1

United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

April 2011

Appendix C2

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
2

USDA Forest Service

Allegheny National Forest

Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts

Hamilton, Hamlin, Lafayette and Wetmore Townships in McKean County, Pennsylvania

Cornplanter Bridge, Lewis Run, Kane, Mt. Jewett, and Westline, Pennsylvania 7.5’ Topographic 

Quadrangles

Prepared by, Reviewed by,

/S/ Alan Wetzel /S/ Pam Thurston

ALAN WETZEL PAM THURSTON

Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist

Bradford Ranger District Allegheny National Forest

 October 5, 2010 October 21, 2010

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.) 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).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This document is available in large font. Please contact the Bradford Ranger 

District at 814.363.6000 for a large font document if needed.
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES .................................................................... 3

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT AREA (UKPA) ........................................................................... 3

HABITAT SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT AREA............................................................ 4

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................... 4

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 4

SPECIES WITH SUITABLE OCCUPIED HABITAT ............................................................ 7

BALD EAGLE - (Haliaeetus luecocephalus).......................................................................... 7

NORTHERN GOSHAWK (Accipiter gentilis) ..................................................................... 11

OSPREY (Pandion haliaetus.................................................................................................. 13

CHANNEL DARTER (Percina copelandi)........................................................................... 15

HARPOON CLUBTAIL (Gomphus descriptus), MAINE SNAKETAIL (Ophiogomphus 

mainensis), MIDLAND CLUBTAIL (Gomphus fraternus), OCELLATED DARNER

(Boyeria grafiana),UHLER'S SUNDRAGON (Helocordulia uhleri), ZEBRA CLUBTAIL

(Stylurus scudderi)................................................................................................................... 18

AMERICAN GINSENG (Panax quinquefolius) .................................................................. 20

BUTTERNUT (Juglans cinerea)............................................................................................ 21

CANADA YEW (Taxus canadensis)..................................................................................... 23

TIMBER RATTLESNAKE (Crotalus horridus).................................................................. 25

WOOD TURTLE (Glyptemys insculpta)............................................................................... 26

SPECIES WITH SUITABLE HABITAT BUT PRESENCE NOT DOCUMENTED ......... 28

NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL (Glaucomys sabrinus macrotis) ................................ 28

BURBOT (Lota lota), MOUNTAIN BROOK LAMPREY (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi), GILT 

DARTER (Percina evides)...................................................................................................... 30

GREEN-FACED CLUBTAIL (Gomphus viridifrons), RAPIDS CLUBTAIL (Gomphus 

quadricolor), MUSTACHED CLUBTAIL (Gomphus adelphus), SKI-TAILED 

EMERALD (Somatochlora elongata), RESOLUTE DAMSEL (Coenagrion resolutum) 32

AMERICAN FEVER-FEW (Parthenium integrifolium)..................................................... 35

CREEPING SNOWBERRY (Gaultheria hispidula)............................................................ 36

ROUGH COTTON-GRASS (Eriophorum tenellum)........................................................... 36

THREAD RUSH (Juncus filiformis) ..................................................................................... 36

WIEGAND'S SEDGE (Carex wiegandii).............................................................................. 36

BOREAL BOG SEDGE (Carex magellanica irrigua).......................................................... 36

QUEEN-OF-THE-PRAIRIE (Filipendula rubra)................................................................ 37

STALKED BULRUSH (Scirpus pedicellatus) ...................................................................... 37

MOUNTAIN WOOD FERN (Dryopteris campyloptera)..................................................... 37

HOOKER‟S ORCHID (Platanthera hookeri)....................................................................... 37

WHITE TROUT-LILY (Erythronium albidum) .................................................................. 37

CHECKERED RATTLESNAKE PLANTAIN (Goodyera tesselata)................................. 37

BRISTLY BLACK CURRANT (Ribes lacustre).................................................................. 38

BARTRAM SHADBUSH (Amelanchier bartramiana)....................................................... 38

RED CURRANT (Ribes triste)............................................................................................... 38
2

MOUNTAIN STARWORT (Stellaria borealis spp. Borealis) ............................................. 38

KIDNEY-LEAVED TWAYBLADE (Listera smallii).......................................................... 38

YELLOW-BELLIED FLYCATCHER (Empidonax flaviventris)...................................... 40

SPECIES WITH NO SUITABLE HABITAT.......................................................................... 41

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................... 41

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 42
3

REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES

INTRODUCTION 

This Biological Evaluation (BE) includes a brief description of project area habitat for those 

species found on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) list for the Allegheny National 

Forest (ANF) and includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with each alternative being 

considered in the Upper Kinzua Project Environmental Assessment. This analysis evaluates the 

impacts of alternatives in order to:

Avoid or minimize impacts to RFSS, whose viability has been identified as a concern 

(Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.32).

Analyze the significance of the potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat 

within the area of concern and on the species as a whole if impacts cannot be avoided (FSM 

2670.32). 

The analyses presented in the Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Candidate 

Species and RFSS on the Allegheny National Forest, January 2007 (Forest BE) (USDA-FS 

2007) are not repeated in this biological evaluation. Likewise, the distribution and abundance, 

status, habitat, threats, (negligible, adverse and beneficial) direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts for these species, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation which is incorporated 

here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 133 to 292). Habitat information in this document can be 

found in the Upper Kinzua Project Wildlife Report which is here by incorporated by reference 

(UKPWR 2010).

The Eastern Region (R9) RFSS list was last updated on November 8, 2006. This version updated 

the February 29, 2000 RFSS list and resulted in a list of 60 RFSS for the ANF. Since the 

completion of the ANF Biological Evaluation for the revised Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007), the 

bald eagle has been taken off the Endangered Species List (August 9, 2007) by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service. It is now included on the ANF RFSS list for a total of 61 RFSS 

species and these are analyzed in this BE with the following two exceptions: The sheepnose, 

rabbitsfoot, and rayed-bean mussels are federal candidate species that are also RFSS on the ANF. 

They were analyzed and included under the Upper Kinzua Project Biological Assessment dated 

September 30, 2010 (USDA-FS 2010a, p. 33). Suitable habitat is not present for either species 

and they have not been found during any project surveys. The determination for these three 

species was ‘no effect’, which may equate to an RFSS determination of ‘no impact’ to either 

species. 

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT AREA (UKPA)

The project area was previously described in the project BA and is hereby incorporated by 

reference.
4

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area and Period

The project analysis period and area were previously described in the project BA and are hereby 

incorporated by reference.

OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR THE UKPA

The project oil and gas information were previously described in the project BA and are hereby 

incorporated by reference.

HABITAT SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT AREA

The habitat summary of the project area was previously described in the project BA and is 

hereby incorporated by reference.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1: No Action 

This alternative was previously described in the project BA and is hereby incorporated by 

reference.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

This alternative was previously described in the project BA and is hereby incorporated by 

reference.

Summary of Alternatives

A summary of both alternatives was included in the project BA and is hereby incorporated by 

reference.

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

Two alternatives are evaluated in the Upper Kinzua Project EA. They were previously described 

in the project BA and is hereby incorporated by reference.

This BE focuses on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that proposed activities may have 

on the current RFSS listed for the ANF. All species will be evaluated to determine their status in 

the project area based on habitat preferences, historic range, and suitability of the available 

habitat.

The evaluation will concentrate on those species having occupied or suitable unoccupied habitat 

in the project. An evaluation of CE on RFSS will use the same analysis area and time period 

selected for the BA of T&E Species, and may include any pertinent information regarding 

private land adjacent to the analysis area. For this particular project, the CE analysis area does 

contain some private land.

Species Status

Table 1 summarizes the status of sensitive species found in the Upper Kinzua project area. Each 

species is placed in one of the following three categories depending on their known occurrence 
5

and available habitat: 1) species occurrence has been documented in the past and there is 

occupied habitat in the project area, 2) occurrence has not been documented in the project area, 

but suitable habitat is present and 3) occurrence has not been documented in the recent past and 

suitable habitat is not present.

Table 1: Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Species Occupied 

Habitat

Suitable 

Habitat in 

the Project 

(Presence not 

Documented)

No 

Suitable 

Habitat in 

the 

Project 

Area

Mammals

Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) X

Mollusks

Creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa) X

Long-solid mussel (Fusconaia subrotundra) X

Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica)1 X

Rainbow mussel (Villosa iris) X

Rayed-bean (Villosa fabalis)

1 X

Round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) X

Sheepnose (Plethobasis cyphyus)1 X

Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) X

Threeridge (Amblema plicata) X

Wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia flava) X

White heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata) X

Invertebrates

Green-faced clubtail (Gomphus viridifrons) X

Harpoon clubtail (Gomphus descriptus) X

Rapids clubtail (Gomphus quadricolor) X

Mustached clubtail (Gomphus adelphus) X

Midland clubtail (Gomphus fraternus) X

Ski-tailed emerald (Somatochlora elongata) X

Uhler's sundragon (Helocordulia uhleri) X

Maine snaketail (Ophiogomphus mainensis) X

Zebra clubtail (Stylurus scudderi) X

Ocellated darner (Boyeria grafiana) X

Resolute damsel (Coenagrion resolutum) X

Birds

Yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) X

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) X

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) X

Northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis) X
6

Species Occupied 

Habitat

Suitable 

Habitat in 

the Project 

(Presence not 

Documented)

No 

Suitable 

Habitat in 

the 

Project 

Area

Reptiles

Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) X

Wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) X

Plants

American fever-few (Parthenium integrifolium) X

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) X

Bartram shadbush (Amelanchier bartramiana) X

Boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica irrigua) X

Bristly Black Currant (Ribes lucustre) X

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) X

Canada yew (Taxus canadensis) X

Checkered rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera tesselata) X

Creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula) X

Hooker’s orchid (Platanthera hookeri) X

Kidney-leaved twayblade (Listera smallii) X

Mountain starwort (Stellaria borealis borealis) X

Mountain wood fern (Dryopteris campyloptera) X

Queen-of-the-prairie (Filipendula rubra) X

Rough cotton-grass (Eriophorum tenellum) X

Stalked Bulrush (Scirpus pedicellatus) X

Swamp Red Currant (Ribes triste) X

Sweet-scented Indian-plantain (Hasteola suaveolens) X

Thread rush (Juncus filiformis) X

White trout-lily (Erythronium albidum) X

Wiegand's sedge (Carex wiegandii) X

Fishes

Bluebreast darter (Etheostoma camurum) X

Burbot (Lota lota) X

Channel darter (Percina copelandi) X

Gilt darter (Percina evides) X

Gravel chub (Erimystax x-punctata) X

Longhead darter (Percina macrocephala) X

Mountain brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi) X

Mountain madtom (Noturus eleutherus) X

Northern madtom (Noturus stigmosus) X

Spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum) X
7

Species Occupied 

Habitat

Suitable 

Habitat in 

the Project 

(Presence not 

Documented)

No 

Suitable 

Habitat in 

the 

Project 

Area

Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe) X

1. Analyzed as a Federal Candidate species in the Upper Kinzua Project BA.

SPECIES WITH SUITABLE OCCUPIED HABITAT

BALD EAGLE - (Haliaeetus luecocephalus)

Background: The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, 

direct impacts, and indirect impacts for the RFSS bald eagle is discussed in the ANF Biological 

Evaluation and is incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 25 to 46).

