1

ARTHUR CARHART NATIONAL WILDERNESS TRAINING CENTER

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DECISION GUIDE

WORKSHEETS

“. . . except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act...”

– the Wilderness Act, 1964

Project Title: Lauzon/Sausville Private Land Access

Special Use within the Glastenbury Wilderness

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary.

The New England Wilderness Act of 2006 created the Glastenbury Wilderness, within which two separate 10.1 acre private land inholdings are located (map 1). The first inholding is owned by Eugene and Gloria Lauzon (figure 2). Their year-round historic access has been by full-sized vehicles (trucks or SUV), Off Highway Vehicles (ATV, motorcycle or snowmobile, aka OHV), bicycle, or horse, using the Lauzon/Sausville access road (formerly known as Forest Road 288) for approximately 1.2 miles beginning at the Wilderness boundary. The second inholding is owned by David and Anthony Sausville, and Alfred Latour (figure 2). Their historic access has been by full-sized vehicles (trucks or SUV) up to the termination of the Lauzon/Sausville access road approximately 0.8 mile past the Lauzon property, and then by OHVs (ATV, motorcycle or snowmobile) on an old road bed to their property for approximately 1.0 mile (a total of 3.0 miles beginning at the current Wilderness boundary). Both inholdings have year-round cabins and associated infrastructure.

Description: Describe the situation that may prompt action.

2

Both landowners were contacted in March 2007 informing them their land was located in Wilderness and that the Forest Service would work with them to provide authorization for the most mutually desirable location and means for access to their property (appendix 1). Permit applications were received in September 2008 requesting the same level of year-round historic access enjoyed by the landowners. The proposed access was partially reviewed by resource specialists with the intent to categorically exclude (CE) the analysis in a Decision Memo level NEPA document citing 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3): “Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of NFS lands that require less than five contiguous acres of land”. The review and subsequent Decision Memo to authorize the issuance of permits to the landowners were never completed due to conflicting priorities such as the projects completed under the American Recovery and Restoration Act, and changes in key staff responsible for this project. Due to the Sequoia Forest Keepers Court Order, the CE process has changed since the end of March 2012. The law suit now requires Decision Memo level NEPA to be subject to a 30-day notice and comment period. In August 2011, rainfall associated with Tropical Storm Irene substantially damaged the Lauzon/Sausville access road causing washout of the road bed in various locations, and compromising bridge abutments (figures 3 and 4). The landowners of both inholdings have requested repair work to the road and bridge infrastructure, and resubmitted permit applications in January 2012 (appendix 6), again requesting historic year-round access to their respective properties. The proposal still appears to fall within the same category of exclusion for issuing a special use permit. Final determination will depend on whether extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant a higher level of NEPA analysis and documentation.

Figures 3 and 4: Road damage near Bolles Brook in Glastenbury Wilderness (11/2011)

To determine if administrative action is necessary, answer the questions listed in A - F on the following pages by answering Yes or No, and providing an explanation.

Figure 2: Lauzon cabin (December 2011) Figure 1: Sausville camp (July 2011)

3

Yes: No: Explain: The Lauzon and Sausville family camps were well established when the United States bought the surrounding land to be added to the National Forest. Historic land records show that the USA purchased 5,800 acres designated as Tract No.130 from Trenor W.P. Scott, et al by Warranty Deed dated April 16, 1986. In this deed, Trenor W. P. Scott, retained ownership to the two 10.1 acre camp lots treating them as exceptions. In a transaction recorded on July 31, 1990, he sold the Lauzon camp to Eugene and Larry Lauzon. In a transaction recorded March 8, 1995, Mr. Scott sold the other camp to Alfred LaTour, Jr.; David J. Sausville, Sr.; David J. Sausville, Jr.; Anthony J. Sausville; and Francis Sausville. Since that time, President Bush signed the New England Wilderness Act which designated approximately 42,000 acres of the Glastenbury Wilderness on December 1, 2006, which now surrounds these two 10.1 acre inholdings. Both private properties are completely surrounded by National Forest System land that has been designated Wilderness. There is no other access to these inholdings except through Wilderness. Both Mr. and Mrs. Sausville and Larry and Eugene Lauzon were sent letters March 20, 2007, informing them about the new Wilderness designation around their property. They were assured the right to reasonable and enjoyable use of their property through Public Law 96-487 or Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). If the cabin owners were agreeable to let the Forest Service buy the private inholdings or trade it for other land outside of the Wilderness, then options outside of the Wilderness could become feasible. However, the cabin owners have requested a long term special use permit authorizing motorized access to their land which goes through the Wilderness. ANILCA and this special use permit request for motorized use makes action necessary in Wilderness.

A. Options Outside of Wilderness Is action necessary within wilderness?

4

Map 1: Lauzon and Sausville properties within Glastenbury Wilderness

5

Yes: No: Explain: The Glastenbury Wilderness was designated by Congress per the New England Wilderness Act of 2006 and is administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964. Rights for adequate access to both the Lauzon and Sausville/Latour inholdings shall be given since they are completely surrounded by National Forest System lands with the Glastenbury Wilderness. Neither landowner is interested in selling or exchanging land to the Forest Service. Section 213(a) of the New England Wilderness Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-382) states:

“Subject to valid rights in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, each wilderness area designated under this subtitle and in the Green Mountain National Forest shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).”

Sections 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) state:

5(a) “ In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value under authorities available to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That the United States shall not transfer to a state or private owner any mineral interests unless the State or private owner relinquishes or causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in the surrounded land. 5(b) In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occupancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness area, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations consistent with the preservation of the area as wilderness, permit ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated. 5 (c) Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress”

Yes: No: Explain: Access to private land inholdings surrounded by National Forest System lands is provided per the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 (Public Law 96-487). Section 1323(a) of ANILCA states:

B. Valid Existing Rights or Special Provisions of Wilderness Legislation Is action necessary to satisfy valid existing rights or a special provision in wilderness legislation (the Wilderness Act of 1964 or subsequent wilderness laws) that allows or requires consideration of the Section 4(c) prohibited uses? Cite law and section.

C. Requirements of Other Legislation Is action necessary to meet the requirements of other laws? Cite law and section.

6

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to non-federally owned land within the boundaries of the National Forest System as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof: Provided, That such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to ingress and egress to or from the National Forest System.”

ANILCA applies to both the Lauzon and Sausville/Latour inholdings. Both landowners have submitted their Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (SF-299) including the type of access they desire for the reasonable use and enjoyment of their respective private lands. As stated previously, neither landowner is interested in selling or exchanging land to the Forest Service. Forest Service policies implementing ANILCA statute:

1. ANILCA, Section 1323 granted non-federal landowners, whose ownership lies within the boundaries of the National Forest System (NFS), or is surrounded by public lands administered by the BLM in Alaska, the statutory right of access over public lands when such federal lands are needed to provide for the reasonable use and enjoyment of non-federal lands. Sec. 1323(a) of ANILCA applies to NFS lands throughout the United States.

2. An ANILCA access situation exists where federal lands managed by the BLM (in Alaska)

surround a private parcel, or where NFS lands are the only reasonable option available for the landowner to access their land for its reasonable use and enjoyment. In such cases, the BLM and the Forest Service are obligated by the statute to grant reasonable access.

3. A landowner’s statutory right of access is limited to that which is adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of the subject non-federal land. The right of access is also subject to the reasonable rules and regulations the Secretary of Interior or Agriculture, as applicable.

4. The BLM and Forest Service, as the responsible land management agencies, have discretion to determine the location, design, type and extent of access that will be granted across federal land, consistent with the provisions of ANILCA.

