United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Tongass 

National Forest 

R10-MB-737b 

January 2012 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Tongass National Forest 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

Ketchikan, Alaska 

  
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EIS - Key Acronyms and 

Other Terms 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Plan LUD Land Use Designation 

ADF&G 

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game NAGPRA 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

AIRFA 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act NEPA 

National Environmental Policy 

Act 

ANCSA 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act NFS National Forest System 

ANILCA 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act NHPA 

National Historic Preservation 

Act 

BMP Best Management Practices NMFS 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NOAA 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act RSNT Remote Setting Nature Tours 

DN Decision Notice SD Service Day 

EA Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation 

Officer 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 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 

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


Final 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 

 Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

 3031 Tongass Ave. 

 Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Responsible Official: Jeffrey DeFreest, District Ranger 

 Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

For Further Information Susan Jennings, Team Leader, Petersburg Office 

Contact: P.O. Box 309 

 Petersburg, AK 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 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are designed to implement direction contained in 

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

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, 

to analyze how to allocate (or distribute) 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 visitors, in this FEIS, are those people visiting the Tongass who 

use the services of an outfitter or a guide; as used throughout this FEIS, guided use also 

includes use of an outfitter. Unguided visitors accessing the Tongass through a transporter 

(essentially, point to point charter transportation by boat, plane, or other vehicle-see Chapter 

4 for definitions) would be unaffected by this plan. 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). 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. While the communities of 

Ketchikan, Hyder, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Saxman, and Loring fall within the KMRD 

boundary, the project area excludes state and privately owned land, including all areas below 

mean high tide. Figure 1-2 displays the project area. 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 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS). 

Purpose and Need for Action __________________ 

Need 

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

appropriate (Appendix A of the DEIS), the Forest Service may issue Special Use 

Authorizations (SUAs) to individual(s) or organization(s) to provide the services (USDA 

 

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 

2008b, p. 4-46). This project proposal also responds to Forest Service Manual and Handbook 

direction (FSM 2720 and FSH 2709.14), 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 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 the DEIS, 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary – Page iii

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 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. 

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 of the FEIS and Appendix B of the DEIS. 

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. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page iv 

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. 

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 of the DEIS. 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 the DEIS, the 

Ketchikan-Misty 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 the FEIS. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary – Page v

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

fall (Table 2-2). Under Alternative A use would not be issued by season. The highest actual 

use, by recreation use area, could be issued at any time spring, summer or fall. 

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

in Table 2-2; new environmental analysis 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 

allocated to outfitters and guides. Alternative A recognizes that changes in permits (through 

new environmental analysis) could increase or decrease the use. 

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

outfitter and guide use on a case by case basis. New permit requests 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 environmental analysis. 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. Alternative A does not meet current Forest 

Service Handbook direction for outfitter and guide management (FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, 

Section 53). 

Existing permit stipulations would continue to be implemented. Forest Plan ROS standards 

and guidelines would apply; the four recreation zones and associated social indicators and 

standards proposed in the action alternatives would not be implemented. New design 

criteria, mitigation measures, and stipulations brought forward in Appendix B of the DEIS 

would not apply in this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Using the LAC process, KMRD developed the Proposed Action (Alternative B – see 

Proposed Action above). 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 Chapter 2). 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. 

Alternative C 

Using the estimated visitor capacity, this alternative allocates half of the total visitor capacity 

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 Chapter 2). 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 Chapter 2). 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page vi 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management would be implemented in all the action alternatives: 

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

meet desired outcomes while staying within established criteria. 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 the FEIS for details. 

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 1,599 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 8,315 15,288 8,431 10,202 7,644 9,841 

24 Ketchikan Core NA 2,189 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 2,574 4,805 2,322 3,206 2,403 2,670 

28 Naha Bay 0 2,839 14 0 1,420 0 

Total 27,768 147,983 24,245 53,997 74,005 34,904 
Final 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 A

E

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 Use Areas (Recreation Use Areas identified by outfitters and guides as desired locations) 

Service days available to outfitters and guides will remain the same as highest use, 24,245 SD/yr. When an outfitter or guide applies for a special use permit the appropriate level of environmental analysis must be completed to evaluate the proposed use and its effect upon the land and resources. The time this takes is dependent on the proposed use and availability of resource specialists, which may mean missed opportunities for business growth. There is no room for outfitters and guides to expand their businesses above their currently authorized amount without new environmental analysis. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, current highest use is 12,372 SDs in the summer season including 9,258 SDs in 06 Misty Core Lakes. Alternative A does not meet current Forest Service Handbook direction for outfitter and guide management (FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53). 

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase to 53,997 SDs annually (all seasons for the entire district). The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 29,752 SDs, a 123 percent increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative B allocates 13,974 SDs in the summer season–an overall increase. In 06 Misty Core Lakes, there would be a decrease to 7,318 SDs per summer. 

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase with this alternative to 74,005 SDs annually (all seasons for the entire district) . The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 49,760 SDs, a 205 percent increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative C allocates 10,510 SDs in the summer season. 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 SDs per summer. 

SouwSenavu44 AcoASinredeMbe su
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page viii 

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

E

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 Use Areas). 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 

13,260 SDs* 26,472 SDs 30,631 SDs 
Final Environmental Im

Summary – Page ix

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

E

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

Crowding and conflict are likely under Alternative A because design criteria including new standards for social encounter rates and adaptive management (for Alternatives B, C, and D) would not be implemented New environmental analyses for increased use requests would consider the Forest Plan ROS guidelines which allow for five- to ten-fold increases in the number of social encounters per day in most Recreation Use Areas. 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 is most likely to result in negative indirect social effects in those areas identified as high local concern to unguided users.

Moderate impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences in some areas identified as highly-valued local areas could occur because of increased allocations in these areas (a 99% increase over the highest summer use from 2005-2009). 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 is most likely to affect unguided visitors’ experiences because it allows for the most guided use (a 131% increase over the highest summer use). 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. 

AliimexhibeovalimanApotrto crflwlapaW
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page x 

Issue 3: Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas (the Duke Island area) may affect historic pro

traditional cultural properties. 

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 Effect on historic properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. However, the potential for commercial use of the “Duke Island area” may affect cultural and traditional uses of one of its two use area and has the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the Duke Island area. 

No Effect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of one of its 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 Effect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of both 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
Final Environmental Im

Summary – Page xi

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 

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. Opportunities for solitude on the saltwater bays adjacent to the 07 Walker Chickamin and 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas is expected to remain similar to existing conditions. 

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 

Lakes Use Areas, by displacing 

floatplane traffic to these areas. 

Cumulatively, floatplane traffic 

could also be displaced to the 

saltwater areas adjacent to the 07 

Walker Chickamin and 10 

Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas, 

reducing the opportunity for 

solitude in those 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. Adjacent saltwater areas could see a minor effect to opportunities for solitude from floatplane traffic displaced from the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area. 

f

A

t

a

th

o

R
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page xii 

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 relative risk to wildlife, because design elements and adaptive management do not apply to this alternative and because low initial use does not limit future allocations. New environmental analysis could consider use up to visitor capacity. 

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

Pocouovgerilode

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 overall abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource at the Community Use, WAA, or GMU level, 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 overall abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource at the Community Use, WAA, or GMU level, 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 overall abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource at the Community Use, WAA, or GMU level, 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. 

Tsisisusuwor reWchfoEfowthdoel
Final Environmental Im

Summary – Page xiii

Effect to cultural and traditional uses 

The potential for commercial use 

of the Duke Island area may affect cultural and traditional uses of one of its two use areas. 

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 of one of its two use areas. 

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 of both of its two use areas. 

Apoancu

* In Alternative A, no use will be allocated to outfitters and guides. Highest use numbers are shown here for comparison. ** 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. Alternative 1 is described as actual use, nactual use is shown and considered for comparison’s sake. (Source: Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guided Recreation project Chapter 3 and Resource Reports) 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Summary – Page xiv 

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 ................................................................................................................. 8

Need .............................................................................................................................8

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

Summary of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 9

Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................. 10

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

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

NEPA Public Involvement .........................................................................................12

Issues ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Significant Issues .......................................................................................................16

Other Issues and Concerns .........................................................................................17

Other Agency Permits, Licenses, and Certifications ......................................................................... 21

Planning Record .................................................................................................................................... 22

Other Related Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 2, Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ............ 25

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .................................................... 25

Alternative Development Process ....................................................................................................... 26

No Action (Alternative A) .........................................................................................30

Proposed Action (Alternative B) ...............................................................................30

Alternative C ..............................................................................................................31

Alternative D ..............................................................................................................32

Alternative Descriptions ....................................................................................................................... 32

Elements and Assumptions Common to All Alternatives .........................................32

Alternative A (No Action) .........................................................................................33

Alternative B (Proposed Action) ...............................................................................36

Alternative C ..............................................................................................................38

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ..........................................................40

Project Design and Mitigation Measure ............................................................................................. 43

Project Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 43

Identification of the Preferred Alternative .......................................................................................... 46

Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 46
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Table of Contents – Page ii 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences ................................................................................ 67

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 67

Analyzing Effects .................................................................................................................................. 67

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...................................................................68

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ............................................................68

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ....................................................................................69

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................69

Adaptive Management and Effects ............................................................................70

Analysis of the Alternatives by Issue.........................................................................71

Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................................................... 71

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

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................72

Wilderness .............................................................................................................................................. 77

Affected Environment ................................................................................................78

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................87

Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 92

Affected Environment ................................................................................................94

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................101

Heritage ................................................................................................................................................ 110

Affected Environment ..............................................................................................110

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................112

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................. 114

Affected Environment ..............................................................................................115

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................125

Subsistence Uses ................................................................................................................................. 143

Affected Environment ..............................................................................................143

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................145

Botany .................................................................................................................................................. 148

Affected Environment ..............................................................................................148

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................154

Hydrology and Fisheries ..................................................................................................................... 159

Affected Environment ..............................................................................................159

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................161

Essential Fish Habitat ..............................................................................................167

Soils, Wetlands, Geology, and Karst ................................................................................................. 168

Affected Environment ..............................................................................................168

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................169

Other Required Disclosures ............................................................................................................... 170
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents – Page iii 

Chapter 4, lists .............................................................................. 173

List of Preparers and Contributors ..................................................................................................... 173

Distribution of the EIS ........................................................................................................................ 174

References Cited .................................................................................................................................. 178

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 186

Index ..................................................................................................................................................... 191
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Table of Contents – Page iv

This page left blank intentionally 
Chapter 1

Purpose and Need
Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 

 Minor corrections, additions, or revisions were made to correct spelling or clarify 

meaning and to respond to public comments and questions. 

 Maps were revised or color was added to make differences between areas easier 

to distinguish. 

 References were corrected to match the most recent Forest Service Handbook 

direction. 

 A short summary of current guided uses was added to the Background section. 

 Information was added to the public involvement section including information 

on subsistence hearings, publication of the FEIS, and public comments. We 

added an appendix (Appendix A) to the FEIS to show the comments we received 

on the DEIS and our responses to those comments. 

 The section on outfitter and guide use of cabins was revised to reflect the 

possibility that a decision on this project could modify which cabins can be used 

by outfitters or guides. 
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 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations, 

to analyze how to allocate (or distribute) 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 visitors, in this FEIS, are those people visiting the Tongass who 

use the services of an outfitter or a guide; as used throughout this FEIS, guided use also 

includes use of an outfitter. Unguided visitors accessing the Tongass through a transporter 

(essentially, point to point charter transportation by boat, plane, or other vehicle-see Chapter 

4 for definitions) would be unaffected by this plan. 

This FEIS 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: This 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 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 FEIS. 

Additional documentation, including detailed resource-specific descriptions of the project 

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

at the KMRD 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). KMRD encompasses over 3.2 million acres of temperate rainforest, mountain peaks, 
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
Final 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 5 

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

these acres are in Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. While the communities of 

Ketchikan, Hyder, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Saxman, and Loring fall within the KMRD 

boundary, the project area excludes state and privately owned land, including all areas below 

mean high tide. Figure 1-2 displays the project area. For the purpose of this project, KMRD

is divided into 28 recreation use areas1

Background ________________________________ 

(see Figure 1-2 and Table 2-1 in Chapter 2). Maps of 

each recreation use area are in Appendix B of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS). 

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 2709.14 50.53f, USDA 2007). 

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

DEIS, 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). Another revision occurred in 2011 (Forest Service Handbook 

2709.14 Chapter 50, Section 53). The handbook provides direction that clarified policy on 

 

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 

issuing and administering temporary and priority use permits. The 2008 and 2011 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 

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 development of the Proposed Action (summarized below and described 

fully in Chapter 2 of this FEIS). 

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 the DEIS). 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 guidelinesFor a detailed explanation of how the visitor capacity was generated, 

see the Visitor Capacity Analysis in Appendix C of the DEIS. 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 case-by-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

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

they do now. No known subsistence occurs via outfitters and guides. 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 (see Chapter 3). 

”. 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. 

 

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).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 7 

The actions proposed in this FEIS respond to the goals and objectives outlined in the Tongass 

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, p. 2-13

“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). 

). 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 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:

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 

2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53.1k).

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 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53.1m). 

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 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53.1n). This 

approach to reviewing use allocations takes into account market fluctuations, availability of 

state hunting licenses, and natural phenomena.

Current guided uses across KMRD are as follows:

• Just over half of the guided use on KMRD is nature tours, including hiking, 

photography, sightseeing, and kayaking or camping tours. 

• Floatplane (flightseeing) landing tours are about one-third of the total guided use on 

KMRD. 

• Nearly ten percent of the guided use is wildlife viewing (primarily at the Margaret bear 

viewing area). 

• Less than five percent of the use is guided fishing; and 

• Less than one percent of the guided use on the district includes hunting for mountain 

goat, black bear, and brown bear. 

 

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.
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 8 

This NEPA process does not designate which permitted activities will take place or designate 

who will get outfitter and guide permits. Thus, the proportion of various types of guided uses 

may change. More information on current uses is presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of 

the DEIS.

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. 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 of the DEIS), the Forest Service may issue Special Use 

Authorizations (SUAs) to individual(s) or organization(s) to provide the services (USDA 

2008b, p. 4-46). This project proposal also responds to Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook direction (FSM 2720 and FSH 2709.14), 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. Multiyear 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,
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 9 

• 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 the DEIS, 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 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 percent of the visitor capacity) 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 of the FEIS and Appendix B of the DEIS. 

For qualified applicants, the District Ranger may issue priority use or 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 10

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;

• 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 what standards will be used for monitoring and 

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

Mitigation measures will be incorporated into permits and/or operating plans, 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). 

 in this document. 

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

are beyond the scope of this analysis.

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, called a prospectus. 

 

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

structure or facility.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 11

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 

processPrior 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 reaching the final stages of the NEPA process. The NEPA process includes 

analysis of alternatives in a draft and final environmental impact statement and distribution 

of a record of decision (ROD). The difference between the LAC and NEPA 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 the DEIS. 

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.

. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 12

The goals for the process were met (see Appendix E of the DEIS). 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 FEIS),

• recommended the indicators and standards that will be used to understand and monitor 

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

• 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 FEIS was developed through the LAC process. The other 

alternatives were developed based on issues raised at the LAC or 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 

an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register, September 27, 2010 (Vol. 75, 

No. 186, pp. 59206-59208). 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. 

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. 

Availability of the DEIS was announced through a Notice of Availability on July 8, 2011 in 

the Federal Register (Vol. 76, No. 131, p. 40354) and through a legal notice published July 

14, 2011 in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record for this project. The Notice 

of Availability started a 45-day comment period that began July 8, 2011. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 13

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

Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement: In June, 2011, over 270 EIS 

documents or letters providing an internet location for the DEIS were mailed to federal and 

state agencies, Alaska Native and municipal offices, libraries, and others who had requested 

them or who expressed interest during this NEPA (and pre-NEPA) process. Comments were 

received from six different individuals representing themselves, state, or federal agencies 

(see Public Comments on the DEIS, below, and Appendix A of this FEIS for responses to 

comments). 

. 

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). 

Subsistence Hearings: Following publication of the Draft EIS, two subsistence hearings 

were held in Ketchikan, one on August 12, 2011, and the other on August 18, 2011. Five 

people attended the August 12th

Testimony consisted of expressions of concern about sockeye, sea cucumber, and sea otter 

subsistence regulations, as well as tribal/federal land ownership and management. No 

comments specific to this EIS, nor to outfitter and guide management on KMRD were 

brought forward. Though these concerns are outside the scope of this project, the hearing 

officer forwarded the hearing transcripts to the regulating agencies that address these 

concerns. 

 meeting and four of them gave oral testimony. Written 

comments were submitted by one of the attendees. On August 18, three people attended the 

meeting, but no oral testimony was provided. Written comments were submitted by one 

person. 

The hearing transcripts are available for review in the project record.

Local News Media: A news article about the Draft 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, 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 14

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

Corporation. 

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

Tribal Council Meeting to share information and discussed this project and the letter 

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 

this project. 

