Blue John Project Decision Appeal Hopkins

9 December 2002 Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102-0084 Reference: Appeal of Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision 1 November 2002 in pursuant to 36 CFR 215 Attention Appeal Reviewing Officer: 1) This document is a notice of appeal of: Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision 1 November 2002 filed in pursuant to 36 CFR 215. 2) Name, address, and telephone number of the appellant. Jeffrey L, Hopkins 7812 West Clayton Drive Phoenix, AZ 85033-2439 phxjeff@aol.com Note: appellant is deaf, written or e-mail communication is necessary 3) Decision Notice by its title. *NOTICE/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT* Blue John Private Access Easement USDA Forest Service Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest Yavapai County, Arizona Dated: 1 November 2002 4) Objections Note: References follow some of the General Objections. General Objections: General Objection 1a The appellant objects to the Prescott National Forest Plan. The plan is disorganized and unreadable. General Objection 1b The appellant objects to the Prescott National Forest Plan. The Plan is out-of-date. The date of the Plan is November 1986. Reference: Prescott National Forest Plan November 1986 page 1 Purpose of the Plan This plan defines the direction for managing the Prescott National Forest for the next 10 -15 years. At the maximum of 15 years the plan was outdated on November 2001. General Objection 1c The appellant objects to multiple reference to the Prescott National Forest Plan. The copy of the Prescott National Forest Plan provided the appellant is unreadable due to the quality of the reproduced copies and the organization of material. Page numbers are duplicated, skipped and missing making references to the Plan from the Decision bordering on useless. The content is confusing and in some places where readable makes little common sense. No rationale has been given for some important statements. Important issues in the Plan referenced by the Decision have not been made available for comment to the involved public. Some policy appears arbitrary and illogical. General Objection 2 The appellant objects to the general production of Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision. The document is confusing, inaccurate, missing important information and with many references wrong. General Objection 3 The appellant objects to the Blue John Private Access Easement Project and Decision combining the road Trail 67 issues with other area issues. These are two very different sets of issues. Road Trail 67 issues are different from the rest of the project issues. Combining the issues confuses the issues and negates much of the work. Because of this confusion in the Blue John Private Access Easement Project and resulting Decision, specific approaches to resolving the road Trail 67 issues were never investigated. General Objection 4 The appellant objects to portions of the Blue John Private Access Easement Project and Decision dealing with road Trail 67. The Forest Service's unwilling to discuss an agreement with property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. (See Attachment I) General Objection 5 The appellant objects to the Blue John Private Access Easement Project and Decision to not allow local motorized travel on the road Trail 67 between neighbors on a road that already exists and has been used for many years. Reference: 36 CFR 212 Sec. 212.6 Ingress and egress. (c) Others. Entering upon the National Forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used. General Objection 6 The appellant objects to the Blue John Private Access Easement Project and Decision because it did not respond to social and economic considerations. The Forest Service refuses to allow continued travel between neighbors via the only practical route. Reference: 36 CFR 219 Sec. 219.21 Social and economic sustainability. To contribute to economic and social sustainability, the responsible official involves interested and affected people in planning for National Forest System lands (Secs. 219.12-219.18), provides for the development and consideration of relevant social and economic information and analyses, and a range of uses, values, products, and services. and ANILCA TITLE XI--TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY SYSTEMS IN AND ACROSS, AND ACCESS INTO, CONSERVATION SYSTEM UNITS RIGHTS-OF-WAY TERMS AND CONDITIONS ¤1107. (a) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.--The Secretary, or the Secretary of Agriculture where national forest wilderness is involved shall include in any right-of-way issued pursuant to an application under this title, terms and conditions which shall include, but not be limited to- (6) requirements to employ measures to avoid or minimize adverse environmental, social or economic impacts. General Objection 7 The appellant objects to the Blue John Private Access Easement Project and Decision because of the Federal requirement to allow residents to use the existing roads and trails to access property. See Attachment Ia. Reference: 36 CFR 212 Sec. 212.6 Ingress and egress. (c) Others. Entering upon the National Forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used. Specific Objections: Note 1: The section of the Decision Objected to is quoted first. Where applicable the specific part objected to is then quoted after the Objection. Note 2: Clarification and references follow some of the Specific Objections. *Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision* Page 1 DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION Background: The Blue John Private Access Easement Project (Map 2, page 11) was initiated to address the lack of legal access to the Farnum, Forshoda, and the south end of Mohawk 4 patented mining claims and several other pieces of private property in the Blue John Mine area near Walker occurring within the boundary of the Prescott National Forest (Map 1, page 10). Legal access consists of a FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) easement granted by the Forest Service to authorize private property owners to use NFS (National Forest System) land to access their private The Purpose of and Need for this project is to change the existing condition of unsafe and unauthorized access to provide safe and legal access to private property while maintaining a transportation system that supports Forest Service management of NFS lands. The desired condition is derived from goals in the Forest Plan [PNF (Prescott National Forest) Plan, Amendment 7, page 13]. The standards and guidelines in the Prescott National Forest Plan provide direction for resource management (see various citations where applicable in Table 2, page 12). Specific Objection 1a The appellant objects to the inclusion of road Trail 67 issues when road Trail 67 is not defined in the Background or Purpose of and Need. Specific Objection 1b The appellant objects to: Map 2 , page 11 ; Map 1 page 10 and Table 2, page 12. These references are wrong. There is no Map 2 on page 11 or Map 1 on page 10 or Table 2 on page 12. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 2 Decision I did not select Alternative B, the No Action Alternative, because it would not provide legal access to private property or meet the legal intent of ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act) and the Forest Plan. Specific Objection 2 The appellant objects to reference to the ANILCA. This is Arizona, not Alaska. Reference: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act" (ANILCA) PUBLIC LAW 96-487-DEC. 2, 1980 94 STAT. 2371 Public Law 96-487 96th Congress An Act To provide for the designation and conservation of certain public lands in the State of Alaska, including the designation of units of the National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Wilderness Preservation Systems, and for other purposes. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 2 Decision I did not select Alternative C because it did not provide the best access option from a resource management perspective and because of the potential negative impacts to soil and wildlife. Specific Objection 3 The appellant objects to the conclusions for Alternative C: I did not select Alternative C because it did not provide the best access option from a resource management perspective and because of the potential negative impacts to soil and wildlife. The negative impacts on soil are unfounded as there would be no daily use. Weather has far more effect. Impact on wildlife is only a "maybe" and would be no more than any impact during the past 100 plus years that the road has existed. Adjacent local private property activities have far more effect on wildlife. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 2 Decision TABLE 1. Comparison of Analyzed Alternatives Relative to the Resources Resource - Access Alternative A This Decision * Inconvenient for some property owners. Alternative B No Action * Inconvenient for some property owners. Specific Objection 4 The appellant objects to: * Inconvenient for some property owners. It is inconvenient for ALL affected property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 2 Decision Alternatives Considered: For this project there were five alternatives: 1. Alternative A Ð This Decision (Details in Table 2, page 12) Additional North portion of FS Trail #67 Design Criteria: Available to everyone for emergency use only. Break-away or crash gates on either end of North portion of TR67 Specific Objection 5a The appellant objects to: 1. Alternative A Ð This Decision While some parts of Alternative A may be fine, but by combining road Trail 67 issues with other issues and not sufficiently investigating road Trail 67 issues, much of the Alternative is lacking. Specific Objection 5b The appellant objects to: Details in Table 2, page 12 There is no Table 2 on page 12. Specific Objection 5c The appellant objects to: Available to everyone for emergency use only. Because no agreement has been reached with property owners whose private property road Trail 67 crosses there will no legal access. emergency or otherwise. Specific Objection 5d* The appellant objects to: Break-away or crash gates on either end of North portion of TR67 Noone other than the Forest Service wants any gates. The Walker Fire Department has specifically indicated it did not want gates . Any gates can present a safety hazard. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 2 and 3 Decision Alternatives Considered: For this project there were five alternatives:* 2. Alternative B Ð The No Action * Manage FS Trail #67 as a non-motorized Trail. * Available to everyone for emergency use only. No SUP would be issued to the Walker Fire Department for the north portion of FS Trail #67. No FLPMA easement would be issued to private property owners. No reciprocal easements would be procured for other private property owners or the Forest Service. Specific Objection 6a The appellant objects to: * Manage FS Trail #67 as a non-motorized Trail. Road Trail 67 should be managed as a motorized trail with private limited access. Specific Objection 6b The appellant objects to: No SUP would be issued to the Walker Fire Department for the north portion of FS Trail #67. No FLPMA easement would be issued to private property owners. No reciprocal easements would be procured for other private property owners or the Forest Service. This would prevent access to the top of Spruce Mountain by the Walker Fire Department and reduce safety and increase hazard due to fire and emergencies. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 3 Decision Alternatives Considered: For this project there were five alternatives: 3. Alternative C Ð Alternative that considers expanding the FLPMA easement in the Proposed Action to include the north portion of FS Trail #67. North portion of FS Trail #67 Design Criteria: * Available to everyone for emergency use only. Specific Objection 7 The appellant objects to: * Available to everyone for emergency use only. Because no agreement has been reached with property owners whose private property road Trail 67 crosses there will no legal access. emergency or otherwise. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 3 Decision Alternatives Considered: For this project there were five alternatives: 4. Alternative D Ð an alternative that considers the south portion of the Mohawk 4 parcel acquiring access from adjacent private property, Alternative D is ordinarily the first course of action when seeking access for private property. Alternative D was considered and dropped from further consideration. This alternative included having the property owner on the south end of the Mohawk 4 seek access to his/her property from the adjacent private property to the north. This alternative was not considered for two reasons: * New road construction on steep slopes would create undesirable resource damage to both soils and adjacent MSO (Mexican spotted owl) habitat. * Suitable access exists from the south on NFS lands. Specific Objection 8a The appellant objects to: Alternative D was considered and dropped from further consideration. This alternative included having the property owner on the south end of the Mohawk 4 seek access to his/her property from the adjacent private property to the north. This alternative was not considered for two reasons: Specific Objection 8b The appellant objects to: * New road construction on steep slopes would create undesirable resource damage to both soils and adjacent MSO (Mexican spotted owl) habitat. By not allowing use of road Trail 67 the Forest Service is requiring a new road to be built on private property and thus will create exactly the situation it does not want. See Attachments I and II. Specific Objection 8c The appellant objects to: * Suitable access exists from the south on NFS lands. "Suitable" is subjective. There will be no means to access other areas of the Mohawk and LoneStar neighbors to the north. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 3 and 4 Decision *Alternatives Considered: For this project there were five alternatives: 5. Alternative* E Ð an alternative that considers the property owner of the south portion of the Mohawk 4 acquire a northern route to FDR 52A on NFS land. Alternative E was proposed to explore the option of a route from the north between FDR52A and the south portion of the Mohawk 4 private property because of the steepness of the north portion of FS Trail #67 (PR Doc #141). Alternative E was considered and dropped from further consideration. This alternative included having the property owner on the south end of the Mohawk 4 build new access to his/her property across NFS land from the north. This alternative was not considered for two reasons: * New road construction on steep slopes would create undesirable resource damage to both soils and adjacent MSO (Mexican spotted owl) habitat impacts with almost 1 mile of new road construction involving 9 acres of land (PR Doc #142). * Suitable access exists from the south on NFS lands. Specific Objection 9a The appellant objects to: an alternative that considers the property owner of the south portion of the Mohawk 4 acquire a northern route to FDR 52A on NFS land. This alternative was not considered sufficiently. There was no discussion with the appellant whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Specific Objection 9b The appellant objects to: * New road construction on steep slopes would create undesirable resource damage to both soils and adjacent MSO (Mexican spotted owl) habitat impacts with almost 1 mile of new road construction involving 9 acres of land (PR Doc #142). By not allowing use of road Trail 67 the Forest Service is requiring a new road to be built on private property and thus will create exactly the situation it does not want. See Attachments I and II. Specific Objection 9c The appellant objects to: Alternative E was considered and dropped from further consideration. There are some good points in Alternative E. Specific Objection 9d The appellant objects to: * Suitable access exists from the south on NFS lands. "Suitable" is subjective. There will be no means to access other areas of the Mohawk and LoneStar neighbors. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 5 Significant Criteria Intensity: 1. Beneficial and adverse impacts. There will be no significant effects from this decision. See the Resource Specialist Reports in the Project Record for detailed analyses (PR Doc # 138, #140, #) Specific Objection 10 The appellant objects to: There will be no significant effects from this decision. The decision does have significant adverse effects because it reduces the availability of rapid ingress and egress to and from Spruce Mountain top in case of an emergency. It reduces forest and public safety. The decision has significant effect because it prohibits reasonable access between neighbors that existed before the Forest Service became involved. The decision has significant effect because it prohibits reasonable access to the lower portion of the appellant's property thereby inhibiting future development or sale of that area. It reduces the value of the property. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 5 Significant Criteria Intensity: 2. The degree to which the proposed action Affects public health and safety Access on the north portion of FS Trail #67 for emergency purposes is the primary public safety concern in this project. The decision guarantees the availability of the route for public safety use in the event of an emergency (PR Doc #138, #140, #143). Specific Objection 11 The appellant objects to: The decision guarantees the availability of the route for public safety use in the event of an emergency The decision does not guarantee the availability. Indeed, it inhibits the availability because the Forest Service refuses to discuss an agreement with the property owners whose land road Trail 67 crosses. There is noone designated to check and maintain the road. Natural road blockage may negate the use of the road even in an emergency. The decision decreases public safety by not having an agreement to use road Trail 67, closing it to non-emergency travel and having noone to check and maintain the road. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 5 Significant Criteria Intensity: 4. The degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The controversy surrounding this project regards access to private property rather than the environmental effects. Access issues have been addressed in the Forest Plan (PNF Plan, page55). Specific Objection 12a The appellant objects to: Access issues have been addressed in the Forest Plan (PNF Plan, page 55). While some of the access issues may have been addressed, those are far from resolved. Others issues have not been addressed by the Forest Service. Specific Objection 12b The appellant objects to: (PNF Plan, page 55) PNF Plan, page 55 refers to Electronic Site Permits, e.g., communication towers and buildings, not non-Electronic Site issues. Reference: Prescott National Forest Plan Page 54 - 58 Additionally the following guidelines will be applied to electronic site permits: Specific Objection 12c The appellant objects to: PNF Plan, page 55 J02 Allow only one access road for subdivision unless natural features dictate otherwise and where there is no suitable private land alternative or where additional access is needed for public safety. This makes little sense where multiple routes already exist. Multiple routes provide public safety in event of emergencies, particularly in case of fire where one route may be blocked. Multiple routes provide better access for fire suppression and add to both the forest and public safety. Multiple routes are important particularly in mountainous areas where storms can be more sever and down trees and wash out roads. Road Trail 67 is a connector road to the FLPMA easement, not a direct access. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 5 Significant Criteria Intensity: 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. There are no future projects connected to this project. This decision does not set any precedent, since the Forest Service has been issuing FLPMA easements since 1976. By requiring reciprocal easements from the private property owners November 1, 2002 Page 6 of 20 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Notice and FONSI and the Forest Service, additional road construction in the project area would not be necessary. Specific Objection 13a The appellant objects to: There are no future projects connected to this project. This is not true. The Forest Service failed to request information about future projects from the affected land owners. When the appellant purchased his property in the 1970's it was with the understanding the lower portion of his property could be developed in the future and/or the lower acres sold. Access via the northern portion of road Trail 67 is needed for either of these projects. Southern access is across private property where no easement exists. See Attachment Ia. Specific Objection 13b The appellant objects to : . . . additional road construction in the project area would not be necessary. This is not true. If the northern portion of road Trail 67 is not available a 25' easement across the Dunning property may be required to have a new road constructed on it. This would have considerable impact on the forest. See Attachment Ia and Ib. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 6 Significant Criteria Intensity: 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or other requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. ¥ ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act) Ð This decision is in complete compliance with ANILCA in that it analyzes options and identifies an alternative to provide reasonable access to various affected parcels of private Specific Objection 14 The appellant objects to: This decision is in complete compliance with ANILCA in that it analyzes options and identifies an alternative to provide reasonable access to various affected parcels of private The decision does not provide reasonable access to various properties, but instead takes reasonable and valid existing right of access away. Reference: ANILCA TITLE XI--TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY SYSTEMS IN AND ACROSS, AND ACCESS INTO, CONSERVATION SYSTEM UNITS *VALID EXISTING RIGHTS* ¤1109. Nothing in this title shall be construed to adversely affect any valid existing right of access. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 7 *FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS* *Prescott National Forest Plan* This decision is consistent with the Prescott National Forest PlanÕs (as amended) goals and objectives, and with the management direction, standards, and guidelines identified in the Plan (Table 2, page 55) Specific Objection 15a The appellant objects to: This decision is consistent with the Prescott National Forest PlanÕs (as amended) goals and objectives, and with the management direction, standards, and guidelines identified in the Plan The Plan is unreadable. Specific Objection 15b The appellant objects to: (Table 2, page 55) There is no Table 2 on page 55 of the Prescott National Forest Plan. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 10 Blue John Private Access Easement Project MAP 2 Specific Objection 16 The appellant objects to the map as it is inaccurate. The position of the LoneStar and Mohawk properties is different from the Yavapai County Geographic Information Systems web site, the Forest Service maps and Map 1 on page 9 of this Decision. Reference: http://mapserver.co.yavapai.az.us/gis/yavgis/ Reference: Road Trail 67 is drawn inaccurately. See Attachment Ia. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 11 TABLE 2. Selected Alternative, Rationale, and Purpose and Need Selected Alternative (WHAT) Remove FS Trail 67 from the Forest Trail System Rationale (WHY & How) FS Trail 67 is isolated between parcels of private property through which the Forest Service does not have access for public use. And, with pitches approaching 40 %, the existing condition of FS Trail 67 exceeds FS trail guides of 30% maximum for any newly constructed non-motorized trail. (FSH 2309.18) Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions According to Forest Service records, FS Trail 67 is currently designated a non-motorized trail. It is receiving limited authorized motorized use. PNF Plan Standard & Guideline: Replace or remove improvements where they no longer serve intended purpose and/or when they present a public health or safety hazard. (PNF (Prescott National Forest) Plan, Amendment 11, page 26) Specific Objection 17a The appellant objects to: Rationale (WHY & How) And, with pitches approaching 40 %, the existing condition of FS Trail 67 exceeds FS trail guides of 30% maximum for any newly constructed non-motorized trail. (FSH 2309.18) Reference is for newly constructed non-motorized trails. Road Trail 67 is not a newly constructed non-motorized trail, but has existed and been in use as a motorized road for over a century. Specific Objection 17b The appellant objects to: Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions It is receiving limited authorized motorized use. Providing authorized use is illegal as no agreement has been reached with property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Specific Objection 17c The appellant objects to: Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions PNF Plan Standard & Guideline: Replace or remove improvements where they no longer serve intended purpose and/or when they present a public health or safety hazard. Road Trail 67 still serves a purpose for emergency use, access to portions of property where no other access exists and for travel between neighbors. There is no public health or safety hazard as this road has been uses for decades without problem. Specific Objection 17d The appellant objects to: (PNF (Prescott National Forest) Plan, Amendment 11, page 26) There are two different page 26s. The first page 26 is titled DISPERSED RECREATION. The area in question is NOT a recreation area. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 11 TABLE 2. *Selected Alternative, Rationale, and Purpose and Need* *Selected Alternative (WHAT)* Issue a Special Use Permit to the Walker Fire Department for Emergency Use only of the north portion of Trail 67 with crash gates at the junctions with private property (south portion of the Mohawk 4) and the Lone Star Mohawk Property Owners Association FLPMA Easement (See Map 2). *Rationale (WHY & How)* This SUP permit would potentially fill the need to provide emergency response access from Walker and Groom Creek to either side of Spruce Mountain. It would also provide maintained emergency egress from properties on both sides of Spruce Mountain. This is a valid special use permit request that will be evaluated in this assessment for potential impacts to natural resources. Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions There is currently a letter authorizing a private individual to drive on the north portion of Trail 67 until a final decision is made regarding appropriate access to his property. PNF Plan Standard & Guideline: Authorizations for special use permits may be issued to qualified applicants when the proposed use (a) fulfills a demonstrated special need without unduly infringing on the use by the general public, (b) is in accordance with an approved implementation plan (where called for) and will not cause adverse impacts on the National Forest and its resources which cannot be fully mitigated, (c) does not serve a function that can be provided by private enterprise off NFS land, and (d) is complimentary to Forest Service and management area objectives, programs, and purposes. (PNF Plan, page 52) Specific Objection 18a The appellant objects to: Selected Alternative (WHAT) Issue a Special Use Permit to the Walker Fire Department for Emergency The Forest Service has no legal right to issue a permit without consent of the property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Specific Objection 18b The appellant objects to: Use only of the north portion of Trail 67 with crash gates at the junctions with private property (south portion of the Mohawk 4) and the Lone Star Mohawk Property Owners Association FLPMA Easement (See Map 2). Any gates are unacceptable both by the Walker Fire Department and property owners. Gates inhibit emergency use, increase hazard and reduce safety. Specific Objection 18c The appellant objects to: *Rationale (WHY & How)* This SUP permit would potentially fill the need to provide emergency response access from Walker and Groom Creek to either side of Spruce Mountain. The Forest Service has no legal right to issue a permit without consent of the property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Specific Objection 18d The appellant objects to: Rationale (WHY & How) It would also provide maintained emergency egress from properties on both sides of Spruce Mountain. There is no agreement with the property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses so no maintenance can be done. Road Trail 67 would not be available. Specific Objection 18e The appellant objects to: *Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions* There is currently a letter authorizing a private individual to drive on the north portion of Trail 67 until a final decision is made regarding appropriate access to his property. The Forest Service has no legal right to authorize access without consent of all the property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 11 TABLE 2. Selected Alternative, Rationale, and Purpose and Need Selected Alternative (WHAT) Remove FDR (Forest Development Road) 9404H from the Forest Service Road System Rationale (WHY & How) FDR9404H does not provide essential resource access for administering NFS land except for fire suppression activities and therefore would only be needed for that purpose. This road does not need to be open for the general public to access NFS land or the associated resources Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions FDR9404H is incorrectly signed on the ground. PNF Plan goal: Maintain a transportation system to support resource goals. (PNF Plan, Amendment 7, page 13) Specific Objection 19a The appellant objects to: *Rationale (WHY & How)* FDR9404H does not provide essential resource access for administering NFS land except for fire suppression activities and therefore would only be needed for that purpose. Essential resource access is subjective. Multiple access is desirable for emergency situations, situations where other routes become unavailable (due to weather or otherwise) and where roads already exist they should remain. Specific Objection 19b The appellant objects to: *Rationale (WHY & How)* This road does not need to be open for the general public to access NFS land or the associated resources Occasional travel on roads can help assure they will be available for emergencies. Specific Objection 19c The appellant objects to: Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions PNF Plan goal: Maintain a transportation system to support resource goals. No resource goals are specified. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 11 TABLE 2. Selected Alternative, Rationale, and Purpose and Need Selected Alternative (WHAT) Require reciprocal easements across private properties ( the Farnum and Forshoda patented mining claims, See Map 2) for members of an association of affected private property owners and Forest Service on the above named properties. Rationale (WHY & How) The Forest Service would require reciprocal easements for affected private property owners and the Forest Service to alleviate the need for additional easements and road construction for access in the future. Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions The Forest Service does not have easements across private property in the project area to access adjacent NFS lands. PNF Plan goal: Conduct landownership adjustment, right-of-way acquisition, landline location, and special-uses programs to promote efficient management. (PNF Plan, Amendment 7, page 13) Specific Objection 20a The appellant objects to: *Rationale (WHY & How)* The Forest Service would require reciprocal easements for affected private property owners and the Forest Service to alleviate the need for additional easements and road construction for access in the future. This is precisely why agreement for road Trail 67 is needed so no road construction is needed for access in the future. Specific Objection 20b The appellant objects to: *Purpose & Need (Why) Including Existing Conditions* The Forest Service does not have easements across private property in the project area to access adjacent NFS lands. PNF Plan goal: Conduct landownership adjustment, right-of-way acquisition, landline location, and special-uses programs to promote efficient management. (PNF Plan, Amendment 7, page 13) This is why the Forest Service must reach an agreement with property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 12 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 151.1 Response The north portion of FS trail #67 is currently a non-motorized trail with one individual authorized to drive a motor vehicle on it until a decision is made regarding access to private property. The daily use was based on the potential use once a FLPMA easement was issued to an association of homeowners in Alternative C. Specific Objection 21a The appellant objects to: The north portion of FS trail #67 is currently a non-motorized trail with one individual authorized to drive a motor vehicle on it until a decision is made regarding access to private property. How can the Forest Service issue any authorization for use of road Trail 67 without the property owner's approval across whose property road Trail 67 crosses? Specific Objection 21b The appellant objects to: The daily use was based on the potential use once a FLPMA easement was issued to an association of homeowners in Alternative C. How was this arrived at? The Forest Service does not seem to have any idea what the most likely use would be. Past use before the Forest Service became involved would be a much better indicator of use. The potential use of any road is nearly unlimited. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 12 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 151.2 Response The commenterÕs parcel of private property has been granted legal access via a FLPMA easement issued to the Lonestar/Mohawk Homeowners Association. This route is the commenterÕs legal access to the commenterÕs property. It is up to the members of the association how that access is managed in accordance with their FLPMA easement. Specific Objection 22 The appellant objects to: The commenterÕs parcel of private property has been granted legal access via a FLPMA easement issued to the Lonestar/Mohawk Homeowners Association. This route is the commenterÕs legal access to the commenterÕs property. There is indeed a FLPMA that leads onto the appellant's property, however, road Trail 67 feeds the FLPMA easement several hundred yards to the west and is not a direct access route to the appellant's property. See Attachment Ia. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 12 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 151.3 Response The steepness is a problem because it exceeds the Forest Service safety standards for both roads and trails. It could also cause negative resource impacts if used frequently by motor vehicles. Specific Objection 23a The appellant objects to: The steepness is a problem because it exceeds the Forest Service safety standards for both roads and trails. he standards are for new road and trail construction. The road Trail 67 may exceed the standards for new road construction, but the road Trail 67 already exists and been in use for decades without problem. No standards for existing roads and trails have been given. If grade is an issue why doesn't the Forest Service use resources to modify the road to reduce the grade? Specific Objection 23b The appellant objects to: It could also cause negative resource impacts if used frequently by motor vehicles. The concern with frequent use is unfounded. Typically one or two vehicle round trips per month might be normal. More importantly, occasional travel will assure the road is passable in case of an emergency. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 12 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 153.1 Response Gates were planned on each end of the north portion of FS Trail #67 near the top of Spruce Mountain, not on the Pine Mountain Road Specific Objection 24 The appellant objects to: Gates were planned on each end of the north portion of FS Trail #67 near the top of Spruce Mountain, not on the Pine Mountain Road Neither the Walker Fire Department nor affected property owners want gates. Gate increase hazard and reduce safety. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 12 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 155.4 Response The concern about safety was the main social issue identified from the scoping comments. This is analyzed in the EA. The social issue of convenience was also analyzed in the EA. The following reference is from the Forest Service Manual. 