New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Decision Memo

United States New England Wilderness Act Department of Agriculture Road Restoration Project

Forest Service

Eastern Decision Memo

Region

July 2014 Green Mountain National Forest Middlebury and Rochester Ranger Districts Towns of Ripton, Granville and Hancock, Addison County; and Town of Rochester, Windsor County, Vermont

Responsible Official: Colleen Pelles Madrid Forest Supervisor Green Mountain & Finger Lakes National Forests 231 North Main Street Rutland, VT 05701 Phone: (802) 747-6700 E-mail: [email protected]

For Information Contact: Ken Norden Middlebury Ranger District Green Mountain National Forest Forest Road 67A Culvert – Joseph Battell Wilderness 1007 Route 7 South

Middlebury, VT 05753 (802) 388-4362, ext. 113 E-mail: [email protected]

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 for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please 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, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This document can be made available in large print. Contact Jay Strand at (802) 767-4261, x522 or email [email protected]

Green Mountain National Forest

New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Decision Memo

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Green Mountain National Forest Middlebury and Rochester Ranger Districts

I. SUMMARY

As the Forest Supervisor of the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, I am approving the implementation of the New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project. The project includes restoring roads within existing federally designated wilderness to more natural conditions. The roads that will be restored are located on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Joseph Battell Wilderness and Breadloaf Wilderness on the Middlebury and Rochester Ranger Districts, Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) in the Towns of Ripton, Granville, and Hancock, Addison County; and the Town of Rochester, Windsor County, Vermont (refer to the attached maps).

II. DECISION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

A. Background and Project Area

The New England Wilderness Act (NEWA), signed into law on December 1, 2006, established an additional 41,650 acres of wilderness on the GMNF. This raised the total amount of wilderness on the GMNF to approximately 101,000 acres. In addition to expanding existing wilderness areas including the Breadloaf Wilderness, the NEWA also designated the new Joseph Battell Wilderness. The project area is along existing road corridors within both the Breadloaf and Joseph Battell Wilderness areas and is part of the Wilderness Management Area as provided for in the 2006 GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

B. Purpose and Need

As a result of the NEWA, four existing Forest Service system roads and their associated infrastructure are within the Breadloaf and Joseph Battell Wilderness areas. These roads are incompatible with the wilderness area character and values. The roads are summarized in the table below.

Wilderness Forest Town Road Mileage: Total Length Existing Road # and (Length within the Culverts within Wilderness to Restore)1 Wilderness Breadloaf FR 25 Granville 2.0 (1.4) 18 Joseph FR 42 Hancock 1.9 (0.5) 4 Battell Joseph FR 67A Ripton 0.5 (0.45) 3 Battell Joseph FR 61A Rochester 0.5 (0.18) 2 Battell TOTAL 4.9 (2.53) 27 1Road lengths are approximate.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 1

Green Mountain National Forest

Section 4(C) of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) states:

“Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area”.

The purpose and need of this project is to address the incompatibility of existing infrastructure in wilderness, specifically roads, which do not conform to the intentions of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the Forest Plan. Specifically, there is a desire to:

• Remove roads from the forest transportation system that are no longer needed for administrative purposes and are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act and Forest Plan direction for the Wilderness Management Area (Forest Plan, pp. 49-53) • Restore roads to a more natural level (Forest Plan, p. 53) • Restore natural processes and watershed conditions (Forest Plan, Goals 3 and 4, p. 13) • Improve fisheries, invertebrate and plant habitat by restoring the natural flow of water in streams, wetlands and riparian areas (Forest Plan, Goal 4, p. 13)

If this action is not taken, the wilderness character for the areas in proximity to the existing roads would be compromised, and natural ecosystem functions would continue to be inhibited.

C. Description of Decision

My decision is to authorize the activities needed for the restoration to more natural conditions approximately 2.53 miles of existing road within the Breadloaf and Joseph Battell Wilderness areas. The minimum requirement analysis prepared for the project shows that a short-term motorized/mechanized equipment approach is the best method to use for restoration activities while maintaining the greatest qualities of wilderness character in the long-run (MRDG, 2014).

The restoration activities will include the unearthing and removal of 27 road culverts using a tracked excavator of sufficient size to perform the work in a safe manner. Culverts will be dug- up with an excavator, removed and salvaged for scrap metal off NFS lands. Stone headwalls at the culvert inlets and outlets will be reused at the site of culvert crossings to restore the stream channel and banks to match natural conditions or to construct hardened water bars in cases of cross culverts not carrying live streams. Live streams will be restored with care to accommodate complete aquatic organism passage.

