17.0. Juneau, Alaska. 

Internet: http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/08_blb.pdf

MacDonald, S. O. and J. A. Cook. 2007. Mammals and amphibians of Southeast Alaska. 

The Museum of Southwest Biology, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. 191 pp. Internet: 

http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/publications/MacDonald-Cook2007.pdf

Manning, R. 1985. Crowding norms in backcountry settings: A review and synthesis. Journal 

Leisure Research, 17(2), 75-89. 

Manning, R. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction 

(Second ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation 

impacts on campsites. Ecological Applications. 6(2):520-530. 

Marion, Jeffery L. 1991. Developing a Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program 

for Visitor Impacts on Recreation Sites: A Procedural Manual. US Department of 

Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado, NRVT, NRR-91. 

Marshall, S. M., 2008. Behavioral effects of viewing and social dynamics of grizzly bears 

along the Fishing Branch River, Yukon. Master’s thesis Simon Fraser Univ. Project 

No. 444. 95 pp. Internet: 

http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/marshall_2008_msc.pdf

McDowell Group, DataPath Systems, and Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. 2007. Alaska 

Visitor Statistics Program. Alaska Visitor Volume and Profile. Summer 2006. 

Prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and 

Economic Development. April. McDowell Group, Walt Sheridan Associates, and 

Leonard Guss. 

Monz, C. A. 1998. Monitoring recreation resource impacts in two coastal areas of Western 

North America: an initial assessment. In: Watson, A. E.; G. H. Aplet, and J. C. 

Hendee, comps. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World 

Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume I; 

1997 October; Bangalore, India. USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-4:117-122. 

NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 325 pages. Internet: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

NMFS. 2006. Draft recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. Internet: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Recovery plan for the humpback whale 

(Megatera novaeangliae). Prepared by the humpback recovery team for the Natl 

Marine Fish Serv., Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 pp. Internet: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/readingrm/recoverplans/humpbkrp.pdf 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 172 

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 26, 2011 ). 

Olson, G. 1999. Black bear. Pages 7.13-7.20 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee 

on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 

Peacock, E. 2004. Population, genetic and behavioral studies of black bears Ursus 

americanus in Southeast Alaska. PhD Thesis, Univ. Nevada, Reno. 184pp plus 

Appendices. 

Porter, B. 2008a. Unit 1A mountain goat management report. Pages 1–16 in P. Harper, 

editor. Mountain goat management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 

2005–30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 12.0. Juneau, 

Alaska. Internet: 

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/goat_08.pdf

Primo Expeditions web page. 2011. Primo Expeditions Rates. Ketchikan, Alaska 

Rodgers Jr., J. A. and S. T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and 

loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered 

boats. Conservation Biology. 16(1):216–224. 

Roggenbuck, J.W. and B.L. Driver. 2000. Benefits of nonfacilitated uses of wilderness. In 

Wilderness science in a time of change conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a place 

for scientific inquiry (S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, 

compilers) proceedings. RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 33-49. 

Schoen, John W. and Erin Dovichin, eds. 2007. The Coastal Forests and Mountains 

Ecoregion of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: A Conservation 

Assessment and Resource Synthesis. Anchorage, Alaska. 4.19 1-4. 

Schoen, J. and S. Gende. 2007. Brown bear in: Schoen, J. W. and E. Dovichin eds: A 

conservation assessment and resource synthesis for the Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregion in southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. The 

Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Internet:

http://home.gci.net/~tnc/HTML/Consv_assessment.html or 

http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm

Schoen, J. and L. Peacock. 2007. Black bear in: Schoen, J. W. and E. Dovichin eds: A 

conservation assessment and resource synthesis for the Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregion in southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. The 

Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Internet:

http://home.gci.net/~tnc/HTML/Consv_assessment.html or 

http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm

Scott, R. 2007. Unit 1 brown bear management report. Pages 1-19 in P. Harper, ed. Brown 

bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004 – 30 June 

2006. Alaska Dept. Fish Game, Juneau, AK. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 173 

Slater, G. L. 2006, August 17. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/trumpeterswan.pdf

Smith, W. P., S. M. Gende, and J.B. Nichols. 2005. Correlates of microhabitat use and 

density of Clethrionomys gapperi and Peromyscus keeni in temperate rain forests of 

Southeast Alaska. Acta Zoologica Sinica 51(6):973-988. 

