Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

DECISION NOTICE AND 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Allegheny National Forest, Bradford Ranger District

I. Decision and Reasons for the Decision

A. Background 

The Upper Kinzua Project Area is located on the Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts 

(26,593 acres and 1,628 acres, respectively) of the Allegheny National Forest

Kane, Pennsylvania, southwest of Bradford, Pennsylvania and

of the Allegheny Reservoir’s Kinzua Bay. The project 

Forest System (NFS) Lands, 709 acres of private land, and 26 acres of water, totaling 28,221 

acres. It includes land in Townsh

142); Lafayette (Warrants 2244, 2245, 3399, 3402, 3404, 3408, 3410, 3412 to 3414, 3431 to 

3435, and Lots 10 to 14, and 16 to 20); Hamlin (Warrants 3076, 3077, 3084, 3086, 3089, 3091, 

3093, 3097); and Wetmore (Lots 143 to 145, 181, and 182), McKean County, Pennsylvania.

Implementation of the project would move the area toward the desired conditions of Allegheny 

National Forest (ANF) Forest Plan (USDA

for Management Areas (MAs) 2.

of multiple-use resource management goals and objectives

1. Manage vegetation to improve stand quality, manage forest health issues and 

regenerate desired tree 

2. Provide a sustainable flow of commercial timber products that would contribute to the 

economy and annual Forest

to12 % of MA 3.0 in early

Plan, pp. 8, 14, 113). 

3. Manage late structural stand development and conditions within MAs 2.1, 2.2, and 

3.0 of the project area (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 19, 66, 106, 109, 113). 

4. Provide a safe, efficient and economical transportation system that is responsive to 

public and administrative needs, while having minimal adverse effects on the natural 

forest ecosystem (Forest Plan, p.16). 

5. Wildlife habitat improvement is needed in the project area (Forest Plan, pp.14, 20). 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT 

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service 

Allegheny National Forest, Bradford Ranger District

McKean County, Pennsylvania 

I. Decision and Reasons for the Decision

The Upper Kinzua Project Area is located on the Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts 

(26,593 acres and 1,628 acres, respectively) of the Allegheny National Forest

Kane, Pennsylvania, southwest of Bradford, Pennsylvania and borders the southeastern portion 

of the Allegheny Reservoir’s Kinzua Bay. The project area consists of 27,512 acres of National 

Forest System (NFS) Lands, 709 acres of private land, and 26 acres of water, totaling 28,221 

It includes land in Townships of Hamilton (Warrant 4911 and Lots 19 to 23, 123, 129 to 

142); Lafayette (Warrants 2244, 2245, 3399, 3402, 3404, 3408, 3410, 3412 to 3414, 3431 to 

3435, and Lots 10 to 14, and 16 to 20); Hamlin (Warrants 3076, 3077, 3084, 3086, 3089, 3091, 

and Wetmore (Lots 143 to 145, 181, and 182), McKean County, Pennsylvania.

Implementation of the project would move the area toward the desired conditions of Allegheny 

National Forest (ANF) Forest Plan (USDA-FS, 2007a) by responding to its goals and obje

s) 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 7.1. The project is needed to

use resource management goals and objectives: 

Manage vegetation to improve stand quality, manage forest health issues and 

regenerate desired tree species. (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 15, 19, 93, 109, 113 A

a sustainable flow of commercial timber products that would contribute to the 

economy and annual Forest-wide allowable sale quantity (ASQ), and maintain 10

of MA 3.0 in early structural habitat (0 to 20 years old) over time (Forest 

Plan, pp. 8, 14, 113). 

Manage late structural stand development and conditions within MAs 2.1, 2.2, and 

3.0 of the project area (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 19, 66, 106, 109, 113). 

icient and economical transportation system that is responsive to 

public and administrative needs, while having minimal adverse effects on the natural 

forest ecosystem (Forest Plan, p.16). 

Wildlife habitat improvement is needed in the project area (Forest Plan, pp.14, 20). 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 1 

ICANT IMPACT

Allegheny National Forest, Bradford Ranger District

The Upper Kinzua Project Area is located on the Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts 

(26,593 acres and 1,628 acres, respectively) of the Allegheny National Forest. It is north of 

borders the southeastern portion 

area consists of 27,512 acres of National 

Forest System (NFS) Lands, 709 acres of private land, and 26 acres of water, totaling 28,221 

ips of Hamilton (Warrant 4911 and Lots 19 to 23, 123, 129 to 

142); Lafayette (Warrants 2244, 2245, 3399, 3402, 3404, 3408, 3410, 3412 to 3414, 3431 to 

3435, and Lots 10 to 14, and 16 to 20); Hamlin (Warrants 3076, 3077, 3084, 3086, 3089, 3091, 

and Wetmore (Lots 143 to 145, 181, and 182), McKean County, Pennsylvania.