• 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 this project. 

• 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 this project. 

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

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

project; the October 2010 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. 

• Early June, 2011 - The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District provided an early 

version of the Draft EIS to the Ketchikan Indian Community, Metlakatla Indian 

Community, and Organized Village of Saxman. 

• Late June, 2011 - The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District mailed the Draft EIS to

the tribes, Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation. 

• October 3 and 4, 2011 - The Ketchikan Indian Community, Metlakatla Indian 

Community, and Organized Village of Saxman, were provided a list of active projects 

(including this one). Meetings with the Ketchikan Indian Community occurred on 

October 4, 2011. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 15

No comments on or responses to the Draft EIS for this project were received. 

The tribes and corporations will be sent a copy of this FEIS. 

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.

Publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statement: The Notice of Availability of 

this FEIS will be published in the Federal Register. A legal notice will be published in the 

Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record, which initiates a 45-day appeal period (36 

CFR 215), during which the project cannot be implemented. Copies of this FEIS and the 

ROD have been mailed to federal and state agencies, federally recognized tribal 

governments, municipal offices, and to those who requested them or responded to the DEIS 

as described in Chapter 4. 

Public Comments on the DEIS 

Analysis and Incorporation of Public Comments on the DEIS

Six agencies or individuals submitted comments on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and 

Guide Management Plan DEIS. All of the comments were received during the comment 

period. The IDT used these comments to further refine and develop this FEIS (please see the 

lists of Changes Made between Draft and Final EIS on the backs of the chapter divider 

pages). The comments and the Forest Service responses to these comments are displayed in 

Appendix A of this FEIS. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 16

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 FEIS 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). 

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)
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 17

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 of the DEIS), or their 

resolution is beyond the scope of this project. Where possible, suggestions about the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project were incorporated into 

the design of the Proposed Action and alternatives (see Chapter 2 of this FEIS). 

Additionally, some concerns and suggestions for the analysis were considered but eliminated 

from detailed analysis for the reasons discussed in Chapter 2 of this FEIS (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 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 18

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

service days to guided use. All of the action alternatives allocate more service days to 

guided uses 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 for implementation, when outfitters and guides request increased 

use, permit administrators will be able to respond more quickly because service days for 

the uses covered in this EIS will be available for permitting. If adaptive management is 

selected in the decision it will provide additional flexibility to manage the outfitter and 

guide program. However, the time it takes for the Forest Service to respond will still be 

affected if there are 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. 

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

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

• Issue 2 and the mitigation measures specified within the recreation use area cards address 

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, KMRD’s 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 tries to educate visitors about the types 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 19

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. Service days are distributed as a part of administering the outfitter and guide 

program. In cases where there is more interest than days available a decision may be 

made through a competitive application processes (i.e. 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 of the DEIS on the recreation use area cards. These areas 

are the same for all alternatives. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 20

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 

the DEIS). 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. 

Issue: Certain activities will be given preference over others in areas like 06 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 06 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 21

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. 

• While the original public meetings developed one alternative, the NEPA process is 

designed to give people a voice throughout the planning process. The NEPA Public 

Involvement section describes the ways that the Forest Service reached out to the public 

to get comments and suggestions on the previous and current planning processes

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 

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 big game guides are licensed by the state of Alaska through the Big 

Game Commercial Services Board (www.commerce.state.ak.us/occ/pgui8.htm), 

regardless of where they are operating;

• commercial sportfish guides must be licensed through the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game (http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=prolicenses.sportfishguides); 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 22 

primarily occurring on state tidelands and related incidental activities occurring on 

federal uplands. Regulation details can be found at 

http://commerce.alaska.gov/occ/pub/BGCSStatutes.pdf. 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pgui5.htm. 

Project Record ______________________________ 

The project record contains supporting material that documents the NEPA process and 

analysis from the beginning of the project to the publication of the FEIS. 

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. 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 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 23 

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: As part of a facilities master 

planning effort in 2006, the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District determined which 

public recreation cabins would allow guided use. At that time, guided use of cabins 

within Wilderness was reviewed but not authorized, pending a commercial use needs 

assessment. A needs assessment was completed in 2008 that showed a need for guided 

camping within the Wilderness. This allows KMRD to designate Wilderness cabins for 

outfitter and guide use. 

The following tables display the proposals from that 2006 planning effort. 

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 

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 

may modify the 2006 determinations.

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need – Page 24 

Margaret Creek Wildlife Site: In 2004 a prospectus was completed 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 a capacity of 200 

people-at-one-time based on the design of the bear viewing platform. KMRD allows no 

more than half of that people-at-one-time capacity for guided use. A decision on the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan would leave current 

management unchanged. 

Access and Travel Management Plan: A decision was made in 2008 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 authorized on their permit), 

but we are not changing the status on any roads and therefore not changing access 

opportunities for subsistence users, 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
Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 

 Minor corrections, additions, or revisions were made to correct spelling or clarify 

the meaning of sentences or paragraphs. 

 The introduction to the Alternative Development Process was revised to better 

explain the reasons for identifying proposed Recreation Opportunity Zones and 

monitoring indicators and standards, and how these are different than but still 

within the existing Forest Plan Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes. 

 Additional information was added to the Adaptive Management section to clarify 

and further explain how adaptive management would be implemented. 

 One mitigation measure was added to one use area to respond to a resource 

concern that currently exists. 

 Effects information in Table 2-8 (Comparison of Alternatives) was corrected to 

match analysis shown in Chapter 3. 

 Maps were revised and color was added to make differences between the areas 

and the allocations easier to distinguish. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 25 

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 responsible official. 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 percent of the recreation capacity to outfitters and guides in some or all areas.

This alternative was not considered in detail because this alternative does not follow agency 

policy or Forest Plan direction. A guided user allocation of 100 percent would leave no 

recreation capacity for the unguided public. 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. 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 percent 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 26 

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 the DEIS, the 

Ketchikan-Misty 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 of the DEIS), 

 four recreation opportunity zones (used to help identify the range of desired recreation 

conditions and opportunities that will be provided across the KMRD based on social 

conditions; 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 during the LAC process: 1) Primitive 

Wilderness, 2) Semi-Primitive 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, and four zone-related 

standards, were selected that Forest Service staff will continue to monitor as indications of 

the visitor experiences offered on KMRD in all of the action alternatives; these monitoring 

indicators and the standards within each of the four recreation management zones can be seen 

in Table 2-1. Appendix E of the DEIS provides an explanation of the public process used to 

establish monitoring 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. In the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area 

monitoring determined that lake landings already exceed the proposed standards. Forest Plan 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) standards and guidelines could allow for a five- to 

ten-fold increase in encounter levels in many of the recreation use areas. Key values 

expressed by the public during the LAC process included access to and ability to experience 

remote, wild, pristine places along with solitude and quiet; that same group identified 

crowding, noise, and congestion as threats to those values. Based on public input, 

professional judgment, knowledge of existing use patterns, and monitoring data, an increase 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 27 

Figure 2-1) Recreation Use Areas and Recreation Opportunity Zones 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 28 

Back of Figure 2-1
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 29 

to the magnitude that would be allowed under Forest Plan ROS standards may not maintain 

opportunities for solitude and may not provide the type of recreation experience expected by 

visitors coming to Southeast Alaska. 

The four proposed Recreation Opportunity Zones, desired conditions, and monitoring 

indicators and standards identified during the KMRD Recreation Planning Process 

(Appendix E of the DEIS) would be adopted under all action alternatives. Use of these 

proposed zones, conditions, and standards is in compliance with the ROS for the coinciding 

land use designations within the Forest Plan because the proposed standards for monitoring 

 

1 An encounter is defined for this analysis and planning process 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 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 percent of 

the time. 

No more than two 

encounters per day 

during trip 90 percent 

of the time. 

No more than two 

encounters per day 80 

percent of the time. 

No more than eight 

encounters per day 80 

percent of the time. 

Number of 

guided 

floatplane 

landings per day 

per lake2

No more than one 

guided floatplane 

landing per day 

per lake 90 

percent of the 

time. 

No more than two 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 90 percent of the 

time on lakes with 

public recreation cabins 

OR 

No more than five 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 90 percent of the 

time on lakes without 

public recreation 

cabins. 

No more than two 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 80 percent of the 

time on lakes with 

public recreation cabins 

OR 

No more than five 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 80 percent of the 

time on lakes without 

public recreation 

cabins. 

No more than eight 

guided floatplane 

landings per day per 

lake 80 percent 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 30 

and adjustment are more limiting than the guidelines set by ROS for the number of social 

encounters per day; other guidelines in Appendix I of the Forest Plan for determining ROS 

class will not change. The proposed standards are for monitoring desired social outcomes 

identified during the LAC process and are for this EIS only. They will not be used to change 

the Forest Plan. ROS classes will still be used to describe recreation opportunities and to 

analyze effects of future projects. Proposed outfitter and guide operations and activities are 

appropriate for the specific Forest Plan ROS settings described for each LUD as required by 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines (page 4-46). 

A key concern of the public was maintaining opportunities for a remote and quiet experience 

and they were concerned about the potential for crowding. The more restrictive nature of the 

proposed number of social encounters per day 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 could allow 

for considerable degradation of opportunities for solitude on both the wilderness and nonwilderness portions of KMRD, with potential for a five- to ten-fold increase in the number of 

social encounters allowed. In the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area monitoring determined that 

conditions already exceed Forest Plan Standards for the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS 

Class; all action alternatives would reduce degradation in this area. 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). Current monitoring indicators and standards for ROS Zones 

in the Forest Plan would be used rather than those described in Table 2-1. 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 the DEIS, Forest Service staff 

worked with the participants to develop a Proposed Action that considered guided and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 31 

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 

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 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 32 

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 minimize effects to wilderness 

character qualities, 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 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 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. 

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 

percent of the recreation use area’s capacity to 

outfitters and guides. In 23 Betton Island, the 75 

percent allocation is based on historical use, demand 

for sightseeing tours in the area, and allowing 

business growth opportunities close to town. In use 

area 27 Margaret Bay, the 65 percent 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 of the DEIS. 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 

Figure 2-2 Fishing Manzoni Lake
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 33 

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 of the DEIS) could be authorized 

as a result of this decision (see “Background” in Chapter 1 of this EIS for the list of 

permitted activities). 

 Ground disturbance would not be authorized under special use permits issued as a result 

of a decision on this analysis. Ground-disturbance assumed to occur with outfitting and 

guiding activities would be limited to 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 34 

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). Under Alternative A use would not be issued by season. The highest actual 

use, by recreation use area, could be issued at any time spring, summer or fall. 

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

in Table 2-2; new environmental analysis 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 

allocated to outfitters and guides. Alternative A recognizes that changes in permits (through 

new environmental analysis) could increase or decrease the use. 

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

outfitter and guide use on a case by case basis. New permit requests 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 environmental analysis. 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. Alternative A does not meet current Forest 

Service Handbook direction for outfitter and guide management (FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, 

Section 53). 

Existing permit stipulations would continue to be implemented. Forest Plan ROS standards 

and guidelines would apply; the four recreation zones and associated social indicators and 

standards proposed in the action alternatives would not be implemented. New design 

criteria, mitigation measures, and stipulations brought forward in Appendix B of the DEIS 

would not apply in this alternative. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 35 

Recreation Use 

Area 

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 Island1 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 

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 

Table 2- 2) Visitor Capacity, Average Annual Guided Use, and Highest Guided 

Annual Use (Alternative A) in Service Days (SD) 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 36 

Recreation Use 

Area 

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) 

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. Alternative 1 is described as actual use, not permitted use. Thus actual use is shown and considered for 

comparison’s sake. 

* 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) 

Using the LAC process, KMRD developed the Proposed Action (Alternative B) 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 37 

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) 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 38 

Alternative C 

Using the estimated visitor capacity, this alternative allocates half of the total visitor capacity 

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 percent of Visitor Capacity 

Estimate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 39 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 40 

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 of the DEIS 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 

A Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) study found that because conditions can change 

over the life of a project, whether as a result of nature or human action, it is beneficial to 

account for these changes mid-course to maintain desired outcomes (CEQ 1997, p. 32). 

Adaptive management recognizes the limits of knowledge and experience and allows for 

project management to be re-evaluated as new information becomes available and the 

development of criteria to define when such actions may be needed. In other words, adaptive 

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

desired outcomes while staying within established criteria. 

Under the action alternatives, 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. These 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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 41 

 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 

of the DEIS). 

Under the action alternatives, the District Ranger may also use adaptive management to 

consider increasing guided use allocations for a recreation use area if certain criteria are met. 

If there is competitive interest in a limited number of service days, the Forest Service may 

issue a prospectus to determine the most qualified applicants to provide services for the 

allowable allocation amounts. In other words, if demand for service days exceeds the 

allocation amount available (supply), a competitive process may be necessary to determine 

which guides will be authorized for that recreation use area. Other administrative actions may 

occur prior to or in addition to a prospectus; see “potential administrative steps” above for 

examples. 

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 for new environmental analysis and a new decision. 

Allocation Upper Limit: Upper limits on allocation were established in this adaptive 

management strategy so that environmental effects could be determined and addressed. 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 on KMRD at or below 74,005 service days (the maximum total allocation allowed 

from analysis of Alternative C) and no individual recreation use area would go higher than 

the highest allocation analyzed for that use area in this EIS. In most recreation use areas this 

would limit the allocation to no more than 50 percent of the recreation capacity for guided 

uses. 06 Misty Core Lakes, 17 George Carroll Thorne, 23 Betton Island, 25 South Revilla 

NA, and 27 Margaret Bay use areas could be considered for up to a 75 percent guided 

allocation as long as the District total allocation did not exceed 74,005 service days. 

Timing of Adaptive Management Adjustments: The timing of adjustments is also important 

in this adaptive management strategy. Time is needed to monitor results and adjust the 

chosen actions. Monitoring results at guided use levels close to those chosen are needed to 

assure that environmental and social effects are as, or less than, expected. No increases to 

the guided use allocations selected in the Record of Decision will be made for a minimum of 

two years after implementation occurs. In addition, a recreation use area would need to be 

near the selected guided use allocation for a minimum of two years prior to considering an 

increase in that allocation. This will allow time to monitor the selected allocations before 

implementing adaptive management strategies. On the other hand, if negative effects of 

implementation are discovered they would be dealt with swiftly to minimize harmful 

environmental and social impacts. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 42 

Increase the Guided Use Allocation: Using the timing and upper limit parameters above, if a 

recreation use area is near the allocation set by the selected alternative in the Record of 

Decision and application is made for additional service days, the District Ranger may use 

adaptive management to grant the additional use. The guided use allocation set by the 

selected alternative for a recreation use area may be increased to accommodate additional 

guided use on a temporary, trial basis (at the discretion of the District Ranger after a review 

by KMRD resource specialists) if ALL of the following occur: 

1. Encounter rates do not exceed standards displayed in Table 2-1, 

2. Number of guided lake landings do not exceed standards 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 items 1 through 5 are met for two years after the temporary allocation increase, the 

Recreation Use Area’s guided use allocation may be increased to include the additional use 

on a priority use permit at the discretion of the District Ranger. The temporary increase in 

use could be authorized through issuance of either a temporary or two-year priority special 

use permit and would follow Forest Service direction for outfitter and guide permits in FSH 

2709.14, Chapter 50. 

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 a standard displayed in Table 2-1, 

2. Number of guided lake landings exceed a standard shown in Table 2-1, 

3. Substantial resource issue(s) is/are identified during the resource specialist 

monitoring, or 

4. Evaluation of the number/content of complaints indicates that a decrease in guided 

use allocation is needed to meet management objectives. 

At the discretion of the District Ranger, management actions such as education, voluntary 

outfitter and guide scheduling, other items in the potential administrative steps list (above 

under Adaptive Management), 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, after consultation with the affected resource specialists and 

within the criteria above. New environmental analysis would be needed for outfitter and 

guide use if the District Ranger desired to go outside of the parameters described here. 

 

 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 43 

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 the DEIS, Recreation Use Area Cards. These design elements and mitigation 

measures will be implemented through outfitter and guide permit conditions and 

administration of the permits. 

One element of the adaptive management appendix (Appendix D of the EIS) was removed 

from adaptive management and is now proposed as mitigation in Use Area 27 Margaret Bay 

for all action alternatives: 

 Outfitter and guide use would be limited to the Viewing Platform and upper bridge 

only (#8000000 or “80 Road” between dock and lake). Guided use would not be 

allowed on the lower road system (#8040000 road), including the lower bridge, to 

provide refuge for foraging bears. 

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 for outfitting and guiding will be monitored as described 

in Forest Service Handbook 2709.14, section 53.1r. 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 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 44 

4.Information provided by the yearly use reports will be compiled and available to all 

resource disciplines or other areas as requested. 

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 assess 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 Wilderness specialist report). 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 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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 45 

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 

determined to be a threat to natural, cultural, or recreational resources. 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 46 

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. 