5. Forest Service regulations implementing Section 1323(a) of ANILCA are found at 36 CFR 251,

Subpart D.

6. In ANILCA access cases, the responsible agency will grant the actual access authorization under authority of Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). BLM and Forest Service decisions to grant access must be made in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Access authorizations must be conditioned to assure that the use and occupancy of federal lands for access purposes is exercised in a manner that complies with all applicable laws and regulations, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 10/15/66) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 12/28/73).

7. In applying for an access authorization under ANILCA, the landowner is obligated to disclose the

proposed use and enjoyment of their property (36 CFR 251.112). Because the Forest Service is obligated to grant only that type and extent of access which is adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of the land being accessed.

8. In applying for an access authorization under ANILCA, the landowner must first demonstrate that he/she has exhausted all legal recourse to obtain reasonable access across adjacent non-federal lands, or must conclusively prove that other alternative means of access have little chance of success (36 CFR 251.114).

9. What constitutes “reasonable” use and enjoyment of a parcel of non-federal land is case-specific. The agency should consider state and local laws, zoning restrictions, along with typical uses of

7

similarly situated parcels of non-federal land, in proximity to the land for which access is being requested.

10. The type of access considered “commensurate” with the reasonable use and enjoyment of a parcel of non-federal land, or “adequate” to secure to the owner that reasonable use and enjoyment is the responsibility of agency official. It should make a judgment on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the conventional, traditional means of accessing similarly situated properties for similar uses and enjoyment, in proximity to the parcel of land to which access is being requested.

11. ANILCA applies to non-federal lands within a designated wilderness area. However, Section 5 of the Wilderness Act and agency policy in Forest Service Manual 2326.13 direct the responsible forest officer to consider and adequately exhaust the alternative of acquiring, through direct purchase or land exchange, the non-federal lands within a designated wilderness area prior to processing an application for access to such lands.

Yes: No: Explain: The 2006 Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), Chapter 3 - Management Area Direction; Wilderness Management Area under Non- Recreation Special Uses, Standard S-1 (Forest Plan, p.53) states:

“Permits for non-recreational special uses shall not be issued unless required by law to provide access to non-federal land.”

The proposal to grant a long-term access special use permit to each landowner is in compliance with Forest Plan direction including Wilderness Management Area (MA 5.1) standards and guideline, since alternative means of access are unavailable. Restoration of the damaged access to a safe condition may be taken to be part of that requirement. Forest Service Manual (FSM) Motorized access and the use of motorized equipment to repair and maintain the existing road is needed to provide access to both inholdings. The use of motorized transport and equipment within wilderness is guided by FSM 2300 (Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management), Chapter 2320 (Wilderness Management). FSM 2324.04b - The Regional Forester is responsible for:

5. Approving special-use permits for access to valid occupancies and private lands when such use involves construction, reconstruction, or restoration of roads, or other substantial surface disturbance.

FSM 2326.04b - The Regional Forester is responsible for approving:

1. Transport and supply by aircraft, air drop, motor boat, or mechanical transport for situations that meet the conditions under items 2, 4, or 5, in FSM 2326.1.

2. Hand-portable motorized equipment for needs that meet conditions listed under item 5 of FSM 2326.1.

3. Motorized ground equipment not designed for personnel transport and of a type or size that is controlled from a position afoot.

FSM 2326.1 - Conditions Under Which Use May Be Approved. Allow the use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport only for:

D. Other Guidance Is action necessary to conform to direction contained in agency policy, unit and wilderness management plans, species recovery plans, or agreements with tribal, state and local governments or other federal agencies?

8

4. Access to surrounded State and private lands and valid occupancies (FSM 2326.13). FSM 2326.13 - Access to Surrounded State and Private Land, Valid Mining Claims, or Other Valid Occupancies

1. Surrounded State and Private Land. Ensure adequate access to States or persons, and their successors in interest, who own land completely surrounded by wilderness. Adequate access is defined in 36 CFR 293.12 and section 2320.5.

Prevent unauthorized road construction or motorized transport across wilderness. The Regional

Forester may provide these landowners with written permission to use wilderness routes or motorized modes of travel not available to the general public. When the exercise of these rights of access to surrounded land would be detrimental to wilderness values, attempt to acquire the land by purchase or exchange or donation before granting access.

FSM 2320.5 - Definitions

15. Adequate Access. The combination of routes and modes of travel that the Forest Service has determined will have the least-lasting impact on the wilderness resource and, at the same time, will serve the reasonable purposes for which State or private land or rights is held or used.

Untrammeled: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to preserve the untrammeled quality of the wilderness character. Undeveloped: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to preserve the undeveloped quality of the wilderness character. Natural: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to preserve the natural quality of the wilderness character, although the repair and maintenance of the access road would help minimize the degradation of natural functions of the adjacent stream and aquatic habitat from erosion and sedimentation. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to preserve this quality of the wilderness character. Unique Attributes or Other Features that reflect the character of this wilderness:

Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to preserve this quality of the wilderness character. Recreational: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to promote or protect public recreation use.

E. Wilderness Character Is action necessary to preserve one or more of the qualities of wilderness character including: Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, or Unique Attributes or Other Features that reflect the character of this wilderness area?

F. Public Purposes Is action necessary to protect one or more of the public purposes for wilderness (as stated in Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act) of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use?

9

Scenic: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to promote or protect scenic use. Scientific: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to promote or protect scientific use. Educational: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to promote or protect educational use. Conservation: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to promote or protect conservation use, although the repair, restoration and maintenance of the access road would help conserve the natural functions and ecological processes of the adjacent stream and aquatic habitat resource. Historical: Yes: No: Explain: The action is not necessary to promote or protect historical use.

Yes: No: Explain: The options to trade or sell the inholding were declined by the in-holders so there are no options outside of Glastenbury Wilderness at this time. The two private land owners, Lauzon and Sausville who own the inholdings have requested a special use permit using motorized equipment to:

1) Put the road and trail back to its pre-flood condition or its equivalent 2) Keep the historic motorized vehicle access use to their private land 3) Use motorized equipment for long term and routine road maintenance.

This special use permit involves administrative action involving the Wilderness Act, Section 4(c) uses decision because motorized equipment and motorized vehicle use is requested. This is a decision made by the Regional Forester. The Wilderness Act of 1964, the New England Wilderness Act of 2006, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the Green Mountain National Forest Land Use and Management Plan of 2006 and the Forest Service Manual are in alignment to provide the private land owners reasonable use and enjoyment of their land. Although action is not needed to preserve the qualities of the Wilderness character or promote the public purposes for Wilderness, it is needed to fulfill federal law, regulation, and policy for providing reasonable access and enjoyment to private land inholdings surrounded by Wilderness on National Forest System lands.

If action is necessary, proceed to Step 2 to determine the minimum activity.

Step 1 Decision: Is any administrative action necessary in wilderness?

10

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity.

Description of Alternatives For each alternative, describe what the action is, when the activity will take place, where the activity will take place, and what methods and techniques will be used. Detail the impacts to the qualities of wilderness character and other comparison criteria, including safety. Where mitigation is possible, include mitigation measures. In addition to describing the effects of the alternative, it may be useful to break down each alternative into its component parts and list in tabular form the impacts to each comparison criterion.

Alternative # 1- Acquire through purchase or land exchange the private land, thus eliminating the need to provide access

Description: This alternative includes acquiring through purchase or land exchange the private inholdings within the wilderness, thus eliminating the need to provide the landowners access. This alternative is not feasible to implement because both landowners (Lauzon and Sausville/Latour) have declined the opportunity for selling their respective inholdings or exchanging land for their respective inholdings to the USDA Forest Service.