Steidl, R. J., and R. G. Anthony. 2000. Experimental effects of human activity on breeding 

bald eagles. Ecological Applications, 10(1):258–268. 

Suring, L. E., K. R. Barber, C. C. Schwartz, T. N. Bailey, W. C. Shuster, and M. D. Tetreau. 

1998. Analysis of cumulative effects on brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, 

Southcentral Alaska. In: A Selection of Papers from the Tenth International 

Conference on Bear Research and Management, Fairbanks, Alaska, July 1995, and 

Mora, Sweden, September 1995. Ursus 10: 107-117. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3873117

State of Alaska Community Database Online. 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm. Accessed on 

02/21/2010 

Taylor, A. R., and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications, 13(4):951–963. 

Tempel, D., V. Wright, J. Neilson, and T. Mildenstein. 2008. Linking wilderness research 

and management—volume 5. Understanding and managing backcountry recreation 

impacts on terrestrial wildlife: an annotated reading list. (Wright, Vita, series ed.) 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-Vol 5. 70 p. Internet: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr079_5.pdf

Tessler, D. F., J. A. Johnson, B. A. Andres, S. Thomas, and R. B. Lanctot. 2007. Black 

oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) conservation action plan. International Black 

Oystercatcher Working Group, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, 

Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska and Manomet Center for 

Conservation Sciences, Manoment, Massachusetts. Internet: 

http://www.whsrn.org/shorebirds/conservation_plans.html. 115 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List 

Assessment and Proposed Revisions. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, 

Alaska. 

USDA FS. 2009. FSM 2600 Supplement No.: R-10 2600-2009-1. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Determination of Need for Commercial Uses on the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Tongass National Forest, Lynn Kolund, 

Sign. US Forest Service, Ketchikan, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 

R10-MB-603b. US Forest Service, Tongass National; Forest, Ketchikan, Alaska. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 174 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment. R10-MB-603f. US Forest 

Service, Ketchikan, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008d. Invasiveness Ranking System for Non-Native Plants of 

Alaska. Region 10, Juneau, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Section 41.53, Outfitting and 

Guiding Administration. US Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Determination of Need and Extent of Commercial Uses within 

Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National Forest 

USFWS. 2009. Bald eagle natural history and sensitivity. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Alaska Region. Accessed January 03, 2011. Internet: 

http://alaska.fws.gov//eaglepermit/guidelines/baea_nhstry_snstvty.htm

USFWS. 2006. Yellow-billed loon conservation assessment . Internet: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/yellow_billed_loon.htm

VanDaele, L. 2008. Osprey Alaska Dept. Fish Game Notebook Series. ADF&G, Juneau, AK. 

Internet: http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/osprey.php

Vennesland, R. G. 2010. Risk perception of nesting great blue herons: experimental evidence 

of habituation. Canadian Journal Zoology 88:81-89. 

Warner, S. H. 1987a. Patterns of brown bear and visitor use on Brooks River and 

recommendations for management. USDI National Park Service, Katmai National 

Park and Preserve, Alaska. 51 pp. 

Warner, S. H. 1987b. Visitor impact on brown bears, Admiralty Island, Alaska. International 

Conference Bear Research and Management 7:377-382. 

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660

White, D. Jr., K. C. Kendall, and H. D. Picton. 1999. Potential energetic effects of mountain 

climbers on foraging grizzly bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1):147-151. Internet: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783951

White, E.M. and D.J. Stynes. 2010. Characterization of Resident and Non-resident Visitors to 

Alaska National Forests. Joint Venture Agreement between the USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University. August, 2010. 

Wittinger, T. 1999. Grizzly bear. Pages 7.20-7.28 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. 

Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee 

on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 175 

Glossary _______________________________ 

Alpine/subalpine habitat 

The region found on a mountain peak above tree growth, generally above 1,500 feet in 

elevation. 

Anadromous Fish 

Fish (such as salmon and steelhead) that spend part of their lives in fresh water and part 

of their lives in salt water. Anadromous fish ascend from the sea to spawn in freshwater 

streams. 

Beach Fringe 

The area, typically forested, that is inland from saltwater shorelines. 

Best Management Practices (BMP)

These are common-sense actions required by law to keep soil and other pollutants out of 

streams and lakes. BMPs are designed to protect water quality and to prevent new nonpoint source pollution. 