Scarification and re-vegetation of the roadway will occur where necessary to address ongoing soil erosion and hasten the restoration of the landscape to a more natural condition. Excavator work within the road template and scarification of the roadbed with the excavator bucket will be used to improve conditions for natural re-vegetation and to improve future ecological function. Areas of road template already re-vegetated and stable will not be disturbed unless needed for access to other areas of the road template. All equipment will be cleaned prior to entering NFS lands to prevent spread of non-native invasive plants; and no other materials will be brought onto NFS lands. Native forest leaf litter and duff adjacent to work areas will be used as an erosion control material over any disturbed or bare soil areas.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 2

Green Mountain National Forest

Restoration activities will occur on the following roads (refer to the project maps):

Forest Miles that will Description of Activity Related to the Purpose and Need Road # be Restored1 (Name) Remove a total of 18 culverts within the Austin Brook watershed. Culverts include cross-drain and perennial streams. FR25 has a history FR25 of catastrophic failure in the late-1990s that deposited road material in (Austin Austin Brook. Fish monitoring showed a near collapse of wild trout 1.4 Brook) population following the event, but have since recovered. Careful removal of drainage structures and installation of long-term soil stabilization structures will greatly reduce the risk of a repeat failure. Some culverts serve as barriers to fish and aquatic species. Remove a total of 4 culverts on tributaries to Bingo Brook. Culverts are FR42 0.5 barriers to the free movement of fish and aquatic species, and are (Bingo) resulting in sedimentation and water quality issues. Remove a total 3 culverts on Goshen Brook and tributaries. FR67A Culverts are barriers to the free movement of fish and aquatic species (Goshen 0.45 and are resulting in sedimentation and water quality issues. The gate at Brook Spur) the beginning of FR 67A will be removed and replaced with boulders. FR61A Remove a total of 2 culverts on Forest Road 61A that cross drain into (Smith 0.18 Smith Brook. Brook Spur) 1All portions of each road proposed for restoration are fully within the wilderness boundary.

My decision includes implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements identified in Appendix A of this Decision Memo. This decision is based upon an environmental analysis conducted by an interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists, and responses to public scoping. This information is filed in the project planning record located in the Rochester Ranger District office.

III. REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE DECISION

Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) when they are within one of the categories of actions found at 36 CFR 220.6(d) or (e), and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect.

A. Category of Exclusion

Based on the environmental analysis included in the project planning record and on experience with similar activities on the GMNF, I have concluded that this decision can be appropriately categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. I have determined that the selected action is a routine activity within the following category of exclusion found at 36 CFR 220.6 (e)(20): “Activities that restore, rehabilitate, or stabilize lands occupied by roads and trails, excluding National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails to a more natural condition that may include removing, replacing, or modifying drainage structures and ditches, reestablishing vegetation, reshaping natural contours and slopes, reestablishing drainage-ways, or other activities that would restore site productivity and reduce environmental impacts.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 3

Green Mountain National Forest

B. Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances

Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS may be found at 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1). The degree of any potential effect from the proposed action associated with these resource conditions determines whether extraordinary conditions exist. The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion.

I have considered the potential effects from the project associated with the resource conditions listed at 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1), and conclude that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. My conclusion is based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the project planning record. A summary of the project’s potential effects on each resource condition is as follows:

1. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat, Species Proposed for Federal Listing or Proposed Critical Habitat, or Forest Service Sensitive Species

Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

Animals The likelihood of occurrence for any federally-listed threatened and endangered species in the project area is low. The GMNF has only historic occurrence records for three threatened and endangered species: gray wolf (Canis lupis), eastern cougar (Puma concolor couguar), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). These species are not known to occur on the GMNF, and their presence on the GMNF or in the project area at any time in the foreseeable future is unlikely. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) do occur on and near the GMNF. However, Indiana bats are unlikely to occur in the project area because of the high elevation, lack of suitable habitat, and the distance from areas where Indiana bats are known to occur. The project area and the GMNF do not include designated critical habitat for any of these species. Consequently, the project will have no effect for threatened or endangered species (Wildlife Biological Evaluation; July 11, 2014).

It should be noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a Proposed Rule to list the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as endangered (78 FR 61046). The FWS also is assessing whether federal listing is warranted for the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Should the northern long-eared bat or little brown bat be listed as threatened or endangered before the project is completed, the Biological Evaluation must be reviewed, and a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) may be warranted. At that time, new or amended mitigations may be required.

Plants There are no federally listed threatened or endangered plant species on the GMNF thus there will be no effect for this resource associated with this project (Plant Biological Evaluation; July 11, 2014).

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 direction requires analysis of potential effects to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 4

Green Mountain National Forest

viability is a concern. These species are listed as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS).

Animals The project area is lacking habitat requirements for any animals listed as RFSS. Consequently, there will be no effect for any animal listed as RFSS or their preferred habitats as a result of the project (Wildlife Biological Evaluation; July 11, 2014).

