United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

June 2011 

Environmental Assessment

UPPER 

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

McKean County, Pennsylvania

Hamilton, Lafayette, Hamlin

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

 

Environmental Assessment

PPER KINZUA PROJECT

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

McKean County, Pennsylvania, 

Hamilton, Lafayette, Hamlin, and Wetmore Townships

For Information Contact: Ava Turnquist

29 Forest Service Dr., Bradford, PA 16701, 814.363.6086

View this document, appendices and maps at:

orests/allegheny/projects/vegetative_management/upper_kinzua/index.php

Environmental Assessment

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

and Wetmore Townships

For Information Contact: Ava Turnquist

Forest Service Dr., Bradford, PA 16701, 814.363.6086

View this document, appendices and maps at: 

orests/allegheny/projects/vegetative_management/upper_kinzua/index.php
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 Environmental Assessment 1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. 2

List of Attached Maps ................................................................................................... 2

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................ 3

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED AND PROPOSED ACTION ................................. 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7

Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan............................................ 7

Background and Overview of the Project Area ........................................................................ 7

Relationship to Other Documents ............................................................................................ 8

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 8

Proposed Action.................................................................................................................... 12

Changes in the Proposed Action from Scoping ...................................................................... 14

Decision to Be Made ............................................................................................................. 15

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2: ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 17

Issues and Alternative Development ...................................................................................... 17

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ................................................................................ 18

Alternatives Analyzed In Detail ............................................................................................ 18

Alternative 1 (No Action)...................................................................................................... 18

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ............................................................................................ 18

Mitigation Measures for Alternative 2 ................................................................................... 18

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative .................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 25

Project Area and Description of the Affected Environment .................................................... 25

Analysis Framework ............................................................................................................. 27

Indicator Measures for Resource Analysis ............................................................................. 27

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area ......................................................................................... 28

Cumulative Effects Boundaries ............................................................................................. 30

A: Air Resources ................................................................................................................... 33

B: Economics ........................................................................................................................ 38

C: Heritage ........................................................................................................................... 39

D: Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 40

E: Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 42

F: Recreation Opportunities and Forest Settings .................................................................... 48

G: Soils ................................................................................................................................. 51

H: Vegetation: Non Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) ............................................................... 54

I: Wildlife and Plants ............................................................................................................ 58

References ............................................................................................................................ 59

List of Preparers .................................................................................................................... 61

Consultations ........................................................................................................................ 61
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 2 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 12

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. ....................................... 19

Table 3: Silvicultural description of MA 2.2 in the Upper Kinzua project area (4,460 acres 

total), ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 4: Silvicultural description of MA 3.0 in the Upper Kinzua project area (22,416 acres 

total). ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 5: Indicator measures for assessing the effects of the Alternatives. ............................. 28

Table 6: The present condition of vegetation age class for private lands (11,916 acres) within 

the cumulative effects area (defined as the project area watersheds). Source: aerial 

photographs. ............................................................................................................................ 29

Table 7: The silvicultural treatments on NFS lands within the project area are summarized for 

the past and present, a 10-year period from 2000 to 2010. These treatments are similar to the 

silvicultural treatments of the proposed action. ...................................................................... 29

Table 8: The previously approved silvicultural treatments on NFS lands within the project 

area are summarized for the foreseeable future, a 10-year period from 2010 to 2020. These 

treatments are similar to the silvicultural treatments of the proposed action and have approval 

to be implemented. .................................................................................................................. 29

Table 9: Projected project area and cumulative effects area (CE) outcomes in acres (with 

percent of project area in parentheses) for both Alternatives 1 and 2 of forest canopy 

openings for the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. ............................ 30

Table 11: A comparison of air of criteria pollutant monitoring data showing the NAAQS 

compared to PA DEP measurements and the attainment status. ............................................ 36

Table 12: Estimated emissions for prescribed fire, timber harvest, and private OGD for the 

project area and total estimated emissions from Forest Service management activities 

compared to emissions from the 4 county area (Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties).

................................................................................................................................................. 37

Table 13: Project economic costs and returns of the alternatives. .......................................... 39

Table 14: The watershed hierarchy for the Upper Kinzua project area. ................................. 42

Table 15: Effects for Alternatives 1 and 2 on water quality. .................................................. 43

LIST OF ATTACHED MAPS 

Map 1: Vicinity and Project Area 

Map 2: Alternative 1, No Action, Existing Condition 

Map 3: Alternative 2, Proposed Silvicultural and Transportation Activities 

Map 4: Other Proposed Actions 

Map 5: Compartments and Stands 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 3 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Scoping Comment Summary 

Appendix B: Project Area Site Specific Treatments, Proposed and Previously Approved 

Silvicultural Treatments 

Appendix C1: Biological Assessment 

Appendix C2: Biological Evaluation 

Appendix C3: Wildlife Report 

Appendix D: Project Level Projections for Future Oil and Gas Development 

 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 4 

Page left intentionally blank 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 5 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Forest Service proposes the Upper Kinzua Project on the Allegheny National Forest 

(ANF). The project area is north of Kane, Pennsylvania, southwest of Bradford, 

Pennsylvania, and borders the southeastern portion of the Allegheny Reservoir’s Kinzua Bay. 

The project area consists of 27,512 acres of National Forest System (NFS) Lands, 709 acres 

of private land, and 26 acres of water, totaling 28,221 acres. This Environmental Assessment 

(EA) describes the project area, identifies the purpose and need for the proposed action, 

provides detailed information on the alternatives, and compares the environmental, social, 

and economic differences of implementing the alternatives. 

An Interdisciplinary Team of resource specialists identified the treatment areas from an 

assessment of existing conditions within the project area and then developed proposed 

activities that would meet desired conditions and help attain the goals and objectives in the 

2007 ANF Forest Plan (USDA FS 2007b). The purpose and need for the proposed activities 

are provided in Chapter 1. 

The Upper Kinzua Project proposed action includes vegetation management and 

improvements to: wildlife habitat, riparian areas, water ways, scenery, transportation, and 

access for recreation (Table 1). The following list summarizes the project proposals: 

• Vegetation management proposals include 1,988 acres of even-aged treatments and 

369 acres of uneven-aged treatments; 

• Reforestation proposals include fencing (177 acres), herbicide (2,243 acres), planting 

(448 acres), prescribed fire (21 acres), releasing (2,147 acres), scarifying (52 acres), 

and site preparation (1,877 acres.); and 15 acres of non-native invasive plant removal 

and restoration are proposed; 

• Wildlife habitat improvement treatments totaling 1,428 acres include planting, 

pruning, releasing, fencing, opening management, and constructing vernal pools; 

• Stream treatments to improve water quality and flow; 

• Creating a 6-acre scenic vista along the SR 219 road corridor; 

• Constructing 0.3 miles of new road, reconstructing 7.8 miles of road and 

decommissioning 5.7 miles of road; 

• Developing up to 9 new stone pits, expanding 20 pits and reclaiming pits no longer 

needed in the project area; 

• Improving Kinzua Creek fishing and its access along SR 3006. 

All proposed activities would occur in Management Areas 2.2 and 3.0. This project does not 

propose any private oil and gas development. 

Chapter 2 describes the two Alternatives that were considered in detail, Alternative 1 - No 

Action and Alternative 2 - Proposed Action. Table 2 summarizes the effects of the two 

Alternatives. The Interdisciplinary Team analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

of the two Alternatives for several specific resource areas. The framework for these analyses 

and the results are in Chapter 3. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 6 

Page left intentionally blank
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 7 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED AND PROPOSED ACTION 

Introduction 

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and other relevant laws and regulations. 

This EA discloses the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects resulting from the 

Proposed Action and No-action Alternatives. 

Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

The 2007 ANF Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the Forest 

Plan) decribes a 10 to 15 year strategy for managing forest resources (USDA-FS 2007a). All 

applicable laws, regulations, policies, and national and regional direction, as detailed in the 

Forest Service Manual and Handbook, are part of Forest Plan direction. 

The Forest Plan is organized into four parts: 

 

1) Vision contains the forest niche statement, the desired condition of the ANF, and 

additional goals for the ANF, 

2) Strategy contains objectives, an estimate of management activities, the allowable 

sale quantity, special designations, a summary of the management areas (MAs), 

suitable uses and activities, and monitoring strategy, 

 

3) Design Criteria contains forest-wide standards and guidelines for implementing 

forest management activities, and, 

4) Management Area Direction includes the contribution to the desired condition, 

objectives, suitable uses and activities, and design criteria specific to each MA. 

The Forest Plan is permissive in that it guides, but does not mandate, ANF projects and 

activities. The broader goals and objectives described in the Forest Plan are realized through 

the development and completion of site-specific projects. All projects must be consistent 

with the standards defined in the Forest Plan (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)). If a project cannot be 

implemented in accordance with the standards, either the project must be modified or the 

plan must be amended before the project can proceed (USDA-FS 2007b, p. ROD-4). 

Background and Overview of the Project Area 

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

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

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

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

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

3091, 3093, 3097); and Wetmore (Lots 143 to 145, 181, and 182) , McKean County, 

Pennsylvania. The project area is primarily composed of MA 3.0 (22,416 acres), but also 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 8 

includes MAs 2.1 (547 acres), 2.2 (4,460 acres), and 7.1 (62 acres). Chapter 3 provides a 

more detailed description of the existing condition of the Project Area. 

Relationship to Other Documents 

This EA tiers to the Forest Plan and includes proposed management actions that are designed 

to move the area towards the desired condition as outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA 2007b); 

specifically, the analysis presented in this EA tiers to the Forest Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 2007a). 

 

Additionally, the following Forest-wide FEISs and Records of Decision have activities 

approved that are proposed within the project area:

Understory Vegetation Management on the Allegheny National Forest (USDA-FS 1991): 

herbicide application and mitigation measures are outlined on pp. 5-1–5-4, D-1–D-12, and

Vegetation Management on Electric Utility Rights-of-Way (USDA-FS 1997). 

Other past decisions within the project area include Lewis Run (2002) and East Side (2000) 

EISs; Gumdrop (1992, 2002), Mortality I (1995), Herbicide Diversity Study Removal (2007), 

Turnup Run (1996, 2000), Wintergreen (1995, 2001), and Blacksnake (2006) EAs; and Guffy 

Blowdown (2004) and Brad Wins (2007) categorical exclusions. 

These documents are available at the Bradford District Ranger Office. 

Purpose and Need 

The Forest Plan describes the overall desired conditions for the ANF (p. 10-12), goals and 

objectives related to specific resources (p. 12-21), and descriptions of each Management 

Area (MA 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0 p. 22; MA 7.1 p. 27). The purpose of this project is to meet these 

Forest Plan goals and objectives and achieve the desired conditions for the MAs in the Upper 

Kinzua Project Area. 