Project Area Habitat

Nesting Habitat - Primary nesting habitat (PNH) in the project area for the bald eagle is defined 

in the ANF BE as acreage within 1⁄2 mile of the Allegheny Reservoir. It consists of 

approximately 1,400 acres, all on federal lands. This includes the lower portion of the South 

Branch Kinzua Creek. There are other areas where eagle nesting may occur, due to the 

proximity to foraging habitat, but this area has the greatest potential for nesting. There is 

currently no documented eagle nest within the project area. The Kiasutha eagle nest is located 

just west the project area near the plateau top above Kiasutha Beach and Campground. This site 

is roughly 0.6 miles west of the UKPA (at Red Bridge Campground). Recreational boats, traffic 

on FR 262 and SR 321S as well as both the Red Bridge and Kiasutha Campgrounds are within 

the viewshed of this nest. The next closest known eagle nest is the Kinzua Dam nest about seven 

miles northwest of the project area. 

While over 90% of the project area provides mature forest, only those portions of the project area 

that do not receive oil and gas activity, intensive public , and/or are not near heavily traveled 

roads are typically considered suitable bald eagle primary nesting habitat. In an effort to identify 

the most un-disturbed and least accessible areas, a GIS analysis of the project area was done to 

identify those areas on National Forest System lands that are greater than 1⁄4 mile from an 

existing road and no large contiguous areas were identified within the project area. There are 

numerous areas just outside the project area on the slopes above the reservoir that meet this 1⁄4 

mile standard. The highest quality nesting habitat in the project area is the side-slopes between 

Lightning Run and Red Bridge and above Kinzua Creek and the South Branch Kinzua Creek. 

These slope areas are relatively free of roads and OGD development and provide the best habitat 

for expansion of future eagle nesting territories.

Foraging/Roosting Habitat – Both the Kinzua Creek which flows from the eastern proclamation 

boundary near Guffey through the central part of the project area and the Allegheny Reservoir, 

north from the SR321 viaduct to Lightning Run provide the best foraging and roosting habitat in 

the project area. Despite continuous human activity, there is recent documentation of eagles 

foraging and roosting along the reservoir edge adjacent to the project area and along Kinzua 
8

Creek. Eagles have been documented west and southwest of the project area, and it is assumed 

that frequent eagle use occurs. Approximately 90% of the project area lacks suitable eagle 

foraging habitat. 

Winter Habitat - The Forest BE states that during the winter, bald eagles congregate in areas 

where there is an abundant, readily available source of food, along with one or more suitable 

night roost trees. This tendency for bald eagles to congregate at certain locations during the 

wintering period is well documented. There is no open water winter habitat available in this 

project area for bald eagles.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct Effects

Alternative 1

There are no direct effects anticipated to the bald eagle since there are no previously approved 

activities or new proposed activities under this alternative that will impact eagle habitat. 

Alternative 2

Despite the amount of human activity that already occurs in the area, along with the proposed 

harvests and burns, no direct effects to eagles or their habitat is likely to occur because the design 

criteria on page 82 through 83 of the 2007 Forest Plan will be followed.

Indirect effects

Alternative 2

Adverse indirect effects to the bald eagle could occur from any forest management activities that 

alter suitable habitat (creating a loss of potential nest or roost trees) or cause repeated or longterm disturbances (such as heavy machinery use or alter water quality adversely affecting an 

existing fishery, i.e., foraging habitat). Smoke management is a consideration in developing a 

burn plan and burning will be conducted when wind direction and burning conditions will 

minimize impacts to the Lower Kinzua Creek and Allegheny Reservoir area. Potential effects to 

bald eagle foraging could occur if proposed actions reduce water quality conditions to a level 

that the existing fishery is adversely affected. However, there are not expected to be any direct 

effects from harvesting timber on water quality, since all treatments will implement Forest Plan 

design criteria from pages 82 and 83. Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may 

include an increase in sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of 

harvested timber. However to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of 

a stream would be surfaced with limestone to reduce this potential impact. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA. 

Potential Cumulative Effects: Potential cumulative effects include any activities that make 

suitable eagle habitat unsuitable. These activities include final harvest treatments that 

essentially eliminate mature forest conditions on the site, any activity that converts forest to 

non-forest such as oil and gas development, opening construction and gravel pit 

development and any activity that causes disturbance to eagle foraging, roosting or nesting. 
9

Potential cumulative effects will be evaluated by looking at how much of the analysis area is 

made unsuitable from past, present and future actions, as well as how much suitable habitat 

will continue to be available at the end of the analysis period.

Oil and Gas Development

Oil and gas development assumptions are listed in the BA. As a result, the cumulative past, 

present and anticipated future oil and gas development totals on the combined federal and nonfederal lands is 4,087 wells which will result in an estimated 4,597 acres (~11% of the CE area) 

of actual disturbance or conversion of forest to non-forest conditions across the CE area. The 

UK project contains 1,400 acres or 3% of the primary bald eagle nesting habitat across the ANF. 

NNIP Treatments

NNIP have been documented along the Kinzua Creek and Allegheny Reservoir. Forest Plan 

S&Gs for proper use of herbicides are found on page 40 of the Forest BE and in Appendix G1 

and G2 of the FEIS. 

Openings

In addition to oil and gas activity that converts forest to non-forest, proposed opening 

construction and development of gravel pits will also make mature forest habitat unsuitable as 

eagle nesting habitat. Approximately 728 acres of anticipated past, present and future openings 

on private and National Forest System lands within the analysis area are displayed in Table 4 

below. None of these openings are actually within primary nesting habitat.

Timber Harvest

Anticipated timber harvest that is expected to occur within the analysis area during the analysis 

period is displayed in Table 4. There are no eagle nests known to exist in the project area. Two 

stands covering 41 acres are scheduled for Shelterwood and Delayed Final Harvest treatments 

within the PNH area. These final-harvest acres will be considered un-suitable bald eagle nest 

habitat because final-harvest treatments result in regeneration of mature forest. Suitable nesting 

habitat will continue to be widely available along the reservoir and lower Kinzua Creek.

Cumulative Effects Summary

Cumulative effect changes will be evaluated by looking at the amount of unsuitable habitat 

(openings, area affected by OGD development, seedling stands and sapling pole stands), by 

looking at the amount of habitat affected by disturbance associated with commercial harvest 

(partial harvest), and by looking at the total amount of suitable habitat that will be available 

under each of the alternatives in the year 2030. This information is displayed in Table 2. 

Table 2: Changes in Habitat Across the Project Area

Activity Present

Condition

Alt. 1 Alt. 2

Seedling/Sapling Stands 

(Unsuitable)

2,354 ac

8.3%

616 ac

2.2 %

2,152 ac

7.6%

OGD Development (Unsuitable) 1,897ac

6.7%

3,614 ac

12.8%

3,614 ac

12.8%

Openings (Unsuitable) 663 ac 663 ac 728 ac
10

Activity Present

Condition

Alt. 1 Alt. 2

<2% <2% <2%

Pole Stands (Unsuitable) 3,346 ac

11.9%

3,356 ac

11.9%

3,349 ac

11.9%

Forested acres across UKPA 

remaining after timber harvest

19,961 ac

70.7%

19,927 ac

70.6%

18,379 ac

65.1%

Based on anticipated cumulative effects, forested habitat will be reduced over the short- and

long- term under Alternative 2 from the present condition and from Alternative1. No activities 

proposed in Alternative 2 that will change canopy closure are located within suitable nesting or 

foraging habitat. However, suitable nesting habitat for the bald eagle will remain almost 

unchanged and continue to be widespread across the forest and the project area. As a result, there 

are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated to the bald eagle or its habitat.

Bald Eagle Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1

There are no previously approved treatments within the project area that will convert primary 

nesting and foraging habitat from suitable to unsuitable. Eagle nesting and foraging habitat will 

continue to be widely available. There are no federal activities proposed under this alternative 

that will impact the bald eagle or its habitat. However, ongoing OGD development could occur 

on most of the available primary bald eagle nesting habitat. This means there is a „may impact 

individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability‟

determination anticipated for the bald eagle or its habitat. 

Alternative 2

Based on the analysis presented above and the following rationale, there is a „may impact 

individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability‟

determination to the bald eagle anticipated under this alternative. The likelihood of direct or 

indirect mortality as a result of implementation of the UK project is not high but could occur. 

This determination is made based on the following rationale:

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water resources and non-native invasive species 

(NNIS) treatments will maintain existing water quality and native fish in ANF streams, 

impoundments, and reservoirs within the project area. This is expected to maintain eagle 

foraging habitat. This will reduce the likelihood that a bald eagle is harassed or harmed 

as a result of proposed activities.

Although the bald eagle is no longer considered a federally listed species, the Forest BA 

standards and guidelines for protection and monitoring of the bald eagle will remain in 

place for five years from the date (August 12, 2007) it was de-listed and adoption of 

management guidelines identified in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act will 

protect the eagle into the future.

Management of riparian habitat (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality 

and riparian dependent species, as well as restoring healthy forest conditions and 

associated bald eagle primary nesting, roosting and foraging habitat.

Suitable bald eagle nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat will continue to be widely 
11

available under all alternatives.

All conservation measures in the USFWS concurrence letter and site specific mitigations related 

to bald eagles apply to proposed Forest Service activities.

NORTHERN GOSHAWK (Accipiter gentilis)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for the northern goshawk, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation 

(USDA-FS -2007, 133 to 154). 

Project Area Habitat

The mature forest habitat within the Upper Kinzua project area provides many of the preferred 

nesting and foraging conditions including a preference for conifer (Only 1% of the project area 

supports conifer stands or inclusions). No active nests were found during stand surveys. 

Although goshawks will nest near low standard forest roads, they will not tolerate continuous 

amounts of human activity (Forest Plan FEIS, page 3-231). The highest quality habitat can be 

found east of FR 587 between Meade Run and the southern border of the project area (the north 

facing slope on the Marienville District part of the project area). Additionally, there is a large 

area (approximately 1,300 acres) east of Guffey that is roaded but is somewhat isolated from 

heavy human intrusion.

Direct and Indirect Effects

All Alternatives

Although suitable nesting habitat will be reduced on up to 7% of the CE area due to anticipated 

regeneration harvest, with implementation of Forest-wide standards to protect known nests and 

enhance foraging/post-fledgling habitat, sites receiving these treatments on NFS lands would 

continue to provide suitable goshawk foraging and post-fledgling habitat. Similarly, based on 

Forest-wide monitoring, the small amount of opening construction, pit construction, and road 

construction proposed is consistent with goshawk use and suitable goshawk habitat will continue 

to be widely available under both alternatives. 

Forest-wide design criteria are expected to reduce potential impacts from proposed activities to a 

level that will allow continued use and successful reproduction of active nests and territories if 

any are found. While the amount of suitable nesting habitat varies by alternative, both 

alternatives will maintain the structural conditions preferred by the northern goshawk for nesting 

and foraging across the landscape. Also based on the level of harvest proposed and the continued 

availability of suitable habitat, both alternatives will maintain adequate habitat to meet Forestwide population objectives for the northern goshawk.