Plants No plants listed as RFSS are likely to occur in the middle of roads. With the exception of making use of an excavator to remove culverts, the project is minimally ground-disturbing, and has low potential to affect rare plants. Habitat may exist along the roads for summer sedge (Carex aestivalis), large yellow lady's slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens), meadow horsetail (Equisetum pretense), butternut (Juglans cinerea), American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), round-leaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata), and bog stitchwort (Stellaria alsine). If any of them do actually occur at these sites, it is possible that individual plants will be harmed as a result of project implementation, although it is not very likely that they occur exactly where the work will be done. Since each of these species is known from other sites on the GMNF and none of them would lose their potential habitat at these sites, the project is not likely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability (Plant Biological Evaluation; July 11, 2014).

2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds

Floodplains There are no FEMA-mapped floodplains within the project area. As a result, no effects associated with the floodplain resource are expected from this project (Aquatics and Water Report; July 9, 2014).

Wetlands Forest Road 42 crosses through a mapped Class II wetland just outside of the wilderness boundary. Forest Road 67A also crosses through a Class II wetland where the road dead- ends in the meadow. These two wetlands are identified on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) Atlas website. Forest Road 25 has some small Class III wetlands adjacent to the road while FR 61A has no wetlands associated with it. Although there are wetland resources present as described, the project activity will not have any adverse effect on any wetland function (Aquatics and Water Report; July 9, 2014).

Municipal Watersheds A review of the VTANR Atlas website determined that no municipal watersheds or public or private water sources will be affected by implementation of this project (Aquatics and Water Report; July 9, 2014; and communication with Nance Ketcham, Fisheries Biologist; July 30, 2014).

3. Congressionally Designated Areas, such as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or National Recreation Area

Wilderness: This project is within the Breadloaf Wilderness and Joseph Battell Wilderness and is in compliance with direction provided in the Forest Plan for Wilderness Management Area (MA) designation (Forest Plan, pp. 49 to 53).

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 5

Green Mountain National Forest

The desired future condition for the Wilderness MA is to allow current natural ecological processes to occur (Forest Plan, p. 49). A goal for the GMNF is to manage designated wilderness to preserve enduring resource that represents ecosystems and natural processes unique to the northeastern forests while providing opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) and subsequent legislation (Forest Plan Goal 13, p. 16). Furthermore, the central mandate of the Wilderness Act of 1964 is to preserve the area’s wilderness character.

A minimum requirement analysis completed for this project concluded that a short-term motorized/mechanized equipment approach is the best method to use for restoration activities while maintaining the greatest qualities of wilderness character in the long-run (MRDG, 2014). Actions taken to protect one aspect of wilderness character may diminish another aspect because the wilderness character qualities are so tightly connected. As so, two measures refer to the minimum requirements analysis to determine if the threshold is affected. The minimum requirements decision guide determines the necessity of the action in wilderness, and if so, what is the means to achieve the goal that will have the least disturbance to the wilderness character. They are: 1) the number of short-term management actions that manipulate soil and water without clear benefit to any other wilderness character quality; and 2) the number of administrative and non-emergency motorized equipment and mechanical transport without clear benefit to any other wilderness character quality. Any additional management actions for both of these measures will exceed the threshold and result in negative effect to the wilderness character. This project is not anticipated to exceed these thresholds.

Restoring the roads within the Bread Loaf and Joseph Battell Wildernesses to a more natural condition will improve opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Although removing the culverts using motorized equipment will degrade the undeveloped wilderness character quality in the short-term, eliminating the human made structures will improve this quality in the long-term. Furthermore, the natural quality of the wildernesses will be improved as the restoration of these sites to more natural conditions will allow natural processes to follow their course. Therefore, although there is a short-term negative effect associated with the use of motorized equipment within the wilderness, there is a long-term beneficial effect associated with the overall wilderness character quality as a result of this project (Wilderness Specialist Report; July 24, 2014).

Wilderness Study Areas: There are no Congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas on the GMNF.

National Recreation Areas: The GMNF contains two National Recreation Areas: the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area and the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area (Forest Plan, pp. 79 to 81, and 100 to 102, respectively). The project is not located within or near these areas as validated by map and site-review. This project will have no effect on existing recreation facilities trails (communication with Melissa Reichert, Recreation Program Manager; July 14, 2014).

Appalachian National Scenic Trail: The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) traverses across the GMNF and is designated and managed as a special area because of its uncommon and outstanding values (Forest Plan, pp. 66 to 72). The AT is not near or within the influence of the project. As a result, no effects associated with the AT are expected (communication with Melissa Reichert, Recreation Program Manager; July 14, 2014).