The Interdisciplinary Team compared the existing conditions for specific resources or 

geographic areas with the desired conditions to identify the following purposes and needs for 

the activities proposed in the Upper Kinzua Project: 

 There is a need to manage vegetation to improve stand quality, manage forest 

health issues, and regenerate desired tree species. Many stands within the project 

area have undergone changes in stand density and species composition in both the 

overstory and understory. Major causes of these changes include beech bark disease, 

cherry scallop shell moth, drought, and nutrient-deficient soils. Potential future pests 

include hemlock woolly adelgid, Sirex wood wasp, and emerald ash borer. Present 

conditions of the project area include heavy fern understories and dense mid-stories 

of beech brush, birch, and/or striped maple that would limit the sustainability of the 

existing forest stands. Historic selective browsing by white-tailed deer, dense 

interfering plants, forest health challenges (especially those caused by exotic insects 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 9 

and diseases), and erratic seed production all play a role in limiting seedling 

development (USDA 2007, A-1). Additionally, many stands are poorly stocked. 

Management should include activities to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives, 

including the following: (1) develop and enhance the seedling, shrub, and herbaceous 

diversity to improve structural conditions (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 19, A-1, A-2, A-14) 

(2) manage both existing and future forest health and pests issues (Forest Plan, pp. 15, 

93, 109, 113), (3) conduct reforestation treatments to control competing vegetation 

and allow tree seedlings to become established, eventually improving the diversity of 

the understory, and (4) conduct stand thinning to maximize stand growth, in addition 

to maintaining forest health and vigor and developing late structural characteristics 

(Forest Plan p. A-14). 

 There is a need to provide a sustainable flow of commercial timber products that 

would contribute to the economy and annual Forest-wide allowable sale quantity 

(ASQ), and maintain 10 to 12 percent of MA 3.0 in early structural habitat 

(Forest Plan, pp. 8, 14, 113). Much of the project area does not meet Forest Plan

resource objectives regarding vegetation structure and horizontal habitat diversity and 

management in the project area is presently insufficient to support a sustainable flow 

of commercial timber products. Early age classes are at the level desired by the Forest 

Plan for MA 3.0 (approximately 11% in 0-20 age class in the project area compared 

to 10-12 % desired in the Forest Plan), but these stands will age out of early 

successional structure in the next 10 to 20 years without management. 

 There is a need to manage late structural stand development and conditions 

within MAs 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0 of the project area (Forest Plan, pp. 14, 19, 66, 106, 

109, 113). Forest Plan objectives include managing for a diversity of well-distributed 

habitats, a range of forest age classes, a variety of healthy functioning vegetation 

layers, moderate to well stocked forest cover, and the variety of vegetation species or 

forest types necessary to achieve multiple resource objectives to sustain ecosystem 

health (USDA 2007, P.14). Much of the project area is composed of maturing forest 

(76% in the sawtimber class). Approximately 15% of the project area is classified as 

MA 2.2, where development of late structural condition can be achieved through both 

active and passive management. However, late structural forest conditions are present 

in only 0.2% the project area. 

 There is a need to provide a safe, efficient, and economical transportation system 

that is responsive to public and administrative needs, while having minimal 

adverse effects on the natural forest ecosystem (Forest Plan, p.16). Road 

management actions proposed to meet this need include decommissioning unused oil, 

gas, and mineral (OGD) access roads and un-needed National Forest System Roads 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 10 

(Forest Plan, pp. 36, 98), harden identified road surfaces, and constructing/ 

reconstructing needed roads. Three tenths of a mile of road construction and upgrades 

to existing roads are needed for access to the proposed treatment stands. Road 

reconstruction for privately owned portions is contingent upon the ability to obtain 

rights of way to access stands proposed for treatment.

Decommissioning would include re-grading and re-contouring of the road surface and 

subsurface to make sites more suitable for tree establishment and reduce erosion. Tree 

planting would occur in some areas and others would be allowed to establish 

naturally. The goal of storm proofing is to re-establish natural water flow patterns and 

protect the road surface material. Pits would provide the necessary material needed 

for road construction and reconstruction to ensure road stability and reduce erosion. 

 Wildlife habitat improvement is needed in the project area. A variety of specific 

treatments would provide the following benefits: (1) diverse and specialized habitats 

across the landscape to increase populations of species with viability concerns, (2) 

habitat for the Indiana bat, a federally listed endangered species, (3) desired cover and 

forage conditions enhance both game and non-game species habitat and, (4) wildlife 

habitat connectivity, interior habitat, and remote habitat (Forest Plan, pp.14, 20). The 

proposed treatments would improve needed early and late structural habitat (Forest 

Plan, p.14) within the project area. Late structural treatments would accelerate stand 

growth to provide a sustainable, older structural forest that provides habitat for many 

wildlife species. 

 There is a need to remove non-native invasive plants (NNIP) from the project 

area and limit the further introduction and/or spread of these species to conserve 

forest resources in a manner that presents the least hazard to humans and 

maintains or restores forest resources (Forest Plan, p.13). An “invasive species” is 

defined as a species that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration 

and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm 

or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112). An ANF Forest Plan goal is to 

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 (Forest Plan p. 13). The 

Forest Plan objective is to complete 300 to 600 acres of invasive plant treatment 

annually (Forest Plan p. 18) through a combination of manual/mechanical and/or 

herbicide treatments; Herbicide use is permitted in all MAs to treat native and nonnative invasive species (Forest Plan p. 35). 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 11 

 There is a need to improve water quality, stream flow, and aquatic habitat 

through multi-age and multi-layered vegetation communities within the riparian 

corridors. A variety of stream treatments and activities in the riparian zones are 

proposed for this purpose. The natural recruitment of large woody debris and other 

sources of organics (Forest Plan, p. 14) would promote floodplain structure, stream 

channel stability, and aquatic diversity. Restoring the compositional and/or structural 

diversity of riparian corridors on 50 to 100 acres forest wide is needed annually 

(Forest Plan, p. 19). Aquatic habitat diversity would be provided through large trees 

felled from riparian corridors into streams, with the objective of 75-380 pieces per 

mile of stream and 35% to 65% pool and slow-water habitat for brook trout and other 

headwater stream fishes (Forest Plan, p. 11). 

 

 There is a need to reduce existing sedimentation and maintain, restore, or 

improve soil quality, productivity, and function. This can be accomplished by 

managing soil disturbance from management activities such that they do not result in 

long-term loss of inherent soil quality and function (Forest Plan, p. 14). To ensure the 

soil resource remains productive into the future, impacts from activities on sensitive 

(steep, erosive, wet) soils would occur by avoidance, seasonal operating restrictions, 

or equipment modifications. In addition, annual sample monitoring of harvested 

stands would identify excessive detrimental disturbance (greater than 15% of the 

stand) and recommend activity modifications. Corrections to existing detrimental 

soils disturbances would occur as funding is available and through road 

improvements. 

 There is a need to provide fish passage at several crossings that currently 

prevent or inhibit movement of fish and other aquatic organism upstream 

(Forest Plan, p. 11). Known crossings needing work include two on FR 508 over 

Wintergreen Run and an unnamed tributary to Kinzua Creek, at least one on 

Townline Run, the crossing on FR 150 that is just downstream of the Duck Ponds, 

and the township road over Pine Run. 

 Public recreation and scenery needs include managing dispersed recreation sites 

consistent with the appropriate ROS development level and maintain or exceed 

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

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

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

(Forest Plan, p. 19). The proposed actions would improve access within the area at 

several of the locations along Kinzua Creek and provide the opportunity to reduce 

existing impacts to the creek. The vista construction would improve scenic views 

along the US 219 corridor. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 12 

Proposed Action 

An Interdisciplinary Team examined the existing condition within the project area to develop 

site-specific proposals for natural resource management activities that help achieve the 

desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. 

These activities constitute the Proposed Action and are summarized in Table 1. The details of 

treatments and their locations are located in “Appendix B-Alternative 2, Proposed Action of 

Site Specific Treatments” and also shown on Maps 3 and 4 (compartments and stands are 

shown in Map 5). See the minor corrections from the original scoping proposal on page 15. 

Table 1: The Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

Proposed Treatments Amount 

Hydrology Proposals Amount

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

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

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

Wintergreen Run and within flood plains 

Fell 50 to 

100 trees 

per mile, 21 

miles

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

Utilizing Mechanical Equipment and Hand Labor 6 miles

Recreation Proposals (Kinzua Creek Access) No.

Harden Dispersed Campsites 3

Improve And Harden Access Parking Sites 9

Install Barriers 3

Install Signing 1

Rehabilitate Existing Sites 11

Transportation Proposals 

Pits Acres

Expand 3 existing pits 6

Expand existing pit - reclaim old development (17) 17

Explore and develop 9 pits 18

Reclaim 5 pits 17

Roads Miles

Construction 0.3

Decommission - National Forest System Road (NFSR) 1

Decommission – Non-System Roads 4.7

High Quality Road Surfacing 15

Improve Access To Duck Ponds (extend and harden access road) 1

Reclassification - Closed To Restricted 2

Reconstruction2 7.8

Re-designate As Hunter Disabled Permit Road 1

Remove NFSR From The System 0.7

Storm Proof NFSR And Change To Level 1 0.4
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 13 

Table 1: The Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

Proposed Treatments Amount 

Road Items No.

Install Gate 2

Hardened, two car parking area 3

Remove gate 1

Vegetation (Silviculture) Proposals Acres

Even-aged Treatments 1,988 Total

Aspen Clearcut With Reserves 31

Delayed Removal Harvest With Reserves 281

Intermediate Thinning - Improvement 424

Shelterwood Seed Cut/ Shelterwood Removal Cut With Reserves1 1,205

Two-Aged Shelterwood Seed Cut/ Two-Aged Harvest1 41

Vista Creation 6

Uneven-aged Treatments 369 Total

Group Selection to Restore Understory Mature Forest Conditions 

(RUMFC) 89

Hemlock Thinning (Non-Commercial) 56

Mast Release 56

Thinning to Accelerate Mature Forest Conditions (Non-Commercial) 89

Uneven-Aged Management (Single Tree Selection) 79

Other Silvicultural Treatments Acres

Expand Opening 26

Opening Release, Doze, Seed (Butternut, Beech Orchard Locations) 44

Pruning 1

Reforestation and Stand Improvement Treatments Acres

Fence 177

Herbicide 2,243 

Plant 448

Prescribed burn 21

Release 2,147 

Scarify 52

Site preparation 1,877

Non-native Invasive Plant Treatments Acres

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

Planting Restoration (Seed or Plants) 15

Wildlife Proposals Acres

Create Opening 15

Fence Cribs 88

Girdle Trees 12

Herbicide 56

Install 26 Potholes within a 1 acre area of the Duck Ponds 1
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 14 

Table 1: The Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

Proposed Treatments Amount 

Mow 146

Opening Release, Edge Encroachment 63

Plant shrubs/fruit/conifer/trees 99

Plow & seed 63

Prescribed burn & plant warm season grasses 4

Prune & release apple/fruit trees 97

Restore & maintain opening 52

Seed orchard, plant butternut or beech seeds or seedlings 9

Thin & release butternut trees 1

Under-plant AMFC 58

Under-plant conifer 15

Under-plant conifer clumps 15

Under-plant mast release stand 25

Under-plant RUMFC 461

No.