Implementation of the project would move the area toward the desired conditions of Allegheny 

) by responding to its goals and objectives 

The project is needed to address a number 

Manage vegetation to improve stand quality, manage forest health issues and 

species. (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 15, 19, 93, 109, 113 A-1, 2, 14). 

a sustainable flow of commercial timber products that would contribute to the 

wide allowable sale quantity (ASQ), and maintain 10

structural habitat (0 to 20 years old) over time (Forest 

Manage late structural stand development and conditions within MAs 2.1, 2.2, and 

3.0 of the project area (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 19, 66, 106, 109, 113). 

icient and economical transportation system that is responsive to 

public and administrative needs, while having minimal adverse effects on the natural 

Wildlife habitat improvement is needed in the project area (Forest Plan, pp.14, 20). 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 2 

6. Remove non-native invasive plants (NNIP) from the project area and limit the further 

introduction and/or spread of these species to conserve forest resources in a manner 

that presents the least hazard to humans and maintains or restores forest resources 

(Forest Plan, p.13). 

7. Improve water quality, stream flow, and aquatic habitat through multi-age and multilayered vegetation communities within the riparian corridors (Forest Plan, pp. 11, 19). 

8. Reduce existing sedimentation and maintain, restore, or improve soil quality, 

productivity, and function (Forest Plan, p. 14). 

9. Provide fish passage at several crossings that currently prevent or inhibit movement 

of fish and other aquatic organism upstream (Forest Plan, p. 11). 

10. Public recreation and scenery needs include managing dispersed recreation sites 

consistent with the appropriate ROS development level and maintain or exceed the 

scenic integrity level (Forest Plan, pp. 18, 19), providing additional/improved vehicle 

parking to better access fly-fishing opportunities along the Kinzua Creek “delayed 

harvest area” (Forest Plan, p. 18) and constructing a scenic vista (Forest Plan, p. 19). 

Resource conditions and potential effects are addressed in the Upper Kinzua Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and its record. The EA and its record are incorporated by reference into this 

decision. The EA is available to the public and may be obtained through the mail by contacting 

the Bradford Ranger District, 29 Forest Service Drive, Bradford, PA 16701 or by visiting the 

ANF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=17200 

The deciding official is Anthony C. Martoglio, Deputy District Ranger for the Bradford Ranger 

District of the Allegheny National Forest. 

B. Decision and Rationale 

Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 2, which 

would move the project area towards the ANF Forest Plan (2007) desired condition over the next 

20 years. 

My decision would implement the following activities. Please note that acres shown are not 

mutually exclusive, and that many treatments and activities are on the same acres (See Appendix 

A of the Upper Kinzua EA, which provides the site-specific locations of the treatments to be 

implemented). 

COMMERCIAL TREE HARVESTING ACRES

Even-age Treatments 

• Aspen cut 31

• Delayed Removal 281
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 3 

COMMERCIAL TREE HARVESTING ACRES

• Intermediate Thinning 424

• Shelterwood Seed Cut/ Removal Cut 1,205

• Two-Aged Shelterwood Seed Cut/Removal 41

• Vista Creation 6

• Total Even-Age Acres 1,988

Uneven-age Treatments 

• Group Selection (Restore Understory Mature Forest Conditions) 89

• Mast Release 56

• Single Tree Selection 79

• Total Commercial Uneven-Age Acres 224

These activities would provide an estimated 4.3 million board feet (MMBF) of saw timber 

during the 1st entry (over the next 2 to 5 years) and 3.3 MMBF for the 2nd entry (9-15 years 

from the present), and pulpwood fiber estimated at 5.4 MMBF for the 1st entry and 4.5 MMBF 

for the 2nd entry. The estimated combined total volume for the project would be 17.5 MMBF 

when the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is implemented. 

My decision would also approve the following acres of non-commercial vegetation treatments: 

NON-COMMERCIAL VEGETATION TREATMENTS ACRES

Uneven-age Treatments 

• Hemlock Thinning 56

• Thinning to Accelerate Mature Forest Conditions 89

• Total Non-Commercial Uneven-Age Acres 145

Other Silvicultural Treatments 

• Expand Opening 26

• Opening Release, Doze, Seed 44

• Prune 1

Reforestation and Stand Improvement Treatments 

• Fence 177

• Herbicide 2,243

• Plant 448

• Prescribed Burn 21

• Release 2,147

• Scarify 52

• Site Prep 1,877

Non-native Invasive Plant Treatments 

• Manual, Mechanical, and/or Herbicide Removal Of NNIP 15

• Planting Restoration (Seed or Plants) 15

 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 4 

My decision approves the following improvements to the project area’s transportation system: 

TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES 

Pits Acres

• Expand 3 existing pits 6

• Expand 17 existing pits & reclaim old development 17

• Explore and develop 9 pits 18

• Reclaim 5 pits 17

Roads Miles

• Construction 0.3

• Decommission - National Forest System Road (NFSR) 1

• Decommission – Non-System Roads 4.7

• High Quality Road Surfacing 15

• Improve Road Access To Duck Ponds 1

• Reclassification - Closed To Restricted 2

• Reconstruction 7.8

• Re-designate As Hunter Disabled Permit Road 1

• Remove NFSR From The System 0.7

• Storm Proof NFSR And Change To Level 1 0.4

Road Items No.