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 6

Green Mountain National Forest

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Although the GMNF does not contain any Congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, there are many river segments that are eligible to be further considered for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. These river segments and their associated corridors are within the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Management Area (Forest Plan, pp. 105 to 109). The project is not located within or near these eligible river segments as validated by map and site-review. As a result, no effects associated with the outstandingly remarkable values identified for any eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers are expected from this project (communication with Melissa Reichert, Recreation Program Manager; July 14, 2014).

4. Inventoried Roadless Areas or Potential Wilderness Areas The project is not within any inventoried roadless area (2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule or 2006 Forest Plan inventoried roadless areas). As a result, no effects associated with the inventoried roadless area resource are expected from this project (communication with Melissa Reichert, Recreation Program Manager; July 14, 2014).

5. Existing and Candidate Research Natural Areas There are no Research Natural Areas, candidate Research Natural Areas, Ecological Special Areas, or natural communities of ecological significance to the State or the GMNF located at or near any of the road restoration sites. This project, with effects limited to the immediate area of activity, will have no effects associated with any existing or candidate Research Natural Area resource (Ecology Specialist Report; June 19, 2014).

6. American Indian and Alaska Native Religious or Cultural Sites See Item 7 below.

7. Archeological Sites, or Historic Properties or Areas There are no cultural or historic resources within the influence of the project. The GMNF Heritage program maintains an electronic atlas of known and suspected heritage sites. This atlas was consulted as part of the project pre-work and it was determined that no Historic Properties were known to be present in or near the Area of Potential Effect (APE).

We also predict that pre-contact Native American sites are likely to occur in disproportionate numbers near water courses, and therefore we conducted field inspections of the various project locations and APEs. It was determined that whether or not the locations held potential for land-use and resulting archaeological sites in the distant past, they have been so disturbed and compromised through road construction and culvert placement that they there is no potential for well-preserved significant sites to remain within the APE.

In this case all of the project sites are in previously disturbed contexts and, therefore, will have no direct, indirect or, therefore, cumulative effects on any Historic Properties (Heritage Specialist Report; July 11, 2014).

C. Other Resources

In addition to resource conditions that could lead to extraordinary circumstances, I have also considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to other resources such as soil, water, and aquatic resources. The project is not expected to result in any adverse effects associated with these resources, particularly because all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and required mitigation measures/monitoring requirements (Appendix A) will be implemented.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 7

Green Mountain National Forest

Soil The dominant soils within the project area are Berkshire, Marlow, and Peru and are summarized for each road to be restored as follows:

Wilderness Forest Road length to Dominant Soils Road # restore (mi) Berkshire and Marlow extremely stony Breadloaf FR 25 1.4 loams, 20 – 50% slopes Joseph Battell FR 42 0.5 Peru extremely stony loam, 20 – 50% slopes Joseph Battell FR 67A 0.45 Peru extremely stony loam, 0 – 20% slopes Peru-Colonel-Marlow association, 3 to 35 Joseph Battell FR 61A 0.18 percent slopes, very stony

Peru and Marlow are deep, loamy soils with hardpans. Peru is moderately well drained, and the hardpan usually begins within 2-3 feet of the soil surface. Marlow is well drained, and the hardpan usually starts below three feet. The hardpans of both Peru and Marlow can trigger soil slips and slides on stream banks, especially when the soils are saturated. Peru and Marlow have a moderate to high erosion hazard rating, depending on the slope gradient.

Soil, Water and Riparian Area Protection and Restoration Standards and Guidelines (S&G) (Forest Plan, pages 20-22) will be emphasized during project implementation. With implementation of these important S&Gs, there will be minimal short-term effects related to soil compaction, erosion and sedimentation while long-term beneficial effects are anticipated as soils stabilize following restoration activities (Soil Specialist Report; July 8, 2014).

Water and Aquatic Resources The segments of roads to be restored and the streams the roads are adjacent and/or cross include FR25/Austin Brook in the Breadloaf Wilderness Area; and FR42/Bingo Brook, 61A/Smith Brook, and 67A/Goshen Brook in the Joseph Battell Wilderness Area.

Austin, Bingo and Goshen Brooks are all fish bearing streams. The existing culverts to be removed that these streams pass through are barriers to fish and other aquatic organisms, preventing free movement up and down the streams. Other culverts are sources for erosion and sedimentation which impact riparian and bank vegetation and in-stream habitat. Removing the culverts and stabilizing stream bank slopes to natural conditions with motorized equipment will ensure long-term establishment of watershed health. Sedimentation will be minimal in streams that contain wild trout populations and other aquatic habitat (MRDG, 2014).