Alternative # 2 - Limited access (foot travel only)

Description: This alternative includes providing limited access to the private landowners. Specifically, it would limit access to foot travel only. No OHVs or full sized vehicles (trucks or SUV) would be allowed. This alternative is not feasible to implement because it would not provide reasonable use and enjoyment of the land being accessed as defined by ANILCA. The Forest Service has reviewed the special use application from both landowners and has concluded that access by motorized use is needed to fulfill ANILCA obligations for reasonable use and enjoyment of the land. This is based on the substantial distance from the wilderness boundary to each inholdings (1.2 miles for the Lauzon tract; and 3.0 miles for the Sausville/Latour tract), and taking into consideration the conventional, traditional means of accessing similarly situated properties for similar uses and enjoyment, in proximity to the inholdings to which access is being requested.

Alternative # 3 - Relocate access road to avoid future impacts from flooding

Description: This alternative includes providing access to the private landowners along a different route to avoid close proximity to the stream that is adjacent to the Lauzon/Sausville access road. This would lessen or eliminate damage from future flooding events and reduce potential impacts to the riparian and aquatic habitat resources. This alternative would require the new construction of approximately 3.0 miles of new road or trail since there are no other existing roads in the vicinity.

11

Access is needed for a septic tank truck that comes to the private property approximately every ten years which this alternative can meet. Decommissioning of the old road should be done at the same time as a new road is relocated to minimize the untrammeling, undeveloped, natural and primitive, and unconfined Wilderness character impacts. If the road is not decommissioned, there will be two roads in the Wilderness with one in disrepair. Construction standards for full-sized vehicles (truck or SUV) can be found at “Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels” at: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05771205.pdf OHVs, bicycle, or horse trails would be applied according to the “National Trail Design Parameters” found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trail-management/trail-fundamentals/National_Design_Parameters_10_16_2008.pdf

Impacts to Wilderness Character: Untrammeled - Creating a new road and trail to avoid the close proximity to streams will affect the trammeling of the Wilderness character. A short term change will occur on existing vegetation cover, current hydrologic processes and ground composition in the Wilderness sometimes located on steep slopes. Even with close monitoring, human manipulations and changes to drainage patterns and soil composition will be necessary as part of the road making process. As a tradeoff, decommissioning the old road bed and associated culverts, bridges and human-made structures will result in less trammeling of the Wilderness character as riparian and aquatic habitat resources return to uncontrolled and unmanipulated freedoms with time.

Undeveloped - This alternative would significantly degrade the undeveloped Wilderness character in

the short term especially when there is the presence of motorized and/or mechanized equipment used to create another road outside of the flood plain. The installation of any new bridges, culverts, and other human-made structures installed in the Wilderness will create a negative influence on the long term, undeveloped character. The decommissioning of any old bridges, culverts, and other human-made structures that were installed in the Wilderness will create a positive influence on the long term, undeveloped character. One way to minimize the undeveloped degradation of the Wilderness in the future is to require Phase II road maintenance to be conducted by the land owners with hand-tools instead of chainsaws, a tracked excavator, and/or wheeled tractor with bucket.

Natural – The relocated road will negatively impact the short term natural character of the Wilderness terrain because of the immediate vegetation destruction, water course altering, and the ground disturbance involved to build a road. Ecosystems will adapt, adjust, and partially recover to normal functions in the long term. Mitigations should inure only native grass seeding, plants, and trees get used on the projects. Taking a road out of the close proximity of the stream will be a beneficial action to the natural character of the Wilderness because impacts to the riparian and aquatic habitat resources will be restored to natural conditions.

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – A short term, negative effect on opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation experience would occur while creating a new road in the Wilderness to reach two camps. Chainsaws will likely be loud and used to clear trees for a new road. The sound of excavators and/or large trucks backing up, braking, being filled with stone and gravel; dumping and gear shifting; and blasting will be heard by anybody recreating in the vicinity. The visual impacts of increased flagging, signs, equipment, workers, and trucks will be present. Recreation visitors who wish to enter or pass through the new road work area in the Wilderness will be restricted in access for their own safety to allow work to proceed. The long term effect on visitor solitude or on primitive and unconfined recreation of this activity in this area of the Wilderness shall remain close to the same impacts as long as the old road bed will be decommissioned at the same time. If not, there would be two roads in the Wilderness with one in disrepair creating a loss of a feeling of solitude.

Unique Attributes or Other Features - N/A

12

Impacts to other criteria: N/A

Maintaining Traditional Skills – The maintenance of traditional skills would not be obtained with relocating an access road with this alternative in Phase I. However, if Phase II routine road maintenance was conducted using hand-tools in the future, then bow saws, axes, grub hoes, rock bars, and peaveys would be examples of some of the traditional skills and equipment that could be used. Special Provisions – Special provisions of the Wilderness Act (Sections 5a and 5c) would be met since this alternative provides access to private land surrounded by National Forest System lands within Wilderness. Economics and Timing Constraints - Estimates of conceptual costs identifying a newly relocated road for high clearance vehicles from the Wilderness boundary to the Lauzon camp, and a new ATV trail from the Lauzon camp to the Sausville camp has been developed by a Forest Service Engineer.

Cost estimates for new high clearance road construction for approximately 1.2 miles from the Wilderness boundary to the Lauzon camp totals $121,100. Cost estimates for the remaining 1.8 miles from Lauzon’s camp to Sausville’s camp is $89,800. Total conceptual cost estimate to relocate the access road to avoid future impacts from large floods is $210,900. This cost encompasses:

Section 1:

Relocate approximately 0.8 miles of existing roadway lying south of the existing bridge crossing of Bolles Brook to the western hillside to a height approximately 5 feet above the

estimated 100‐year flood elevation.

Estimate 0.9 miles of construction due to shifting of route away from stream and then back over existing stream crossing as noted above. Work would involve clearing approximately 1.75 acres of land, mechanical removal or blasting of ledge on hillside to provide for road cut section (approximately 0.7 miles long), dozing and shaping ditches, installing grade dips and culverts, and final grading and shaping of road driving surface (8 ft. wide) for drainage with some gravel material needed and used.

Estimate: Clearing 1.75 acres x $5,000 / acres = $8,750

Road Building 0.9 miles x $80,000 / mile = $72,000

Section 1 Cost Est. = $80,750 Section 2:

Relocate approximately 0.4 miles of existing roadway lying north of the existing bridge crossing of Bolles Brook to the eastern hillside to a height approximately 5 feet above the estimated 100‐year flood elevation.

Estimate 0.45 miles of construction due to shifting of route away from stream and then back over existing stream crossing as noted above. Work would involve clearing approximately 0.87 acres of land, mechanical removal or blasting of ledge on hillside to provide for road cut section (approximately 0.3 miles long), dozing and shaping ditches, installing grade dips and culverts, and final grading and shaping of road driving surface (8 ft. wide) for drainage with some gravel material needed and used.

Estimate: Clearing 0.87 acres x $5,000 / acres = $4,350

Road Building 0.45 miles x $80,000 / mile = $36,000

Section 2 Cost Est. = $40,350

Cost estimate for a new ATV access trail construction for approximately 1.8 miles from the Lauzon camp to the Sausville camp is as follows:

13

Relocate approximately 1.8 miles of existing trail lying south of the Sausville Camp to the Lauzon Camp to the eastern hillside to a height approximately 5 feet above the estimated 100‐year flood elevation.

Estimate 1.9 miles of construction due to shifting of route away from stream.

Work would involve clearing approximately 2.76 acres of land, mechanical removal of ledge on hillside to provide for trail cut section (approximately 1.6 miles long), dozing and shaping ditches, installing grade dips and culverts, and final shaping of trail surface (5 ft. wide) for

drainage ‐ no gravel material would be needed or used.