• Install Gate 2

• Hardened, two car parking area 3

• Remove gate 1

In addition, my decision approves the following hydrology, recreation and wildlife habitat 

improvements: 

HYDROLOGY IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNT

Non-commercial thinning and/or girdling trees in riparian hemlock areas 30 acres

Fell Trees into Camp Run, Chappel Fork, Markham Run, Meade Run, Pine 

Run, Root Run, Thundershower Run, Windfall Run, a tributary to 

Wintergreen Run and within flood plains 

Fell 50-100 

trees per 

mile over 

21 miles

Stabilize Kinzua Creek banks with Instream Logs Structures, and Rocks, 

Utilizing Mechanical Equipment and Hand Labor 

6 miles

RECREATION PROPOSALS (KINZUA CREEK ACCESS) NO.

Harden Dispersed Campsites 3

Improve And Harden Access Parking Sites 9

Install Barriers 3

Install Signing 1

Rehabilitate Existing Sites 11
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 5 

WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS ACRES

Create Opening 15

Fence Cribs 88

Girdle Trees 12

Herbicide 56

Install 20 X20 Potholes Within The Duck Ponds (26 within 1 acre) 1

Mow 146

Opening Release, Edge Encroachment 63

Plant shrubs/fruit/conifer/trees 99

Plow & seed 63

Prescribed burn & plant warm season grasses 4

Prune & release apple/fruit trees 97

Restore & maintain opening 52

Seed orchard, plant butternut or beech seeds or seedlings 9

Thin & release butternut trees 1

Under-plant AMFC 58

Under-plant conifer 15

Under-plant conifer clumps 15

Under-plant mast release stand 25

Under-plant RUMFC 461

NO.

Construct vernal pools 5

Install nest boxes 128

I have read the Upper Kinzua Project EA and reviewed the supporting information in the project 

file and public comments, and fully understand the environmental effects disclosed therein. I am 

personally familiar with the project area and on-the-ground resource conditions. I have discussed 

this project with the Interdisciplinary Team on many occasions and reviewed the potential water, 

soil, wildlife, and other resource effects with them. We discussed both the short- and long-term 

effects to plant and animal community diversity and forest health. Based on my experience, input 

from the public and Interdisciplinary Team, review of the effects discussion, and knowledge of 

local conditions, I find that the long-term improvement in forest health and resilience, as well as 

other multiple-use resources such as recreation, soils, water, and wildlife, outweigh the shortterm, localized effects of some of the activities. 

The acreage of the project, the treatment methods chosen, and the project location were all given 

thorough consideration in project development. The need for action at this time is apparent from 

field observations in the project area, as well as the field and survey work completed by the 

Interdisciplinary Team. Only 0.3 miles of new road will be constructed to implement the project. 

The treatments proposed are typical of multiple-use resource management projects on this 

Forest. Indeed, this type of project has been successfully implemented on the District repeatedly 

over the past decade without significant adverse environmental effects. 

The Interdisciplinary Team consisted of local resource experts, utilizing their specialized 

expertise in reviewing the science concerning resource effects and applying it to local field 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 6 

conditions. Their work in this regard is guided by the considerable body of scientific information 

compiled for Forest Plan revision. The effects analyses for this site-specific proposal are tiered, 

as appropriate, to the programmatic EIS for the revised Plan (e.g. cumulative effects analysis). 

Analysis of potential effects of the project, especially cumulative effects (in light of ongoing oil 

and gas development on the Forest) was a focal point of the Interdisciplinary Team’s work. This 

site-specific project does not involve the approval of any private oil and gas development. 

However, private oil and gas development was given considerable attention in the discussion of 

cumulative effects (See resource analysis in Ch. 3 of the EA and Appendix D of the EA). 

I have given careful attention to the mitigation measures proposed for this Project to ensure that 

practical, effective mitigation was incorporated as appropriate. I ensured that the 

Interdisciplinary Team took a hard look at effects and took into account mitigation efficacy. The 

Forest Plan contains an extensive compilation of science and field data which was helpful in 

ensuring that the mitigation measures developed here were science-based. Monitoring of past 

actions indicates that these measures will be effective in preventing or avoiding significant 

environmental effects. 