Construct vernal pools 5

1

1,205 acres of shelterwoods & removals are 1st entry and 2nd entry, respectively, 41 ac. of 

2-aged shelterwoods & removals are 1st entry and 2nd entry, respectively, 2ROW needed on 

FR 144 

The proposed action would provide an estimated 4.3 million board feet (MMBF) of saw 

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

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

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

MMBF if the Proposed Action were implemented. 

Changes in the Proposed Action from Scoping

The Proposed Action is the same as that provided to the public for review and comment 

during scoping (February and March 2009) with minor modifications of acres and miles due 

to mapping errors or omissions and a few minor changes in proposed silvicultural stand 

treatments. Specifically, the following corrections were made to the original scoping 

proposal and are now included in Table 1 above: 

1. A mathematical error showing 409 acres proposed for thinning in the scoping proposal 

should have read 422 acres. All stands identified for treatment are the same, with the 

exception of Compartment 480, Stand 68 that should not have been included in the scoping 

proposal. 

2. Shelterwood and removal treatments show a 4-acre increase from scoping due to the 

differences in GIS calculations verses database calculations; there is no change in stands to 

be treated. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 15 

3. In reforestation treatments, there is a 4-acre increase in fencing and 7-acre increase in 

planting acres resulting from GIS stand calculations. 

4. Stands misidentified for proposed butternut/beech seed and planting orchards (<5 acres) 

are corrected as follows: Compartment 485, Stand 46 was corrected to Compartment 484, 

Stand 25, and Compartment 481, Stand 10 was corrected to Compartment 481, Stands 2 and 

18. In addition, Compartment 457, Stand 35 would be established as a 2-acre site for 

butternut planting. A 3 acre increase in butternut/beech plantings was included. 

5. The decommissioning of the “Old Pennzoil Fields” was dropped from the proposed action. 

Upon field review, the site was found to be vegetated and decommissioning was not needed. 

6. The scoping proposal stated that timber harvest activities would result in a total of 22 

MMBF of saw timber and pulpwood fiber. More accurate assessment of the stands proposed 

for timber harvest, including detailed evaluation of the available timber and operability, 

resulted in a revised estimate of 17.5 MMBF. 

7. Restore wildlife opening acres were increased by 1 acre from the proposed scoping 51 

acres, to now total 52 acres. 

Decision to Be Made

The Bradford District Ranger will make the following decisions: 

1. What management activities to select, if any, to meet desired conditions as identified in the 

2007 ANF Forest Plan, 

2. What site-specific mitigations to select, if any, to minimize environmental effects of any 

selected management activities, and/or, 

3. Whether or not preparation of an EIS is necessary. 

Public Involvement 

The proposed Upper Kinzua Project was listed in the ANF Schedule of Proposed Actions 

(SOPA) on the ANF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/projects/ , 

beginning in the fiscal year 2007 first quarter issue (10/01/2009 to 12/31/2009). 

On February 25, 2009, a scoping package explaining the Purpose and Need for action, as 

well as the location and types of proposed actions, was mailed to 210 interested parties for 

comment during scoping. These included individuals and organizations who expressed 

interest in the project, adjacent landowners, subsurface mineral owners (oil and gas 

operators), public legislators (federal, state and township supervisors), the Seneca Nation of 

Indians, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Pennsylvania Fish and Game 

Commissions. 

The scoping package was also posted on the ANF website on February 25, 2009, and a news 

release was issued to local newspapers and other media at the same time (project record). 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 16 

Ten letters in response to the scoping package were received. The Scoping Summary and the 

original letters are located in the project record, located at the Bradford Ranger District 

office. Scoping responses were reviewed by the Upper Kinzua Interdisciplinary Team to 

identify significant issues, guide the analysis, and to determine if additional alternatives were 

needed (Appendix A). Chapter 2 explains the results. 

 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 17 

CHAPTER 2: ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes and compares the Alternatives considered for the Upper Kinzua 

Project. It includes a description of each Alternative considered. Associated maps are 

provided as an attachment. 

Issues and Alternative Development 

The scoping process allows interested parties to comment on a proposed action. These public 

comments were analyzed and categorized as non-issues, non-significant issues, or significant 

issues. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in 

Sec. 1501.7, directing agencies to “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues 

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

Significant issues received from the public are used to formulate alternatives to the Proposed 

Action. The Upper Kinzua Project Interdisciplinary Team used a two-step process to identify 

significant issues from comments received during the scoping period: 

Step 1: Distinguish issues from non-issues 

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

undesirable effects. 

Non-issue: General concerns or opinions (that are not related to the Proposed 

Action‘s effects), that cannot be resolved through consideration of an alternative or 

mitigation. 

Step 2: Distinguish non-significant issues from significant issues 

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

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

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

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

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

No significant issues were identified through scoping and the Responsible Official 

determined that detailed analysis of an additional alternative to the Proposed Action was not 

necessary. See the Scoping Comment Summary, Appendix A for the details. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 18 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated 

The following Alternative was identified from public scoping comments (project record): 

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

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

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

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

by oil and gas operators (letters and responses are in the project record). The Forest Service 

will work independently with these operators to improve the condition of the roads presently 

used. Therefore, the Alternative was considered but eliminated due to administrative remedy. 

Alternatives Analyzed In Detail 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No-action Alternative, no new actions would be proposed or implemented to 

accomplish the purpose and need identified for this project (refer to Maps 1 and 2). Existing 

approved activities (road maintenance, vista management, wildlife opening maintenance, 

contracts, and other treatments previously approved through other decisions would still occur 

(see Appendix B). 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 would be implemented to accomplish the purpose and need identified for this 

project. Alternative 2 is summarized in Table 1 of this EA. Site specific actions are provided 

in Appendix B and the attached Maps (Map 3 and Map 4). 

Like Alternative 1, existing approved activities (road maintenance, vista management, 

wildlife opening maintenance, contracts, and previously approved treatments (see Appendix 

B) through other decisions would also occur. 

Mitigation Measures for Alternative 2 

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize, reduce, or eliminate some of the potential 

resource effects that the proposed actions may cause. The following mitigation measures 

would apply to Alternative 2: 

1. Prescribed fire in the red pine stands near Red Bridge, Compartment 457, Stands 6, 7, and 

25, and at Timberdoodle Flats, Compartment 459, Stands 30 and 32 would be carried out in 

the early spring or late fall, outside the peak recreation season (refer to Map 3). Nearby 

hiking trails and recreation sites would be checked, and hikers and campers would be warned 

prior to the prescribed burn. In addition, signs placed along roads and trails would warn 

individuals of the prescribed burn. Smoke management efforts would be implemented to 

prevent smoke from interfering with individuals within the affected area and potentially 

affected travel ways. The window of opportunity for fire would be determined by the 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 19 

Bradford District Fire Operations Specialist, as well as by Standards and Guidelines of the 

ANF Forest Plan (USDA 2007b). 

2. Possible Indiana bat roost trees located on sites proposed for prescribed fire would be 

protected by removing slash and other fuel from potential snag and live trees with sloughing 

bark prior to implementation. Removal of fuels around potential roost trees would reduce 

flame height and heat intensity around these trees to help reserve these trees during the burn. 

3. A biologist will conduct a plant survey on access pathways and work locations prior to 

where machinery would be used to place in stream structures in riparian zones. If sensitive 

plants are found, they would be protected. 

4. An archaeologist will accompany the hydrologist during the selection of trees to be cut 

within riparian areas and would then conduct a heritage review of the selected sites. 

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative 

The following table provides a brief comparison of the effects disclosed in Chapter 3. 

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. 

Resource 

Analyzed 

Indicator 

Measure 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

A. Air IM-1: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

the attainment 

of National 

Ambient Air 

Quality 

Standards. 

There would be no 

emissions of air pollutants 

from new activities; 

emissions from previously 

approved treatments are 

not expected to exceed the 

national standards. 

Incremental increases are 

expected in emissions for 

air pollutants from 

activities proposed in the 

project, however, 

emissions from forest 

management are not 

expected to exceed the 

national standards. 

B. Economic 

Returns 

IM-2: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

providing 

goods and 

services. 

The net cash flow for 

project planning is about 

$500,000 in expenditures. 

There would be no 

monetary returns to Elk 

and McKean counties for 

schools or roads or returns 

to the U.S. treasury. There 

would likely be negative 

effects on employment in 

timber and related 

industries and the local 

economy would forego 

revenues from saw timber 

and pulp products that 

The net cash flow from 

project would result in 

about $1,016,857 in 

returns. Harvested timber 

would provide an 

economic benefit in jobs 

produced and receipts 

returned to school districts 

and townships in McKean 

and Elk counties, and to 

the U.S. Treasury. Positive 

effects are anticipated for 

employment in timber and 

related industries and the 

local economy would 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 20 

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. 

would be produced in the 

proposed action. 

benefit indirectly from 

revenues from saw timber 

and pulp products that 

would be produced. 

C. Heritage IM-3: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

cultural 

resources. 

There are no anticipated 

effects on cultural 

resources. 

Indirect effects on cultural 

resources may result from 

increased pedestrian or 

motorized access to sites 

resulting from project 

activities, but effects are 

anticipated to be minimal. 

D. Human 

Health and 

Safety 

IM-4: Risks to 

human health 

and safety 

from the 

proposed 

activities. 

There are no anticipated 

effects on human health 

and safety. 

Any potential effects on 

human health and safety 

would be mitigated through 

implementation of Forest 

Plan design criteria. 

Proposed herbicide 

treatments are anticipated 

to have negligible effects 

to public health or safety 

based on the type of 

treatment and the amount. 

Prescribed fires are shortlived and burn plans would 

employ mitigations to 

avoid concentrating smoke 

in densely populated areas 

and roads to reduce or 

eliminate potential direct 

affects. 

E. Hydrology IM-5: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

water quality. 

Overall, there would 

continue to be negative 

effects on water quality 

from poor-quality roads. 

5.5 miles of road 

improvements from 

previous decisions would 

be implemented, slightly 

improving water quality in 

the future. There would 

also continue to be low 

habitat quality and bank 

erosion along Kinzua 

34.6 miles of roads would 

be treated to reduce 

hydrologic connectivity, 

improving stream water 

quality in the long-term. 

Stream treatments would 

improve water quality, 

improve aquatic habitat 

and reduce bank erosion 

along Kinzua Creek, and 

other project area streams. 

Negative effects to water 

quality from private OGD 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 21 

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. 

Creek. Negative effects to 

water quality from private 

OGD would continue, 

which would contribute to 

a negative cumulative 

effect of the no action 

alternative. 

would continue. 

E. Hydrology IM-6: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

water quantity. 