Direct effects to the northern goshawk could result from any activity that causes harm or 

harassment to nesting birds and any activity that occurs within active goshawk territories or any 

activity that creates unsuitable goshawk habitat could have adverse direct or indirect impacts. In 

order to reduce potential harm or harassment to nesting birds, the Forest Plan includes design

criteria to restrict activities (S&Gs) within 1320 ft. of active nests. There are no active nests or 

territories in the Upper Kinzua project area. There are no anticipated direct impacts to the 
12

goshawk anticipated under any alternative with implementation of Forest Plan S&Gs for the 

protection of the species. 

Indirect impacts may result from habitat change. Both alternatives will maintain forested habitat 

(at least 75% of the area in mature forest condition) across the project area. Suitable 

nesting/post-fledgling habitat will be maintained over the long-term with the exception for a 

maximum of 41 acres of gravel pit expansion or development needed for road construction 

activities under the action alternative. The action alternative will reduce the amount of mature 

forest within the project area over the short term. Therefore, suitable habitat will be altered but 

forest habitat will remain, and over the long term, the forest will continue to mature and grow, 

providing suitable habitat once again. 

There are several large, irregular shaped blocks of roadless area relative to wildlife resources 

within the analysis area. Two of these blocks are about 1,175 acres each. They contribute runoff 

to Meade Run, Kinzua Creek and the Allegheny Reservoir. There are 25 additional, smaller 

blocks between 100 and 560 acres. They contribute runoff to the same watersheds listed above 

with the addition of Chappel Fork. Most of the large blocks are found exclusively on federal 

lands. The majority of these blocks is expected to be developed by OGD in the future and will 

probably be highly dissected by 2030. There are well over 100 additional unroaded areas on 

federal lands within the RAP boundary and all are less than 100 acres.

The size of the larger blocks were determined by assuming a 200 feet buffer from any 

documented road (classified or unclassified) rather than using the 0.25 mile buffer described in 

the Unroaded ANF GIS data layer. Many generalist wildlife species are very adaptable and quite 

successful using small or large blocks of unroaded habitat with a 200 feet buffer. Interior forest 

species on the other hand, may need a larger buffer (>300 meters) in order to support the full 

complement of species the ANF may have supported prior to human influenced changes on the 

ANF landscape. The larger buffer would severely shrink the size of the unroaded areas as 

described above as well as the polygons defined by the current Unroaded GIS layer. The severe 

reduction in size may limit the landscapes ability to provide sufficient habitat for many interior 

forest species to be successful over the long term. 

Neither of the large roadless areas mentioned above are considered unique in character when 

compared to the rest of the ANF but they are somewhat unique in size. Similar areas exist 

nearby and on other areas of the forest. They consist of varying aged stands and are best 

characterized as extremely irregular shaped tracts of early age through mature growth forest. 

Some stands are beginning to develop old growth characteristics. There are a few fenced units 

within the largest unroaded area. Suitable nesting habitat for large birds of prey such as northern 

goshawks or red-shouldered hawks might be found in these areas. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA. 

Potential Cumulative Effects: Anticipated non-federal actions within the analysis area include 

commercial timber harvest on private land and private oil and gas development on both private 

and National Forest System lands within the analysis area (41,180 acres). Both alternatives will 
13

result in some reduction of suitable goshawk habitat. About 75% of the CE area will be 

maintained as suitable habitat unaffected by potential cumulative effects and considering 

goshawks are successfully utilizing areas managed at similar levels of oil and gas and timber 

harvest, there are no adverse effects anticipated to this species that would reduce local viability 

under any alternative.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur on over 75% of the forest in the project 

area. As a result, there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the northern 

goshawk or its habitat anticipated.

Northern goshawk Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 - No Action – „no impact‟ determination anticipated. Impacts from HWA may 

occur.

Alternative 2 - Based on the analysis above, particularly the protection provided to active nests, 

there is a „may impact individuals‟ determination for this species. Although suitable habitat will 

be altered it will continue to be widely available. The impact to habitat ‘is not likely to cause a 

trend toward federal listing or loss of viability‟ with implementation of Forest Plan S&Gs.

OSPREY (Pandion haliaetus)

Background: The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, 

direct impacts, and indirect impacts for the osprey are discussed in the ANF Biological 

Evaluation (USDA-FS -2007, 155 to 160) and are incorporated here by reference. 

Project Area Habitat

Nesting Habitat - There are no documented osprey nests within the project area. The Allegheny 

Reservoir and Allegheny River provide the most desirable nesting habitat on the ANF and the 

closest suitable nesting habitat is just outside the project and the cumulative effects area. The 

closest known osprey nest to the project area is found within the Allegheny Reservoir at Red 

Bridge, just west of SR321. 

Foraging Habitat - Suitable foraging habitat occurs primarily along the Allegheny River, 

Allegheny Reservoir, Brokenstraw Creek, Clarion River, Tionesta Creek, and on the larger 

impoundments that exist at scattered locations across the ANF. The reservoir shoreline from 

Lightning Run south to confluence of Kinzua Creek and the Reservoir acts as the western project 

boundary. This area provides suitable foraging habitat. Ospreys are regularly observed foraging 

or perching along these waters within the project area. Additionally, they have been observed 

north, east, and west of the project area on these same water bodies, and it is assumed that 

frequent osprey use occurs.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to osprey since there are no new activities 

proposed within their habitat under this alternative.
14

Alternative 2

Similar to the bald eagle, direct mortality or injury to adults, embryonic young, nestlings, or 

fledglings could occur if a nest tree or the area surrounding the nest is harvested. Adverse 

indirect effects to the osprey could occur from any of the same forest management activities that 

alter suitable habitat (creating a loss of potential roost trees or physically disturb stream 

channels), create sedimentation, cause repeated or long-term disturbances (such as heavy 

machinery use), or alter water quality (adversely affecting an existing fishery). Indirect effects 

of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams 

associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. However, to reduce the risk of haul 

related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone that will 

reduce this potential impact. 

With implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan S&Gs, site specific mitigations, and 

considering the amount of human activity that already exists adjacent to the reservoir, the 

proposed timber harvests, OGD activities, and pit development proposed on federal lands are not 

expected to result in direct effects to osprey or their habitat under either alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA. 

Potential Cumulative Effects: Potential cumulative effects include any activities that make 

suitable osprey habitat unsuitable. These activities include any activity that has the potential to 

cause disturbance to osprey foraging, roosting or nesting. There are no federal activities

proposed in any areas utilized by osprey. Impacts will be evaluated by looking at how much of 

the analysis area is made unsuitable by federal activities from past, present and future actions, as 

well as how much suitable habitat will continue to be available at the end of the analysis period. 

The most likely actions to cause long term effects on federal lands will be associated with oil and 

gas development. No other activities are proposed during this projects timeline. These same 

activities along with timber harvest and or home/opening development are most likely to occur 

on private land in amounts similar to activities as occur on federal lands.

Cumulative Effects Summary

Of the proposed treatments in Alternative 2, water quality and potential habitat could be affected 

by timber harvest, some reforestation and/or NNIP treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer 

applications, road construction activities, and oil and gas development if these activities are not 

properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan S&Gs discussed throughout this 

BE will at least maintain aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Proposed activities designed to maintain water quality over the long-term under Alternative 2 

include:

road maintenance (improving road-runoff management)

limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and 

movement

road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat 

and natural drainage patterns within these corridors.
15

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all existing watersheds. As a result, 

there are no significant cumulative effects to the osprey or its habitat anticipated.

Osprey Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 - No Action – „no impact‟ determination anticipated. 

Alternative 2 - „may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability‟ determination is made for the osprey under Alternative 2. Direct 

mortality as a result of implementation of the Upper Kinzua project is unlikely to occur. Further, 

the likelihood of indirect impacts to osprey nesting, foraging or perching habitats is also 

considered remote. This determination is made based on the following rationale:

Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be implemented to maintain water quality and 

native fish in ANF streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to 

maintain or protect osprey foraging habitat.

Management of riparian habitat (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, 

protection of riparian dependent species and restoring healthy forest conditions and 

associated osprey nesting, roosting and foraging habitat.

Suitable osprey roosting and foraging habitat will continue to be widely available under 

all alternatives.

With implementation of Forest Plan S&Gs, there may be impact to individuals or their habitat 

but the proposed federal activities will not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability 

for this species.

CHANNEL DARTER (Percina copelandi)

Background: The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, 

direct impacts, and indirect impacts for this darter, is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation 

and is incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS -2007, 172 to 173).

Project Area Habitat

The channel darter has been documented in the Kinzua Creek within the Upper Kinzua project 

area. Collections of this species have been made in a number of streams on the ANF including 

the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to this species since there are no new instream 

activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. Beneficial effects to these species 

and instream habitat may accrue over the long-term as natural recruitment of large wood occurs. 

Their primary habitats are larger streams and rivers, and water quality is protected through Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Alternative 2

Instream structures will benefit aquatic habitat and species, although some short-term impacts 

may occur. Beneficial impacts include providing cover to predator and prey species, water 

quality improvements, nutrient recycling, desynchronize flood releases, restoration of pool/riffle 
16

complexes, and increased gravel retention. Direct mortality or injury to immature fish or adults 

could occur if they were crushed or hit while an instream structure is being placed, using or 

fueling equipment instream, or working during a hatch. Removing or cutting trees too close to 

the stream banks could smother benthic invertebrates by increasing sediment potential. Adverse 

indirect effects to these species could occur from any of the same upland, stream edge, or 

instream management activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb stream 

channels), create sedimentation, or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature 

individuals). Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in 

sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. 

However, to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would 

be surfaced with limestone that will reduce this potential impact. Implementation of instream 

channel improvements will be beneficial to these species and their habitats. 

With implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan S&Gs, site specific mitigations, and 

considering the proposed timber harvests, OGD activities, and pit development proposed on 

federal lands are not expected to result in direct effects to these species under either alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential Cumulative Effects: 

Alternatives 1 and 2 - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by instream work, 

timber harvest, some reforestation, NNIP treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer applications, 

and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in Alternative 2, along with oil 

and gas development. However, Forest Plan S&Gs discussed throughout this BE will be 

implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Proposed activities designed to provide beneficial effects and maintain water quality over the 

long-term under Alternative 2 include:

Road maintenance (improving road-runoff management).

Limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and 

movement).

Road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat 

and natural drainage patterns within these corridors).

Instream work (providing cover to predator and prey species, water quality 

improvements, nutrient recycling, desynchronize flood releases, restoration of pool/riffle 

complexes, and increased gravel retention).

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all larger streams. No significant 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

Channel darter Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – No action – ‘no impact‟, proposed treatments to improve water quality or 

instream habitat such as fish habitat improvements, limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, 

and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Beneficial effects from natural recruitment of 

large wood for this species and its habitat may occur over the long-term. 
17

Alternative 2 - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be 

considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a „no impact‟ determination under 

Alternative 2. The following points support this determination: 1) Management of riparian and 

instream habitats (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of 

riparian dependent and instream species, and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, 

impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve their habitat, 3) 

suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both 

alternatives, and 4) site specific mitigations (listed below) for proposed instream activities will 

be implemented prior to and during all proposed work until the project is stabilized. The 

probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected 

increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. 

However, the effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads. 

