United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

April 2011

Appendix C3

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT

WILDLIFE REPORT
USDA Forest Service

Allegheny National Forest

Bradford Ranger District

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 8, 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.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

3

Table of Contents

Upper Kinzua Project Wildlife Analysis and Report................................................................ 3

Methodology for Analysis............................................................................................................. 4

I. Conduct project level surveys and incorporate Forest-level monitoring......................... 5

II. Review and utilize Forest-wide monitoring data .............................................................. 7

Forest-wide Conservation Strategies................................................................................... 8

III. Identify Present Wildlife Habitat Conditions.................................................................. 8

Present Condition of Wildlife Habitat – UK Project Area ............................................. 11

IV. Identify Desired Conditions for Wildlife........................................................................ 13

Wildlife Objectives.............................................................................................................. 13

Management Indicator Species (MIS) .............................................................................. 26

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................ 28

Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines for T&E species.................................................... 47

Regional Foresters Sensitive Species................................................................................. 47

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................................... 47

V. Evaluate Effects to Wildlife............................................................................................... 50

Scale of Analysis.................................................................................................................. 50

Fine Filter ............................................................................................................................ 50

Coarse Filter ........................................................................................................................ 50

Cumulative Effects - Analysis Period................................................................................ 50

Effects to Management Indicator Species................................................................................. 51

Cerulean Warbler ............................................................................................................... 51

Mourning Warbler.............................................................................................................. 54

Northern Goshawk.............................................................................................................. 56

Aquatic Invertebrates......................................................................................................... 59

Timber Rattlesnake ............................................................................................................ 59

Species with Viability Concerns ................................................................................................ 61

Effects to Species with Viability Concerns ............................................................................... 62

Birds..................................................................................................................................... 62

Reptiles................................................................................................................................. 63

Amphibians.......................................................................................................................... 63

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 63

Upper Kinzua Project Wildlife Analysis and Report
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

4

Methodology for Analysis

Analysis Process

This report identifies a 5-step process that was used to provide wildlife analysis for the Upper 

Kinzua Project (UK) Environmental Assessment (EA). Specifically, this process is used to: (1) 

identify the wildlife present condition or affected environment within the project area, (2) define 

the site-specific wildlife purpose and need or desired condition as it relates to the objectives of 

the Forest Plan, (3) identify activities that will help achieve desired wildlife habitat conditions, 

(4) identify unique or sensitive wildlife habitat conditions or communities that need to be 

protected or enhanced, and (5) evaluate potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat that may 

occur as a result of proposed activities.

The species evaluated for analysis include at-risk species (TES) and Management Indicator 

Species (MIS). Some of these species either do not occur in the project area, or their habitat 

would not be affected by the proposed actions and the level of detail provided in the project 

Biological Analysis (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) varies by species.

Field surveys were conducted during the spring, summer, and fall of 2008 and 2009 to collect 

information related to vegetative and wildlife communities within the affected watersheds 

including: (1) a compartment examination survey to collect overstory and understory information 

related to wildlife habitat, (2) stand level surveys in all sites proposed for treatment by a wildlife 

biologist and/or wildlife technician and a botanist, (3) raptor nest searches, (4) breeding bird 

surveys with an emphasis on the cerulean warbler conducted by the Northern Research Station 

(conducted annually), and (5) bat mist net surveys. 

This analysis of the wildlife resource is done using a multi-scale analysis that includes a 

combination of three basic strategies: 

(1) A coarse filter approach is used to identify plant and associated wildlife communities across 

the watershed. This approach assumes that if the species, genetics, functions and processes are 

protected at the community level, then the bulk of the biotic species, both known and unknown, 

will also be protected.

(2) The second strategy is the MIS approach, which is used to reduce the complexity of 

discussing all of the wildlife species on the Forest. Groups of wildlife associated with vegetative 

communities or key habitat components have been identified and selected as management 

indicators. Potential effects of proposed actions on wildlife are then evaluated by monitoring 

habitat changes of the selected indicator species. 

(3) The third strategy, or fine filter approach, is used to assess habitat and effects on TES, as well 

as on unique or uncommon communities such as riparian areas, wetlands, and areas of rock 

outcroppings or concentrated spring seeps. A fine filter approach is used on these resources, 

since effects may not be apparent using the coarse filter and MIS approach. In addition, 

approaches #1 and #2 are used to analyze the additional Species with Viability Concerns that are 

not covered above. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

5

Information in this site-specific analysis was tiered from the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) and 

FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b) analysis, which included contributions from agency scientists and 

resource specialists, other federal and state agencies such as informal consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and public comments. Together, that analysis combined 

with site-specific information here, constitutes the best available science for identifying the 

present wildlife habitat condition and the desired future condition (DFC). This information was 

also used to identify project design features and to evaluate effects of alternatives considered on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Professional judgment is the basic method used to forecast these effects. The judgment is backed 

by applying the most applicable scientific information available related to wildlife use on the 

ANF, by applying knowledge and experience related to the proposed actions, and by 20 years 

experience observing and evaluating changes in wildlife use and habitat conditions from 

similarly proposed activities on the ANF and at other locations in past assignments. As stated, 

the Forest Plan was developed using these methods (USDA-FS 2007c, 40). In addition, the 

analysis contained in the Upper Kinzua Project Biological Assessment (BA), Biological 

Evaluation (BE), and this wildlife report is tiered to the Forest Plan Biological Evaluation which 

was developed in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and input from 

other state and federal agencies as well as current scientific literature. 

I. Conduct project level surveys and incorporate Forest-level monitoring 

Research and field surveys to collect information related to vegetative and wildlife communities 

within the project area were conducted during the spring, summer, and fall of 2008 and 2009. 

This survey work included the following; 

All available resources and information pertaining to the Upper Kinzua project area were 

compiled. This included aerial photos, maps, past timber sale information, past wildlife 

surveys, past wildlife habitat projects, known compartment and stand information, and 

private land information. 

This information helped field survey crews to establish surveys throughout the project 

area, paying close attention to areas where potential habitat for TES has been documented 

or where unique habitats occurred. Surveys followed an intuitive meander to cross a 

variety of habitats or intersect treatment proposals. The information collected included 

identification of unique stand features and collection of overstory and understory 

information necessary to evaluate wildlife habitat conditions, stand structural

considerations, amount of coarse woody debris, seeps, springs and wetlands, stick nests, 

crown closure, amount of snags, and any wildlife seen during the survey. This survey 

data was used to identify many of the habitats that represent specific wildlife 

communities across the project area, as well as identify specialized habitat inclusions that 

influence wildlife distribution and use. Information from these surveys was also used to 

help identify wildlife needs, identify areas that needed further field survey and/or 

validation, and to identify habitat conditions for MIS and select TES. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

6

Using survey information and aerial photographs, unique habitats are validated on the 

ground. Areas that may be adversely affected by proposed management activities are 

also identified so that these areas can be either avoided prior to layout or mitigated during 

layout. Some treatments that are never carried forward as a proposed action are deferred 

in this way. This also helps to identify areas that should be given preferential 

consideration, per Forest Plan direction. 

Once preliminary management activities are identified, sites proposed for treatment 

usually receive field review(s) by a wildlife biologist, forester, forest or biological 

technician, and/or botanist in addition to the meandering transects. These are done in an 

effort to (1) identify unique wildlife and plant communities or habitats, (2) help identify 

wildlife needs and/or habitat improvement opportunities on or near the site, and (3) 

identify the presence of wildlife TES species, Forest species of special concern, or 

species where there is a potential for a viability concern. These surveys also help to 

refine the specific proposed action and often help to modify the treatment boundary (i.e. 

layout the stand to avoid a within-stand feature or have reserve areas important to 

wildlife). These surveys are also used to identify site-specific mitigation measures that 

are carried forward into implementation, as well as to help refine wildlife marking 

guidelines and recommendations. 

Raptor nest searches have been conducted repeatedly during the roads analysis and EA 

analysis period, and all stands proposed for treatment are visited to identify nest sites 

during survey, layout, and implementation. A review of the Forest GIS layers established 

a baseline of information for historic and active raptor nests. 

Small whorled pogonia (SWP) surveys were conducted in areas of high potential as 

described by the SWP model, as well as on all areas proposed for treatment. To date, over 

3,000 acres within the project area have received SWP surveys and all stands proposed 

for timber treatments containing high potential habitat within the project area were 

surveyed during the July blooming period using this protocol. Additional acres were 

surveyed during the resource impact review of scattered OGD proposals as they were 

submitted to the ANF. 

Wetland plant surveys within the project area were conducted by the ANF botanist, the 

district wildlife/botany technician, and by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (1989). 

These surveys occurred at larger wetlands and were done primarily to characterize flora 

on the site and identify TES plant species and/or species of special concern. 

Site specific plant surveys were conducted within the project area, which include (1) 

stand surveys used to determine the presence of species of concern or unique elements on 

a site proposed for treatment, (2) surveys in stands proposed for treatment to determine 

the presence of any TES plant species, Forest plant species of special concern (RFSS) or 

plant species where there may have been a viability concern, and (3) road and stand 

surveys to determine the status of undesirable weeds or non-native invasive species 

(NNIP) within the project area. These surveys were conducted using wildlife survey 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

7

methods as previously described, SWP surveys, NNIP surveys, stocking surveys, or 

silvex data collection. 

Between 1998 and 2010, the project area received 24 summer roost bat surveys, detailing 

information about the presence of bats in the project area.

Documentation of project level surveys can be found in the project file. Forest-wide survey 

work identified above is available upon request. 

II. Review and utilize Forest-wide monitoring data

In addition to project level surveys identified above, information related to TES and unique plant 

and animal communities found on the ANF are also collected at the Forest level, often in the 

most suitable habitat available. Surveys and monitoring conducted across the Forest to date 

include: 1989 Wetland Rare Plant Survey, 1989 Allegheny River Wilderness Islands Mussel 

Survey, 1992 Goshawk Survey, 1994 Mussel and Dragonfly Survey in Selected Streams on the 

ANF, 1996 Invertebrate Survey of Stands Affected by Elm Spanworm, 1997 Survey and 

Analysis of Bat Species Richness in Old Growth versus Second-Growth Forest Stands, and 

Forest-wide bat surveys at 397 sites, including 24 sites within the project area. Past survey work, 

including survey protocols and results, are available upon request. Additionally, some aspects of 

habitat and species monitoring for MIS has been accomplished on the Forest, including 

information on northern goshawk nests, rattlesnake dens, and songbird surveys. Information 

from these efforts are carried forward into project analysis and used to evaluate effects to MIS. 

Some of this information is presented in annual monitoring reports and species specific surveys 

conducted for TES at both the Forest and project levels, which are discussed in the Biological 

Assessment, Biological Evaluation, the Upper Kinzua Project EA, and this wildlife report. 

Wildlife monitoring at the Forest level has also been conducted by the Northeast Forest 

Experiment Station and, to date, wildlife monitoring data has been collected from 53 separate 

stands across the Forest. The type of data collected varies by site, but usually includes 

information related to songbirds, small mammal and amphibian communities, and data on deer 

numbers and habitat conditions. 

Research and field biologists at the Northeast Forest Experiment Station have been interpreting 

the data collected at the above sites to identify habitat conditions specific to the ANF that may 

affect wildlife distribution and use. Preliminary analysis from this information was used in the 

UK EA and the UK roads report, and this information included the following;

Identification of within-stand features relating to the presence and abundance of 

amphibians and reptiles. Within-stand features evaluated include seeps, sterile and 

vegetated springs, riparian areas, water zones and impoundments, wetland inclusions, 

surface boulders, and rock and rock shelters.

Identification of bird communities characteristic of a variety of overstory conditions 

found on the ANF including canopy dwelling species and nesters, species associated with 

a deciduous overstory with dense canopy closure, species associated with a coniferous 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

8

overstory with dense canopy closure, species associated with a mixed coniferous and 

deciduous overstory, primary and secondary cavity nesters, and forest dwelling cavity 

nesters.

Identification of bird communities associated with specific within-stand features found on 

the ANF including wooded ravines, species associated with a dense shrub structure 

(ericaceous shrub, deciduous shrub, coniferous shrub, and herbaceous shrub), species 

associated with temporary and permanent upland openings, lowland shrub and upland 

herbaceous openings, and savannas. 

Information from monitoring data collected at these sites is used to assess anticipated effects to 

wildlife from proposed actions, including changes in wildlife habitat conditions and changes in 

the wildlife community. Since these sites and treatments are characteristic and representative of 

those being evaluated within the project area, this information frequently provides the most 

accurate prediction of anticipated changes to wildlife and wildlife habitat and is also used to help 

address Forest and project level issues.

Forest-wide Conservation Strategies

Developing a conservation strategy requires thoroughly assessing habitat conditions. Through its 

Forest-wide wildlife monitoring efforts (wetland plant surveys, breeding bird transects, etc.), the 

ANF has been collecting necessary information from which conservation strategies can be 

developed. Additionally, the ANF is coordinating with other Forests across the Region, as well 

as other agencies, to develop conservation assessments and strategies for all of the RFSS. 

Conservation Assessments (CA) have been completed for a number of species and other CAs are 

in various stages of development or review and include an assessment of habitat conditions, 

trends, limiting factors, and a summary of survey work completed, including on-Forest 

monitoring/surveying. Information from draft and final CAs were considered in the effects 

analysis completed for the UK EA and BE.

Effects to wildlife, including TES, which are the species most at risk, are evaluated in the 

Biological Assessment (BA), Biological Evaluation (BE) of the UK EA and used the most 

current and applicable science available to identify the present wildlife habitat condition and the 

DFC. Forest-wide surveys and documentation identified above is available on request. 

III. Identify Present Wildlife Habitat Conditions

Project level and Forest-wide data is collected, and much of this information is stored in a GIS 

database. Maps and stand level tabular data are created using GIS to identify and describe 

forested and non-forested communities, specialized habitats or habitat inclusions, management 

emphasis areas or areas of special concern. This information is also used to describe the wildlife 

present condition, identify the wildlife purpose and need, and to identify wildlife habitat 

improvement work proposed. Information from this section is summarized in this wildlife 

report, the UK EA, Biological Assessment, and Biological Evaluation. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

9

Introduction

This report describes the current wildlife habitat conditions that exist on the UK project area 

(PA) and evaluates effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat from management activities proposed 

in the UK EA. 

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

reference.

The analysis presented considers regulatory direction related to wildlife resources, describes site 

specific habitat conditions that exist within the project area, and based on current conditions, 

identifies the wildlife Desired Future Condition (DFC) identified in the ANF Forest Plan 

(USDA-FS 2007a), management recommendations and treatments to move toward the Forest 

Plan DFC, and effects on MIS or species that are monitored across the Forest to assess effects of 

management. Because wildlife distribution and use is determined by both site specific and 

landscape level conditions, a multi-scale analysis is presented that looks at changes in habitat 

conditions on specific stands proposed for treatment (fine filter analysis), as well as landscape 

considerations (coarse filter analysis), such as the availability of habitat within and adjacent to 

the project area. Although this report summarizes potential effects on species whose viability is 

considered most at risk (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES)), more detailed 

information on TES species is presented in the BA and BE, which are available in the UK project 

file. 

 

Regulatory Framework

Regulatory direction applicable to the management of wildlife resources includes:

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended)

National Forest Management Act (NMFA) of 1976 (as amended)

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act)

ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a)

Forest Service policy regarding wildlife (FSM 2600)

Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Plan contains specific goals, objectives, management direction and standards related 

to management of the Forests’ wildlife resources, which are summarized below: 

Goals

The following Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management Goals (USDA-FS 2007a, 

pp. 13, 14 & 15) apply to the UK project:

Maintain and enhance the distribution and diversity of plant and animal species by providing 

a diversity of high quality habitats across the landscape.

Contribute to the conservation and enhancement of habitat integrity for species with 

viability concerns by protecting specific habitat elements crucial to the long-term 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

10

sustainability of those species. Provide nesting sites, breeding area, and young-rearing 

habitat relatively free from human disturbance for species with viability concerns.

In the spatial distribution of habitats, provide habitat connectivity, interior habitat, and 

remote habitat.

Provide habitat for game species to make opportunities available for quality hunting and 

fishing experiences while promoting the management of game species that sustains healthy 

forest understories.

Develop and maintain mast-producing species on a variety of sites including lowlands, midslopes and ridge-tops. Maintain a diversity of understory and overstory mast producing 

species.

Conserve and enhance native plant diversity, abundance and distribution across the ANF. 

Explore opportunities for habitat restoration/enhancement and/or establishment of species in 

suitable unoccupied habitat.

Develop and implement a proactive, integrated noxious weed and invasive plant 

management program to conserve forest resources in a manner that presents the least hazard 

to humans and maintains or restores forest resources.

Objectives

The following Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management Objectives (USDA-FS 

2007a, pp. 18 & 20) apply to the UK project:

Enhance wildlife habitat on 1,200 to 1,600 acres each year to provide desired cover and 

forage conditions.

Manage white-tailed deer populations to sustain herbaceous and woody species diversity 

across the landscape (10 to 20 deer per square mile).

Manage the following to ensure a stable or increasing population trend for species with 

viability concerns: 

Active great blue heron colonies; 

Occupied northern flying squirrel nesting sites; 

Known locations of plant species with viability concerns; 

Suitable nesting habitat for yellow-bellied flycatcher; 

Active northern goshawk hawk territories; 

Active red-shouldered hawk territories; 

Known and historic den locations for the timber rattlesnake; 

Occupied osprey nesting sites.

Contribute to the recovery objectives for federally threatened, endangered and 

candidate species by: 

Preventing the introduction of zebra mussels into the Allegheny Reservoir and 

Allegheny River from Forest Service boat launch sites. Assist other agencies in 

developing and implementing contingency plans and protocols for zebra mussel 

control and/or native mussel species protection in the event of zebra mussel incursion; 

Providing optimum and suitable vegetative habitat for Indiana bats on a minimum of 

30 percent of the ANF; 

Maintaining or increasing productivity of bald eagles on the ANF (measured by the 

number of chicks that successfully fledge).
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

11

Complete 300 to 600 acres of invasive plant treatment annually.

Direction

The UK project area includes a total of 27,514 acres of National Forest System lands managed as 

follows; 547 acres of MA 2.1 (2%), 4,479 acres of MA 2.2 (16%), 22,397 acres of MA 3.0 

(79%), and 62 acres of MA 7.1 (<1%). The wildlife DFC and primary wildlife objectives within 

each of these management areas are described in the Forest LRMP (pp. 106,109, 113, 133) and

hereby incorporated by reference. 