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. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 47 

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 1,599 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 8,315 15,288 8,431 10,202 7,644 9,841 

24 Ketchikan Core NA 2,189 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 2,574 4,805 2,322 3,206 2,403 2,670 

28 Naha Bay 0 2,839 14 0 1,420 0 

Total 27,768 147,983 24,245 53,997 74,005 34,904 

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 48 

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 2,836 283 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) 
Final Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 49 

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 3,341 23,424 44,416 56,514 28,655 80 4,455 *In Alternative A, no use will be allocated to outfitters and guides. Highest use numbers are shown here for comparison. See description 

for the full description of this alternative.
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 50 

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 Use Areas (Recreation Use Areas identified by outfitters and guides as desired locations) 

Service days available to outfitters and guides will remain the same as highest use, 24,245 SD/yr. When an outfitter or guide applies for a special use permit the appropriate level of environmental analysis must be completed to evaluate the proposed use and its effect upon the land and resources. The time this takes is dependent on the proposed use and availability of resource specialists, which may mean missed opportunities for business growth. There is no room for outfitters and guides to expand their businesses above their currently authorized amount without new environmental analysis. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, current highest use is 12,372 SDs in the summer season including 9,258 SDs in 06 Misty Core Lakes. Alternative A does not meet current Forest Service Handbook direction for outfitter and guide management (FSH 2709.14, Chapter 50, Section 53). 

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase to 53,997 SDs annually (all seasons for the entire district). The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 29,752 SDs, a 123 percent increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative B allocates 13,974 SDs in the summer season–an overall increase. In 06 Misty Core Lakes, there would be a decrease to 7,318 SDs per summer.

Service days allocated to outfitters and guides increase with this alternative to 74,005 SDs annually (all seasons for the entire district) . The service days available for outfitter and guide use increases by 49,760 SDs, a 205 percent increase, over Alternative A. In areas of concern to outfitters and guides, Alternative C allocates 10,510 SDs in the summer season. 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 SDs per summer.

SouwSenavu44 AcoASinredeMbe su
Final Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 51 

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

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 Use Areas).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

13,260 SDs* 26,472 SDs 30,631 SDs 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 52 

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

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

Crowding and conflict are likely under Alternative A because design criteria including new standards for social encounter rates and adaptive management (for Alternatives B, C, and D) would not be implemented New environmental analyses for increased use requests would consider the Forest Plan ROS guidelines which allow for fiveto ten-fold increases in the number of social encounters per day in most Recreation Use Areas. 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 is most likely to result in negative indirect social effects in those areas identified as high local concern to unguided users.

Moderate impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences in some areas identified as highly-valued local areas could occur because of increased allocations in these areas (a 99% increase over the highest summer use from 2005-2009). 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 is most likely to affect unguided visitors’ experiences because it allows for the most guided use (a 131% increase over the highest summer use). 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. 

AliimexhibeovalimanApotrto crflwlapW
Final Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 53 

Issue 3: Allowing outfitter and guide use in 04 Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary use areas (the Duke Island area) may affect historic protraditional cultural properties.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 Effect on historic properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. However, the potential for commercial use of the “Duke Island area” may affect cultural and traditional uses of one of its two use area and has the potential to negatively affect the spiritual qualities or sacredness of the Duke Island area.

No Effect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of one of its 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 Effect on historic properties; an increase in the number of service days allocated to outfitters and guides would allow additional commercial use of both 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
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 54 

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 

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. Opportunities for solitude on the saltwater bays adjacent to the 07 Walker Chickamin and 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas is expected to remain similar to existing conditions.

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 

Lakes Use Areas, by displacing 

floatplane traffic to these areas. 

Cumulatively, floatplane traffic 

could also be displaced to the 

saltwater areas adjacent to the 07 

Walker Chickamin and 10 

Rudyerd Winstanley Use Areas, 

reducing the opportunity for 

solitude in those 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. Adjacent saltwater areas could see a minor effect to opportunities for solitude from floatplane traffic displaced from the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area. 

f

A

t

a

th

o

R
Final Environmental Im

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 55 

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 relative risk to wildlife, because design elements and adaptive management do not apply to this alternative and because low initial use does not limit future allocations. New environmental analysis could consider use up to visitor capacity .

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

Pocouovgerilode

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 overall abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource at the Community Use, WAA, or GMU level, 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 overall abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource at the Community Use, WAA, or GMU level, 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 overall abundance or distribution of any subsistence resource at the Community Use, WAA, or GMU level, 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. 

Tsisisusuwor reWchfoEfowthdoel
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 56 

Effect to cultural and traditional uses 

The potential for commercial use 

of the Duke Island area may affect cultural and traditional uses of one of its two use areas.

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 of one of its two use areas.

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 of both of its two use areas.

Apoancu

* In Alternative A, no use will be allocated to outfitters and guides. Highest use numbers are shown here for comparison. ** 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) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 57 

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 58 

Back of Fig. 2-3 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 59 

Figure 2-4 – Alternative B, Proposed Action, Summer Outfitter and Guide Allocations 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 60 

Back of Fig. 2-4 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 61 

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 62 

Back of fig. 2-5 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 63 

Figure 2-6 – Alternative D, Spring and Fall Outfitter and Guide Allocations 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 64 

Back of fig. 2-6 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 65 

Figure 2-7 – Alternative D, Summer Outfitter and Guide Allocations 

 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Chapter 2, Alternatives – Page 66 

Back of Fig. 2-7
Chapter 3 

Environment and Effects
Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 

 Minor corrections, additions, or revisions were made to correct spelling or clarify 

the meaning of sentences or paragraphs throughout the chapter. 

 In the Socioeconomics section, the effects of Alternative A were expanded and 

the percentage increase in outfitter and guide days available was adjusted to 

match the data. Additionally, an Environmental Justice/Civil Rights section was 

added at the end of the Socioeconomics section. 

 In the Wilderness section, minor corrections to some alternative comparisons 

were made to match the data presented in the DEIS. The Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) section was expanded to provide more information. The 

cumulative effects section was also revised (and data corrected) to make this 

section more clear. 

 In the Recreation section, information was added and analysis revised to respond 

to comments and make the effects clearer. Information on the Wild and Scenic 

River System was added. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) section 

was expanded to provide more information. Additionally, some numbers and 

totals in the analysis were corrected to match the data presented in the tables. 

 References were added to or updated in the Wildlife section. Additional 

information was added to the wildlife section to make it clearer. 

 The Subsistence Uses section was substantially revised. Additional information 

was added, minor mistakes were found and corrected, and information in the 

section was adjusted to make the section clearer and to respond to comments. 

 The Botany section was rearranged and a few sentences were adjusted to make 

this section clearer. Common names of rare plants were added to Table 3-15. 

 In the Hydrology and Fisheries section, we added information and analysis 

related to Pacific herring (a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered) and 

threatened or endangered migratory salmon and steelhead stocks. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 67 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c); 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 68 

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, 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 69 

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 70 

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 peer 

reviewed studies in Southeast Alaska are available to equate recreational use levels to 

levels of effects on resources. The permit administrators monitor guided use through 

annual reports and on-the-ground surveys during the highest use season, summer. 

However, this monitoring does not include all unguided use. 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, IDT members plan to use adaptive management 

to maintain or improve resource conditions. Thus, while guided use may increase, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 71 

negative and positive effects are not expected to go beyond what was analyzed in this 

EIS. 

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 (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... .’ (p. 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 72 

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 

 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 FEIS, 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. Alternative A would allow for the most 

growth over time because there is no limit on the number of service days that can be 

allocated under Alternative A. However, any new permit allocations would require an 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 73 

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. 

Table 3- 1) Number of Service Days Allocated to Outfitters and Guides during the 

Summer 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 

Alternative A does not meet Forest Service Handbook (FSH) direction to determine the 

allocation of use between guided and unguided visitors (FSH 2709.14 50.53f). 

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. For this analysis, 24,245 service days was used for comparison 

since this is the known use and would not require further NEPA or review. 

Outfitter and guide use in the areas of concern will remain the same until new NEPA is 

completed. 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. However, expansion would not be limited to a number of allocated service days 

as in the action alternatives. The Forest Service Handbook 2709.14 50.53n requires a 

review of permitted use every five years to compare the permit holder’s highest actual 

use from that five-year period to what is authorized; the permit may be adjusted to a 

maximum of 25 percent above the highest amount of actual use from the five-year review 

period, not to exceed the amount of use authorized by the permit. Under Alternative A, 

any increase above the authorized amount would require additional NEPA, which could 

make it difficult for outfitter and guides to respond quickly to changes in demand, 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 74 

weather, and market conditions. Thus, increased use is not guaranteed and not 

considered in the socioeconomic 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 than 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 

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 123 percent 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 75 

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 A. The service days available for outfitter and guide 

use increases by 49,760 service days, a 205 percent 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. 

(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 7,181 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 44 percent 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 76 

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 

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 Bill. With the 

exception of the Sealaska Selections Bill, none of the activities listed in the items to 

consider in cumulative effects was considered in the socioeconomics analysis. If a 

Selection Bill were signed into Law, the IDT would have to look at the areas affected and 

decide if the carrying capacity is still valid, use locations and allocations may change 

during this review. Since the content of the Sealaska Selections Bill is unknown, it is not 

possible to speculate on the affect. The other projects would not cumulatively affect 

socioeconomics. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 77 

Alternative D has the lowest number of service days allocated and the fewest summer 

service days in the areas of concern of any alternative. 

Environmental Justice/Civil Rights 

As shown through the EIS, there will be limited environmental effect and no high or 

adverse human health effects from implementing any alternative in this project. With 

limited or no effect on resources and human health, there is no risk of disproportionate 

effect on minority or low-income populations. 

Additionally, this project does not exclude, deny benefits, or subject people to 

discrimination. The IDT provided multiple and various opportunities to participate in this 

project and the development of the Proposed Action, DEIS, and FEIS. Additionally, 

permit administrators conduct the permitting process following the laws, regulations, and 

orders that make it illegal to discriminate against a person or people based on race, color, 

or national origin. Minority or low-income populations should not be disproportionately 

affected by 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 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 78 

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 President 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 

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 in the 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use 

Area. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 79 

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 (USDA 

Forest Service 2008c). 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 I) 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 and may be updated during project planning. Seven different 

indicators are used to determine the ROS class of an area, and are used to guide 

management activities to provide a range of recreation opportunities. The guidelines 

presented in Appendix I of the Forest Plan for each of the seven ROS classes include 

physical, social, and managerial indicators. ROS allocations are descriptive and will not 

change with implementation of any alternative or component of a decision on this EIS. 

During the LAC process (see Chapter 2 and Appendix E of the DEIS), participants were 

asked to provide input on measurable indicators related to key values. Key values 

expressed by the public included access to and ability to experience remote, wild, pristine 

places along with solitude and quiet; that same group identified crowding, noise, and 

congestion as threats to those values. Two indicators based on social conditions were 

chosen for monitoring: number of encounters per day and number of guided floatplane 

landings per day per lake. A simplified system of four recreation management zones was 

also established during the LAC process. Standards related to the four management zones 

and the chosen indicators were also proposed; these standards and management zones 

will be considered for adoption in all action alternatives in this EIS. 

The proposed standards set for monitoring and adjustment are more limiting than the 

guidelines set by ROS for the number of social encounters per day; other guidelines in 

Appendix I of the Forest Plan for determining ROS class will not change. See “Adaptive 

Management” in Chapter 2 for possible management actions should these proposed social 

standards be exceeded. These proposed standards are for monitoring desired social 

outcomes identified during the LAC process and are for this EIS only. They will not be 

used to change the Forest Plan. ROS classes will still be used to describe recreation 

opportunities and to analyze effects of future projects. Proposed outfitter and guide 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 80 

operations and activities are appropriate for the specific Forest Plan ROS settings 

described for each LUD as required by Forest Plan standards and guidelines (p. 4-46). 

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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 81 

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 

Area because 95 percent of the guided use is occurring in that use area and the use is 

flightseeing. Flightseeing 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c) 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 

Residents who traditionally use an area may be discouraged by the presence of guided 

groups in the same area (USDA Forest Service 2008c). Resident recreation demand is 

influenced by local population levels (USDA Forest Service 2008c). The population of 

the Ketchikan Gateway Borough decreased by 8 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 may 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 82 

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 

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 18 

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. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 83 

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 Y 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). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 84 

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. 

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 has 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, 24 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 85 

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 

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 1-2, 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 

(USDA Forest Service 2008c). 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 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 as well as the 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 86 

standards determined through the LAC process described in Chapter 2, 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 

Core Lakes Use Area, Nooya Lake and Big Goat Lake, exceeded Forest Plan Standards 

44 percent and 8 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 using a digital audio recorder, 

external batteries, and a small microphone. In 2008 and 2009, 120 days of continuous 

audio data were recorded at nine lakes in Misty Fiords. The goal of the program was 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. The information was used as one source of information during the LAC 

process. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 87 

tours on lakes are authorized by the Forest Service. Noise from these activities result in a 

decrease of opportunities for solitude. 

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, 18 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 88 

to facilitate use (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 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 

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 percent 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 89 

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 

effect (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 percent 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 B would allow for approximately 43 and 51 additional 

guided groups each year, respectively, in these Use Areas during the 139-day summer 

season (based on average guided group size in those areas, not including the guide). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 90 

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 Lakes 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. 

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 

(about 376 more guided groups) 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 91 

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). 

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 more than double the outfitter and guide use in 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 92 

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 3,150 guided service days would result in 

approximately 583 less landings per year in 06 Misty Core Lakes. In Alternative D, the 

reduction of 7,622 service days would result in approximately 1,411 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 

allows 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 Burroughs Unuk Use Area. Alternatives B 

and C would allow for 283 and 972 additional service days (respectively) for guided use 

in the 08 Burroughs Unuk Use Area. Alternative D would provide a minimal increase of 

87 service days per year in the Area. Alternatives A and D would minimize conflicts 

with private landowners and provide the most opportunity to experience solitude in this 

use area compared to Alternatives B and C; cumulative effects of guided use plus 

activities that might occur on the private property would be low. 

Motorized boat traffic is concentrated along the shorelines of the 03 South Misty, 07 

Walker Chickamin, 09 Alava Princess Ella Manzanita, and 10 Rudyerd Winstanley Use 

Areas. Saltwater activities are not under Forest Service jurisdiction, but those activities 

may affect the quality of the experience of those people recreating on NFS lands in the 

area. All action alternatives could result in an increase from current conditions in 

outfitter and guide use in areas where saltwater traffic is currently concentrated (about 

656 groups, 2,577 groups, and 384 groups per year in Alternatives B, C, and D 

respectively). In addition, the action alternatives also have less guided use than 

Alternative A allocated to the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area which could displace 

floatplane landings from the lakes to the saltwater. Alternative A, the No action 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 93 

alternative, would allow for less use in these four shoreline areas and would allow 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. Unguided visitors to these areas have commented that the 

floatplane traffic associated with saltwater landings has negatively impacted their 

experience because the area does not feel like a wilderness on a busy day. Alternative B 

allocates a total of 9,380 service days annually to outfitter and guide use in these four 

areas, compared to 9,819; 11,315; and 3,002 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 due to increased guided 

use in the shoreline Use Areas combined with reduced use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes. 

Alternative A would be the least likely to cause indirect impacts in saltwater areas and 

would maintain the existing condition. 

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 

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; 3,742; and 730 

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, except possibly the trail-accessible lakes in the 06 Misty Core Lakes 

Use Area (e.g. Punchbowl Lake and Nooya Lake Trail). Alternative A would allow for 

the highest amount of impact from outfitter and guide activities in 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 increased interest and demand for guided fishing opportunities in 

this Use Area. All action alternatives could result in an increased allocation to outfitter 

and guides in this Use Area. The Bakewell Lake Recolonization project is expected to be 

completed and the cabin reopened for public use in mid- to late summer 2012. 

ADF&G maintains two administrative facilities in Misty Fiords, one on 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 94 

alternatives could result in an increase in outfitter and guide use in these Use Areas but 

no alternative is expected to exceed the proposed encounter rates. 

The Red Alders and Beaver Camp public recreation cabins (both in the 06 Misty Core 

Lakes Use Area) 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 Manzanita Lake (Beaver Camp 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 

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 here to reduce redundancy. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 95 

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 6 

percent is allocated to the Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, and Rural ROS classes. 

Wild and Scenic River System 

Six river systems on KMRD were recommended by the Forest Plan for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. That recommendation is an administrative 

decision indicating those rivers are eligible for inclusion; Congressional action is 

necessary to designate a river. The following river systems on KMRD were 

recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System: Blue River 

(26 miles “Wild”), Chickamin River (94 miles “Wild,” 2 miles “Scenic”), Gokachin / 

Mirror / Low / Fish Creek system (30 miles “Wild”), Naha River (17 miles “Wild,” 2 

miles “Scenic”), Orchard Lake / Creek (10 miles “Wild,” 16 miles “Recreational”), and 

Wolverine Creek / McDonald Lake (6 miles “Wild”). One goal of the Forest Plan for 

these river segments is to maintain and protect the free-flowing character and 

outstandingly remarkable values associated with these rivers. 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 96 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c) and purposefully live 

in proximity to remote, undeveloped areas as a part of their lifestyle (USDA Forest 

Service 2008c). 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). Use patterns are also 

associated with protected boat anchorages, boat landings, and aircraft landing sites. 

