United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

June 2011

Appendix E

Response to Public Comments on the 

Environmental Assessment

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

2

The 30-day comment period for the Upper Kinzua Project Environmental Assessment ended 

on May 24, 2011. 

Comments were received from one respondent: 

Cathy Pedler, Allegheny Defense Project (letter received electronically on May. 24, 

2011; designated as Comment #1 in this document) 

The Responsible Official and the Upper Kinzua Project Interdisciplinary Team reviewed the 

comments and attached supporting documentation and responded to all issues raised in the 

comment letter. Individual points from the letter are in italic font with the Forest Service 

response immediately after each comment. In some cases, multiple related excerpts from the 

letter are considered together and addressed with a single response. All comment letters are 

in the Upper Kinzua Project Record and available to the public upon request.

Comment 1-A:

Issue 1.0 The Site-Specific Treatments in the Upper Kinzua Project including those 

referenced in the following Upper Kinzua Project EA Documents, which are 

incorporated by reference Tables 1 to 16; and Map 1) Vicinity and Project Area; 

Map 2) Alternative 1 No Action-Existing Condition, Map 3) Alternative 2, Proposed 

Silviculture and Transportation Activities; Map 4) Other Proposed Actions, Wildlife 

Hydrology, Scenery, and Recreation; 5) Project Area Site Specific Treatments, 

Proposed and Previously Approved Compartment and Stand Map are based on an 

invalid Forest Plan that did not consider the impacts from OGD as a significant, 

primary issue in developing the 2007 FEIS, including the vegetative management 

plan. (p. 5)

Forest Service Response:

The decision to be made for the Upper Kinzua Project is to manage vegetation and other 

natural resources in the project area to move from current conditions towards the desired 

conditions identified in the 2007 ANF Forest Plan. The decision for this project will not 

involve the approval of private oil and gas drilling or revision of the Forest Plan. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq., requires that 

administration of National Forest System (NFS) lands be guided by an approved Land and 

Resource Management Plan (i.e., Forest Plan). NFMA allows considerable discretion to the 

agency with regard to the amendment and implementation of Land and Resource 

Management Plans; see Section 1604(f) (4). The management of vegetation and other 

natural resources proposed for the Upper Kinzua project is consistent with the revised Forest 

Plan for the ANF that was approved on February 2, 2007, by Randy Moore, Regional 

Forester. The 2007 Forest Plan was based upon considerable scientific and public 

involvement through the preparation of a programmatic FEIS. The Regional Forester’s 

decision was subject to administrative appeal pursuant to the transition provision of the 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

3

NFMA planning regulation, 36 C.F.R. 219.35(a) (2000). The Chief of the Forest Service 

upheld the Plan except for certain items related to oil and gas that are currently under review. 

The ongoing programmatic review of these areas does not require the Forest to halt 

management of vegetation and other multiple-use resources. 

The Upper Kinzua Project analysis incorporated the best available science and information 

on private oil and gas development in the ANF as summarized in the “Programmatic Effects 

of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest” and the “Site-specific 

Effects of Private Oil and Gas Development on the Allegheny National Forest” documents. 

These white papers are located in the Upper Kinzua Project Record and were provided to the 

commenter upon request.

In summary, the Upper Kinzua Project proposes activities that achieve the 2007 Forest Plan 

objectives for desired conditions of the various management areas included in this project, 

and the EA thoroughly analyzes the project-level effects of the proposed activities and other 

reasonably foreseeable future activities on a wide range of biological, physical and social 

resources.

Comment 1-B:

Issue 2.0 The Upper Kinzua Project Cannot Satisfy its NEPA Obligations by Tiering 

To or Incorporating by Reference Unfinished NEPA Analysis. (p. 7)

Forest Service Response: 

The Upper Kinzua Project EA tiers to the 2007 Forest Plan and accompanying FEIS. See 

response to Comment 1-A above regarding the validity of the Forest Plan and FEIS. In the 

context of NEPA, tiering specifically refers to “the coverage of general matters in broader 

environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with 

subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide 

program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the 

general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement 

subsequently prepared.” Tiering is appropriate under two circumstances: “(a) From a 

program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program, plan, or policy 

statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a site- specific statement or analysis. (b) From an 

environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site 

selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later 

stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps 

the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from 

consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.” (40 CFR 1508.28). Thus, tiering to the 

2007 Forest Plan in the Upper Kinzua Project simply avoids repetition of more general, 

already finalized, material and is entirely appropriate. 

The EA also contains citations to many other Forest Service documents, scientific articles, 

technical reports, and personal communication with experts, which simply constitutes citing 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

4

the source of the best available science and information relevant to the analysis. Such 

reference is not tiering and there is no requirement that cited material be “NEPA compliant” 

or even subject to the NEPA process as the commenter suggests. The comment specifically 

refers to two unpublished documents, the Programmatic Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity 

on the Allegheny National Forest (USDA-FS 2010a) and Site-Specific Effects of Private Oil and 

Gas Development on the Allegheny National Forest (USDA-FS 2010b). These documents are 

considered the best available information on private oil and gas development on the Allegheny 

National Forest (ANF) and it is therefore appropriate to cite them in the analysis. These 

documents were provided upon request to the commenter.

Comment 1-C: 

Issue 3.0 The Forest Service must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (p. 7)

Forest Service Response:

NEPA requires that Federal agencies follow certain procedures to examine the environmental 

impact of their proposed actions and reach an informed decision. If an agency proposes a 

“major Federal action [that] significantly affect[s] the quality of the human environment,” 

NEPA requires the agency to prepare an EIS that, among other things, details “the 

environmental impact of the proposed action.” An EIS, however, is not required if the agency 

first prepares an environmental assessment (EA) providing “sufficient evidence and analysis” 

that an EIS is not necessary because the proposed action will not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment (40 CFR 1508.9). 

CEQ regulations do not contain quantitative thresholds for significant effects, contrary to the 

implication of quoting acreages in the comment letter. The CEQ significance criteria were 

considered (40 CFR 1508.27) and documented in the Responsible Official’s decision. His 

decision included determination of a finding of no significant impact and therefore there is no 

need to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Upper Kinzua Project.

The CEQ NEPA regulation’s context and intensity provisions were carefully examined based 

upon field data, review of published science, consideration of past experience with similar 

projects, and professional expertise (see DN/FONSI). The project record documents the 

analysis, findings, and conclusions that support the Responsible Official’s decision. The 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects upon water, wildlife, air, soil, and other multiple-use 

resources were documented. The environmental assessment was made available to the public, 

and the comments received were carefully considered. No information submitted to the 

agency regarding potential environmental effects was ignored. In the light of the comments 

received, the Responsible Official carefully examined the effects analysis to ensure that the 

analysis, findings, and conclusions complied with applicable federal laws.

These comments do not provide any evidence that the Forest failed to take a hard look at 

some aspect of the project’s effects analysis, even if the commenter may not agree with the 

assumptions or conclusions of that analysis. Instead, the comment suggests that because the 

project involves commercial timber harvest, herbicide (for restocking of hardwood tree 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

5

species and removal of non-native invasive plants), burning, and fencing, the magnitude of

action equates to significance of effects, but this is not the case under NEPA regulations nor 

is it consistent with the analysis, findings, and conclusions for this project. 