Present Condition of Wildlife Habitat – UK Project Area

The forest composition and structure of the project has been greatly influenced by past timber 

harvesting activities. Evidence of the railroad-logging era (1900-1930) including railroad grades, 

cultural remains, and numerous small openings can be observed along the perennial streams in 

the affected watersheds. Since 1930, forest composition and structure have been affected by 

varying types and amounts of vegetation management. Recent declines in forest health due to 

drought, insect pests, and various complexes of diseases plus catastrophic wind storms have 

altered many forested stands throughout the region causing higher than normal tree mortality 

with numerous standing dead trees, trees with cavities available to, or made by, wildlife, trees 

with exfoliating bark, and additional coarse woody material on the forest floor. 

The forest types and age classes for the stands in the UK project area are displayed in Table 1 on 

page 14). Primarily, wildlife habitat in the project consists of two principle forest age classes. 

Early structural habitat (0-20 years old) covers approximately 9% of the project area, while the 

majority of the project area (91%) is in the mid-structural class (21-150 years old) and is 

characteristic of that vegetative stage. By far, the dominant forest community types are 

Allegheny hardwoods and mixed upland hardwoods composed of black cherry, red maple, 

beech, and sugar maple. Mast-producing hardwood stands occupy approximately 97% of the 

project.

Of the 27,514 acre project area (public land acres), <3% (~664 acres) is classified as opening 

habitat, specifically herbaceous openings and pits, islands, overhead electric ROWs or openings 

associated as lowland shrubs. Other non-forest habitat exists as small inclusions within forested 

stands in the project and is associated with roads, pipelines, utility corridors, private oil or gas 

developments, log landings, and other forest openings such as the pump storage reservoir.

Unique plant communities, specialized habitat (raptor nests), sensitive ecosystems (springs and 

seeps), snags (standing dead trees), and coarse woody material (down logs) on the forest floor 

are conditions that would be protected or maintained at desired levels under the Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) as well as site-specific design features. Highly valued hardmast trees (such as oak, etc.), soft-mast producing shrubs (witch hazel), and conifer (hemlock) 

that are minor components of the forest canopy or understory would be reserved and maintained. 

These components would be encouraged to increase their distribution in the new early structural 

forest condition.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

12

Conifer Component 

Eastern hemlock is found mainly in the UK riparian corridors and across upland areas near 

Kinzua Creek, Meade Run, Wintergreen Run, Windfall Run, Thundershower Run and Turnup 

Run in the project area (8 stands encompassing 235 acres). Several of the smaller stream 

corridors lack a conifer overstory and have only a minimal midstory component. There is only 

one stand (23 acres) typed as white pine and 3 red pine stands (20 acres) documented in the 

project area. When it occurs, hemlock inclusions can be found in the understory, midstory and/or 

overstory. Less than 1% of the project area is typed as conifer (50% or more of trees in the stand 

are conifer) and <1% of the area was recorded as having some conifer as described above. 

Hemlock is susceptible to attack by a non-native insect pest; the hemlock woolly adelgid. There 

are no effective natural or artificial controls in place in the United States. The killing front is in 

eastern Pennsylvania and is expected to move slowly west and ultimately affect the ANF. 

Proactive efforts are being considered on the ANF to increase the health and vigor of hemlock 

and possibly increase its resistance to the insect pest. Another action being considered is to begin 

supplementing the current hemlock component with species that may provide similar structure or 

function such as white pine, white spruce, or red spruce. Successful under planting of conifers 

along stream corridors to increase basal area to 15 will likely increase bird diversity.

Lack of High-Value Soft and Hard Mast-Producing Wildlife Trees and Shrubs

Many stands in the project area support a dense understory of beech, striped maple, and birch 

saplings. This vegetative condition developed over several decades as overstory vegetation (in 

selected stands) developed natural canopy gaps (from insect infestations, disease, etc.) and as a 

consequence of past management activities. As a result, increased amounts of sunlight reached 

the forest floor and created favorable conditions for the growth of understory vegetation. At the 

same time, the selective browsing by high deer populations over the same period all but 

eliminated the more desirable trees (yellow poplar, cucumber, oak, and white ash) and shrubs 

(juneberry, witch hazel, mountain ash, mountain holly, and elderberry) leaving less nutritious 

(less valuable) species to dominate the understory layer in upland areas.

Mixed upland hardwoods and Allegheny hardwoods (black cherry, red maple and associated 

species) dominate the forest canopy throughout the project area. However, several stands are 

somewhat unique as they support small inclusions of yellow poplar, white ash and cucumbertree. Unfortunately, over the last 20-year period, the hardwood forest on this section of the 

Allegheny plateau has experienced four severe droughts and several outbreaks of insect 

defoliators such as the cherry scallop-shell moth, elm spanworm, and gypsy moth causing high 

rates of decline and mortality for many tree species. Additionally, the killing front of beech bark 

disease has reduced the abundance and vigor of the American beech throughout the area. Viruses 

and canker fungi have been identified as factors in the decline and mortality of white ash. Many 

factors including the lack of soil moisture and nutrients, Armillaria root rot, sugar maple borer, 

canker fungi, insect defoliators, injuries and air pollution have adversely affected sugar maple 

across the project. Not all trees have been lost, as many individual trees have been resilient, 

halted the decline, and even made a slight recovery in the past two growing seasons. However, 

taking into account the accelerated decline, the overall vigor, abundance, and diversity of trees 

species across the project area has suffered. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

13

Woody trees and shrubs from past wildlife management treatments, including witch hazel, 

juneberry, ironwood, mountain ash, and willow plantings exist in the stream corridors. Efforts 

have been made in the 1990s to plant openings in the upland as well as these riparian and 

savanna bottomlands. 

Stream and Riparian Values

The perennial streams in the project area include the Kinzua Creek, Wintergreen Run, Pine Run 

and Town Line Run which is designated as a Cold Water Fish stream. The uses for all the 

remaining streams in the project area are protected as High Quality - Cold Water Fish (HQCWF). These include Turnup Run, Thundershower Run, Windfall Run (east), Windfall Run 

(west), Meade Run and Blacksnake Run. Most of these streams support native brook trout. 

There are approximately 2,587 acres of riparian habitat. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) 

recognizes 538 acres of wetlands, with most being in the Kinzua Creek corridor which includes 

the confluence of the South Branch Kinzua Creek. 

IV. Identify Desired Conditions for Wildlife

Present Condition and Forest Plan Direction

This section describes the present wildlife conditions within the UK project area and includes a 

discussion of habitat conditions and the wildlife community that utilizes those habitats. Desired 

future conditions relating to wildlife and their habitats are identified by looking at the site 

specific conditions, as well as the desired future condition for wildlife identified in the Allegheny 

National Forest (ANF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA-FS 2007a). 

Present condition information is also used to identify the wildlife purpose and need and identify 

proposed habitat improvement work. 

Table 1 displays forest and non-forest communities that currently exist within the project area as 

a whole, as well as by Management Area (MA). The following discussion describes the value of 

each of the communities to wildlife, Forest Plan direction related to that community or habitat 

component and management recommendations that led to the development of the project purpose 

and need and proposed wildlife habitat improvement work.

Wildlife Objectives

Desired future conditions relating to wildlife and their habitats are identified by looking at the 

site specific conditions identified in the present condition, as well as the desired condition for 

wildlife, identified in the Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan). This information is then used to develop activities, or wildlife proposed actions, 

that will achieve site-specific wildlife objectives for the project area. Information for the desired 

future condition is summarized in this wildlife report and the EA, BA, and BE. Habitat 

Conditions, Mitigations, Restoration or Maintenance Activities and Wildlife Prescriptions in 

individual Management Areas are described below:

Management Area 2.1 - Forest-wide, MA 2.1 emphasizes management for within stand 

vegetative structural diversity for an uneven-aged forest. In this MA, vegetation management 

will be completed to create trees of different ages and heights (seedlings to mature). Wildlife 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

14

management will emphasize mature structural stages and complex vertical structure. The 

ground layer will also be diverse and the understory will be mostly shade tolerant. 

Management Area 2.2 - Forest-wide, MA 2.2 emphasizes management of older to late 

structural forest habitat that link relatively large areas of older forests (core areas) across the 

landscape. In this MA, vegetation management will be completed to meet the objectives for 

restoring late structural forest conditions. Management will emphasize species with viability 

concerns, remote and interior species with a high sensitivity to disturbance, and protection of 

unique macro and micro habitats (e.g. rock/boulder outcropping). Much of the area will 

generally progress to a late successional condition. 

Characteristics (i.e., structure and features of wildlife habitat) of mature forest habitat includes 

large trees creating a cool shady environment, dead (snags) and dying trees, coarse woody 

material on the forest floor, large and small trees containing cavities, forest canopy gaps, and an 

understory containing a variety of tree and shrub species (of various heights and density). The 

2007 Forest Plan (p.80) states that specialized habitats and inclusions should receive treatments 

to specifically benefit game and non-game species, species with viability concerns or unique 

ecological communities. Proposed wildlife activities include tree, shrub, and conifer planting, 

fruit tree maintenance, and opening maintenance.

The proposed timber treatments in MA 2.2 will be implemented to achieve the goals and 

objectives to benefit wildlife and late structural conditions. Canopy gap formation, snags, and 

coarse woody material on the forest floor are conditions expected to be found and functioning in 

late successional forest. These features will be maintained by the implementation of standards 

and guidelines within these stands. An array of silvicultural treatments is proposed to establish 

conditions that would help re-establish diverse forest cover on some sites. Timber harvests 

should mimic natural disturbances. Included in MA 2.2 are Restore Understory Mature Forest 

Conditions (RUMFC), non-commercial thinning, reforestation, wildlife tree and shrub planting, 

and fruit tree maintenance treatments. From a wildlife perspective, it is desirable to re-establish 

diverse forest cover and supplement hard and soft mast on these sites to continue to improve 

habitat for a multitude of wildlife species throughout the forest development process. 

Management Area 3.0 Wildlife Objectives - MA 3.0 provides a forest that is a mix of 

predominantly shade intolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood stands of various ages and associated 

understories, and habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species. Habitat management is 

directed toward emphasizing early structural species, including white-tailed deer in all forest 

types. Forest managed under MA 3.0 guidelines will result in hardwood and oaks in a variety of 

age classes with inclusions of conifer, shrub, and herbaceous openings. Specialized habitats and 

inclusions will receive treatments to benefit small-game, non-game, and certain species with 

viability concern. Activities will protect spring seeps and other water areas critical to wintering 

wildlife. Wildlife habitat management would emphasize a variety of timber age classes. 

Management will recognize deer and turkey wintering areas to provide a sustained supply of 

winter thermal cover and food. Activities will provide for the retention of dead and down logs to 

maintain habitat for indigenous species. Proposed wildlife activities include tree, shrub, and 

conifer planting, apple tree maintenance, and opening maintenance. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

15

Management Area 7.1 Wildlife Objectives - This management area does not generally 

contribute towards wildlife objectives.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

16

Table 1: Upper Kinzua Project Current Forest Condition by Management Area

1

- NFS Lands, 2 – Private, 3- % of MA, 4- NFS lands only

MA 2.1 MA 2.2 MA 3.0 MA 7.1

Project 

Area

(acres)

% acres % 

of

MA

acres %

of 

MA

acres % 

of 

MA

acres % 

of 

MA

Ownership 

Forest Service1 27,485 99 547 2 4,460 16 22,416 79 62 <1

Non-Forest Service2709 1

Reservoir 27 <1

Total 28,220 100

Forested Structural Class3

Early Structural

(0-20 yrs)

2,354 9 0 0 12 <1 12,342 10 0 0

Mid-Structural 

(21-140 yrs)

24,471 91 527 96 4,317 97 19.628 88 0 0

Late Structural 

(141-300 yrs.) 

25 <1 0 0 0 0 25 <1 0 0

Old Growth (300+) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Forest Cover Types4

Northern Red Oak (55) 28 <1 0 0 28 <1 0 0 0 0

Maple (76, 84, 85) 2,461 9 78 14 70 <2 2,312 10 0 0

Other Hardwoods(81, 83, 89) 23,958 87 449 82 4,072 91 19,437 87 0 0

Beech (86) 89 <1 0 0 0 0 89 <1 0 0

Conifer (2, 4, 5) 276 <1 0 0 159 3 117 <1 0 0

Quaking Aspen (91) 39 <1 0 0 0 0 39 <1 0 0

Openings(97, 98, 99) 664 <3 20 4 131 3 422 2 62 100

Total 27,485 547 4,479 22,416 62
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

17

Forested Habitat

Forest communities can be broken down into different structural stages, each of which provides 

different habitat conditions that support a different assemblage of wildlife. Because wildlife 

often select a specific community based on the vegetative structure provided, the following 

includes a discussion of the dominant structure and the availability of each habitat within the 

project area. A discussion of the structural conditions found on the Forest can be found on pages 

3-184 to 3-188 of the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007b), whereas the project area availability of 

these communities is displayed in Table 1. Additional information on forest conditions, 

management strategies and specific treatments can be found in the Upper Kinzua Vegetation 

Report. 

Early Structural Forest - Early structural forest results from both natural and man-induced 

disturbances of the forest canopy. These disturbances result in rapid growth of understory 

vegetation (grasses, forbs, shrubs and young trees), which attract many wildlife species to the 

site because of the food and cover conditions provided. Of the total species that use this habitat, 

30 species inhabit early structural forest exclusively, and another 150 species use a combination 

of early and mid to late structural communities. Wildlife use of early structural habitat is also 

affected by the length of time that habitat is available and DeGraaf et al (1992) found that 

regenerating forest provides the greatest benefit to wildlife when trees are generally less than 10-

15 years old. This is due to the rapid growth of the woody vegetation and the short-lived nature 

of edges created between stands. Representative wildlife species that utilize early structural 

habitat can be found on page 3-185 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b). Early structural 

habitat currently exists on approximately 12% of the project area as a whole. There is currently 

no early structural habitat designated within MA 7.1. 

Forest Plan Direction: Forest Plan direction includes providing a diversity of high quality 

habitats across the landscape (USDA-FS 2007a, 14), although the amount of the different 

structural stages to be provided varies by MA. In order to maintain or create high quality habitat 

for game species within MA 3.0, early structural habitat is to be provided on 10-12% of the area 

(USDA-FS 2007a, 113-114). 

Management Recommendations and Considerations: Early structural habitat within the project 

area will increase because salvage blowdown harvests associated with the Blacksnake Project 

will be completed by 2013. This habitat component will either be maintained or only slightly 

increase across the project area. Early structural habitat typically declines in most project areas 

which is similar to declines that are occurring throughout Pennsylvania and across the MidAtlantic Region (Trani et al 2001) and has raised concerns related to the conservation of early 

structural habitat and wildlife in the Eastern United States (Thompson et al 2001). Because of 

this decline and considering the present availability of early structural habitat is below Forest 

Plan objectives, efforts should be made to increase the amount and distribution of this habitat 

component. Treatments that are partially designed to achieve these recommendations include 2-

age harvest, shelterwood/final harvest treatments and delayed final harvest. In addition, 

implementation of proposed Aspen Clearcuts, Restore Understory and Mature Forest Conditions 

(RUMFC) and Canopy Gap treatments will create a small early structural forest component 

within a mature forest stand that many wildlife species prefer or require.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

18

Mid-structural Forest - Mid structural forest includes areas that are between 21 and 150 years 

of age (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-137), although the structure of this habitat and associated use by 

wildlife varies somewhat by age. Stands less than 50 years of age have trees five to ten inches in 

diameter with little or no understory development. Wildlife that occupies these areas is attracted 

to the dense cover conditions that result in the overstory and the absence of vegetation in the 

understory. By the time the site reaches 50 years of age the canopy begins to open up and patchy 

or scattered understory plants develop. This attracts many wildlife species to the site that utilize 

the developing understory vegetation for foraging or nesting. Mid-structural habitat between 50 

and 150 years of age also contains larger diameter trees (12-20 inches dbh), which results in 

increased mast production and greater amounts of large woody debris. As a result this older 

mid-structural habitat attracts many upper canopy and cavity nesting species. 

Wildlife use of mid-structural forest is often determined by the availability of conifer or mast, 

which can vary by cover type. For example, in years when beech nuts or cherries are plentiful, 

wildlife spend more time in northern hardwood and Allegheny hardwood stands. Acorns are 

considered the most important wildlife food in the deciduous forests of North America (McShea 

and Healy 2002), and the amount and distribution of oak also greatly influences wildlife 

distribution on the ANF. The presence of conifer can also affect wildlife use, since conifer 

inclusions can provide feeding, nesting and winter shelter opportunities that pure hardwood 

stands cannot provide. On the ANF there are 23 species that exclusively utilize deciduous forest, 

15 species that use a coniferous site and over 70 species that utilize a mid-structural mixed 

hardwood/conifer community. Representative wildlife species that utilize mid- structural habitat 

can be found on page 3-185 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b). Mid-structural forest 

currently predominates across the project area (~93%) and occurs on 86% of MA 2.2, 3.0 and 6.1 

and 7% of MA 2.2. 

Forest Plan Direction: The Forest Plan requires that a diversity of structural classes be provided 

across the landscape and Forest-wide, mid structural habitat is to be provided on 72% of the 

ANF (USDA-FS 2007a, 19). Although the amount mid-structural habitat varies by management 

area and within MA 3.0, a variety of structural stages should occur with mid-structural 

conditions predominating (USDA-FS 2007a, 113). MA 2.1 encourages vertical diversity with a 

variety of tree sizes and ages (USDA-FS 2007a, 109). Within MA 2.2, existing mid-structural 

habitat would progress through natural succession or management to late structural/old growth 

conditions and over time, mid to late structural habitat should occur on over 85% of the forested 

lands (USDA-FS 2007a, 109). Forest Plan direction also emphasis providing a variety of forest 

types (USDA-FS 2007a, 14), including providing an oak component on 15% to 20% of the 

forest, maintaining or enhancing the existing aspen component and providing a conifer 

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

importance of oak to wildlife, the Forest Plan also emphasizes the use of habitat management to 

sustain oak mast crops (USDA-FS 2007a, 15). There is only one stand typed as red oak in this 

entire project area, so oak is not considered an emphasis species in this project. However, there 

are also a number of stands with oak inclusions.

Management Recommendations and Considerations: Because many forest wildlife species 

utilize a variety of forest types and structural classes, management should strive to maintain the 

predominately forested nature of the project area, while improving the diversity of forest types 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

19

and structural classes across the landscape. Specific management recommendations related to 

maintaining forest conditions important to wildlife include 1) identify activities that will help 

increase the availability of hard mast in all forest types, 2) maintain the present distribution of 

mid-structural forest across the landscape, 3) regenerate remnant aspen stands to help maintain 

this declining but important forest community 4) implement treatments that will maintain or 

improve the distribution of conifer and 5) due to the anticipated infestation of the hemlock wooly 

adelgid (HWA), increase the amount and distribution of native conifer species that will be 

resistant to the HWA. Treatments that are partially designed to achieve these recommendations 

include; aspen treatment and area fencing, oak release, conifer planting and release and 

prescribed burning. 