Recreation use is also not distributed evenly in time. Most of the use by both residents 

and non-residents occurs when during what is referred to in this analysis as the summer 

season, May 15 – September 30. More of the National Forest System lands are 

accessible during these months and visitors usually enjoy less severe weather conditions 

with warmer temperatures. Weather is generally more cooperative for access to the forest 

by boat or plane during these months, including lighter winds, better visibility, and longer 

daylight hours. In addition, snow along the roads has usually melted and many of the 

trails have been cleared of downed trees from the winter, opening up more access points. 

The spring season is defined as April 20-May 14 and fall season runs from October 1 

through October 20. These dates were based on median start and end dates of outfitters 

and guides between 2004-2008 (Appendix C, Visitor Capacity Analysis). 

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. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 97 

Table 3- 6) KMRD Recreation Facilities 

Type of Facility Number 

 Anchor Buoys - Wilderness 9 

 Anchor Buoys - Nonwilderness 12 

Campground Developments 3 

 Number of Camp Sites in Campgrounds 44 

Interpretive Sites (Visitor Centers) 1 

Wildlife / Fish Viewing Sites 2 

 Public Recreation Cabins - Wilderness 11 

 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 (half-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 two-thirds 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 percent 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 98 

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 nature tours. Floatplane landing tours 

account for about one-third of the total guided use on the district and approximately 94 

percent of the use in Misty Fiords. Activities such as hiking, photography, sightseeing, 

kayaking, and camping compose just over half of the guided use on KMRD. Nearly 10 

percent of the guided use on KMRD is wildlife viewing (primarily at the Margaret bear 

viewing area). Less than 5 percent of the use is guided fishing and less than 1 percent 

includes hunting for mountain goat, black bear, and brown bear. 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. 

Just over half of the guided tours on KMRD are nature tours, including hiking, 

photography, sightseeing, and kayaking or camping tours. Flightseeing landing tours are 

also a large percentage of the guided tours (around one-third of the total). Nearly 10 

percent of the use is wildlife viewing (primarily at the Margaret bear viewing area). Less 

than 5 percent of the use is guided fishing and less than 1 percent of the guided use on the 

district includes hunting for mountain goat, black bear, and brown bear. 

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 percent of total guided fishing use), 12 Bell Island (18 percent of total 

guided fishing use), and 24 Ketchikan Core NA (20 percent 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 99 

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 responsible 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. 

 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 Carroll 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 100 

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 percent), 

remoteness/solitude (42 percent), wildlife viewing (31 percent), and availability of visitor 

facilities (23 percent). Visitors reported that the most negative part of their experience 

was the motorized boat and floatplane traffic (27 percent), lack of additional visitor 

facilities (15 percent), lack of information available about the area (12 percent), and 

campsite/cabin condition (12 percent). 

Popular and High-Valued Local Areas 

While there is a general consensus that outdoor recreation opportunities and activities are 

highly important to residents, there is limited data that accurately quantifies unguided use 

(FP FEIS, 3-373). Much of the information regarding unguided use has historically been 

based on long-term observations, anecdotal information, and professional estimates 

informed by monitoring of social encounters, on-the ground-impacts, trail use, and public 

recreation cabin use. 

Unguided visitors often use boats to access dispersed recreation opportunities along 

extensive coastlines and backcountry areas. Southeast Alaska residents infrequently use 

outfitters and guides (FP 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). 

While many residents of the Ketchikan area support the growing tourism industry, others 

have expressed concern that the existing and increasing level of guided use is causing 

crowding and displacement of local residents and subsistence users, and diminishing 

recreation opportunities on the District. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 101 

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 eight 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. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

All alternatives would meet the Forest Plan Management Prescriptions for Wild, Scenic, 

or Recreational Rivers (pp. 3-74 through 3-94). Varying levels of recreation and tourism 

are allowed within Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River LUDs; all action alternatives 

would meet these standards and guidelines. No alternative proposes development along 

the recommended river segments and all eligible segments recommended by the Forest 

Plan for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System will maintain their free-flowing 

character and outstandingly remarkable values. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 102 

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 8,153 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 13,260 61,258 0 26,472 30,631 19,699 

1 Comparison is based on the summer season (May15th through September 30th). 

Recreation Use and Use Levels 

Alternative A (No Action) 

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 require individual resource analyses and management decisione to be 

authorized. This alternative does not meet agency direction for evaluating cumulative 

effects of guided uses on NFS lands as specified in the Forest Service Recreation Special 

Uses Handbook (FSH 2709.14). FSH direction for renewing outfitter and guide permits 

is to authorize use consistent with the level of use utilized effectively under the former 

permit (FSH 2709.14, section 53.1n). Up to 25 percent more days may be authorized 

than the highest actual use of the previous five years if capacity exists, but not to exceed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 103 

the previously authorized amount for each permit. Therefore, it can be anticipated that in 

the short-term somewhere between 23,424 and 29,280 visitor days could be authorized 

for summer season across the entire district (24,245 to 30,306 across all seasons). 

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. This additional workload may delay 

the issuance of new permits on KMRD because additional environmental analysis would 

need to be completed, or new applications could be denied if the additional work of 

environmental analysis and permit administration cannot be accommodated. 

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 (Tables 2-6 and 2-7). 

Between 2005 and 2009 the highest annual outfitter and guide use on KMRD was 24,245 

service days (for the spring, summer, and fall seasons). 

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 

Between 2005 and 2009, the highest amount of guided use during the summer season in 

KMRD’s ten highly-valued local areas was 13,260 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). However, 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 non-wilderness portion of KMRD (Table 2-1, Chapter 2), or the 

adaptive management 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: 

 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) 

 Ward Creek vicinity (24 Ketchikan Core NA) 

 Margaret Bay (27 Margaret Bay) 

 and Tatoosh, Back, Hump, Pup, Grant, Stack, Moser, Cache, and Cedar Islands in the 

23 Betton Island Use Area. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 104 

Crowding and conflict are likely under Alternative A because design criteria and 

proposed standards for social encounter rates (for Alternatives B, C, and D) would not be 

implemented to minimize conflicts between guided and unguided users, even though the 

overall amount of use would be lower than the action alternatives. 

This alternative has potential for use to be authorized through additional environmental 

analyses up to the carrying capacity identified in Appendix C of the DEIS; such analyses 

would follow the Forest Plan ROS guidelines which could allow for five- to ten-fold 

increases in the number of encounters per day in some Recreation Use Areas identified as 

popular with unguided users, leading to continued or new conflict in these areas. 

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). All 

four of these highly-valued local Use Areas would have less overall guided use under 

Alternative A than under any other alternative. 

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, because of its current 

description of highest use 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. This effect is considered 

for comparison’s sake. 

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. Alternatives B and C allocate 651 and 1,627 service days, respectively, during 

the summer season to outfitter and guide use in the 11 Gravina Island Use Area, which 

could create user conflicts that would be avoided under Alternative A. 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). This 

alternative would not include design criteria and mitigation measures for this area, such 

as restrictions for guided shoreline and cabin use in Helm Bay area. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 105 

expressed concern that guided use negatively impacts recreation experiences and has 

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 during the summer season. 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). 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. This alternative would allow for a small amount of use in the 28 Naha Bay Use 

Area. 

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. Alternative B would allow for a 

123 percent increase in outfitter and guide use annually across the KMRD (just over 

double the highest use of use that occurred between 2005-2009 under Alternative A). 

Alternative B allocates 75 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 106 

would allow for double the 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 could result in moderate impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences in 

some areas identified as highly-valued local areas due to the allowable increase in overall 

summer use within these ten areas. 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 (e.g. Bostwick Bay, Bailey Bay 

hot springs, and the Ketchikan-area trail system). Refer to Recreation under the 

“Resource Considerations” section of the Use Area Cards in Appendix B of the DEIS for 

information on the area-specific mitigation measures. 

Alternative B does not allocate use to outfitters and guides in the 04 Duke Island or 28 

Naha Bay Use Areas, the same as Alternative D. Alternative B allocates more use to 

outfitters and guides in all other locally popular Use Areas than Alternatives A and D. 

The only exception is 23 Betton Island Use Area in which Alternatives B and D would 

provide the same allocation. Alternative B allocates less than Alternative C in half of the 

high valued areas (08 Burroughs Unuk, 11 Gravina Island, 12 Bell Island, 13 East 

Cleveland, and 24 Ketchikan Core NA Use Areas). 

Alternative B allocates the most use to outfitters and guides in the 17 George Carroll 

Thorne, 23 Betton Island, and 27 Margaret Bay Use Areas. Outfitters and guides have 

expressed an interest in increasing use in the 17 George Carroll Thorne Use Area, which 

is relatively accessible from town. This alternative would allow for the four times the 

amount of guided use in the 17 George Carroll Thorne Use Area as compared to 

Alternative A. Design criteria and mitigation measures adopted under all action 

alternatives should minimize the impacts of additional guided use on unguided visitors’ 

experiences in the 17 George Carroll Thorne Use Area (such as near the Fish Creek 

cabin). 

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, about 50 groups, during the summer 

season) and the 27 Margaret Bay Use Area (increase of 430 service days, about 65 

groups, during the season). Alternative B will have minor impacts on unguided visitors’ 

experiences in these areas 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. 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 205 percent increase in guided use annually across the KMRD when 

compared to the highest amount of outfitter and guide use between 2005 and 2009. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 107 

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). 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 where occasional complaints have been received already. 

Highly-valued Local Areas 

Under Alternative C, outfitter and guide use in highly-valued local areas would be 

permitted to increase approximately 131 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 would allocate the same amount of guided use in 17 George Carroll 

Thorne Use Area as Alternative D, but this would be nearly triple that seen under 

Alternative A. 

Alternative C allocates 7,673 service days during the summer season to outfitter and 

guide use in the 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 (10,475 service 

days). Limiting guides in the areas which they currently concentrate could force them 

into other popular areas just to maintain their business operations; such expansion could 

create user conflicts between guided and unguided users where it does not currently exist. 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative C has the most effect. However, Design criteria 

and mitigation measures should 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 (24,245 service 

days) and less guided use than would be allocated under Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative D would allow for an overall 44 percent increase in outfitter and guide use 

across KMRD annually. 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 1,917 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 and C. 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 108 

additional floatplane landings) on waterways adjacent to NFS lands in Misty Fiords, 

particularly in Rudyerd Bay and Walker Cove, or at other lakes on KMRD. 

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 49 percent more than 

the highest amount of outfitter and guide use that occurred annually between 2005 and 

2009 but less than would be allocated to outfitters and guides under Alternatives B and 

C. Negative impacts to unguided visitors’ experiences associated with the increase in 

guided use that would be allocated under Alternative D, as compared to the highest use 

analyzed in Alternative A, would be offset by the implementation of the previously 

described design criteria and mitigation measures, resulting in minor impacts to highlyvalued local areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

The following activities or uses may cumulatively affect recreation resources and the 

implementation of this decision. 

Timber Management Activities 

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, and Shelter Cove road system. Free use timber is not 

able to be predicted in time or location; generally these small permits do not interfere 

with recreation uses, either guided or unguided, but will be coordinated with the timber 

staff group as necessary to minimize impacts to forest visitors. 

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 Manzanita, 10 Rudyerd 

Winstanley, 11 Gravina Island, 13 East Cleveland, and 23 Betton Island Use Areas. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 109 

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 

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 

Non-Motorized 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 110 

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, 17 George 

Carroll Thorne, and 25 South Revilla NA Use Areas. Improved access to George Inlet 

and Carroll Inlet may result in an increase in the amount of unguided use, increased 

demand for outfitter and guide use, and crowding along the coastline. Between 2005 and 

2009, the highest amount of outfitter and guide use in the 17 George Carroll Thorne 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. Along the 

roads in 25 South Revilla NA Use Area, the highest amount of guided use was only 2 

service days; Alternatives C and D would allow for 1,084 and Alternative B would 

allocate 1,626 in this Use Area during the summer season. 

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. 

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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 111 

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 

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. 

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. In addition, specific subsistence areas, such as Gravina Island, 

were identified as important. 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 112 

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 effects to historic properties have very rarely been observed at 

guided campsites or day use areas where historic properties were also located at or 

nearby. 

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 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. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 113 

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. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 114 

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 section. This section 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 

incorporates direction in the 2008 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008b), and tiers to 

the accompanying Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c), 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 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 115 

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 

outfitters and guides to access authorized sites. The cumulative effects area is the same 

boundary, but includes non-NFS lands. These areas are appropriate for wildlife analysis 

since outfitter and guide activities permitted as a result of a decision on this EIS will be 

within these boundaries and the area is large enough to cover wildlife 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 located 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 deer, 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 116 

Assumptions for the wildlife analysis are the same as those displayed in Chapter 2 under 

Alternative Descriptions, except as described here: 

 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 nonguided 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, the wildlife 

biologist 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, p. 3-20). Outside of wilderness group size should generally be 

limited to 12 to 20 people (USDA Forest Service 2008b REC3.II.A.3, p. 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 disturbances. 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 (i.e., minor, moderate, or major) are not used for this 

analysis. Consequently, an alternative ranking system based upon allocated service days 

was used. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 117 

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 (USDA Forest 

Service 2008c, Appendix F). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 118 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 119 

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). Johnson et al. (2010) found that Duke Island is also 

used as a stopover area during seasonal migrations. 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 120 

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 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 121 

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 

foraging season (August-October), mountain goats may gain 10-15 lbs of body mass per 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 122 

emerge from their dens. Visibility along the beach makes them accessible and vulnerable 

to boat-based hunters. 

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 2009). 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 2009). 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 

percent 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.). These regulations 

go into effect for the 2012-2013 harvest season. 

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 also closed to all bear hunting to enhance bear viewing opportunities (Scott 2009). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 123 

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 

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). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 124 

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. 

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 (USDA 

Forest Service 2008c). 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 125 

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 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). Of the migratory bird species of management 

concern listed in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008c) 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 action 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 126 

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 

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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 127 

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 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 128 

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 

function (Figure 3-1). The risk ranking is shown in Table 3-13. Effects to individual 

species listed above in Affected Environment 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 on the analysis in the biological evaluation (BE in the Project Record), the 

biologist made the following determinations on the effects of the alternatives on 

endangered, threatened, and proposed species selected for detailed analysis (Table 3-11). 

Rationale for selection is displayed in Table 3-10. 

 

species persistence and maintenance of

ecosystem processes and function

Low High

Low Recreational Demand                        High
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 129 

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 or adversely 

modify proposed critical habitat 

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 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). Recreational 

activities would add to the current marine traffic, associated acoustic disturbance, and 

chance of vessel striking whales. 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. Without more accurate 

ideas of future activities, impact levels are assumed to be similar to the 2003-2007 trend 

found by Allen and Angliss (2010). 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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 130 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 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 occur in the marine waters surrounding KMRD during the 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 represents 

recreational use versus mid-October through mid-April when loons are more likely to be 

in the area). Design criteria require outfitter-guides to prevent disturbance at all times 

and report any sightings of yellow-billed loons. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 131 

the potential to negatively 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. 

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 percent 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). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 132 

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
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 133 

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 (4,921 ft to 6,562 ft) and 1,500 meter 

vertical distance (4,921 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 Alternative A ranked 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). However, the 

different sexes can be difficult to distinguish at a distance which can lead to overharvest of 

nannies (females) and affect populations. 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. 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 134 

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 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 135 

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 

Margaret viewing site is discussed further in the bear viewing site section below. 

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 2009), 

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 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 136 

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 percent 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 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 137 

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 the wildlife biologist 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. Bears were observed more frequently during the 2011 season when higher flows 

may have led to more consistent salmon runs. Design criteria that limits outfitter and guide 

activity to the viewing platform and upper bridge provides a refuge for bears, while allowing 

for less crowding of tour groups at the viewing platform. 

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 

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, 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 138 

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 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 139 

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. 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 140 

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 than 

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 

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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 141 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 142 

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 combined 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, and 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 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 143 

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 can overlap outfitter and guide use seasons and 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 nonNFS lands has 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 

In Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), subsistence 

is defined (in part) 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” (ANILCA Sec. 803). ANILCA Section 804 states “... the taking on 

public lands of fish and wildlife for non-wasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority 

over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes.” 

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. 

This section focuses on evaluating the potential effects on subsistence uses and needs. 

ANILCA Title VIII, 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. ” 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 144 

ANILCA Title VIII, 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. ” 

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 

(FSH 2090.23). 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. 

