United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

April 2011

Appendix A

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT

Scoping Comments Summary

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest
2

Appendix A – Scoping Summary

Scoping is the initial part of the public involvement process outlined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and is meant to inform the public of proposed 

activities and to provide an opportunity for the public to express concerns about the proposed 

action which could lead to the development of alternatives. The next step in the NEPA 

process is to develop alternatives if significant issues are identified, and then conduct an 

analysis, which compares the environmental, social, and economic differences between the 

alternatives. The analysis is then disclosed and further opportunity for public review and 

comment is provided. The effects analysis for the Upper Kinzua Project will determine 

whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

This document summarizes public comments received during the scoping period for the 

Upper Kinzua Project (February 15 to March 25 2009), identifies individual comments as 

non-issues, non-significant issues, or significant issues and describes the reasons for this 

determination. This follows Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

stating that during scoping agencies shall “identify and eliminate from detailed study the 

issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review” 

(40 CFR 1501.7). If significant issues are identified from public comments, they are used to 

develop alternatives to the proposed action. 

The procedure used to analyze content of the public scoping comments for the Upper Kinzua 

Project is summarized below:

Step 1: Distinguish issues from non-issues 

Issue: A point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with the Proposed Action based on 

undesirable effects. 

Non-issue: General concerns or opinions that are not related to the Proposed Action„s 

effects, and, therefore, cannot be resolved through consideration of an alternative or 

mitigation. Requests for more information or general suggestions for the 

environmental analysis are also considered non-issues, and such comments received 

appropriate responses.

Step 2: Distinguish non-significant issues from significant issues 

Non-significant: Issues that are (1) beyond the scope of the Proposed Action; (2) 

irrelevant to the decision to be made; (3) already decided by law, regulation, or 

policy; or (4) conjectural in nature or not supported by scientific evidence. 

Significant: Issues that go beyond the criteria for being identified as non-significant 

and could be addressed in an alternative to the Proposed Action. Significant issues are 

identified in the specific context of the proposed activities and project area.
3

The Upper Kinzua Project first entered into the ANF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) 

in September 2006. The project scoping package was mailed to adjacent landowners and 

other interested individuals and organizations on February 19, 2009. The list of recipients 

and their affiliations can be found in the project file at the Bradford District Office (29 Forest 

Service Dr., Bradford, PA 16365). The scoping documents were also posted on the 

Allegheny National Forest website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/projects/vegetative_management/

Ten letters were received in response to the scoping package. Each letter was assigned an 

identification number upon receipt:

Letter number Respondent and affiliation Date Received

1 Michael Bleech, local resident February 23, 2009

2 John Keslick, Keslick and Son Modern Arboriculture February 23, 2009 

(several comments 

from subsequent 

emails)

3 Patrick H. Mowrey, Blue Sky February 24, 2009

4 Mark Banker, Ruffed Grouse Society March 10, 2009

5 Max and Eleanor Douthit, local residents March 16, 2009

6 Marty Dahler, East Resources, Inc. March 23, 2009

7 Marlene Sitler, local resident March 24, 2009

8 Ryan Talbott, Allegheny Defense Project March 25, 2009

9 William Rodgers Jr., Catalyst Energy, Inc. March 25, 2009

10 Jack Hedlund, Allegheny Forest Alliance March 25, 2009

The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) and Responsible Official reviewed the letters, 

separated distinct comments and applied the issue analysis process above to each comment. 

Some comments were slightly paraphrased for clarity. Although brief explanations and 

additional information are provided for some comments, the scoping process focuses on 

identifying issues and does not require detailed explanations regarding the specific topics of 

comments.

As the Responsible Official, I have reviewed and approved the comment summary and issue 

analysis below.

/s/ Anthony V. Scardina

ANTHONY V. SCARDINA

District Ranger
4

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

1 A I would like to see the improvement of Kinzua Creek 

portion of this project to consider using some limestone, 

perhaps in the form of gabions or surfacing of woods 

roads, for the purpose of improving the fertility of Kinzua 

Creek, if biologists do not consider this to be harmful. 