Late Structural/Old Growth - The Forest Plan defines late structural habitat as forested stands 

between 151 and 300 years of age, whereas old growth includes forests greater than 300 years 

old. While there is only one stand within the project area that is 151 years old or older, there are 

areas that contain mid-structural forest that are starting to develop some late structural conditions 

such as larger diameter trees, increased amounts of dead wood and multiple canopy layers. 

Research on the ANF has shown that many wildlife species will have higher reproductive 

success in areas where these late structural/old growth conditions exist. Representative wildlife 

species that utilize late structural habitat can be found on page 3-185 of the Forest Plan FEIS 

(USDA-FS 2007b).

Forest Plan Direction: Plan direction related to providing late structural forest varies by 

management area. Within MA 3.0 late structural forest is to occur primarily as inclusions, 

particularly in riparian areas or near key wildlife habitat (USDA-FS 2007a, 113), whereas late 

structural forest should dominate the landscape within MA’s 2.1 and 2.2 (USDA-FS 2007a, 106 

and 109). 

Management Recommendations and Considerations: Although no late structural forest presently 

exists in the project area, efforts should be made to promote the structural conditions 

characteristic of these communities. Specifically, this includes promoting the creation of canopy 

gaps that result in the development of multiple canopy layers, increasing the availability of large 

diameter trees, and increasing herbaceous and shrub diversity. Because white pine was more 

abundant in Pennsylvania old growth forests than it is today, efforts should also be made to 

increase the distribution of this species across the project area. Although managed forests can 

have levels of dead wood comparable to that found in old growth stands, they generally lack the 

larger diameter downed woody debris (USDA-FS 2005b; see also Martin Run dead wood 

discussion) that is so important to this community. Efforts should be made to increase levels of 

large woody debris in areas that are being managed to provide late successional/old growth forest 

conditions. The value of dead wood for wildlife is also discussed below under special and 

unique features. Treatments that are designed to achieve these recommendations include; 

creating canopy gaps in mid-structural forest, hemlock release, conifer thinning, and RUMFC 

treatments. In addition, MA 2.2 lands will be allowed to develop late structural conditions 

through natural processes or non-commercial treatment. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

20

Non-Forested Habitat

Openings or non-forested habitat are important habitat for many wildlife species. They provide 

food and cover requirements for distinct groups of species that require openings, and provide 

seasonally important elements for many wildlife species that use a combination of forest and 

non-forest habitat. Regenerating timber stands less than 10 years of age often serves as 

temporary openings, but wildlife communities associated with upland non-forested habitat are 

quite different from those found in regenerating stands. The difference is largely due to the 

amount of dense, continuous herbaceous cover, which lasts longer in permanent openings than in 

regenerating stands. The presence of upland non-forest vegetation is necessary for over 50 

vertebrate species found on the ANF. Nine of these species rely totally on non-forested habitat 

(adapted from DeGraaf et al., 1992).

The size of an opening is also a consideration; species that utilize non-forest habitat exclusively 

tend to be found in larger openings, while species that utilize a combination of forest and nonforest types, are generally found using smaller-sized openings. The distribution of non-forested 

habitat can also greatly influence wildlife use and openings are an important habitat component 

for upland game birds such as turkey and grouse, as well as many landscape level species such as 

the red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed deer and black bear. These species utilize openings to 

raise their broods and forage, and need openings to be distributed across their home range. 

Non-forested habitat occurs on approximately 664 acres or 2.3% of the project area (87 of 100 

sites are greater than one acre). Only 13 of the wildlife openings are larger than 10 acres in size. 

The 62 acre Red Bridge Campground (C/S 457/25) is not technically an opening. It is 

completely forested except for the parking areas. The 26 acre confluence area (C/S 476/036) of 

Kinzua Creek and South Branch Kinzua Creek is flooded for 6 to 7 months each year. The other 

large openings (48 acres) follow some of the numerous overhead electric (OHE) ROW and 

pipeline ROW. Unmanaged shrub openings are found along the Kinzua Creek Riparian area. 

Forest Plan Direction: The Forest Plan recognized the importance of non-forested habitat for 

wildlife and includes Forest-wide direction related to this community. Specific Forest direction 

calls for development of openings and grasslands in upland areas to provide brood rearing habitat 

and habitat for species with viability concerns, sustaining woodcock singing grounds, 

maintaining existing old field habitat and enhancing food and cover conditions within existing

openings (USDA-FS 2007a, 81). 

 

Management Implications and Recommendations: Many of the smaller, existing openings are 

currently dominated by fern or deer tongue and can be improved by restoring or establishing 

herbaceous vegetation on the site. This will help to establish the structure preferred for brood 

habitat, as well as reduce the encroachment of woody vegetation. In addition to restoration of 

herbaceous vegetation, activities that help the establishment of native shrubs and conifer should 

be implemented in order to help promote habitat for declining shrub nesting species, as well as 

enhance food and cover conditions. Treatments that are designed to improve cover and forage 

conditions in existing openings and/or improve the distribution of non-forest habitat include; 

opening expansion/construction, opening release, opening restoration, establishment of warm 

season grasses, herbicide application, burning, and shrub, conifer and mast tree planting and 

fencing. An additional 24 acres of forest habitat will be converted to openings managed as part 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

21

of the wildlife treatments proposed in Alternative 2. This will slightly increase opening habitat 

to ~4% of the project area.

Landscape Diversity

The distribution or mixing of vegetative types, size classes, and other features to a large extent 

determines the wildlife communities that occur within forest vegetation (Smith 1962 In DeGraaf 

et al 1992). Horizontal and vertical diversity are two components of habitat structure and the 

number of species that occupy a given habitat is, in part, a function of vegetation composition 

and distribution that occur at both the site and landscape scale. Structural conditions that occur 

at the site or local scale are referred to as vertical diversity, whereas horizontal diversity is the 

amount of diversity across the landscape. Although vertical diversity has been reduced due to 

decades of overbrowsing by deer, the deer herd is currently down and opportunities exist to 

restore shrub and vegetative diversity and improve cover and forage conditions. Due to the 

predominance of mid-structural forest and a decreasing amount of early structural habitat, 

horizontal diversity across the project area is declining. The following is a discussion of how 

horizontal and vertical diversity can affect wildlife distribution and use within the project area.

Vertical Diversity and Wildlife: Vertical diversity refers to the extent to which plants are layered 

within a site and is evaluated at the stand scale. Stands with a high degree of vertical diversity 

typically develop multiple vegetative layers and are generally characterized by a diverse 

overstory, woody mid-story layers, and a well-developed herbaceous and shrub understory. 

Structural diversity has important implications for wildlife, because many species of songbirds, 

reptiles, and amphibians have specific requirements for differing amounts of structural diversity 

in their habitats. While some species require both types of diversity, vertical diversity is 

probably of greatest importance to birds (Anderson and Shugart 1974; Balada 1975 In DeGraaf 

et al 1992).

Decades of overbrowsing by deer have reduced the diversity of seedling, shrub and herbaceous 

species across the Allegheny Plateau (McShea et al., 1997; deCalesta, 1998). Deer have also 

eliminated or greatly reduced many shrub and herbaceous plant species and increased the levels 

of interfering vegetation including beech, striped maple, and fern. This has altered the structure 

and composition of forested stands over what would have occurred naturally had there been less 

deer browsing. Understory conditions today lack shrubs and often appear open or park-like. 

This reduction in vertical diversity has been found to reduce bird species diversity and impact 

wildlife habitat on the ANF (deCalesta 1994, deCalesta 1997). However in the last five years 

deer densities within the project area have come down and although the forest is far from 

recovery, we are starting to see improved plant diversity and vertical structure within portions of 

the project area. 

Forest Plan Desired Future Condition: Forest Plan direction related to improving vegetative 

diversity and associated vertical structure includes conserving and enhancing native plant 

diversity, abundance and distribution (USDA-FS 2007a, 15) and managing white-tailed deer 

populations to sustain herbaceous and woody species diversity across the landscape (USDA-FS 

2007a, 20).
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

22

Management Implications and Recommendations: Because vertical diversity has been reduced 

across the project area and considering the deer herd has recently been reduced, management 

should pursue activities that will help restore shrub and vegetative diversity and improve wildlife 

cover and forage conditions. Road management should also help facilitate the harvest of deer by 

promoting access for hunters on existing roads. Treatments that are partially designed to 

improve vertical diversity include; RUMFC harvest, conifer release and thinning, herbicide 

application, prescribed burning, planting in forested and non-forested sites, oak release and 

creation of canopy gaps. 

Horizontal Diversity and Wildlife: Wildlife species composition and abundance is greatly 

affected by the spatial relationships of available habitat and horizontal diversity refers to the 

complexity or spatial arrangement of plant communities and other habitats across the landscape 

(DeGraaf et al., 1992). For example, 72% of all wildlife in a Northern hardwood stand will 

utilize more than one size class (combination of seedling, sapling, and/or sawtimber). The bird 

community in a mature stand that is adjacent to a regenerating stand or opening may be different 

than the bird community in a stand that is surrounded by mature forest. Therefore, there is often 

a greater likelihood of meeting more species’ requirements when a variety of habitat conditions 

are present. Maintaining a variety of age classes and cover types is important for maintaining 

wildlife diversity in forested landscapes (McShea and Healy 2002), particularly landscape level 

birds and mammals (DeGraaf et al 1992).

Forest Plan Desired Future Condition: Forest Plan direction related to providing horizontal 

diversity varies by management area. In order to provide the diversity of structural stages 

required by many wildlife species, including many game species, landscapes within MA 3.0 

should consist of primarily early and mid-structural stages, with some late structural inclusions 

(USDA-FS 2007a, 113). Landscapes within MA 2.1 and 2.2 should progress toward 

predominately late structural habitat, with smaller inclusions of early- and mid–structural habitat 

(USDA-FS 2007a, 106 & 109). 

Management Implications and Recommendations: Large forested landscapes such as the project 

area present more opportunities to concurrently manage seasonal habitats for resident bird 

species, as well as short and long-distance migrants (DeGraaf et al 1992). Efforts should be 

made to increase the amount and distribution of this community to better meet Forest Plan 

objectives within MA 3.0 considering available early structural habitat has been slightly 

declining. Additionally, because many forested species prefer or require landscapes that contain 

non-forested habitat, efforts should be made to manage or improve existing openings in order to 

provide desired cover and forage conditions. Treatments that are partially designed to improve 

vertical diversity across the landscape include; construction/expansion of small openings, forest 

regeneration harvest, RUMFC, and AMFC.

Climatic Change: Climate change is a concern of global scope, and there is a great deal of 

uncertainty regarding the degree and timeframes for geographic shifts of forest communities and 

species habitat. The contributions of the UK project to global climate change are uncertain at 

best, as are the potential effects of climate change on this area over the long-term. Because there 

is currently no reliable way of predicting future climate change or its effects at the project level, 

the ANF Forest Plan provides for maintaining a diversity of plant and animal communities that 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

23

will enhance the resiliency of the forest to respond to these changing conditions. In order to 

maintain forest ecosystem resistance and resiliency, and therefore integrity, particularly in the 

face of uncertainties such as future climates, and insect and disease infestations, the ANF Forest 

Plan emphasizes sustaining a diversity of forest structures and species composition across the 

landscape, using a flexible, adaptive approach (USDA-FS 2007a, 14, A-2, USDA-FS 2007c, 

ROD-24). UK vegetation treatments are designed to be adaptive and contribute towards these 

Forest Plan goals and desired conditions, particularly that of sustaining a diversity of vegetation 

patterns and species composition across the ANF landscape.

Special and Unique Habitat Features: Many forest species prefer or require specialized 

habitats to meet all or part of their reproductive and foraging needs. These features are important 

because they provide habitat for a broad range of species at various trophic levels. It is also 

important to maintain these features because these sites often receive a disproportionate amount 

of use. Specialized habitats include small pockets of ericaceous or deciduous shrubs for nesting 

or foraging, regenerating conifer, mast producing trees and shrubs, slash piles, wetlands, water 

features such as spring seeps and vernal pools, large diameter trees for nesting or roosting, and 

rock outcroppings for denning or roosting. Streamside habitat and the adjacent riparian zone 

also add greatly to the habitat diversity found on the forest. Riparian and streamside habitats, as 

well as ground vegetation associated with wetlands are particularly important and provide habitat 

for a wide variety of wildlife, including many rare and/or uncommon species of plants. Buffers 

on riparian areas may help negate the effects sedimentation caused by future climatic change. 

Some regions are expected to experience severe changes in precipitation, both increase and 

drought. There are also a few small scattered pockets or depressional areas that are similar to 

vernal pools. These sites are characterized by a perched water table with little to no drainage and 

are often located on the plateau edges or top of drainages. Vegetation on these sites often 

includes understory hemlock, facultative, facultative wetland and obligate wetland vegetation 

and sphagnum moss.

Rock outcroppings and rock shelters provide a small but essential habitat feature for many 

wildlife species. The importance of this unique habitat type also exceeds its relatively minor 

occurrence in the landscape and rocky habitat provides a range of denning and nesting 

opportunities.

Standing dead trees (snags) and downed woody material are other structural components that 

affect wildlife diversity. Over seventy wildlife species on the ANF are known to utilize dead 

wood. Levels of standing and downed woody debris also vary by stand age and by the amount 

and type of disturbance that has occurred on the site. The amount of standing and downed 

woody debris also varies between managed and un-managed stands. Surveys on the ANF 

(USDA-FS 1995) showed that debris or logs greater than 3” in diameter ranged from 154-886 cu. 

ft/ac. in un-harvested stands and 806-1646 cu. ft./ac. in salvage stands where dead and dying 

trees were removed. Additionally, although some of the harvested stands have total amounts of 

downed woody debris comparable to old growth stands, downed woody debris in harvested 

stands is smaller in diameter than that found in old growth stands. Downed woody debris in 

harvested stands also decomposes more rapidly and provides less desirable wildlife habitat than 

larger diameter material found in old growth and late successional forest stands. Natural 

disturbances within the project area that have affected the dead wood component on any given 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

24

site include one or more of the following: 1) concentrated and scattered mortality of beech trees 

that are dying as a result of the beech bark disease, 2) mortality of sugar maple or ash that are 

dying due to site or insect and disease conditions 3) mortality in the oak forest resulting from 

gypsy moth infestations that occurred in the early 1990’s and 4) mortality resulting from local 

wind events.

Approximately 9% of the project area has been identified as stream and floodplain riparian 

habitat. There are also wetlands, springs seeps and other water sources scattered throughout the 

project area.

Forest Plan Direction: The Forest Plan recognized the importance of riparian areas and 

specialized habitats discussed above. Specifically, the Plan calls for the retention of standing and 

downed woody debris to protect known roost trees and provide future dead wood for wildlife 

(USDS-FS 2007a, 82), provide den and cavity trees and large downed woody debris in all 

harvest units, protection of rock complexes, and management of specialized habitats to benefit 

game, non-game and species with viability concerns (USDA-FS 2007a, 80). The Forest Plan 

also includes specific direction to protect and maintain riparian habitat, wetlands, springs, seeps 

and vernal pools (USDA-FS 2007a, 77-78).

Management Implications and Recommendations: Most specialized habitat inclusions are 

identified during field surveys and monitoring. All sites proposed for treatment have been 

surveyed by a wildlife biologist and/or technician in an effort to avoid these areas and minimize 

potential impacts to wildlife. Specialized habitats identified during field surveys should be 

avoided during layout or mitigated during implementation. 

There is generally an adequate distribution of dead wood to meet the needs of many wildlife 

species due to beech bark disease mortality and decline of sugar maple and ash. Efforts should 

be made to increase levels of large downed woody debris, since this component is generally 

lacking in 2nd growth forest. Implementation of many of the design features referenced in this 

report will help ensure that special and unique features important to wildlife will be maintained. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) - Activities in Table 2 on pages 7 through 9 of the project BA 

are hereby incorporated by reference. These activities are proposed to achieve the purpose and 

need for the UK project and the Forest Plan DFC described previously. 

Alternative 1 (No Action)

No federal actions would be implemented under this alternative. The proposed vegetation 

treatments, reforestation activities, and transportation activities would not be completed at this 

time. Only previously approved and routine custodial or maintenance activities would occur in 

the project area. Alternative 1 will let ecological processes control vegetation development and 

habitat changes will occur primarily from natural disturbances and continuing oil and gas 

development. This alternative provides a baseline or reference point from which effects of the 

action alternative (Alternative 2) can be evaluated. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

25

Summary of Design Features, Mitigation Measures, and Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines recommended based on project analysis in the EA, BA, and BE to be 

implemented in MA 2.2 and 3.0 to Maintain Wildlife Habitat Features and Protect Habitat 

Functions

Design Features are highlighted applications of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In 

some cases, the standards and guidelines provide options for how they may be applied. A design 

feature clarifies, where necessary, how these standards and guidelines may apply to specific 

actions in the project proposal. Design features for the action alternative includes:

No heavy equipment relating to harvest activities will be utilized for harvest within 

100 feet of any stream in the project area. 

All scattered or groups of blown-down trees within MAs 2.1 and 2.2 will be left 

within the treatment stands to contribute to the coarse woody debris component 

within the MAs. 

 All snags (standing dead trees) and den trees will be retained unless considered 

unsafe during operations under OHSA regulations. 

Fencing and herbicide will be accomplished in blocks that allow for landscape and 

wildlife habitat connectivity. These treatments will allow for wildlife travel lanes 

such as riparian corridors and other contiguous areas. Timing of treatment will be 

coordinated with district biologists to ensure habitat connectivity. 

All pits will be reclaimed and improved for wildlife habitat once they are deemed 

depleted. Areas will be seeded and planted with native species that will benefit a 

variety of wildlife. This will reduce the long-term effects of soil erosion as well as 

contribute to important wildlife habitat.

When the pits are expanded, a wildlife biologist will coordinate with the road 

engineers so that pit expansion activities will be done outside the nesting and brood 

rearing seasons, which is May 1 through September 1.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 2080 (Noxious Weeds), 2500 (Watershed and 

Air), 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Habitat)

See UK EA Wildlife/Biological Section and the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007, 53-54 and 74-78) 

for reference to applicable Forest Plan Standards and guidelines for a variety of wildlife and 

water resources. Below are some site specific mitigations where FP S&Gs should be applied. 

 Compartment/Stand - 464/15, 464/27, 464/32, 478/32, 480/38, 480/44, 480/70 and 481/6 

- Protect all unique plant communities with 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 acre reserve areas with no treatment. 

If unique plant communities are found while marking, a reserve area with no treatment 

will be established to protect it. 

Compartment 480 - Protect existing vernal pools and uncommon water features with 

either a 100 foot buffer or 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 acre reserve area. If a unique vernal pool is found 

during marking, protect with reserve areas. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

26

Compartments – 461, 462, and 473 - Protect large rocks, boulders, or outcrops as reserve 

areas (no treatment buffer zone). If large boulder complexes are found during marking, 

protect with reserve areas.