No effects are anticipated 

(basal areas are well 

below the 25% threshold). 

Cumulative effects could 

approach the threshold for 

basal area reduction that 

could result in increased 

stream flow with 

increased private OGD. 

No effects are anticipated 

from the proposed activity. 

Cumulative effects could 

approach the threshold for 

basal area reduction that 

could result in increased 

stream flow with increased 

private OGD. 

F. Recreation 

Opportunities 

and Forest 

Settings 

IM-7: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

the Recreation 

Opportunity 

Spectrum 

(ROS). 

No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects are 

expected, but continued 

private OGD could bring 

about a change in ROS. 

Alternative 2 would result 

in a short term change in 

ROS. Fishing access and 

vista scenery 

improvements would result 

in a positive effect to ROS. 

Continued private OGD 

could bring about a change 

in ROS. 

F. Recreation 

Opportunities 

and Forest 

Settings 

IM-8: Effects 

of proposed 

actions on the 

existing 

Landscape 

Character and 

on the mapped 

Scenic 

Integrity 

Levels (SIL’s). 

SILs from previously 

approved treatments 

would be met or exceed 

levels stated in the ANF 

Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines (USDA-FS 

2007b, pp. 62-64). Forest 

Plan Standards and 

guidelines would mitigate 

any effects from harvest 

treatments as seen from 

Concern Level (CL) 1 and 

CL 2 corridors. 

The existing landscape 

character, with canopy 

and understory vegetation, 

would remain intact 

(USDA-FS 2009, pp. 19-

23). No cumulative effects 

SILs from previously 

approved treatments and 

the proposed vegetation 

treatments would be met or 

exceed levels stated in the 

ANF Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines (USDA-FS 

2007b, pp. 62-64). The 

existing landscape 

character and effects from 

OGD development would 

be the same as Alternative 

1. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 22 

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. 

are expected, but 

continued private OGD 

could bring about a 

change in SIL. 

F. Recreation 

Opportunities 

and Forest 

Settings 

IM-9: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

recreation 

activities and 

use patterns. 

There would be no direct 

effect on recreation 

activities and use patterns 

because there are no new 

actions proposed. Indirect 

effects to recreation 

activities and their use 

patterns may occur in the 

long-term through 

untreated understory 

vegetation that can reduce 

recreation user movement 

and visibility. There 

would be no 

improvements to Kinzua 

Creek fishing access or 

scenic views along the US 

219 corridor. Continued 

private OGD could 

change recreation 

activities and use patterns. 

The proposed activities 

could produce the 

following effects on 

recreation activities: 

Short-term disruption to 

snowmobile trail use and 

dispersed camping 

associated with timber 

harvesting activities 

Improved fishing access 

and opportunities on 

Kinzua Creek. 

Vista creation along US 

219 would improve the 

scenic viewing for 

travelers. 

No cumulative effects are 

expected from proposed 

project activities, but 

continued private OGD 

could change recreation 

activities and use patterns. 

G. Soils IM-10: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

long-term soil 

productivity. 

Soil movement during 

heavy precipitation events 

would continue on 

eroding roads and around 

culverts. There would less 

than a 15% soil 

disturbance in stands with 

previously approved 

harvests. In the long term, 

productivity would be 

sustainable as these areas 

are revegetated. Existing 

untreated roads, private 

OGD and existing non 

system OGD roads would 

result in the long-term loss 

of soil productivity in 

areas where OGD activity 

Timber harvests and road 

work, and would result in 

short-term minor soil 

disturbance. The area of 

disturbance in harvest 

stands is expected to be 

less than 15% (about 1% of 

the project area). 

Revegetation would 

prevent long-term loss of 

productivity. Road 

improvements would 

greatly reduce losses to soil 

productivity through 

reduced sedimentation. 0.2 

acres of NRCS designated 

statewide farmland would 

be impacted on the 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 23 

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. 

occurs. proposed new road corridor 

FR 456 G extension. 9.2 

acres of NRCS designated 

prime farmland and 4 acres 

of NRCS designated 

statewide farmland would 

be lost as through road 

construction and pit 

development. Private 

OGD is likely to continue 

losses to soil productivity. 

H. Vegetation 

– Non native 

Invasive Plants 

(NNIP) 

IM-11: Effects 

of the 

alternatives on 

introduction 

and/or spread 

of NNIP. 

Existing NNIP would 

continue to spread. 

Private OGD on both 

private and NFS lands 

would most likely have 

the greatest potential for 

ground disturbance and 

increased activity in both 

the short-term and longterm. 

Treatments on 15 acres 

would lessen the potential 

for NNIP to spread into 

additional areas and lessen 

impacts to native plants 

and their habitat. 

For cumulative effects, the 

effects are the same as 

Alternative 1 except for 15 

acres of NNIP treatment to 

reduce the effects by 

eliminating seed sources of 

NNIP species. 

I. Wildlife See Appendix 

C for the 

wildlife and 

plants effects 

analysis. 

Habitat composition and 

structure: Although early 

structural habitat would 

age out in Alt. 1, over 20 

years without sufficient 

replacement, previously 

approved treatments 

would contribute to early 

successional habitat but, 

would not be sufficient to 

maintain composition and 

structure that currently 

exists in the project area. 

Management Indicator 

Species (MIS): Mourning 

warbler habitat would 

likely decline. For the 

remaining MIS, there 

would be no effects to 

Habitat composition and 

structure: Forest Plan 

objectives would be met. 

Disturbances to species and 

habitat would be short term 

in nature and would 

potentially impact 

individuals on the site 

during treatment. 

Amphibian habitat would 

expand through the 

creation of vernal pools. 

Aquatic habitat would 

improve following road 

and riparian improvements. 

MIS: Mourning warbler 

habitat would improve with 

the creation of early 

successional habitat. For 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 24 

Table 2: Summary of effects from implementing the Alternatives. 

contribute to a local or 

regional change in habitat 

quality of these species. 

No effects are anticipated 

that would cause a trend 

toward federal listing or 

reduce species viability. 

Federally listed 

Threatened and 

Endangered (T&E) 

species, Regional Forester 

Sensitive Species (RFSS) 

and Species with Viability 

Concerns (SVE): No 

effects are anticipated that 

would cause a trend 

toward federal listing or 

reduce species viability. 

Game Habitat & 

Migratory Birds: Early 

successional and structural 

habitat would continue to 

decline. No effects are 

anticipated that would 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing or reduce 

species viability 

the remaining MIS, the 

effects would be the same 

as in Alternative 1 

T&E, RFSS, and SVE: No 

effects are anticipated to 

jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. 

Release work would 

benefit the growth and 

vigor of existing butternut 

trees. 

 

Game Habitat & Migratory 

Birds: The proposed 

treatments of the oak type 

and wildlife openings 

would improve habitat for 

game and non game 

species. A variety of 

structured habitat would be 

provided and maintained. 

Early structural habitat 

would improve 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 25 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter provides the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each Alternative. It presents the scientific and 

analytical basis for the comparison of Alternatives presented in Table 2 above. 

Project Area and Description of the Affected Environment

The project area is defined by SR 59 to the north, FR 316 and US 219 to the east, FR 186 to 

the south, and the southeastern tip of the Kinzua Bay of the Allegheny Reservoir to the west 

(Map 1, Map 2). It contains approximately 27,512 acres (97.5%) of NFS lands, 709 acres 

(2.5%) of private land, and 26 acres (<0.1%) of water, totaling 28,221 acres. 

The project is within the following 6th level watersheds: Upper, Middle, and Lower Kinzua 

Creek and Chappel Fork (refer to Map 2). It also includes at least portions of the following 

streams and aquatic habitats: Chappel Fork (headwaters), Bucklick Run, Thundershower 

Run, Turnup Run, Camp Run, Wintergreen Run, Pine Run, Root Run, Kinzua Creek, 

Windfall Run, Meade Run, Blacksnake Run, and the Duck Ponds area. 

Commonly used public areas include Kinzua Creek, Timberdoodle Flats wildlife habitat 

interpretive trail, Red Bridge campground and nearby bank fishing, portions of the North 

Country National Scenic Trail, Westline Cross Country Ski Trail, and portions of the 

Allegheny Snowmobile loop and Longhouse National Scenic Byway. 

The description of the affected environment addresses the existing condition of lands within 

the project area. For this project, Alternative 1 (No-action) is equivalent to the existing 

condition because no proposed actions would be implemented (see Chapter 2). Therefore, the 

discussion and disclosure of effects for Alternative 1 in each section below will provide the 

description of the affected environment. Additionally, a general description of the affected 

environment by resource area is found in the 2007 ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA 2007a). 

The following Tables 3 and 4 provide details of the silvicultural status of stands in both 

MA’s 2.2 and 3.0. Most of the stands are fully stocked with tree diameters predominantly in 

the 5 to 20 inch diameter range. The majority of trees fall within the 81 to 110 year age 

class. Northern hardwoods make up most of MA 2.2. MA 3.0 is comprised mainly of mixed 

upland hardwoods and Allegheny hardwoods. 

 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 26 

1

 dbh = tree diameter at breast height 

Table 4: Silvicultural description of MA 3.0 in the Upper Kinzua project area (22,416 acres 

total). 

Stocking (%) Structure (%) Age Class (%) Forest Type (%)

Non-Stocked 

(0-15%) 0 Non-Forest 2 Non-Forest 2 Non-forest 2 

Poorly Stocked 

(16-40%) 1 <5”dbh1

 20 0-20 yrs 11 

Sugar & red (wet site) 

maple; hemlock; beech; 

quaking aspen; red oak; 

white & red pine, 

hemlock 

2 

Moderately Stocked

(41-59%) 13 5-20” dbh1

78 21-50 yrs 13 Mixed upland hardwood 38

Fully Stocked 

(60-79%) 77 20+ ” dbh1

<1 51-80 yrs 13 Northern hardwood 11

Overstocked 

(>80%) 7 

81-110 yrs 59 Red maple (dry site) 9 

111- 140 yrs 3 

Allegheny hardwood 38

141-300 yrs < 1

1

 dbh = tree diameter at breast height 

 

Table 3: Silvicultural description of MA 2.2 in the Upper Kinzua project area (4,460 acres 

total), 

Stocking (%) Structure (%) Age Class (%) Forest Type (%)

Non-stocked(0-15) 0 Non-forest 3 Non-forest 3 Non-forest 3 

Poorly stocked 

(16-40) 1 <5” dbh1

 1 0-20 yrs. 0.3 

Sugar & red (wet site) maple; 

hemlock; beech; quaking 

aspen; red oak; white & red 

pine, hemlock 

5 

Moderately 

stocked (41-59) 

12 5-20” dbh1 96 21-50 yrs. 3 Mixed upland hardwood 19

Fully stocked 

(60-79) 79 20”+ dbh1

 0 51-80 yrs. 25 Northern hardwood 61

Overstocked 

(>80) 6

81-110 yrs. 66 Red maple (dry site) 1 

111-140 yrs 3 Allegheny hardwood 12
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 27 

The project area contains approximately 375 miles of roads. Road jurisdictions include State 

and Township roads (16 mi.) and National Forest System (NFS) roads (119 mi.). On NFS 

lands, roads are classified as authorized Forest Service roads and oil and gas access roads (36 

CFR 212.1) (215 mi.) and unauthorized old oil and gas access roads (36 CFR 212.1) (25 mi.). 