Alternative 1 would not provide any short-term opportunities for stream habitat 

improvements or guarantee that natural recruitment would occur over a given time frame. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 for this project will lead the stream towards a proper 

functioning condition despite the fact that it may impact individuals of the species 

mentioned above. Potential beneficial effects include: creation of cover and food for fish 

and aquatic insects; improve or maintain stream temperatures aquatic species require for 

survival; stabilizing sediment inputs; deepen and further define the deep channel; 

increase gravel retention; allow the stream to function in a more natural manner by 

improving the pool/riffle ratio and creating meander opportunities for the channel. The 

effect of adding large wood to streams would begin creating beneficial results rather than 

relying only on the possibility of natural recruitment which may or may not occur over 

many decades. This action may not increase the population numbers but will improve 

stream habitat overall for a wide variety of species. 

Site-Specific Mitigations

The following list of site-specific mitigations will be implemented prior to and during all 

proposed instream work until the project work is considered stable. These mitigations are 

meant to apply to all aquatic species including aquatic invertebrates, fishes, and wood 

turtles:

Minimize soil disturbance for access and instream construction. Use existing roadways, 

skid trails or travel paths for access to proposed instream work sites whenever possible. 

Complete all proposed work in a timely fashion to reduce disturbance and displacement 

to fish and wildlife species.

It is recommended that any snags with bark or den trees adjacent to the streams be 

retained. Bark provides hibernation habitat for a wide variety of bats and insects. If the 

snags pose a safety hazard, then it is recommended that they be removed. 

All work should stop immediately if any federally proposed, listed or sensitive species is 

found or observed on the project site during the implementation process. 
18

If temporary access is needed it should be constructed in such a manner as to be easily 

removed when work is completed. 

Use matting or low impact equipment when using large machinery in and along wet 

areas. 

Complete instream work requiring heavy equipment from the stream bank whenever 

possible and during low flow conditions

All equipment (chainsaws, backhoes or swing hoes) must be stored, serviced, and fueled 

in upland areas away from transport pathways and all aquatic habitats.

Follow all terms and conditions in regulatory permits and other official project 

authorizations to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive species or their habitats.

HARPOON CLUBTAIL (Gomphus descriptus), MAINE SNAKETAIL (Ophiogomphus 

mainensis), MIDLAND CLUBTAIL (Gomphus fraternus), OCELLATED DARNER

(Boyeria grafiana),UHLER'S SUNDRAGON (Helocordulia uhleri), ZEBRA CLUBTAIL

(Stylurus scudderi)

The following 6 invertebrate species are evaluated as a group: Harpoon clubtail (Gomphus 

descriptus) (USDA-FS 2007, 186 to 187), Maine snaketail (Ophiogomphus mainensis) (USDAFS 2007, 188 to 190), Midland clubtail (Gomphus fraternus) (USDA-FS 2007, 190 to 191), 

Ocellated darner (Boyeria grafiana) (USDA-FS 2007, 193 to 194), Uhler's sundragon 

(Helocordulia uhleri) (USDA-FS 2007, 202 to 203), and the Zebra clubtail (Stylurus scudderi)

(USDA-FS 2007, 205 to 206). These invertebrate species will be discussed as a group since they 

all have suitable habitat and have been documented within the Upper Kinzua project area during 

surveys unconnected to this project. They are good indicators of habitat integrity and water 

quality, and depend on intact, well-functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems. No project 

surveys were conducted specifically for these species during this project area analysis but they 

were found during earlier surveys unrelated to this project. 

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for these six species, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are 

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 183 - 206).

Project Area Habitat

There is a variety of aquatic habitats found across the UK project area and some amount of 

suitable habitat is available for all six of these species. The Kinzua Creek in particular provides 

suitable habitat. No surveys were conducted specifically for this project. These species have 

been documented within the UK project area or CE area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to these species since there are no new 

activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. Beneficial effects to these species 
19

and instream habitat may accrue over the long-term as natural recruitment of large wood occurs. 

Their primary habitats are larger streams and rivers, and water quality is protected through Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Alternative 2

Same as those effects described for the channel darter.

With implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan S&Gs and site-specific mitigations no direct 

effects are expected under either alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential Cumulative Effects: 

Alternatives 1 and 2 - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by instream work, 

timber harvest, some reforestation, NNIP treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer applications, 

and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in Alternative 2, along with oil 

and gas development. However, Forest Plan S&G’s discussed throughout this BE will be 

implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Proposed activities designed to provide beneficial effects and maintain water quality over the 

long-term under Alternative 2 include:

Road maintenance (improving road-runoff management).

Limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and 

movement).

Road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat 

and natural drainage patterns within these corridors).

Instream work (providing cover to predator and prey species, water quality 

improvements, nutrient recycling, desynchronize flood releases, restoration of pool/riffle 

complexes, and increased gravel retention).

The rationale as outlined in the channel darter section applies to these species. Suitable habitat 

will continue to be widespread and occur in all larger streams. No significant direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

6 Invertebrate Species Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – No action – ‘no impact‟, proposed treatments to improve water quality such as 

limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, road reconstruction, and instream treatments will 

not be implemented. Beneficial effects from natural recruitment of large wood for this species 

and its habitat may occur over the long-term.

Alternative 2 - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be 

considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a „no impact‟ determination under 

Alternative 2. This determination is based on the following points: 1) Management of riparian 

habitat and aquatic (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of 
20

riparian dependent species, and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, impoundments, 

and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve associated invertebrate habitat, 3) 

suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both 

alternatives, and 4) site specific mitigations (the same as listed above in the channel darter) for 

proposed instream activities will be implemented prior to and during all proposed work. The 

probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected 

increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. 

However, the effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads. 

AMERICAN GINSENG (Panax quinquefolius) 

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for this plant are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 234 - 240).

Project Area Habitat

On the ANF, this species is typically found on north facing slopes under sugar maple, white ash,

and basswood canopies. There is one known population in the project area. It is located on the 

slopes east of Camp Run. This population occurs in fairly open forest area with numerous wet 

spring seeps. Suitable habitat does occur at numerous scattered locations across the project area. 

All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the 

sites surveyed. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2

Activities with Adverse Effects

Activities with possible adverse effects include; all proposed timber harvest, release treatments, 

burning, herbicide application, gravel pit development/expansion, road construction and reconstruction, road decommissioning, and opening construction. 

Effect Summary

Although activities with adverse effects may occur under Alternative 2, most sites proposed for 

treatment have been surveyed and this species was not identified in any treatments sites. With 

implementation of Forest S & Gs related to the protection of plant species with viability concerns 

(USDA-FS 2007a, p. 89), plants identified during implementation will be adequately protected 

and as a result potential for direct effects is considered remote. While it is possible that suitable 

unoccupied habitat could be affected (either adversely or beneficially), considering that no 

occupied habitat will be affected, it is not anticipated that occupied habitat will be affected and 

suitable unoccupied habitat will continue to be available. 

The potential effects to this species are the same as described in the Forest-wide Biological 

Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, 264 to 267). Forest Plan S&Gs will reduce or avoid impacts to the 

potential suitable environment. This species uses habitat that can be found across the project 

area. 
21

Based on the analysis presented in the Forest-wide BE, which includes design features and 

Forest Plan S&Gs, adverse impacts to this species may be considered negligible under any of 

these alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: Although suitable habitat can only be determined by site-specific 

conditions, mature mixed deciduous mesic forest habitat occurs on over 90% of the analysis area. 

Of this, mature mixed conifer/hardwood exists on < 1% of the area and mature deciduous 

hardwoods occur on about 90% of the (combined federal and private) area. 

Activities with potential adverse effects include those identified in Table 2 and private timber 

harvest and oil and gas development. There are no long-term cumulative effects anticipated 

under either alternative. No known occupied habitat is proposed for treatment so Forest S&Gs 

will protect suitable habitat and ensure the conservation of this species if found during 

implementation (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 89). Potentially suitable mature mixed deciduous mesichydric habitat will continue to be widely available. The following site-specific mitigation for 

C/S 464/32, 478/32, 480/38, 480/44, 480/70 and 481/6 shall be implemented:

Surveys for sensitive plants for the above listed C/S shall be conducted prior to any 

management activities.

American ginseng Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – „no impact‟ from the Upper Kinzua Project under this alternative. 

Alternative 2: 1) American ginseng is found within the CE area but none were found during 

stand surveys where timber harvest or wildlife treatments are actually proposed, 2) treatments 

proposed will modify suitable habitat and there is a possibility that a plant could go undetected 

and be adversely affected by treatments, 3) suitable habitat is somewhat limited within both the 

project and CE area and 4) Forest Plan S&Gs will be implemented to conserve suitable habitat. 

The determination for this species is „may impact individuals but will not cause a trend 

toward the federal listing or loss of viability‟ of this species with implementation of Forest 

Plan S&Gs.

BUTTERNUT (Juglans cinerea)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for this tree are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 254 to 260).

Project Area Habitat

Butternut occupies a mesic-hydric forest in sun to partial shade. This species has been 

documented within the project area but none were found during proposed treatment stand 

surveys. There is one known butternut tree found on federal lands within the project area. Overcrowding of this tree has been determined to be detrimental so a release treatment is proposed 

that would help its health. Additionally, nearby NNIP will be treated around this tree.
22

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2

Management activities proposed in Table 1 that are considered to have negligible direct (species 

related) or indirect (habitat related) impacts based on suitable habitat (open canopy, moist to wet 

conditions) and/or the methods used to accomplish those activities (hand tools) include: 

reforestation activities (fencing, planting, tree shelters, and fertilization only), wildlife habitat 

improvements and NNIP control (manual/mechanical) (see ANF BE pages 256-257 for 

additional discussion (USDA-FS 2007)). 

Management activities proposed in Table 1 that are considered to have either potential direct or 

indirect adverse impacts include: timber harvest (if a butternut is cut/damaged by mistake), 

reforestation (herbicide application), non-native invasive species control (herbicide treatment), 

road construction, road construction, road decommissioning, pit expansion, and new pit 

development. Potential impacts from timber harvest, reforestation, and non-native invasive 

species treatment activities include direct mortality (trampling/removal of plant during 

implementation, herbiciding extant trees). Since butternut is a shade intolerant species it would 

benefit from increased light conditions. 

Potential impacts from road construction, road decommissioning, gravel pit expansion or new 

development include trampling/disturbance, removal – access for collection (direct mortality), 

changes in local hydrology from soil compaction/removal, and non-native invasive species 

introduction and/or spread via equipment (habitat alteration). Except for the 24 acres of pit 

expansion for road construction activities under the action alternative, no loss in forested habitat 

is anticipated Areas where activities are proposed have been surveyed and this species has not 

been documented, however, if it was found during implementation appropriate measures will be 

taken to conserve this species (see page 212 -213 of the ANF BE USDA-FS 2007 for a 

compilation of standards and guidelines or the Forest Plan sections 2080, 2400 and 2600 USDAFS 2007a). As a result, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to this species under 

either alternative.