Implement the site-specific mitigations on Pages 18 and 19 of the UK BE. 

Affected Environment 

This section describes the status and distribution of wildlife species that could be affected. It 

also describes the environmental baseline and relevant habitat components that may or may not 

be affected by the alternatives. No site specific wildlife related issues were identified during the 

scoping process and effects on wildlife will be evaluated by looking at changes in habitat for 

Management Indicator Species (MIS), and effects to species whose viability is considered most 

at risk, or Threatened, Endangered and Regionally Sensitive species. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Management indicator species (MIS) are used in concert with other indicators to gauge the 

effects of management on wildlife habitat. In general, the MIS approach is used to reduce the 

complexity of discussing all the wildlife species on the Forest and MIS represent groups of 

wildlife associated with similar vegetative communities or key habitat components. Evaluating 

the effects of management practices on these species and their habitat also displays the effects of 

alternatives on the ecological communities they represent and helps to ensure that biodiversity is 

maintained. Forest MIS include the timber rattlesnake, cerulean warbler, northern goshawk, 

mourning warbler and aquatic invertebrates. The selection and rationale for these species are 

located in the 2007 Forest Plan FEIS on pages 3-194 to 3-195 (USDA-FS 2007b) and preferred 

habitat, threats, and management emphasis are discussed on pages 3-196 to 3-204 (USDA-FS, 

2007b). 

Timber Rattlesnake 

In the Northeast, this species inhabits mountainous or hilly deciduous or mixed deciduousconiferous forest, often with rocky outcroppings, steep ledges, and rock slides (NatureServe 

2010). This snake primarily inhabits timber-covered terrain, especially that of second-growth 

woodland where rodents are abundant. Slopes with a southern exposure are preferred. 

Much of the interior of the project area consists of plateau tops and mesic sites less likely to 

contain suitable den sites (usually dry sites with exposed rock). This project area lacks the 

preferred dry oak sites but does have many south facing slopes that provide conditions more 

conducive with den sites. No den sites have been found within the project area, but areas with 

rock outcroppings that are potentially suitable for den sites occur in portions of the Kinzua 

Creek, Turnup Run and Thundershower Run drainages. Rattlesnake foraging habitat may occur 

across the project area and the above-mentioned drainages provide an abundance of openings, 

interspersed with mature forest that could be utilized for foraging and/or basking. Anecdotal 

reports of snakes are fairly common but rarely confirmed. 

The timber rattlesnake is also listed as a Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) on the 

ANF and more detailed information on life history and population and habitat trends are 

available in the Forest BE (USDA-FS 2007, 274-276). 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

27

Northern Goshawk

This hawk utilizes mid to late structural mixed deciduous/hardwood forest habitat for nesting and 

to date over 70 nests and 40 territories have been identified within the proclamation boundary. 

In the northern hardwood region, which includes the ANF, goshawks typically select nest sites 

that are predominately forested and contain a conifer component (Kimmel and Yahner 1994). 

Goshawk territories or the area within approximately 1⁄2 mile of the nest typically contains a mix 

of early, mid and late structural habitat interspersed with small openings. While the goshawk 

successfully reproduces in areas that have a road density of 4 miles/sq mile, they are sensitive to 

disturbance and prefer areas with lower standard roads and areas where existing roads receive 

little use. 

Although much of the project area provides the mid-structural habitat preferred by this species, 

there are no known goshawk nests or territories within the project area. There is a retired 

goshawk nest near the end of FR 628 and two retired nest on the Marienville District 

immediately south of FR 150c and FR 179H. These nests have been retired at least 5 years. 

Although birds have been observed in the project area in the past, no new nests were identified or 

noted. Also the project area has an abundance of understory and riparian conifer, which on the 

ANF is often associated with territories. The project area is considered occupied northern 

goshawk habitat due to past use and the amount of available suitable foraging habitat across the 

project area. One goshawk was heard but not seen during stand surveys in C/S 805/36.

Forest monitoring indicates that intensive road or well development can create unsuitable 

goshawk habitat (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-269) and presently, well over 60% of the project area 

(federal and private ownership combined) has levels of road and oil and gas development that 

would generally make habitat conditions less desirable or suitable for the northern goshawk. The 

northern goshawk is also an RFSS for the ANF and more detailed information related to habitat, 

population trends, threats and forest-wide use can be found in the Forest BE (USDA-FS 2007, 

133-148). 

Cerulean Warbler

Cerulean warbler nesting on the ANF has only been documented within mid-structural forest that 

contains an oak component or in riverine habitat. Preferred cerulean warbler habitat on the ANF 

is restricted to these two communities (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-200). The oak forest community 

currently exists on <1% of the project area, although the area has stands containing an oak 

component or riverine type habitat that might be utilized for nesting. The cerulean warbler has 

not been documented within the project area and suitable habitat is not a major component of this 

project area. 

 

On-forest research (Stoleson 2006, Stoleson 2004) has shown that cerulean warbler use is 

associated with canopy gaps and more open canopy conditions, increasing levels of ground cover 

and vertical structure, close proximity to water, multiple oak species and reduced levels of red 

maple. The density of birds on any site seems to be largely determined by canopy conditions or 

stocking on the ANF. Based on documented use on the forest, preferred cerulean warbler habitat 

can be broken down into three categories including 1) suitable with documented use (Stoleson, 

2009), 2) suitable with low density use and 3) suitable with high density use. There is very little 

suitable habitat found within this project area. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

28

Mourning Warbler

Mourning warbler habitat includes early structural habitat, as well as older mid-structural habitat 

that contain a well developed woody and herbaceous understory. Habitat is often associated with 

disturbed second growth forest and forest monitoring indicates that higher densities of this 

species occur in early structural habitat that is associated with timber harvest or other activities 

that create the dense understory development required by this species. Currently, approximately 

9% of the project area provides the early structural habitat preferred by this species and most 

occurs within MA 3.0. Habitat in other management areas would be limited to localized and 

scattered mid-structural forest that contained preferred structural conditions. Because many 

roads and utility ROW’s have some development of understory vegetation, lower densities of 

mourning warblers would likely occur in these areas and overall, mourning warbler habitat is 

widely scattered across the project area.

Aquatic Invertebrates

Commonly referred to as aquatic insects, this group of invertebrates occurs in streams or bodies 

of water where water quality and habitat conditions are considered suitable. Depending on the 

group of aquatic invertebrates, some prefer flowing water over rocky cobble-size substrate, but 

others prefer slow, backwater areas or pools in streams. The focus on the ANF will be in 

flowing water of streams. Suitable aquatic invertebrate habitat occurs within all perennial 

streams within the project area, which includes 21.5 miles of cold water fishery, 47.9 miles of 

high quality cold water fishery and 1.5 miles of reservoir shoreline. In addition the project 

includes intermittent streams, seeps, springs, vernal pools, and wetlands that can provide suitable 

habitat to aquatic insects. 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction and Effect Indicators

The wildlife analysis presented here will look at the effects of proposed actions on MIS within 

the UK project area, while the BA and BE will specifically address effects to TES species. 

Collectively these documents will assess effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat that would be 

expected to occur under each of the alternatives considered. As described above, there were no 

site-specific wildlife related issues identified during scoping and Table 2 lists the issue indicators 

that have been identified to measure potential impacts to wildlife of the alternatives considered. 

Table 2: Issue indicators used to measure effects

Species Indicator

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

Timber Rattlesnake Changes in den, foraging and basking habitat

Northern Goshawk Changes nesting, foraging, post-fledgling habitat and nest production

Cerulean Warbler Changes in mature oak nesting habitat

Mourning Warbler Changes in early and multi-structural nesting habitat 

Aquatic Invertebrates Changes in population diversity and abundance

Direct and Indirect Effects on Wildlife

The following is a discussion of the direct and indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

from activities under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

29

Timber Harvest Activities

Timber Harvest - Although there are a variety of different treatments, some have similar effects 

on wildlife and wildlife habitat and have been grouped together to more clearly display 

anticipated effects. Groups used in this analysis include even-aged partial harvest, even-aged 

final harvest and uneven-aged management. Although direct effects to individuals will be less 

with non-commercial treatment, both commercial and non-commercial treatments will result in 

similar changes in wildlife habitat and both are considered below. Table 3 displays individual 

treatments for Alternative 2, the category of timber harvest and the time period in which each 

activity is expected to occur. Effects of timber harvest on wildlife are also discussed in the Forest 

Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b). 

Table 3: Alternative 2 Commercial and Non-commercial Timber Harvest

Activity Dates Implemented Acres

Even-aged Partial Harvest

Hemlock Thinning 2010 - 2030 58

Intermediate Thinning – Improvement 2010 – 2030 29

Intermediate Thinning 2010 – 2030 392

Total Partial Harvest 479

Even-aged Final Harvest

2-age Final Harvest 2010 41

Shelterwood Seed Cut/Final Harvest (Beech Recovery Treatment) 2010 - 2030 1,201

Delayed Removal Cut 2020 – 2025 283

Aspen Clearcut with Reserve 2020 - 2025 28

Aspen Clearcut – Non-commercial 2020 - 2025 3

Total Final Harvest 1,556

Uneven-aged Management

RUMFC 2010 - 2030 89

AMFC 2010 - 2030 89

Uneven-aged Management 2010 - 2030 79

Total Uneven-aged Management 2010 - 2030 337

Total Harvest 2.292

Even-aged Partial Timber Harvest: By 2030, even-aged partial harvest would occur on 

approximately ~23% of the project area. These treatments would result in the removal of 

approximately one-third of the trees during harvest, generally including material that is >= 5 

inches in diameter. Mature forest conditions would continue to predominate on all sites 

receiving a partial harvest treatment, with approximately two-thirds of the existing overstory 

being retained. Although the residual crown closure and composition of material removed 

(conifer vs. hardwood) would vary somewhat by site and forest type, at least 50% crown closure 

would be maintained on sites proposed for partial harvest treatment. 

Direct effects to wildlife from these types of treatments are generally short-term (<5 years) and 

may involve some direct mortality of some species during logging if cutting occurs during the 

breeding season. Cutting may result in avoidance of the site by some species sensitive to 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

30

disturbance, while other species would be attracted to these sites because of the increased slash 

and associated cover. 

Partial harvests alter stand structure and understory conditions by removing small to medium 

diameter trees and increasing light levels to the forest floor. This promotes the establishment of 

woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous (grass/forbs/fern) vegetation and is expected to 

improve wildlife forage and cover conditions on the site. 

Even-aged partial harvest treatments would result in some changes in stand structure but wildlife 

diversity on these sites is not expected to be altered, since mature forest conditions will continue 

to predominate following treatment. This is supported by on-Forest monitoring of songbird, 

amphibian and small mammals in areas receiving partial harvest activities (deCalesta 1998). 

However, the abundance of certain species may change depending on the individual stand 

changes in the understory and midstory that develop. Although even age partial harvest is 

expected to favor mature forest species over early successional species, Forest monitoring 

indicates that some early successional species such as the mourning warbler will occur in low 

numbers on sites receiving a partial harvest treatment.

Even-aged Final Timber Harvest: Even-aged final harvest treatments are proposed on 

approximately ~6% of the project area. As with partial harvest activities, effects include some 

direct mortality if cutting occurs during the breeding season and some species that are sensitive 

to disturbance would avoid these areas. Effects of these treatments on wildlife differ from those 

of partial harvest treatments since most of the mature overstory is removed. Although partial 

harvest treatments result in relatively minor changes in wildlife use, final harvest treatments can 

result in a much more dramatic change and some mature forest wildlife may be displaced for up 

to 50 years, until a predominantly mature canopy is re-established. Reduction in overstory trees 

also results in a tremendous increase in herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and tree seedlings. This 

flush of understory vegetation provides habitat for early-successional species, as well as matureforest species which also utilize seedling/sapling habitat. 

Due to increases in herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, final harvest treatments are expected to 

favor early successional species over species that prefer or require mature forest conditions. 

Although species diversity is not expected to decrease on sites receiving a final harvest 

treatment, there will be a short term increase in the abundance of early successional species and a 

reduced abundance of some mature forest species following treatment. This increase in early 

successional species is considered short-term in nature, because early successional habitat 

conditions decline within 10 years and early successional species are replaced by wildlife that 

prefer the structural conditions provided by sapling/pole stands and some mature forest species 

(Thompson 2001, DeGraaf et al 1992). Reserve and wildlife trees are retained during all 

regeneration harvest activities on the ANF and the species present following regeneration harvest 

are expected to be similar to those that occupy the regeneration stage under natural succession 

(DeGraaf et al. 1992, DeCalesta 1998).

Uneven-aged Management: Uneven-aged management includes AMFC and RUMFC harvest 

and is proposed on a little less than 1% of the project area. These treatments are preceded by a 

shelterwood harvest (described above) that results in establishment of seedlings on the site. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

31

The AMFC harvest is used in stands with an overly dense canopy and smaller diameter trees 

mixed through the stand of larger trees. This intermediate thin will remove 20 to 30% of the 

trees in order to emulate heterogeneity in old growth. Some trees receive crown release while 

others do not. They will contribute to vertical diversity and mimic small natural disturbances. 

This type of harvest is particularly effective in accelerating tree growth.

The RUMFC harvest is implemented once seedlings are established. This treatment is designed 

to create an uneven-age structure in an even-aged stand and involves a mixture of individual tree 

and group selection harvest. Group selection harvest would result in the removal of all trees in 

groups of up to three acres in size and would result in the establishment of tree seedlings and 

herbaceous vegetation on approximately 20% of each stand. This treatment has larger groups 

than traditional uneven-age management, because groups of trees are only removed over shade 

intolerant tree seedlings. On the remaining 80% of the site, treatment would involve removing 

up to one-third of the overstory trees in all size classes while retaining approximately two thirds 

of the existing overstory. It is anticipated that the distribution of groups will vary by site, 

creating heterogeneous stand conditions because the distribution and size of groups will be 

determined by the species of tree seedling established, 

This treatment would provide habitat for primarily mature and late-successional species, 

including many species that prefer or require a small seedling forest component since a mature 

overstory is retained on most of the area treated. Also the 3 acre groups would be large enough 

to provide habitat for some shrub or brushland species (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003), many of 

which are declining regionally. As in even-age treatments, species sensitive to disturbance 

would likely move off the area during logging, while other species would be attracted to the 

increased levels of slash created on the site. Because one of the objectives of this treatment is to 

create late structural conditions, only wood greater than 10” in diameter will be removed and 

greater amounts of large woody debris will be left on site, than with even age harvest. 

Reforestation Activities

Site Preparation - Site Preparation is proposed on approximately 7% of the project area. This 

treatment is proposed as a non-commercial reforestation treatment and results in the removal of 

woody vegetation in the midstory and reduces or eliminates habitat for some intermediate 

canopy nesting birds. Potential adverse effects include direct mortality and avoidance during 

treatment, although direct mortality of wildlife will be reduced with implementation of Forestwide standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a, 80). Effects of site preparation are also 

discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b). 

Herbicide Application (Regeneration Treatments, Oak Enhancement/Planting, Landscape 

Underburn) - Herbicide application is proposed on approximately 8% of the project area. 

Effects of herbicide application on aquatic and terrestrial communities are discussed on pages 3-

215 to 3-217 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b), as well as in Appendix G1 (USDA-FS 

2007d). As described in the FEIS, effects of herbicide application on wildlife are determined 

largely by the dependence of the individual species on the woody and herbaceous vegetation 

affected by treatment. Many of these effects are short-term in nature and considering all forested 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

32

sites proposed for herbicide application will be followed by a removal cut within 5-10 years, 

long-term effects on wildlife will be determined largely by the dramatic changes in vegetation 

following the final harvest treatment (described previously).

Fence Construction and Maintenance - This treatment reduces deer browsing and promotes a 

greater diversity of seedlings, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation on the site. Deer is the species 

most affected by this treatment, since increases in forage would be unavailable. Movements for 

other large mammals would also be somewhat restricted by fencing. However the movements of 

most species will be unaffected and available food and cover will continue to be available in 

adjacent stands. Effects of area fencing are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 

2007b).

Release – Release treatments will occur in pole stands that have been previously regenerated and 

result in the removal of regenerating pin cherry and striped maple. Like site preparation, this 

treatment would reduce habitat for some canopy nesting birds on the affected site and potential 

adverse effects include direct mortality and avoidance during treatment. Although, these effects 

would be reduced with implementation of Forest standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a, 80) 

and tree regeneration would continue to be available and provide habitat for bird species that 

utilize regenerating trees for reproduction or foraging. Effects of release are also discussed in the 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Planting – This treatment involves planting desirable tree species on sites that currently have a 

predominance of undesirable herbaceous and tree species. Effects to wildlife include short term 

avoidance during planting, whereas potential long term benefits may be realized due to the 

increased vegetative diversity that occurs on the site. 

Mechanical scarification - This treatment involves traversing the site with a small machine 

that rakes the forest floor. The objective is to mix the forest floor and mineral soil surface, 

increase acorn and mineral soil contact, and lightly bury acorns in the surface soils. While there 

will be disturbance to the top few inches of soil during implementation, this treatment is not 

expected to result in wildlife mortality. Also, any change in habitat will be short term (less than 

1 year) and litter and ground cover will be replaced within a year of treatment. Effects of 

scarification are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Prescribed Burning (includes Landscape Underburn) – Prescribed burning is proposed on 

approximately 25 acres in the project area. Anticipated effects of burning on wildlife are 

discussed on pages 3-217 to 3-218 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-217-218) and 

the following is a summary of the effects discussed.

Moderate intensity burns will be prescribed on all sites in order to meet management objectives 

related to establishment of seedlings and most undesirable direct effects are overcome by 

choosing proper times, places and methods of prescribed burning. Although some direct 

mortality is expected to occur, prescribed burning in the southeast indicates that deaths of wild 

animals are seldom attributed to fire (Landers 1987) and the ability of many species to go

underground or move off the area during burning reduces fire related mortality (Wood 1981). 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

33

Proposed burning will consist of a relatively slow moving head-fires or backing fires, methods 

that reduce direct mortality of wildlife. 

Indirect effects of proposed burning include modifications or changes in conditions on the 

affected sites. In the short term, effects on vegetation from burning include maintaining 

relatively open understory conditions followed by development of herbaceous and woody 

vegetation. Vertical structure may be temporarily reduced on controlled burn sites, overall plant 

species diversity is expected to increase on the site (Hays unpublished 2001), as well as create 

more complex understory conditions then existed prior to the burn. Proposed burning is 

expected to result in mortality of some overstory trees. However the creation of dead and dying 

trees provide important foraging sites for woodpeckers and other bark gleaning species such as 

the black and white warbler. Snags also provide perching/hawking sites and roosting/nesting 

habitat. The increase in soft mast from rejuvenated shrubs, as well as the increased vegetative 

structure and diversity that occurs on the site following burning is expected to increase the 

diversity and abundance of wildlife species utilizing the stand. These sites are expected to be 

particularly attractive to wildlife, since the structure and vegetative diversity in adjacent stands 

have been reduced by deer. 