Estimate: Clearing 2.76 acres x $5,000 / acres = $13,800

Trail Building 1.9 miles x $40,000 / mile = $76,000

Total Cost Est. = $89,800 Total Conceptual Cost Estimate = $80,750 + $40,350 + $89,800 = $210,900 Note: Costs are conceptual and include all planning, NEPA, design, survey, construction, and

inspection costs. ‐J. Kamb Dated: May 11, 2012

Impacts to safety of visitors and workers - Workers and occupants of the camps will need to keep the road gate closed at the Wilderness boundary to increase the safety of visitors and the general public from any occupational hazards if implementing this alternative. Safety and construction signs will need to be installed and maintained along the road and work site. Ultimately, safer travel conditions would be provided to the owners of the inholdings for access under this alternative because they could use a road situated away from Bolles Brook and other stream damage.

Alternative # 4 - Historic Access

Description: This alternative includes providing the access to the private landowners as specified in their special use applications. Eugene and Gloria Lauzon have requested year-round historic access to their land by full-sized vehicles (truck or SUV), OHVs (ATV, motorcycle, and snowmobile), bicycle, or horse, using the Lauzon/Sausville access road for approximately 1.2 miles beginning at the Wilderness boundary. Access is needed for a septic tank truck that comes to the private property every ten years which this alternative can meet. David and Anthony Sausville, and Alfred Latour have requested year-round historic access to their land by full-sized vehicles (truck or SUV) to the termination of the Lauzon/Sausville access road for approximately 2.0 miles (0.8 mile past the Lauzon property), and then by OHVs (ATV, motorcycle, and snowmobile) on an old road bed to their property for approximately 1.0 mile (for a total of 3.0 miles beginning at the Wilderness boundary). Rainfall associated with Tropical Storm Irene substantially damaged the Lauzon/Sausville access road and the old road accessing both inholdings including washing out the road bed in various locations and compromising bridge abutments. Repair work to the road and bridge infrastructure has been requested by both landowners. Construction standards for full-sized vehicles (truck or SUV) can be found at “Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels”: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05771205.pdf OHVs, bicycle, or horse trails would be applied according to the “National Trail Design Parameters” found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trail-management/trail-fundamentals/National_Design_Parameters_10_16_2008.pdf The specific actions associated with the historic access alternative consist of the following items: 1. Phase I: Road, trail, and bridge repairs associated with damage from Tropical Storm Irene. All repair

work would require the use of a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket; spot graveling/deposit of fill along sections of the Lauzon/Sausville access road would also require the use of a single axle dump truck.

14

The Lauzon/Sausville access road bridge (across Bolles Brook) abutment repair – use local rocks to reinforce washed out areas around abutments within Bolles Brook.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road main washout repair for approximately 300 feet adjacent to Bolles Brook – use local rocks and fill material to allow full-sized vehicle passage, and proper flow of water drainage from road prism including the re-installment of a properly sized culvert.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road small drainage crossing repair – install small culvert and/or construct low ditch crossing; remove plywood structure.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road small landslide repair – remove and spread debris from small landslide that crosses the Lauzon/Sausville access road.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road small washout – use local rocks and fill material to allow safe passage of full sized vehicles.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road surface restoration to pre-flood conditions – general deposit and spread of imported fill along portions of the road south of Lauzon inholdings to allow safe passage of full sized vehicles.

Old road bridge (across Bolles Brook) abutment repair – use local rocks to reinforce small washout areas near bridge abutments to allow safe passage of OHVs.

2. Phase II: Routine road maintenance as needed to allow year-round safe access by full sized vehicles

includes removal of down trees impeding passage, water bar reconstruction, clean culvert ditches, and fill in washouts with imported material. Maintenance work would require the use of a chainsaw, and a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket. It is anticipated that maintenance would be implemented as needed but would occur at least every two years to ensure that road conditions do not deteriorate.

Impacts to Wilderness Character:

Untrammeled The Wilderness would not be free from modern human control or manipulation by repairing this road and trail. Even with close monitoring, human manipulations and changes to drainage patterns and soil composition will be necessary as part of the road making process. Undeveloped – The undeveloped Wilderness character will be significantly degraded with the presence of motorized or mechanized equipment used for repairing bridges, resetting culverts, and filling road washouts. The imprint of human work will be noticeable to every visitor who enters the immediate area or crosses the road that leads to these cabins. Each time full-sized vehicles, OHVs, bicycle, or horse(s) are used for transportation to the cabins; the developed quality will be degraded for Wilderness visitors desiring an undeveloped experience. One way to minimize the undeveloped degradation of the Wilderness in the future is to require Phase II road maintenance to be conducted by the land owners with hand-tools instead of chainsaws, a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket. .

Natural – The repair/restoration of the road to pre-storm conditions, and the periodic maintenance of the road would have a long-term positive effect on the water, riparian, and aquatic habitat resource associated with Bolles Brook. Soil erosion and sedimentation would be minimized from proper drainage structures and continued maintenance which would decrease degradation to the natural processes associated with Bolles Brook.

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – The presence of a road and the use of motorized equipment and vehicles for road repairs, maintenance, and use would degrade the opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation over the short and long-term. Unique Attributes or Other Features – N/A

Impacts to Other Criteria:

Maintaining Traditional Skills – The maintenance of traditional skills would not be obtained with this alternative. However, if Phase II routine road maintenance was conducted using hand-tools in the

15

future, then bow saws, axes, grub hoes, rock bars, and peaveys would be examples of some of the traditional skills and equipment that could be used. Special Provisions – Special provisions of the Wilderness Act (Sections 5a and 5c) would be met since this alternative provides access to private land surrounded by National Forest System lands within wilderness. Economics and Timing Constraints – The cost of implementing this alternative is to be determined. It can be generally noted that restoring the historic access will be less than the relocation of a new road and trail (Alternative 3: $210,000) and slightly more than restoring a road for only limited use (Alternative 5: OHVs (ATV, motorcycle, or snowmobile), bicycle, or horse only. No full sized vehicles (trucks or SUV’s)). Impacts to safety of visitors and workers: Workers and occupants of the camps will need to keep the road gate closed at the Wilderness boundary to increase the safety of visitors and the general public from any occupational hazards if implementing this alternative. Safety and constructions signs will need to be installed and maintained along the road and work site. Ultimately, safer travel conditions would be provided to the owners of the inholdings for improved access under this alternative.

Alternative # 5 - Limited access (OHV, bicycle, or horse only)

Description: This alternative is the same as Alternative 4 (Historic Access) but limits access to the private inholdings to OHVs (ATV, motorcycle, or snowmobile), bicycle, or horse only. No full sized vehicles (trucks or SUV) would be allowed. This alternative would require minimal long-term road maintenance since standards for this type of access would be lower than that needed for Alternative 4. The Lauzon request for a full-sized septic tank truck to reach the Lauzon property every ten years for septic removal would not be possible with this alternative. However, there are septic removal systems in place that work with ATV’s that could work with this alternative using an ATV trailer such as the Wastecorp pump “Honey Wagon”. A smaller road profile can accommodate this system. Construction standards for ATV and snowmobile trails would be applied according to the National Trail Design Parameters found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trail-management/trail-fundamentals/National_Design_Parameters_10_16_2008.pdf The specific actions associated with the historic access alternative consist of the following items: 1. Phase I: Road, trail, and bridge repairs associated with damage from Tropical Storm Irene. All repair

work would require the use of a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket; spot graveling/deposit of fill along sections of the Lauzon/Sausville access road would also require the use of a single axle dump truck. This is the same as Alternative 4 although repair work would only be necessary to allow safe passage of OHVs.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road bridge (across Bolles Brook) abutment repair – use local rocks to reinforce washed out areas around abutments within Bolles Brook.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road main washout repair for approximately 300 feet adjacent to Bolles Brook – use local rocks and fill material to allow OHVs passage, and proper flow of water drainage from road prism including the re-installment of a properly sized culvert.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road small drainage crossing repair – install small culvert and/or construct low ditch crossing; remove plywood structure.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road small landslide repair – remove and spread debris from small landslide that crosses the Lauzon/Sausville access road.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road small washout – use local rocks and fill material to allow safe passage of OHVs.