Non-issue This comment is a suggestion for 

proposed activities related to Kinzua 

Creek. The proposed action includes 

several activities to improve water 

quality and aquatic habitat in the 

project area.

1 B It appears that Kinzua Creek suffers from high acidity. Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Comment noted.

1 C Stream work should also consider trout spawning habitat 

improvements if this is deemed beneficial.

Non-issue This comment is a general 

suggestion for proposed activities to 

improve aquatic habitat. See 

response to 1A above.

1 D Enlist the help of a Trout Unlimited chapter to perform 

some of the stream improvement work.

Non-issue Comment noted. Partnerships are 

important to achieving the work 

identified in this project and the 

Agency invites all interested partners 

to assist in the future.

1 E Any improvements will have a positive effect throughout 

the downstream portion of Kinzua Creek and could even 

benefit the trout fishery in the Allegheny Reservoir.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Comment noted.

2 A In this project you claim that cutting the wood out helps 

wildlife. A tourniquet around the neck stops a nose bleed 

as well. Please provide DATA that states that wildlife 

require the wood to be cut out of the once fertile forest 

for their health.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion and a request for 

information.

2 B Please provide DATA stating that cutting the wood out of 

this area will enhance the vitality of the ecosystem.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion and a request for 

information.
5

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

2 C You are proposing cutting hemlock trees. This is a bad 

idea because they do not tolerate such treatments. 

Hepting in 1971 published this data with USFS. “When 

hemlocks are left as residual trees following partial 

cutting, and when they are exposed, through road or other 

construction or clearing, they often die, even when their 

root area is covered with understory brush”. Reference: 

Hepting, George, H. July 1971 Disease of Forest and 

Shade Trees of The United States US. Dept. Agric. 

Forest Service Handbook Number 386 658 pages.

I oppose any logging in any areas where hemlocks are. 

As you log near the hemlocks they are placed in a 

predisposition for Woolly Adelgid. Why do you want to 

hurt, stripped maple, beech and hemlock that are native to 

this ecosystem?

Non-significant issue Vegetation management techniques 

appropriate for achieving the goals of 

the 2007 Forest Plan are already 

decided by law, regulation or policy. 

Hemlock thinning is intended to 

increase the growth and vigor of the 

remaining hemlock so that they are 

better prepared to survive any 

potential insect infestations or 

disease (Forest Plan Appendix A, p. 

A17).

2a A Cutting the wood out of this area will reduce forest or 

ecosystem health. A forest is an ecosystem

Non-significant issue This comment is conjectural in 

nature and not supported by 

scientific evidence.

2a B All of your objectives, besides cutting the wood out, can 

be achieved by many means other than cutting the wood 

out. It is unnecessary to cut the wood out in this area to 

achieve goals and cutting the wood out would reduce 

health of trees and their associates in the future by 

reducing future water reservoirs (nurse logs). The 

amount of new soil produced in the future will be reduced 

by cutting out the wood. The list goes on and on

Non-significant issue This comment is conjectural in 

nature and not supported by 

scientific evidence. All of the 

proposed actions are supported by 

analysis in the Forest Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS).

2a C In this project proposal please define “forest” Non-issue Request for information.

2a D In this project proposal please define “vigor” Non-issue Request for information.
6

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

2a E How does cutting the wood out increase forest health? Non-issue Request for information.

2a F Are you applying nitrogen fertilizer in this project? If so 

please explain why.

Non-issue Request for information. 

2a G Why are you not making some flush cuts to create 

cavities for small wildlife?

Non-issue Request for information. 1,434 acres 

of wildlife habitat improvements are 

proposed. Comment noted.

2a H Please provide your reasons for killing native species 

such as stripped maple and beech. They are a part of this 

ecosystem.

Non-issue This comment is a request for 

information and a general concern or 

opinion. The Forest Plan FEIS 

permits the treatment of interfering 

or diseased vegetation to promote 

regeneration of desired species. 