It would take several years for many of the above effects to occur on sites that receive multiple 

burns. The effects related to increased vegetative structure and diversity and the associated 

effects on wildlife habitat would not occur until the final burn is completed. Direct effects to 

wildlife discussed above would also be greater on sites receiving multiple burns. These effects 

would not be expected to reduce species abundance or diversity because of the small acreage 

being treated at any one site and the widespread availability of un-treated habitat.

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Based on field surveys and project area analysis, the interdisciplinary team has evaluated the UK 

project area for opportunities to maintain and restore vegetation that has diminished or changed 

due to past management, insect and disease outbreak, and deer browsing. The project area lacks a 

diversity of soft and hard mast producing trees and shrubs. In many areas, as a result of the insect 

and disease (beech scale), continuous forest canopy has been reduced or individual mast trees 

have been affected. The team has evaluated opportunities to restore and improve upland 

vegetative components to benefit wildlife, including planting a diversity of trees and shrubs.. 

Over 741 acres of various cool and warm season grasses, shrubs and trees will be planted in 

constructed openings, stands to receive treatments and areas of pit reclamation. This will provide 

future forage and cover for a variety of wildlife species. Some areas will be under-planted with a 

variety of trees and shrubs. Should reforestation efforts be successful and/or early structural 

forest habitat (of desired species) become established on its own, acres of planting to improve 

wildlife habitat may be modified or decreased depending on the availability of planting sites. 

The timing of some wildlife planting is dependent on the prior completion of herbicide and site 

prep treatments (through reforestation efforts). Installation of fencing and/or cribs or tree 

shelters will preserve planted species by protecting them from deer browsing. Some sites may 

not need protection if a treatment is fenced through silvicultural efforts. Fencing may not be 

necessary if seedlings can be planted among and beneath existing tree tops that will provide deer 

browsing protection. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

34

Species planted or seeded may include white pine, white spruce, witch hazel, elderberry, 

mountain ash, apple, winterberry, hawthorn, crabapple, dogwood, chokeberry, and high bush 

blueberry. One concern is the spread of viburnum beetles in under-plantings and fenced cribs in 

wildlife openings. Chokeberry, elderberry and dogwoods are being planted in wildlife openings 

as substitutes for viburnum. White pine and white spruce will be planted in areas to provide a 

future conifer component. In anticipation of the spread of the introduced hemlock wooly 

adelgid, an insect proven fatal to the Eastern hemlock, these trees will supplement and provide 

future conifer cover for species requiring this type of conifer cover. Although conifer cover in 

the form of hemlock is fairly common in the riparian areas and in the understory in upland 

terrain, its future presence might be jeopardized as insects and disease concerns (hemlock woolly 

adelgid) may reach the area and affect the abundance of this native conifer. Proactive efforts are 

being proposed on the ANF to provide supplemental conifer cover through planting for the future 

such as white pine and white spruce that are similar in structure and function to the hemlock.

With the onset of beech scale and other insect and disease problems, mast trees in the area have 

been reduced. Efforts will be made to establish midstory and understory hard and soft mast in 

certain areas. Species planted may include shagbark hickory, butternut and American chestnut on 

specific sites. Substitutions of plants could occur depending on final site selection and 

availability of stock.

Wildlife openings in general provide important nesting, feeding, and breeding opportunity areas 

for a wide variety of wildlife species. This project proposes 130 acres of opening construction, 

opening release, pushing back edge encroachment in some openings and the conversion of 15 

acres of forest at four upland sites into managed opening habitat as well. 

Restore and maintain openings - Opening restoration and release is proposed for 52 acres on 

20 sites. Restoration would occur in existing openings that are dominated by fern and invasive 

grasses, as well as in openings that are starting to lose their forb and legume component. There 

would be no tree removal on sites proposed for this treatment. Activities involve plowing, 

disking or dozing vegetation and manual or mechanical establishment of cool season grasses and 

forbs or warm season grasses on the area treated. The objectives of these treatments are to 

replace existing fern or invasive grasses with more desirable herbaceous vegetation and improve 

wildlife cover and forage conditions. Because these openings are relatively small in size or 

would be scattered with other forest vegetation, these treatments are expected to benefit 

primarily mature forest species that also utilize a small non-forest component. Potential adverse 

effects of this treatment on wildlife include possible direct mortality and avoidance during 

implementation. However, any displacement would be short term and will not last beyond the 

season the opening is reconditioned.

Opening release/edge encroachment - Opening maintenance is proposed on 63 acres at 21 

sites. Release would also occur in existing openings and consists of removing invasive woody 

vegetation, mowing and topdressing (applying lime and fertilizer) existing openings, new 

openings and re-conditioned openings, so that legumes and forbs established on the site and 

desired wildlife cover and forage conditions are maintained. Potential adverse effects could 

include potential mortality during mowing, so implementation will be seasonally restricted to the 

non-nesting season (USDA-FS 2007a, 81).
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

35

Opening Construction - Development of non-forested habitat is proposed on 15 acres across 7 

sites. Treatment involves clearing all vegetation on the site and establishment of cool season 

grasses and forbs by dozing, plowing and seeding. This treatment would provide the stand 

structure and vegetation that would exist in small naturally occurring forested openings. The 

objective is to improve the distribution of turkey brood habitat, as well as provide roosting and 

foraging habitat for a variety of other wildlife. As described previously, wildlife use of an 

opening is partially determined by the opening size and because the proposed openings will only 

be five acres or less in size, they will be utilized primarily by mature forest species that prefer or 

require the structure provided by small to medium sized openings. The proposed openings will 

not be large enough to attract grassland species, or species such as the cowbird, which prefers 

larger openings. 

Potential adverse effects of this treatment on wildlife include possible direct mortality and 

avoidance during timber harvest and opening construction and effects include displacement of 

some mature forest species from the acres affected. The proposed opening will be constructed as 

an inclusion within the larger forested landscape because of its small size. Mature forest species 

would not be displaced from the area, nor are there any long-term avoidance effects anticipated. 

Restore and maintain Warm and Cool Season Grasses – Native warm season grasses will be 

developed on 51 acres (20 sites) of existing openings. These sites will range between 1 to 6 

acres in size and would provide habitat for wildlife that utilize medium sized openings. Because 

of their larger size, these openings are being re-vegetated to native warm season grasses such as 

big bluestem, Indian grass and switchgrass. These grasses will provide preferred cover 

conditions and would be established by plowing and disking existing vegetation and establishing 

desired species through a combination of seed drilling and plugs. Effects include avoidance and 

possible mortality of less mobile wildlife during implementation. Although due to the limited 

acreage treated and considering cover conditions will only be reduced for one to two years, 

potential mortality will be reduced and disturbance would short-term (1-2 years). Prescribed 

burning would be used to maintain all warm season grass openings. 

Mowing - Opening maintenance is proposed on 150 acres on 32 sites under Alternative2. This 

treatment consists of mowing and topdressing (applying lime and fertilizer) existing openings, 

new openings and re-conditioned openings, so that legumes and forbs established on the site are 

maintained over the long-term and in order to provide desired wildlife cover and forage 

conditions. Potential adverse effects include potential mortality during mowing. However, 

implementation of the following mitigation measure is expected to reduce wildlife mortality and 

avoidance.

In order to minimize impacts to wildlife, mowing of permanent openings will be 

restricted to the following period (June 15-July 31).

Tree/shrub planting and Fencing - Non-forest planting of trees and shrubs is proposed on a 

total of 101 acres on 32 sites. All planting would occur on sites where the objective is to 

enhance non-forest habitat by improving cover/forage conditions. This treatment is expected to 

benefit a variety of game and non-game wildlife by improving nesting and hiding cover, as well 

as by providing a more reliable source of soft mast. Only native shrubs would be used and 

emphasis would be placed on species that produce fruit that persists into the late fall/early winter 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

36

months. Since experience on the ANF has shown that most native shrubs cannot be established 

without protection from browsing, comparable acres of fencing and/or tube installation are 

proposed. Proposed fencing on 91 acres would involve a combination of the following: 

Construction of individual 6 ft. fences around planted shrubs, 

Construction of 10X40 ft. cribs in which 10-20 plants would be planted, and 

Use of 5 ft. tree shelters. 

Prescribed Burning – Prescribed burning is proposed to maintain warm season grasses on a 

total of 4 acres at 2 sites. Both sites are existing openings and burning is proposed to reduce 

woody vegetation and maintain warm and cool season grasses on the site. Direct effects include 

possible mortality of slow moving species during burning. However implementation would be 

done prior to nesting and burning would involve a slow moving backing fire. This would allow 

most species to move off the site, resulting in lower direct mortality to wildlife (USDA-FS 2007b 

3-17 to 3-18). Indirect effects include the long-term maintenance of the grass/forb community 

on sites treated. 

Herbicide - Herbicide treatments are proposed for 56 acres on 20 sites. Effects of herbicide 

application on aquatic and terrestrial communities are discussed on pages 3-215 to 3-217 of the 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b), as well as in Appendix G1 (USDA-FS 2007d). As 

described in the FEIS, effects of herbicide application on wildlife are determined largely by the 

dependence of the individual species on the woody and herbaceous vegetation affected by 

treatment. Many of these effects are short-term in nature and, because all forested sites proposed 

for herbicide application will be followed by a removal cut within 5-10 years, long-term effects 

on wildlife will be determined largely by the dramatic changes in vegetation following the final 

harvest treatment (described previously).

Aspen Regeneration – This treatment is proposed on 31 acres of mature aspen. They will be cut 

in order to allow these stands to regenerate from root suckers. Early structural aspen is a 

valuable food and cover source for grouse. This site contains remnant clones of aspen that are 

over mature and without disturbance in the near future, this component will be lost. Treatment is 

proposed to stimulate root suckering and regenerate and maintain existing aspen in this area. 

Proposed regeneration could result in some direct mortality during cutting as well as short term 

avoidance of the site during implementation. Indirect effects of regeneration harvest include 

long-term maintenance of the aspen community in this riparian area, and long-term wildlife 

benefits to wildlife that prefer or require aspen, particularly ruffed grouse. 

Underplant mast/conifer, AMFC and RUMFC - This treatment is proposed on approximately 

644 acres on 76 sites. It involves planting mast or conifer species and to speed up the creation of 

a multi-story canopy - vertical diversity. In order to help restore shrub and vegetative diversity 

on the project area and improve wildlife cover and forage conditions, shrub under-planting is to 

be implemented on suitable sites across the project area. Regarding conifer planting, it is 

recommended that white pine be planted on dry sites and white spruce be planted in moist sites. 

Conifer species may be mixed or substituted due to a change in site condition, canopy closure, 

exposure, etc. White pine and white spruce can become established in openings and/or the 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

37

understory with partial forest canopy. Spruce will (generally) not need to be protected from deer 

browsing.

Prune and release apple trees – Ninety-seven acres of fruit tree management is proposed for 

planting over 35 openings. Pruning involves cutting dead wood and competing vegetation from 

existing trees and release involves girdling trees within 50 feet of the apple tree being treated. 

Both activities are expected to increase fruit production and vigor on existing trees, improving 

forage and cover conditions for many wildlife species. Wildlife mortality of breeding adults or 

young of the year is not anticipated because both activities will occur during the winter months. 

Thin and release butternut - This activity is proposed to be implemented around one individual 

butternut tree. Butternuts need release from interfering vegetation to grow taller with increased 

vigor. 

Girdle trees for snags - This activity is proposed for 12 acres of fruit trees at three sites. Fruit 

trees are growing into each other and stunting both fruit production and growth. The girdled 

trees will die slowly and then become standing snags for multiple wildlife species use including 

roosting. 

Group Selection/Canopy Gaps – This treatment is proposed on 176 acres. While all the sites 

have closed canopy conditions, they have begun to self thin and enough light reaches the forest 

floor to develop shade tolerant vegetation. Although due to past over browsing by deer, the 

understories on all sites are dominated by fern. This treatment involves non-commercial timber 

harvest to open up the canopy and promote development of desired tree species, herbaceous 

vegetation and shrubs. 1/4 acre gaps around selected trees are proposed to ensure adequate light 

for desired intolerant vegetation and to reduce the re-establishment of overstocked species. The 

primary objective of this treatment is to improve stand structure in existing homogeneous pole 

stands. The increased vertical diversity that results on these sites is expected to increase stand 

and landscape level diversity and improve habitat for a wide variety of species. Treatment will 

be restricted to the non-nesting season to eliminate potential impacts to breeding birds and direct 

impacts are restricted to short-term behavioral avoidance during implementation. 

Rehabilitate/Construct vernal pools – 5 small ponds will be developed in 4 upland stands with 

shallow water table. These ponds are meant to develop amphibian habitat in areas where it is 

lacking. The pools provide valuable breeding and foraging habitat for many amphibian species as 

well as drinking sources for other species. 

Release – Oak and hickory release occurs in closed canopy non-oak stands with a large oak 

component. Also sites selected include stands that are likely to provide preferred cerulean 

warbler habitat due to their component of multiple oak species and close proximity to water. 

This treatment may be done commercially as a partial harvest treatment (described above) and/or 

non-commercially. Non-commercial treatment consists of girdling both oak and non-oak trees in 

order to release suppressed oak trees and increase mast, promote growth and development of 

existing white oak and create small canopy gaps to encourage use of the site by cerulean 

warblers. In addition, girdled trees will increase the amount of standing and future large downed 

woody debris on the site. Due to the collective increase in mast production, large woody debris, 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

38

and increased vertical diversity resulting from canopy gaps, it is anticipated that habitat for midto late successional forest species will be improved on the sites treated. Direct effects include 

disturbance during implementation, although because no trees will be felled, effects are expected 

to be short term (one season) and minor.

It is anticipated that between 10% and 20% of the trees within any stand will be killed. 

Additionally, since the release component is not uniform, treatments will be scattered and highly 

variable and this treatment is expected to largely mimic individual or pockets of tree mortality 

that occurs naturally. 

Grass and Forb Seeding - This treatment includes approximately 35 acres of grass/forb seeding. 

Seeding would occur on landings and skid trails disturbed during logging. Individual sites to be 

seeded are approximately 1⁄4 acre in size and would be well distributed with at least one landing 

in each unit proposed for timber harvest. The seed mix used includes species that would 

stabilize the site, as well as species that are known to be utilized by wildlife for forage and cover. 

Effects of providing small openings to wildlife are well documented (Tucker 1992) and this 

treatment would improve habitat for a variety of game and non-game wildlife species. Potential 

adverse effects to wildlife include possible mortality or avoidance during treatment, and due to 

the small size of the areas seeded, there are no long term effects anticipated. These small 

openings will not change the habitat conditions within the affected stand, but rather serve as a 

within-stand wildlife habitat inclusion and the wildlife community would be largely determined 

by the predominant structural conditions of the forest around the landing.

Non-native Invasive Plants - Noxious weed control (NNIP treatments) will occur on 

approximately 15 acres, mainly along roadsides to control the spread of species including bull 

and Canada thistle, Japanese barberry, or multi-flora rose. Reduction of these species will allow 

for the establishment of native or more desirable species to take root. 

Wetland Enhancement – Small pothole depressions will be dug within the existing duck ponds 

to introduce depth variability which will meet the habitat needs for multiple species diversity for 

both plants and animals. Potholes are ~20’x20’ and less than 2 feet deep.

The following activities are prescribed in order to maintain or enhance wildlife food and cover 

habitat and begin to restore the diversity of plant species in the project area. Tables 4 and 5 

below summarize the proposed wildlife habitat improvement projects under Alternative 2 in the 

UK EA:
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

39

 Table 4: Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Habitat Management Proposal (acres).

Compartment/

Stand

Mowing Restore

&

Maintain 

Opening

Opening 

Release

Create 

Opening

Wetland 

Enhancement

Plant 

Shrubs/ 

Fruit/ 

Conifer/ 

Trees

Fence 

Cribs

Herbicide Aspen 

Regen

RUMFC& 

Underplant 

AMFC -

Thinning 

(NC)

Under

plant

Prune & 

Release 

Fruit Trees

Thin & 

release 

butternut

Girdle 

Trees

 457/04 - Underplant Mast Release - 25 acres

457/14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0

457/19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

457/37 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

457/35 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

457/36 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

457/38 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

457/40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

457/41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

457/34 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

458/02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 0

458/04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

458/13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0

458/15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0

458/19 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

458/20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0

458/27&29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

458/28&09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0

458/38 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

458/43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

458/14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

459/36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

459/05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

459/06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0

459/20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

459/21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0

459/22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Upper Kinzua Project 

- Wildlife Report

40

459/23

00000000090000

459/32 (TDF) 38

0700400 1500 1000

459/33

00000000800000

459/43

00000000070000

460/08

000000000 140000

460/22

00000000000200

460/29

00000000040000

460/40

40040444000100

460/48

30300333000100

460/53&54

000000000 160000

460/55&13

000000000 160000

460/66

000000000 120000

461/30

20200220000200

461/33&62

000000000 150000

461/34

02200110000200

461/36

00000000000200

461/48

03300333000000

461/54

00000000080000

462/04

000000000 140000

462/05

00000000080000

462/10

00000000000100

462/17

00000000000100

462/19

000000000 150000

462/36

00000100000100

462/41

33000333300200

462/42

32020332000000

462/43

50000330000000

462/49

22000222000000

463/06

00000000020000

463/07&44

000000000 140000

463/24&42

000000000 130000

463/30

22200222000000

464/17

00000000000 1000
Upper Kinzua Project 

- Wildlife Report

41

464/22

00100111000100

472/04

00000000080000

472/17

000000000 130000

472/37

00000000080000

473/07

00000000000600

473/11

00000000060000

473/13

00000000000500

474/22

20200220000200

474/28

00000000000400

474/31

00000000000400

474/44

22100222000000

474/50

22000210000000

474/51

11000111000000

476/15 

Wetland

00002000000000

476/22

00000000000100

476/23 

Wetland

00002000000000

476/29

00000000000010

476/47 

(Big Rock)

00004000200000

478/16

66610660000600

478/22

000000000 150000

480/23

00500220000000

480/25

20200110000000

480/59

22200222000200

481/02

80000880000800

481/10

80060330000000

481/12

000000000 140000

481/14 10

0 1000888000000

481/15

20023302000000

481/16

44400440000000

481/33

000000000 120000
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

42

482/13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

482/34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

482/37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

482/46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0

483/07 5 5 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 0 0 2 0 0

483/09 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0

483/18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0

483/46 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

484/10 10 0 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

484/25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

484/42 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 2

484/59 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

485/40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 146 52 63 15 11 98 88 56 30 461 58 97 1 2

Duck Ponds

485/22 15 0 3 3 3 0

485/29 0 0 0 0 0 10

485/30 0 0 3 0 0 0

485/51 3

485/52 3

809/15 & 58 10 0 3 10 5 0
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

43

 Table 5: Alternative 2 UK Project Wildlife Structures Proposal

Compartment

/ Stand

Install 

Gate

Construct/ Improve

Vernal Ponds

Butternut 

Seed Orchard 

& Fence

457/34 1

457/35 2

460/40 1

462/36 1

462/36 1

481/002 6

484/10 1 2

484/25 1

Totals 1 5 9

Transportation Activities 

Roads can provide wildlife habitat and/or adversely affect wildlife distribution and use, as well 

as directly affect terrestrial species habitat by altering the physical habitat conditions through 

establishment of a roadbed. Effects can be both positive and negative. Negative effects can 

occur if the species or its habitat is displaced by the road. Many species are sensitive to human 

disturbance and adverse effects from a road may occur due to increased traffic use or if new 

access is provided into an area that is presently un-roaded. Positive effects may result for species 

that utilize the herbaceous Rights-of-Way (ROW) associated with roads, or in the case of low 

standard roads, the roadbed itself.