Public comments, both during the scoping and EA comment period, were a key part of project 

development. I am personally familiar with the comments submitted on this project, and have 

given them careful consideration. No information submitted during the two comment periods 

was overlooked or ignored during this analysis. I directed the Interdisciplinary Team to give 

careful attention to the public input, especially with regard to environmental effects, and 

personally assisted in the review and response to the comments. The Interdisciplinary Team and 

I appreciate the time and effort taken by members of the public to share their thoughts and 

concerns regarding this action. I am familiar with the views expressed by the public concerning 

broad, programmatic Forest resource and management issues during the revision of the 

Allegheny Forest Plan and studied the various conflicting viewpoints concerning the multipleuse management proposed for this particular project area. Even though I have selected an 

alternative and made a decision, the Interdisciplinary Team members and I remain available to 

discuss this project with any member of the interested public that has a concern or question. 

Providing for diversity of plant and animal communities and protecting forest health is at the 

heart of this project. The proposal strives to promote a diverse hardwood forest community 

composed of a mix of hardwood forest trees species and does not place economic factors or 

black cherry commercial timber production above other multiple-use resource objectives. 

Wildlife habitat considerations for forest interior-dependent wildlife species, as well as creation 

of early successional habitat, were key concerns during project development. Equally important, 

this Project involves important erosion abatement, invasive species control, recreation, and 

wildlife actions that are widely accepted by the public. We received no public comments or 

concerns on many aspects of this proposal. The selected alternative weighs the trade-offs 

associated with alternatives and balances the diverse (sometimes conflicting) needs of various 

wildlife species and resources. Although some may not agree with my decision, I wish to 

emphasize that ecological functions and processes, soil resources, and water quality will be 

protected in the project area by the design and choice of treatments and proven, effective 

mitigation measures. The management proposed here will facilitate a diverse, resilient and 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 7 

healthy forest community in the future that will be better able to respond to threats from insects, 

disease, and other factors including uncertainties associated with climate change. This project 

was specifically designed to move this area of the Forest forward to the desired condition 

identified in the revised Plan. The evidence set forth in the project file support the finding that 

this proposal will provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and protect forest 

health. 

The trade-offs between the no-action alternative and the selected alternative are disclosed in the 

EA analysis (EA Table 2, Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative). The potential for 

decline in forest health (e.g. beech bark disease) and its effect on wildlife habitat, continued 

erosion from untreated roads, and the risk of increased invasive species, are real threats that I 

have observed first-hand. My review of the project record, as well as my observation of local 

conditions, indicates that there is a need to take action now to provide for diversity and forest 

health in this area, as well as accomplish other multiple-use resource objectives. 

After careful consideration of the analysis, applicable laws, the ANF Forest Plan, and public 

comments, it is therefore my decision to implement Alternative 2, including all mitigation 

measures as described on page 18-19 of the EA. It responds to the goals and objectives of the 

project area MAs as defined in the ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a, Part II, Strategy, p. 17-

52). I have selected Alternative 2 for the following reasons: 

1. Alternative 2, with its associated design features, can be implemented in an environmentally 

sound manner without significant environmental effects (EA, EA Appendices, and Project 

Record), while best meeting the purpose and need for action (EA, pp. 8-11). Management 

activities will comply with all applicable ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Design 

features have been specified within the EA to protect resources and minimize resource conflicts. 

2. The Interdisciplinary Team and I gave careful consideration to public input during project 

development; however, I do not believe that the three preliminary issues received during scoping 

identified significant resources conflicts. Chapter 2 lays out the rationale why the preliminary 

issues were beyond the scope of this project or were considered conjectural and not supported by 

factual evidence. 

3. Alternative 2 creates 1,988 acres of early successional structural habitat using even-aged 

management techniques. This will aid in creating a diversity of vegetation age classes and will 

benefit wildlife species that utilize early successional habitat for all or part of their habitat needs. 

4. Alternative 2 includes 369 acres of uneven-aged vegetation management to create late 

structural habitat. This will aid in providing benefits to wildlife species that utilize late structural 

habitat for all or part of their habitat needs. 

7. The proposed stone pit expansion will provide surfacing for the construction of log landings 

needed to implement this decision and for construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of 

Forest Service system roads. These roads serve a variety of multiple-use purposes (e.g. recreation 

and public access) and allow for administration of this area of the Forest. 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 8 

8. I have taken a hard look at potential private oil and gas development (OGD) and the proposed 

actions from Alternative 2 and believe that the cumulative effects are not significant (EA Chapter 

3, 21-56). I am keenly aware of the ongoing development (and its potential environmental 

effects) both on the District and across the Forest. We have sought information on future 

development, and considered the best scientific information on OGD effects regarding soil, 

water, air, wildlife, and other surface resources. This analysis is informed by the best available 

science and field information concerning OGD. 