The evaluation determines whether subsistence uses within the project area are significantly 

restricted by any of the proposed alternatives. The Alaska Land Use Council defines a 

significant restriction on subsistence uses as: 

“A proposed action shall be considered to significantly restrict subsistence uses if, after 

any modification warranted by consideration of alternatives, conditions, or stipulations, 

it can be expected to result in a substantial reduction in the opportunity to continue uses 

of renewable resources. Reductions in the opportunity to continue subsistence uses 

generally are caused by: reductions in abundance of, or major redistribution of 

resources; substantial interference with access; or major increases in the use of those 

resources by non-rural residents.” 

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 state regulations as a lesser species. The Forest Plan FEIS provides a 

comprehensive analysis of subsistence resources and potential effects, both Tongass-wide 

and for each rural community of Southeast Alaska. Under full implementation of the Forest 

Plan, the only subsistence resource that maybe significantly restricted in the future is 

subsistence use of deer (USDA Forest Service 2008c). See the wildlife section of this EIS 

for additional information on existing conditions related to wildlife. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 145 

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 (ADF&G) 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.”

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

See the Recreation section for discussion of recreation use levels and Highly-valued Local 

Areas. 

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, point to point charter transportation by boat, plane, or 

other vehicle) may be employed by subsistence users to access hunting or fishing sites. On 

KMRD, there is no known transporter use to gather subsistence resources. If someone chose 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 146 

to use a transporter, the Forest Service would consider them unguided users since 

transporters would not be regulated by this decision. Thus, access for people transported to 

areas on KMRD would not change (see the Glossary in Chapter 4 for more information on 

transporters). 

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 (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 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 federally qualified subsistence users 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. 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. 

Wildlife 

Since this EIS would not alter the KMRD Access and Travel Management Plan decision, 

there would be no change in access for wildlife subsistence resources. 

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, and more 

specifically deer distribution at the Community Use, Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) or 

Game Management Unit (GMU) level. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 147 

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. 

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 and fisheries 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 

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. 

Social interactions are discussed in the Recreation section of this EIS. 

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. Guided deer 

hunting will not be authorized in any alternative except as allowed under state regulations as 

a lesser species. This should minimize the effect outfitters and guide activities have on this 

important species. Consumptive uses of wildlife are regulated by the Federal Subsistence 

Board and the Alaska Board of Game. With the implementation of mountain goat, brown, 

and black bear design criteria on hunts on KMRD under this EIS, there would be minimal 

change in competition between rural and non-rural hunters for terrestrial wildlife resources. 

Fisheries 

Competition for salmon could occur, however; the above sockeye example shows the risk of 

competition is relatively low. 

Should significant competition for resources occur, subsistence activities would have priority 

over other uses, as defined in ANILCA, and adaptive management, or if needed, regulatory 

mechanisms, would be utilized to resolve the conflict. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 148 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Federal Subsistence regulations only apply to federal lands. Therefore, cumulative effects 

would be similar to direct effects. There are no anticipated significant 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 subsistence resources. However, it is acknowledged 

outfitted and guided recreational activities have the potential to negatively affect subsistence 

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. 

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. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 149 

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. 

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. Specific information on use, like frequency of visit, number of service days 

per site, and type of use is not reported. Guided groups may use several locations in a day, 

but are required to report only one use location. Therefore it can be assumed outfitters and 

guides are visiting more sites than those reported. 

Only reported outfitter and guide use sites were analyzed for overlap with known sensitive 

species, rare plants, and invasive plant occurrences, and served as the direct and indirect 

effect analysis area. These 206 sites are listed in the GIS Outfitter and Guide Use point 

shapefile and are shown on Recreation Use Area Cards. 

The entire KMRD served as the cumulative effects analysis area. 

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 150 

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 edge ForestO

pen forest

Streamside, riverban

k

Bog Heath Dry meadow Wet meadow Alpine and subalpine Talus slopes Rock outcrop 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 13 acres of the entire project area. 

Thirty populations occur within 1 mile of known outfitter and guide sites. None of these 

known occurrences coincide with reported existing recreation use sites. 

Four populations of Cirsium edule var. macounii 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 151 

No plants were found. In at least one location, recreation use appeared to have affected one 

population of sensitive plants. 

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 suspected in the analysis area, Cirsium 

brevistylum, is addressed as rare. Three conifers designated rare by the Forest Plan are also 

included in this analysis: Abies lasiocarpa, Abies amabilis, and Taxus brevifolia. 

Table 3- 15) Rare Plants Present or Suspected Within the Project Area 

Abies amabilis (Pacific silver fir) Lobelia dortmanna (water lobelia) 

Abies lasiocarpa (subalpine fir) Lonicera involucrata (twinberry honeysuckle) 

Ambrosia chamissonis (silver burweed) Maianthemum stellatum (star-flowered false 

Solomon’s seal) 

Asplenium trichomanes (maidenhair 

spleenwort) Mimulus lewisii (Lewis’ monkeyflower) 

Brasenia schreberi (water shield) Monotropa uniflora (indian pipe) 

Cirsium brevistylum (short-styled thistle) Poa laxiflora (lax-flowered bluegrass) 

Galium kamtschaticum (boreal bedstraw) Schoenoplectus subterminalis (water 

clubrush) 

Glyceria leptostachya (davu mannagrass) Taxus brevifolia (Pacific yew) 

Isoetes occidentalis (Western quillwort) Tiarella trifoliata var. lacinata (cut-leaved 

foamflower) . 

Lactuca biennis (tall blue lettuce) Viola sempervirens (evergreen violet) 

Listera convallarioides (broad-leaved 

twayblade) 

Within the project area, approximately 123 rare plant populations are documented. These 

populations occupy approximately 15 acres of the entire project area. Eighteen populations 

occur within 1 mile of known outfitter and guide sites. These species are found in many 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 152 

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. Nearly 2,230 

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 a yearly basis. Table 3-16 depicts which Tongass National Forest High Priority 

invasive plant species are documented within the project area. 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 153 

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 Ranked 

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 

Recent surveys detected invasive plant species at five of the fourteen outfitter guide locations 

surveyed in 2009 (see Table 3-17). New infestations of weeds were found at two of these 

five sites. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 154 

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 

increases 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 

the area occupied by any known sensitive or rare plant population, unless approved by the 

KMRD botanist. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 155 

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): 

 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, and/or keepsake/memento collection. These actions can 

cause physical damage, injury, and/or death to the sensitive plant, 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 156 

 Soil alteration as a result of trampling. Changes in the physical and/or chemical 

characteristics of soil, including aeration, moisture, strength, temperature, nutrient 

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 often visit the same sites annually. Accumulation of 

concentrated use can negate the effects of Leave No Trace on fragile sensitive and rare 

species habitats. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 157 

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 

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 

Impacts of guided use specifically on sensitive plants or their suitable habitats have never 

been monitored. With little quantitative information available, it is unknown what effects 

guided use is having on sensitive plants and/or their suitable habitats. Most areas on KMRD 

would not have concentrated use and would not be affected by guided use. However, 

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. 

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 (Appendix D of the DEIS). 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 158 

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 

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 

Weeds spread more easily in some habitats than in others and rate of 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. 

Recreation users may serve as direct vectors for spreading invasive species. Invasive species 

can be introduced to the recreation site on clothing or gear. They can be 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. 

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 establish and possibly spread 

throughout the area of disturbance. 

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 spread invasive species from Use Area 24 is likely. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 159 

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. 

Many permits do not authorize a specific location, but are open-ended enough to allow 

outfitter and guides the discretion and flexibility to visit any location within and around the 

outfitter and guide site and/or use area, such as shorelines within a particular bay. 

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 the DEIS. 

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 (Appendix D of 

the DEIS). 

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 Forest Service manages fisheries habitats. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 160 

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 to 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. 

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 

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 tend 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 as suggested by the 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 (Bisson et al. 1998). Recent data suggest steelhead populations 

throughout Southeast Alaska were more abundant than they are now (Lohr and Bryant 1999; 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 161 

Harding and Love 2008). 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. 

There are no Sensitive species found within or adjacent to the project area, however; there 

are Federally Listed species found in salt waters adjacent to the project area. Pacific herring 

within the Southeast Alaska Distinct Population Segment were designated a candidate 

species in April 2008. Fourteen stocks of salmon and steelhead have been identified as 

potentially migrating into the marine waters of the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2008c 

Appendix F). 

 Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook salmon 

 Snake River Fall-run Chinook salmon 

 Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon 

 Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon 

 Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 

 Puget Sound-run Chinook salmon 

 Columbia River Chum salmon 

 Snake River Basin Steelhead 

 Lower Columbia River Steelhead 

 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

 Upper Columbia River Steelhead 

 Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

 Puget Sound Steelhead 

 

There are no known aquatic 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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 162 

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 and fisheries 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 and fisheries 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 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 163 

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 

Salt water 

Fish and fish habitat within salt water is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, 

however; activities permitted within the Proposed Action transit salt water, thus it is 

reasonable to include discussion of Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species which have 

been identified to occur adjacent to the project area. 

Pacific Herring – In general, Pacific herring occur throughout the North Pacific Ocean from 

the Yellow Sea northeastward through the western Bering Sea, the Russian Arctic Chukchi 

and White Seas, and southward from the Alaskan Beaufort Sea to Baja California, Mexico. 

The Southeast Alaska Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which is being considered for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act, extends from Dixon Entrance northward to Cape 

Fairweather and Icy Point and includes all Pacific herring stocks in Southeast Alaska. At 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 164 

least five major herring populations are presently identified in Southeast Alaska: 1) Sitka, 2) 

Auke Bay (including Lynn Canal) 3) Craig-Hydaburg, 4) Deer Island-Etolin Island (near 

Wrangell), and 5) Ketchikan. The Ketchikan population falls within the KMRD OutfitterGuide Action Area. 

In 2008, NMFS formally requested information, data, or comments pertinent to the status 

review of the Southeast Alaska Pacific herring DPS. That information has not been released. 

Major threats include over fishing and destruction of spawning habitat from dredging, oil 

spills, log storage, road and other construction activities, and quality degradation. Global 

warming may also reduce the amount of phytoplankton and zooplankton prey. 

None of the identified threats would occur from outfitter-guide activities. No ground or 

inter-tidal disturbing activities are authorized. Likewise, the Forest Service does not permit, 

and has no jurisdiction over salt water commercial or sport fishing. The herring fishery in 

Lynn Canal and the Juneau area has been closed since 1982, but purse-seine commercial 

harvest of thousands of tons herring annually still occurs elsewhere in Southeast Alaska 

(NMFS website, accessed October 2011). Since most spawning takes place in March, 

outfitter-guide access to beaches would have no measurable effect on herring spawn on the 

2,000 plus miles of shoreline on KMRD. 

Salmon & Steelhead – Distribution of these stocks is primarily in outer coastal waters, 

although there is a low probability that some may occasionally be present in inside waters. 

None originate in or are known to occur in fresh water Alaskan streams. Due to all activities 

described in this federal action occurring adjacent to or in fresh water there would be no 

effect from outfitter-guide activities. 

Fresh Water

Riparian and stream systems are complicated and dynamic, making it difficult to write the 

exact effects recreation activities have 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 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 165 

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 in fresh 

waters. 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 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 166 

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, Alternatives 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. Alternatives 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 in fresh waters. 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. 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, the cleaning of wading equipment prior to use in fresh waters 

administered by KMRD (see Appendix B of the DEIS) 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 includes the entirety of all 

watersheds that fall within KMRD. 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 167 

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 and fisheries 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 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 168 

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 alteration of, or 

ground disturbing activities would occur when Marine Access Facilities are 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.

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 one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given 

year. 

The soils, wetlands and floodplains analysis areas for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

are the entire KMRD. If effects were thought to be greater than slight, separation would have 

been by the 149 sixth level watersheds. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 169 

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 condition of the resource. For 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 measurable or noticeable effect that may 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 

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 or allow for use or visitation of caves. However, increased 

recreational usage may result in the opportunistic discovery and visitation of caves. Adaptive 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 170 

management may 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. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 171 

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. 

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. 

In accordance with the agreement of June 28, 2007 between the Forest Service and the 

NMFS for consultation on EFH, the Forest Service sent a copy of the Ketchikan-Misty 

Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan DEIS to NMFS, which formally started the 

consultation process. 

NMFS provided no comments on the findings of the assessment. Thus, no Forest Service 

response was necessary. The EFH Assessment is included in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. For 

specific information about the affected resources and the alternatives under consideration, 

please refer to this EIS. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Effects – Page 172 

 

 
Chapter 4 

Lists
Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 

 The lists in this chapter were updated. 
Chapter 4, Lists – Page 173 

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 6 

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: 

Karen Brand, Recreation Staff Officer 

Dennis Chester, Wildlife Biologist 

Jacob Hofman, GIS, Inventory and Monitoring 

Ken Post, Regional Environmental Coordinator 

Rob Reeck, Tribal Liaison 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 174 

Parker Reid, Special Uses Natural Resource Specialist 

Andrew Schmidt, Team Leader, Alaska Lands Team 

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 Department of Fish and Game 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

TRIBES AND CORPORATIONS: 

Cape Fox Corporation 

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, Office of Project Management and 

Permitting, ANILCA Implementation Program 

(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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 175 

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office, Juneau 

USDA National Agriculture Library 

TRIBES AND TRIBAL CORPORATIONS: 

Cape Fox Corporation 

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 

Charles Stout 

Jay Rhodes 

Richard Hoffmann 

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 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 176 

Alaska State Department of Public Safety 

Alaska State Parks 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Chief of Naval Operations 

City of Ketchikan 

City of Saxman 

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 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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 177 

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 

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. 
Chapter 4, Lists – Page 178 

INDIVIDUALS 

Andrew Pankow 

Andy Mathews 

Art Johnson 

Bev Davies 

Bill Green 

Brad Finney 

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. 

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
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 179 

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. 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

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: 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 180 

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. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 181 

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. 

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. 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 182 

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, R. L., Gutzweiller, K. 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. 

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
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 183 

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 

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 ). 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 184 

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

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. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 185 

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. 

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
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 186 

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. 

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. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 187 

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. This definition of an encounter is specific to this analysis. 

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. 

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. 

Guiding 

Providing services or assistance (such as supervision, protection, education, training, 

touring, or interpretation) for financial or other gain to individuals or groups on National 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 188 

Forest System lands (FSH 2709.14, 53.1e). Flightseeing tours that land on lakes in, for 

example, the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area are providing a guiding service. 

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. 

Outfitting 

Outfitting includes the delivery of vehicles, boats, camping gear, or similar supplies or 

equipment to the National Forest (FSH 2709.14, 53.1e). In other words, if a 

transportation company rents and delivers the gear a visitor needs, it is outfitting and it 

would be managed through this plan through allocation of service days. 

Persons at One Time (PAOT) 

Used to measure how many people can use a recreation site at one time. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 189 

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. 

Soundscape 

Soundscape refers to the total acoustic environment associated with a given area and is 

composed of both natural and human-caused sounds. 

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 190 

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. 

“Transporter” 

The Forest Service has no official definition of a transporter, though the following 

description has generally been agreed to: Point to point charter transportation in which 

the client determines the destination and supplies the necessary equipment for the trip, 

but needs transportation to the location. Chartering transportation by vehicle, boat, or 

plane simply to access a location is not outfitting or guiding. Public access to and from 

KMRD via a transporter as defined above would be unaffected by the decisions made on 

this EIS; however, if the transportation company also rents and delivers the gear a visitor 

needs, then it becomes outfitting and would be included in and managed through this 

management plan. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 191 

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. 