The NFS roads are managed for public use as follows: 50 miles are open year around, 40 

miles are seasonally restricted, and 30 miles are closed year around. About 35 miles are 

mixed use roads and trails. The project area has an extensive road network for private OGD. 

There are currently 1,897 privately owned oil and gas wells (active or dormant) on NFS land 

within the project area. Projections of future development suggest that another 1,323 

privately owned wells could be developed on NFS lands in the next 20 years (Appendix D). 

Wells within the project area have associated tank batteries, pipelines, additional equipment, 

power lines, and roads. Additionally, 15 miles of OGD roads are associated with the “Old 

Pennzoil Fields” and are no longer in use. At the time of analysis, there were no proposed or 

active Marcellus developments in the Project Area. Appendix D describes the methods used 

to estimate the reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development used for the cumulative 

effects analysis, and the potential cumulative effects of the alternatives in the context of 

extensive private OGD are analyzed by resource in Chapter 3. 

Analysis Framework 

This analysis is tiered to the ANF Forest Plan and Record of Decision (USDA-FS 2007b); 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA-FS 2007a). Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

provides an analysis of the following resources on the ANF and is incorporated by reference 

into this EA (USDA-FS 2007a): Air; p. 59, Economics; pp. 399-443, Environmental Justice; 

USDA-FS 2007a , pp. C3-433-436, Heritage; pp. 380-384, Human health and safety; pp. 

419-443, Hydrology; pp. 22-51, OGD; pp. 3-7, Recreation; pp. 296-328, Scenery; pp. 370-

380, Soils; pp. 7-21, Transportation; pp. 64-74, Vegetation; pp. 77-179, Habitat; pp. 194-204. 

In addition, the approved EAs and EISs listed in Chapter 1 of this EA provide information to 

support this analysis. 

Current supporting ANF OGD information is provided in the following white papers: 

Programmatic Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest 

(USDA-FS 2010, unpublished) and Site-Specific Effects of Private Oil and Gas 

Development on the Allegheny National Forest (USDA-FS 2010, unpublished). 

Supporting resource reports for air, soils, vegetation, and transportation are located in the 

project record. The Biological Assessment (BA) for Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

Federally Listed Species (T&E); Biological Evaluation for RFSS, SVE, and MIS; and 

Wildlife Report are provided in Appendix C. 

Indicator Measures for Resource Analysis 

To analyze and disclose the biological, physical, and social effects of the alternatives 

considered in detail for this project, the Interdisciplinary Team defined the following 

Indicator Measures (IM) for each resource area. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 28 

Table 5: Indicator measures for assessing the effects of the Alternatives. 

Resource Analyzed Indicator Measure 

A. Air IM-1: Effects of the alternatives on the attainment of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

B. Economics IM-2: Effects of the alternatives on providing goods and services. 

C. Heritage IM-3: Effects of the alternatives on cultural resources. 

D. Human Health and 

Safety 

IM-4: Risks to human health and safety from the proposed activities. 

E. Hydrology IM-5: Effects of the alternatives on water quality. 

IM-6: Effects of the alternatives on water quantity. 

F. Recreation 

Opportunities and 

Forest Settings 

IM-7: Effects of the alternatives on the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). 

IM-8: Effects of the alternatives on the existing Landscape Character 

and on the mapped Scenic Integrity Levels (SIL’s). 

IM-9: Effects of the alternatives on recreation activities and use 

patterns. 

G. Soils IM-10: Effects of the alternatives on long-term soil productivity. 

H. Vegetation: NNIP IM-11: Effects of the alternatives on introduction and/or spread of 

NNIP. 

I. Wildlife and Plants See Appendix C for the effects analysis. 

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities may contribute to the cumulative 

effects of a proposed action. The following definitions were used for identifying past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable activities and assessing their potential effects: 

1. Past activities: In order to understand the contribution of past activities to cumulative 

effects, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past activities. This is based on the existing conditions (pp. 29-30) that 

reflect the aggregate of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected 

the environment on the ANF and contribute to cumulative effects of the alternatives. 

2. Present activities: Activities currently undergoing implementation on NFS lands of 

the ANF, as well as activities on private lands within the cumulative effects 

boundaries described below. 

3. Reasonably foreseeable future activities: Activities on NFS lands of the ANF, as well 

as on private lands within the cumulative effects boundaries that would be 

implemented within the next 20 years. 

Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 provide detailed and summary information on present and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities that will be used for the analysis. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 29 

Table 6: The present condition of vegetation age class for private lands (11,916 acres) 

within the cumulative effects area (defined as the project area watersheds). Source: aerial 

photographs. 

Age Class Acres 

0 to 20 years old 2,580

> 20 Years Old. 7,548

Opening or water 1,788

Table 7: The silvicultural treatments on NFS lands within the project area are summarized 

for the past and present, a 10-year period from 2000 to 2010. These treatments are 

similar to the silvicultural treatments of the proposed action. 

Treatment Acres 

Reforestation 

Fertilizer 606

Herbicide 441

Planting 186

Release 283

Site Preparation 1,483

Overstory 

Final Harvest 1,150

Salvage 160

Shelterwood 133

Thinning 104

Uneven age 358

Table 8: The previously approved silvicultural treatments on NFS lands within the project 

area are summarized for the foreseeable future, a 10-year period from 2010 to 2020. 

These treatments are similar to the silvicultural treatments of the proposed action and have 

approval to be implemented. 

Treatment Acres 

Even-aged 

Delayed removal harvest 137

Removal harvest (2nd entry) 197

Salvage removal harvest 34

Shelterwood seed cut (1st entry) 44

2-age final harvest 40

Reforestation 

Herbicide 237

Fences 184

Fertilizer 35

Site preparation 408

Release (cut small trees) 315

 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 30 

Table 9: Projected project area and cumulative effects area (CE) outcomes in acres (with 

percent of project area in parentheses) for both Alternatives 1 and 2 of forest canopy 

openings for the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Activity 

Past and 

Present 

(2000-

2010) 

Foreseeable Future (2010-2020) 1

Alt. 1 Alt. 1 CE Alt. 2 Alt. 2 CE 

Even-aged Harvest

NFS lands acres 1,150 452 1602 2,006 3,156 

Private land acres 7095 0 7095 0 7095

Total acres 1,859 452 2,311 2,006 3,865 

% project area 7 2 8 7 14 

Oil and gas development3

Number of wells 1,897 1,323 3,213 1,323 3,213 

Acres of clearing4 2,466 1,731 4,197 1,731 4,197 

% project area 9 6 15 6 15 

Non-OGD Openings

NFS/private acres5 663 0 663 7286 7286

% project area 2 0 2 3 3 

Total open acres (%) 4,988 

(18%) 2,183 (8%) 7,171 (25%) 4,465 (16%) 8,790 (31%) 

1

Includes previously approved silvicultural treatments with implementation pending. 

2Maximum private acres. 

3

See Appendix D, OGD Cumulative Analysis Scenario 3. 

4

includes OGD well pads and associated OGD (no. wells x 1.3 ac. per well) 

5

Includes proposed wildlife openings and new pit acres.

6 No information is available about future opening acres on private land. 

Cumulative Effects Boundaries 

Cumulative effects analysis requires assessing the time span and location in which the 

potential effects of the proposed activities are relevant and meaningful for the resources 

considered. Potential cumulative effects of the Alternatives are analyzed by resource under 

Environmental Consequences. 

The spatial and temporal bounds of cumulative effects analysis can vary by resource area 

depending on the scope and intensity of effects from the proposed actions, structure of 

natural landforms (such as watersheds), connectedness to man-made landscape elements 

outside the project area (such as for transportation systems) and overlaps in space and time 

with other activities. Table 10 describes the spatial and temporal boundary used for assessing 

cumulative effects for each resource. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 31 

Table 10: Spatial and temporal cumulative effects boundaries and rationale for each 

resource area. 

Resource Spatial Boundary Temporal Boundary 

A. Air Boundary: The four counties 

around the ANF (Elk, Forest, 

McKean, and Warren counties). 

Rationale: Air effects of project 

activities are quickly diffused 

into the atmosphere, so this 

analysis will estimate when the 

highest annual levels of 

emissions occur and compare 

these emissions to emission for 

the entire the 4-county area and 

regional measurement of 

NAAQS. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 10 

years into the future. 

Rationale: This analysis relies on current 

environmental conditions as a proxy for 

the impacts of past actions. Although 

emission from the alternatives can be 

estimated for 20 years into the future, 

emission projections for the four county 

area are not available beyond 2020. 

B. Heritage Boundary: The project area, 

28,221 acres. 

Rationale: This boundary was 

selected because it encloses all 

of the proposed treatment areas 

for the project. Cultural 

resources outside the project area 

would not be affected by the 

proposed activities. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: This analysis relies on current 

conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. This timeframe allows for 

completion of proposed, remaining 

approved, and foreseeable future 

activities. The effects are not identifiable 

beyond this boundary. 

C. Human 

Health and 

Safety 

Boundary: The project area, 

28,221 acres. 

Rationale: The potential effects 

(from herbicide application and 

prescribed fire) are localized 

within the project area. The 

effects are not identifiable 

beyond this boundary. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: This timeframe allows for 

completion of proposed, remaining 

approved, and reasonably foreseeable 

future activities. The effects are not 

identifiable beyond this timeframe. 

D. Hydrology Boundary: The subwatershed 

boundaries of Chappel Fork, 

Kinzua Creek, and South Branch 

Kinzua Creek clipped to the 

project boundary. 

Rationale: The cumulative 

effects analysis area 

encompasses most of the Upper 

Kinzua watersheds because the 

effects are not identifiable 

beyond these boundaries. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: This period allows analysis of 

the effects of proposed road work and 

other proposed activities on water 

quality and quantity. The cumulative 

effects of the alternatives cannot be 

meaningfully measured beyond this 

timeframe. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 32 

Table 10: Spatial and temporal cumulative effects boundaries and rationale for each 

resource area. 

Resource Spatial Boundary Temporal Boundary 

E. Recreation 

Opportunities 

and Forest 

Settings 

Boundary: The project area, 

28,221 acres is the cumulative 

effects boundary for ROS and 

recreation activities. For scenery, 

the cumulative effects analysis 

area is based on the project area 

watersheds (see item D above). 