9. I have reviewed the best available scientific information (including the Forest’s February 2009 

report) concerning white-nose syndrome (WNS) and bat populations on the ANF (see project 

file). The Interdisciplinary Team Biologist is well-informed regarding the most recent research 

developments regarding WNS, and has consulted with Forest and Regional wildlife experts. I 

find that the cumulative effects of the treatments planned in this project are consistent with and 

do not contribute in some unanticipated way to the cumulative effects analyzed in the WNS 

review of information. 

10. Alternative 2 will result in an estimated harvest of 17.5 million board feet of saw timber and 

pulpwood products that will contribute to the local economies. Commercial timber harvesting is 

only one element of this Alternative and multiple-use, which also provides for wildlife habitat 

improvement, recreation, erosion control, invasive species management, and providing long-term 

plant and animal community health and diversity. 

11. In selecting Alternative 2, I have fulfilled the objectives set forth by NEPA regulations and 

provided responses to public comments on this EA (see Appendix D – Response to 30-Day 

Comments and Chapter 1 – Public Involvement). A key part of this work was full consideration 

of all alternatives suggested by the public. No alternative suggested during scoping or the public 

comment period was ignored. Likewise, scientific information and concerns about potential 

effects submitted during the comment periods were given full consideration by the 

interdisciplinary team and I. Opposing views submitted to the agency were considered and 

addressed in the record. 

12. Protection of resources are provided through the standards and guidelines of the ANF Forest 

Plan (2007), site-specific mitigation measures (EA, pp. 18-19) and the development of sitespecific prescribed burn plans to allow for the implementation of Alternative 2 without 

significant effects to the quality of the human environment. Project monitoring will evaluate 

whether the effects are within those described in the analysis and that mitigation is effective. 

C. Other Alternatives Considered 

A total of three alternatives were considered in this analysis. In addition to the selected 

Alternative 2, the Interdisciplinary Team and I analyzed the no-action alternative (Alternative 1) 

in detail. One alternative was also considered but eliminated from detailed analysis [EA, 

Chapter 2, p. 15 and Scoping Comment Summary (EA Appendix A)]. The issues, identified 

through scoping, provided the basis for the development of these alternatives. It was later 

determined that the issues that drove the development of these alternatives were: (1) resolved by 

decisions at higher levels such as the National Forest Management Act or the Forest Plan, (2) 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 9 

inconsistent with the scoped purposes and needs of the project, and (3) achievable through the 

design, analysis, and conservation measures of the alternative considered in detail. 

Under the no-action alternative, no future management would occur in the project area at this 

time. Future management could be initiated under new projects. The no-action alternative 

provides a baseline against which to describe the environmental effects of Alternative 2. 

The no-action alternative was not selected because it did not meet the purpose and need for 

action and would not promote enhanced forest and habitat health. The no-action alternative 

would not improve forest structure or maintain 10-12% of MA 3.0 in early successional 

composition over time. Improvements to the transportation system would not occur, resulting in 

continued levels of sedimentation inputs into streams, and roads no longer needed would not be 

restored to productive land. Invasive plants would continue to spread. Neither wildlife habitat 

nor water quality would be improved. The no-action alternative would not result in the sale of 

forest products that will contribute to the local economy. 

A comparison of the no-action alternative and Alternative 2 can be found in the EA on pages 15 

through 17. 

I chose not to consider another action alternative in detail for the following reasons: 

1. The following proposed alternative was not considered in detail because they did not 

meet the Purpose and Need for the project (For the disposition of scoping and 30 day 

comments received see the Project Record and Appendix D of the EA). 

a. No decommissioning and/or mitigation of certain roads in the project area

Oil and gas operators commented on road proposals provided in the original scoping 

proposal. The proposal was to decommission and/or mitigate roads identified as in poor 

condition. Many of these roads are authorized and are presently being used as access to 

OGD by oil and gas operators (See Appendix A of the EA for responses to Scoping 

Comments). The Forest Service will work independently with these operators to improve 

the condition of the roads presently used. Therefore, the Alternative was considered but 

eliminated due to administrative remedy. 

2. Following direction contained in 40 CFR 1500.4 outlining the need for NEPA efficiency, 

I chose not to develop another action alternative in the absence of any significant issues. 

D. Public Involvement 

The need for this action was first circulated in October of 2007, in the Forest Service Schedule of 

Proposed Actions (SOPA) on the ANF website and made available at USDA-FS offices. On 

February 25, 2009, a scoping proposal was made available to the public. It explained the purpose 

and need for action, as well as the location and types of proposed activities and included a cover 

letter, a summary of the proposed actions, and project maps. The proposal was mailed to 210 

interested parties (individuals and organizations who expressed interest in the project). Adjacent 

landowners, subsurface mineral owners, public legislators (federal, state, and township 

supervisors), Seneca Nation of Indians, and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission were 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 10 

included. The proposal was posted on the ANF website on February 25, 2009. The public 

scoping period for this project ended on March 25, 2009. During this period, the proposal was 

posted on the ANF website, and a news release was published in the Bradford Era newspaper. 