Forest Service responses to specific arguments for completing an EIS are in the comments 

below.

Comment 1-D: 

3.1 The Upper Kinzua Project area meets the significant impact criteria of 40 CFR 

1508.27; 

3.1.1 The Upper Kinzua Project shows significant local (contextual) short-term and 

long-term impacts and must be subjected to an EIS (p. 8)

Forest Service Response:

“Significance” in a NEPA context is not dependent on project size or type; instead, it 

depends on the analysis of the context and the ten intensity factors set forth in the NEPA 

regulations. The Responsible Official documented his review of both context and intensity in 

the record (see DN/FONSI), and took a hard look at potential water, air, wildlife, and other 

resource effects, as well as the beneficial effects associated with proposed activities in the 

project area. The type of action in this location and with the proposed mitigation is not 

unusual. This project incorporates years of experience and understanding of the ecological 

processes and silvicultural forces involved in managing the Allegheny National Forest. The 

choices and trade-offs of no management versus taking action at this time are described in 

the EA and in the record. Both short- and long-term effects must be taken into consideration 

– the comment letter focuses on the potential short-term effects, but ignores the long-term 

environmental benefits of meeting the purpose and need identified for the project. The 

Interdisciplinary Team applied its expertise, monitoring data, and field work to disclose 

science-based information for the decision maker to use in reaching his final determinations 

regarding the NEPA significance (considering both context and intensity) of the potential 

environmental effects (see DN/FONSI).

The project record documents that the Forest Service has taken a hard look at the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects in the analysis area and considered the effects of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, including private oil and gas development (see Chapter 3 

of the EA and Appendix D). The comment did not identify any environmental effects related 

to the project area that the Agency failed to consider in its site specific analysis. The decision 

documentation incorporates the analysis set forth in the EA and supporting material, 

considers the context and intensity factors of 40 C.F.R. 1508.27, and documents the findings 

of the Responsible Official that the alternative selected for the Upper Kinzua Project will not 

result in significant effects that require preparation of an EIS.
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

6

Comment 1-E

Clearly, Marcellus Shale gas well development 300 feet from the project area has an 

impact on the project area. Further, the proximity of this well suggests that more 

Marcellus Shale gas wells and Utica Shale gas wells will be developed in the project 

area. (p. 9)

The Upper Kinzua Project is certainly within the footprint of both shale layers. The 

effects of the Marcellus play, with the closest well only 300 feet away certainly has a 

significant effect on the project area. Further, There are at least 16 Marcellus Shale 

Gas wells, planned, permitted, or currently under operation within the ANF 

Proclamation Boundary (at least five of these are on ANF lands). There will clearly 

be impacts to the Upper Kinzua Project area and cumulative effects area from 

Marcellus Shale gas drilling (p. 10)

In a recent New York Times article (Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits 

Rivers, NYT, February 27, 2011,see attached and below), the NYT documents 

concerns that radionuclides and other contaminates are being dumped in PA 

waterways and have the potential to spill on Marcellus sites within the footprint of the 

forest and in the project area. These issues must be considered as part of the context 

of the proposed action when determining the significance of the impact of the Upper 

Kinzua Project! (p. 11)

The Forest Service must conduct an EIS to analyze a complete analysis of the dangers 

to the environment and human health of modern gas drilling, including the use of 

hydraulic fracturing. (p. 15)

Forest Service response:

The activities proposed for the Upper Kinzua project do not include oil and gas development 

or issuance of notices to proceed for private OGD in the project area. The Interdisciplinary 

Team considered the effects of current and reasonably foreseeable future private OGD on 

specific resources in the EA. The process and rationale for the private oil and gas 

development projections used in the Upper Kinzua analysis is detailed in Appendix D of the 

EA. Many of the commenter’s specific claims and requests for modification of the project 

are forest-level or region-wide issues that are far beyond the scope of the analysis and 

decision for the Upper Kinzua project. The comment did not provide any specific 

information demonstrating that that there was imminent development of Marcellus shale or 

other deep gas deposits in the project area or that such potential future development met the 

criteria for being considered reasonably foreseeable as described in Appendix D. Further 

responses regarding the project-level approach to analysis of private oil and gas development 

is in the responses to Comments 1-A and 1-B above.

Comment 1-F
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

7

3.1.1.1 Water withdrawal. 

Further, the USFS must, as riparian owners, stop the illegal withdrawals of surface 

water by the oil and gas industry on the ANF. (p. 37)

The Forest Service must consider the cumulative effect of water withdrawals for oil 

and gas drilling and fracking (both shallow and deep wells) in the project area, and 

in a redefined cumulative effects area. The Forest Service must also study the impact 

of untreated Marcellus Shale Wastewater being dumped into the Allegheny River at 

Warren through the Waste Treatment Corporation, and in Ridgeway. (p. 37-38)

Forest Service Response:

The decision to be made for the Upper Kinzua Project is to manage vegetation and other 

natural resources in the project area to move from current conditions towards the desired 

conditions identified in the 2007 ANF Forest Plan. The decision for this project will not 

involve the approval or regulation of private oil and gas drilling or revision of the Forest 

Plan. 

The Interdisciplinary Team considered the effects of current and reasonably foreseeable 

future private OGD on specific resources in the Upper Kinzua EA. The activities proposed 

in Alternative 2 and the previously approved activities in the project area are not anticipated 

to have significant negative effects changes to water quantity or quality even in the context of 

private OGD in the area.

Marcellus shale well developers are required to submit Water Management Plans to the 

Pennsylvania DEP whether the water is withdrawn from local sources or hauled in. The 

Pennsylvania DEP reviews these plans for individual and cumulative impacts and will not 

approve plans unless sufficient water remains to maintain existing and designated uses. 

Therefore, even though the Responsible Official did not consider Marcellus shale 

development as a reasonably foreseeable future activity, the cumulative effects analysis in 

the EA would be robust to unforeseen private OGD in the area.

Regarding the last part of the comment, the possibility of wastewater discharge by parties 

other than the Forest Service on private land is beyond the scope of the decision and analysis 

for the Upper Kinzua project.

Comment 1-G

3.1.2 The Upper Kinzua Project shows significant intensity

Regarding 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 3, Unique characteristics of the geographic area such 

as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, 

wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

8

3.1.2.1.1 The NCNST Corridor, Kinzua Creek, Mead Run Waterfowl Management 

Area, Westline Recreation Area.

The North Country National Scenic Trail Corridor, the Mead Run Waterfowl 

Management Area, and the Westline Recreation Run Area proposed by ADP in 

Allegheny Wild! (with over 2,000 supporters for the proposed area), the Kinzua 

Creek and the Mead Run Watersheds must be considered when evaluating the 

intensity of the action regarding 40 CFR 1508.27 (b) 3. The impacts of the proposed 

actions will alter the experience of visitors to the forest for years to come. In essence, 

this project will deliver the message “Go Away!” to any users of the forest except for 

the extractive industries. Marcellus shale drilling, conventional drilling, extensive 

clearcutting, and impacts from the proposed actions along with existing and 

reasonably foreseeable stresses in the area must be analyzed in an EIS. (p. 38-39)

Forest Service Response:

The activities proposed in the Upper Kinzua project comply with Forest Plan direction and 

specific objectives for the Management Areas in the project. The analysis in the EA 

thoroughly documents the effects of the alternatives on multiple resources in the project area, 

including recreation and water. 