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) .... 11, 15, 20, 21, 84, 93, 115, 

121, 122, 133, 135, 143, 145, 159, 160, 

165, 174, 175, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

.................................................. 174, 175 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) 11, 78, 80, 

93, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 171, 174, 

190, 191 

alpine habitat ........................................ 115 

anadromous fish ........................... 171, 186 

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) ...... 176 

bald eagle 44, 78, 115, 120, 123, 124, 137, 

143, 184, 185 

beach fringe .......................................... 115 

Best Management Practices (BMP) ...... 69, 

162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 

186 

biological diversity ............................... 180 

brown bear 5, 7, 72, 84, 98, 120, 121, 122, 

135, 136, 144, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186 

cabin 10, 18, 23, 29, 44, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 

85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 96, 100, 104, 105, 

106, 109, 111, 187, 189 

cave ...................................................... 187 

chinook ......................................... 161, 167 

Clean Water Act ................................... 169 

coho ........ 93, 109, 145, 160, 161, 167, 179 

commercial fishing................... 68, 78, 143 

commercial recreation .......................... 113 

competition ... 6, 19, 31, 55, 117, 124, 135, 

136, 144, 147, 148, 155, 158, 171 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

................................................ 15, 40, 67 

cultural resources ......... 6, 31, 45, 112, 113 

cumulative effects 67, 68, 76, 92, 102, 113, 

115, 138, 142, 148, 149, 157, 166, 168, 

181, 184 

deer ................... 22, 15, 144, 146, 147, 164 

desired condition ...................... 11, 29, 166 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 192 

developed recreation ...................... 98, 187 

dispersed recreation 85, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 

100, 109, 110, 156 

diversity.................................. 78, 115, 177 

Dolly Varden ........ 145, 160, 161, 165, 167 

economics ...................................... 71, 173 

encounter 26, 29, 42, 44, 52, 80, 85, 86, 88, 

89, 90, 93, 101, 104, 105, 109, 110, 111, 

122, 143, 187 

endangered species............... 149, 170, 190 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1, 

6, 174 

erosion 33, 44, 45, 112, 127, 156, 162, 168, 

169 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ............... 171 

estuary .................. 115, 123, 124, 137, 187 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act 187 

Federal Subsistence Board 20, 21, 68, 143, 

146, 147 

firewood ................... 33, 96, 141, 155, 156 

fish habitat ............................ 163, 164, 165 

fishing . 5, 7, 21, 33, 72, 78, 83, 84, 93, 97, 

98, 101, 108, 111, 116, 117, 122, 123, 

127, 135, 136, 142, 143, 145, 156, 160, 

161, 164, 165, 168, 177, 183, 187 

food resources ...................................... 139 

forest habitat................................. 114, 125 

Forest Plan .... 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 

25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 43, 44, 52, 54, 

67, 69, 71, 79, 82, 85, 88, 90, 95, 100, 

101, 104, 109, 114, 116, 120, 123, 125, 

130, 133, 134, 138, 140, 144, 151, 161, 

162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 185, 

188, 189 

fragmentation ....................................... 127 

Game Management Unit (GMU) .. 55, 115, 

121, 122, 146 

geology ......................................... 160, 168 

goshawk ................. 44, 117, 119, 129, 130 

habitat capability .................................. 146 

helicopter...................................... 134, 181 

heritage resource .................... 45, 110, 113 

Hoonah ................................................... 13 

hot springs .................... 100, 101, 103, 106 

humpback whale .. 117, 118, 129, 130, 183 

hunting .... 5, 7, 19, 33, 72, 78, 84, 98, 101, 

105, 108, 111, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 

127, 133, 135, 143, 144, 145, 147, 156, 

187, 188 

Hyder. 5, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 76, 

94, 95, 96, 108, 110, 122, 134, 175, 176 

hydrology 45, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 

164, 165, 166, 167, 168 

income .................................................... 77 

intertidal ....................................... 171, 187 

karst .............................. 168, 169, 173, 188 

Ketchikan 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

14, 15, 16, 17, 22- 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 

37, 38, 39, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 67, 77, 

81, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114, 

116, 119, 123, 125, 129, 134, 145, 158, 

159, 161, 164, 167, 168, 169, 171, 174, 

175, 176, 177, 181, 182, 184, 185 

Land Use Designation (LUD) 7, 29, 31, 80, 

131, 138, 187, 188, 189 

lifestyle ................................................... 96 

long-term productivity ..................... 68, 69 

Loring ................................................. 5, 96 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 114, 

120, 133, 161, 188 

marine environment 95, 115, 117, 129, 130 

Marine Mammal Protection Act .. 126, 129 

marine mammal ........................... 143, 178 

marten .................................................. 115 

mass wasting ........................................ 169 

Metlakatla ...... 5, 12, 14, 95, 174, 175, 176 

Meyers Chuck ............................ 5, 96, 175 

minerals ........................................ 155, 177 

mining 21, 68, 76, 108, 111, 167, 170, 175 

mitigation measure .... 9, 10, 18, 19, 34, 43, 

44, 45, 52, 69, 88, 104, 105, 106, 107, 

108, 112, 113, 125, 187 

monitoring 9, 10, 26, 29, 30, 33, 40, 41, 42, 

43, 44, 45, 69, 70, 79, 80, 85, 86, 88, 93, 

94, 100, 101, 103, 105, 109, 111, 112, 

113, 114, 142, 143, 167, 170, 173, 183, 

187 

muskeg ......................................... 177, 188 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 

22, 26, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 133, 138, 

141, 143, 146, 159, 163, 170, 176 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 193 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

.................................................... 69, 188 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) .............................. 13, 110, 170 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) .............. 53, 110, 111, 113, 171 

Notice of Intent (NOI) ........................... 12 

old-growth ... 114, 115, 119, 120, 123, 130, 

152, 155 

otter ........................................................ 13 

outfitters and guides .. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 

40, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 69, 72, 73, 74, 

75, 76, 81, 82, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 

109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 126, 131, 133, 

146, 147, 149, 156, 157, 162, 165, 166 

past timber harvest ............... 167, 169, 170 

peregrine falcon ................................... 141 

preferred alternative ............................... 46 

project record 1, 12, 13, 22, 42, 67, 68, 170 

proposed action . 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 

31, 120, 144 

public comments .................................... 15 

public involvement............... 11, 12, 15, 67 

purpose and need...................... 1, 9, 10, 94 

Record of Decision (ROD) . 11, 15, 41, 42, 

114, 141 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 6, 

20, 26, 29, 30, 34, 52, 79, 88, 95, 104, 

109, 189 

recreation site .... 89, 95, 96, 150, 152, 154, 

158, 170, 187, 188, 189 

renewable resource ......... 69, 143, 144, 190 

resident fish .......................................... 167 

riparian area 121, 122, 124, 162, 163, 164, 

165, 178 

riparian 115, 120, 121, 122, 124, 162, 163, 

164, 165, 166, 178, 181, 182 

roads .... 24, 33, 55, 67, 78, 95, 96, 99, 110, 

111, 115, 142, 146, 148, 157, 169, 179, 

187 

salmon . 109, 118, 121, 124, 134, 135, 136, 

137, 145, 147, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 

171, 177, 179, 180, 182, 186 

Saxman ... 5, 12, 14, 95, 111, 174, 175, 176 

scoping ............... 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 30, 143 

sediment ............... 158, 163, 169, 180, 184 

selection ................................. 76, 120, 128 

sensitive species ... 114, 149, 157, 158, 161 

significant restriction . 6, 55, 144, 148, 171 

Sitka ..................... 115, 120, 164, 175, 177 

social values ......................................... 101 

sockeye salmon .................... 145, 160, 167 

soil .... 44, 45, 96, 112, 127, 155, 156, 158, 

168, 169, 170, 173, 180, 183, 186, 191 

Special Interest Area .................... 131, 138 

special use permit .. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 29, 32, 

33, 36, 42, 43, 44, 50, 73, 74, 97, 103, 

111, 147 

standards and guidelines ... 6, 7, 19, 20, 26, 

30, 34, 43, 80, 85, 101, 114, 129, 134, 

162, 166, 169 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) ..................... 112, 113, 170, 175 

Steller sea lion .............. 117, 118, 129, 130 

stream habitat ....................................... 160 

structure.................................................. 10 

subsistence 1, 6, 13, 17, 20, 21, 24, 31, 32, 

55, 71, 76, 94, 96, 100, 101, 108, 110, 

111, 114, 121, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

148, 171, 

timber harvest ................................. 95, 111 

timber management .............................. 108 

timber sales ...................... 68, 76, 148, 170 

Tlingit ........................................... 111, 176 

Tongass National Forest . 1, 12, 18, 20, 23, 

79, 114, 117, 145, 148, 151, 152, 158, 

159, 167, 174, 176, 178, 184, 185 

tourism7, 96, 97, 100, 101, 111, 121, 130, 

180 

trails. 10, 22, 24, 32, 33, 55, 78, 84, 85, 87, 

88, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 105, 109, 111, 

115, 122, 127, 142, 146, 148, 157, 163, 

169, 177 

transportation .... 1, 29, 110, 143, 145, 188, 

190 

tribal government ........................... 15, 171 

trout ..... 145, 147, 160, 161, 164, 167, 177, 

179, 181 

turbidity ................................................ 155 

U.S. Coast Guard ................................. 176 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

Chapter 4, Lists – Page 194 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

. 118, 123, 126, 138, 149, 174, 176, 180, 

185, 186 

unguided .... 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 

24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 36, 40, 51, 52, 70, 

73, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 

99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 

107, 108, 109, 110, 116, 129, 130, 142, 

143, 146, 158, 162, 165, 166, 190 

vegetation .. 33, 44, 96, 121, 127, 141, 148, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 

165, 166, 168, 169, 180, 183, 187 

viable population .................................. 114 

visitor capacity 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, 25, 26, 

31, 33, 38, 55, 91, 107, 133, 134, 138, 

140, 142, 158, 162, 163, 165, 166, 190, 

191 

water quality.. 19, 156, 158, 162, 163, 165, 

166, 186 

waterfowl ...... 72, 115, 123, 138, 139, 142, 

143, 144, 180 

wetland 79, 123, 148, 167, 168, 169, 173, 

191 

whales ............ 78, 117, 118, 129, 142, 183 

wilderness .. 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 23, 26, 

29, 30, 31, 32, 42, 44, 52, 54, 69, 71, 77, 

78, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 

93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 173, 177, 

179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 

191103, 108, 109, 116, 134, 150 

wildlife habitat ............................. 127, 181 

winter habitat ....................................... 134 
Appendix A 

Responses to 

Comments
Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 

 This appendix was added to show the comments received on the DEIS and the 

Forest Service responses to those comments. 
Appendix A

Responses to Comments

Introduction

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and 

Guide Management Plan was prepared by the Forest Service and mailed for public comment in 

June 2011. The 45-day comment period ended August 22, 2011. Six comment letters were 

received from the following individuals or agencies on this DEIS. A letter designator and 

comment number were assigned for tracking purposes. 

This appendix displays the annotated comment letters followed by the Forest Service’s response 

to those comments. In many of the responses to comments the reader is referred to specific 

locations or page numbers in the DEIS where a particular topic or analysis is displayed or 

discussed. Page numbers have changed between the DEIS and FEIS. 

The complete reference for literature cited in this appendix is found in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. 

List of those who commented on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and 

Guide Management Plan DEIS and letter designator

EPA Christine Reichgott

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

RH Richard Hoffmann

OEPC Pamela Bergmann

USDI, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC) 

OPMP Susan Magee

ADNR, Office of Project Management and Permitting, ANILCA 

Implementation Program (OPMP) 

JP Jean Public

CS Charlie Stout

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 1

____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 2

____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 3

____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 4

____________________________________________________________________________________
Responses to Environmental Protection Agency Comments (EPA)

EPA - 1 – 

Thank you for your timely review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan. 

EPA - 2 - 

Thank you for the Lack of Objection rating. 

EPA - 3 – 

Thank you. 

EPA - 4 – 

We will take your recommendation to modify Alternative B to minimize impact to 04 

Duke and 21 Percy Hotspur Mary areas into consideration during the decision making 

process. We will continue to work with the Metlakatla Indian Community to address 

their concerns regarding cultural resources in these areas, as well as in the 17 George 

Carroll Thorne area. 

EPA - 5 – 

We will contact Jennifer Curtis if we have any questions regarding your comments. 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 5

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 6

____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 7

____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Manageme

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 8

________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 9

________________________________________________________________
Responses to Richard Hoffmann Comments (RH)

RH - 1 – 

We are sorry that you did not have a quiet time at NE Misty. Yes, the area where you 

were located is adjacent to the Misty-Fiords National Monument Wilderness. 

In Chapter 1, page 15, of the DEIS, we list your concern as Issue 4; ‘Noise associated 

with floatplanes and boats in and around Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness 

may negatively impact wilderness character.’ This issue is discussed in Chapter 3 of the 

DEIS on pages 70 to 86. Included in the analysis is a clear distinction of what areas the 

Forest Service can control and which it cannot. On page 85, it clearly states that, 

‘Saltwater activities are not under Forest Service jurisdiction.’ These areas are under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Alaska. However, the section does go on to discuss impacts 

that may occur by limiting floatplane traffic in some areas, which could cause an increase 

in floatplane traffic to saltwater areas. We recognize that the decision made based on 

this analysis may have impacts to recreationists on saltwater areas and disclose the 

possible impacts in the DEIS. 

RH - 2 – 

Actually, none of the action alternatives proposes more use in the 06 Misty Core Lakes 

area (DEIS pg 43), which is the area that currently receives the highest flightseeing use. 

The number of service days authorized in 2009 was 11,268, with the highest use of 9,539 

service days (Alternative A). The action alternatives would authorize 7,922 service days 

in Alternative B, 6,389 in Alternative C, and 1,917 in Alternative D. 

In the area where you were recreating there would be an increase from 220 service days 

in Alternative A to 1,048 in Alternative B, 3,713 in Alternative C, and 372 in Alternative 

D. None of these days will be authorized on saltwater areas, which are managed by the 

State of Alaska. 

RH - 3 – 

As stated earlier, the Forest Service has no control over the number of airplane landings 

on salt water. This area is controlled by the State of Alaska. As for the planes flying 

over, some of these may have been landing on the freshwater lakes within the Monument 

and some may have been just flying over. 

Some floatplane operators have increased their use of saltwater landings in Rudyerd Bay 

and Walker Cove. 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 

(DEIS pg 75).

We recognize that the amount of flight traffic is high and are trying to address the portion 

that the Forest Service controls in this NEPA analysis. In the 10 Rudyerd Winstanley 

area, the current summer use is 147 service days, the action alternatives range from 150 

to 1,501 summer service days. None of these service days would authorize use on 

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 10

____________________________________________________________________________________
saltwater. Depending on which alternative is selected use in the Rudyerd area, may stay 

about the same or increase by ten-fold. The decision-maker will consider your concerns 

before making decisions on which alternative to select. 

RH - 4 – 

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 has 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 (DEIS pg 77). 

The range of alternatives addresses the concerns for solitude and sound in the Wilderness, 

while trying to balance the effect of dispersing use to saltwater locations. 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, because more 

flightseeing tours would disperse to saltwater locations. Alternative A would be the least 

likely to cause indirect impacts in saltwater areas (DEIS pg 85) since the number of 

service days available is the highest in Alternative A.

Strong storms during October 2010 caused extensive blowdown on remote hiking trails 

across the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Trails in Misty Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness were most heavily affected and trail crews began clearing work in 

mid-June 2011. All trails on the Ketchikan road system were cleared and made accessible 

to foot traffic. Due to the severity of the blowdown, crews were unable to clear all remote 

trails during the summer of 2011 (6/11/2-11 FS News Release). The downfall you 

experienced on the trail was from the October 2010 storm. Although there is motorized 

air traffic in and around the National Monument Wilderness, the regulations for no power 

tools still applies. Trails will be cleared as personnel and funds are available. 

RH - 5 – 

As explained in the Wilderness section in Chapter 3 (DEIS pgs 70-86) we have heard the 

same types of concerns from others as you express in your letter. This NEPA document 

is trying to address these concerns through the alternatives, while looking at flightseeing 

displacement to saltwater. 

RH - 6 – 

You are correct, under some of the alternatives, noise and conflict will increase. 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 (DEIS pg 90). 

Comments received during the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Planning Project highlighted 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 11

____________________________________________________________________________________
conflicts between people engaged in incompatible activities (ex. wildlife viewing and 

hunting). 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. The IDT identified 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 (DEIS pg 92).

Through the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process, indicators and standards were 

established to balance the needs of the unguided and guided visitors (DEIS Appendix E 

pg 14). The process helped in the development of a Carrying Capacity for all of the areas 

on the district (DEIS Appendix C). The action alternatives were developed based on the 

carrying capacity. If recreation use areas start to exceed the level of use in the indicators 

and standards, the district can take action to return to the level of use developed during 

the public LAC process. The intent is to limit conflicts. The amount of noise from 

saltwater landings is considered but out of the control of any decision on this analysis. 

RH - 7 – 

The flightseeing impacts to mountain goats were analyzed as part of the DEIS (pgs 123 -

124). Alternative D was developed to address concerns about aircraft noise near goat 

habitat. In Appendix B, unit cards where goat habitat exists include a restriction to 

maintain a minimum distance of 1,500 feet from subalpine/alpine habitat when mountain 

goats are present. Where possible, this distance should be increased to 6,600 feet to 

minimize effects to goats (DEIS pgs 14, 18, 22, 30, 34, 37, 42, 50, 58, 63, 67, 71, 75, 79, 

83, 87, 90, 98, 107, and 111). 

RH - 8 – 

Alternative D is similar to your alternative, with the lowest number of allocated service 

days. Alternative D would significantly reduce the effects from guided floatplane 

landings in the 06 Misty Core Lakes Use Area (DEIS pg 83). Alternative D could have a 

major effect on opportunities for solitude within the Wilderness, because it reduces the 

number of landings and in the saltwater areas of Misty Fiords, primarily Rudyerd Bay 

and Walker Cove because it would disburse use to those areas (DEIS pg 85). This 

balancing of use is the reason we have a range of alternatives. 

RH - 9 – 

When the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) established the 

Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness in 1980, it included provisions for the 

continuation of traditional methods of transport employed for accessing by local 

residents. In addition, as stated earlier, the area where you were is under the jurisdiction 

of the State of Alaska. We do not control access of motorized craft there.

The alternatives in the DEIS have a range of allocations that limit use in some areas 

within an alternative and expand use in others. The decision maker will select which 

alternative or parts of alternatives to implement in the Record of Decision. The decision 

will be based on the analysis and the concerns of all the people that comment on the 

DEIS, including your comments. 