The Lauzon/Sausville access road surface restoration to pre-flood conditions – general deposit and spread of imported fill along portions of the road south of Lauzon inholdings to allow safe passage of OHVs.

16

Old road bridge (across Bolles Brook) abutment repair – use local rocks to reinforce small washout areas near bridge abutments to allow safe passage of OHVs.

2. Phase II: Routine road maintenance as needed to allow year-round safe access by OHVs includes

removal of down trees impeding passage, water bar reconstruction, clean culvert ditches, and fill in washouts with imported material. Maintenance work would require the use of a chainsaw, and a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket. It is anticipated that maintenance would be implemented as needed but would occur at least every three years to ensure that road conditions do not deteriorate.

Impacts to Wilderness Character:

Untrammeled - An access road providing OHVs (ATV, motorcycle, or snowmobile), bicycle, or horse use in the Wilderness would not be free from modern human control or manipulation since the road and associated infrastructure (i.e. bridges and culverts) would be retained affecting the free water courses. However, the size and impact of an access road may be slightly less trammeling to the surrounding environment since the road bed could be maintained at a smaller scale than for full sized vehicles. Undeveloped – The short and long-term negative impact to the undeveloped Wilderness character would be similar to Alternative 4. The undeveloped character of the Wilderness will be significantly degraded with the presence of motorized or mechanized equipment used for repairing bridges, resetting culverts, and filling road washouts. The imprint of human work will be noticeable to every visitor who enters the immediate area or crosses the road that leads to these cabins. Each time OHVs, bicycle, or horse(s) are used for transportation to the cabins, the developed quality will be degraded for Wilderness visitors desiring the undeveloped experience. One way to minimize the undeveloped degradation of the Wilderness in the future is to require Phase II road maintenance to be conducted by the land owners with hand-tools instead of chainsaws, a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket.

Natural – The long-term positive effect on the water, riparian, and aquatic habitat resource associated with Bolles Brook would be similar to Alternative 4, although slightly greater since there would be less potential for soil erosion and sedimentation associated with OHVs use compared to full sized vehicles.

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – The degraded opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation over the short and long-term would be similar to Alternative 4. Unique Attributes or Other Features – N/A

Impacts to Other Criteria:

Maintaining Traditional Skills – The maintenance of traditional skills would not be obtained with this alternative. However, if Phase II routine road maintenance was conducted using hand-tools in the future, then bow saws, axes, grub hoes, rock bars, and peaveys would be examples of some of the traditional skills and equipment that could be used. Special Provisions – Special provisions of the Wilderness Act (Sections 5a and 5c) would be met since this alternative provides access to private land surrounded by National Forest System lands within wilderness, although would not meet the access standards requested by the landowners to have reasonable use and enjoyment of the land. Economics and Timing Constraints – The cost of implementing this alternative could be less than Alternative 4 because the road could be smaller since it would not need to be engineered for large or heavy trucks or SUVs.

17

Impacts to safety of visitors and workers: Workers and occupants of the camps will need to keep the road gate closed at the Wilderness boundary to increase the safety of visitors and the general public from any occupational hazards if implementing this alternative. Safety and constructions signs will need to be installed and maintained along the road and work site. Ultimately, safer travel conditions would be provided to the owners of the inholdings for improved access under this alternative. .

Alternative # 6 - Limited historic access (ATVs and full sized vehicles only)

Description: This alternative includes providing historic access to both landowners (same as Alternative 4), but only by ATVs or full sized vehicles. Snowmobile access would not be allowed thus minimizing impacts to the qualities of the wilderness character during the winter months. This alternative is not feasible to implement because it would not provide reasonable use and enjoyment of the land being accessed as defined by ANILCA. The Forest Service has reviewed the special use application from both landowners and has concluded that access by motorized use year-round is needed to fulfill ANILCA obligations for reasonable use and enjoyment of the land. This is based on the substantial distance from the wilderness boundary to each inholdings (1.2 miles for the Lauzon tract; and 3.0 miles for the Sausville/Latour tract), and taking into consideration the conventional, traditional means of accessing similarly situated properties for similar uses and enjoyment, in proximity to the inholdings to which access is being requested. In addition, it may lead to a reasonable request to plow the road during winter months to allow vehicle passage which would have more impact to the qualities of the wilderness character than the historic access request (Alternative 4).

Safety Criterion Occasionally, safety concerns can legitimately dictate choosing one alternative which degrades wilderness character (or other criteria) more than an otherwise preferable alternative. In that case, describe the positive and negative impacts in terms of risks to the public and workers for each alternative here but avoid pre-selecting an alternative based on the safety criteria in this section.

Documentation: Unless the land owners decide to sell or swap their Wilderness inholding to the USFS (Alternative #1), it appears Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are the best alternatives to conduct safety comparisons on because they have been determined to be the most feasible to meet the requirements of ANILCA and the camp owner’s special use access requests. Alternative 5 is more questionable of being considered because it does not address the camp owner’s access request to accommodate a septic truck every ten years. Alternative 6 restricts year round use options making this alternative unfeasible due to ANILCA. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 all involve a request for a Phase I road reconstruction or relocation, and Phase II road maintenance and a type of use access. Alternative 3, Phase I involves the creation of a new road which may be the safest for the private land owners to travel on because the new road would be out of the river drainage and less prone to future flood damage. Alternative 4, Phase I involves reconstruction of the current road that has washed out. The safety for the cabin owners on a repaired road is probably less safe than a road that has been moved out of the flood zone but about the same risk as was present before Tropical Strom Irene. Alternative 5, Phase I involves reconstruction of the current road that has washed out but to a smaller size and engineered to accommodate the limited access of only OHVs, bicycle, or horse. This means no full sized vehicles (trucks or SUV) would be allowed on the trail. The safety for the cabin owners on a repaired road engineered for smaller motorized vehicles, bicycles, or horses is probably less safe than a road that has been moved out of the flood zone but close to about the same risk as was present to them before Tropical Storm Irene.

18

All construction and reconstruction with motorized equipment can be dangerous to the workers, the cabin owners, and the public. The work area will need to be safely engineered by identifying all construction hazards through signing and keeping the road gate at the Wilderness boundary and work site posted closed to the public. If Phase II routine, year-round road maintenance was conducted by the land owners with hand-tools only, the hazards of chainsaws, a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket could be eliminated. Hand-tool risks and hazards are generally less severe in casualty and can be mitigated using personal protection equipment. Hand-tool maintenance has less of a human occupation impact and would benefit the Wilderness visitor year-round with less degradation to the undeveloped character.

19

Selected alternative: After reviewing all six alternatives, Historic Access (Alternative # 4) was

selected as the best alternative.