The specific areas identified in the comment were proposed by the Allegheny Defense 

Project as part of an alternative for Forest Plan revision. This proposal was considered in the

Forest Plan FEIS, but the Allegheny Wild! Alternative was not analyzed in detail (USDA-FS 

2007b, p. 2.14-2.26). Therefore, the areas suggested for additional analysis were considered 

under the Management Area or other designations as approved in the 2007 Forest Plan.

Comment 1-H

3.1.2.1.2 Management Area 2.2

Over half (4,460 acres) of the total acreage (8,587 acres), in the Upper Kinzua 

Project occur in MA 2.2. ...The Forest Service simply cannot continue to operate its 

timber program like it is 1989. The Forest Service must take steps to actually protect 

wildlife habitat, not further impact it with even-aged management that only 

exacerbates the already extensive, forest-wide impacts of oil and gas development.

Any proposed timber “treatments” must be demonstrated to increase water quality 

and increase species viability across the forest in the context of a Forest Management 

Plan that actually considered oil and gas drilling a primary, significant issue during 

analysis. The Upper Kinzua Project conflicts with the management objectives of M.A. 

2.2. Further, the area provides wilderness characteristics, trails, popular public 

recreation areas, and high-quality, cold-water streams and naturally reproducing 

trout streams. All the treatments in Management Area 2.2 must be dropped. (p. 39-

40)

Forest Service Response:
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

9

The premise of this comment is not accurate – the 4,460 acres of Management Area 2.2 in 

the Upper Kinzua project area constitutes only approximately 16% of the total project area. 

The vast majority of the project area (22,397 acres or approximately 79%) is designated as 

Management Area 3.0.

The desired conditions and objectives for each Management Area are described in the Forest 

Plan (p. 101-168). The activities proposed in MAs 2.2 and 3.0 within the Upper Kinzua 

project area were determined to be consistent with Forest Plan direction for those 

Management Areas (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 109-110). There are no areas designated as 

wilderness or wilderness study areas in the Upper Kinzua project. The effects of the 

alternatives (including cumulative effects that consider current and reasonably foreseeable 

private OGD and beneficial effects of proposed instream improvements) on wildlife, 

recreation and hydrology are thoroughly documented in the EA and supporting appendices.

Comment 1-I

3.1.2.1.3 High-Quality, Cold Water Fisheries; and Naturally Reproducing Trout 

Streams

Within the Upper Kinzua Project boundary are numerous high quality aquatic 

habitats, which will be adversely affected by the actions proposed in the Upper 

Kinzua project (e.g., by clearcutting, and herbiciding). Many of the streams and 

creeks in the project area are classified as High Quality, Cold Water Fisheries (HQCWF) and Exceptional Value (EV), which must be afforded special protection. ...

These important aquatic habitats must be protected. The proposed action in the 

Upper Kinzua Project will damage these streams and creeks with increased runoff 

and siltation, stream warming from canopy openings, and pollution from herbicide 

applications. The USFS must conduct an EIS to determine the impact of the project 

on these important aquatic habitats and on the species that inhabit them. All 

treatments adjacent to, or in the headwaters of, the above listed streams and creeks 

must be dropped from the Upper Kinzua Project. (p. 40)

Forest Service Response:

Appropriate standards and guidelines will be followed for all herbicide application, and the 

analysis shows that effects on water quality will not be significant. Extensive analysis in the 

FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, Appendix G, references therein and FEIS p. 3.33-3.36) as well as 

monitoring data, experience with similar projects and field observation support the finding 

that the proposed herbicide use will not have significant negative effects on water quality. 

The effects of all proposed vegetation management activities were considered in the Upper 

Kinzua EA and supporting material in the project record. This analysis included 

consideration of protected water uses and the proposed activities would apply buffers 

appropriate for stream designations.
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

10

Contrary to the commenter’s claims, the analysis in the Upper Kinzua EA shows that several 

proposed activities (such as high quality road surfacing, instream habitat improvement and 

riparian stand management) would increase water quality and aquatic habitat in the project 

area compared to the no action alternative. 

Comment 1-J:

3.1.2.2 Intensity: 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 4

Regarding 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 4, The degree to which the effects on the quality of the 

human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 

3.1.2.2.1 The NCNST Corridor, Kinzua Creek, Mead Run Waterfowl Management 

Area, Westline Recreation Area

The North Country National Scenic Trail Corridor, the Mead Run Waterfowl 

Management Area, and the Westline Recreation Run Area proposed by ADP in 

Allegheny Wild! (with over 2,000 supporters for the proposed area), the Kinzua 

Creek and the Mead Run Watersheds must be considered when evaluating the

intensity of the action regarding 40 CFR 1508.27 (b) 4. The use of even-aged logging, 

prescribed burning, and the broad-spectrum non-specific herbicide glyphosate for 

forest 'treatments" is damaging to the forest ecosystem, aquatic environments, and to 

human health (glyphosate is toxic and an endocrine disruptor).

Forest Service Response:

For NEPA analysis, “highly controversial” refers to substantial disputes regarding the size, 

nature, or effect of a major federal action, rather than opposition to a use or activity. The 

attachments provided by the commenter on herbicide effects and prescribed fire demonstrate 

a degree of public controversy regarding these activities but do not demonstrate substantial 

scientific controversy about effects from the type of use proposed in this project. Although 

the attachments contain references to selective scientific data, the comment is primarily an 

argument against herbicide use or fire management from groups opposed to such activities. 

The effects of a wide range of vegetation management activities, including prescribed fire 

and herbicide, are thoroughly documented at a programmatic level in the Forest Plan FEIS

and at a project level in the Upper Kinzua EA.

See responses to Comments 1-G, 1-H and 1-I above regarding the specific content of this 

comment.

Comment 1-K

3.1.2.3 Intensity: 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 5

Regarding 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 5,The degree to which the possible effects on the 

human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

11

3.1.2.3.1 The Forest Service has never analyzed the impact of its current vegetative 

management practices (e.g., prescribed burn, use of glyphosate, fertilization, 

clearcutting, etc.) on forest mycelium, aquatic habitats, and human health. Mycelium 

plays an essential role in the Allegheny National Forest and in the Upper Kinzua 

Project Area.“Extramatrical ectomycorrhizal mycelium contributes one-third of 

microbial biomass and produces, together with associated roots, half the dissolved 

organic carbon in a forest soil” Studies suggest that mycelium viability is essential to 

healthy forest ecosystems including the role it plays in bio-remediation and soil 

stabilization. However, research suggests that current forest service practices (e.g., 

the use of glyphosate and fertilizers) threaten mycelium viability. The use of evenaged logging, prescribed burning, and the broad-spectrum non-specific herbicide

glyphosate for forest 'treatments" is damaging to the forest ecosystem, aquatic life, 

and to human health (glyphosate is toxic and an endocrine disruptor). (p. 41)

Forest Service Response:

The claim that the Forest Service has not analyzed the effects of vegetation management 

activities on soil microbes, aquatic habitats and human health is not accurate. The Forest Plan 

FEIS extensively documents Forest-level effects of all of the activities identified in the 

comment on soil health (USDA-Fs2007b, p. 3.12; Appendix G, p. G1.43-G1.44 and G2.33), 

human health (FEIS p. 3.433-3.442; Appendix G) and aquatic habitats (FEIS p. 3.22-3.51; p. 