In the short-term, removal of the culverts could deliver very small amounts of sediment to the local stream site of each culvert, assuming the sediment entrainment methods used are effective, and the speed at which native vegetation re-establishes. The small amounts of sediment will be expected to settle out locally and not be delivered downstream. In the long- term, the stabilization and re-vegetation of stream banks and channels, and the re-connection of up and down stream travel in the streams will be tremendously beneficial for fish and other aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms (Aquatics and Water Report; July 9, 2014).

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The proposal to restore roads within the newly designated wilderness resulting from the NEWA was first publicly scoped in April 2008 with plans to prepare an Environmental Assessment. Public issues were identified and alternatives developed prior to the project becoming put on

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 8

Green Mountain National Forest

hold due to other Forest priorities in early 2009. The minimum requirement analysis prepared for the original proposal in December 2008 identified 10 culverts that could be removed using hand tools and pack animals. This action was approved in a January 2009 Decision Memo NEPA document. In 2013, new restoration categories of exclusion from an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) became available for Forest Service use. Category 36 CFR 220.6(e)(20) was determined to be applicable to the remaining road restoration needs within the Breadloaf and Joseph Battell Wilderness areas.

The activities authorized by this decision were first listed as a potential categorically excluded level project in the quarterly Green Mountain National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning in January 2014 and will remain in the SOPA until the project is authorized for implementation.

Public involvement for this decision included a mailing of the project proposal scoping document to interested and/or affected individuals, organizations and agencies on April 23, 2014. Comments for the proposal were invited during a scoping period ending May 23, 2014. A total of four formal comment responses were received during the scoping period and focused primarily on soil, water and wilderness related issues. The issues identified from the comments and how they were used to complete the environmental analysis can be found in Appendix B.

This project was also reviewed by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of Forest Service specialists. Specialist reports and supporting documents that provide the basis for the environmental analysis documented in this Decision Memo are included in the project planning record. Issues identified by Forest Service staff are addressed through project design and required mitigation measures and monitoring requirements (Appendix A).

V. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OR RELATED TO OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

My decision will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized some pertinent laws and regulations in this section.

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public involvement and consideration of environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act.

Forest Consistency (National Forest Management Act) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires development of long-range land and resource management plans, and that all site-specific project activities to be consistent with direction in the plans. The GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was completed and approved in 2006 as required by the NFMA and provides direction for all management activities on the Forest. The New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project implements the Forest Plan, and its consideration is guided by direction for the Wilderness Management Area (Forest Plan, pp. 49-53).

My decision is based on the best available science, including a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. As required by the NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan including goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-wide and Management Area standards and guidelines.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 9

Green Mountain National Forest

Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species’ designated critical habitat. In accordance with Section 7(c) of this Act, a report of the listed and proposed, threatened or endangered species that may be present in the project area was reviewed. See Section III, Item B.1 of this decision document.

Clean Water Act The intent of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through Forest Plan standards and guidelines, specific project design criteria, and mitigation measures to ensure protection of soil and water resources.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) Executive Order 11990 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B.2 of this decision document.

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) Executive Order 11988 directs the agency to avoid to the extent possible the adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. See Section III, Item B.2 of this decision document.

Wilderness Act The Wilderness Act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned land designated by Congress as “wilderness areas”. These areas are administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The Act provides for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document.

National Trails System Act The purpose of the National Trails System Act includes the designation of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to help institute a national system of trails for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population. It also promotes the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act institutes a national wild and scenic rivers system that includes selected rivers which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. It provides for them to be preserved in a free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments will be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. See Section III, Item B.3 of this decision document.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act addresses the discovery and protection of Native American human remains and objects that are excavated or discovered on

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 10

Green Mountain National Forest federal lands. The Act encourages avoidance of archaeological sites that contain burials or portions of sites that contain graves through “in situ” preservation, but may encompass other actions to preserve these remains and items. See Section III, Item B.6 of this decision document.

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It also requires federal agencies to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. See Section III, Item B.7 of this decision document.

Archeological Resources Protection Act The Archeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. This Act affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. See Section III, Item B.7 of this decision document.

Federal Noxious Weed Act and Executive Order 11312 (Non-native Invasive Species) The Federal Noxious Weed Act requires cooperation with State, local, and other federal agencies in the management and control of non-native invasive species (NNIS). Executive Order (EO) 11312 requires all pertinent federal agencies (subject to budgetary appropriations) to prevent the introduction of NNIS. This project’s decision meets the intent of this law and EO by incorporating all pertinent Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and mitigation measures to ensure the management and control of NNIS.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this order. Public involvement has occurred (see Section IV), the results of which I have considered in the decision-making process for this project. No adverse impacts to local minority or low-income populations were identified.

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND OBJECTION /APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is not subject to an administrative review or objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218.

The decision is also no longer subject to an administrative review or appeal pursuant to pursuant to 36 CFR 215.