The status of the present road system within the project area, including identification of roads 

that are presently needed to meet wildlife objectives and road management recommendations 

related to protecting wildlife and providing hunter access are documented in the UK 

transportation report (USDA-FS 2010c). This report integrates resource recommendations and 

concerns and provides a discussion of road related effects to wildlife. Information provided will 

not be repeated in the UK EA, but is incorporated by reference. 

The following is a discussion of transportation activities that are expected to have effects on 

wildlife or wildlife habitat. Effects on water quality and sedimentation are also discussed in the 

project BA and BE. 

Road Construction: Direct effects are limited to activities that occur to the roadbed and the 

proposed ROW. It may also include shaping, adding culverts, improving drainage, and applying 

surfacing material. The effects also include a short term increase in sediment, as well as possible 

mortality to less mobile wildlife species and behavioral avoidance of some wildlife species 

during construction. Road construction is proposed on 0.25 miles for FR 144B and FR 456. 

Road Reconstruction: Direct effects are limited to activities that occur to the roadbed and the 

proposed ROW. It may also include shaping, adding culverts, improving drainage, and applying 

surfacing material. The effects also include a short term increase in sediment, as well as possible 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

44

mortality to less mobile wildlife species and behavioral avoidance of some wildlife species 

during construction. Using an existing corridor would raise the standard of existing OGD roads 

and reduce potential long term sedimentation as described under physical environment.

Road reconstruction would occur on 7.4 miles of non-system roads. The use of existing 

corridors would minimize potential for impacts to wildlife resources, since a new ROW would 

not have to be cleared. The risks of direct impacts are greatly reduced and effects are limited 

largely to behavioral avoidance during implementation. This work would also raise the standard 

of the existing forest road corridors and reduce potential long term sedimentation.

Monitoring on the ANF indicates that effects of roads on wildlife vary. As described below 

specifically for the northern goshawk, use of an area by wildlife is more often affected by road 

use rather than the mere presence of the road. This is a consideration when assessing effects of 

new road construction proposed in the project area, since the new roads proposed under 

Alternative 2 will be closed to the public during the breeding season. 

Road Decommissioning: Decommissioning is proposed on 1.0 miles of FR 315 and FR 317A, 

and 18.1 miles of Non-FSR. This activity would eliminate vehicular access and reduce both 

disturbance and sedimentation, which will produce some benefit to wildlife. Additionally, 

adverse impacts to small mammals and amphibians will be reduced somewhat when vegetation 

is re-established on the old road ROW. Long term benefits to wildlife sensitive to disturbance 

will be realized because these are permanent closures.

Gravel Pit Development, Expansion and Restoration: Gravel pit expansion and rehabilitation 

are proposed on up to 41 acres. These treatments would result in long term, if not permanent 

conversion of forest to non-forest because both activities involve the clearing of all vegetation 

followed by soil removal and extraction of stone on the site. Potential adverse impacts to 

wildlife include a loss of forest cover or change in habitat type, possible mortality during 

construction, noise and disturbance during extraction operations and a possible increase in 

fragmentation. These activities result in a complete change in habitat types but only a small 

amount of acres would be affected. There is no pit development or expansion proposed in any 

key, unique or sensitive wildlife habitats and considering their scattered nature, neither gravel pit 

development nor expansion are expected to affect species viability or reduce species richness or 

diversity. Fragmentation and its potential effects are discussed under landscape or project area 

changes, as well as under cumulative effects. Additionally, there is pit restoration planned at 5 

sites and this activity would provide the same long-term benefits as described under road 

decommissioning – reduction of disturbance and sedimentation. 

Local and commercial stone sources would be used to perform maintenance on forest roads with 

the approval of Alternative 2 of this project. Limestone (which must be obtained from outside or 

off the Forest) is usually applied near water sources where a more durable road surface is 

desirable. It is expected that 20 existing stone pits will be expanded and nine new pits of about 

two acres in size will be constructed to complete the road activities proposed in the project. 

Sources of local stone vary in quality and quantity from site to site and eventually the supply is 

depleted or the quality of the material becomes unacceptable and the pit is considered depleted. 

Wildlife seed mixtures will be utilized in all areas where pits have been expanded or new pits 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

45

have been developed. This opening maintenance will be accomplished only after the pit is 

certified as depleted. All pits proposed for expansion in this project (when depleted) will be site 

prepped, seeded with a native warm or cool season grass mixture, and maintained by mowing. 

Restoration of these sites is difficult because much of the top soil has been stripped away and 

utilized or lost while the pit is actively used over time. These openings function as foraging and 

nest sites for songbirds, important brood rearing habitat for upland birds such as wild turkey, and 

foraging and basking habitat for reptiles. Approximately 24 acres at six sites will be treated to 

aid in establishing future diverse stand structure and food for wildlife species. 

Alternative Habitat Changes

This section describes changes in habitat conditions resulting under each of the Alternatives 

considered in the UK EA and will be used to asses effects to MIS and TES species described 

previously. Table 6 displays forest and non-forest conditions that presently occur within the 

project area, as well as habitat conditions that will occur under each of the Alternatives over 20 

years. The CE analysis period spans the thirty year period between 2000 and 2030, displaying 

changes in habitat during this period. 

Table 6: Alternative Habitat Conditions

Year

2010 2030

Alt 1 Alt 2

Community Ac % Ac % Ac %

Forest

Early 

Structure 2,354 8.5% 616 2.2% 2,152 7.6%

Midstructure 24,471 86.1% 19,628 69.6% 19,804 70.2%

Late 

Structure 25 <1% 75 <1% 75 <1%

Old Growth 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0

Total Forest 26,850 97.5% 20,319 72.1% 22,031 78.1%

Non-Forest 664 2.4% 4,795 16.9% 6,352 22.5%

Most forested habitat will continue to occur as early and mid-structural habitat under both 

Alternatives. Those stands over 140 years old will begin to display some late structural or even 

old growth characteristics. The change in non-forested habitat under Alternative 2 is due to 

openings that would result due to proposed wildlife habitat improvement work (24 acres) and 

gravel pit expansion/construction (41 acres). The biggest change between alternatives is in the 

amount of future early and mid-structural habitat that will be provided under Alternative 1 in 

2030 (Table 6). In the first ten years, available early structural habitat will decline and then 

recover in the second 10 year period under Alternative 2. Early structural habitat will be reduced 

to 2% of the project area (2030) under Alternative 1 and decrease to almost 70% in midstructural habitat under Alternative 1, as existing pole stands mature.

Changes in early structural habitat and most of the changes in mid-structural habitat under 

Alternative 2 are due to proposed final harvest treatments. Approximately half of the total final 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

46

harvest proposed will occur within the next 10 years and by 2020, early structural habitat will 

decrease across the project area under this alternative. However, it will rebound for the most part 

during the second 10 year period to within 100 acres of the current level. By 2030 early 

structural habitat will increase to 8% of the project area under Alternative 2, while mid-structural 

habitat will have a corresponding decrease to about 70% of the project area at this time. 

When viewed over time, Alternative 2 will maintain early and mid structural habitat close to 

levels that existed in 2000, whereas Alternative 1 will continue the declining trend in early 

successional habitat and increasing trend in mid-structural habitat. 

Wildlife habitat improvement work in non-forested communities under Alternative 2 emphasizes 

restoration and/or maintenance of existing openings and fern infested areas, improves wildlife 

cover and forage conditions, increases habitat for shrub nesting species, improves the availability 

and distribution of seasonal forage important to wildlife (green herbaceous vegetation, soft mast 

and winter forage production) and improves the distribution of non-forest habitat. Under 

Alternative 1, there would be no improvement in wildlife cover and forage within existing 

openings and the distribution of small non-forested habitat would decline as wildlife openings 

shrank due to the encroachment of woody vegetation inward from the edges. 

Riparian and specialized habitats and their importance to wildlife were described previously and 

the Forest Plan requires that the ecological functions and values associated with riparian areas be 

maintained (USDA-FS 2007a, 74). This is accomplished through avoidance, mitigation and 

enhancement and applicable standards and guidelines identified on pages 74-78 of the Forest 

Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) will be implemented under all alternatives. Riparian habitat associated 

with perennial and intermittent streams is identified using the upper bottom and floodplain 

ecological land types (ELT’s). No upper bottom habitat will be affected under Alternative 1 and 

except for resurfacing roads with limestone, and road decommissioning; no upper bottom habitat 

would be affected. Disturbance to riparian habitat from treatments will be short term (1 year) 

with implementation of Forest S & G’s, as well as site-specific mitigations related to the 

protection of this community. Many species of wildlife prefer unique or specialized habitat 

features that include wetlands, seeps and springs, rock outcroppings, and within-stand features 

such as hemlock, den trees and snags, raptor nest sites and mast species. These inclusions are 

scattered across the project area and may occur in or near stands proposed for treatment. Site 

specific and Forest Plan mitigation measures (USDA-FS 2007a, 74-89) are designed to reduce 

these impacts and implementation of these measures would ensure that adverse effects to unique 

or sensitive habitats would not occur under any alternative. 

Many of the proposed timber harvesting and reforestation treatments would occur during the 

breeding season, so effects could include possible direct mortality of less-mobile individuals, 

including migratory bird nests and/or eggs. However wildlife monitoring on the Forest indicates 

that the level of activity and changes in available habitats considered under Alternative 2 would 

not reduce species diversity within the area, and that a diverse assemblage of songbirds, small 

mammals, reptiles and amphibians would still exist in a variety of habitats (deCalesta 1998). 

Both alternatives provide sufficient early, mid and late structural habitat to support current 

populations of migratory birds, with implementation of Forest-wide S&G’s (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-

257). Finally, the ANF is a partner in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and in 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

47

compliance with Executive Order 13186-Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds. Direct mortality related to T&E species as well as RFSS is discussed in the BA 

and BE. Alternative effects are also discussed below under the MIS evaluation. 

Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines for T&E species

See UK BA, ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007e), and US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Concurrence Letter (1/31/07) for applicable conservation measures and Standards and 

Guidelines.

Regional Foresters Sensitive Species 

See the UK BE and ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007e) for analysis of impacts and 

any applicable standards and guidelines. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area and rationale for its selection are described below. Specific 

cumulative effects to wildlife evaluated in this analysis include; 1) an assessment of past, present 

and anticipated future forest regeneration occurring on both non-federal and ANF lands, 2) an 

evaluation of proposed actions that will result in permanent or long term changes to wildlife 

habitat, 3) an assessment of the physical disturbance (well pads, roads etc) affected by oil and 

gas development on non-federal and ANF lands 4) an evaluation of the changes in available 

wildlife habitat that have occurred within the project area during the CE period and 5) and 

evaluation of anticipated cumulative effects on MIS. 

Conversion of Forest to Non-Forest 

Non-forest habitat within the CE boundary is largely the result of past road building, oil and gas 

development, wildlife openings, and industrial and residential development. Currently 11.3% of 

the CE area is considered non-forested habitat. Of this, most exists as permanent openings 

associated with oil and gas development and larger openings associated with residential and 

industrial development in the Westline area portion of the analysis area and along SR 59. 

Openings on NFS lands are described above.

There will be a small addition to non-forest habitat due to construction of wildlife openings, 

gravel pit expansion and new pit construction. These proposed activities will only convert about 

61 acres of forest to future non-forested habitat (Alternative 2). Minimizing this type of habitat 

conversion will increase the resilience of most ecological systems to climate change. Similarly, 

it is anticipated that there will be little change in future residential and industrial development 

within the CE area and it is estimated that there will only be approximately 20 acres of new 

development on private lands. The greatest amount of future non-forested habitat will result due 

to anticipated oil and gas development. Based on projected levels of development identified in 

Appendix D of the Upper Kinzua Project EA, it is estimated that by 2030 there will be an 

additional 1,981 acres of non-forested habitat created within the CE area, due to roads and well 

pad development. Cumulatively it is estimated that by 2030, non-forest habitat will exist on 11% 

of the CE area under both alternatives. Past, present and anticipated future changes in nonforested habitat and oil and gas related disturbance are displayed in Table 7. Effects of OGD

development on species sensitive to disturbance are discussed below. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

48

Regeneration Harvest 

Early structural habitat presently exists on approximately 12% of the CE area. This includes past 

regeneration harvest on NFS lands and an estimated 50 acres of final harvest activities on private 

industrial forest lands. As described above, future final harvest on NFS lands includes 493 acres 

under Alternative 1 and 2,050 acres under Alternative 2. Due to the amount of shelterwood 

harvest in the last 20 years implemented on private land and considering the maturing forest 

conditions that predominate, it is expected that the level of future final harvest on private will 

remain somewhat constant and by 2030, it is anticipated that another 100 acres of final harvest 

activities will be implemented on private land. Cumulatively by 2030, even age regeneration 

activities will have been implemented on < 2% and 7% of the analysis area under Alternatives 1 

and 2 respectively. Cumulative amounts of early structural habitat are displayed by alternative in 

Table 7. 

Table 7: Wildlife Cumulative Effect Summary

Activity/Effect

Past and Present 

(2000-2010) Future (2030)

Project Area = 28,221 acres

CE Area = 41,180 acres

Alt 1 PA Alt 1 CE Alt 2 PA Alt 2 CE

Timber Harvest

Even age Regeneration

NFS lands 5,024 0 616 2,074 2,317

Private 50 100 100 100 100

Total Final Harvest 5,074 100 716 2,174 2,417

% of CE Area 12.3% 0.4% 1.7% 7.7% 5.9%

OGD Development

Wells (number) 2,392 3,712 4,087 3,712 4,087

OGD related disturbance 2,392 acres 4,109 ac. 4,597 ac. 4,109 ac. 4,597 ac.

% of CE Area 5.8% 10.0% 11.2% 10.0% 11.2%

Non-OGD Openings

National Forest 664 acres 0 664 24 688

Private

These areas were not differentiated during aerial photo 

interpretation. New pit needs are unknown.

Total Acres 664 acres 0 664 24 688

Total Non-Forest Habitat 3,056 4,109 5,037 4,133 5,061

% of CE Area 7.4% 10.0% 12.2% 10.0% 12.3%

Disturbance and Fragmentation

As described above, oil and gas development has the greatest potential to convert forest to nonforest habitat and fragment remaining forest habitat (see direct and indirect effects). A potential 

layout of projected well locations has been developed by using known geologic, geographic, 

cultural and water features. Disturbance related effects to wildlife depend largely on the level of 

development and the amount of daily use or human activity required maintaining and operating 

in that area. Monitoring on the Forest indicates that many species that can be sensitive to 

disturbance such as black bear, turkey and the Northern goshawk, tolerate and successfully 

reproduce in areas of low to moderate oil and gas development. This is because these areas often 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

49

contain low-standard roads, are closed to public access and often receive little daily use (USDAFS 2007b, 3-231). However, this monitoring also indicates that areas of intense oil and gas

development can result in levels of disturbance that create marginally suitable or un-suitable 

habitat for some species, such as the Northern goshawk (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-269). Although 

there has been some oil and gas development outside of known oil and gas fields, the intense 

level of development that creates unsuitable or marginally suitable habitat for species such as the 

northern goshawk occurs primarily within known oil and gas fields (USDA-FS 2007d, Appendix 

F, 8) and this is expected to continue in the future. 

To assess potential impacts related to OGD development, a GIS analysis identified portions of 

the CE area that already contain intense OGD development, as well as those portions of the CE 

area that contain existing oil and gas fields where most of the future high intensity OGD

development is likely to occur. Most past development is dispersed evenly across the project 

area west of SR 219 and south from SR 59 to Meade Run. Most of the anticipated future intense 

OGD development is likely to occur on approximately 10% of the CE area, or the south central 

and far eastern part of the area near Guffey, FR 317 and the area along Meade Run from SR 219 

to FR 457. A GIS analysis of interior habitat, which includes all forested lands greater than 200 

ft. from a permanent opening or road, was also completed and presently approximately 36% of 

the CE area occurs as forested interior habitat. This includes only 3 blocks over 1,000 acres in 

size running east to west along the south end of the project area. There is little wildlife value as 

actual interior habitat because of the highly irregular shape of these blocks and the existing road 

mileage.

Appendix D projects future development of 1,320 wells in the Upper Kinzua Project area and an 

additional 375 wells outside the project area in the cumulative effects boundary. Much of that 

development is expected to occur in areas that are currently suitable interior forest habitat. The 

increased activity that accompanies OGD, the conversion of forest to non-forest, and the 

construction of roads would further fragment existing habitat. If the full field development 

scenario occurs, there would be no remaining large patches of interior forest habitat in the project 

area.

Landscape Level Changes in Habitat

Table 11 summarizes present wildlife habitat conditions (2010) within the CE area and displays 

by alternative anticipated changes in 2030. Although mid structural forest will be reduced under 

both alternatives, by 2030, mid-structural forest conditions will continue to predominate under 

both Alternative 1 and 2 respectively. Because the maximum amount of forest converted to nonforest under any alternative is about 65 acres, there is virtually no difference between alternatives 

related to this habitat component. The difference between the amount of interior habitat lost 

between Alternatives 1 and 2 is due new opening/gravel pit development and the loss of interior 

habitat on lands within 200 ft. of the edge created by these activities. As described above, the 

primary loss of interior habitat under both alternatives is likely due to anticipated private oil and 

gas development, which could cumulatively impact most of the remaining large blocks of 

interior habitat (>100 acres) within the CE area and would likely be the same regardless of the 

Alternative selected by the Forest Service. An additional 50 acres of the mid structural habitat in 

the CE will age into late structural habitat over that 20 year time frame. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

50

V. Evaluate Effects to Wildlife

Anticipated changes in wildlife habitat and the associated communities are predicted under 

various alternatives and associated effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat evaluated. GIS maps 

and present condition data are used to complete the coarse-filter analysis, identify and evaluate 

spatial relationships between habitat(s), assess changes in horizontal diversity and predict 

changes and effects to MIS species. Site-specific data is used in the fine filter analysis to 

evaluate vertical diversity, assess stand level changes in habitat and to ensure that specialized 

habitat and unique vegetative and physical habitat conditions are maintained and/or protected. 