2734.6 - Statutory Rights of Ingress and Egress Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (FSM 2701.1) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, such access to non-Federal lands within the boundaries of the National Forest System as deemed adequate to secure the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of his land. The exercise of a right of reasonable access does not include the right to construct facilities, clear, or perform ground disturbing activities, without an authorization issued under an appropriate authority. Use of existing Government roads or facilities also requires an appropriate authorization. The access to which the landowner is entitled need not be on the most direct, economical, or convenient route for the landowner. Adequate access may not be road access in all cases, and alternative modes of access may be considered. The appropriate mode or type of access selected should be one that is both reasonable for the planned use of the private land and, insofar as possible, compatible with the Forest land and resource management plans for the National Forest System land Specific Objection 25 The appellant objects to: The access to which the landowner is entitled need not be on the most direct, economical, or convenient route for the landowner. Property owners have a right to reasonable use and enjoyment of their land. Property owners have a right to reasonable use and enjoyment of their land. Being able to access the southern part of the appellant's property and visit a neighbor via an existing route is certainly within this right of reasonable use and enjoyment of my land. This is spelled out with: "such access to non-Federal lands within the boundaries of the National Forest System as deemed adequate to secure the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of his land." Reference: Forest Service Manual national headquarters (wo) Washington, DC fsM 2700 - SPECIAL USES MANAGEMENT chapteR 2730 - ROAD AND TRAIL RIGHTS-OF-WAY GRANTS 2734.6 - Statutory Rights of Ingress and Egress Section 1323 (a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (FSM 2701.1) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, such access to non-Federal lands within the boundaries of the National Forest System as deemed adequate to secure the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of his land. The exercise of a right of reasonable access does not include the right to construct facilities, clear, or perform ground disturbing activities, without an authorization issued under an appropriate authority. Use of existing Government roads or facilities also requires an appropriate authorization. and Reference: 36CFR212.6 Sec. 212.6 Ingress and egress. (a) Policy in acquiring and granting access. To assure effective protection, management, and utilization of lands administered by the Forest Service and intermingled and adjacent private and public lands, and for the use and development of the resources upon which communities within or adjacent to the National Forests are dependent, the Chief shall as promptly as is feasible obtain needed access thereto and shall grant appropriate access across National Forest and other lands and easements administered by the Forest Service to intermingled or adjacent landowners. Construction, reconstruction or maintenance of a road or highway requires written authorization. (b) Actual settlers and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service. Actual settlers and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service shall be permitted ingress and egress over the same and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails in order to reach their homes and to utilize their property: Provided, such ingress and egress or use shall conform to rules and regulations governing the protection and administration of the lands and the roads or trails to be used. c) Others. Entering upon the National Forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 14 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 155.10 Response The scoping comments from local homeowners on both sides of Spruce Mountain identified an issue regarding safety and the availability of the north portion of FS trail #67 for emergency use. All three alternatives include provisions for use of the north portion of FS Trail #67 on NFS lands by law enforcement and emergency services in the performance of their duties as well as emergency use by everyone. With regards to convenience, see response to #155.4 Specific Objection 26 The appellant objects to: With regards to convenience, see response to #155.4 See Objection 25. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 16 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 156.2 Response In Alternative C, non-emergency use on the north portion of FS Trail #67 is not conditional; it would be permitted daily. This would include all members of the road association being granted access on FDR 9404H, King Pin Mine Road, Zink Road, and FS Trail #67 (north & south). Members would have access to the north end of FS Trail #67 but not on the Lonestar/Mohawk Easement or across the Lonestar private property. That access would have to be pursued in a separate process. Specific Objection 27 The appellant objects to: This would include all members of the road association being granted access on FDR 9404H, King Pin Mine Road, Zink Road, and FS Trail #67 (north & south). Members would have access to the north end of FS Trail #67 but not on the Lonestar/Mohawk Easement or across the Lonestar private property. The Forest Service has no right to even consider granting access across the appellant's private property upon which road Trail 67 crosses without his consent. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 16 *Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments* 164.1 Response In Alternative C, Daily use could be the potential use on the north portion of FS Trail #67 if a FLPMA easement were issued to the road association. Specific Objection 28 The appellant objects to: In Alternative C, Daily use could be the potential use on the north portion of FS Trail #67 if a FLPMA easement were issued to the road association. Considering daily potential use makes little sense. Why daily use? Why not potential hourly use, or potential minute or second use? Indeed, typical use over the past 30 years has been on the order of one or two trips per month. Potential use should not be a consideration. Typical expected use would be better and that would be near insignificant effect on the road. Considering the past use of road Trail 67 before the Forest Service became involved would be a much better indicator. Blue John Private Access Easement Project Decision Page 17 Blue John Private Access Easement Project Response to Comments 164.3 Response The Forest service must provide access to private property where appropriate. One access, with exceptions, is the guidance provided by the PNF Plan. This project is analyzing the area around Trail 67 to determine access to affected properties. See also 36CFR251. Specific Objection 29a The appellant objects to: One access, with exceptions, is the guidance provided by the PNF Plan. According to the PNF Plan page 55 J02, one access is to electronic site subdivisions not to non-electronic site subdivisions or individual property or between property within a subdivision. Reference: PNF Plan, page 55 J02 Allow only one access road for subdivision unless natural features dictate otherwise and where there is no suitable private land alternative or where additional access is needed for public safety. Indeed there is no suitable private land alternative between the involved properties. Natural features do dictate use of road Trail 67. In addition, road Trail 67 has been acknowledged by the Forest Service to be needed for public safety. Road Trail 67 is an exception and must be treated as such. By making road Trail 67 unavailable to property owners the Forest Service is illegally regulating private property use. The Forest Service's actions are not promoting a policy of being a "'good neighbor' to non-Federal landowners whose property is adjacent to or intermingled with National Forest System lands and to recognize their right to reasonable access to and use of their property." Reference: Forest Service Manual FSM 5400 - LANDOWNERSHIP WO AMENDMENT 5400-99-2 EFFECTIVE 01/12/1999 ZERO CODE *5403 - POLICY.