Cave

Legally defined under federal law as “any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or 

system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within 

a cliff or ledge and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not 

the entrance is naturally formed or human-made. Such term shall include any natural pit, 

sinkhole or other feature which is an extension of the surface,” (Federal Cave Resource 

Protection Act of 1988). Speleologists use “cave” to refer to all parts, regardless of size, 

of an underground system that links openings and chambers and that may connect the 

system to the surface. Included in the term caves are tree molds and lava tubes associated 

with lava flows, erosional caves, and those formed by dissolution of bedrock. 

Developed Recreation 

Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use of an area, such 

as campgrounds and picnic areas. Facilities in these areas might include roads, parking 

lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, and buildings (see Dispersed Recreation). 

Dispersed Recreation 

Recreation activities that are not confined to a specific place and are generally outside 

developed recreation sites. This includes activities such as scenic driving, hiking, 

backpacking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and recreation in 

primitive environments (see Developed Recreation). 

Dispersed Recreation Site 

An area exhibiting evidence of recreational use, either through day or overnight activity 

Encounter 

An individual or group met while on National Forest System (NFS) lands or freshwater 

lakes. An encounter may occur at a Forest Service cabin, on a trail, or along a shoreline, 

among other places. An encounter only occurs when both parties are on NFS lands. When 

groups or individuals meet employees doing administrative work (such as staffing a fish 

weir or monitoring a campsite), this is not and would not be counted as an encounter. 

Endangered Species 

Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species are identified by the Secretary of 

the Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 176 

Estuary 

An ecological system at a stream mouth, where fresh and saltwater mix, and where salt 

marshes and intertidal mudflats are present. The landward extent of an estuary is the limit 

of salt-intolerant vegetation, and the seaward extent is a stream’s delta at mean low water. 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

A set of rules and guidance that directs management activities and establishes the 

environmental quality, natural renewable and depletable resource requirements, 

conservation potential, and mitigation measures that apply to several land use 

designations. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

A computerized map database that is used to store and evaluate site-specific information. 

Habitat 

The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place that is occupied by an 

organism, population, or community of plants or animals. 

Hunt 

An authorization for one guided client on National Forest System lands for the purpose of 

hunting one or more species in one general geographic area. A hunt does not typically 

exceed 10 days in length and can be considerably less based on the species pursued. A 

hunt is an authorization for a land use activity which may or may not result in the harvest 

of an animal. 

Indicator 

An element of the social or ecological setting that changes in response to recreation 

activities and can be monitored to assess conditions in relationship to established 

standards. 

Karst 

A type of topography that develops in areas underlain by soluble rocks, primarily 

limestone. Dissolution of the subsurface layer results in areas of well-developed, surface 

drainage that are sinkholes, collapsed channels, or caves. 

Land Use Designation (LUD) 

A defined area of land, identified by the Forest Plan, to which specific management 

direction is applied. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Vertebrate or invertebrate wildlife species whose response to land management activities 

can be used to predict the likely response of other species with similar habitat 

requirements. The National Forest Management Act regulations prescribe the use of 

management indicator species. 

Muskeg 

A bog, often dominated by sphagnum moss, tussocky sedges, and an open growth of 

scrubby trees, frequently with deep accumulations of organic material. Occurs in wet, 

poorly drained northern regions. 

Outfitter or guide 

Those who, generally for compensation, facilitate the use, enjoyment, understanding, and 

appreciation of national forest recreation settings where the need for service has been 

identified and is compatible with objectives and management direction. 

Outfitter and Guide Use Location 

A location used by an outfitter and guide three or more time in the past five years based 

on data from the Tongass Outfitter and Guide database. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 177 

Persons at One Time (PAOT) 

Used to measure how many people can use a recreation site at one time. 

Priority Special Use Permit 

Permits issued to an outfitter/guide who has demonstrated successful performance in 

conducting operations on National Forest System lands for two or more consecutive 

years. Priority use, if authorized by the Deciding Officer, guarantees the operator a 

certain level of use for up to a 10-year period (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 40). 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

A system for planning and managing resources that categorizes recreation opportunities 

into seven classes. Each class defines the degree to which certain recreation experience 

needs are met. Classes are based on the extent to which the natural environment has been 

modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the 

area, and the relative density of recreation use. 

Recreation Opportunity Zone 

Area where a prescribed blend of social, ecological, and managerial settings will be 

provided. The KMRD has been divided into four recreation opportunity zones, the 

Primitive Wilderness, Semi-Primitive Wilderness, Semi-Primitive Non-Wilderness, and 

Natural Accessible Recreation Opportunity Zones, which will provide a range of 

recreation experiences across the District. 