Rationale for selecting Alternative #4 (including safety criterion, if appropriate) The historic alternative was chosen because it is the most feasible alternative using minimal activity to meet federal laws, regulations, and policies in Wilderness and it meets the needs of the private land owners as requested in their special use permit proposal. A process of investigating the different laws, regulations, policies, costs, and benefits of these alternatives was conducted through this MRDG which led to a process of elimination of some proposed alternatives. Eventually, this revealed “Alternative #4 – Historic Access” as the best minimal activity alternative. The selection of Alternative #4 comes with the understanding that the cabin owners will use hand-tools for periodic, routine maintenance (Phase II) for the upkeep of their access road as the best solution. Also, that horses and bicycles are not part of this alternative. Horses can easily spread non-native invasive species in Wilderness with their droppings without proper tracking of what they eat. Bicycles are an extra “mechanical use” requiring a Wilderness Act Section 4(c) approval that is not necessary in the Glastenbury Wilderness. Ultimately, Alternative #4 was chosen with respect for the historic access of the private camp owners’ needs and protection of the Glastenbury Wilderness character. The Lauzon and Sausville property owners have owned their inholding since 1986 when Trenor W.P. Scott conveyed the two 10.1 acre parcels. Subsequently, the designation of the New England Wilderness Act December 1, 2006, created the Glastenbury Wilderness. The Glastenbury Wilderness completely surrounds the year round cabins on the Lauzon and Sausville properties. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 (Public Law 96-487) requires the Forest to provide reasonable use and enjoyment to private land inholdings surrounded by National Forest System lands. Private inholdings and cabin owners Alfred Latour Jr., Anthony Sausville and David Sausville submitted a special use permit application for approval to the GMNF through an application (SF-299) for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands on January 9, 2012. The permit application requests three projects for approval:

1) Historic year-round use and access to their cabins by 4 x 4 truck, ATV, UTV, motorcycle, and snowmobile.

2) Chainsaws and a small tractor with a bucket and a back hoe for road maintenance and upkeep. 3) After recent road damage from Tropical Storm Irene, these private land owners have requested a

4x4 truck, ATV, UTV, tractor with bucket and back hoe and chainsaw for emergency repair due to the flood.

The repair work will require ground disturbing activity with mechanical equipment in the wilderness through the issuance of a short-term permit for less than one year. Although this level of activity could fall under a category of exclusion not requiring a Decision Memo citing 36 CFR 220.6(d)(8): “Approval, modification, or continuation of minor, short-term (1 year or less) special uses of National Forest System lands”, it is best to include the effects analysis together with the long-term use and maintenance activities given the similarities of these actions. It is anticipated the effects of the overall proposal (both short and long-term authorization of activities) can be categorically excluded and documented in a Decision Memo citing 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3): “Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of NFS lands that require less than five contiguous acres of land”. The Decision Memo level NEPA is subject to 30-day notice and comment per the Sequoia Forest Keepers Court Order. Final determination will depend on whether extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant a higher level of NEPA analysis and documentation. Looking at the other alternatives provides insight to why the preferred alternative was chosen.

Step 2 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity?

20

Alternative #1 offered the private land owners an opportunity to sell their land or exchange their private inholdings to the USDA Forest Service which would have eliminated the need to provide access to their private inholding. However, they declined this offer so this is currently not an option. Alternative #2 provided limited access to the private camp owners by allowing foot travel only. This alternative selection would have eliminated motorized use which in turn would have enhanced the Wilderness character several ways. More opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation would have been be available and less trammeling and development in the Wilderness would have been some of the positive results. However, this alternative was found to not be feasible. The Forest Service has reviewed the special use application from both landowners and has concluded that because of the travel distance to the inholdings, access by motorized use is needed to fulfill ANILCA obligations for reasonable use and enjoyment of the land. Alternative #3 proposed to relocate the access road to avoid future impacts from flooding. This alternative may become more important if hurricane damage to this road becomes a common occurrence in the future. One major long term benefit to the Glastenbury Wilderness character with this alternative is that a newly, relocated, road out of the flood zone should only need to be created once if planned correctly. Degradation of the undeveloped character of Wilderness caused by recurring road repairs should not be an issue. Also, if the old road is decommissioned from the brook’s flood zone at the same time, an increased naturalness to the area’s watershed will be restored. Last, Alternative #3 meets the special provisions of the Wilderness Act (sections 5a and 5c) and ANILCA because this alternative would provide reasonable use and enjoyment of the land access to private land surrounded by National Forest System lands within Wilderness. On the other hand, a major, short term, negative effect of the relocation of a new road is that there would be a significant impact to the undeveloped character of the Wilderness as a new road and trail approximately three miles long is cut out and built in. Solitude and unconfined recreation opportunities would be degraded for any visitors in the area during this construction process. Safety issues would need to be mitigated for the public. Economic constraints could be a major limiting factor if you review the conceptual estimate of $210,000 to relocate the road and trail to both cabins. In conclusion, Alternative #4 is the best alternative. It meets all laws, regulations and policies, and supports the historic use requested on the special use permit application. A major mitigation to protect the long term Wilderness character is to have the private land owners conduct routine road access maintenance with hand-tools instead of chainsaws, a tracked excavator and/or wheeled tractor with bucket. Monitoring and reporting requirements have been identified to insure the highest Wilderness protection possible with this alternative as well. Alternative #5 is less desirable because it restricts truck and SUVs use, and does not address the camp owners’ access request to accommodate a septic truck every ten years. A “Honey Wagon” pulled by an ATV may be an option but the overall restrictions and limitations on the camp owners may be considered unreasonable. Alternative #6 restricts year round use options making this alternative unfeasible to meet all laws, regulations, and policies. Access by motorized use year round as in Alternative #4, is needed to fulfill ANILCA obligations for reasonable use and enjoyment of the land by the cabin owners and to support the historic use requested on the special use permit application by the camp owners.

21

Monitoring and reporting requirements: Contact a Forest Biological Technician to be present at the work site to insure:

1) Bridge abutments do not decrease existing stream width. 2) Specifically identified gravel bar(s) above the water line is used for road repair. 3) Heavy equipment will not be used in the stream to protect the watershed. 4) Natural channel dynamics are retained. 5) There will be no gravel mining occurring in the stream.

Insure that the non-native invasive plants (NNIP) does not become established or expanded in the Wilderness by washing and inspecting construction vehicles and equipment before arriving to work site in the Wilderness.

Only use native grass, plants, and trees in seeding disturbed areas to prevent NNIS.

Names of the specific immediate family members who will be actually using motorized equipment in the Glastenbury Wilderness will be identified on the special use permit Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal lands and on applications in the future (SF-299). This does not include friends or other relatives not specified.

Sites for servicing and fueling construction equipment must be located outside the protective strip and approved by the Forest Line Officer. Fuel leaks from such equipment shall be repaired immediately. A supply of absorbent materials shall be kept on the job site for use in the event of a hazardous fuel spill. Acceptable absorbent materials are those that are manufactured specifically for the containment and clean- up of hazardous materials.

Water bars and other erosion control structures (i.e. dips and drainage ditches) to prevent sediment from entering the streams. Recommended placement interval for water bars and dips is as follows:

o 1%-10% Grade - every 80 feet (as ground conditions allow) o 10%-30% Grade - every 50 feet (as ground conditions allow)

Revegetation of critical bare soil areas should be completed on projects as soon as practical. Mulching may be used alone outside the growing season, with seeding to follow at the start of the next growing season.

Critical bare soils are defined as follows:

o Soils largely devoid of vegetation: o Within 25 feet of a water sources (ponds, streams, wetlands, or vernal pools; -on skid

roads having a grade over 20%; o Where water bars/dips or ditches empty close to water sources, and o At other locations as identified by the Forest Line Officer.

The site for gravel stock piling shall be approved by the Forest Line Officer in charge.

If road needs to be replaced or repaired again due to storm damage, landowners will be required to pay for the NEPA via a Cost Recovery Agreement.