Rationale: The spatial boundary 

for recreation includes the areas 

where human use is most 

concentrated. The effects to 

recreation are localized and stay 

within the project area. For 

scenery, the watershed-based 

boundary captures the view shed 

corridor when traveling the 

major and secondary travelways 

in the project area and captures 

the cumulative effects that could 

potentially affect scenery. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: This time period provides an 

overall view of the incremental impact 

of the proposed activities in combination 

with past, current, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities. 

F. Soils Boundary: The project area, 

28,221 acres. 

Rationale: The project area is 

appropriate for analyzing the 

effects of multiple activities that 

are likely to result in short term 

soil disturbance. These effects 

occur at the project site and 

would not be measureable 

beyond this boundary. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: The time frame encompasses 

the effects of implementing the proposed 

vegetation treatments and other 

activities and includes several years for 

considering regrowth and soil recovery 

following treatment. Effects from soil 

compaction related to a single event are 

not expected to persist beyond 5 years. 

This timeframe allows for completion of 

proposed, remaining approved, and 

foreseeable future activities. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 33 

Table 10: Spatial and temporal cumulative effects boundaries and rationale for each 

resource area. 

Resource Spatial Boundary Temporal Boundary 

G. Wildlife 

and Plants 

Boundary: The project area 

boundary and Kinzua Creek 

watershed outside the project 

area (about 41,180 acres). 

Rationale: Land within the 

boundary share vegetation types, 

habitats, drainage patterns, 

climate, geology, disturbance 

regimes, access, and past historic 

uses, as well as future impacts 

from private OGD. The 

watershed-based boundary 

represents the natural structure 

of the present landform offering 

a better ecological element than 

an artificial boundary. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: The period allows for all 

proposed activities to be completed and 

vegetation changes to occur, allowing 

for an analysis of the incremental 

impacts to species or habitat affected. It 

is speculative to predict activities 

beyond this time frame that could affect 

wildlife and plants. 

H. Vegetation: 

Non Native 

Invasive 

Plants (NNIP) 

Boundary: The project area, 

28,221 acres. 

Rationale: The surrounding 

landscape is similar in forest 

composition, age-class, and 

amount of permanent openings 

and acres of non-NFS lands. The 

effects of the alternatives on the 

introduction and spread of NNIP 

species is most prevalent to the 

project area where the activities 

occur. 

Timeframe: Present condition to 20 

years into the future. 

Rationale: This analysis relies on current 

environmental conditions as a proxy for 

the impacts of past actions. Within 20 

years, the proposed actions would be 

complete and areas regenerated would 

have developed a closed canopy 

unsuitable for shade-intolerant NNIP 

species. 

A: Air Resources 

Analysis Framework 

The Clean Air Act, last amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air 

pollutants (US EPA 2010). These “criteria pollutants” are commonly found and can be 

hazardous to human health, the environment, and can potentially cause property damage. The 

six criteria pollutants identified by the EPA are ground-level ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM2.5, 10), and lead 

(Pb). The EPA regulates these six pollutants by setting scientifically-based permissible 

levels. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 34 

Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere where it reflects potentially harmful ultraviolet 

radiation. However, ground-level ozone is harmful and is a major component of smog in 

industrial areas and large cities. Ground-level ozone is created by a chemical reaction 

between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of 

sunlight. The proposed activities that create O3 include motor vehicle exhaust and fuel vapors 

from timber harvesting and prescribed fire. According to the Pennsylvania DEP (2009), the 

majority of O3 and O3 precursors measured in Pennsylvania originate outside of the 

commonwealth. 

Sulfur dioxide is created by fossil fuel combustion at power plants, extracting metal from ore 

and burning high-sulfur-containing fuels by locomotives, large ships and non-road 

equipment. SO2 has adverse effects on human respiratory systems and reacts in the 

atmosphere to form acid rain. The proposed activities that create SO2 include non-road 

timber harvesting equipment, such as skidders using off road diesel. 

Carbon monoxide is formed when hydrocarbon molecules are not burned completely. It is a 

component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes over half of CO emissions 

nationwide. Other sources include construction equipment, industrial processes, residential 

wood burning and prescribed or wildland fires. CO is toxic, and its effects on human health 

vary depending on the individual. High levels of CO in the air can cause headaches, 

dizziness, nausea, and in extreme cases can lead to neurological damage and death. The 

proposed activities that create CO include vehicles and equipment used for timber harvesting 

and prescribed fire. 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of highly reactive gases for which nitrogen dioxide is the 

indicator. Emissions from cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road equipment 

create NOx, which are harmful to human health and is the main precursor of ground-level 

ozone. NOx at low levels can irritate eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. At high levels, NOx can 

cause death. The proposed activities that create NOx include vehicles and equipment used 

for timber harvesting and prescribed fire.

Particulate matter (PM) is composed of small particles and liquid droplets that can be inhaled 

and affect the heart and lungs. Particles between 2.5 and10 micrometers are “inhalable coarse 

particles” often found near roadways and dusty industries. Particles that are 2.5 micrometers 

and smaller are “fine particles” found in smoke or haze. PM effects on human health include 

decreased lung function, particularly among children and asthmatic adults. At higher levels, 

PM decreases lung function among the general population and can cause death due to cardiorespiratory diseases. Smoke from prescribed fires and emissions from motor vehicles are 

potential sources of PM. Smoke plumes from prescribed fire with high particulate 

concentrations may also reduce visibility at intersecting roads and highways. 

Lead smelters are the leading cause for lead emissions and, to a lesser extent, waste 

incinerators, utilities and lead-acid battery manufacturers contribute to lead air pollution. The 

nearest lead smelter is located in southwestern Pennsylvania, about 128 miles from the ANF, 

where the only notable concentration of lead air pollution exists in the state (EPA 2010). 

Lead interferes with the development of the nervous system. Symptoms can include 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 35 

headache and nausea and can lead to death. There are no known sources of lead from project 

activities, so it is not analyzed below. 

Monitoring of the NAAQS occurs at the state level and is enforced through EPA-approved 

State Implementation Plans. The plans typically include a collection of monitoring devices 

throughout the state which provide actual measurements of the concentrations in the air and 

identify whether an area is meeting the air quality standards. Those areas which do not meet 

the standards are considered in “nonattainment” status and must implement strategies which 

will reduce emissions. 

This analysis uses the most current information available from the PA Department of 

Environmental Protection and EPA websites (visited 6/2010 and 7/2010) and assumes that 

the monitoring stations, which are located in highly urbanized areas, are an overstatement of 

expected values on the ANF. This assumption is based on the knowledge that the combined 

ANF four-county population estimate for 2008 (123,294; Elk -32,274, Forest-6,808, 

McKean- 43,436, Warren- 40,776) is less than half the 2008 population of Erie County 

(279,647) (US Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program). 

The nearest EPA-approved monitoring stations for O3, CO, NO2 and PM2.5, 10 are located in 

Erie, PA. In addition, there is a long-term O3 monitoring station located in the Kane 

Experimental Forest (KEF) in Elk County, PA, which is not approved for regulatory 

monitoring. Two EPA-approved monitors for SO2 are located in the city of Warren, PA. The 

nearest two monitors for lead are located near Pittsburgh, PA (graphs and explanations can 

be found online http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/ and in the project record). 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-1: Effects of the alternatives on attainment to meet NAAQS – National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and Pennsylvania State Standards.

 Direct and Indirect Effects 

For Alternative 1, there would be no prescribed fires or newly proposed silvicultural 

activities in the project area and thus no additional emissions of pollutants. Air 

pollutant emissions from previously approved treatments (see Appendix B) are not 

expected to exceed the national standards. 

Alternative 2 would implement all the treatments proposed including all silvicultural 

activities and prescribed fire. For timber harvest, there are 9.7 MMBF expected to be 

removed in the first 2-5 years and 7.8 MMBF expected in the next 9-15 years. 

Prescribed fire would occur on up to 30 acres per year. The effects of both activities 

on air quality are quickly diffused. Prescribed fires may have direct impacts to 

humans and wildlife by creating smoke plumes, reducing visibility, and producing 

fine particulates that can cause respiratory problems if inhaled. However, prescribed 

fires are short lived and burn plans would employ mitigations to avoid concentrating 

smoke in densely populated areas and roads. Using the most recent available data 

from 2009, the nearest Pennsylvania air quality monitors have shown attainment of 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 36 

all NAAQS (Table 11). The air pollutant emissions from activities proposed in the 

Upper Kinzua Project on the ANF are not expected to exceed the national standards. 

Table 11: A comparison of air of criteria pollutant monitoring data showing the NAAQS 

compared to PA DEP measurements and the attainment status. 

Criteria 

Pollutant 

Primary National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

(Averaging Time) 

PA DEP Bureau of Air 

Quality Air Monitoring 

Data 

Attainment 

O3 0.075 ppm (8 hr) 0.075a ppm Yes 

SO2 0.14 ppm (24 hr) 0.021b ppm Yes 

CO 9.0 ppm (8 hr) 1.2a ppm Yes 

NO2 0.100 ppm (1 hr) 0.067a ppm Yes 

PM10 150 μg/m3 (24 hr) 76c μg/m3 Yes 

PM2.5 15.0 μg/m3 (Annual) 14.0d μg/m3 Yes 

Pb 0.15 μg/m3 

(3 month average) 0.12e

 μg/m3 Yes 

a

 Ave. of monitors located in Erie and Pittsburgh, PA. b Ave. of 2 monitors located in Warren, 

PA. c Monitor in Erie, PA. d Average of Erie, PA and SE PA. e Ave. of 2 Pittsburgh monitors. 

Cumulative Effects 

Private oil and gas activities are the largest single emitter of CO, PM, and O3

precursors (VOC and NOx) in the project area (Table 12). The estimated emissions 

include all the equipment required for the normal maintenance of operating wells in 

addition to predicted emissions from new well development. Increases in emissions 

from private OGD between 2010 and 2020 are due to additional wells that could be 

developed within the project area under the full field development scenario 

(Appendix D). 

It is expected that ozone concentrations will continue to decrease in the four-county 

area as measured at KEF, since ozone precursors (VOC and NOx) are predicted to be 

lower in 2020 than in 2010. Although PM is expected to increase in the county and in 

the project area, due to the rural nature of the project area, emissions from the ANF 

are unlikely to have an effect on the continued attainment status for PM in the project 

area. As shown in Table 11, CO measurements by PA DEP in Erie and Pittsburgh are 

well below the NAAQS. Expected CO emissions in the proposed area are not 

expected to have an effect on the continued attainment status for CO in the project 

area. 

SO2 levels in the area are expected to continue to decrease with increased pollution 

controls on major emission sources and with the reduced levels of sulfur proposed for 

diesel and home heating oil. Emissions from non-road engines, as part of this 

proposed action, are not expected to have an effect on the continued attainment status 

for SO2 in the project area. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 37 

Table 12: Estimated emissions for prescribed fire, timber harvest, and private OGD for 

the project area and total estimated emissions from Forest Service management 

activities compared to emissions from the 4 county area (Elk, Forest, McKean, and 

Warren Counties). 