On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-76). Section 431 of that Act directs that the 1992 and 2012 legislation establishing the 36 CFR 215 (post-decisional appeals) and 36 CFR 218 (pre-decisional objections) processes “shall not apply to any project or activity implementing a land and resource management plan … that is categorically excluded ….under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA].” On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L. No. 113-79). Section 8006 of the 2014 Farm Bill repealed the Appeals Reform Act (ARA) (Pub. L. No. 102-381). The ARA’s implementing regulation was 36 CFR 215. The 2014 Farm Bill also directs that the pre-decisional objection process established in the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012 shall not be applicable to categorically excluded projects or activities.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 11

Green Mountain National Forest

VII. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

This decision may be implemented immediately.

VIII. CONTACT PERSON

Further information about this decision can be obtained from Ken Norden during normal office hours (weekdays from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm) at the Middlebury Ranger District office located at 1007 Route 7 South, Middlebury VT 05753; 802-388-4362, x113 (phone); 802-388-3842 (fax); or email at [email protected].

IX. SIGNATURE AND DATE

/s/ Colleen Pelles Madrid August 1, 2014 ______Colleen Pelles Madrid Date Forest Supervisor Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests

Attachments: Appendix A (Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements; Appendix B (Scoping Comments Content Analysis and Response to Comments); and Project Maps

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 12

Green Mountain National Forest

NEWA Road Restoration Project Decision Memo - APPENDIX A Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements

The Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) established Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) to mitigate potential adverse effects of management activities (Forest Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.3; and Chapter 3). The New England Wilderness Act (NEWA) Road Restoration Project has been designed to be consistent with all pertinent Forest-wide, and Wilderness Management Area S&Gs. Although S&Gs are usually implemented without any need for repetition in site-specific NEPA documents, there are occasions when their emphasis specific to a project is needed to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan. Mitigation measures and monitoring requirements have also been developed specifically for the NEWA Road Restoration Project to address resource concerns beyond those addressed by Forest Plan S&Gs.

The following emphasized Forest Plan S&Gs and/or additional mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be adhered to during or after project implementation:

Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIP) 1. Natural seeding should be allowed to occur unless soil erosion is likely to occur without it. If a seed mix is necessary, a mix of native seeds that are site-appropriate should be used; examples of such mixes can be found at the New England Wetland Plants website: http://www.newp.com/. Final selection of the mix should be approved by the Forest botanist, since not all species in all mixes are suitable for natural habitats in Vermont. Do not use any mulch that could contain seeds of NNIP (i.e., use inert mulch, such as straw).

2. All equipment will be cleaned prior to entering the project sites to prevent spread of NNIP into the wilderness.

Aquatics and Water 1. Obtain all necessary State of Vermont and/or Federal permits before project implementation, including any that may apply to removing culverts from the wetlands or wetland buffers of along FR 42 and FR 67A.

2. Use the Best Management Practices found in the National Best Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service 2012) using Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning and Road 7. Stream Crossings (pp. 115-119), except those incompatible with Wilderness Area Management standards and guidelines.

Heritage 1. If in the course of implementing the project it becomes necessary to disturb previously undisturbed soils/areas within 300 yards of a water course, the Forest Archaeologist and interested tribes (especially the Mohican and Delaware) shall be notified and given the opportunity to comment or review.

Monitoring 1. Restored roads will be monitored no longer than two years after the work has been completed to ensure proper re-vegetation is occurring; to identify newly established non- native invasive plants; and to determine if soil erosion and sedimentation into streams is occurring. If problems are identified, proper remedial actions will be recommended to the line officer (Responsible Official) by a multi-resource team including but not limited to the wilderness manager, botanist, soil scientist, and fisheries biologist.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 13

Green Mountain National Forest

NEWA Road Restoration Project Decision Memo - APPENDIX B Scoping Comments Content Analysis and Response to Comments

This appendix provides the content analysis and Forest Service response for public comments received during the New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration project scoping process (responses to a 30-day comment period from April 23, 2014 to May 23, 2014) triggered by the mailing of the scoping notification document dated April 23, 2014. Scoping comments (including letters and emails) are located in the project planning record identified with a unique number. In addition, each issue contained within the comment document has an identifying number, for example, 4-3 is issue #3 in document #4.

The following are the comment document number and comment sources.