3.223). The Upper Kinzua EA tiers to these analyses and also evaluates the project-level 

effects of the proposed activities on soil health, hydrology, wildlife (including aquatic 

species) and human health.

There is no evidence or substantive reason to believe that proposed activities in the Upper 

Kinzua Project would have significant negative effects on fungal mycelia or the ecological 

functions they perform in forest ecosystems. Soil fungi are diverse, ubiquitous, and quickly 

recolonize soil and litter following short-term disturbances. As such, any effects of 

vegetation management on fungal mycelia would be rapidly ameliorated through 

reforestation activities and natural processes. 

The attachments provided by the commenter do not present contradictory results that are 

directly relevant or sufficiently rigorous to substantiate their claim that the proposed use of 

herbicide or prescribed fire involves unique or unknown risks. To the contrary, extensive 

analysis, expert opinion and years of experience support the analysis in the Forest Plan and 

Upper Kinzua EA suggesting that implementation of these activities with appropriate 

standards, guidelines and mitigation measures results in no significant effects on the 

environment. See also responses to Comments 1-I and 1-J above.

Comment 1-L:

3.1.2.3.2 There must be an EIS for the Upper Kinzua Project because DSEIS data 

relies on outdated OGD data (road miles and # of wells) to make assumptions about 

future development
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

12

There must an EIS prepared for the Upper Kinzua Project because there is invalid 

data in the DSEIS on which other recent projects have relied. In the Upper Kinzua 

Project, for example, in Appendix D, the Forest Service relies on data from the Draft 

SEIS for predicting the future impact to the Upper Kinzua Project from oil and gas 

development. This data is simply incorrect. (p. 42)

Forest Service Response:

The Upper Kinzua EA does not rely on any specific data from the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement to the 2007 Forest Plan (a process currently on hold due to 

litigation). The scenarios for future OGD in the Upper Kinzua project area incorporated 

some relevant forest-wide data that was also included in the DSEIS, but the selected scenario 

(Scenario 3) was based on continuously updated site-specific information regarding oil and 

gas wells and roads combined with a rigorous GIS modeling procedure (See Appendix D to 

the Upper Kinzua EA). The effects analysis in the Upper Kinzua EA evaluates and discloses 

the potential effects of current and reasonably foreseeable private ODG in the project area for 

each resource area. 

Comment 1-M:

3.1.2.3.3 There must be an EIS for the Upper Kinzua Project because the Forest 

Service has no base-line water quality data in the context of Marcellus Shale gas 

drilling.

The Forest Service must establish baseline water quality data prior to drilling on 

ANF land in order to protect water resources and aquifers on and adjacent to the 

ANF. Every property owner in PA is required to establish base-line water data under 

the 1984 Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act prior to drilling in an area - especially in 

light of water contamination across state from Marcelllus drilling - a known and 

reasonably foreseeable consequence of drilling. The Forest Service failed to protect 

drinking water resources at Twin Lakes from barium contamination from gas 

drilling. The Forest Service had no baseline water quality data prior to drilling and 

no requirement for mitigation of damaged aquifer by the OGM company that caused 

the contamination. The Forest Service is acting as though they have no duty to 

protect water on federal public land and the resources of adjacent property owners. 

(p. 46-47)

Forest Service Response:

See responses to Comments 1-E and 1-F above and 1-U below.

Comment 1-N:

3.1.2.4 Intensity: 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 7

Regarding 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 7, Whether the action is related to other actions with 

individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

13

is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. 

Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it 

down into small component parts. 

3.1.2.4.1 The USFS attempts to avoid significance by breaking down into component 

parts what should have been one project including Upper Kinzua, Southwest 

Reservoir, North End, and Morrison Run.

The USFS is attempting to avoid acknowledging the cumulative significant impacts of 

multiple federal actions, including the proposed action of four contiguous projects, 

including Upper Kinzua Project, and the Southwest Reservoir Project, the North End 

Project, and the Morrison Run Project. These contiguous projects should be 

considered as one major action and scoped together as one project.

Forest Service Response:

40 CFR 1508.25 provides guidance to help determine whether actions must be considered in 

the same impact statement (for connected and cumulative actions) or may be considered in 

separate impact statements (for similar actions).

Many of the projects on the ANF include similar proposed activities, but the effects of the 

alternatives in the projects are analyzed separately because the actions are not connected or 

expected to have a significant cumulative impact according to 40 CFR 1508.25. The rationale 

for not conducting an EIS is clearly documented in the FONSI for both past projects and the 

Upper Kinzua project. Furthermore, all of the projects mentioned above were designed to 

implement the 2007 Forest Plan, for which the FEIS thoroughly identified the effects of the 

selected alternative on a wide range of biological, physical and social resources. 

Comment 1-O:

3.1.2.4.2 The USFS attempts to avoid significance by underestimating and failing to 

analyze the impact of oil and gas drilling in the project area as a significant 

cumulative effect.

The Forest Service is clearly underestimating and failing to analyze the impact of oil 

and gas drilling in the project area as a significant cumulative effect. (p. 47)

Forest Service Response:

The decision to be made for the Upper Kinzua Project is to manage vegetation and other 

natural resources in the project area to move from current conditions towards the desired 

conditions identified in the 2007 ANF Forest Plan. The decision for this project will not 

involve the proposal or approval of private oil and gas drilling or revision of the Forest Plan. 

The Upper Kinzua EA thoroughly analyzes the direct, indirect and cumulative project-level 

effects of the proposed activities on a wide range of biological, physical and social resources. 

This analysis includes consideration of the proposed activities in the context of the 

reasonably foreseeable scenario for future private oil and gas development (described in 

Appendix D to the EA). However, because private OGD is not part of the proposed action, it 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

14

would not be considered by itself as a “significant cumulative effect” under NEPA regardless 

of the size or type of effects from these activities. Rather, the activities proposed by the 

Forest Service are analyzed in the context of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities or processes (including private OGD). If the effects of the proposed activities 

exceeds some threshold (e.g., a state or federal regulation) or has a large incremental impact 

relative to the current condition, desired conditions and other activities in the area, then the 

Responsible Official may determine that the proposed activities have a significant cumulative 

effect. However, if the proposed activities are determined to not have a measurable negative 

effect on the environment, as was the case in the Upper Kinzua EA, then there are no 

cumulative effects of the project regardless of what else may be occurring in the effects area.