Track and report the approved Wilderness Act 4(c) uses in Infra WILD.

22

Check any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses approved in this alternative:

mechanical transport landing of aircraft motorized equipment temporary road motor vehicles structure motorboats installation

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency policies or guidelines. Follow agency policies for the following review and decision authorities:

Approvals Signature Name Position Date

Prepared by: /s/ Ken Norden Ken Norden Forestry Technician 7/11/12

Recommended: /s/ Donna Grosz Donna Grosz

Public Services Staff Officer 7/12/12

Recommended: /s/ Colleen Pelles Madrid Colleen Madrid Forest Supervisor 7/16/12

Approved: /s/ Mary Beth Borst (for) Charles Meyers Regional Forester 8/7/12

23

Appendix 1:

Initial Communications between Forest Service and Landowners

24

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Green Mountain & Finger Lakes

National Forests

Supervisor’s Office

www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl

231 North Main St.

Rutland, Vermont 05701

Tel. (802) 747-6700

FAX (802) 747-6766

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 2320/2730/5420 Date: March 20, 2007

Larry and Eugene Lauzon 757 Main Street Bennington, VT 05201

Dear Mr. Lauzon,

As you may be aware, President Bush signed the New England Wilderness Act on December 1, 2006,

which designated approximately 42,000 acres of wilderness on the Green Mountain National Forest. The

new law designates the boundaries for areas that will be permanently protected as part of the National

Wilderness System. Wilderness areas are places where, by law, natural forest processes dominate and

motorized uses are limited.

This letter is to inform you that your 10.1 acre parcel located in the Town of Glastenbury is located

within the Glastenbury Wilderness. I would like to assure you maintain the right of reasonable access to

your property. Reasonable access is guaranteed through Public Law 96-487, otherwise known as the

ANILCA, which states:

§1323. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the

Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to nonfederally owned

land within the boundaries of the National Forest System as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to

the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof: Provided, That such owner comply with rules and

regulations applicable to ingress and egress to or from the National Forest System.

My staff and I would like to open up the line of communication with you to answer any questions that you may have about the passage of this law. We would also like to work with you to locate the most mutually desirable location and means for access to your property so that we can prepare the appropriate authorization for that access. Please contact Scott Haas, Wilderness Program Coordinator, at (802) 747-6796 or sehaas@fs.fed.us to set up a meeting or if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

/s/ Meg Mitchell

MEG MITCHELL

Forest Supervisor

25

Lauzon/Sausville ANILCA cover message to their attorney, Rolf

(rolf@benningtonattorneys.com) from Scott Haas, dated 10/1/2007.

Cc’s to David Bosch/R9/USDAFS@FSNOTES, Doreen

Urquhart/R9/USDAFS@FSNOTES, Gina Owens/R9/USDAFS@FSNOTES

Rolf,

Attached are the original letters sent to your clients on March 20, 2007.

I was able to find the e-mail from our Lands staff (Doreen Urquhart) concerning deeded access

accross Tract 130h (Forest Service Land) for your clients. This is an excerpt from that e-mail:

We researched our lands records for US Tract 130h to determine if you have deeded access

across US Tract 130h. Our records revealed that the USA purchased 5,800 acres designated as

Tract No. 130h from Trenor W. P. Scott, et al by Warranty Deed (hard copy available upon

request) dated April 16, 1986 and recorded in the land records on the same date. In this deed

Trenor W. P. Scott, et al excepted out two parcels totaling 20.2 acres with no mention of access.

So, it is our understanding that when Trenor W. P. Scott conveyed the two 10.1 parcels he did not

have access. If you have other documentation besides your current deed that would provide

evidence of access, please let us know.

Here is a preliminary map of the area:

I will forward the permit applications to you and your clients as they become available to me.

Please contact me if you have further questions. Thanks.

Scott Haas

Wilderness Program Coordinator Green Mountain/Finger Lakes National Forests

26

Appendix 2:

Recent Communication between Mr. Lauzon and Forest Service Special Use Specialist

From a message sent by Gene Lauzon to Dave Bosch at Thu 11/10/2011 2:52 PM: Becky Ewing, the acting District Ranger, asked me to put in writing a description of what we need to do to protect the washed out section of road and our bridge from future damage. For the bridge: Shore up the bridge abutments by using large rock from the stream bed. For the road: Excavate channel deposition to regrade the washed out section of the road and to use the largest boulders for bank stabilization. This is the same wording used by Barry Cahoon, the state engineer, in the permission statement he wrote out for us today. Regards, Gene Lauzon

27

Appendix 3:

Trail Class Matrix

Trail Class Matrix

Trail Classes are general categories reflecting trail development scale, arranged along a continuum.

The Trail Class identified for a National Forest System (NFS) trail prescribes its

development scale, representing its intended design and management standards.1 Local

deviations from any Trail Class descriptor may be established based on trail-specific conditions, topography, or other factors, provided that the deviations do not undermine the general intent of the applicable Trail Class.

Identify the appropriate Trail Class for each National Forest System trail or trail segment based on the management intent in the applicable land management plan, travel management direction, trail-specific decisions, and other related direction. Apply the Trail Class that most closely matches the management intent for the trail or trail segment, which may or may not reflect the current condition of the trail.

Trail Attributes

Trail Class 1

Minimally Developed

Trail Class 2

Moderately Developed

Trail Class 3

Developed

Trail Class 4

Highly Developed

Trail Class 5

Fully Developed

Tread &

Traffic Flow

Tread intermittent and often indistinct

May require route finding

Single lane with no allowances constructed for passing

Predominantly native materials

Tread continuous and discernible, but narrow and rough

Single lane with minor allowances constructed for passing

Typically native materials

Tread continuous and obvious

Single lane, with allowances constructed for passing where required by traffic volumes in areas with no reasonable passing opportunities available

Native or imported materials

Tread wide and relatively smooth with few irregularities

Single lane, with allowances constructed for passing where required by traffic volumes in areas with no reasonable passing opportunities available

Double lane where traffic volumes are high and passing is frequent

Native or imported materials

May be hardened

Tread wide, firm, stable, and generally uniform

Single lane, with frequent turnouts where traffic volumes are low to moderate

Double lane where traffic volumes are moderate to high

Commonly hardened with asphalt or other imported material

28

Trail Attributes

Trail Class 1

Minimally Developed

Trail Class 2

Moderately Developed

Trail Class 3

Developed

Trail Class 4

Highly Developed

Trail Class 5

Fully Developed

Obstacles Obstacles common, naturally ocurring, often substantial and intended to provide increased challenge

Narrow passages; brush, steep grades, rocks and logs present

Obstacles may be common, substantial, and intended to provide increased challenge

Blockages cleared to define route and protect resources

Vegetation may encroach into trailway

Obstacles may be common, but not substantial or intended to provide challenge

Vegetation cleared outside of trailway

Obstacles infrequent and insubstantial

Vegetation cleared outside of trailway

Obstacles not present

Grades typically < 8%

10/16/2008 Trail

Attributes Trail Class 1 Minimally Developed

Trail Class 2

Moderately Developed

Trail Class 3

Developed

Trail Class 4

Highly Developed

Trail Class 5

Fully Developed

Constructed Features

& Trail

Elements

Structures minimal to non-existent

Drainage typically accomplished without structures

Natural fords

Typically no bridges

Structures of limited size, scale, and quantity; typically constructed of native materials

Structures adequate to protect trail infrastructure and resources

Natural fords

Bridges as needed for resource protection and appropriate access

Structures may be common and substantial; constructed of imported or native materials