* *5403.3 - Private Property Rights. Except as authorized by law, order, or regulation, Forest Service policies, practices, and procedures shall avoid any appearance of regulating private property use. With respect to non-Federal lands, it is long-standing Forest Service policy to be a "good neighbor" to non-Federal landowners whose property is adjacent to or intermingled with National Forest System lands and to recognize their right to reasonable access to and use of their property (FSM 2701.1, para. 18; FSM 2701.3, para. 3; and FSM 2730.3). Specific Objection 29b* The appellant objects to: See also 36CFR251. There are close to 100 sections to 36CFR251. No specific references were given nor applicable references found. 5) Reasons: Reasons General The Forest Service Mission: Caring for the Land and Serving People It is the duty of the Forest Service to work with property owners in the forest to minimize fire danger, maximize access by local fire departments in case of a fire, maximize ingress and egress in case of other emergencies, work to maintain conditions so people can enjoy the forest and their property. As such the following are the specific reasons for the Decision objections: Note: The following Specific Reason numbers do not directly correspond to Objection numbers. Reasons Specific Specific Reason 1 Being able to quickly ingress and egress the top of Spruce Mountain in case of a fire or other emergency is a prime consideration for the forest, fire department and local land owners. In addition to hundreds of acres of Forest Service land (including a fire tower and a fire department radio relay building) there are several dozen property owners, some who live there year around and whose properties and lives are at stake. Specific Reason 2 The Walker Fire Department is but a few minutes away via road Trail 67. Alternate routes can take an hour or more. Specific Reason 3 During the winter months, road 52A becomes impassable many times due to snow drifts. The only access to the top of Spruce Mountain is via road Trail 67 because of its sheltered and southern position on the mountain. Specific Reason 4 Road Trail 67, which is a road, not a trail, easily navigated by even the fire department's emergency vehicles. Specific Reason 5 Road Trail 67 has existed for over 100 years and has served the area well. Not making use of that is poor judgment.. Specific Reason 6 Road Trail 67 crosses two private properties with the upper portion of road Trail 67 on Prescott National Forest land. See Attachment Ia. Specific Reason 7 Road Trail 67 requires periodic maintenance in order to be usable. This includes removal of downed trees and repairing washed out areas. Periodic travel will help assure the road is passable and identify and get problems corrected before an emergency arises. Specific Reason 8 For anybody to use road Trail 67 for any purpose, including maintenance, an agreement must be reached between the property owners and the Forest Service. Specific Reason 9 The Forest Service says it will provide a special use permit to the Walker Fire Department. Yet at the same time refuses to work with the local property owners so the Fire Department can make use of the special use permit. Specific Reason 10 The Forest Service refuses to discuss a reciprocal agreement with the property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Specific Reason 11 The Forest Service refuses to issue a special permit for use of road Trail 67 to the property owners whose property road Trail 67 crosses. Specific Reason 12 Without an agreement between the property owners and Prescott National Forest Service, road Trail 67 will not be available for any legal access or maintenance. Specific Reason 13 Because of the Forest Service's unbending and refusal to discuss issues or trying to work out agreements, road Trail 67 will not be maintained or have any legal access available for any use; fire suppression, emergency use or local travel. Specific Reason 14 If road Trail 67 is not available the lower portion of the appellant's property will not be accessible for development or sale. The only current means of access is via the northern portion of road Trail 67. There is no easement for access to the appellant's property across private property to the south. See Attachment Ia. Specific Reason 15 The Decision takes away one reasonable access to the appellant's property and reduces his enjoyment of his land. Reference: Forest Service Manual national headquarters (wo) Washington, DC fsM 2700 - SPECIAL USES MANAGEMENT *chapteR 2730 - ROAD AND TRAIL RIGHTS-OF-WAY GRANTS* *2734.6 - Statutory Rights of Ingress and Egress* Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (FSM 2701.1) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, such access to non-Federal lands within the boundaries of the National Forest System as deemed adequate to secure the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of his land. Specific Reason 16 The Decision is illegally regulating the private property use. Reference: Forest Service Manual FSM 5400 - LANDOWNERSHIP WO AMENDMENT 5400-99-2 EFFECTIVE 01/12/1999 ZERO CODE 5403 - POLICY. 5403.3 - Private Property Rights. Except as authorized by law, order, or regulation, Forest Service policies, practices, and procedures shall avoid any appearance of regulating private property use. Specific Reason 17 The Decision is not promoting the long-standing Forest Service policy of "good neighbor" to non-Federal landowners whose property is adjacent to or intermingled with National Forest System lands and to recognize their right to reasonable access to and use of their property. Reference: Forest Service Manual FSM 5400 - LANDOWNERSHIP WO AMENDMENT 5400-99-2 EFFECTIVE 01/12/1999 ZERO CODE 5403 - POLICY. 5403.3 - Private Property Rights. With respect to non-Federal lands, it is long-standing Forest Service policy to be a "good neighbor" to non-Federal landowners whose property is adjacent to or intermingled with National Forest System lands and to recognize their right to reasonable access to and use of their property (FSM 2701.1, para. 18; FSM 2701.3, para. 3; and FSM 2730.3). Specific Reason 18 Because road Trail 67 already exist and has been used for over 100 years. The appellant has a right to ingress and egress over the National Forest land and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails in order to reach their homes and to utilize their property Reference: 36CFR212.6 Sec. 212.6 Ingress and egress. (b) Actual settlers and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service. Actual settlers and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service shall be permitted ingress and egress over the same and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails in order to reach their homes and to utilize their property: Provided, such ingress and egress or use shall conform to rules and regulations governing the protection and administration of the lands and the roads or trails to be used. c) Others. Entering upon the National Forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used. Specific Reason 19 Because of the Forest Service's apparent insensitivity to the issues, it may be necessary to cut a new road across private property in order to assure access for the Walker Fire Department, emergency use and local travel. See easement information as per Attachments I and II. This is when a perfectly good road (Trail 67) already exists and only requires minor maintenance and an access agreement. While the Forest Service says it cares about the forest, it is requiring the forest to be ravaged by a new road. This would have far greater impact on the forest than use of the existing road. Because the new road will be beneficial for the National Forest as well as private land, the Forest Service should contribute resources to it's construction and maintenance. This would most likely be far more expensive than keeping road Trail 67 open, working to correct any areas of problems and performing maintenance. Specific Reason 20 Because of the Decision references the Prescott Forest Plan's "One access" policy is illogical, arbitrary and with no reference to law. Indeed even if proper as indicated in the Plan it applies to subdivisions, not individual property and is under the discussion on "Electronic Sites" not individual property owner issues or access between properties. Specific Reason 21 Because the Forest Service is not projecting a good neighbor policy and is projecting a less than professional image. Reference: Forest Service Manual FSM 5400 - LANDOWNERSHIP WO AMENDMENT 5400-99-2 EFFECTIVE 01/12/1999 ZERO CODE 5403 - POLICY. 