2b A If logging this area does not help the health of the area 

being logged and not in the best interest of the members, 

than how is that beyond the scope of the project when 

you false prophets keep claiming forest health will 

increase?

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Treatments in the Upper 

Kinzua proposal are designed to 

meet multiple needs in the project 

area, including forest health. All 

treatments involving timber harvest 

were proposed by a certified 

silviculturist.

2b B Specifically why are you cutting the wood out of this 

area?

Non-issue Request for information. Treatments 

were proposed to achieve the desired 

conditions described in the ANF 

Forest Plan.

2b C Specifically how and who will benefit by cutting the 

wood out of this area?

Non-issue Request for information.

2b D Please explain what the scope of the project is? Non-issue Request for information.

2c A If logging this area does not help the health of the area 

being logged and not in the best interest of the members, 

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. 
7

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

than how is that beyond the scope of the project when 

you false prophets keep claiming forest health will 

increase?

2c B Specifically why are you cutting the wood out of this 

area? Please explain what the scope of the project is?

Non-issue Request for information.

2d A Would you please send me a hard copy a specifically 

point out where the data is on the management of the 

ecological stages of the trees with specifics to this 

project.

Non-issue Request for information.

2d B You state "The ANF Forest Plan provides Standards and 

Guidelines for retaining woody debris, large den trees and 

large snags. These design features are expected to be 

implemented, pending the decision on these projects by 

Anthony V. Scardina, Bradford District Ranger." 

Please mail me a copy of the guidelines you are referring 

to. Also please send me your guidelines for this project 

on planting. Are the trees going to be provided fine 

mulch applied correctly and nurse logs used to become 

water reservoirs for these new trees and help their 

vitality? The data, which I will provide if you please, 

from the USFS researchers state that establishment and 

desired results and future conditions were more specific 

to plantings and with natural successions when nurse logs 

or course woody debris were in abundance. 

Non-issue Request for information. The goals 

and objectives of management of the 

Allegheny National Forest are in the 

2007 ANF Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Standards and 

Guidelines. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegh

eny/projects/forest_plan_revision/FE

IS-LRMP/ForestPlan.pdf 

Tree planting information can be 

found on pp. 69 and A-30 of the 

Forest Plan. 

3 A If there is any way the Forest service can cooperate with 

us trying to patrol our road and not allowing any 4 

wheelers or snowmobiles on out interior road.

Non-significant issue This comment is irrelevant to the 

decision being made for the Upper 

Kinzua project. This concern was 

forwarded to law enforcement.

4 A We are particularly pleased to see the variety of timber Non-issue This comment is a general concern 
8

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

harvest prescriptions addressing both older age and early 

successional vegetation. 

or opinion. Comment noted.

4 B We also appreciate the attention to aspen regeneration. Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Comment noted.

4 C Strongly supports the proposed activities for the Upper 

Kinzua Project. 

Non-issue This comment is a general concern

or opinion. Comment noted.

5 A We are concerned about heavy truck traffic on FR 455, 

the first mile of this road is privately owned and 

maintained.

Non-significant issue This comment is irrelevant to the 

decision being made for the Upper 

Kinzua project. The proposed 

activities would not result in any 

additional heavy truck traffic on the 

private road adjoining FR 455. The 

private road would not be used as a 

haul route for timber harvests in the 

project area or for implementing any 

of the other actions proposed that 

would involve heavy trucks.

6 A East Resources, Inc. is very concerned with the concept 

of the Allegheny National Forest “taking over” any lease 

road constructed by us, with the fear that we would be 

now or in the future charged a road use fee for the use of 

a road we constructed.

Non-significant issue Management of the transportation 

system is already decided by law, 

regulation or policy. Roads used for 

Forest Service management activities 

must be incorporated into the system 

and maintained according to FS 

standards. Existing oil and gas road 

easements on the surface of the ANF 

that are proposed for being converted 

to National Forest System roads will 

be discussed with the oil and gas 

operator in advance. Such 
9

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

conversions will be documented and 

commercial road use fees for the 

related operator will not be charged 

in the future. 