Rx Fire Emissions 

Tons/Year (TPY) 

Timber Harvest 

Emissions TPY 

OGD Emissions 

TPY 

 Pollutant 2010 2013 2020 2010 2013 2020 2010 2013 2020

 VOC 0 0 0 1 2 0 52 59 67

Alt. PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 15 17

1 NOx 0 0 0 2 5 0 264 287 341

 CO 0 0 0 5 15 0 549 598 708

 VOC 0 1 1 1 3 0 52 59 67

Alt. PM 0 1 1 0 1 0 13 15 17

2 NOx 0 0 0 2 11 1 264 287 341

 CO 0 14 14 5 31 4 549 598 708

 

 

 

ANF Management 

Emissions TPY 

4 County Emissions 

TPY 

% ANF Mgmt of 4 

County Emissions 

Pollutant 2010 2013 2020 2010 2013 2020 2010 2013 2020

 VOC 53 61 67 10,101 

 

9,372 

 

7,671 0.52 0.65 0.87

Alt. PM 13 15 17

 

3,886 

 

4,045 

 

4,416 0.33 0.37 0.38

1 NOx 266 292 341 10,540 10,297 

 

9,731 2.52 2.84 3.50

 CO 554 613 708 56,209 52,252 

 

43,018 0.99 1.17 1.65

 VOC 53 63 68 10,101 

 

9,372 

 

7,671 0.52 0.67 0.89

Alt. PM 13 17 18

 

3,886 

 

4,045 

 

4,416 0.33 0.42 0.41

2 NOx 266 298 342 10,540 10,297 

 

9,731 2.52 2.89 3.51

 CO 554 643 726 56,209 52,252 

 

43,018 0.99 1.23 1.69

The incremental effects of management activities on the ANF are very small 

compared to emissions from private oil and gas activities on the Forest and to the 

total emissions in the region (Table 12). The cumulative effects of either alternative 

(in the context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities) are not 

expected to bring any of the criteria air pollutants to levels that exceed the NAAQS. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 38 

B: Economics 

Analysis Framework 

The Forest Plan FEIS contains a history of the economic and demographic conditions within 

the four-county area (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-399-410). Primary contributions from Forest 

Service projects are related to forestry, logging, recreation, and manufacturing. OGD and 

support services also make large contributions to local economies. Additional details can be 

found in the cumulative effects discussion for the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 3-

412-413). 

Activities on the ANF affect the local and regional economy (primarily the four-county area 

including Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties). Timber management benefits these 

economies through direct employment as well as products and services that are provided to 

local industries and businesses. Priced commodities from the project are generated through 

timber products and the receipts from timber sales. 25% of the revenues generated by timber 

sales on the ANF are returned to Elk and McKean counties for support of roads and schools, 

whereas Forest and Warren counties receive direct payments from Congress through the 

Secure Rural Schools Act. Remaining receipts from timber sales are returned to the U.S. 

Treasury. The main non-priced services include dispersed recreation opportunities such as 

hunting, fishing, hiking, and viewing scenery and wildlife. 

Estimated revenue from future timber sales represents current projections but actual revenue 

will depend on the value of timber during project implementation.

Environmental Consequences 

IM-2: Effects of the proposed activities on providing goods and services. 

 Direct and Indirect Effects 

For Alternative 1, no new actions would be implemented. Therefore, there would be 

no monetary implementation costs other than the normal custodial and stewardship 

costs associated with managing NFS lands. There also would be no monetary returns 

to Elk and McKean counties for schools or roads or returns to the U.S. treasury. 

There would likely be negative effects on employment in timber and related 

industries and the local economy would forego revenues from saw timber and pulp 

products that would be produced by the proposed action. 

For Alternative 2, proposed timber harvests would provide an economic benefit in the 

form of forest products to local industries, income and jobs for local purchasers and 

contractors, and returned receipts to Elk and McKean counties and the U.S. treasury. 

The proposed management activities could negatively affect some forest users in the 

short-term, resulting in minor impacts on non-priced recreational activities and 

services. 

Reforestation activities following timber harvests would include a suite of treatments 

that would be implemented in order to establish adequate seedling and saplings 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 39 

during and following timber harvests. The major costs associated with these 

treatments include site preparation, herbicide application, and release. 

Comparison of the total costs, total returns, and net cash flow associated with the two 

alternatives suggests that Alternative 2 would have substantially greater economic 

benefits than Alternative 1 (Table 13). 

Table 13: Project economic costs and returns of the alternatives.

Treatment Costs & Returns Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Total Costs 

Road treatments, herbicide, fence 

installation, site preparation, wildlife habitat 

improvements, and project planning and 

implementation.

$500,000 $5,357,249

Total Returns 

Upper Kinzua Project revenues generated 

from timber harvest on NFS land. 

$0 $6,374,105

Net Cash Flow

Total Return –Total Cost – $500,000 $1,016,857

Cumulative Effects 

Under either alternative, previously approved treatments, harvesting activities on 

private land, and potential future management activities not proposed in the Upper 

Kinzua project are likely to contribute to the local economy. Previously approved 

treatments would proceed and their monetary returns are disclosed in the Blacksnake 

EA (USDA FS 2006) and Eastside EIS (USDA FS 2000). The remaining treatments 

to be implemented from those projects are listed in Appendix B of this document. 

 

A detailed economic efficiency analysis of Forest-level alternatives is presented in the 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a, Appendix B, pp. 78–98). On a proportional basis 

(according to land area), the cumulative effects on the local economy from proposed 

management activities in Alternative 2 of the Upper Kinzua project is similar to those 

for the selected alternative Cm in the Forest Plan ROD (USDA FS 2007b). 

C: Heritage 

Analysis Framework

Stands proposed for silviculture and wildlife treatment included four cultural resources (3 

historic and 1 prehistoric) that have been previously identified and inventoried. One of the 

historic resources was determined to be not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places. The three other resources have not been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion 

on the National Register. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 40 

Stone pits proposed to be expanded or areas to be explored for development were reviewed. 

No expansion or planned development will affect cultural resources. 

Proposed hydrological treatments would be reviewed prior to implementation of proposed 

treatments. The presence of inventoried cultural resources or the identification of additional 

cultural resources may result in the redesign of hydrological treatments (See Chapter 2, 

Mitigation Measures). 

Areas surrounding cultural resources determined to be eligible for the National Register 

would be identified as “reserve” and the proposed action has been designed to avoid directly 

affecting the resource. Cultural resources determined to be not eligible for the National 

Register are not placed in “reserve” areas. Cultural resources that have not been evaluated for 

the National Register are afforded protection, being identified as reserve and the proposed 

action has been designed to avoid directly affecting them. 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-3: Effects of the alternatives on cultural resources.

 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

There are no direct effects on known cultural resources from proposed silviculture, 

wildlife, recreation, or pit proposals. Forest Plan design criteria are applied to avoid 

cultural resources. In addition, the proposed action would be actively managed so that 

proposed hydrological treatments will have no effects on cultural resources under 

Alternative 2. 

Indirect effects to cultural resources could result from increased pedestrian or 

motorized access to sites, but these effects are anticipated to be minimal over the 

analysis period. Standard protective measures designed to avoid or minimize such 

indirect effects include regular monitoring of unevaluated and eligible cultural 

resources and further mitigation if monitoring indicates impacts to the sites. 

Therefore, cumulative effects are not anticipated. 

D: Human Health and Safety 

Analysis Framework 

Herbicides such as glyphosate or sulfometuron methyl are used to control interfering plants 

on the ANF. Human risks are discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a) and the 

Forest Plan, Appendix G (USDA-FS 2007d). Broadcast treatments are generally completed a 

substantial distance away from private residences and their water sources. In the project area, 

80% of the broadcast applications are greater than 1000’ from known non-Forest Service 

structures. Application does not occur closer than 150’ from known non-Forest Service 

structures that contain inhabitants (residences). In all cases of broadcast herbicide 

application, the treatment will be applied when minimal risk of accidental exposure is 

possible. Warning signs, maximum wind caps (10 mph), directional spraying (near property 

lines and trails), landowner notification, timing, and buffers will minimize accidental contact. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 41 

Further information regarding herbicide use for seedling establishment and its safety may be 

found in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007, pp. 54–59; p. A-33–A-38), the Forest Plan FEIS 

(USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 3-119–3-122), or Appendix G to the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 

2007a). 

Prescribed fires reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, improve both forest health and 

forage for wildlife, encourage successful regeneration of trees, and/or reduce the potential 

spread of forest pests. The intensity and severity of prescribed fires can be managed so that 

they meet management objectives. The nature of prescribed fire on the ANF (USDA-FS, 

2007b, see 2400 Vegetation Management section) does not produce large-scale watershed, 

riparian, or aquatic disturbances. Fire on the ANF is managed through the ANF Fire 

Management Plan (USDA FS 2010). It is a strategic plan that defines a program to manage 

wildland and prescribed fires and documents the Fire Management Program in the approved 

land use plan. The plan is supplemented by operational plans such as preparedness plans, 

preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans, and prevention plans. 

Forest Plan Guidelines for prescribed fire impacts would employ suppression techniques 

based on safety, minimal potential loss of or damage to resources, and cost effectiveness. 

Consult the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations for Minimum 

Impact Suppression Tactics (2009). The best available smoke management practices would 

be used in prescribed fire design and implementation to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on 

public health and safety (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 95).Forest Plan Standards for prescribed fire 

prohibit prescribed fire during the peak summer use season (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 135). 

Existing and future private OGD activities within the project area include drilling, fracing, 

well construction, access road use, electric lines, pipelines that are either buried or above 

ground, pump jacks, collection tanks, and other miscellaneous equipment. People working at 

or traveling around OGD sites and the associated equipment are exposed to related hazards. 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-4: Risks to human health and safety from proposed activities. 

 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

For Alternative 1, there would be no effects of Forest management activities since no 

herbicide or prescribed fire activities would occur. Previously approved herbicide has 

already been implemented. There is no previously approved prescribed fire within 

the project area. 

For Alternative 2, overall risks from the planned use of glyphosate and sulfometuron 

methyl are expected to be low (USDA-FS 2007b, p ROD-23). Anticipated effects to 

public health and safety from the treatments include the use of herbicides and/or 

mechanical control. Forest Plan design criteria for pesticide application would be 

implemented (includes herbicides and insecticides) (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 54 – 59) 

and are based on the human health risk assessment completed for the Forest Plan 

FEIS Appendix G (USDA-FS 2007d). 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 42 

Appendix A of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. A43-A45) also contains 

additional information on site selection, herbicide selection, and application methods 

and rates. With the implementation of Forest Plan design criteria, proposed herbicide 

treatments are anticipated to have negligible effects to public health or safety based 

on the type of treatment and the amount of proposed treatment. 