Comments were received by regular mail and electronic mail (E-mail). 

Ten responses to the scoping were received and the original letters are located in the project 

record. Scoping comments received were analyzed by statement and are summarized in the EA 

Project Record. Scoping comments were used to formulate issues pertaining to the proposed 

activities. One preliminary issue was identified (described above). None of these issues 

necessitated developing alternatives in further detail to the proposed action (See Appendix B to 

the EA). 

After development and publication of the EA on April 25, 2011, the Forest Service solicited 

comments from Federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or expertise and the public on the 

Upper Kinzua Project EA. The Forest Service asked for comments to be as specific as possible 

and to address either the adequacy of the document, the merits of the alternatives discussed, or 

both (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1503.3(a)). There was one comment letter received 

during the 30-day comment period. Appendix E of the EA presents the comments received and 

the Forest Service responses. 

II. Finding of No Significant Impact 

A. Findings 

I have determined that the proposed actions will not significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. My determination is 

based on the effects analysis documented in the Upper Kinzua EA and project file. I considered 

the following factors listed in 40 CFR 1508.27: 

1. Context: Based on the large size of the ANF, and the comparatively small percentage of the 

area proposed for: timber harvesting (approximately 8% of the project area and less than 0.9% 

of the ANF), wildlife habitat enhancements, NNIS species treatments, recreation improvements, 

soil and water restoration and transportation activities in this project, the site-specific actions of

Alternative 2, both short- and long-term, are not significant. 

The context of this proposal is to implement management activities within the Upper Kinzua 

project area. The record indicates that even in a local context, this proposal will not pose 

significant short- or long-term effects. The ANF Forest Plan Standards, Guidelines, and project 

design features, including the site specific mitigation measures on pages 18 and 19 of the EA and 

Pennsylvania Best Management Practices (BMPs), will minimize and avoid adverse impacts. 

Future projects would be analyzed in context with the activities as proposed or implemented 

under cumulative effects analyses (EA, pp. 28-58). 

This project does not establish precedent for any future projects on the Forest. 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 11 

The size and nature of this project is typical of other multiple-use management projects on this 

Ranger District. This Project does not involve unusual or unique treatments or methods, and 

there is no new road construction. The effects of the common silvicultural treatments used here 

have been observed in past actions and are well-documented in monitoring reports and field 

work. 

2. Intensity: Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered in the analysis. Benefits 

of this project were not used to offset adverse impacts, and adverse impacts of this project are not 

significant even when separated from benefits (EA, pp. 19-24). 

 

I base my finding on the following intensity factors: 

Public health and safety – Implementation of this project will not cause any significant 

effects to public health and safety (EA, pp. 40-42). 

Unique characteristics of the geographic area – No parklands, floodplains, wetlands, 

wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas would be adversely affected by 

implementing Alternative 2 (EA, pp. 19-24, 33-58). 

Prime farmland occurs within the project area. Approximately 13.2 acres of land with 

soils suitable for farmland would be converted due to new road construction and pit 

development. None of these changes to NRCS designated farmland related to this project 

were large enough to warrant comments from the NRCS following that agency’s 

notification about the Upper Kinzua project by the Forest Service. None of the vegetation 

management activities proposed on NRCS designated farmland soils map units in the 

project would alter their status as NRCS designated farmland soils or result in the 

permanent conversion of land. (EA pp. 52-54). 

Longhouse National Scenic Byway: A portion of the Byway (SR 321) borders the project

area. Treatments along the Byway include the removal of invasive plants and prescribed 

burning in a red pine stand. The Longhouse Scenic Byway would not be adversely affected 

by the treatments proposed. Burn plans to protect human health and safety would be in place 

prior to any prescribed burning. 

Controversy: The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be 

highly controversial. Controversy is a term of art in the CEQ NEPA regulations. 

Controversy is described as a dispute concerning the effects of the action amongst the 

scientific community. Public opposition to a proposed action is not an indicator of 

controversy, nor is the length of a NEPA document evidence of controversy as it is 

defined in the CEQ NEPA regulations. Based on the regulatory definition, there is no 

substantial dispute among the scientific community as to the size, nature, or effects of 

implementing Alternative 2 on the various biological and physical environments (EA, p. 