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 12

____________________________________________________________________________________
It is also important to note that only two locations on the Tongass National Forest, Pack 

Creek and Anan Creek, currently have regulations related to unguided use. We do not 

foresee regulating or restricting unguided use at any locations on the KMRD at this time. 

RH - 10 – 

Airplane use has not increased since 2007. The numbers we show in the DEIS are 

average and highest use between 2005 and 2009. We do understand if you feel you need 

to contact the author’s of “Exploring Southeast Alaska”. 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 13

____________________________________________________________________________________
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

1689 C Street, Room 119

Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5126

9043.1 August 16, 2011 

ER11/588 

PEP/ANC

Mr. Jeff DeFreest

District Ranger

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District

Tongass National Forest

3031 Tongass Ave. 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

Dear Mr. DeFreest:

The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the June 2011 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

project. We have no comments to offer at this time.

If you have questions, please contact me at 907-271-5011. 

Sincerely, 

Pamela Bergmann

Regional Environmental Officer – Alaska

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 14

____________________________________________________________________________________
Response to Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Comments, Department of Interior (OEPC) 

OEPC – 1 – 

Thank you for taking the time to review the June 2011 DEIS. 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 15

____________________________________________________________________________________
August 22, 2011 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 

Jeffrey DeFreest, KMRD District Ranger 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

3031 Tongass Avenue 

Ketchikan, AK 99901-5743 

Dear Mr. DeFreest, 

The State of Alaska reviewed the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District (KMRD) Outfitter and Guide 

Management Draft Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The following consolidated state 

agency comments were compiled by the State’s Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) Implementation Program. 

In general, the State supports increased opportunity for recreational activities including guided 

recreational activities. We appreciate that, with the exception of a few highly utilized areas, the plan 

recommends increased opportunities for outfitting and guiding in nearly all areas of the district. While 

we do not agree with all of the conclusions, we also appreciate the District included the Wilderness 

Needs Assessments for the designated wilderness areas of KMRD in the Appendix and the 

accompanying explanation in the plan. Additionally, we recommend the District continue its increased 

efforts to work with the public and visitor industry during plan implementation. 

Background 

The plan describes guided use in terms of service days per unit, and while precise, these numbers are 

difficult to conceptualize in terms of actual use. In order to provide the public with a useful framework 

for evaluating the plan alternatives, a concise narrative description of the existing guided use on KMRD 

is essential. While guided use in the Monument is described on page 74 and pages 2-5 of Appendix A, 

this is only 43% of the total guided use on the district and there is no equivalent concise description of 

guided use on the rest of KRMD, or on KMRD as a whole. For example, the Appendix indicates 95% 

of guided use within in the Monument is flight seeing tours on Misty Core Lakes but does not specify 

what constitutes the majority of guided use outside of the Monument or on KMRD as a whole. 

We recommend adding the following key information to Chapter 1: the proportion of use by activity 

type (e.g. flight seeing landing tours; bear hunting, fishing); major locations for the different activity 

types (e.g. Misty Core Lakes for flight seeing tours); the trend in the number of outfitter/guides; the 

trend in visitor numbers and whether visitors arrive by cruise ship or independently; and the trend in 

commercial service days. 

 

 ANILCA IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

 Office of Project Management and Permitting

SEAN PARNELL, Governor

550 W. 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 1430

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501

PH: (907) 269-7529 / FAX: (907) 334-2509

susan.magee@alaska.gov

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 16

____________________________________________________________________________________
2 

State-owned Navigable Waters 

The plan includes several statements that assert the Forest Service has jurisdiction over fresh water lakes 

within the District. For example, Appendix A, page 12 includes the following statement: “Floatplane 

landings on lakes and shoreline excursions are under the Forest Service’s jurisdiction.” Pursuant to the 

Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, and the Alaska Statehood Act, the State 

automatically received at statehood title to inland submerged lands beneath navigable waters and to land 

submerged under tidal waters between mean high tide and seaward to three geographical miles from the 

coastline of the state. ANILCA also specifically exempts state-owned lands and waters from regulations 

applicable solely to conservation system units. Therefore, the Forest Service does not have blanket 

jurisdiction over state-owned navigable waters, nor does it have the authority to require commercial 

operators to obtain a special use permit without a corresponding upland use (above the ordinary high 

water line), such as float plane landings. Our understanding is that the commercially guided flight-seeing 

tours referenced in the plan include a corresponding upland use and we request this be clarified.

 

In addition, it appears the plan does not directly impact marine water excursions or marine water 

floatplane landings adjacent to Misty Fiords National Monument. We appreciate the plan identifies the 

potential for displacement to State-owned marine waters. As the Forest Service acknowledges, these 

marine waters are outside their jurisdiction. If displacement occurs, it will be within the State’s 

jurisdiction to evaluate and address any impacts.

 

Lastly, the generally-drawn mapped recreation area boundaries include state-owned navigable waters. 

We request the maps include a footnote to explain that, under the Equal Footing doctrine, the 

Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Alaska Statehood Act, and ANILCA, the recreation areas do not 

include state-owned navigable waters.

 

ADF&G Administrative Structures 

Appendix B on page 41 indicates that no additional Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 

administrative structures will be authorized on Forest lands. While we appreciate the Service’s 

continued cooperation and coordination with regard to our mutual responsibilities of conserving wildlife 

and their habitats, an outfitter/guide management plan is not the appropriate place to address ADF&G 

administrative facilities. We request this section be removed from the plan. If necessary, we are 

available to discuss this important issue. 

Carrying Capacity 

It appears the plan has taken a balanced approach to analyzing guided use capacity for the recreation 

units. For example, on one of the most heavily used units, Misty Core Lakes, the proposed action 

(Alternative B) would allocate a level of guided use that is lower than the peak use it receives now, but 

sets the highest level of any of the alternatives. However, we remain generally concerned that capacity 

limits on outfitters and guides may also impact public access. Since a high percentage of the public 

depends on outfitter/guides to utilize the Tongass National Forest, including designated wilderness 

areas, limits on the number of outfitter/guides service days may effectively restrict public use. 

Guided Deer Hunting 

We are concerned with the District’s decision to no longer authorize special use permits for guided deer 

hunting in KMRD. ADF&G is responsible for the management and sustainability of all fish and wildlife 

in Alaska, including for subsistence purposes, regardless of land ownership or designation, unless 

specifically preempted by federal law. The reasons listed in the plan for prohibiting guided deer hunts 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 17

____________________________________________________________________________________
3 

include; low demand for guided deer hunts, lack of a guide requirement for non-resident deer hunters, 

and the possibility that substantial increases in guided deer hunts could conflict with subsistence use. 

We do not agree these reasons justify prohibiting guided deer hunting, and currently the State has no 

significant issues with the level of guided deer hunting within the District. Any conflict, or potential 

conflict, between federally qualified subsistence users and non-subsistence users is best addressed by the 

Alaska Board of Game and the Federal Subsistence Board. Prohibiting guided hunts based solely on 

allocation concerns through this plan would circumvent these existing public regulatory processes. We 

therefore request that the District recognize these existing authorities and processes in the EIS and 

continue to permit guided deer hunting on the non-wilderness and wilderness portions of the District.

Special Use Permits 

We recognize that guided use allocations allow for a more streamlined Outfitter Guide (special use) 

permit process. In future plan amendments, we recommend the Forest Service quantify or demonstrate 

the effectiveness of the new process. 

Transporters/Air and Boat Charters 

We are encouraged that the plan indicates unguided visitors will continue to enjoy KMRD as they do 

now; however, we request more explicit recognition that public access to KMRD via transporters, 

including boat and air charters, will not be affected by this plan. As written, it is unclear to readers 

whether this is the case. We further recommend clearly defining transporter activities in contrast to 

outfitter and guide activities, so that readers are not confused about the plan’s intentions. 

Adaptive Management 

We appreciate the District’s adaptive management strategy, which would first implement management 

actions that would cause the least impact to visitors should the District determine that action is necessary 

to address resource concerns. Through adaptive management the KMRD managers’ flexibility in 

working with Outfitter and Guides is enhanced. For example, it clarifies the means by which managers 

can administer special use permits, such as adding service days under a permit when appropriate. 

Page Specific Comments 

Page 10, Public Involvement, 2nd paragraph: The plan indicates that ADF&G and the ANILCA office 

were consulted “as the Needs Assessment was being developed.” This statement is incorrect. While the 

Needs Assessments were provided to us upon request, at the time of the request they were already 

completed. No input was sought from the State during their development and as stated previously, the 

State does not agree with all conclusions in the assessments. 

Page 80, Wilderness Character (Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation), third 

paragraph: Self-discovery and exploration are very subjective benefits. The assertion that these benefits 

cannot be realized through use of an outfitter or guide is ill-founded. Individuals do not need to be selfguided to experience “wilderness” benefits. Furthermore, it is unclear how the mere “opportunity” to 

use outfitter and guide services affects wilderness character. An individual still has the option to visit 

designated wilderness without the service of an outfitter or guide.

Page 134, Affected Environment, sixth paragraph: Both quotes on this page are from Title VIII of 

ANILCA, not Title VII. We request this technical correction in the final plan. 

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 18

____________________________________________________________________________________
4 

Page 137, Competition, second paragraph, first sentence: Since there is not yet a moratorium on brown 

and black bear guides and hunts, this should read: 

With the current moratoriums on new brown and black bear guides and hunts.... 

Page 137, Competition, second paragraph, third sentence: ANILCA Section 804 states that subsistence 

uses shall be accorded a priority opportunity whenever it is necessary to restrict the taking of 

populations of fish and wildlife to protect the viability of populations, or to continue subsistence uses. 

The presence of competition for wildlife resources does not invoke this priority opportunity. 

Volume B, Appendix A: 

Page 12, Lake Landings: This section includes the following: 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) allows these uses, but does not 

discuss their use for commercial purposes, nor does it address the levels of motorized use. 

Section 707 of ANILCA states that “except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act 

wilderness designated by this Act shall be administered in accordance with applicable provisions 

of the Wilderness Act...” Ultimately, any use must leave the wilderness resource unimpaired for 

future use and preserve the wilderness character. 

We disagree that ANILCA does not address levels of motorized use and request this discussion be 

expanded to clarify that ANILCA Section 1110(a) specifically allows motorized access into and within 

designated wilderness in Alaska for traditional activities, such as hunting and fishing, “subject to 

reasonable regulation...to protect the natural and other values....and shall not be prohibited 

unless...such use would be detrimental to the resource values” As noted, Section 707 states “except as 

otherwise expressly provided for in this Act.” The allowance for motorized use in designated wilderness 

is expressly the type of exception referenced in Section 707. The level of use depends upon whether 

there are quantifiable impacts to resource values. Any restrictions to public motorized use must be 

reasonable (i.e. justified), the result of a detrimental effect to resource values, and implemented through 

regulation. Similarly, because limits to commercial use could affect the public’s ability to access these 

remote areas, adequate justification is needed before implementing restrictions to motorized commercial 

use. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at (907) 269-7529 if you have any 

questions. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Susan Magee 

 ANILCA Program Coordinator 

 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 19

____________________________________________________________________________________
Responses to Office of Project Management and Permitting 

Comments, State of Alaska, ANILCA Implementation Program

(OPMP) 

OPMP – 1 – 

We hope the Wilderness Needs Assessments helped your understanding of the analysis in 

the DEIS. 

OPMP – 2 – 

The District plans to continue to work with the public and visitor industry during plan 

implementation. Page 39 in the DEIS includes the Project Monitoring and outlines ways 

that the permit administrators work with permit holders to determine use and affects. 

Page 40 in the Project Monitoring section states ways that the KMRD staff will interact 

with the public to determine effects of project implementation. The results of the 

monitoring will be used adaptive management strategy. 

Page 40 also states that programs and strategies used to manage resources include 

education and awareness, field visits, site inspections, and visitor feedback. 

OPMP – 3 – 

Please refer to the Recreation Use and Use Levels section on pages 88 to 92, in the DEIS. 

The DEIS also includes the commercially guided activities needed on KMRD on page 5. 

These are the activities we analyzed in the DEIS. Any decisions on the analysis would be 

for these activities. 

We added a brief summary of current guided uses to Chapters 1 and 3 of the FEIS. It is 

important to realize that this does not mean that future permits will be issued in the same 

proportion as past permits. Permitted activities are based on requests from outfitters and 

guides; the analysis does not specify how many days go to each guided activity in order 

to maintain flexibility for outfitters and guides. 

OPMP – 4 – 

Please refer to the Recreation Use and Use Levels section on pages 88 to 92, in the DEIS. 

This section describes the increase in summer visitors, the increase in the number of 

outfitters and guides, and the types of guided activities on KMRD. Please also note the 

response to OPMP 3. 

OPMP – 5 – 

The Forest Service recognizes the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska over land submerged 

under tidal waters between mean high tide and seaward. The project area description on 

DEIS page 1, specifically states that the project area consists of National Forest System 

lands. As stated on the same page you reference, Appendix A, page 12, activities 

occurring in the air and on saltwater are outside of Forest Service jurisdiction. The areas 

managed by the State that we mention in the document, we use as part of our review of 

cumulative effects, and discuss how the alternatives may increase the use of saltwater 

areas. 

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 20

____________________________________________________________________________________
The State and the Forest Service do not always agree on navigability and reserved federal 

lands. When it comes to lake landings; this difference in definition has sometimes 

become an issue for the court to decide. It is our understanding that the State 

acknowledges this difference of opinion. 

According to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Mining, Land & Water 

Navigability Program website, 

“Because of differing legal interpretations of court navigability decisions, several 

aspects of the criteria used by the state to determine navigability have been disputed 

by the federal government. As a direct result of these criteria disputes, many 

waterbodies considered navigable by the state have been determined non-navigable 

by the federal government.” (http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/nav/nav_policy.htm)

“Another navigability dispute involves remote, isolated lakes. The federal 

government has found many of these lakes legally non-navigable, even though they 

are physically capable of being navigated. The federal government's contention is 

that a navigable connection to another area is necessary to make travel on a remote 

lake worthwhile. Otherwise, the federal government views the lack of development 

in the area around the isolated lake as an indication that the lake will never be used 

for commercial transportation. 

To resolve these navigability criteria disputes, the state has actively pursued a 

limited number of court cases challenging particular findings of non-navigability by 

the federal government. With the sole exception of floatplanes, the courts have 

agreed with the navigability criteria presented by the State of Alaska and have 

rejected the limitations suggested by the federal government.” 

The case that DNR uses as an example for floatplanes is, 

“Slopbucket Lake. The state claimed that the extensive use of floatplanes on 

Slopbucket Lake, a twenty acre lake adjacent to Lake Iliamna, was sufficient to 

establish navigability. The federal courts rejected this view. The courts reasoned 

that floatplanes do not use the lake as a navigable highway; they just take off and 

land there. Alaska v. United States, 754 F.2d 851 (9th Cir.) cert denied, 106 S. Ct. 

333 (1985).” 

We are not trying to solve the complicated navigability dispute administratively, through 

this document; however, based on our direction and your web site, we feel the need to 

consider these landlocked lakes as part of the national forest in our analysis. The Forest 

Service considers these lakes as not navigable because they are landlocked within the 

Tongass National Forest and commercial activities are floatplanes. This appears 

consistent with the Slopbucket Lake decision. Thus, the Forest Service feels they have 

the authority to require commercial operators to obtain a special use permit. Final

determination of jurisdiction based on navigability would be a judicial determination. 

The commercially guided flight-seeing tours referenced in the DEIS may include a 

corresponding upland use; however, not all flightseeing tours include shoreline excursions. 

Some operators land on the lakes, allow their passengers to view the forest from the 

floatplane floats, and then leave without touching land. 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 21

____________________________________________________________________________________
 

OPMP – 6 – 

As stated in the DEIS (pg 85), we do recognize that the State has jurisdiction over Stateowned marine waters. These areas are included in our discussion of cumulative effects 

because we recognize that decisions we make regarding access to the National Monument 

may have an effect on lands under other ownership. Please see the letter from Richard 

Hoffmann (above) that relates to management of State waters.

OPMP – 7 – 

In the FEIS, we added a sentence to the Project Area Description on page 1, which 

currently states that the project area consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands that 

the project area excludes state and privately owned land, including all areas below mean 

high tide. We also added a footnote on Figures 1-1 and 1-2 that states that the plan only 

includes National Forest System lands even though the maps show State and private 

lands. 

OPMP – 8 – 

We removed the sentence on page 41 that states, “No additional structures will be 

authorized on NFS lands.” The listing of the ADF&G administrative facility will be 

retained since all of the existing sites are listed. 