Comment 1-P:

Regarding 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 9, The degree to which the action may adversely affect 

an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be 

critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

3.1.2.5.1 Northern goshawks are considered "management indicators". They are 

considered "sensitive to change", and their well being often can provide clues to 

problems with habitat change. (p. 47)

The cumulative impact from OGD and from the over 20,000 acres of clear-cutting 

and over 10,000 acres of herbicide application in proposed logging projects on the 

ANF this year to Goshawk habitat must be analyzed in an EIS. (p. 48)

Forest Service Response:

The northern goshawk is not listed as a threatened or endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act, so this criterion for determining significance is not applicable.

The FEIS to the Forest Plan and Forest-wide BE analyzed and disclosed the effects of the 

selected alternative (Cm) on northern goshawks at a Forest-wide level. The Upper Kinzua 

project provides detailed analysis of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of 

the proposed activities in the project area. This analysis includes considerations of the 

cumulative effects of the proposed activities in the context of reasonably foreseeable OGD. 

The northern goshawk is listed as a Regional Forester Sensitive Species and as a 

Management Indicator Species on the ANF and project-level effects to this species and its 

habitat are discussed in detail in both the Biological Evaluation and the Wildlife Report 

(Appendixes C2 and C3 to the Upper Kinzua EA).

Comment 1-Q:

3.1.2.5.2 The Forest Service must conduct an analysis of the site-specific treatment 

areas for the presence of threatened and endangered species and for the 78 species 

with potential viability concerns on the ANF (five are threatened or endangered with 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

15

two candidate species, 61 are RFSS with two candidate species). The Forest Service 

must also address the cumulative impacts from OGD to these species on multiple 

levels (including site-specific, project area, ANF, and regional) since and the ANF’s 

vegetative management plan was not developed considering the impact of OGD as a 

significant, primary issue. The current 2007 Forest Plan does not halt the decline of 

species viability for numerous species on the forest. 

The Upper Kinzua Project must not follow the process of other projects on the ANF 

this year, such as the De Young Project, which provides no evidence in the Revised 

EA that site-specific analysis on the presence of threatened or endangered species or 

suitable habitat for T&E species had been conducted for the specific treatment areas 

in the De Young Project proposed action. Although the De Young Revised EA 

attempts to justify a Project Level Analysis only approach, the Forest Service must 

conduct an actual stand-level analysis of the proposed treatment areas at appropriate 

times of year to actually discover threatened and endangered species which may be 

growing in or otherwise using the specific habitat of the proposed treatment areas. 

The analysis in the De Young Revised EA is insufficient. The potential impact to the 

habitat of T&E, and to all of the 78 species with potential viability concerns must be 

studied in an EIS. (p. 48)

Forest Service Response:

Appendixes C1, C2 and C3 to the Upper Kinzua EA thoroughly analyze the project-level 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed activities on sensitive species. 

Qualified biologists determined the likely effects for all federally listed threatened, 

endangered and candidate species as well as for all Regional Forester Sensitive Species. 

These determinations were based on detailed site-specific information regarding habitats and 

species presence in the project area and considerable scientific data and expertise on the 

ANF. Reasonably foreseeable future activities, including private OGD, were considered in 

these analyses.

Comment 1-R

3.1.2.6 Intensity: 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 10

Regarding 40CFR 1508.27 (b) 10, Whether the action threatens a violation of 

Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the 

environment. 

3.1.2.6.1 The Forest Service currently violates and threatens to violate Pennsylvania 

Common Law in allowing oil and gas drillers to use surface waters in the ANF for 

private oil and gas development projects. Further, the Forest Service will violate 

NEPA if it does not conduct an EIS for the Upper Kinzua Project. (p. 48)

Forest Service Response:
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

16

See response to Comment 1-F above regarding potential water withdrawal for private OGD 

and response to Comment 1-C regarding the determination by the Responsible Official that 

an EIS is not required for the Upper Kinzua Project.

Comment 1-S:

In the Upper Kinzua Project, the Forest Service plans calls for 1,650 acres of 

commercial logging, 1,065 acres of herbicide spraying and 1,000 acres of precommercial thinning. The Forest Service is planning additional even-aged logging 

activity in the three projects contiguous with the Upper Kinzua project including, the 

North End Project, the Morrison Run Project, and the South West Reservoir Project 

(Figure 1 above). The North End Project, which is directly adjacent to the Upper 

Kinzua Project calls for 1,650 acres of commercial logging, 1,065 acres of herbicide 

spraying and 1,000 acres of pre-commercial thinning. The two projects combined 

would result in nearly 5,000 acres of logging and over 3,200 acres of herbicide 

spraying. The Morrison Run Project, located in the heart of the Allegheny National 

Forest (ANF), proposes actions including almost 5,000 acres of even-aged 

management (i.e., commercial harvest, releases, site prep, with over 2,000 acres 

affected by treatments), and 1,366 acres of herbicide application. The Southwest 

Reservoir Project proposes approximately 1,720 acres of even-aged logging and 

1,513 acres of herbicide spraying. In the Southwest Reservoir Project there is also 

2,267 acres of so-called “tree diversity improvement release” without any 

description of what this actually entails (The various “releases” listed in Southwest 

Reservoir EA, Appendix B do not add up to 2,267 acres).

Collectively these four projects, Upper Kinzua, North End, Morrison Run, and 

Southwest Reservoir represent 13,987 acres of even-aged management and clearcuts, 

and 6,079 acres of herbicide application.

The combination of the magnitude and the number of intensity factors requires the 

Forest Service to prepare an EIS. ADP has described the intensity factors for each of 

the four contiguous projects. These projects and the described intensity factors are 

greater than that of Mortality II. (p. 49)

Forest Service Response:

First, as a point of fact, the claim that the Upper Kinzua, North End, Morrison Run and 

Southwest Reservoir projects “represent 13,987 acres of even aged management and 

clearcuts” is not accurate. Many of the activities described above would occur on the same 

acreage (e.g., a shelterwood seed cut would occur in a stand, then herbicide for interfering 

vegetation if required to promote regeneration and then a removal cut to harvest the 

remaining trees). Consequently, adding the acreage for each step of the harvest and 

reforestation process greatly overestimates the actual amount of land on which even-aged 

management has been proposed. The stand-specific proposals for these projects provided

detailed information regarding where the activities proposed would occur and where different 

activities would overlap depending on the silvicultural prescription. Furthermore, much of 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

17

the proposed herbicide use is for treating non-native invasive plants that disrupt the 

ecosystem and negatively affect native plants and animals. All activities proposed in the 

Upper Kinzua Project are consistent with the Forest Plan and Management Area objectives 

and their effects on a range of resources were thoroughly analyzed in the EA.

See response to Comments 1-C and 1-D regarding the commenter’s claim that the Forest 

Service must prepare and EIS for the Upper Kinzua project.

Comment 1-T:

3.1.2.6.3 The recent court decision in the 9th Circuit, NEDC v. BROWN, draws 

conclusions which must be evaluated in an EIS. It should also be noted that a recent 

decision by the 9th Circuit made a decision in NEDC v. BROWN, which concludes 

that NPDES permits are required under the Clean Water Act for stormwater runoff 

discharges from logging roads.