Natural or constructed fords

Bridges as needed for resource protection and appropriate access

Structures frequent and substantial; typically constructed of imported materials

Contructed or natural fords

Bridges as needed for resource protection and user convenience

Trailside amenities may be present

Structures frequent or continuous; typically constructed of imported materials

May include bridges, boardwalks, curbs, handrails, trailside amenities, and similar features

Signs2 Route identification

signing limited to junctions

Route markers present when trail location is not evident

Regulatory and resource protection signing infrequent

Desination signing, unless required, generally not present

Information and interpretive signing generally not present

Route identification signing limited to junctions

Route markers present when trail location is not evident

Regulatory and resource protection signing infrequent

Destination signing typically infrequent outside of wilderness; generally not present in wilderness

Information and interpretive signing not common

Route identification signing at junctions and as needed for user reassurance

Route markers as needed for user reassurance

Regulatory and resource protection signing may be common

Destination signing likely outside of wilderness; generally not present in wilderness

Information and interpretive signs may be present outside of wilderness

Route identification signing at junctions and as needed for user reassurance

Route markers as needed for user reassurance

Regulatory and resource protection signing common

Destination signing common outside of wilderness; generally not present in wilderness

Information and interpretive signs may be common outside of wilderness

Accessibility information likely displayed at trailhead

Route identification signing at junctions and for user reassurance

Route markers as needed for user reassurance

Regulatory and resource protection signing common

Destination signing common

Information and interpretive signs common

Accessibility information likely displayed at trailhead

29

Trail Attributes

Trail Class 1 Minimally Developed

Trail Class 2

Moderately Developed

Trail Class 3

Developed

Trail Class 4

Highly Developed

Trail Class 5

Fully Developed

Typical

Recreation Environs

& Experience

3

Natural, unmodified

ROS: Typically Primitive to Roaded Natural

WROS: Typically Primitive to Semi-Primitive

Natural, essentially unmodified

ROS: Typically Primitive to Roaded Natural Typically

WROS: Typically Primitive to Semi-Primitive

Natural, primarily unmodified

ROS: Typically Primitive to Roaded Natural

WROS: Typically Semi-Primitive to Transition

May be modified

ROS: Typically Semi-Primitive to Rural Roaded Natural to Rural setting

WROS: Typically Portal or Transition

May be highly modified

Commonly associated with visitor centers or high-use recreation sites

ROS: Typically Roaded Natural to Urban

Generally not present in Wilderness

1 For National Quality Standards for Trails, Potential Appropriateness of Trail Classes for Managed Uses, Design Parameters, and

other related guidance, refer to FSM 2353, FSH 2309.18, and other applicable agency references.

2 For standards and guidelines for the use of signs and posters along trails, refer to the Sign and Poster Guidelines for the Forest

Service (EM-7100-15).

3 The Trail Class Matrix shows the combinations of Trail Class and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) or Wilderness

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) settings that commonly occur, although trails in all Trail Classes may and do occur in all settings. For guidance on the application of the ROS and WROS, refer to FSM 2310 and 2353 and FSH 2309.18. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trail-management/trail-fundamentals/National_Design_Parameters_10_16_2008.pdf

30

Appendix 4:

Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels: Road Maintenance Level 2 United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Technology & Development Program

7700-Transportation Management

0577 1205-SDTDC (pp. 31-32)

December 2005

Road maintenance level 2 is defined in the FSH 7709.58,10,12.3 as: Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

These roads have the following attributes:

• Roads have low traffic volume and low speed. • Typically local roads. • Typically connect collectors or other local roads. • Dips are the preferred drainage treatment. • Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act. • Surface smoothness is not a consideration. • Not suitable for passenger cars.

Maintenance prescription guidelines are from the FSH 7709.58,10,12.6, exhibit 01 and include:

General. As needed.

Traveled way. Log out and brush as necessary to provide passage for planned traffic.

Maintain road prism to provide for passage of high-clearance vehicles.

Shoulder. Maintain only as necessary for planned traffic.

Drainage. As necessary to keep drainage facilities functional and prevent unacceptable

environmental damage.

Roadway. Manage vegetative cover as needed for planned traffic. Remove and/or repair

slides and/or slumps as needed for access with high clearance vehicles to control

resource damage.

Roadside. Generally no work is required.

Structure. Maintain all structures to provide for the passage of planned traffic.

Traffic service. Install and maintain route markers; warning, regulatory, and guide signs;

and other traffic control devices to provide for planned traffic and an appropriate traffic

management strategy.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05771205.pdf

31

Appendix 5:

Lauzon/Sausville Special Use Permit Regional Forester Briefing

Regional Forester Briefing

Lauzon/Sausville Private Land Access within the Glastenbury Wilderness

Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest

February 1, 2012

Background and History: The New England Wilderness Act of 2006 created the Glastenbury

Wilderness, within which the Lauzon (10.1 acres) and Sausville (10.1 acres) private land in-

holdings are located. The Lauzon’s historic access has been by full-sized vehicles (trucks) and

OHV’s (ATV’s and snowmobiles), using Forest Road 288 for approximately 1.2 miles beginning

at the current Wilderness boundary. The Sausvilles’ historic access has been by full-sized

vehicles up to the termination of Forest Road 288 and then by OHV on an old road bed to their

camp approximately 1.8 miles from the Lauzon property.

Both landowners were contacted in March 2007 informing them their land was located in

wilderness and that the Forest Service would work with them to provide authorization for the

most mutually desirable location and means for access to their property. Permit applications

were received requesting the same level of historic access in September 2008. The proposed

access was partially reviewed by resource specialists with the intent to categorically exclude the

analysis in a Decision Memo level NEPA document. The review and subsequent Decision Memo

document were never completed due to conflicting priorities (mainly American Recovery and

Restoration Act project NEPA/implementation activities), and changes in key staff responsible

for the project.

Tropical Storm Irene substantially damaged Forest Road 288 in August 2011. Repair work to the

road has been requested by Mr. Lauzon and by the Sausvilles and this has initiated a

reprioritization for completion of the proper access authorization process. Both landowners

resubmitted permit applications to access their respective properties in January 2012.

Current Permit Request (January 2012): Both landowners have requested year round

historical access to their respective properties (see above). The request includes routine

maintenance of waterbars, culverts, and ditches within the existing road prism that would require

chainsaw activity as well as occasional use of a tractor/excavator. A ten year special use permit,

based on the authority through the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), is desired. The request also includes road repairs to damage

caused by Tropical Storm Irene using an excavator. Activities would consist of road and bridge

abutment repairs to restore access to pre-storm conditions.

Expected Actions Needed for Project Completion: A Minimum Requirements Decision Guide

(MRDG) will be completed to determine the best approach to meet the landowners’ request for

access. The terms and conditions of the permits will be based on the minimum tools analysis

process. The Forest Supervisor will request delegated authority from the Regional Forester to

complete the environmental analysis, make the final decision and issue the special use permits

under FSM 2326.1(5). The formal request is anticipated to be initiated in early February.

32

Timeline for Completion: Both landowners desire to obtain their respective permits in time to

repair the road following spring thaw (May 2012). All resource specialist field work has been

completed. It is hoped that the MRDG will be completed by early February 2012 with a

Decision Memo approving the project by April 2012.

Need for Action: The Forest Service is obligated by law (ANILCA) to provide both landowners

access to secure reasonable use and enjoyment of their respective properties. Timely authorization

to conduct repair work to the existing road and infrastructure and provide for historic access is

needed to meet the law while protecting soil, water and wilderness resource values.

33

Appendix 6:

Special Use Permit Applications

34

Figure 4: Sausville's special use permit

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Figure 5: Mr. Lauzon’s special use application

42

43

44

45