12-14). The size of the project and the nature of the treatments are not uncommon for 

projects on this Ranger District. The effects of this type of action have been studied (from 

past projects) for at least a decade. Monitoring information concerning effects and 

mitigation efficacy was a key part of the analysis for this proposal. The interdisciplinary 

team searched for the best available scientific information and considered opposing 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 12 

viewpoints. The conclusions of these local resource experts are set forth in the EA effects 

discussion. There is no evidence in the record of a substantial scientific dispute as to 

effects of the proposal. 

Uncertainty, unique or unknown risks: The ANF 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 ANF 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”(2008) (see Project 

Record). 

We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. 

Treatments proposed for this project constitute well-established methods for vegetation 

management; timber harvesting; reforesting stands; enhancing wildlife habitat; treating 

NNIS; constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads; improving 

dispersed sites; and protecting water quality. Much is known regarding the outcomes 

when using even-aged management on the ANF. The effects analysis shows the known 

effects, and the proposal does not involve unique or unknown risks (EA, Chapter 3, 

environmental consequences). 

Outcomes from using uneven-aged management, such as those proposed in MA 2.2 are 

less certain. Consequently, the ANF Forest Plan (USDA 20007a, ROD pp., 26, 50) places 

an emphasis on monitoring these treatments and a flexible adaptive approach to 

vegetation management (p. ROD-22). 

Precedence: This proposal does not establish a precedent for future actions or represent 

a decision in principle about future management considerations. Any future decisions will 

need to consider all relevant scientific and site-specific information available at that time. 

Implementing Alternative 2 is within the scope of the ANF Forest Plan and its supporting 

documents (USDA FS 2007a) and associated supporting environmental documentation 

(EA, pp. 8, 27, 59-60). 

Cumulative impacts: Effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable land uses, 

along with the effects of Alternative 2, were considered in reaching my conclusion. This 

included projecting future levels of private OGD that would occur (Appendix D to the 

Upper Kinzua EA). The effects of implementing the selected alternative do not 

individually, or with other activities taken cumulatively within the areas affected, reach a 

level of significance (EA, pp. 28–58, EA Appendix C). CEQ guidance on cumulative 

effects was used to develop this analysis. The Forest used monitoring information, as 

well as data and information compiled during other NEPA processes, to inform the 

cumulative effects analysis (information supporting this finding of no significance is in 

the project file). 

Cultural, historic, and scientific resources: The project area was inventoried for 

heritage resources. Heritage resources were delineated and buffered for protection. 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 13 

Additional mitigation to protect heritage resources would be applied for the hydrology 

treatments (EA p18). 

Threatened and Endangered species and their habitat: The Indiana bat, northeastern 

bulrush, and small-whorled pogonia have suitable habitat within the project area, but 

have not been documented in the project area. There is no designated critical habitat for 

any federally threatened or endangered species on the ANF. A determination of “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” was reached for the Indiana bat. A “no effect” 

determination was reached for the small-whorled pogonia, northeastern bulrush, northern 

riffleshell mussel, and clubshell mussel. Potential effects to threatened or endangered 

species and their habitat are anticipated to be non-significant with implementation of 

ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines (EA, Appendix C). These project level 

activities and determinations are within the level of actions analyzed in the biological 

evaluation (BE) for the ANF Forest Plan. A concurrence letter on the BE, dated January 

31, 2007, was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

A review of new information has been prepared (February 2009) and added to the project 

file pertaining to the white-nosed syndrome that is affecting bats. The findings in the 

review include the following: (1) no correction, supplement, or revision to the 

environmental documentation for the ANF Forest Plan or an amendment of the ANF 

Forest Plan is necessary at this time; (2) no additional work will be required for existing 

project analyses tiered to the analysis found in the ANF Forest Plan; (3) the project level 

analysis is sufficient at this time; and (4) there is no change in the listed determination for 

the Indiana bat. 

Federal, state, or local law or requirements: The selected alternative conforms to all 

applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements. Alternative 2 would not result 

in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for any Regional Foresters sensitive 

species or other species of local concern (UK EA, Appendix C: Biological Assessment, 

Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report). 

 

B. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations: 

My decision implements management activities to achieve desired conditions in the ANF Forest 

Plan (USDA FS 2007a), as required by the National Forest Management Act section 1604(i), I 

find this project to be consistent with the ANF Forest Plan. This project is also in full compliance 

with 36 CFR 220, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Historic 

Preservation Act. All actions meet National Forest Management Act requirements as detailed in 

16 USC 1600 et. seq. and CFR 219.27 (b). 

Appropriateness: Pursuant to the NFMA Section 1604(g)(3)(F)(i), the appropriateness 

of even-aged management was given careful consideration by the interdisciplinary team. 

The determination to use even-aged management is based on field evaluation and 

recommendations from local resource experts and science-based application of the Forest 

Plan, past experience with implementing even-aged management systems on the District 

and Forest, and the best available science. The silvicultural and resource management 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 14 

objectives determined the choice of harvest method, as described in the record. Further, 

the even-aged harvesting system selected in Alternative 2 were not chosen primarily 

because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit of output of timber 

(NFMA Section 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)). 