Proposed activities within Table 1 that are beneficial to this species or its habitat include 

establishing up to 9 acres of butternut seed orchard, release, lessening the impacts from nonnative invasive plant species through manual/mechanical or herbicide treatment, and road 

decommissioning which may decrease the impacts to habitat from the introduction/spread of 

non-native invasive species along road corridors and also limiting access to plant 

collection/disturbance. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: Based on topographic maps, vegetation types and conditions, and 

aerial photographs, the CE area has a large protected stream valley that is well-suited for the 

butternut. However, roughly 1 percent of the CE area provides opening habitat (including 

private property) and may also provide suitable habitat having a lack of competing (woody) 

vegetation. In several riparian areas, habitat may exist in the semi-open savannah/ orchard areas 
23

along the streams and lower slope elevations. This habitat type is somewhat limited within both 

the project and cumulative effects areas.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and/or site mitigation measures to conserve this species 

would be implemented, and approved activities will not have significant adverse impacts to this 

species or its habitat. In addition, OGD may occur on up to 11% of the CE, increasing nonforest habitat from 7% to 11% within the CE area. Activities on non-Forest Service administered 

land within the cumulative effects boundary that have the potential to impact these species 

include: direct mortality from over-collection of plants or plant parts, changes in local hydrology, 

habitat alteration/loss from timber harvest, non-native invasive plant species, housing 

development, roads, gravel pits, trails, or oil and gas development. There is no information 

regarding the presence of butternut on private land in the CE area. Currently, forestland owners 

on private property within the CE area appear to be employing Pennsylvania Best Management 

Practices. 

The greatest impact to butternut viability is from butternut canker (USDA-FS 2007, p. 255).

There are no adverse cumulative impacts anticipated to this species under either alternative 

because the land conditions (forested, streamside, steep terrain) within the CE area, amount of 

non-federal land within the CE area (approximately 31% of CE area), and implementation of 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or site mitigation measures if this species is found 

during project implementation.

Butternut Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 - „may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability‟ from the Upper Kinzua Project under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 - Since 1) Butternut trees are found within the CE area but no butternut trees were 

found during stand surveys where timber harvest treatment or wildlife improvements are 

proposed, 2) individual trees for this species are proposed for release from over-crowding, 3) 

three seed orchard sites are proposed for establishment, 4) suitable habitat is limited within both 

the project and CE area and 5) Forest Plan S&Gs will be implemented to conserve suitable 

habitat. The determination for this species is „may impact individuals but will not cause a 

trend toward the federal listing or loss of viability of this species‟ with implementation of 

Forest Plan S&Gs.

CANADA YEW (Taxus canadensis)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for this plant are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 261-262).

Project Area Habitat

The Canada yew occupies humid, continental climates; in cool, rich, damp woods and wooded 

swamps; on banks; along bog margins and ravines, growth is best in at least partial shade. Two 

ANF locations are on large rocks under a mature mixed deciduous canopy that are not accessible 

by deer. A third location is in a riparian corridor with a mixed deciduous canopy. This species is 
24

known to occur within the project area, so suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All 

stands proposed for timber harvest or wildlife treatment were surveyed and this species was not 

found on any of the sites surveyed. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2

Activities with Adverse Effects

Activities with possible adverse effects include; burning, herbicide application, gravel pit 

development/expansion, road construction and re-construction, road decommissioning, and 

opening construction. 

Effects Summary

Although activities with adverse effects may occur under Alternative 2, all sites proposed for 

treatment have been surveyed and this species was not identified in any treatments sites. Also 

with implementation of Forest S & Gs related to the protection of plant species with viability 

concerns (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 89), plants identified during implementation will be adequately 

protected and as a result potential for direct effects is considered remote. It is possible that 

suitable unoccupied habitat could be affected (either adversely or beneficially). It is not 

anticipated that occupied habitat will be affected considering that no known occupied habitat is 

proposed for any kind of treatment and suitable unoccupied habitat will continue to be widely 

available. 

The potential effects to this species are the same as described in the Forest-wide Biological 

Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 264-267). Forest Plan S&G’s will reduce or avoid impacts to the 

potential suitable environment. This species uses a variety of habitats that can be found across 

the project area. All the activities proposed for this project have been addressed as negligible, 

adverse or beneficial in the Forest-wide BE and are incorporated here by reference. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: Although suitable habitat can only be determined by site specific 

conditions, mature mixed deciduous mesic-hydric forest habitat occurs on a large portion of the 

analysis area. Of this, mature mixed conifer/hardwood exists on approximately 1% of the area 

and mature deciduous hardwoods occur on over 90% of the (combined federal and private) area. 

Activities with potential adverse effects include those identified in Table 2 and private timber 

harvest and oil and gas development. Cumulative treatments with the potential to adversely 

affect this species will be implemented on up to 17% of the analysis area by 2030. There are no 

direct effects anticipated. Although it is likely indirect effects to mature forest habitat will occur, 

approximately 90% of the analysis area will be unaffected. Also considering private timber 

harvest will apply Best Management Practices (PADEP 2005) and the Forest Service works with 

OGD operators to minimize impacts to wetter sites, potentially suitable habitat would be 

expected to receive some protection on non-NFS lands. There are no long-term cumulative 

effects anticipated under either alternative. Potentially suitable mature mixed deciduous mesichydric habitat will continue to be widely available considering that no occupied habitat is 
25

proposed to be treated and Forest S&Gs will protect suitable habitat to ensure the conservation of 

this species if found during implementation (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 89). 

Canada yew Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – „no impact‟ from the Upper Kinzua Project under this alternative. 

Alternative 2: Since 1) Canada yew is found within the CE area but none were found during 

stand surveys where timber harvest or wildlife treatments are actually proposed, 2) treatments 

proposed will modify suitable habitat and there is a possibility that a plant could go undetected 

and be adversely affected by treatments, 3) suitable habitat is limited within both the project and 

CE area and 4) Forest Plan S&Gs will be implemented to conserve suitable habitat. The 

determination for this species is „no impact‟ with implementation of Forest Plan S&Gs.

REPTILES

TIMBER RATTLESNAKE (Crotalus horridus)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for timber rattlesnakes, 

is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 274- 285). 

Project Area Habitat

Several snakes have been documented over the years in this project area. Rock outcroppings 

suitable for den sites occur in several locations across the project area and it is believed these 

areas have a high potential to provide occupied habitat. This project area generally lacks dry oak 

sites that provide habitat conditions preferred by the timber rattlesnake. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 and 2

Direct effects include mortality that may occur during implementation of timber harvest, road 

construction, or other earth disturbing activities identified in Table 2. Activities such as changes 

in road management that increase public access into den locations also have the potential to 

result in direct mortality through rattlesnake hunting. Proposed activities may also result in 

indirect effects, or changes in habitat conditions, with effects being both positive and negative. 

Adverse effects could occur if there is no timber harvest because the trees will grow over and 

shade basking sites and potential hibernacula making these locations less useful to the species. 

Beneficial impacts may occur at a den or basking site if conditions are modified to expose these 

locations to direct sunlight through either disturbance or vegetation manipulation. Final harvest 

treatments proposed under these alternatives could increase the diversity and abundance of small 

mammals and ultimately improve foraging conditions. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: Based on anticipated effects described under the bald eagle, 

mature forest habitat will be reduced on approximately 5% of the CE analysis area that is 

affected by oil and gas development and final harvest timber treatments. Cumulatively over the 

next 20 years, it is anticipated that up to 5% of the analysis area may be affected by some form 
26

of disturbance that could either result in harassment or harm to the timber rattlesnake or alter 

habitat conditions. 

On the ANF, the timber rattlesnake is identified as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) and a 

Forest Species of Concern. As a result, the timber rattlesnake receives special management 

protection and is used to monitor trends of wildlife that utilize similar habitat. Specific Forest 

Plan direction related to this species includes protection and improvement of potential den sites 

and closure of local roads to reduce human/snake interactions. Some of the sites proposed for 

treatment contain what may be suitable den habitat, but considering public access will be 

restricted during any proposed road construction, there are no proposed management activities 

that would increase access into suitable habitat and the potential for harassment or harm to 

snakes at these potential den sites is considered extremely remote. If logging occurs at a time 

when snakes are away from their dens, there is a possibility that a rattlesnake could be killed or 

harmed if a snake is dispersing or foraging within a treatment site when logging occurs. 

However, for the following reasons, the potential impacts from logging or oil and gas 

development are expected to be reduced, and as a result, effects are not expected to cause a trend 

toward federal listing. 

There is no logging or road construction proposed in preferred foraging areas along stream 

bottoms or over rocky areas that could be utilized for basking.

The Forest works closely with oil and gas development to avoid rocky areas and it is 

anticipated that impacts from future oil and gas development will be mitigated to reduce 

potential impacts.

Roads associated with oil and gas development will be closed to public access. 

Seventy five percent or more of the project area will be unaffected by proposed timber and 

road activities under all alternatives. 

Timber rattlesnake Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – „may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability‟ determination as a result of the Upper Kinzua Project. However, on 

previously approved and future projects on National Forest land or private forestland within the 

CE analysis area, these activities will alter foraging habitat. In addition, there is a remote chance 

that oil and gas activities may impact (harm or harass) foraging individuals if activities occur 

during the species’ active period, but these actions are not likely to cause a trend toward federal 

listing of this species. 

Alternative 2 – „may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal 

listing or loss of viability‟. Suitable foraging habitat may be altered, but this change is not 

likely to cause a trend toward federal listing of the species. On projected projects on National 

Forest land or private forestland within the CE analysis area, these activities will alter foraging 

habitat. There is a remote chance that these actions may impact (harm or harass) foraging 

individuals if activities occur during the species’ active period.

WOOD TURTLE (Glyptemys insculpta)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for wood turtles, is 

discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 285- 290). 
27

Project Area Habitat

Wooded riparian flood plains are abundant on the ANF, however, riparian flood plains that 

possess enough openings in the canopy to support a thick herbaceous understory may be 

limiting. Other limiting features include areas of sandy stream and river banks and suitable 

habitat that is not heavily disturbed by human recreational use. Riparian surveys along Kinzua 

Creek have documented the presence of this species in the UK project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2

This species is a good indicator of habitat integrity and water quality and depends on intact, wellfunctioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems; therefore, the impacts, design features, and Forest 

Plan S&Gs as well as site-specific mitigations discussed under the channel darter, fish, and 

invertebrates apply to the wood turtle as well. 

The open and semi-open savannah/orchard habitat associated with riparian areas has the best 

chance to contain inclusions of suitable foraging habitat. Whether there are riparian areas, 

wetlands, or savannah/orchards, the proposed timber harvesting and reforestation activities in the 

Upper Kinzua project do not occur in these habitats. The proposed timber harvest under 

Alternative 2 has the potential to impact individuals if a harvested tree would fall on a foraging 

individual. 

Proposed road activities and access are not anticipated to increase or encourage shooting or 

poaching of the turtle which is a primary threat to individuals. In addition, some roads will be 

closed or restricted to public use and this will lessen the likelihood of road mortality. This risk 

will continue in roads open to the public. Threats or risks regarding direct removal of wood 

turtles will remain under either of the alternatives. 