6 B East Resources, Inc. is very concerned about the 

decommissioning of Forest System roads that are 

currently used or may be used in the future to access oil 

and gas rights owned by us. 

Non-significant issue See response to 6A. Many of the 

decommissioning projects were 

dropped from the proposed action. If 

the conditions of roads proposed for 

decommissioning improve to 

mitigate past maintenance problems, 

this action may not be implemented 

even if it is approved in the decision 

for the Upper Kinzua Project. 

6 C East Resources, Inc. is very concerned about the 

decommissioning of authorized roads. In particular the 

Pennzoil Oil Field roads in Wts 3087, 3084, & 3089. 

East Resources, Inc. may currently be using or may use 

the road in the future to access oil and gas rights owned 

by us.

Non-significant issue See responses to 6A and 6B. Many 

of the decommissioning projects 

were dropped from the proposed 

action, including those in the 

Pennzoil Oil Field, making this 

comment irrelevant to the decision to 

be made for the Upper Kinzua 

Project.

6 D East Resources is very concerned about any controlled 

burns but more in particular the controlled burns on or 

near WT 4911, Lt 20, Wt 3414. East owns pipelines in 

those areas that could be harmed by a controlled burn. 

Our concerns extend to any controlled burns that may 

become uncontrolled near any of our leases and harm 

well heads, production pipelines and tank batteries.

Non-significant issue This concern is conjectural and is 

addressed by Forest Service policy 

regarding implementation of 

prescribed burning activities. Private 

oil and gas assets would be protected 

during prescribed burning and 

operators would be notified prior to 

prescribed burn operations. 
10

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

Mitigation procedures for any values 

of risk will be identified and 

discussed within the burn plan.

6 E East Resources is very concerned with the amount and 

scope of work to be done on roads marked with yellow 

dots “Decommission or Mitigate”

Non-issue See response to 6B above.

7 A I am very against any type of herbicide application. 

Please do not put any herbicide around or near my 

property.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Herbicide application 

methods would protect private 

property, waterways and individuals. 

See the Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix 

G regarding herbicide application. 

8 A Need for an EIS

The Upper Kinzua Project and North End Project must be

consolidated and considered together in one EIS. The two 

project areas are directly adjacent to each other. In fact, 

the northern boundary of the North End Project is the 

southern boundary of the Upper Kinzua Project. The 

Upper Kinzua Project calls for over 2,200 acres of 

commercial logging and herbicide spraying.

The North End 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 

proposed activities will undoubtedly have a significant 

effect on the environment. Those effects are magnified 

considering the cumulative effects of oil and gas drilling 

throughout and surrounding the project

Non-issue This is a statement of opinion 

pertaining to the application of 

NEPA regulations and is not a 

specific disagreement with the 

effects of the proposed action. 

The Upper Kinzua and North End 

projects are in different watersheds, 

which is a meaningful natural 

boundary for this type of project. 

Rationale for the cumulative effects 

boundaries for each resource will be 

provided in the EA.

The size of a project does not dictate 

the appropriate level of NEPA 

analysis. Consistent with CEQ 
11

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

areas.

The Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts are 

already working together on the North End Project and 

the North End Environmental Assessment was only 

recently published on March 2, 2009. The Forest Service 

should delay the decision on the North End Project and 

combine that analysis with the Upper Kinzua Project so 

that the public has a firm understanding of the full scope 

of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the 

proposed actions.