Document # Comment Source 1 Jeff Harvey (Mail address Montpelier, VT) 2 Angela C. Repella (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in Essex Junction, VT) 3 Larry Orvis (VT Coverts and Ruff Grouse in Middlebury, VT) 4 Susan Bachor (Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Representative, Philadelphia, PA)

An issue is defined as a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute over the proposed action based on anticipated environmental effects. Comments have been separated into two categories: 1) Issues; and 2) Non-Issues:

1. Issues: Subcategory “a” is addressed in the environmental analysis. Subcategories “b” through “e” are not addressed for reasons cited. Issue subcategories include the following:

a) The issue is relevant to the decision to be made. b) The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action. c) The issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision. d) The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made. e) The issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

2. Non-Issues: Comments that do not readily lead to an issue, because they are not considered a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute over the proposed action based on anticipated environmental effects. Sub-categories of non-issues include the following:

a) Comments that ask questions, seek clarification, or request information. b) Comments that require clarification from the source and may lead to an issue. c) Comments that suggest improvements or corrections to the proposed action. d) Comments that express general or project specific support. e) Unsubstantiated opinions related to non-specific resource concerns. f) Comments that suggest opportunities to collaborate with the public.

During the content analysis process, comments were summarized by an issue statement, and then grouped into resource areas for each respective issue category. Issue statements describe a clear cause and effect relationship between the proposed management activities and some resource consequence. An effort was made to capture as many similar issues as possible with one issue statement. Issue statements were given a public concern (PC) or sub- concern (SC) number under each resource area (in the left hand column) so that they can be

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 14

Green Mountain National Forest more easily tracked. The identifying comment number(s) are also provided following each issue statement.

ISSUES (to be addressed in the analysis)

Natural Resources Management (Water)

PC 30100-01 The old drainage patterns should be reestablished to connect with the out Water slope wetland areas where the FR25 road bed levels out. Comment 1-5 Response: Existing drainage patterns will be maintained. Re-contouring the entire FR 25 road bed would greatly increase soil and vegetation disturbance. Vegetation has currently grown in and stabilized most of the road bed. Vegetation removal will be limited to the minimal amount needed to perform restoration work (i.e., only remove the vegetation where the culverts are removed and earthen dips constructed), and erosion potential will be minimized by mulching and seeding critical bare soil areas (Soil Specialist Report; July 8, 2014).

Natural Resources Management (Soils)

PC 30200-01 There might be a tradeoff of not re-contouring all the FR25 road bed versus a Soils potential future soil erosion problem if the existing vegetation is removed. Comment 1-2 PC 30200-02 Areas along FR25 should have earthen dips installed using VT Forest Parks AMP placement specifications because they may be cupped with future hiking use in a narrow trail tread. Comment 1-6 PC 30200-03 All earthen dips within culvert removal areas along FR25 need to be deeper and wider than typical specifications, and downhill berms need to be at least four feet higher than stream crossings to avoid the road bed from blowing out after restoration. Comment 1-7 Response: Soil, Water and Riparian Area Protection and Restoration Standards and Guidelines will be followed during project implementation (Forest Plan, pp. 20-22). Earthen dips will be installed at the site of each culvert removal, and at any additional areas with obvious erosion (gully formation). The earthen dips will be designed and approved by a Forest Service Engineer to meet or exceed the hydraulic capacity of the existing culverts. The Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation publication, “Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont,” describes practices that should be used after logging roads, and is not applicable in this situation. Fewer earthen dips are needed to ensure long-term road stabilization in this case, since the roads have already been naturally re- vegetated over time, and only some of the vegetation will be removed, at the specific culvert removal/earthen dip construction areas (Soil Specialist Report; July 8, 2014).

Wilderness

PC 63000-01 There might be a tradeoff of not re-contouring all the FR25 road bed versus a Wilderness potential future soil erosion problem if the existing vegetation is removed. Comment 1-2 Response: The desired future condition for the Wilderness Management Area (MA) is to allow current natural ecological processes to occur (Forest Plan, p. 49). A goal for the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) is to manage designated wilderness to preserve enduring resource that represents ecosystems and natural processes unique to the northeastern forests

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 15

Green Mountain National Forest

while providing opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) and subsequent legislation (Forest Plan Goal 13, p. 16). Furthermore, the central mandate of the Wilderness Act of 1964 is to preserve the area’s wilderness character (Decision Memo, p. 6).

Scarification and re-vegetation of the roadway will occur where necessary to address ongoing soil erosion and hasten the restoration of the landscape to a more natural condition. Areas of road template already re-vegetated and stable will not be disturbed unless needed for access to other areas of the road template (Decision Memo, p. 2).

PC 63000-02 Maximize wilderness character restoration along FR25. SC-1 By re-contouring three existing dry narrow pinch points along the road. Comment 1-3 SC-2 By narrowing the road bed within the larger culvert removal areas to pre- construction landscape widths. Comment 1-4 Response: A minimum requirement analysis completed for this project concluded that a short- term motorized/mechanized equipment approach is the best method to use for restoration activities while maintaining the greatest qualities of wilderness character in the long-run (MRDG, 2014). See the response to PC 63000-01.