The ANF has more roads than any other national forest, and is the most 

industrialized of any national forest. All dirt roads in the ANF are constructed with 

acidic sandstone, which cause acidic run-off during rain events. This, undeniably, has 

a negative impact on the streams, creeks, and rivers in the ANF, including in the 

Upper Kinzua Project area. The fact that a federal court has determined that 

stormwater runoff discharges are point sources of pollution should concern the ANF 

because its shows that stormwater runoff discharges are point sources of pollution. It 

indicates that the USFS as the caretakers of our public land and water in the ANF 

must take steps to protect the streams, creeks, and rivers in the ANF. If the ANF staff 

actually was concerned with simply protecting our public lands and water, and not 

with getting board-feet off the ANF as quickly and cheaply as possible, then perhaps 

the ruling in the Ninth Circuit would have helped the ANF staff adjust their practices 

to a higher standard, rather than accepting a “minimize impact” approach through 

the weak standard of BMPs, which the series of photos (Figures 48 to 52 below) show 

do not stop and hardly minimize impacts to streams and creeks from thousands of 

miles (3,748 miles of roads in the ANF) of acidic sandstone roadways in the ANF. (p. 

49-50)

Forest Service Response:

The Forest Service was not a party to the NEDC litigation and the relief afforded in the 

August 2010 decision was limited to the parties in that case and applicable only to the

stormwater discharges before the Circuit in that case (9th Circuit). The ruling in that case is 

not binding on a non-party to the litigation and does not constitute mandatory legal precedent 

outside of the Ninth Circuit. The Environmental Protection Agency oversees the longstanding silvicultural exemption for non-point source discharges and this exemption remains 

in effect for Pennsylvania regulatory authorities. 

Additionally, the activities proposed in the Upper Kinzua project are factually distinguishable 

from those in the NEDC case. In NEDC, stormwater runoff from Oregon logging roads was 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

18

channeled and collected by a system of improvements and then released into adjacent 

streams or rivers (navigable waters) at discrete discharge points. In contrast, the Upper 

Kinzua Project does not involve the construction of any road improvements to collect and 

channel storm water for discharge into waterways. There is no evidence of a direct 

connection between discharge and navigable waters; in fact, some of the proposed activities 

and the implementation of standards and guidelines will reduce hydrological connectivity 

between soil-disturbing activities or roads and bodies of water in the project area. Moreover, 

the project’s road decommissioning and maintenance activities are expected to reduce 

sedimentation and runoff and result in beneficial effects in comparison with the no action 

alternative.

The Upper Kinzua EA documents the effects of the proposed activities on water quality and 

DN/FONSI provides ample evidence of the hard look taken at possible water effects and the 

mitigation measures specifically adopted to address any adverse effects that may occur. 

Comment 1-U:

3.2 The USFS must prepare an EIS to study the impacts of oil and gas on the project 

area in the context of the proposed action and other alternatives because there is not 

a valid oil and gas analysis for the ANF currently available (p. 52)

Forest Service Response:

The issues surrounding the Forest’s legal authority regarding private oil and gas development 

are pending in court and are outside the scope of analysis for the Upper Kinzua Project. The 

decision to be made for the project is whether to manage vegetation and other natural 

resources in the project area to move from current conditions towards the desired conditions 

identified in the 2007 ANF Forest Plan. 

Because the Forest Service does not plan or conduct private oil and gas development, there is 

always some uncertainty in estimates of the location and magnitude of these private party 

activities. Therefore, three scenarios were considered and the Responsible Official selected 

the scenario most applicable to the Upper Kinzua Project area (see Appendix D of the EA). 

This scenario was a GIS-based analysis that considered information regarding geologic, 

geographic, and water feature limitations on the landscape. As such, future projections of 

OGD in Appendix D and supporting information in the unpublished documents represent the 

best available tools for identifying and analyzing different scenarios of future oil and gas 

development.

The Upper Kinzua Interdisciplinary Team has taken a hard look at the effects of private oil 

and gas development on resources in the project area and documented their analysis 

throughout Chapter 3 of the EA.

See responses to Comments 1-A, 1-C and 1-D. 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

19

Comment 1-V:

3.3 The USFS must prepare an EIS to study the proposed action in the context of 

cumulative effects and climate change.

The Forest Service totally ignored the synergistic effect of air pollution, acid 

deposition and climate change along with massive land disturbance from OGD. (p. 

52)

... The USFS has developed no long-term comprehensive action plan on how to 

address oil and gas development and its impacts on the ability of the Forest Service 

to manage the forest for climate change on a strategic forest-wide basis. Such an 

action plan should describe the management and mitigation options as well as the 

necessary staff and resources needed to adequately carry out the plan. The Forest 

Service must develop at least one alternative to manage the forest for climate change 

in light of the massive, long term/permanent land disturbance projected from OGD. 

The Forest Service totally ignored analyzing whether the Allegheny Forest is worth 

more as a forest vs. an oil patch in a hundred years. The Forest Service must study 

the proposed action in the context of cumulative effects and climate change in an EIS. 

(p. 53)

Forest Service Response:

This comment conflates two topics (climate change and private oil and gas development) that 

involve distinct issues, management direction and regulatory authority. See responses to 

Comments 1-A, 1-E and 1-U regarding the relationship between the proposed activities and 

private oil and gas development. 

The analysis and discussion in the Forest Plan and FEIS regarding climate change was 

affirmed in the Chief’s February 15, 2008, Appeal Decision for the ANF Forest Plan which 

concluded that the uncertainty related to climate change is acknowledged by the Regional 

Forester and is discussed in the FEIS (pp. 3-83 to 3-84). He stated, “Because there is 

currently no reliable way of predicting future climate change or its effects, the Plan provides 

for maintaining a diversity of plant and animal communities that will enhance the resiliency 

of the forest to respond to these changing conditions. . . .The Plan provides flexibility to use a 

variety of treatments and an adaptive management approach in order to appropriately respond 

if and when problems occur” (ROD, p. 24). The revised Plan provides ample management 

direction, in the form of Forest-wide goals (e.g., 2070 Biological Diversity, p. 13; 2400 

Vegetation, p. 14; 2500 Watershed and Air, p. 14; 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant 

Habitat, pp. 14 to15); objectives (e.g., 2400 Vegetation, p. 19; 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and 

Sensitive Plant Habitat, p. 20), design criteria (e.g., 2400 Vegetation, guidelines, pp. 64 to 

65; Rotation Age standards, p. 67; 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive plant Habitat, Habitat 

Diversity guidelines, pp. 80 to 81), and Management Area direction (e.g., MA 2.2, pp. 109-

112). This direction provides a framework for maintaining a diversity of plant and animal 

communities and strives to enhance the resiliency of the ANF to respond to changing 

conditions. Tthe FEIS complies with the NEPA (36 C.F.R. 219.12 and 36 C.F.R. § 219.27(a) 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

20

(12)) and the NFMA (40 C.F.R 1502.14 and 1502.16).” (Project record, Climate Change 

Support Material for Project Level Analysis, p. 1)

Additionally, the Upper Kinzua Project DN/FONSI discusses managing for resiliency to 

address climate change, stating that “The Forest Plan provides for maintaining a diversity of 

plant and animal communities that will enhance the resiliency of the forest to respond to 

these changing conditions. This project is tiered to the Forest Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) and a summary of the climate change information utilized in 

preparation of that document is contained in a paper titled “Climate Change Support 

Material for Project Level Analysis” (DN/FONSI, p. 12). 