In Curry v. U.S. Forest Service, the Court ruled that the 

Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an 

EIS. Specifically, “the court agrees with plaintiffs that the 

magnitude of even-aged management as the predominant 

management technique undermine defendants‟ 

determination that the project will not have a significant 

impact on the human environment. The project involves 

in excess of 5,000 acres of the

Allegheny National Forest of which 4,775 have been 

designated for even-aged management techniques.”1

The court further stated: “while the presence of an 

„intensity‟ factor alone does not mandate that an EIS be 

prepared for a particular project, the court is compelled to 

conclude that, based on the number of „intensity‟ factors 

implicated by the Mortality II Project, as well as the 

magnitude of the project, plaintiffs have raised

„substantial questions‟ regarding the issue of whether the 

Mortality II Project „may‟ have a significant effect on the 

human environment.”2 The same applies here. The 

NEPA regulations, the effects 

analysis will determine if an EIS is 

required for the Upper Kinzua 

Project.
12

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

combination of the magnitude and the number of 

intensity factors triggered by the two projects requires the 

Forest Service to prepare an EIS. Following the decision 

in Curry, the Forest Service re-packaged Mortality II and 

proposed the East Side Project. The

Forest Service prepared an EIS for the East Side Project, 

which called for 8,000 acres of logging.

The East Side Project area covered 140,000 acres.

The Upper Kinzua Project covers 28,221 acres and the 

North End Project covers 8,587 acres for a combined 

total of 36,808 acres. The Forest Service is proposing 

nearly as much logging in the Upper Kinzua and North 

End Projects as it did in East Side while the geographic 

area is much smaller. That increases the intensity factor 

greatly. Even if the Forest Service does not combine this 

analysis with the North End Project, an EIS should

nonetheless be prepared for the Upper Kinzua Project. 

One look at the project area map reveals that the project 

area has already been significantly impacted by highintensity oil and gas drilling and road construction. The 

Forest Service‟s proposal magnifies these impacts, further 

degrading the project area and failing to “ensure surface 

resources are protected.” 

1 988 F. Supp. 541, 551 (W.D. Pa. 1997) 2 Id. at 553.

3 40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(2)

8 B Cumulative Actions

The Council on Environmental Quality‟s National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations

Non-issue This is a statement of opinion 

pertaining to the application of 

NEPA regulations and is not a 
13

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

state: “Cumulative actions, which when viewed with 

other proposed actions have cumulatively significant

impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same 

impact statement.” There is no doubt that the Upper 

Kinzua and North End Projects, when viewed together, 

will “have cumulatively significant impacts.” Therefore, 

the two projects “should be discussed in the same impact 

statement.” The two projects propose nearly 5,000 acres 

of logging in the Kinzua Creek and

South Branch Kinzua Creek watersheds. The mouths of 

these streams are just a few hundred feet apart as they 

flow into the Kinzua Arm of the Allegheny Reservoir.

specific disagreement with the 

effects of the proposed action. 

Consistent with CEQ NEPA 

regulations, the effects analysis will 

determine if an EIS is required for 

the Upper Kinzua Project.

See response to comment 8A above 

and 8F below.

8 C Furthermore, when you consider the likelihood of future 

oil and gas development within the project areas, it makes 

sense for the Forest Service to consider these two projects 

and the cumulative impacts of existing, proposed and 

reasonably foreseeable oil and gas developments in a 

single impact statement. This includes but is certainly not 

limited to the cumulative impacts of oil and gas drilling 

on local and regional air quality per the Forest Service 

Chief‟s forest plan appeal decision. 

Non-issue This is a statement of opinion 

pertaining to the application of 

NEPA regulations and is not a 

specific disagreement with the 

effects of the proposed action.

See response to comment 8A above 

and 8F below.

8 D Oil and gas development in the Allegheny has resulted in 

the removal of thousands of acres of high

quality forest habitat. The impacts of this logging were 

not included in the revised Forest Plan‟s analysis of the 

impacts of the agency‟s logging program even though the 

Forest Service sells the timber to the oil and gas 

companies. This has resulted in a significant 

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

The FEIS for the 2007 Forest Plan 

included consideration of the 

alternatives in the context of private 

oil and gas activities.
14

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

understatement of the impacts associated with oil and gas 

development. To put it another way, oil and gas 

development allows the Forest Service to “hide” a 

significant portion of the actual logging that occurs on the 

Allegheny National Forest. Any analysis for increased 

logging on the Allegheny must occur in

light of how much logging has occurred, is occurring and 

is likely to occur along with oil and gas development.