Recreation Site 

A specific site and/or facility occurring within a recreation place. Some examples of 

recreation sites are: recreation cabins, trailheads, picnic areas, and wildlife viewing 

blinds. 

Recreation Use Area 

The KMRD is divided into 28 study areas; area boundaries were determined based on 

primary method of access, visitor use patterns, Land Use Designations (LUDs) 

determined in the Forest Plan, Recreation Opportunity Zone, geography (e.g. watershed 

boundary), and agency and public comments received during the KMRD Recreation 

Planning Project. 

Service Day 

A day or any part of a day on National Forest System lands for which an outfitter or 

guide provides services to a client. One client on the National Forest for 15 minutes in 

one day is equivalent to one service day. One client on the National Forest for 24 hours in 

one day is also equivalent to one service day. 

Sensitive Species 

Animal and plant species identified by the Forest Service Regional Forester as potentially 

susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat alterations and, therefore, in need 

of special considerations during land management activity planning. 

Special Use Authorization 

A permit, term permit, temporary permit, lease, or easement that allows occupancy or use 

of, or rights and privileges on National Forest System lands. 

Special Use Permit 

Permits and granting of easements (excluding road permits and highway easements) 

authorizing the occupancy and use of land. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 178 

Standard 

Threshold that, if exceeded, would constitute and unacceptable impact to ecological 

conditions or visitor experiences. Provides a specific measure of acceptable conditions 

for each indicator in each recreation opportunity zone. 

Subsistence 

Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act defines subsistence 

use as, “the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable 

resources for direct, personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, 

or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible 

byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for 

barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.” 

Temporary Special Use Permit 

Permit issued for less than one year.

Threatened Species 

A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are 

identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and 

published in the Federal Register. 

Unguided Use 

In this analysis, refers to unguided use; use for which no special uses permit is necessary 

and for which no one receives financial remuneration or other gain for services provided 

on the national forest. 

Viable Population 

Fish or wildlife populations that have the estimated number and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to ensure their continued existence and that are well distributed 

in the national forest. 

Visitor Capacity 

The amount of use an area will accommodate given the desired natural conditions, visitor 

experiences, and management program. For this project, it is the estimated number of 

users, both guided and unguided, that can be accommodated in a given area without a 

loss in the quality of the recreation experience. 

Visitor Capacity Location 

Locations used to calculate visitor capacity and identified based on information about 

current recreation and outfitter and guide use patterns and impacts. 

Visitor Capacity Seasons 

Established to assist with outfitter and guide permit administration and based on 

information outfitter and guide use information provided in the Tongass Outfitter and 

Guide Database, visitor capacity seasons are defined as follows: spring (April 20th

through May 14th), summer (May 15th through September 30th), and fall (October 1st

through October 20th). 

Watershed 

That area that contributes water to a drainage or stream; portion of a forest in which all 

surface water drains to a common point. Can range from a few tens of acres that drain a 

single small intermittent stream to many thousands of acres for a stream that drains 

hundreds of connected intermittent and perennial streams. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 179 

Wetlands 

Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient, under 

normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires 

saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands 

generally include muskegs, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river overflows, mud flats, 

wet meadows, seeps, and springs. 

Wilderness 

Area designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped 

federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent 

improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas are protected and managed to 

preserve their natural conditions. In Alaska, the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 and 

ANILCA also have designated wilderness areas. 

Index __________________________________ 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G), 10, 18, 77, 86, 106, 112, 113, 

123, 125, 133, 135, 149, 150, 153, 162, 

163, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

162, 163 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), 86, 134, 

135, 137, 138, 159, 162, 178, 179 

alpine habitat, 106 

anadromous fish, 160, 175 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), 164 

bald eagle, 40, 71, 106, 111, 113, 115, 

127, 133, 173, 174 

beach fringe, 106, 141 

Best Management Practices (BMP), 63, 

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 175 

biological diversity, 168 

brown bear, 5, 66, 77, 106, 111, 112, 113, 

125, 126, 127, 135, 168, 169, 170, 172, 

173, 174 

cabin, 10, 17, 21, 27, 40, 71, 72, 75, 76, 

77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 88, 92, 96, 97, 

99, 100, 101, 134, 175, 177 

cave, 175 

chinook, 156 

Clean Water Act, 157 

coho, 86, 100, 135, 150, 156, 167 

commercial fishing, 62, 71, 133 

competition, 18, 29, 50, 108, 115, 126, 

134, 137, 138, 145, 148, 159 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), 10, 71, 73, 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