Climate change is addressed in the Vegetation Specialist Report for the Upper Kinzua Project 

(Project record, p. 5, 6).

Comment 1-W:

3.4 The USFS must prepare an EIS to study its presumed need to use prescribed fire 

as management tool (p. 54)

... the Forest Service must conduct an EIS to determine the effects of prescribed

burning on air quality, and public safety in the context of current and past oil and gas 

extraction and unconventional hydrocarbon extraction within the Forest boundaries 

on in-holdings, and within at least two miles of the boundaries of the Forest given the 

horizontal drilling practices and gas migration potential. (p. 56)

The unregulated oil and gas development on the ANF has created the catastrophic 

fire hazard we have today. Oil And Gas Development Is Now The Single Greatest 

Fire Hazard On The ANF. (p. 57)

Forest Service Response:

The appropriateness of fire to achieve desired conditions on the ANF is supported by the 

science and information compiled during Plan revision (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. A-13 to A-15, 

A-32 and A-35), as well as monitoring data and experience in implementing other such 

burns. For example, the Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA-FS 1997a, p. ROD-39)

speaks to the desire to increase the amount of forest maintained in, or restored to, a healthy 

condition to reduce the risk and damage from wildland fires. The Forest Plan documents the 

future intention to incorporate prescribed fire, in addition to mechanical methods, as one of 

many available tools to reduce hazardous fuels, maintain and enhance warm season grasses, 

improve wildlife habitats, and benefit landscapes where advanced oak regeneration is present 

and to reintroduce fire into fire-adapted oak ecosystems to conserve regional biodiversity and 

sustain ecosystem structure and function (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. A-13 to A-15, A-32 and A35). The commenters attached an editorial article regarding the use of prescribed fire in 

managing eastern forests, but the article did not provide compelling evidence that the 

decision to include prescribed fire as a management tool on the ANF is unwarranted.
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

21

Prescribed fire was proposed for two stands in the Upper Kinzua Project. One is prescribed 

burning to improve wildlife habitat at Timberdoodle Flats wildlife interpretive area and the 

other is a low-intensity burn in a red pine stand near Red Bridge Campground to reduce 

potential pests that could affect the health of the red pines. The Upper Kinzua EA identified 

mitigation measures to ensure that prescribed burning would not have any significant adverse 

effects and analyzed the effects of the prescribed fire for multiple resources, including human 

health and safety. Prior to implementation, multiple safety, control and mitigation measures 

are incorporated into each prescribed burn through a developed Burn Plan.

Comment 1-X:

3.5 The USFS must prepare an EIS to study the need to create early and late 

structural habitat

The Forest Service must consider available early successional habitat on private and 

other agency lands within the proclamation boundary and surrounding the Allegheny 

National Forest. The Forest Service must disclose in an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) how much early successional habitat is available on these other 

lands before claiming there is a need to cut trees on the national forest. The Forest 

Service must analyze the early successional habitat on non-National Forest System 

lands in an EIS for the Upper Kinzua Project. (p. 58)

The focus of the Forest Service on industrial extraction for the ANF violates the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) and Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). (p. 59)

Forest Service Response:

The Forest Plan EIS analyzed both the cumulative availability and effects of early, mid, and 

late structural class diversity (including past, present and “future foreseeable” actions) on all 

ownerships within a four county area including and surrounding the Forest (USDA-FS 

2007b, pp. summary-21, preface-4 and 3-170 to 3-171). This analysis concludes that with 

implementation of the Forest Plan (alternative Cm), by 2060, there would be cumulative 

increases in both early and late structural habitat resulting in a more even distribution of 

structural habitat stages (USDA-FS 2007b, pp.2-10 to 2-11, and 3-132 to 3-145). In addition, 

the Forest Plan EIS states that 11 percent of Pennsylvania forestland is seedling-sapling 

stands. Statewide, seedling-sapling class stands have decreased by well over 50 percent 

since 1955 while saw-timber stands have more than doubled in area since 1955 (USDA-FS 

2007b, pp. 3-170 to 3-171).

The Forest Plan EIS analysis provides the context for Forest Plan direction related to 

vegetation management, which outlines the Forests contribution to various structural stages 

including early and late structural habitat, in which the desired amounts vary by management 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

22

area (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 1-14 to 1-15, 2-23 and 3-106). The Forest Plan further calls for 

providing a diversity of high quality habitats across the landscape (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 

summary-1 to summary-3 and 3-88 to 3-153). 

The Scoping Proposal identified the need to both create early-structural habitat and to 

maintain and enhance late structural forests. The purpose of these management actions is to 

maintain diverse vegetation patterns across the landscape which in turn will provide welldistributed habitats. In addition, the wildlife report (Appendix C3) analyzed and discussed 

the cumulative effects of creating early structure within the project area. 

The issue of early successional habitat was addressed not only at the landscape scale within 

the Forest Plan, but specifically for this project. The project analysis was informed by local 

field data as well as published science. The application of the best available science to the 

site specific resource conditions is well documented in the project file and reflects the 

exercise of considerable technical expertise and judgment. 

Comment 1-Y:

3.6 The Forest Service must conduct a site-specific analysis for the Upper Kinzua 

Project in an EIS. On the ANF, the Forest Service has never conducted a site-specific 

analysis of the cumulative impacts of existing oil and gas drilling or drilling forecast 

for the reasonably foreseeable future for any Vegetative Management Project. The 

Forest Service has never conducted a stand-level, site-specific analysis of vegetative 

treatments. (p. 60)

Forest Service Response:

This project does not involve the issuance of Notices to Proceed for outstanding or reserved oil 

and gas development on the ANF, the potential environmental effects were considered in the 

cumulative effects analyses on resources. Appendix D of the EA details the information 

considered and how the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario was determined for this 

project.

In addition, the Upper Kinzua Project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) likewise completed a 

detailed site-specific analysis. The science and data supporting the project effects analysis is 

summarized in the Upper Kinzua EA which incorporates by reference numerous specialist 

reports containing detailed disclosure and supporting documentation. 

Comment 1-Z:

Issue 4.0 The Forest Service Must Acknowledge and Address Significant Issues and 

Develop a Broad Range of Alternatives. (p. 61)
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

23

The Forest Service violates NEPA when it dismisses issues raised by the public, and 

develops no reasonable alternatives. This is the case in the Upper Kinzua Project. 