In addition to FP S&Gs concerning water quality, guidelines will be implemented if a wood 

turtle is discovered during project implementation and include the protection of its habitat home 

range (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 87)

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: Activities that have the potential to adversely affect this species or 

its habitat is discussed under the direct and indirect effects section of the Forest-wide BE. If 

wood turtles are found, appropriate measures will be taken to protect/conserve this species. 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and site-specific mitigation measures as listed under the 

channel darter will be implemented. Activities on non-federal lands that have the potential to 

adversely affect these species include over-collection of turtles, changes in local hydrology, 

habitat alteration/loss from housing development, nutrient enrichment, herbicides, road 

construction, invasive plant species, and oil and gas development.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all large stream watersheds. As a 

result, there are no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated for the wood 
28

turtle or its habitat.

Wood turtle Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – No action – „may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability‟, although proposed treatments to improve instream habitat 

and water quality such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, road reconstruction will 

not be implemented. Therefore, the beneficial effects will not occur to aquatic habitat. 

Alternative 2 - A “May impact individuals, but neither alternative is likely to cause a trend 

toward federal listing or loss of viability” determination is made for this species with 

implementation of Forest Plan S&Gs and site-specific mitigations. This determination is made 

because if a) a tree being harvested under a proposed timber harvest or wildlife opening creation 

fell on a foraging individual it could cause the death or injury to a turtle or b) equipment to move 

or place a tree or rock for instream structures either runs over or drops material on a foraging or 

hibernating wood turtle. However, impacts can be minimized by the following: 1) Management 

of riparian habitat (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of 

riparian dependent species, and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic habitat in ANF rivers, streams, 

impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain associated wood turtle habitat, 3) 

suitable wood turtle habitat will continue to be widely available under all alternatives, and 4) 

most project related activities (timber sales) are generally positioned in upland locations. Sitespecific mitigations as outlined in the channel darter section will be implemented prior to any 

work in streams or riparian areas. 

SPECIES WITH SUITABLE HABITAT BUT PRESENCE NOT DOCUMENTED

MAMMALS

NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL (Glaucomys sabrinus macrotis)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for sensitive mammals are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 207 to 210).

Project Area Habitat

Forest Plan direction emphasizes a variety of forest types (USDA-FS 2007a, 1 to14) including 

providing a conifer component on a minimum of 10% of the ANF (USDA-FS 2007a, 19). 

A northern flying squirrel was captured in 2005 during nest box surveys on State Game Lands 

(SGL) 29 within the ANF which is outside the project area. There are no nest boxes currently in 

the project area and northern flying squirrels have not been documented in the Upper Kinzua 

project area. There is no old growth in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 

No direct or indirect impacts to the northern flying squirrel are anticipated under this alternative. 

The hemlock woolly adelgid has the potential to decrease habitat by reducing the hemlock in the 

pure and mixed conifer/hardwood stands. However, proactive efforts are under way on the ANF, 

including working with Forest Pest management and other agencies to find methods in 

addressing the HWA concern. 
29

Alternative 2

This project area supports approximately 1% conifer (as conifer stands and mixed 

hardwood/conifer stands) that may provide suitable habitat. This habitat is mostly located in the 

various stream drainages. There will be no reduction in available suitable habitat. 

Under Alternative 2, proposed final harvests, overstory removals or shelterwood removals will 

change up to 1,557 acres of mature hardwood forest habitat into early structural forest habitat 

within the project. Some of these areas will retain conifer inclusions as reserve trees and reserve 

wildlife clumps. In the short-term, these forest conditions will not provide suitable habitat. Over 

the long-term, however, suitable growing conditions are expected to return to these areas as the 

forest grows and matures. Treatments do occur near riparian areas, but Forest Plan S&Gs protect 

these areas, and riparian areas are given preferential treatment. 

In addition to 41 acres of pit expansion for road construction activities and 15 acres of opening 

construction under the action alternative, no other loss in forested habitat is anticipated. As a 

result, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to this species or its habitat under this 

alternative as habitat in the mid to late structural forest will remain on over 75% of the project 

area. 

The following project design criteria will be employed under all alternatives:

Maintain the existing conifer component, and retain all hemlock and white pine > 18” 

DBH.

Project design criteria and Forest Plan S&Gs that protect snags and den trees as well as protect 

riparian corridors will be implemented. There are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to this 

species under either alternative. 

Cumulative impacts

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: There are 452 acres of previously approved treatments but none 

are in hemlock/conifer stands. While this species or its habitat could be adversely affected by 

private OGD (the loss of habitat), future infestation of the hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) poses 

the greatest risk to this species on a landscape scale. The HWA impact to large hemlocks 

(especially) along the stream bottoms could be severe to northern flying squirrels (Steele et al. 

2004) if the HWA reaches the ANF. Up to 50% of the mature hemlock on the ANF could be lost 

without an effective method for controlling the HWA. Development of private mineral rights in 

suitable northern flying squirrel habitat also has the potential to cause adverse impacts to forest 

habitat. These activities could increase the amount of non-forest habitat by almost 10% in the CE 

area over the next 20 years.

Past and future federal actions within the CE area involving vegetation management, road 

construction activities, and private land vegetation management may alter suitable habitat, but 

Forest Plan S&Gs favor conifer species and the conifer/deciduous forest will remain relatively 
30

intact on federal land. In addition, at least 75% of the habitat will remain in mature forest habitat 

in the CE area. 

Northern flying squirrel Determination and Rationale 

The state has conducted relatively extensive monitoring across Pennsylvania and only one 

location of the northern flying squirrel has been documented in NW Pennsylvania. The loss or 

reduction of the conifer component could be detrimental to this species because its primary 

habitat consists of mature mixed coniferous/deciduous closed canopy forest. The long-term 

perpetuation of the conifer component where soils are suitable is in the best interest of the 

species. The devastating effect of the HWA on hemlock Forest-wide elevates the importance of 

maintaining conifer across the landscape in order to help provide habitat for the species and its

use of large diameter conifer trees (as dens). Potential habitat will be maintained and enhanced 

as additional den sites are provided through implementation of the project design features and 

Forest Plan S&G’s. Since the project treatments are located primarily in upland terrain, potential 

‘prime’ habitat in the form of late-structural bottomland mixed conifer/deciduous forest will 

remain relatively intact in the project and CE analysis area under all alternatives. 

Alternative 1 - No Action – „no impact‟ determination anticipated, except for the potential 

impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid and ongoing private oil and gas development. 

Alternative 2 - is expected to have a „no impact‟ determination on individuals but suitable 

habitat may be altered by oil and gas development. Implementation of project design feature and 

Forest Plan S&Gs are expected to maintain suitable habitat and important habitat components 

across the project area and CE area.

BURBOT (Lota lota), MOUNTAIN BROOK LAMPREY (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi), GILT 

DARTER (Percina evides)

Fish - The following three fish species are evaluated as a group: Burbot (USDA-FS 2007, p. 

170- 172), Mountain brook lamprey (USDA-FS 2007, p. 177), and Gilt darter (USDA-FS 2007,

p. 173- 174). These fishes will be discussed as a group since they all have suitable habitat within 

the Upper Kinzua project area and are a good indicator of habitat integrity and water quality, and 

depend on intact, well-functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems. No surveys were conducted 

specifically for these species in this project area and none have been found in unrelated surveys 

previously conducted in this area. 

3 fish species

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and which is 

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 167-182). The analysis presented here relies 

heavily on the information presented in the Forest BE. Because all these species depend on 

maintaining water quality and the integrity of stream and riparian habitat within the project area, 

fish species are discussed collectively. Only three of the sensitive fish species have either 

documentation and/or suitable habitat within the project or CE areas.
31

Project Area Habitat

Suitable habitat has been documented in the Kinzua Creek and Allegheny Reservoir for these 

species. They have been documented in streams on the ANF but not within the UK project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to these species or their habitats since there are 

no new instream activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. Beneficial 

effects to these species and instream habitat may accrue over the long-term as natural recruitment 

of large wood occurs. Their primary habitats are larger streams and rivers, and water quality is 

protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Alternative 2

The potential effects to these species or their habitat are the same as described for the channel 

darter. While the majority of stands proposed for treatment are located away from streams and 

water resources, some streams and water features occur within stands proposed for treatment and 

it is possible that one of the following species could be adversely affected by proposed 

treatments. Some or all of these species could be found in suitable habitat in the project area. 

Direct mortality or injury to immature fish or adults could occur if they were crushed or hit while 

an instream structure is being placed, using or fueling equipment instream, or working during a 

hatch. Adverse indirect effects to these species could occur from any of the same upland, stream 

edge, or instream management activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb 

stream channels), create sedimentation, cause repeated or long-term disturbances (such as using 

heavy machinery instream), or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature individuals). 

Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment 

delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. However, to 

reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced 

with limestone that will reduce this potential impact. Implementation of instream channel 

improvements will be beneficial to these species and their habitats. 

Since design criteria and Forest Plan S&Gs will be implemented to protect water quality, aquatic 

species, and stream habitat and riparian areas, there are no anticipated direct or indirect effects.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential Cumulative Effects: 

Alternatives 1 and 2 - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by instream work, 

timber harvest, some reforestation, NNIP treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer applications, 

and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in Alternative 2, along with oil 

and gas development. However, Forest Plan S&Gs discussed throughout this BE will be 

implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Proposed activities designed to provide beneficial effects and maintain water quality over the 

long-term under Alternative 2 include:
32

Road maintenance (improving road-runoff management).

Limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and 

movement).

Road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat 

and natural drainage patterns within these corridors).

Instream work (providing cover to predator and prey species, water quality 

improvements, nutrient recycling, desynchronize flood releases, restoration of pool/riffle 

complexes, and increased gravel retention).

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in the reservoir and larger streams. No 

significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

3 fish species Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – No action – ‘no impact‟, proposed treatments to improve water quality or 

instream habitat, limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be 

implemented. Beneficial effects to these species and instream habitat may accrue over the longterm as natural recruitment of large wood occurs.

Alternative 2 - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be 

considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a „no impact‟ determination under 

Alternative 2. The following points justify this determination: 1) Management of riparian and 

instream habitats (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of 

riparian dependent and instream species, and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, 

impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve their habitat, 3) 

suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both 

alternatives, and 4) site specific mitigations (listed below) for proposed instream activities will 

be implemented prior to and during all proposed work until the project is stabilized. The 

probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected 

increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. 

The effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads. See the rationale for the 

channel darter above for additional information.

GREEN-FACED CLUBTAIL (Gomphus viridifrons), RAPIDS CLUBTAIL (Gomphus 

quadricolor), MUSTACHED CLUBTAIL (Gomphus adelphus), SKI-TAILED EMERALD

(Somatochlora elongata), RESOLUTE DAMSEL (Coenagrion resolutum)

INVERTEBRATES - The following 5 species are evaluated as a group: Green-faced clubtail 

(Gomphus viridifrons) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 183-185), Mustached clubtail (Gomphus adelphus)

(USDA-FS 2007, p. 192-193), Rapids clubtail (Gomphus quadricolor) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 196-

197), Resolute damsel (Coenagrion resolutum) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 197-198), and Ski-tailed 

emerald (Somatochlora elongata) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 199- 200). These invertebrate species 

will be discussed as a group since they all have suitable habitat within the Upper Kinzua project 

area and are a good indicator of habitat integrity and water quality, and depend on intact, wellfunctioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems. No surveys were conducted specifically for these 

species in this project area and none have been found in the unrelated surveys that have been 

conducted. 
33

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 183-206).