ISSUES (not to be addressed in the analysis)

Natural Resources Management (Water)

PC 30100-02 The work to remove culverts and reshape stream beds appears to require a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Comment 2-1 Response: All necessary State of Vermont and/or Federal permits will be obtained prior to project implementation (Decision Memo, Appendix A, p. 13).

Natural Resources Management (Soil)

PC 30200-04 The recently installed culverts and associated turnaround just below the Soil wilderness boundary along FR25 are failing and discharging sediment into Austin Brook. Comment 1-8, 1-12 Response: Thank you for notifying us of this situation. Although it is outside of the scope of this project purpose and need since it is outside of the wilderness boundary, Forest Service staff will assess any ongoing or potential future resource degradation at this site and take appropriate action if necessary.

Transportation System Management

PC 40000-01 The new turnaround outside of the wilderness boundary along FR25 has no Roads large stone base. Comment 1-9

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 16

Green Mountain National Forest

PC 40000-02 The new turnaround and associated culverts outside of the wilderness boundary along FR25 to the first culvert west of the gate need to be removed because they continually fail and are a waste of taxpayer money. Comments 1-10, 1-12 Response: This segment of FR 25 is not within the wilderness boundary so it is outside of the scope of the purpose and need for this project.

Recreation Management

PC 54000-01 A new larger and safer parking lot should be established just before the first Recreation culvert past the iron pipe gate; the first culvert should be removed and the Parking road bed barricaded at this point. Comment 1-11 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Although it is outside of the scope of this project purpose and need since it is outside of the wilderness boundary, Forest Service staff will consider this situation for any future planning regarding this location.

Heritage Resources Management

PC 56000-01 Conduct a Phase I archaeological survey for the parts of the project area that Heritage have not had previous ground disturbance along FR25, FR42 and FR67A. Comment 4-1 PC 56000-02 Send a copy of the cultural resources survey report if one is performed. Comment 4-2 PC 56000-03 Cease the project immediately and inform the Delaware Tribe of Indians if any human remains are accidentally unearthed during the course of the survey and/or the construction project. Comment 4-3 Response: The activities are specific to the removal of culverts and the restoration of the roadbed to a more natural landscape along FR 25 in the Breadloaf Wilderness and FR 42, FR 61A and FR 67A in the Joseph Battell Wilderness. The project does not include the disturbance of any areas outside of the existing road or culvert footprints. Although we do not anticipate causing any new disturbance during restoration activities, our Forest Archeologist will evaluate and conduct a Phase I survey if deemed necessary and a copy will be sent to the Delaware Tribe. We will also contact the Delaware Tribe, as well as our Mohican and Abenaki partners and other State and Law Enforcement officials, in the event that any human remains are accidentally discovered.

If in the course of implementing the project it becomes necessary to disturb previously undisturbed soils/areas within 300 yards of a water course, the Forest Archaeologist and interested tribes (especially the Mohican and Delaware) shall be notified and given the opportunity to comment or review (Decision Memo, Appendix A, p. 13).

NON-ISSUES

Social and Economic

PC 72000-01 A cost analysis should be prepared for this project because there are so many Economics more important needs that should be addressed at this time. Comment 3-1 Response: The minimum requirements analysis (MRDG, 2014) did include consideration of cost of removing the culverts and restoration activities by machine. The estimated cost is

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 17

Green Mountain National Forest approximately $3,700 to cover equipment and labor needed to implement the project. We understand your concern that government funding is limited and should be prioritized accordingly. The relatively low cost estimate for this project has been determined to be acceptable given the ecological benefit it would provide as well as meeting the intent of the Wilderness Act and Forest Service wilderness management policy.

Miscellaneous

PC 91000-01 Will the complete 2.0 miles of FR 25 be re-contoured to pre-construction Questions contours and drainage patterns? Comment 1-1 Response: Scarification and re-vegetation of the roadway will only occur where necessary to address ongoing soil erosion and hasten the restoration of the landscape to a more natural condition. Areas of road template already re-vegetated and stable will not be disturbed unless needed for access to other areas of the road template (Decision Memo, p. 2).

PC 92000-01 A site visit may be helpful to determine permit needs. Comment 2-2 Requests Response: It has been determined a site visit to determine permit needs is not necessary.

PC 92000-02 The Delaware Tribe of Indians wishes to continue as a consulting party on this project. Comment 4-2 Response: A copy of the final Decision Memo document will be mailed to the Delaware Tribe contact and the Forest Service will communicate to the Tribe any issues that may arise regarding heritage resources at the site. See the response to PC 56000-01 to PC 56000-03.

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 18

Green Mountain National Forest

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 19

Green Mountain National Forest

Decision Memo – New England Wilderness Act Road Restoration Project Page 20