5403.3 - Private Property Rights. With respect to non-Federal lands, it is long-standing Forest Service policy to be a "good neighbor" to non-Federal landowners whose property is adjacent to or intermingled with National Forest System lands and to recognize their right to reasonable access to and use of their property (FSM 2701.1, para. 18; FSM 2701.3, para. 3; and FSM 2730.3). As stated by several property owners during the Forest Service meeting of 4 November 2002 to discuss the decision; "the Forest Service appears to be vindictive, uncaring, insensitive, silly and certainly projecting a less than professional image." 6) Changes Sought: Change 1 Because much of the Decision is based on the Prescott National Forest Plan the appellant seeks to have the Prescott National Forest Plan updated, changed and produced in a professional, reasonable, logical and readable manner. The Plan should be made available to the public in hard copy and via the Prescott National Forest's web site after proper comment and discussion with the affected public and proper approval. The current version is unacceptable. Reference: 36CFR216.1 This part establishes procedures to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments and the public have adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. Change 2 The appellant seeks to have the Decision changed to provide discussion between the Forest Service, property owners and Walker Fire Department regarding road Trail 67. This discussion should work toward an agreement on the legal access and maintenance of road Trail 67 on private property as well as National Forest land. Reference: USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) SECTION 1 Ð MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Introduction The Road Management Policy proposal also emphasizes extensive public involvement and analysis in order to provide a road system that is environmentally sound, safe, and efficient to manage. The proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule will help the agency achieve several 2000 Revision goals and objectives that respond to concerns expressed by the public, such as clean water, natural resources sustainability,wildlife habitat, forest health, dispersed recreational opportunities, and other public benefits. Change 3 The appellant seeks to have the Decision changed to provide a reciprocal "private" easement for the affected property owners in return for emergency use of road Trail 67 across their private property. This would assure low traffic on the road, road availability in case of an emergency, access tot he lower portion of the appellant's property and reasonable travel between neighbors. Reference: 36 CFR 212 Sec. 212.6 Ingress and egress. (a) Policy in acquiring and granting access. To assure effective protection, management, and utilization of lands administered by the Forest Service and intermingled and adjacent private and public lands, and for the use and development of the resources upon which communities within or adjacent to the National Forests are dependent, the Chief shall as promptly as is feasible obtain needed access thereto and shall grant appropriate access across National Forest and other lands and easements administered by the Forest Service to intermingled or adjacent landowners. Construction, reconstruction or maintenance of a road or highway requires written authorization. (b) Actual settlers and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service. Actual settlers and other persons residing within the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service shall be permitted ingress and egress over the same and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails in order to reach their homes and to utilize their property: Provided, such ingress and egress or use shall conform to rules and regulations governing the protection and administration of the lands and the roads or trails to be used. (c) Others. Entering upon the National Forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service and use of existing National Forest System roads and trails shall be permitted for all proper and lawful purposes subject to compliance with rules and regulations governing the lands and the roads or trails to be used. and *Sec. 212.8 Permission to cross lands and easements owned by the United States and administered by the Forest Service.* (a) Permission to construct or use roads across lands and assignable easements owned by the United States and administered by the Forest Service. If a reciprocal benefit is needed by the United States, permission to construct or use a road across lands and across assignable easements owned by the United States and administered by the Forest Service will be conditioned, except as provided in this section, for any applicant who seeks a permit to construct or use a road across the same, upon the grant to the United States of a reciprocal benefit. Change 4 The appellant seeks to have the Decision changed to spell out who is responsible for, the degree of and how often regular maintenance should be performed on all of road Trail 67. Change 5 The appellant seeks to have the Decision changed to have the Forest Service provide resources to improve the grade of road Trail 67. Reference: USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) OBJECTIVES Objective 4.bÑImprove the safety and economy of USDA Forest Service roads, trails, facilities, and operations and provide greater security for the public and employees. Conclusion: The USDA Forest Service Mission: Caring for the Land and Serving People * The phrase, "CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE," captures the Forest Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people: It includes: * Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions. The Forest service indicates it wants to work with the property owners yet at the same time refuses to discuss important issues and work toward agreements. The Forest Service appears not to appreciate the property owners positions nor listen meaningfully to the property owners. The Forest Service appears to do whatever it wants independent of the property owners' needs and wishes. With the heightened concern about forest fires it is very strange that the Forest service is unwilling to take actions to help the situation. Indeed, the Forest Service actions seem contradictory to the welfare of the forest and people who live there. Doing nothing would be much better than what the Forest Service is attempting to do. It becomes hard to imagine the Forest Service is pursuing its mission of Caring for the Land and Serving People. Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Hopkins, Appellant Property Owner, Spruce Mountain Mohawk 4, Parcel 104-05-029U 7812 West Clayton Drive Phoenix, AZ 85033-2439 phxjeff@aol.com www.hposoft.com/SMT/SMT.html Attachments: Attachment Ia - Easement Survey Attachment Ib - Easement Survey Attachment IIa - Dunning Easement Deed Attachment IIb - Dunning Easement Deed cc: Forest Supervisor, Prescott National Forest Spruce Mountain Top web Site

	Return