Project Area Habitat

There is a variety of aquatic habitats found across the UK project area and some amount of 

suitable habitat is available for all five of these species. The Kinzua Creek in particular provides 

suitable habitat. No surveys were conducted specifically for this project. This species has not 

been documented within the UK project area or CE area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to these species since there are no new 

activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. Beneficial effects to these species 

and instream habitat may accrue over the long-term as natural recruitment of large wood occurs. 

Alternative 2

Similar to the channel darter, direct mortality or injury to immature larvae or adults could occur 

if they were crushed or hit while placing an instream structure, using or fueling equipment 

instream, or working during a hatch. Removing or cutting trees too close to the stream banks 

could smother benthic invertebrates by increasing sediment potential. Adverse indirect effects to 

these species could occur from any of the same upland, stream edge or instream management 

activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb stream channels), create 

sedimentation, cause repeated or long-term disturbances (such as using heavy machinery 

instream), or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature individuals). Indirect effects of 

harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams 

associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. However, to reduce the risk of haul 

related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone that will 

reduce this potential impact. Implementation of instream channel improvements will be 

beneficial to these species and their habitats. 

With implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan S&Gs and site-specific mitigations, no direct 

or indirect effects are expected under either alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential Cumulative Effects: 

Alternatives 1 and 2 - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by instream work, 

timber harvest, some reforestation, NNIP treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer applications, 

and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in Alternative 2, along with oil 

and gas development. However, Forest Plan S&Gs discussed throughout this BE will be 

implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Proposed activities designed to provide beneficial effects and maintain water quality over the 

long-term under Alternative 2 include:
34

Road maintenance (improving road-runoff management).

Limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and 

movement).

Road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat 

and natural drainage patterns within these corridors).

Instream work (providing cover to predator and prey species, water quality 

improvements, nutrient recycling, desynchronize flood releases, restoration of pool/riffle 

complexes, and increased gravel retention).

See the rationale for the channel darter above for additional information.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all larger streams. No significant 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

5 Invertebrate Species Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1 – No action – ‘no impact‟, proposed treatments to improve water quality or 

habitat such as instream structure placement, limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and 

road reconstruction will not be implemented. Beneficial effects to these species and instream 

habitat may accrue over the long-term as natural recruitment of large wood occurs. 

Alternative 2 - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be 

considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a „no impact‟ determination under 

Alternative 2. The following points justify this determination: 1) Management of riparian habitat 

and aquatic (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian 

dependent species, and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, impoundments, 

and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve associated invertebrate habitat, 3) 

suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both 

alternatives, and 4) site specific mitigations (the same as listed above in the channel darter) for 

proposed instream activities will be implemented prior to and during all proposed work. The 

probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected 

increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. 

The effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads. 

„No impact‟ determinations are made for these five invertebrate species under both alternatives. 

PLANTS

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and 

indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are 

incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 211- 273).

The plants are analyzed according to their habitat breakdown in the Forest-wide BE. It should be 

noted that many of the plant’s primary habitats are either riparian or wetland, which is given 

preferential treatment under the Forest Plan and S&Gs are implemented to protect this type of 

habitat. Some plants may occur in openings or upland forest as well as inclusions in wet areas. 

Forest plan S&Gs gives preferential treatment to these areas and unique plant communities will 

be protected using reserve areas or other guidelines. The habitat for these plants may be altered 
35

but sufficient habitat remains in the short term in the remainder of the project area and in the 

long term areas will return to a forested condition in most areas. 

Non-Forest (Xeric) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 214-219)

AMERICAN FEVER-FEW (Parthenium integrifolium) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 214- 219)

Project Area Habitat

Although this species is not known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at 

scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatments were surveyed and this species was not 

found on any of the sites surveyed. Its habitat is considered to be light (sandy) well-drained, dry 

soil in open canopy. This species is shade intolerant. There are numerous openings within the 

project area but this species was not found.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 

There will be no direct impacts attributed to this alternative. There are no activities under this 

alternative that would cause a direct impact. 

Alternative 2

Activities that are considered to have either potential direct or indirect adverse effects to 

American fever-few or its habitat include burning, gravel pits (development and/or expansion), 

herbicide treatment, intensive use areas, road construction, road decommissioning, road 

reconstruction, and wildlife opening creation. While these activities are proposed under this 

alternative, impacts can be minimized by implementing Forest Plan S&Gs and the appropriate 

design criteria. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential Cumulative Effects: 

Activities Proposed on NFS Lands - Activities that have the potential to adversely affect 

American fever-few or its habitat are discussed under the direct and indirect effects section. If 

plants are found, appropriate measures will be taken to protect/conserve this species. Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and/or site specific mitigation measures will be implemented. 

Activities on Non-National Forest System lands within the Cumulative Effects Boundary -

Threats to this species on non-Forest Service land within the cumulative effects boundary 

include direct mortality from over-collection of plants or plant parts for medicinal uses and 

aesthetics, habitat alteration from encroachment by woody vegetation and/or invasive plant 

species, nutrient enrichment (fertilizers), housing development, roads, gravel pits, trails, or oil 

and gas development.

American fever-few Determination and Rationale

A „may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of 

viability‟ determination is made for American fever-few under both alternatives. This 

determination is based on the following rationale:
36

Known populations occur on private land within the ANF proclamation boundary.

If plants or populations are found on NFS land, Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or 

site specific mitigation measures will be implemented to conserve this species.

Habitat and species protection/conservation on private land is regulated under Chapter 45 -

Conservation of Pennsylvania Native Wild Plants.

Non-Forest (Hydric) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 219- 233)

CREEPING SNOWBERRY (Gaultheria hispidula) (Hayes, 2001a, 27pages)

Project Area Habitat

Habitat for this species is generally best described as bogs and wet woods, where it may occur on 

a variety of substrates including downed logs, stumps, mosses, mud and bare ground. All stands 

proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites 

surveyed. Although creeping snowberry is not known to occur within the project area, suitable 

habitat does occur at scattered locations.

ROUGH COTTON-GRASS (Eriophorum tenellum) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 221- 222)

Project Area Habitat

Habitat for this species is generally described as bogs and swamps (Gleason 1952). Such areas 

are generally hummocky with sphagnum moss. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed 

and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. Although rough cotton grass is not 

known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur.

THREAD RUSH (Juncus filiformis) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 224- 227)

Project Area Habitat

Thread rush occupies a variety of moist or wet habitats including sandy shores of streams and 

lakes, bogs and alpine meadows (Gleason 1952). All stands proposed for treatment were 

surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. Although thread rush is 

not known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur.

WIEGAND'S SEDGE (Carex wiegandii) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 227- 233)

Project Area Habitat

It is most often found in acidic soils of drier shrubby, sometimes disturbed margins of acidic 

sphagnum bogs or poor fens. It occurs in both stable natural communities with infrequent 

disturbance such as bogs and poor fens, and dynamic habitats such as successional areas. All 

stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites 

surveyed. Although Wiegand’s sedge is not known to occur within the project area, suitable 

habitat does occur.

BOREAL BOG SEDGE (Carex magellanica irrigua) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 219- 220)

Project Area Habitat

Boreal bog sedge occurs in acid swamps and sphagnum bogs from Newfoundland to Alaska, 

south in our range to Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota (Gleason and 

Cronquist 1991). While this species is not known to occur within the project area, suitable 

habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and 

this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. 
37

QUEEN-OF-THE-PRAIRIE (Filipendula rubra) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 219- 220)

Project Area Habitat

The species is found in moist meadows, thickets, and roadsides; scattered; native, but also 

escaped from cultivation (Rhoads and Block 2000). There are two known populations at 

Brookston which occurs in a wet drainage area adjacent to road and at Loleta where a population 

occurs in a wet meadow and roadside. This species is not found within the project area but 

suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were 

surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. 

STALKED BULRUSH (Scirpus pedicellatus) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 222- 223)

Project Area Habitat

It occurs along the Allegheny River at the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission river access 

area in Tionesta (CMNH 2004) in a seep along the edge of the river. While this species is not 

known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All 

stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites 

surveyed. 

Mature Mixed Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 241-247)

MOUNTAIN WOOD FERN (Dryopteris campyloptera) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 241)

Project Area Habitat

Suitable habitat (mature mixed deciduous forest) is broadly distributed and abundant across the 

ANF. Small habitat gaps may occur as non-forested areas/open canopy areas. On the ANF it has 

been found in a red pine stand. While this species is not known to occur within the project area, 

suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were 

surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. 

HOOKER’S ORCHID (Platanthera hookeri) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 241- 247)

Project Area Habitat

It can be found in semi-shade in coniferous woods, especially in well-drained soil of a sandy 

texture; occasionally reported from beech-sugar maple woods. While this species is not known 

to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands 

proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites 

surveyed. 

Mature Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (Shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 233- 240)

WHITE TROUT-LILY (Erythronium albidum) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 234-240)

Project Area Habitat

The white trout-lily is found in mature, deciduous, mesic forest, under shade. While this species 

is not known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. 

All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the 

sites. 

Mature Mixed Deciduous (Mesic) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 247- 253)

CHECKERED RATTLESNAKE PLANTAIN (Goodyera tesselata) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 247-

253)
38

Project Area Habitat

Checkered rattlesnake plantain is a woodland species typically found growing in upland 

coniferous or mixed deciduous/coniferous forest. It is shade tolerant. While this species is not 

known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All 

stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites. 

Mature Mixed Deciduous (Mesic/Hydric) (Sun to Partial shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 253-

254)

BRISTLY BLACK CURRANT (Ribes lacustre) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 253-254)

Project Area Habitat

It can grow in semi-shade (light woodland) or no shade (PFAF 2004). In sunlight it grows erect, 

but in shade, branches are often reclining or trailing. Bristly black currant occurs in woods, 

forests, and shrublands. While this species is not known to occur within the project area, suitable 

habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and 

this species was not found on any of the sites. 

Mature Mixed Deciduous (Mesic/Hydric) (Partial shade to shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 260-

268)

BARTRAM SHADBUSH (Amelanchier bartramiana) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 260-261)

Project Area Habitat

Bartram shadbush can be found in swamps, sphagnum bogs, peaty thickets, moist woods, 

swamps, and stream banks. While this species is not known to occur within the project area, 

suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were 

surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites. 

RED CURRANT (Ribes triste) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 263-268)

Project Area Habitat

It has been found at two locations on the ANF during a survey in a bottomland wetland forest in 

2000 and during an OGD review in 2007. While this species is not known to occur within the 

project area, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment 

were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. 

MOUNTAIN STARWORT (Stellaria borealis spp. Borealis) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 262-263) 

Project Area Habitat

It occurs in springy wooded slopes, sphagnum swamps and stream banks. While this species is 

not known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All 

stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites 

surveyed. 

Mature Mixed Deciduous Forest (Hydric) (Shade)

KIDNEY-LEAVED TWAYBLADE (Listera smallii) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 268-273)

Project Area Habitat

This species was found on the ANF in a ‘wet sphagnum/boggy opening in woods’ (WPC 1989b).