OPMP – 9 – 

Your contention that the alternatives may affect public access is true in regards to guided 

visitors. Regardless, the Forest Service is required to: 

1) conduct a needs assessment to determine public or agency need for authorized 

outfitting and guiding activities, 

2) when monitoring demonstrates that impacts associated with use may exceed 

desired conditions, conduct a resource capacity analysis, and 

3) determine the allocation of use between outfitter and guided and non-outfitted 

and guided visitors (FSH 2709.14 Chapter 50 Outfitting and Guiding and Other 

Concession Services). 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provides for the 

continuation of traditional methods of transport employed for accessing Misty Fiords 

National Monument Wilderness by local residents. If for some reason in the future a limit 

on unguided use is considered, it would require further analysis. It is important to note 

that only two locations on the Tongass National Forest, Pack Creek and Anan Creek, 

currently have regulations related to unguided use. We do not foresee regulating or 

restricting unguided use at any locations on KMRD at this time. 

At this time, the agency does not restrict the use of transporters to access wilderness or 

non-wilderness areas or the private use of airplanes or motorboats. Transporters are not 

under permit by the Forest Service and are regulated by the State.

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 22

____________________________________________________________________________________
OPMP – 10 – 

Again, the Forest Service is required to conduct a needs assessment to determine the 

public or agency need for authorized outfitting and guiding activities. KMRD completed 

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

District in September 2008. Factors considered in determining the need for each 

outfitter/guide activity included: 

1) skills needed to accommodate users, 

2) access, 

3) safety, 

4) special management objectives,

 5) wilderness dependence, and 

6) resource effects (biophysical/social). 

Historically, there have been very few guided deer hunts on the KMRD, and all guided 

deer hunting has occurred outside of wilderness. There is no State requirement for a 

guide and local residents, without guide services, commonly hunt deer. Deer are often 

hunted in areas easily accessed from town, reducing the risks associated with remote 

travel and recreation. Between 2003 and 2005, there were no successful deer harvests in 

Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. While ADF&G is responsible for the 

management and sustainability of fish and wildlife in Alaska, the Forest Service has the 

authority to determine when and where there is a need for guided activities. 

OPMP – 11 – 

We agree, this should be reviewed after monitoring – 5 to 10 years from now. 

OPMP – 12 – 

In the DEIS, we explicitly defined “...transporters (essentially a person hired to drop 

people off and pick people up)” (page 136). We also stated that, “if someone chose to use 

a transporter, the Forest Service would consider them unguided users since transporters 

would not be regulated by this decision. Thus, access for people transported to areas on 

KMRD would not change.” In the FEIS, we strengthened this recognition by adding 

additional information to Chapters 1 and 3, and by providing definitions of outfitting, 

guiding, and transporter in Chapter 4. 

OPMP – 13 – 

Thank you for your comment. 

OPMP – 14 – 

District staff consulted with Boyd Porter (ADF&G Wildlife Conservation, Ketchikan 

area) during the early development stages of the Determination of Need for Commercial 

Uses on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District to determine if there were concerns 

related to big game hunting on the wilderness or non-wilderness portions of the District. 

Mr. Porter was also given several opportunities to comment on the draft document before 

the document was finalized. The goal of this consultation was not to achieve consensus 

on the determination of need for various activities, but to inform the determination 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 23

____________________________________________________________________________________
through a mutual understanding of management objectives – both those of the State and 

the Forest Service. It is correct that the State ANILCA office, or more specifically, Sue 

Magee, was given a copy of the signed document in April of 2010, after it had been 

completed.

OPMP – 15 – 

In the paragraph prior to the one referenced (Ch 3 Affected Environment and Effects, p. 

80), it is acknowledged that “Misty Fiords is largely undeveloped and opportunities for 

self-discovery, challenge and freedom from managerial controls abound.” Nevertheless, 

the use of outfitters and guides does reduce the need for visitors to obtain personal skills 

related to trip planning/outfitting, travel /camping in primitive areas, and primitive travel. 

Forest Service managers are responsible for protecting the wilderness resources and 

wilderness character but have the discretion to allow commercial activities if they are 

found to be necessary to meet wilderness objectives. Development of primitive skills and 

activities is a goal of wilderness management.

OPMP – 16 – 

We corrected this in the FEIS. 

OPMP – 17 – 

We disagree with this comment. A brown bear moratorium is currently in effect 

according to the ADF&G Unit 1 Brown Bear Management Report (Scott 2009). The 

Forest Service implemented a moratorium on additional guided black bear hunting in 

2008. Additional actions were taken by the Board of Game in 2010 include “allocating 

bear harvests to ... non-resident guided hunters ... based on the 3-year average of harvest 

during 2007-2009” and going to a drawing hunt to reduce the number of permits for 

unguided non-resident hunters. These black bear regulations go into effect for the 2102-

2013 regulatory season and affect both existing and potential new guides. 

Additionally, the DEIS referenced the “Scott 2007” report; the FEIS was the updated to 

reference the Scott 2009 report. 

OPMP – 18 – 

We have clarified this in the FEIS.

OPMP – 19 – 

We disagree with the State’s comment. Nothing in Section 1110(a) of ANILCA 

addresses commercial uses in wilderness by commercial flightseeing/landing tours by 

non-rural (non-federally qualified) visitors. As the State points out, Section 1110(a) deals 

with airplanes for access traditional activities such as hunting and fishing, "subject to 

reasonable regulation...to protect the natural and other values...". The paragraph on page 

12 acknowledges that ANILCA allows motorized use (an exception under Section 707) 

and emphasizes the importance of protecting the wilderness character. The only specific 

exception to the Wilderness Act in ANILCA that speaks to commercial uses is Section 

1307. This section allows for continuation of services for persons operating on or before 

January 1, 1979 who were adequately providing visitor services within conservation 

system units providing such type of service and similar types of visitor services within 

the conservation system unit are consistent with the purposes for which the unit was 

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 24

____________________________________________________________________________________
established. Section 1307(c) specifically states "Nothing in this Act shall limit or affect 

the authority of the Federal Government ... to license and regulate transportation 

services" Refer to the DEIS/FEIS, Issue 4 and the Wilderness Section for analysis of 

floatplane impact on the wilderness character and the Subsistence section for analysis of 

hunting and fishing access.

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 25

____________________________________________________________________________________
jean public <jeanpublic@yahoo.com>

06/25/2011 02:11 PM

To comments-alaska-tongass-ketchikan-mistyfiord@fs.fed.us

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

i want the days reduced to zero. i do not believe the guides exist to guide people to kill any animal. i wonder why you do. the killing and murder offensive to me and to about 60% of the population of the united states. why are you clinging to l860 behavior when this is 201. wildlife watcherkillers by 80 to l. and they outspend wildlife murdering sadist gun wacko hunters so that when you consign an area to killing animals, that area supandering to wildlife watchers. they are far more affluent.

that is my comment for the public record.

jeanpublic

--- On Fri, 6/24/11, comments-alaska-tongass-ketchikan-mistyfiord@fs.fed.us <comments-alaska-tongass-ketchikan-mistyfiord@fs.fed.us> 

From: comments-alaska-tongass-ketchikan-mistyfiord@fs.fed.us <comments-alaska-tongass-ketchikan-mistyfiord@fs.fed.us>Subject: Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management PlanTo: Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 2:12 PM

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

The DEIS for the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan project has been completed. The three action alternatives analyzed would allocate (distribu

74,000 service days annually to outfitters and guides for recreational use on National Forest System Lands within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. The no-action about 24,200 service days to outfitters and guides based on the highest use by area between 2005 and 2009. Copies of the DEIS are available for review in several formats. Tinternet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/nepa_project.shtml?project=32817 & for background information http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/ketchikan/r

For more information or a different DEIS format, contact Sue Jennings, the project team leader, at 907-772-5864.Thanks for your time,JEFFREY DEFREEST, District Ranger, 3031 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan _______________________________________________

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 26

__________________________________________________________________
Marti Marshall/R10/USDAFS

07/10/2011 03:52 PM

To Hans J von Rekowski/R10/USDAFS@FSNOTES, Bill 

Tremblay/R10/USDAFS@FSNOTES, Jeff 

DeFreest/R10/USDAFS@BPOS, Susan 

cc Erin Uloth/R10/USDAFS@FSNOTES, Hannah V 

Atadero/R10/USDAFS@FSNOTES

bcc

Subject Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT ON EIS 2011-0211 TONGASS 

PLAN FOR GUIDES

I'm not sure why I got this (but I see hannah atadero did too so they may have grabbed RAC emails). It 

seems in response to requests for comments on the 

on the Misty-K'Kan OG analysis i highlighted below. So FYI to those who are tracking.

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Marti M. Marshall

Juneau District Ranger

Tongass National Forest

Juneau, AK

PHONE: (907) 789-6244 

mmarshall01@fs.fed.us

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

----- Forwarded by Marti Marshall/R10/USDAFS on 07/10/2011 03:32 PM -----

usacitizen1 usacitizen1 

<usacitizen1@live.com>

07/09/2011 09:11 AM

To <mmarshall01@fs.fed.us>, <hatadero@fs.fed.us>, 

<foe@foe.org>, <info@peer.org>, <info@sierraclub.org>

cc <humanelines@hsus.org>, <info@peta.org>, 

<info@godscreaturesministry.org>, 

<broads@greatoldbroads.org>

Subject PUBLIC COMMENT ON EIS 2011-0211 TONGASS PLAN 

FOR GUIDES

I HAVE SEVERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE GUIDING PRACTICES THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE TONGASS. 

THE WILDIFE DOESNT HAVE A CHANCE WITH MOST OF THESE GUIDES, WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO 

LET WILDLIFE MURDERERS KILL SOMETHING SO THEY CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEIR TRIP. IF FIND 

THAT APPALLING AND DISGUSTING.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT MUCH MORE CAREFULLY THAN WE HAVE. I THINK THE 

GUIDES BEGIN TO THINK THEY OWN THE ANIMALS WHEN EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE NATIONAL 

POPULATION OWNS EVERY INCH OF THAT FOREST. EVERY SINGLE INCH. AND ALL THE SPECIES THAT

LIVE THERE. IT IS TIME TO WORK FOR THE ANIMALS PROTECTION. THE GUIDES SHOULD BE 

RESTRICTED TO ONLY GUIDING TO SEE ANIMALS. NOT TO KILL THEM. SOMETHING HAS GONE 

DESPERATELY, DIGSUTINGSLY WRONG IN ALLOWING THESE GUIDES TO GUIDE WILDLIFE 

MURDERERS.

JEAN PUBLIC ADDRESS IF REQUIRED

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 07:20:52 -0700

From: jeanpublic@yahoo.com

Subject: COMMENT

To: USACITIZEN1@LIVE.COM

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 27

____________________________________________________________________________________
[Notices]

[Pages 40354-40355]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2011-17199]

==============================================================

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8997-8]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

 Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 

Information (202) 564-1399 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements

Filed 06/27/2011 Through 07/01/2011

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

 In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is 

required to make its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies 

public. Historically, EPA met this mandate by publishing weekly notices 

of availability of EPA comments, which includes a brief summary of 

EPA's comment letters, in the Federal Register. Since February 2008, 

EPA has included its comment letters on EISs on its Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nep

entire EIS 

comment letters on the Web site satisfies the Section 309(a) 

requirement to make EPA's comments on EISs available to the public. 

Accordingly, on March 31, 2010, EPA discontinued the publication of the 

notice of availability of EPA comments in the Federal Register.

EIS No. 20110210, Final EIS, USFS, NM, McKinley County Easement--Forest 

Roads 191 and 191D, Implementation, Cibola National Forest, McKinley 

County, NM, Review Period Ends: 08/08/2011, Contact: Keith Baker 505-

346-3820.

EIS No. 20110211, Draft EIS, USFS, AK, Ketchikan--Misty Fiords

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan, Authorizes Outfitter and Guide

Operations through the Issuance of Special-Use-Permits, Tongass

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 28

____________________________________________________________________________________
National Forest, Ketchikan-Misty Ranger District, Ketchikan, AK,

Comment Period Ends: 08/22/2011, Contact: Susan Jennings 907-723-0477.

EIS No. 20110212, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, Ocotillo Express Wind Energy 

Project, Proposing to Develop a 465-Megawatt Wind Energy Facility, 

Implementation, Imperial County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 10/05/2011, 

Contact: Cedric Perry 951-697-5388.

EIS No. 20110213, Final EIS, FAA, RI, Theodore Francis Green Airport 

Improvement Program, Proposing Improvements to Enhance Safety and the 

Efficiency of the Airport and the New England Regional Airport System, 

City of Warwick, Kent County, RI, Review Period Ends: 08/08/2011, 

Contact: Richard Doucette 781-238-7613.

EIS No. 20110214, Draft Supplement, USFS, ND, North Billings County 

Allotment Management Plan Revisions, Updated Information, Proposes to 

Continue to Permit Livestock Grazing on 43 Allotments, Medora Ranger 

District, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, Billings County, ND, Comment 

Period Ends: 08/22/2011, Contact: Nickole Dahl 701-227-7800.

EIS No. 20110215, Final EIS, FHWA, WI, Wisconsin Highway Project, 

Mobility Motorized and Nonmotorized Travel Enhancements, Updated 

Information on New Alternatives, and Evaluates a Staged Improvement, 

US18/151 (Verona Road) and the US 12/14 (Beltine) Corridors, Dane 

County, WI, Review Period Ends: 08/08/2011, Contact: George R. Poirier 

608-829-7500.

EIS No. 20110216, Final EIS, FHWA, UT, Hyde Park/North Logan Corridor 

Project, Proposed 200 East Transportation Corridor between North Logan 

City and Hyde Park, Funding, Right-of-Way Acquisitions and US Army COE 

Section 404 Permit, Cache County, UT, Review Period Ends: 08/08/2011, 

Contact: Paul C. Ziman 801-955-3525.

[[Page 40355]]

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20110149, Draft EIS, USFS, MT, Troy Mine Revised Reclamation 

Plan, Proposed Revision is to Return Lands Disturbed by Mining to a 

Condition Appropriate for Subsequent Use of the Area, Kootenai National 

Forest, MT, Comment Period Ends: 08/05/2011, Contact: Bobbie Loaklen 

406-283-7681.

 Revision to FR Notice Published 05/20/2011: Extending Comment 

Period from 07/05/2011 to 08/05/2011.

 Dated: July 5, 2011.

Aimee S. Hessert,

Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 29

____________________________________________________________________________________
Activities.

[FR Doc. 2011-17199 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 30

____________________________________________________________________________________
Responses to Jean Public Comments (JP) 

JP -1 – 

Thank you for your concerns about wildlife hunting within the project area. As you 

stated, you would like all hunting operations to stop. Wildlife hunting is just one of the 

activities permitted on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. Other activities 

include floatplane landing tours, freshwater fishing, remote setting nature tours, wildlife 

viewing at developed sites, camping, road-based nature tours, and institutional use (e.g. 

youth and education groups) (DEIS pg 5). 

Most of the permitted use on the district is for activities other than hunting, including 

flightseeing, wildlife viewing, and nature tours, which are frequented by wildlife 

watchers. Based on the number of permits, wildlife viewers do outnumber wildlife 

hunters on the district. Guided use on the KMRD is largely concentrated in four use 

areas. In those areas, the most common guided activities are floatplane landing tours and 

remote setting nature tours (DEIS pg 90). However, the district has no plans to stop 

permitting guided hunts with this decision. The Determination for Commercial Uses on 

KMRD found that there was a public need for these activities on KMRD (DEIS 

Appendix A, pg 33). 

JP -2 – 

Two types of guided hunting are permitted on KMRD, goat hunting and bear hunting. 

Both of these permitted activities are coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) objectives (DEIS pg 123). 

Wildlife management and hunting quotas are under State jurisdiction. All permitted 

guides must work within both the laws and regulations of the State of Alaska and the 

Forest Service restrictions on their permits (DEIS pgs 19 and 20). 

JP -3 – 

Hunting guides must follow all of the restrictions in their permit and follow all other state 

regulations (DEIS pgs 19 and 20). The highest amount of permitted use on the district is 

for floatplane landing tours and remote setting nature tours (DEIS pg 90). These 

activities meet your request for guided use to view wildlife. 

Currently on KMRD, there are four outfitters and guides with Forest Service special use 

permits to hunt brown bear, for 11 hunts; four permits authorizing black bear hunts, and 

four goat-hunting guides are authorized 20 hunts. 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 31

____________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie Stout called me and asked for a copy of the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords DEIS. He also expressed his 

concerns about the project. Charlie is concerned that the bear viewing guides will get all of the areas 

closed to hunting, specifically bear hunters. He would like his kids and grandkids to be able to hunt in 

areas where he has hunted. 

Charlie Stout 

907 247-2628 

Ketchikan, AK 

07/21/2011

Notes by Sue Jennings, IDT Leader, 907 772‐5864

____________________________________________________________ Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 32

____________________________________________________________________________________
Response to Charlie Stout Comments (CS) 

CS-1 – 

At the November 2010 Board of Game (BOG) meeting the BOG 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 (DEIS, pg 125). 

This closure should not substantially affect bear hunters since there are many areas to 

hunt bear on the district. This EIS does not propose to close any areas to bear hunting. 

____________________________________________________________ Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A, Responses to Comments - Page 33

____________________________________________________________________________________
This page left blank intentionally.