 

Optimality: Clear cutting is determined to be the optimum method for the regeneration 

of quaking aspen for wildlife habitat improvement. This determination was made by field 

examination and reviews of stand survey data, and is consistent with the purpose and 

need for the project and the silvicultural information above. Clear cutting is optimal due 

to aspen’s shade intolerance, its fast growth rates in full sunlight, and its reliance on 

sprouting to reproduce (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 68). 

Soils: Careful attention was given to potential soil resource effects during project 

development. Site-specific field work, using the best available science and appropriate 

soil analysis techniques, were performed during project development. Special attention 

was given to soils that could be prime and state farmland in this analysis. The 

Interdisciplinary Team evaluated the efficacy of Forest Plan design criteria and State 

BMPs in protecting soil and water quality. Monitoring of past projects, as well as 

scientific information contained in the revised Plan, informed this analysis. Based on the 

analysis documented in the project record, I concluded that Alternative 2 would not 

irreversibly damage soil, slope, or watershed conditions (NFMA Section 

1604(g)(3)(E)(i)). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: This decision is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act and the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Forest Service to integrate conservation measures for migratory 

birds into comprehensive land management and project planning. This decision balances 

the long-term benefits to migratory birds against the short-term adverse effects and 

minimizes the effects on migratory birds by retaining snags and the integrity of nesting 

sites along with other conservation measures (EA Appendix C3 Wildlife Report, pp. 9, 

46, 47, 53, 55). The management of forest-interior and early successional habitat 

proposed will protect bird habitat and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 

MBTA and MOU. 

My decision is based on a review of the record that shows consideration of relevant scientific 

information, including responsible opposing views, and as appropriate, the acknowledgement of 

incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, or risk. No scientific information 

or viewpoint presented to the agency has been ignored, and opposing scientific views have been 

disclosed in the record. This project analysis was informed by the considerable body of scientific 

information and data compiled for revision of the Forest Plan, as well as project monitoring from 

past vegetation management actions. The interdisciplinary team was composed of local resource 

experts with considerable experience in analyzing environmental effects and synthesizing 

scientific information. The team’s work is based upon its scientific expertise in fields that are 

continually seeing new information compiled about the ecological functions and processes of 

forested communities. The team searched for the best available scientific information and has 

strived to consider all scientific views, especially with regard to potential environmental effects. 
Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 15 

As appropriate, the team collected field data and surveyed local resource conditions to augment 

the scientific information set forth in published studies. The record documents the scientific 

basis for the selected alternative and the mitigation measures adopted in this decision. 

C. Implementation Date 

Implementation of this decision is subject to the regulations in 36 CFR 215.9. If no appeal is 

filed, implementation may begin on the fifth business day following the close of the appeal filing 

period. If an appeal is filed, implementation may begin on the 15th day following the date of 

appeal disposition. 

D. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunity 

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. Appeals must meet content 

requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. An appeal, including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, 

fax, hand-delivery, express delivery or messenger service) with the appropriate appeal deciding 

officer (36 CFR 215.8) within 45 days following the date of publication of the legal notice. The 

publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record (The Bradford Era, Bradford, 

Pennsylvania) is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal (36 CFR 215.15). 

Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other 

source. It is the responsibility of interested parties to respond to this notice within the established 

time period. 

Address appeals to: 

Leanne Marten, Appeal Deciding Officer 

Attn: Appeals & Litigation 

USDA-Forest Service, Eastern Region 

626 E. Wisconsin Avenue 

Milwaukee, WI 53202 

Appeals may be faxed to (414) 944-3963, ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer, USDA Forest 

Service, Eastern Regional Office. Normal business hours (for hand-delivered appeals) are 7:30 

AM to 4 PM., Monday through Friday. Electronic appeals should be directed to appeals-easternregional-office@fs.fed.us. Electronic appeals should be in TXT, RTF, DOC, PDF or other 

Microsoft Office-compatible formats. 

E. Contact 

Questions regarding this Decision Notice and FONSI should be directed to the responsible 

official or Ava Turnquist, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at (814) 363-6086. If a document is not 

available or delivered at the expected time, please contact Ava Turnquist at (814) 363-6086 to 

determine its availability, and if necessary, arrange an alternate delivery method. This decision, 

the Upper Kinzua Project EA, Appendixes to the EA and maps are also available on the ANF 

website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=17200

 

Upper Kinzua Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 17 

IV. References 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Allegheny National Forest. Upper Kinzua 

Environmental Assessment, Maps and Appendices. Bradford, PA. 

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

Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA. 

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

** The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs). To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 

(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.** 

** Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).** 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------