14 

cultural resources, 6, 102, 103, 104, 28, 

41, 61, 62, 70, 104, 106, 169, 173 

cumulative effects, 61, 62, 70, 104, 106, 

128, 132, 147, 155, 157, 169, 173 

deer, 20, 106, 135, 137 

desired condition, 11, 27, 154, 155 

developed recreation, 90, 175 

dispersed recreation, 78, 83, 85, 87, 88, 

90, 99, 100, 146 

diversity, 71, 106, 165 

Dolly Varden, 135, 150, 153, 156 

economics, 46, 65, 161 

encounter, 24, 27, 38, 40, 72, 73, 78, 79, 

81, 82, 83, 86, 92, 95, 96, 100, 102, 113, 

133, 134, 175 

endangered species, 139, 159, 178 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1, 

162 

erosion, 31, 40, 41, 103, 118, 146, 151, 

157, 158 

estuary, 106, 114, 127, 176 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act, 

175 

Federal Subsistence Board, 18, 20, 62, 

133, 137 

firewood, 31, 88, 131, 145, 146 

fish habitat, 153 

fishing, 5, 19, 23, 31, 66, 71, 76, 77, 86, 

89, 90, 92, 99, 101, 107, 108, 113, 114, 

117, 118, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 135, 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 180 

136, 137, 146, 150, 153, 156, 165, 171, 

175 

food resources, 129 

forest habitat, 105, 116 

Forest Plan, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 39, 40, 49, 61, 63, 65, 

72, 75, 78, 81, 83, 187, 88, 92, 95, 100, 

105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 120, 121, 123, 

124, 128, 130, 133, 134, 136, 141, 150, 

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 173, 176, 

177 

fragmentation, 118 

Game Management Unit (GMU), 106, 

111, 112, 113, 136 

geology, 149, 157 

goshawk, 108, 110, 119, 121 

goshawk, 40 

habitat capability, 137 

helicopter, 124, 169 

heritage resource, 41, 101, 104 

hot springs, 92, 95, 97 

humpback whale, 108, 109, 119, 120, 171 

hunting, 5, 7, 18, 23, 31, 66, 71, 77, 90, 

92, 96, 99, 102, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 

117, 123, 125, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 

146 

Hyder, 1, 12, 22, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 

62, 70, 87, 88, 99, 100, 113, 125, 163, 164, 

175, 176 

hydrology, 41, 147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 

155, 

intertidal, 160, 176 

karst, 157, 158, 161, 176 

Ketchikan 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 

15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 

35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 61, 70, 74, 

86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 

98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 110, 114, 116, 

119, 125, 134,135, 148, 150, 156, 157, 

159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 170, 172, 

173, 174 

Land Use Designation (LUD), 7, 29, 121, 

128, 176, 177 

lifestyle, 88 

long-term productivity, 62, 63 

Loring, 1, 88 

Management Indicator Species (MIS), 61, 

105, 111, 123, 150, 176 

marine environment, 87, 106, 108, 120 

marine mammal, 133, 167 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 116, 120 

marten, 106 

mass wasting, 158 

Metlakatla, 1, 12, 13, 88, 162, 163, 164 

Meyers Chuck, 1, 88, 163 

minerals, 145, 166 

mining, 20, 62, 70, 99, 101, 155, 158, 163 

mitigation measure, 9, 10, 17, 18, 32, 39, 

40, 41, 47, 63, 81, 96, 97, 98, 103, 104, 

116, 160, 176 

monitoring, 8, 10, 24, 27, 28, 31, 37, 39, 

40, 41, 63, 64, 72, 73, 78, 79, 81, 85, 86, 

87, 92, 94, 96, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 

132, 133, 134, 155, 158, 161, 171 

muskeg, 165, 176 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 

24, 31, 38, 39, 61, 62, 65, 67, 70, 123, 128, 

132, 133, 136, 148, 152, 159, 164 

National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), 63 176 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), 12, 101, 159 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), 48, 101, 103, 104, 159 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), 102, 104, 159 