While this species is not known to occur within the project area, suitable habitat does occur at 

scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not 

found on any of the sites. 
39

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 and 2

The potential effects to these species are the same as described in the Forest-wide Biological 

Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 211-273). Forest Plan S&Gs and site-specific mitigations will 

reduce or avoid impacts to the all the potential suitable environments. These species all use a 

wide variety of habitats that can be found across the project area. 

The level of activities directly affecting their habitats as well as improvements to existing roads 

(road maintenance) is low. Design features and Forest Plan S&Gs will protect the various 

habitats. 

Based on the analysis presented in the Forest-wide BE which includes design features and Forest 

Plan S&G’s, adverse impacts to this species may be considered negligible under either of these 

alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential cumulative effects: Activities that have the potential to adversely affect these species 

or their habitats are discussed under the direct and indirect effects section of the Forest-wide BE. 

If plants are found, appropriate measures will be taken to protect/conserve these species. Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines and/or site specific mitigation measures will be implemented. 

Activities on non-federal lands that have the potential to adversely affect these species include 

over-collection of plants or plant parts, changes in local hydrology, habitat alteration/loss from 

instream structure placement, housing development, nutrient enrichment, herbicides, road 

construction, invasive plant species, and oil and gas development.

The following site-specific mitigation shall apply to all instream structure placement projects:

A botanist or wildlife tech will survey access pathways and work locations where 

machinery may be used to place instream structures, specifically in riparian zones where 

vegetation adapted to wet conditions may be found. If sensitive plants are found they 

will be protected or avoided.

Plant Determinations and Rationale

The determination for all the above listed plant species is ‘may impact individuals, but will not 

cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ with implementation of Forest Plan 

S&Gs. In addition:

If plants or populations are found on NFS land, Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

and/or site specific mitigation measures will be implemented to conserve this species.

Habitat and species protection/conservation on private land is regulated under Chapter 

45 - Conservation of Pennsylvania Native Wild Plants.

BIRDS
40

YELLOW-BELLIED FLYCATCHER (Empidonax flaviventris)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the Yellow-bellied 

flycatcher, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 161-166). 

Project Area Habitat

There are only a few sites that contain the four criteria identified as being required by this 

species. Suitable habitat is defined as having all of the following: 1) the presence of saturated 

soils, 2) a substantial conifer component, 3) dense undergrowth, especially sphagnum moss and 

4) are at least 1.5 acres in size. No flycatchers were found at any of the sites on the ANF 

surveyed by the Northeast Forest Experiment Station (Stoleson and Ordiway 2003). At least 50 

avian species were observed or heard during field surveys in 2002 and 2003 by district 

personnel, but the yellow-bellied flycatcher was not documented in the UK project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2

This species and its habitat could be adversely affected by any activity that would disturb nesting 

birds or modify suitable habitat conditions on private or National Forest land such as oil and gas 

development or timber harvest on private lands. However, potential direct and indirect effects on 

NFS lands are expected to be minimized through implementation of Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines that call for the protection of suitable habitat. Additionally, much of the potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs within riparian areas, which are managed to promote 

natural conditions and have reduced levels of management. As a result, this is expected to 

further reduce potential impacts.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the BA.

Potential Cumulative Effects: Suitable habitat for this species has been avoided and is further 

protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and site specific mitigation measures. 

Further, all stands proposed for treatments were surveyed and none of the sites include the 

habitat conditions preferred by this species. As a result, there are no cumulative effects to this 

species anticipated under either alternative.

Yellow-bellied flycatcher Determination and Rationale

Alternatives 1 - a „no impact‟ determination is made for this alternative. No activities are 

proposed under this alternative. Therefore, the beneficial effects will not impact to aquatic 

habitat. 

Alternative 2 - ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal 

listing‟. Oil and gas impacts may occur closer to suitable habitat on both federal and private 

lands as well as timber harvest on private lands. The implementation of Forest Plan S&Gs and 

project wide design features will ensure that proposed timber harvests, herbicide and fertilizer 

applications near watercourses will not directly or indirectly impact this species or its habitat 

under the action alternative on federal lands. 

Suitable habitat for this species will be protected through Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines
41

Over 50% of potentially suitable habitat occurs within riparian areas that are specifically 

managed to provide conditions preferred by the yellow-bellied flycatcher

Resource specialists on the ANF work closely with OGD developers to avoid or mitigate 

impacts to suitable habitat that may occur from future oil and gas development.

Based on the analysis and the rationale presented above and in the channel darter section, a „may 

impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability‟

determination is made for this species.

SPECIES WITH NO SUITABLE HABITAT

WABASH PIGTOE (Fusconaia flava), CREEK HEELSPLITTER (Lasmigona compressa), 

RABBITSFOOT (Quadrula cylindrica), RAINBOW (Villosa iris), SNUFFBOX (Epioblasma 

triquetra), WHITE HEELSPLITTER (Lasmigona complanata), ROUND PIGTOE 

(Pleurobema sintoxia), LONG-SOLID MUSSEL (Fusconaia subrotundra), THREERIDGE

(Amblema plicata), GRAVEL CHUB (Erimystax x-punctata), LONGHEAD DARTER

(Percina macrocephala), BLUEBREAST DARTER (Etheostoma camurum), MOUNTAIN 

MADTOM (Noturus eleutherus), NORTHERN MADTOM (Noturus stigmosus), SPOTTED 

DARTER (Etheostoma maculatum), TIPPECANOE DARTER (Etheostoma tippecanoe), 

SWEET-SCENTED INDIAN-PLANTAIN (Hasteola suaveolens) No surveys were conducted 

specifically for these species in this project area and none have been found in the surveys that 

have been conducted. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 

The project will have „no impact‟ on these species. Suitable habitat is not present in the project 

area or CE. No further discussion of the species with no suitable habitat will occur.

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Based on the above analysis, Table 3 displays the determinations reached for the species 

analyzed in this Biological Evaluation for the Upper Kinzua Project EA. 

Table 3: Determinations for RFSS

Sensitive Species Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2
42

Species marked with an asterisk (*) have no suitable habitat in the project area. 

REFERENCES

Literature Cited

CMNH. 2004. Database Report for Warren, Forest, Elk, McKean counties: plant search 2004.

Carnegie Museum of Natural History Field surveys. Unpublished.

Enviro Science Inc. 2001. Hickory Street Bridge Replacement Project. Biological 

Assessment/Freshwater Mussel Population Survey. Stow, Ohio, 44 pp.

Gleason, H.A. 1952. Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 

Vol. 2. Published for the New York Botanical Garden by Hafner Press, New York, N.Y. 655 

pp.

Channel darter, Gilt darter, Longhead 

darter*, Spotted darter*, Gravel chub*, 

Tippecanoe darter*, Bluebreast darter*, 

Burbot, Mountain madtom*, Northern 

madtom*, Mountain brook lamprey, 

Green-faced clubtail, Harpoon clubtail, 

Rapids clubtail, Mustached clubtail, 

Midland clubtail, Ski-tailed emerald, 

Uhler's sundragon, Maine snaketail, Zebra 

clubtail, Ocellated darner, Resolute damsel, 

Long-solid mussel*, Creek heelsplitter*, 

Rabbitsfoot*, Rainbow mussel*, Round 

pigtoe*, Snuffbox*, Threeridge*, White 

heelsplitter*, Wabash pigtoe*, Sheepnose*, 

Rayed-bean*, Sweet-scented Indianplantain*, Canada yew 

No Impact No Impact.

Bald Eagle, Osprey, Yellow-bellied 

flycatcher, Northern goshawk, Northern 

flying squirrel

No Impact May impact individuals 

but is not likely to cause 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability (with 

implementation of 

Forest Plan S&G’s).

American fever-few, Timber Rattlesnake, 

Wood turtle, Butternut, Creeping 

snowberry, Rough cotton-grass, Thread 

rush, Wiegand's sedge, Boreal bog sedge, 

Hooker’s orchid, Kidney-leaved twayblade,

Stalked Bulrush, Queen-of-the-prairie, 

White trout-lily, American ginseng, 

Mountain wood fern, Checkered rattlesnake 

plantain, Bristly Black Currant, Bartram 

shadbush, Red Currant, Mountain starwort

May impact individuals 

but is not likely to cause 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability (with 

implementation of 

Forest Plan S&G’s).

May impact individuals 

but is not likely to cause 

a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of 

viability (with 

implementation of 

Forest Plan S&G’s).
43

Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United 

States and adjacent Canada. Second Edition. The New York Botanical Garden Press. 

Bronx, NY. 993 pp.

Hayes, M. 2001a. Conservation Assessment for Creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula). 

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 27 pp.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2005. Timber Harvest Operations Field 

Guide For Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control. Technical Guidance No. 3930-BKDEP4016. 

Plants for a Future Database. 2004. Plants for a Future Database is a resource center for rare and 

unusual plants, particularly those which have edible, medicinal or other uses. Available at: 

http://www.pfaf.org/

Rhoads, A.F., and T.A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual. 

University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1061 pp.

Steele, M.A., C. Mahan and G. Turner. 2004. A manual for long term monitoring and 

management of the threatened northern flying squirrel in PA. Final report and 

workingmanual. PA Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 138 pp.

Stoleson, S.H. and L. Ordiway. 2003. Surveys for Yellow-bellied Flycatchers (Empidonax 

flaviventris ) on the Allegheny National Forest. Unpublished report. Northeast Forest 

Experiment Station. Irvine, Pa. 13pp.

Turner, A. 2005. Summary of fishes collected from streams on the Allegheny National Forest. 

Unpublished.

USACOE. 2006. Electrofishing Survey on the Allegheny River below the Allegheny Reservoir, 

near Warren, Pennsylvania. Prepard by Steve Foster, Huntington District, US Army Corps of 

Engineers. 12 pp.

USDA-FS 2007. Biological Evaluation, Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA

USDA-FS 2007a Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny 

National Forest. Warren PA.

USDA-FS 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land 

and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2007d. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land 

and Resource Management Plan, Appendix (A, B-F, or G). Allegheny National Forest. 

Warren, Pennsylvania. 

USDA-FS 2008. Southwest Reservoir Wildlife Report, Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny 

National Forest., Bradford, PA 36pp.

USDA-FS 2008a. Southwest Reservoir Biological Assessment, Bradford Ranger District, 

Allegheny National Forest., Bradford, PA 36pp.

Western PA Conservancy. 1989b. Allegheny National Forest Wetland Rare plant survey. 67 pp.
44

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 2003. Spreadsheet of fish species of concern collected 

within the Allegheny National Forest. Pittsburgh, PA.

Wild Resource Conservation Fund. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Species of Pennsylvania. 

Wild Resource Conservation Fund, 80 pp. 

Personal Communications/Consultants 

April Moore – Botanist, Allegheny National Forest

Brad Nelson – Wildlife Biologist, Allegheny National Forest 

Brent Pence – Fisheries Biologist, Allegheny National Forest

Terry Steffan – Marienville District Wildlife Biologist

Robert White – Forest Silviculturist

Scott Stoleson - Northeast Forest Experiment Station

Robert Zumstein – Rattlesnake Survey Team Volunteer, Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

___\S\ Alan Wetzel __September 30, 2010_____

Alan Wetzel Date

Bradford Wildlife Biologist