Scale of Analysis

Wildlife distribution and use of an area is determined largely by the availability of suitable 

habitat and can be influenced by site-specific needs such as the vegetative structure or physical 

features on a site, as well as by landscape considerations such as the proximity to other habitat or 

the need for isolation or seclusion. As a result, a multi-scale analysis that looks at site-specific 

conditions in stands proposed for treatment (fine filter), as well as landscape considerations such 

as the proximity and availability to other habitat (coarse filter), will be considered. The 

following is a brief discussion of how the coarse and fine filter scales are used in this analysis. 

Fine Filter

This level of assessment involves evaluation of individual stands or sites proposed for treatment. 

Sites at this scale vary in size from less than 1 acre to 110 acres. Research on the ANF has 

shown that wildlife use is often influenced by specific conditions that can only be identified at 

the stand or site scale (Ordiway unpublished). For example, the specific vegetative structure or 

the presence of water or surface boulders on a given site may greatly affect the wildlife 

community present. Many of these characteristics cannot be identified at the landscape or coarse 

filter scale. As a result, a fine filter will be used to identify habitat conditions such as vertical 

structure, the presence of TES species, and the presence of site specific conditions that affect 

wildlife use. This scale of analysis also identifies stand level habitat conditions that may need to 

be protected or enhanced and is used to identify site-specific mitigation measures. 

Coarse Filter

This level of assessment involves evaluation of habitat and direct and indirect effects across the 

entire project area or landscape scale. It facilitates the evaluation of private land influences and 

other activities such as oil and gas development, which may not be readily apparent at a smaller 

scale. A coarse filter scale of analysis also evaluates landscape level wildlife considerations such 

as horizontal diversity and will be used to assess the availability of habitats and wildlife 

communities on NFS lands across the landscape. Cumulative effects of all actions on federal and 

private lands within the project area are also evaluated at this scale. 

Cumulative Effects - Analysis Period

Cumulative effects related to wildlife are evaluated by looking at past, present and foreseeable 

future activities which could adversely affect wildlife and wildlife habitat when considered 

cumulatively over time. The primary activities contributing to cumulative effects on wildlife 

and wildlife habitat are those resulting in conversion of forest to non-forest habitat. Since oil and 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

51

gas development has occurred within the project area for several decades, there was no definitive 

point in time from which to start the cumulative effects analysis pertaining to oil and gas. The 

analysis period is therefore based on the period of time when the CE area would have been most 

affected by past timber harvest and for reasons described above, 2000 was selected as the start of 

the analysis period. Because it will take up to 20 years for all proposed activities to be 

completed and considering many wildlife effects will begin to fade beyond 20 years, 2030 was 

chosen as the end of the CE analysis period. The analysis boundary and time period are 

described in the project BA.

Effects to Management Indicator Species

Cerulean Warbler

Direct and Indirect Effects

The cerulean warbler is closely tied to oak and oak transition forests on the ANF. There is only 

one oak type stand in this project area and a few with a mixed component. Specific treatments 

within the oak forest type that could have effects on this species include timber harvest, 

prescribed burning and oak release (enhancement) treatments. Potential effects of burning on 

breeding birds such as the cerulean warbler were discussed above and riverine habitat along 

Kinzua Creek will essentially remain unchanged. The following is a discussion of alternative 

effects to oak and oak transition forest from proposed timber harvest. 

As described in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-234 to 3-235), potential effects of 

timber harvest on cerulean warbler habitat can be both positive and negative, depending on the 

resulting canopy conditions. As a result effects will be evaluated by looking at changes in the 

amount of suitable oak habitat, as well as changes in the mature oak overstory that affect 

cerulean warbler density. The following is a summary of structural conditions characteristic of 

sites with documented cerulean warbler use on the ANF; 

Open Canopy Stands (~45- 75% stocked) – These sites have been found to have the highest 

densities of cerulean warblers in the ANF. 

Moderately Stocked Stands (76-100% stocked) – These sites have documented cerulean 

warbler nesting, although densities are lower than those found in open canopy stands. 

Closed Canopy Stands (>100% stocked) - Although these sites are considered suitable nest 

habitat, on the ANF cerulean warbler nesting has not been documented in closed canopy 

stands. 

Unsuitable Nest Habitat – oak and oak transition stands <50 years of age that don’t provide 

adequate mature trees for nesting and foraging.

There is only one red oak stand in the entire project area and it is not scheduled for any treatment 

for this project. The riverine habitat that cerulean warblers also use is not scheduled for 

treatment. These areas will continue to age but are not likely to change very much in 

composition or age structure.

Alternatives 1 & 2
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

52

Changes displayed under Alternative 1 reflect there is no pre-approved removal cutting in the 

oak type. There will be no decrease in suitable oak habitat, which is considered fully stocked 

over the short and long term. 

The Forest Plan includes objectives related to managing cerulean warbler breeding habitat to 

provide preferred structural conditions (e.g. increase white oak and increase oak spp. where it is 

a minor component) (USDA FS 2007a, 20). Because there is no active oak management, 

Alternative 1 does not accomplish those objectives. Additionally, although there will be no 

anticipated changes in the amount of oak habitat during the analysis period (2010-2030), due to 

the absence of fire, anticipated increases in competing vegetation, and preferential browsing of 

white oak seedlings by deer, over time (>50 years) it is likely that there will be a reduction in oak 

forest and a corresponding reduction in cerulean warbler habitat.

Alternative 2

Changes in available oak habitat under Alternative 2 are no different than related in Alternative 1 

above. Suitable cerulean warbler nest habitat will change very little in the oak stand or along the 

Kinzua Creek riverine habitat.

Because the presence of the cerulean warbler was found to be correlated with large tracts of 

mature, semi-open forest (Robbins et al 1989), it can be affected by fragmentation. While effects 

of forest fragmentation (described below) from proposed timber harvest are expected to be 

temporary in nature, long-term effects such as increased nest predation and competition may 

occur along permanent roads or openings proposed under this alternative. As described in the 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-235 to 3-237) and below, this will vary depending on the 

landscape conditions and associated predator populations. Proposed new gravel pit/opening 

construction and expansion will result in the conversion of about 41 acres of forest to nonforested habitat. In addition, forested lands within 200 feet of the permanent edge created may 

also be affected by increased predation and cumulatively, new openings created under this 

alternative would be expected to reduce interior habitat, or lands within 200 feet of a permanent 

edge under this alternative. All the larger blocks of interior habitat in this project area are 

expected to be largely dissected due to continuous OGD development. 

In an effort to increase the availability of oak, oak species in general will be favored in mixed 

oak stands or stands with a small oak component, increasing the oak component on these sites.

Alternative 2 better meets Forest Plan objectives related to managing cerulean warbler breeding 

habitat and providing the preferred structural conditions (USDA-FS 2007a, 20). This is because 

cerulean warbler nesting habitat within the project area will be slightly increased under 

Alternative 2 while suitable habitat will be maintained on the little bit of oak habitat within the 

project area. Because this area is currently dominated by closed canopy hardwood stands, 

release treatments will improve the distribution of preferred open canopy nesting habitat within 

the project area. 

Effects Common to Both Alternatives

Fragmentation of mature, deciduous breeding grounds, particularly along riparian corridors, is a 

threat that has contributed to the decline of the cerulean warbler (Hamel 2000) and the Forest 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

53

Plan FEIS includes a discussion of fragmentation related effects on the cerulean warbler (USDA 

FS 2007a, 3-235 to 3-238). As described, effects of fragmentation are largely influenced by 

landscape considerations and because the UK project area is over 95% forested, effects of 

fragmentation are greatly reduced. Minimizing fragmentation will also increase the chances that 

ecological systems can better withstand climatic changes. Following is a discussion of 

fragmentation related effects that may result due to final harvest treatments that would occur 

under both alternatives. 

Although there are fewer fragmentation effects in predominately forested areas such as the ANF, 

recent research indicates that increased levels of nest predation can occur in association with 

final harvest activities in forested landscapes (Manolis et al 2002; USDA-FS 2007b, 3-236 to 3-

239). Although nest predation has been found to be higher near edges, effects on songbird 

reproduction are complex. Recent research on the ANF has shown that populations of nest 

predators (eastern chipmunk) increase in areas that receive final harvest treatments, but songbird 

nest densities and success are also higher on the regenerated site than the uncut forest (USDA-FS 

2007b, 3-237). As a result, the higher level of nest success and reproduction may offset adverse 

affects associated with increased nest predation (Stoleson 2006). Due to the rapid development 

of woody vegetation on the site, any changes in nest predation that result from proposed final 

harvest treatments would be considered temporary. Therefore, it is not anticipated that changes 

in nest predators will reduce songbird diversity or abundance under either alternative. Successful 

reproduction of forest interior species such as the cerulean warbler will likely continue and 

preferred site and landscape conditions will be maintained. This is supported by on-Forest 

monitoring of sites receiving even age timber harvest similar to that proposed, as well as uncut 

sites (deCalesta 1998, Stoleson 2006).

Many of the treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would occur during the breeding season, so 

effects could include direct mortality of less-mobile individuals and/or eggs but this is not likely 

because this species has not been documented in the project or CE area. While habitat for 

migratory birds may be affected by these activities, implementation of Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and project level design features would reduce effects to uncommon and unique 

habitats (described under affected environment) and help reduce mortality to migratory species 

such as the cerulean warbler. Also the Forest Service is a partner in the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and in compliance with Executive Order 13186 –

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

In summary, there are no adverse effects to the cerulean warbler or its habitat under either 

alternative that would result in reduced species viability. Additionally, although there will be 

local changes in habitat and nesting density, neither alternative would be expected to result in 

regional changes in habitat or populations for this species due to the continued availability of 

suitable habitat. This is based on the above analysis and the following rationale:

Most of existing cerulean warbler oak nesting habitat will be maintained under both 

alternatives.

Project activities under either alternative are not likely to decrease existing suitable habitat. 

The effects of fragmentation will be reduced due to the extensively forested nature of the 

project area.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

54

There are no anticipated effects under either alternative that were not considered in the 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA FS 2007b).

Cumulative Effects

As described under direct and indirect effects, on the ANF the cerulean warbler utilizes almost 

exclusively riverine, oak or oak transition stands. Suitable oak habitat (plus riverine) exists on 

<2% of the analysis area. Just as on the NFS lands, there are few oak stands on private lands 

within the CE area. Cumulatively by 2030, available suitable cerulean habitat will continue to 

occur where it currently exists. 

Although some habitat may be lost due to future oil and gas development, monitoring on the 

Forest indicates that OGD activity does not preclude use and mature oak and riverine habitat 

within areas of future development will continue to be available.

Past and anticipated future oil and gas development can increase fragmentation, as described 

under direct and indirect effects. There are fewer fragmentation related effects in predominately 

forested areas such as the UK project area. Also cerulean warbler use has been documented on 

the ANF in areas where intense oil and gas development presently exists, indicating that this 

species successfully utilizes sites containing this level of activity. Considering that most of the 

suitable habitat will continue to provide suitable cerulean warbler nesting habitat, suitable habitat 

for this species will continue to be widely available.

Mourning Warbler

Direct and Indirect Effects

The mourning warbler utilizes early structural vegetation associated with both canopy and 

understory disturbance. As such, proposed activities that would affect habitat for this species 

include timber harvest (both even and uneven-age treatments), herbicide application, road and 

opening construction and prescribed burning. General effects of burning and herbicide 

application on songbirds are discussed above. Suitable mourning warbler habitat is expected to 

occur both in the short (2020) and long-term (2030) under each of the alternatives. 

Existing and future early structural habitat is due to past regeneration harvest, whereas future 

multi-age structure is based on natural disturbance regimes characteristic of the Allegheny 

plateau, as well as shelterwood harvest, RUMFC, AMFC, and canopy gap treatments, all of 

which can create understory conditions preferred by the mourning warbler. 

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, suitable mourning warbler habitat will steadily decline both in the short and 

long term and by 2030, early structural habitat will occur on about 7% of the project area and 

suitable mourning warbler habitat would be limited largely to naturally occurring multi-structure 

habitat. Also suitable mourning warbler habitat associated with existing roads and utility ROWs 

will continue to be available and may actually increase.

As described in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-183) and above under affected 

environment, early structural habitat has been steadily declining in the State and Region, which 

has raised concerns related to the conservation of early structural habitat and wildlife in the 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

55

Eastern United States (Thompson et al 2001). On the ANF this habitat has remained relatively 

stable in the last 20 years and the Forest Plan includes objectives to provide a diversity of 

structural age classes, including 8% of the Forest in early structural conditions (USDA-FS 

2007a, 19). Because early structural habitat will continue to decline under this alternative, it 

does not meet Forest Plan objectives related to providing conditions for species which prefer 

early structural habitat. 

The mourning warbler also utilizes multi-structural habitat, the presence of which can be used to 

assess habitat conditions for other mid to late successional species that prefer or require an early 

structural component. Approximately the same level of multi-structural habitat will be provided 

due to natural disturbances under this alternative. Considering mid-structural habitat will 

increase, Alternative 1 will continue to meet the needs of species that utilize a combination of 

early and mid to late structural forest. 

Although there will be a decline in available early structural habitat for this species, available 

multi-structural habitat will be maintained. So, Alternative 1 will provide adequate habitat to 

maintain low level populations and there are no reductions in viability or regional changes in 

habitat quality or population status anticipated under this alternative. 

Alternative 2

Although there are proposed final harvest treatments, available early structural habitat will 

slightly increase under this alternative by 2020. Multi-structural habitat will also increase in 

2020 due to proposed canopy gap treatments, whereas the increase in 2030 reflects the unevenaged management, RUMFC and AMFC treatments. In addition to that created through harvest, 

it is also anticipated that some level of naturally occurring multi-structural habitat will result due 

to historic levels of natural disturbance. Mourning warblers respond to the edge habitat created 

by activities that disturb the canopy, in addition to habitat created through timber harvest. It is 

expected that small pockets of suitable habitat would be created at scattered locations across the 

project area, due to proposed gravel pit and opening construction/expansion. 

To provide desired vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat conditions, the Forest Plan identifies 

achieving and maintaining approximately 8% of the Forest as early structural habitat (USDA-FS 

2007a, 19). The creation of early structural habitat by 2030 provided under Alternative 2 is 

consistent with this Forest objective. Additionally, due to the increase in early structural habitat 

and considering mid-structural habitat will be provided on over 75% of the project area, this 

alternative is also consistent with MA 3.0 objectives (USDA-FS 2007a, 113) to maintain or 

create structural diversity and to manage for primarily early and mid-structural habitat 

conditions.

Potential adverse effects to the mourning warbler could result due to proposed herbicide 

application (discussed above), as well as due to reforestation treatments that involve cutting 

sapling sized trees (site preparation and release). However, implementation of Forest design 

criteria that restrict these activities during the breeding season will reduce mortality related 

effects. Also the Forest Service is a partner in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

(NABCI) and in compliance with Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies 

to Protect Migratory Birds.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

56

In summary, Alternative 2 best meets Forest Plan objectives and management direction related to 

providing a diversity of vegetative conditions. Also, because higher densities of mourning 

warblers are associated with early structural habitat, an abundance of early successional species 

such as the mourning warbler would occur under this alternative. Mid-structural habitat will 

continue to predominate across the project area and in all MA’s and there will be a slight 

increase in multi-structural habitat for species that prefer or require small pockets of early 

structural forest. Implementation of Alternative 2 is also expected to maintain habitat for mid to 

late successional species. 

Cumulative Effects

As described under direct and indirect effects, the mourning warbler utilizes early structural 

vegetation associated with both canopy and understory disturbance and due to proposed 

regeneration harvest on private and NFS lands, it is anticipated that suitable early structural 

habitat will rebound to 12% of the CE area under Alternative 2 and decrease to 9% of the area 

under Alternative 1. Additionally, suitable habitat would continue to exist along larger road 

ROWs that have enough light to result in understory development, as well as in multi-structural 

habitat on NFS lands identified above. Because the availability of suitable habitat will continue 

to occur near current levels and considering it will continue to be fairly well distributed across 

affected watersheds, there will be no reduction in viability or decline in populations of this 

species under either alternative. 

Northern Goshawk

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects to the Northern goshawk will be evaluated by identifying activities 

that may cause direct mortality or harassment to individuals (direct effects), as well as activities 

that may alter habitat conditions at either the site or landscape scale (indirect effects). Because 

the Northern goshawk is recognized as a species with viability concerns, the Forest Plan includes 

standards that protect active nests and ensure that suitable foraging/post fledgling habitat is 

maintained within active territories (USDA-FS 2007a, 84-85). The effects discussion below is 

based on implementation of these standards. 

Indirect effects are evaluated by looking at changes in suitable nesting, foraging and postfledgling habitat and are based largely on a Forest-wide analysis of documented habitat use on 

the ANF (USDA-FS 2007, 144-147), as well as State and Region-wide analysis of habitat use 

(Kimmel and Yahner 1994). On the ANF, preferred goshawk nesting sites occurs in areas that 

contain a predominance of mid-structural habitat with a conifer component. Although stands 

with an abundance of larger diameter (>12 inch dbh) trees were preferred, successful nesting has 

been documented in mid-structural pole stands and nesting habitat is defined as Forested stands 

>30 years of age. Goshawks often select sites in areas with low to moderate road densities, but 

they prefer seclusion for nesting and areas where existing roads are closed to public access are 

selected for with greater frequency. Monitoring on the ANF indicates that intensive oil and gas 

development can make habitat unsuitable or marginally suitable for goshawk nesting. Suitable 

goshawk nest habitat includes all forested stands >30 years of age that don’t occur in areas of 

intense oil and gas development (USDA-FS 2007, 145-148). There are only three large irregular 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

57

shaped blocks (> 1,000 acres) of unroaded habitat across this project area. Under this criterion, 

less than 60% of this project area is considered suitable. 

Because foraging and post-fledgling habitat include lands that contain openings and a variety of 

structural classes, all lands not containing intense oil and gas development, or approximately 

~85% of the project area are presently considered suitable forging and post fledgling habitat.

The northern goshawk’s use of interior habitat reflects its preference for relatively undisturbed 

habitat for nesting. The changes in the amount of interior habitat provide another relative 

measure of the potential conflicts. Just over 50% of the project area currently occurs as interior 

or unroaded habitat greater than 1/10 mile from an existing road. 

Alternative 1

There are 452 acres of final harvest activities that are pre-approved in this project area. 