Notice of Intent (NOI), 11, 12 

old-growth habitat, 121 

old-growth, 105, 106, 110, 111, 113, 121, 

142, 145 

outfitters and guides, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 45, 

46, 47, 49, 50, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 

74, 75, 80, 82, 85, 86, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 

97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 116, 121, 

123, 136, 137, 146, 147, 148, 151, 153, 

154 

past timber harvest, 155, 157, 158 

peregrine falcon, 131 

preferred alternative, 41 

project record, 1, 12, 20, 38, 61, 62, 159 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 181 

proposed action, 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 

23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 111, 119, 121, 156 

public involvement, 10, 11, 14, 61 

purpose and need, 1, 8, 9,87 

Record of Decision (ROD), 105, 131 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), 

18, 24, 27, 72, 81, 87, 95, 100, 177 

recreation site, 82, 87, 88, 141, 142, 144, 

148, 159, 177 

renewable resource, 63, 178 

resident fish, 156 

riparian area, 112, 113, 115, 151, 152, 

153, 154, 166 

riparian, 106, 111, 112, 113, 115, 151, 

152, 153, 154, 166, 169, 170 

roads, 22, 31, 50, 61, 72, 87, 88, 91, 99, 

101, 106, 168, 175 

salmon, 100, 109, 112, 115, 124, 125, 126, 

127, 135, 137, 138, 150, 153, 155, 156, 

160, 165, 167, 168, 170, 175 

Saxman, 1, 12, 13, 87, 88, 101, 162, 163 

scoping, 8, 12, 14, 15, 28, 133 

sediment, 148, 152, 157 

selection, 62, 111, 119, 168, 173 

sensitive species, 105, 139, 141, 147 

significant restriction, 50, 138, 159 

Sitka, 106, 111, 162, 165 

social values, 92 

sockeye salmon, 135, 150, 156 

soil, 40, 41, 88, 103, 118, 143, 145, 146, 

147, 157, 161, 168, 171, 175, 179 

Special Interest Area, 121, 128 

special use permit, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 27, 30, 

31, 33, 39, 40, 67, 89, 94, 101, 137 

standards and guidelines, 6, 17, 19, 24, 39, 

72, 100, 105, 116, 120, 121, 124, 134, 152, 

157 

Steller sea lion, 108, 109, 119, 120 

stream habitat, 149 

subsistence, 1, 6, 12, 15, 22, 28, 29, 49, 

50, 65, 70, 86, 88, 92, 99, 101, 105, 112, 

133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 159, 161, 

165, 178 

timber harvest, 87, 101 

timber management, 99 

timber sales, 62, 70, 139, 158 

Tlingit, 102, 164 

Tongass Land and Resource Management 

Plan (see Forest Plan), 173, 174 

Tongass National Forest, 1, 12, 16, 18, 22, 

72, 105, 108, 135, 139, 141, 142, 148, 156, 

162, 164, 166, 172, 173, 174 

tourism, 88, 89, 101, 112, 120, 169 

trails,10, 20, 22, 30, 31, 50, 71, 77, 78, 80, 

81, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 96, 97, 100, 101, 

106, 113, 118, 132, 136, 138, 147, 152, 

157, 158, 165 

transportation, 27, 100, 135, 178 

tribal government, 160 

trout, 135, 137, 150, 153, 156, 165, 167, 

169 

turbidity, 145 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

109, 113, 114, 117, 128, 139, 162, 164, 

168, 173, 174 

unguided, 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 

23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 46, 47, 64, 71, 

72, 74, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 

93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 107, 120, 

132, 133, 136, 143, 148, 151, 153, 154, 

178 

vegetation, 31, 40, 88, 112, 118, 131, 138, 

144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 

154, 157, 158, 168, 171, 176 

viable population, 105 

visitor capacity, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 23, 24, 

28, 29, 31, 35, 49, 83, 97, 123, 125, 128, 

130, 132, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 178 

water quality, 17, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 

154, 175 

waterfowl, 66, 106, 114, 128, 129, 133, 

135, 168 

wetlands, 72, 114, 138, 155, 157, 158, 

161, 179 

whales, 72, 108, 109, 119, 120, 133, 171 

wilderness, 1, 5, 8, 10, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 

27, 29, 30, 32, 38, 40, 47, 48, 49, 63, 65, 

70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 

84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 99, 107, 

124, 133, 141, 161, 165, 167, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 179 

wildlife habitat, 118, 169

winter habitat, 124
This page left blank intentionally.