8 E The Forest Service must consider alternatives to offset 

the impacts of oil and gas development. The Forest 

Service constantly points out the “uniqueness” of the 

Allegheny in having 93% of the mineral rights privately 

owned. This requires the Forest Service to adjust its 

priorities. Quite simply, with the amount of intense oil 

and gas development that has already occurred on the 

Allegheny, the Forest Service cannot possibly implement 

an aggressive logging agenda, such as it is in projects like 

Upper Kinzua and North End, and provide for all of the 

other uses our national forests are to be managed for such 

as watersheds, wildlife and fish habitat, and outdoor 

recreation. This is particularly timely when you consider 

the Forest Service is proposing dramatic reductions in 

developed recreation facilities as part of its “Recreation 

Facility Analysis.” The cumulative results from rampant 

oil and gas development, an aggressive logging agenda 

and reduced recreation sites and facilities will inevitably 

lead to an industrialized forest that is not managed in the 

public interest but rather for the oil, gas and timber 

industries.

Non-significant issue This comment is beyond the scope of 

the decision to be made for the 

Upper Kinzua project.

Multiple alternatives were 

considered in the FEIS for the 2007 

Forest Plan and the activities 

proposed in the Upper Kinzua 

project would implement the selected 

alternative in the project area.
15

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

8 F Similar Actions

NEPA states:

“Similar actions, which when viewed with other 

reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions,

have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their 

environmental consequences together, such as common 

timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze 

these actions in the same impact statement. It should do 

so when the best way to assess adequately the combined 

impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to 

such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.” 

South Branch Kinzua Creek naturally flowed into Kinzua 

Creek until the construction of the Kinzua Dam and 

creation of the Allegheny Reservoir.

The Upper Kinzua and North End Projects “have 

similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their 

environmental consequences together.” Therefore, the 

Forest Service should “analyze these actions in the same 

impact statement” because it is “the best way to assess 

adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or 

reasonable alternatives to such actions.”

The Upper Kinzua and North End Projects are clearly 

similar geographically since the two project areas share a 

boundary. The proposed actions in both projects would 

clearly overlap in both timing and geographic cumulative 

effects.

Non-issue This is a statement of opinion 

pertaining to the application of 

NEPA regulations and is not a 

specific disagreement with the 

effects of the proposed action.

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). 

The Upper Kinzua and North End 

projects propose similar activities but

are bounded by separate 6th level 

watersheds and do not meet the 

definitions of connected or 

cumulative actions.

8 G Segmentation

The Forest Service must consider:

“Whether the action is related to other actions with 

Non-issue This is a statement of opinion 

pertaining to the application of 

NEPA regulations and is not a 
16

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

individually insignificant but cumulatively significant 

impacts. Significance exists if it 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.” It is “reasonable to anticipate a 

cumulatively significant impact on the environment” if 

the Upper Kinzua and North End Projects are 

implemented. The two projects propose thousands of 

acres of commercial logging and herbicide spraying. 

Therefore, the Forest Service must prepare a single EIS 

for the Upper Kinzua and North End Projects because 

“significance cannot be avoided by terming an action 

temporary or by breaking it down into small component 

parts.”

The Forest Service has already segmented the North End 

Project from the South Branch Kinzua Creek Project, two 

projects that impact South Branch Kinzua Creek, a 

Wilderness Trout Stream. The Forest Service cannot 

continue this steady march north with logging projects 

that propose thousands of acres of logging but are not 

analyzed in depth in an EIS.

specific disagreement with the 

effects of the proposed action. 

Consistent with CEQ NEPA 

regulations, the effects analysis will 

determine if an EIS is required for 

the Upper Kinzua Project.

See responses to 8A and 8F above.

8 H Conclusion

The Upper Kinzua and North End Projects must be 

consolidated and considered together in one EIS. 

Considering the two projects together in one EIS will be 

more efficient for the Forest Service and give the public a 

better understanding of the scope of the proposals.