Therefore, suitable nesting habitat will decrease slightly over the short term across the project 

area. Effects to foraging and post-fledgling habitat are discussed below under effects common to 

both alternatives.

Alternative 2

In addition to changes in nesting habitat described under Alternative 1, mid-structural forest 

habitat will be reduced by about 6% due to proposed final harvest treatment. Some of this occurs 

within areas of high density oil and gas development and by 2030, suitable goshawk nest habitat 

will be only slightly reduced from the present condition. Suitable goshawk nest habitat will 

continue to predominate across the landscape and will occur on about 75% of the project area. 

Mature mid-structural habitat will also be reduced slightly due to proposed road construction and 

opening/gravel pit construction/expansion. However based on levels of these activities found 

within active territories on the Forest (USDA-FS 2007, 145-146), and implementation of design 

features to protect active nests, these treatments are not expected to adversely affect nest 

production. 

Effects Common to Both Alternatives

While mid and late structural forest is preferred for nesting, on the ANF goshawk territories 

contain early and mid-structural pole habitat and small openings at greater frequency than nest 

sites and at levels similar to their forest-wide availability. This is consistent with State-wide and 

Region-wide research that indicates that goshawk prey species need a variety of habitat 

conditions from early through mature seral stages. As a result and considering the mix of 

structural conditions provided under each of the alternatives, there will be little change in 

landscape level conditions, or potentially suitable goshawk foraging/post fledgling habitat under 

either alternative. Additionally, given the predominance of mid-structural habitat preferred for 

nesting, suitable nest habitat is distributed across the southern project area, from Guffey to the 

reservoir. Although the amount of suitable nest habitat varies somewhat by alternative, both 

Alternatives will ensure that suitable nest, foraging and post-fledgling habitat is maintained 

across the landscape.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

58

In summary, although both alternatives have the potential to adversely affect the northern 

goshawk and its habitat, 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. The amount of suitable nesting habitat varies slightly by alternative, 

but both alternatives will maintain the structural conditions preferred by the northern goshawk 

for nesting and foraging across the landscape. Based on the level of harvest proposed and the 

continued availability of suitable habitat, both alternatives will maintain adequate habitat to meet 

Forest-wide population objectives for the northern goshawk. In summary, no effects to this 

species or its habitat are anticipated under either alternative that would result in a reduction in 

viability or cause a trend toward federal listing. 

Cumulative Effects

As described under direct and indirect effects, habitat for the northern goshawk can be made 

unsuitable due to intense oil and gas development. For this reason, approximately 6% of the 

analysis area is currently considered unsuitable or marginally suitable goshawk habitat. As 

described above it is anticipated that future intense oil and gas development will occur on up to 

an additional 5% of the area, with most of this development occurring within existing fields in 

the CE area. Cumulatively by 2030, it is expected that approximately 11% of the project area 

may be unsuitable for goshawk nesting due to past and anticipated future oil and gas 

development.

Suitable nesting habitat will be reduced on up to 6% of the CE area due to anticipated 

regeneration harvest. 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 foraging and post-fledgling goshawk habitat. Similarly, based on 

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

construction/expansion proposed is consistent with goshawk use and there are no activities 

proposed under either alternative that would be create long term unsuitable goshawk habitat. 

Based on the analysis presented in this EA, the Forest BE (USDA-FS 2007) and the following 

rationale, anticipated cumulative effects will not result in a reduction in viability for this species:

Although suitable nest habitat will be reduced by up to 6%, nest habitat will continue to be 

widely available across the analysis area. Over 50% of analysis area will occur as interior 

forest habitat, which would provide minimally suitable habitat for species such as the 

goshawk that can be sensitive to disturbance. 

Although there are no known goshawk nests within the project area, implementation of ANF 

monitoring and nest/territory protection guidelines are expected to reduce potential impacts 

to future nests, help to maintain suitable habitat on sites affected by proposed activities and 

reduce impacts from oil and gas development. 

With implementation of nest protection guidelines, there is no anticipated reduction in 

goshawk productivity due to proposed activities. 

It is anticipated that much of the future oil and gas development will occur within portions 

of the project area that currently provide unsuitable or marginally suitable habitat (i.e. 

known oil and gas fields). Also, it is anticipated that most of the existing suitable habitat 

outside of known fields will continue to be available.
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

59

Aquatic Invertebrates

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Both Alternatives

Effects to aquatic invertebrates include any activity that could potentially affect water quality 

including timber harvest, reforestation treatments such as herbicide application and prescribed 

burning and road management activities. As an MIS, the objective is to maintain the diversity 

and relative abundance of the populations that existed before initiation of the land disturbing 

activities and specific effects from these activities are discussed in the Revised Forest Plan FEIS 

(USDA-FS 2007b, 3-246). While alternative 2 poses a greater risk due to proposed vegetation 

and road management treatments, both alternatives include numerous Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines related to protecting aquatic resources. There would be no anticipated decline in 

invertebrate populations, diversity or relative abundance under either alternative, considering 

implementation of Forest-wide buffers (USDA-FS 2007a) and site specific mitigation measures.

Cumulative Effects

As discussed above, suitable habitat for aquatic invertebrates is prevalent in the waterways 

across the project area. Streams will be buffered from proposed timber harvesting, reforestation 

and road activities following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&G). These S&G’s 

(USDA-FS 2007a, 74-79; 83-84) would adequately protect water quality and prevent 

disturbances to riparian and aquatic habitats. Forest S&G’s would also be implemented to 

maintain the environment and water quality of intermittent streams, springs, seeps, and vernal 

pools from the potential effects of vegetation and road management activities. 

Road reconstruction activities will have engineer-approved road designs, Forest Plan S&G’s 

(USDA-FS 2007a, 95-99) will be identified and implemented, and site specific mitigation 

measures will be applied to protect water quality wherever the road prism is hydrologically 

connected to streams. Future projects in the CE area will be analyzed on an individual basis and 

will follow all pertinent S&G’s related to protection of water resources.

The concern with further private OGD is the number of roads that might be built that can lead to 

additional runoff to streams where habitat can be impacted. The lack of proper maintenance of 

these roads once they are built has been a concern across the ANF. These mitigation measures 

benefit aquatic invertebrates in streams within the project and CE areas. Private landowners are 

encouraged to implement best management practices (BMPs) (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-275 to 277) 

to minimize effects to water quality and aquatic invertebrates within the CE area.

With implementation of the various protection measures mentioned, aquatic invertebrate 

diversity and relative abundance is not expected to be adversely affected.

Timber Rattlesnake

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

60

There have been no recent sightings of snakes within the project area, so the likelihood of direct 

impacts from previously approved timber harvesting is minimal (See EA Appendix A, 

previously approved treatments). There are no indirect effects under this alternative. There may 

be localized changes in prey density, but mature forest and suitable rattlesnake habitat will 

continue predominate across the project area. 

Alternative 2

Although there are no known den sites affected by treatment, foraging rattlesnakes could be 

directly affected by any activity that involves the use of heavy machinery including proposed 

commercial harvest, opening and gravel pit construction/expansion, herbicide application, 

fertilization and area fence construction. However, snakes have not been recently documented in 

the area and considering public access will not be increased, the risk of snake mortality is 

considered low. 

Indirect impacts from proposed activities include 1) an increase in early structural habitat due to 

final harvest, AMFC and RUMFC treatments which would result in a more diverse small 

mammal prey base, 2) creation of more open understory conditions and improved habitat on 

approximately 16% of the project area due to reforestation treatments (herbicide application, site 

preparation) and commercial and non-commercial, and 3) short term increases (~10 years) in 

small diameter downed woody debris and increased cover for snakes and their prey. While there 

will be a short-term increase in small diameter material on sites proposed for timber harvest, due 

to the removal of large timber and high risk trees, there would be a long-term reduction in large 

woody debris on approximately 2,186 acres, whereas approximately 178 acres would have a 

long-term improvement in large woody debris due to proposed RUMFC and AMFC treatments. 

In addition to maintaining most roads closed or restricted, this alternative also proposes 19 miles 

of road decommissioning on System roads and it is anticipated that this treatment will reduce 

potential disturbance and mortality to snakes. 

Effects Common to Both Alternatives

Because denning habitat is considered the limiting factor for this species (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-

203), management emphasizes protection/enhancement of den sites, as well as maintaining 

suitable foraging/basking habitat in close proximity to dens and reducing human/snake 

interaction. As described under the Affected Environment, there are no known den locations 

within the project area. Therefore, neither alternative is expected to adversely affect occupied 

den habitat. There are no adverse effects to this species or its habitat under either alternative that 

would result in a reduction in viability or cause a trend toward federal listing considering Forestwide standards to protect dens found during implementation are in place (USDA-FS 2007a, 87).

Cumulative Effects

As described in the BE, oil and gas development can adversely affect this species and reduce 

viability if it occurs within occupied habitat. Similarly, timber harvest on private land could also 

have adverse effects due to habitat modification and increased human/snake interaction. 

Cumulatively by 2030, up to 25% of the CE analysis area may be affected due to proposed 

timber harvest, oil and gas development and proposed wildlife and transportation activities. 

However, as described under direct and indirect effects, there are no known or confirmed dens 

within the project area, impacts to suitable den habitat and potential conflicts with humans are 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

61

minimized by restricting public access within potentially suitable habitat. Unconfirmed den sites 

with the closed canopy will become suitable over the short term for timber rattlesnake use when 

the canopy is removed. Additionally, Forest-wide standards are in place to protect future den 

sites and the Forest works closely with OGD operators to minimize impacts and habitat 

modification in potentially suitable habitat. So while adverse effects to the timber rattlesnake 

and its habitat may occur within the CE area during the analysis period, for these reasons, 

potential cumulative effects are not expected to result in a reduction in viability for this species. 

Species with Viability Concerns

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its implementing regulations require national 

forests to preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities to meet multiple 

use objectives based on the suitability and capability of the land. A total of 78 species were 

identified with potential viability concerns for the ANF. Five species are currently listed as 

federally threatened or endangered, three are federal candidate species, and 61 are RFSS 

(includes the three candidate species) (USDA-FS 2007b). A total of eleven species with viability 

concerns are not included on the RFSS or TES list for the ANF, and will be discussed in this 

section. Migratory birds were considered in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-208) and 

developed as part of the Species Viability Evaluation. Migratory birds that occur on the ANF 

that were determined to have viability concerns were analyzed as part of the species viability 

process. The rationale and process for determining these species lists and the Forest-wide effects 

of management are located in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-205 to 3-208) and 

Appendix E of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007c). Table 8 below lists the species, their 

primary habitat, and whether their habitat is present or the species have been documented in the 

UK project area. 

Table 8: Species with Viability Concerns and their status within the UK project area.

Species Primary Habitat1 Documented Suitable 

Habitat

Birds

Black-throated blue 

warbler

Mature Mixed 

Hardwood/Conifer

X X

Henslow’s sparrow Grassland

Golden-winged 

warbler

Seedling/Sapling X

Great blue heron Mature Hardwood/Water 

(including open, river, and 

large stream)

X X

Red-shouldered hawk Mature Hardwood/Riparian X X

Raven Mature Hardwood X X

Swainson’s thrush Mature Mixed 

Hardwood/Conifer/Riparian

X

Reptiles

Eastern box turtle Riparian X

Coal skink Mature Oak X
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

62

Amphibians

Jefferson salamander Mature Hardwood/Conifer X

Four-toed salamander Mature Hardwood X

1- Primary habitat is listed above and is not inclusive as to where the species may occur 

as they occupy other secondary habitats as well

With the exception of the Henslow’s sparrow, the remaining species with viability concerns have 

suitable habitat within the UK project area. This includes the coal skink where the primary 

habitat is mature oak in which the project area has forest type as oak, but suitable habitat may 

also be in other mature hardwoods. Four of these species have been documented within the 

project area during field surveys or through general observations.

Effects to Species with Viability Concerns

Birds

Black-throated blue warbler, Red-shouldered hawk, Raven, & Swainson’s thrush

With the exception of the Swainson’s thrush, all of these species have been documented in the 

UK project area. These species use a combination of mature hardwoods or hardwoods mixed 

with conifer near riparian areas. Forest Plan S&G’s will protect all wetlands (NWI identified 

approximately 587 acres) and all other water resources to reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, 

at least 74% of the project will remain mature or over-mature hardwoods therefore habitat will 

remain for all of these species. The conifer component of about 1% (>50% conifer in a forested 

stand) and up to 9% of a mixture of understory, midstory, and overstory is expected to remain 

relatively intact. All conifer >18 dbh will not be cut. The hemlock wooly adelgid poses a threat 

to the hemlock component, thus it may pose a long-term threat to some of these species which 

utilize this mixed component, however habitat is expected to remain for these species. Private 

OGD may also pose a threat to these species, but private developers are encouraged to follow FP 

S&G’s which protect these species and their habitat. No known raptor stick nests are currently 

active for the hawk and raven. 

Great blue heron

No rookeries have been documented in the project or CE area. Most treatments avoid riparian 

areas that contain wetlands, beaver dams, and perennial streams. There are no adverse effects to 

water quality anticipated because all water resources are protected by FP S&G’s. Mature 

hardwood forest will remain on at least 74% of the project area as result of any decision in the 

project area. Large diameter trees and snags will remain for potential rookery sites. In the event 

a rookery is found in the future, FP S&G’s will be followed and the rookery will be protected. 

No individuals or rookeries were found during stand surveys. Great blue herons have been 

documented feeding at the Duck Ponds.

Henslow’s sparrow 

None were found during stand surveys. Since there are no grasslands of substantial size within 

the UK project area, there will be no effects to this species or its habitat. There are some larger 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

63

wildlife openings within the CE area but there has been no documented occurrence within the 

CE area. 

Gold-winged warbler

None were found during stand surveys. Suitable seedling/sapling habitat is expected to increase 

in the UK project area due to management activities under the action alternatives. By 2030, this 

habitat will represent approximately 12% of the CE area (Alternative 2). Shrub components 

within mature forest and along riparian areas are retained regardless of the treatments. Habitat 

for this species is expected to be maintained in the area. There have been no documented 

occurrences within the project area.

Reptiles

Eastern box turtle

None were found during stand surveys. Box turtles typically use riparian and forested habitat. 

See discussion for those species that utilize similar habitat. FP S&G’s will be implemented to 

protect its home range and habitat integrity if a box turtle is discovered. 

Coal skink

None were found during stand surveys. They typically use oak habitat, but could occur in other 

mature hardwoods. See discussion for those species that utilize similar habitat above. No 

occurrence has been documented and unique features such as rubble or boulder fields are 

protected from disturbance. 

Amphibians

Jefferson salamander and Four-toed salamander

None were found during stand surveys. Both of these amphibians occur in mature hardwoods 

and/or hardwoods mixed with conifers in or near vernal pools and ponds. These salamander 

species can occur in or near any water resource, but favor vernal pools, which are protected using 

FP S&G’s. 

REFERENCES

Literature Cited: 

Anderson and Shugart 1974. In. DeGraaf, R. M. M Yamasaki, W. B. Leak and J. W. Lanier. 

1992. New England Wildlife: Management of Forested Habitats. Gen. Tech. Report. NE –144. 

Radnor, PA. 271 pp. 

Balada 1975. In. DeGraaf, R. M. M Yamasaki, W. B. Leak and J. W. Lanier. 1992. New 

England Wildlife: Management of Forested Habitats. Gen. Tech. Report. NE –144. Radnor, PA. 

271 pp.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 711-718.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1997. Response to Scott Reitz on comments made by ADP. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

64

DeCalesta, D.S. 1998. Affidavit of David deCalesta related to civil action No. 97-2187. 2 pp. 

Response to ADP 

DeGraaf, R.M., M.Y. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W. Lanier. 1992. New England Wildlife: 

Management of Forested Habitats. Northeast Forest Experiment Station. General Technical 

Report. NE-144. Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA.

DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2003. Options for managing early-successional forest and 

shrubland bird habitat in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 

179-191.

Hamel, PB, 2000. Cerulean warbler - Dedroica cerulean. In Poole A and F. Gill Editors. The 

birds of North America Series No. 511, Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

20pp.

Hays, M. 2001. Community Study Comparing the Flora of a Managed Oak Stand to an Adjacent 

Unmanaged Oak Stand. Unpublsihed. 

Kimmel, J.T., and R.H. Yahner. 1994. The Northern Goshawk in Pennsylvania. Habitat Use, 

Survey Protocols and Status Final Report. School of Forestry Resources. Penn State University. 

440pp.

Landers, J.L. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. In The 

Role of Fire in Non-game Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses 

and New Directions. NE Forest Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report. NE-288, 145 pp.

Manolis, J.C., D.E. Andersen and F.J. Cuthbert. 2002. Edge Effect on Nesting Success of 

Ground Nesting Birds Near Regenerating Clearcuts in a Forest Dominated Landscape. Auk. 

955-970.

McShea, W.J., H.B. Underwood, and J.H. Rappole. 1997. The science of overabundance: Deer 

ecology and population management. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

McShea, W.J. and W. M. Healy. 2002. Oak Forest Ecosystems. Johns Hopkins University. 

Baltimore, Maryland. USA. 

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life (web application). 2010. Version 1.1. Arlington, 

Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/. Timber Rattlesnake.

Robbins, C.S., D. K. Dawson and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat Area Requirements of Breeding 

Forest Birds of the Middle Atlantic States. J. Wildlife. Manage. 103: 1-34.

Thompson, F. R., R. M. DeGraaf and M. K. Trani. 2001. Conservation of Woody, Early 

Successional Habitats and Wildlife in the Eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2) 

407-494. 
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

65

Tucker, J.W. 1992. Wildlife Use of Log Landings in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. 

Thesis. Auburn University. 149 pp.

Trani, M.K., R.T. Brooks, T.L. Schmidt, V.A. Rudis, and C.M. Gabbard. 201. Patterns and 

trends of early successional forests in the eastern United States. In Conservation of woody, early 

successional habitats and wildlife in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 407-

494.

USDA-FS 2005b. Martin Run Final Environmental Impact Statement - Old Growth. Allegheny 

National Forest. Bradford, Pa. 11pp.

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 2007c, Allegheny National Forest Record of Decision (ROD) for the Land and 

Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania.

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.

Wood, Gene, W. ed. 1981. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. In Van Lear, D.H. 

and Waldrop, T.A. 1989. History, Uses and Effects of Fire in the Appalachians. Gen Tech. Rep. 

SE-34. Asheville, N.C.U.S. Dep. Of Agric. Forest Service. SE Forest Exp. Sta. 20 pp. 

Personal Communications:

Stoleson - Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Research Station, Irvine, PA. Personal 

Communication - 2004

Stoleson - Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Research Station, Irvine, PA. Personal 

Communication - 2006

Stoleson - Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Research Station, Irvine, PA. Personal 

Communication - 2009

/s/ Alan Wetzel

District Wildlife Biologist

October 8, 2010
Upper Kinzua Project - Wildlife Report

66