The Forest Service ignored all issues raised by the public except for issues raised by 

the oil and gas industry. The Forest Service violates NEPA when it only develops the 

so-called alternatives of the proposed action and the no action alternative. The ANF 

Forest Service’s regular practice of only analyzing the proposed action and the noaction alternatives makes a mockery of 36 C.F.R. §219.12(5)(f) (1982). (p. 61-62)

In the Upper Kinzua Project, including the no-action alternative in the analysis does 

not meet the requirement to develop a broad range of reasonable alternatives. The 

no-action alternative is simply a requirement of Sec. 1502.14 (d), but it does not 

fulfill Sec. 1502.14 (a), (b), and (c). (p. 62)

Forest Service Response:

The NEPA requires federal agencies to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives 

to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts of 

alternative uses of available resources (42 U.S.C. 4332). The CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA discuss alternative development. Agencies are to rigorously explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating 

alternatives from detailed study (40 CFR 1502.14(a)). While regulations require that a range 

of alternatives be analyzed, the “No Action Alternative” is the only alternative required as an 

option to the proposed action (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). There is no set number of alternatives 

needed in order to reflect a reasonable range. Agencies have discretion to determine 

appropriate alternatives based upon the purpose of the proposal. 

Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.5(e)) state: “An alternative should meet the 

purpose and need and address one or more significant issues related to the proposed action. 

Since an alternative may be developed to address more than one significant issue, no specific 

number of alternatives is required or prescribed.” 

The Upper Kinzua EA (Chapter 2) describes two alternatives that were analyzed in detail:

Original proposed action (Alternative 2); 

No action alternative (Alternative 1) as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d), which serves 

as a baseline for evaluating other alternatives during the effects analysis for proposed 

actions.

In addition to these alternatives developed in detail, one additional alternative was considered 

but eliminated from further study. This issue was resolved, this alternative was eliminated 

from detailed analysis and the proposed action was modified to reflect the resolution of the 

issue.

The Purpose and Need is described in the EA (Ch. 1, p. 8-11). The action alternative was 

developed to achieve the stated purpose and need for the Upper Kinzua Project. The EA

documents how public scoping input was considered (Ch. 2, p. 15-17 and Appendix B). The 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

24

IDT and Responsible Official considered public input, including possible alternatives, along 

with current conditions and the project’s purpose and need to identify a range of alternatives 

and determine which alternatives should be analyzed in detail. 

The Responsible Official followed all laws and regulations for public involvement on the 

Upper Kinzua Project. All comments received during scoping were considered and issue 

analysis was conducted in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.07). Forest 

Service responses to the public comments received during the scoping period were available 

to the public in the Upper Kinzua Project record at the Bradford Ranger District Office and 

were summarized in Appendix B to the EA. However, no significant issues were identified 

from public comments received during scoping according to the criteria in 40 CFR 1508.27. 

Comment 1-AA:

Issue 5.0 The Forest Service Must Identifying Oil and Gas Drilling as a Significant 

Issue. (p. 62)

... increased oil and gas development requires the Forest Service to reassess its 

management priorities to account for all the other uses of the forest that will be lost 

to OGD. (p. 62-63)

Any project with an impact of this significance must include an EIS to determine the 

cumulative impacts of OGD, previous timber “treatments” (e.g., clearcutting, 

herbiciding, and fencing) nonpassive recreation, and the proposed timbering actions 

in the watersheds that will be impacted by Upper Kinzua Project. There must be a 

plan for the restoration of the impacted area. (p. 63)

Forest Service Response:

The decision to be made for the Upper Kinzua Project is whether to manage vegetation and 

other natural resources in the project area to move from current conditions towards the 

desired conditions identified in the 2007 ANF Forest Plan. The decision for this project will 

not involve the approval of private oil and gas drilling or revision of the Forest Plan.

See responses to Comments 1-A, 1-C, 1-D and 1-U.

Comment 1-BB:

Issue 6.0 Expanding and Adding Stone Pits, Adding Roads

With over 3,748 miles of road, over 300 stone pits, and 12,000 to 15,000 active oil 

and gas wells, the ANF distinguishes itself as likely the most abused forest in the FS 

system. The addition of 9 new stone pits and expanding 20 stone pits is irresponsible 

and continues to destroy the other uses of the forest (not to mention the ecosystem) 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

25

except for the extractive use. The USFS must conduct an EIS that analyzes the 

cumulative impacts of roads and stone pits on the health of the forest ecosystem, 

water quality, and species viability.

It must be noted that despite the recent grant of a preliminary injunction in Minard 

Run II, ADP nonetheless believes the Forest Service has authority to regulate private 

OGD in the Allegheny. We continue to believe that the Forest Service maintains 

control over surface stone and must not permit any use of stone pits by OGD 

operators without NEPA analysis. (p. 63)

Forest Service Response:

The effects of road and stone pit activities are analyzed in the EA and considered in the 

DN/FONSI. The proposed action includes only 0.3 miles of road construction, 7.8 miles of 

road reconstruction, and 4.8 miles of road decommissioning. Thus, the proposed activities 

result in a net decrease in roads within the project area. The proposed action also includes 41 

acres of pit expansion and development and 34 acres of pit reclamation (DN, p. 4). The road 

and pit activities were proposed to fulfill the Purpose and Need to “Maintain and enhance 

road systems that allow management of the National Forest Lands and provide public access, 

while meeting needs such as water quality and passages for fish and other aquatic organisms” 

(EA, p. 11). 

The direct and indirect effects of proposed roads and stone pits were analyzed for each 

resource in the EA as part of the proposed action. Specifically, roads and pits are evaluated 

in the vegetation analysis (Project Record, Vegetation Report), hydrology section (EA, pp. 

42-48), non-native invasive plant section (NNIP) (EA, pp. 54-58), soils analysis (EA, pp. 52-

54), and Wildlife Report (Appendix C3). The EA shows that proposed action results 

improves road conditions and addresses water quality concerns related to roads (EA, pp. 42-

48). In addition, the EA notes that the use of high quality surfacing would minimize the

movement of sediment into streams (EA, pp. 42-48). The only new road construction occurs 

in an area that is already disturbed and does not provide habitat for species sensitive to 

disturbance (Wildlife Report, EA Appendix C3). The proposed road decommissioning 

activities will result in a long term benefit to wildlife (Wildlife Report, EA Appendix C3). 

Finally, the pit construction would not occur in any key, unique, or sensitive wildlife habitats 

(Wildlife Report, EA Appendix C3).

 

The cumulative effect analysis includes development of future roads that are reasonably 

foreseeable. It is anticipated that each proposed or predicted future well would have 0.7 

acres of road surface developed (Project Level Scenarios for Future Private Oil and Gas 

Development, EA, Appendix D). There are no other Forest Service road construction or 

reconstruction projects planned for the cumulative effects area. The cumulative effects of the 

private actions are analyzed in the cumulative effects for vegetation (Vegetation Analysis, 

pgs. 8-10 ), soils (EA, p. 42), wildlife (Wildlife Report, pgs. 46-48), and hydrology (EA, p. 

39). There are no additional reasonably foreseeable OGD stone pits and therefore, the 

analysis of the proposed stone pits in the proposed action is sufficient analysis. 
Appendix E – Response to Public Comments

26

References

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010a. Unpublished. Programmatic Effects 

of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010b. Unpublished. Site-Specific Oil and 

Gas Development on the Allegheny National Forest.