Non-issue This is a statement of opinion 

pertaining to the application of 

NEPA regulations and is not a 

specific disagreement with the 

effects of the proposed action. 

Consistent with CEQ NEPA 
17

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

regulations, the effects analysis will 

determine if an EIS is required for 

the Upper Kinzua Project.

See responses to 8A and 8F above.

9 A We have concerns with respect to damage or disruption to 

the gathering system and electric lines during any project 

activity. ...proposed treatments would be facilitated by an 

alert system for actual construction activity.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Comment noted. 

Private oil and gas assets would be 

protected during any activities 

implemented for the Upper Kinzua 

Project.

9 B We will work with Forestry to insure that our operations 

are not adversely affected by any de-commissioning, 

though we note that we have a need to preserve full 

access for daily operations and maintenance. It is our 

assumption that the de-commissioning will not result in 

any additional expenses to Catalyst to access our 

properties...

Non- issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. As stated in the proposed 

action, reserved and outstanding 

mineral rights will be protected 

where applicable.

See response to 6B regarding road 

decommissioning.

9 C We suggest that any surplus surfacing material from 

decommissioning may be suitable for return to designated 

pits.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Comment noted.

9 D We feel that the issue of the ownership of mineral rights 

with respect to the exploration, expansion and 

development of the pits with Areas 460 and 462, is still a 

matter to be resolved.... We suggest that Catalyst and the 

Forestry present the ownership issues to an appropriate 

forum for resolution.

Non-significant issue The legal issues regarding pit 

development and use of stone 

materials from pits are beyond the 

scope of the decision to be made. 

9 E We do not believe that the construction of a vernal pool is Non-issue This comment is a general concern 
18

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

appropriate, other than in areas already determined to 

constitute wetlands by the PA DEP.

or opinion. The proposed actions are 

designed to meet Forest Plan 

objectives, including wildlife habitat 

improvement activities such as 

vernal pool construction. 

10 A We support creating more early successional habitat Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

10 B We support producing approximately 22mmbf of wood 

will certainly benefit an ailing economy

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

10 C We support developing preventative measures to address 

health concerns related to beech, hemlock and potentially 

ash

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

10 D We support decommissioning lease roads in the windfall 

run area in particular since this lease has been dormant 

for many years.

Non- issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Some of the 

decommissioning projects were 

dropped from the proposed action 

because the roads have naturally 

revegetated. 

10 E We support addressing NNIP concerns Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

10 F We support restoring compositional and structural 

diversity of 50-100 acres of riparian corridor per year.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

10 G We support trout stream restoration in its many forms as 

described including fish passage measures. We do, 

however believe 40% - 65% slow water conditions is too 

much.

Non-issue This is a general suggestion 

pertaining to the design and 

implementation of aquatic habitat 

improvements. Comment noted.

10 H We support constructing a appropriate scenic vista on SR 

219.

Non-issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion.

10 I We do not support wasting time and resources to provide Non-significant issue This comment is beyond the scope of 
19

Table 2: Upper Kinzua Project Public Scoping Comments Summary and Issue Analysis

Letter Comment Comment Issues Identification Explanation

Indiana bat habitat when there is no definitive evidence 

any exist in the area

the decision to be made for the 

Upper Kinzua project. The activities 

to protect Indiana bat habitat are in 

accordance with the Forest Plan and 

the Endangered Species Act.

10 J We do not support creating more “fishing holes” (pools) 

may not be what is best for the watershed.

Non-significant issue This management question is already 

decided by law, regulation or policy. 

The Forest Plan identified a need for 

more diverse aquatic habitats, 

including pools. 

10 K We do not support providing many additional parking for 

fly fishermen along Kinzua Creek (Black water) is a 

waste of time and resources. Since the identified area is 

less than a mile, walking would be preferable.

Non- issue This comment is a general concern 

or opinion. Unauthorized parking 

spots are currently causing 

sedimentation impacts to the stream.

The proposed parking areas will 

increase access to recreational 

opportunities and reduce current 

parking congestion and resource 

damage in areas not constructed for 

parking.