Prescribed fires may have direct impacts to humans and wildlife by creating smoke 

plumes, reducing visibility, and producing fine particulates that can cause respiratory 

problems if inhaled. However, prescribed fires are short lived and burn plans would 

employ mitigations to avoid concentrating smoke in densely populated areas and 

roads. See the Air Analysis above for details on air quality standards attainment. 

Emissions from activities proposed in the project on the ANF are not expected to 

exceed the national standards. 

Prescribed fires can pose a hazard to forest users and those driving through the project 

area. Wind shift may cause smoke to temporarily impair visibility for humans. Smoke 

related health issues may arise. Multiple safety and control measures would be 

incorporated into each prescribed fire that is completed. The ANF Fire Management 

Plan applies developed safeguards to ensure the protection of human life, surrounding 

private lands or structures, other fire sensitive forest communities, and the local 

resources present on that site (USDA FS 2010). Further information regarding 

prescribed fire may be found in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 70, A-32 and 

the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 3-125). 

E: Hydrology

Analysis Framework 

This project is located within the Kinzua Creek watershed, which flows into the Allegheny 

Reservoir. Table 14 describes the watershed hierarchy for the Upper Kinzua Project Area. 

 

Table 14: The watershed hierarchy for the Upper Kinzua project area. 

4th level subbasin 5th level watershed 6th level subwatershed 

Upper Allegheny River Kinzua Creek (Allegheny 

Reservoir) 

Chappel Fork 

Kinzua Creek (lower) 

Kinzua Creek (middle) 

Kinzua Creek (upper) 

South Branch Kinzua Creek 

* Less than 2 acres of the proposed area is outside of the Kinzua Watershed. These actions 

are within the Sugar Run subwatershed and the East Branch of Tunungwant subwatershed. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 43 

Riparian zones occur along perennial or intermittent waterways and are generally wider 

along larger streams and rivers (USDA FS 2007a). Actions within the riparian zone are 

limited to minimize changes to water quality (Stuart and Edwards 2006). There are 

approximately 2,587 acres of riparian habitat within the project area. 

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory (NWI), recognizes 538 acres of 

wetlands within the project area. Most of these wetlands occur in the Kinzua Creek corridor, 

which includes the confluence of the South Branch Kinzua Creek. No activities will occur in 

wetlands. 

The Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a) provides documentation that demonstrates minimal 

effects to water temperature, buffering capacity, nutrient concentrations, sediment 

concentrations, and stream flow when standards and guidelines are applied to the activities 

proposed in this project. The highest potential to affect water quality and water quantity is 

road activities within 300’ of streams. Road design and mitigations can reduce this effect by 

decreasing runoff and reducing the length of new road segments contributing sediment to 

streams (Scheetz and Bloser 2008). Road activities within 300 feet of streams will be used to 

analyze water quality, but it also may affect water quantity. Water quantity can also be 

increased when more than 25 percent of basal area is removed (as a result of a final harvest 

that includes overstory removals, shelterwood removals and two-aged removals or harvested 

for the construction of new roads or OGD) (Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 2000, Lynch and 

Corbett 1990). 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-6: Effects of the alternatives on water quality.

 Direct and Indirect Effects 

Table 15 describes the direct and indirect effects on water resources of specific 

activities that differ between the Alternatives. 

Table 15: Effects for Alternatives 1 and 2 on water quality. 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Miles of road 

reconstructed, 

maintained, storm 

proofed, or 

decommissioned 

within 300’ of a 

stream 

5.5 miles of previously 

approved road treatments 

would be implemented to 

address some of the runoff 

problems. The hydrologic 

connectivity of roads to 

streams would stay the same 

or increase over time 

resulting in large volumes 

of road-derived runoff and 

sediment entering project 

34.6 miles of road treatments would 

reduce the hydrologic connectivity 

of roads to streams resulting in a 

reduction in the volume of roadderived runoff and sediment entering 

project area streams. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 44 

Table 15: Effects for Alternatives 1 and 2 on water quality. 

Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

area streams. Overall, water 

quality would decrease in 

this alternative. 

Roads receiving a high 

quality, durable 

Driving Surface 

Aggregate (DSA) 

surfacing within 300’ 

of a stream (miles) 

5.5 miles of previously 

approved DSA surfacing 

would be applied. Since the 

pit run surfacing existing on 

these roads is less durable 

than DSA, sedimentation 

would be expected to 

increase on roads that 

receive high use from heavy 

trucks or OGD. 

20.5 miles of DSA surfacing would 

be applied. Sedimentation will be 

reduced at these segments of roads 

because commercial DSA is almost 

98% more effective at reducing 

erosion than native material (Scheetz 

and Bloser 2008). 

Miles of large wood 

placement in streams. 

Miles of constructed 

in-stream structures in 

Kinzua Creek. 

Many streams would 

continue to have reduced 

quantities of large wood and 

have limited high-quality 

pool habitat. Stream banks 

would continue to erode and 

contribute sediment to 

Kinzua Creek. 

Large wood and in-stream structures 

added to streams would increase 

stream channel complexity and 

aquatic habitat. Large wood and instream structures are expected to 

disperse flood flows, trap sediment, 

and create deeper pools. Large wood 

placement may cause some 

localized, short-term erosion, but it 

is not expected to divert streams or 

increase flooding. In-stream 

structures would stabilize eroding 

banks. Only beneficial long-term 

effects are expected. 

Non-commercial 

thinning in riparian 

areas. 

No riparian thinning would 

occur. Riparian area forests 

along streams would 

continue to have overstocked conditions, resulting 

in stressed growing 

conditions for trees. 

Stressed trees have a higher 

risk of tree mortality 

potential from insects and 

disease, which could reduce 

stream shading. 

27 acres of non-commercial thinning 

would increase down woody debris, 

accelerate remaining tree’s growth, 

and create better site conditions. 

While there may be a short term 

decrease in shading of streams after 

treatment, thinning these stands will 

promote healthy growing conditions 

in riparian areas, which will provide 

more shading over the long-term. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 45 

Alternative 2 would reconstruct 7.2 miles of existing road corridors to Forest Service 

standards. Several sections of these roads are degrading water quality because road 

runoff drains directly to streams or the road crosses streams with undersized culverts 

that limit movement of aquatic organisms. Almost 1⁄2 mile of these roads are within 

300’ of streams and are most likely to be hydrologically connected to streams. Given 

that some of these existing corridors are currently grassed over and are contributing 

very little sediment to streams, there may be some increase in sedimentation from 

reconstruction of these roads in the short-term. However, in the long term the 

proposed road maintenance would improve water quality. Two existing culverts on 

tributaries to Buck Lick Run are undersized and are fish passage barriers. These 

culverts would be replaced with properly sized culverts that allow for aquatic 

organism passage. 

For Alternative 2, 0.3 miles of new road construction is also proposed. Given that 

none of the roads proposed for construction would be within 300 feet of streams, 

there are no anticipated effects to water quality. 

Commercial or limestone Driving Surface Aggregate (DSA) is proposed to be applied 

to roads within 300 feet of streams to reduce sediment delivery to streams compared 

to pit run surfacing. Additionally, limestone DSA application may provide a 

beneficial effect to water chemistry through the addition of base cations (e.g., calcium 

and magnesium) to the local watershed, which have the potential to help buffer 

nearby streams against episodic and chronic acidification. Many of the streams in this 

project area have acidic pH values and low alkalinity due to acid rain impacts, which 

the geology and soils in this area are not capable of buffering (USFS 2007b, p. 3-27). 

Decommissioning and storm-proofing 2.2 miles of FS roads and 4.7 miles of nonsystem roads would cause a short-term disturbance to soils, but these effects should 

be minimal after establishment of vegetation. These actions would provide benefits 

over the long-term by reducing compacted surfaces and reducing sediment runoff to 

water resources. This benefit would be greatest on the 2.2 miles of road proposed for 

decommissioning that are within 300 feet of streams. 

Herbicide treatments are expected to have no effect on water quality. Under 

Alternative 2, herbicide applications are proposed on 7.9 % (up to 2,267 acres) of the 

project area. The majority of herbicide treatments are located away from streams. 

Where stands overlap streams or riparian areas, those resources would be protected 

through buffers identified in the herbicide standards of the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 

2007b, pp. 57-58). 

 

 Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative 1, only 5.5 miles of limestone DSA and road maintenance would 

occur. Sediment from untreated roads would cumulatively affect stream water quality 

and adversely impact aquatic organism passage. The hydrologic connectivity of roads 

to streams would stay the same or increase over time resulting in large volumes of 

road-derived runoff and sediment entering project area streams. New oil and gas 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 46 

development built within 300 feet of streams would increase the volume of roadderived runoff and sediment entering streams. Overall, water quality would decrease 

in this alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, the reconstruction of 7.2 miles of existing corridors, addition of 

20.5 miles of commercial DSA, and 6.9 miles of storm-proofing and 

decommissioning are expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality in the 

cumulative effects analysis area. New road construction (0.3 miles) is proposed, but it 

is more than 300 feet from streams and is located in the uplands; therefore, impacts to 

water quality are not expected. With the inclusion of all private and USFS activities 

in the cumulative effects area, including new oil and gas development built within 

300 feet of streams, water quality is expected to be maintained. 

Implementation of all actions would be consistent with State and Federal laws and 

Forest Service regulations and handbooks. No adverse effects to water resources are 

anticipated because Forest Plan design criteria and BMPs during project 

implementation would be applied. 

The primary concerns for water quality in Kinzua Creek, Meade Run, Chappel Fork 

watersheds, and the remainder of cumulative effects area are activities associated with 

new private OGD over the next 20 years. There are currently an estimated 1,897 

active oil and gas wells impacting within the cumulative effects analysis area. Over 

the next 20 years, approximately 1,323 new wells could be developed on private and 

NFS lands in the project area (see Appendix D). This would result in the disturbance 

of up to 6 % (1,721 acres) of the project area. In 2030, it is predicted that up to 13% 

of the project area would be disturbed by OGD. By 2030, there could be 132 miles of 

new roads for OGD. Pennsylvania Best Management Practices (BMPs) set guidelines 

for road and well pad construction for OGD developers to control erosion, 

sedimentation, and impacts to streamflow regimes. Protection of water resources 

would be accomplished by providing buffers from streams and wetlands and 

controlling erosion and runoff from roads, particularly at stream crossings. Although 

these mitigations are effective at reducing effects, sediment and increased runoff 

would reach streams and wetlands wherever they are crossed. Sedimentation would 

be the greatest during construction and will decrease once the area is stabilized. 

Private timber activities in cumulative effects area drainages are expected within the 

next 20 years and may add to current impacts on water quality where new roads are 

constructed near stream channels and streamside areas are harvested. Pennsylvania 

BMPs for road construction and timber harvesting will minimize effects to water 

resources (PA-DEP 2005). 

IM-7: Effects of the alternatives on water quantity. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 47 

There would be no direct effects from the proposed activities to water quantity; but 

indirect could occur. Water quantity is predicted to be increased when more than 

25% of basal area in a watershed is removed (as a result of a final harvest that 

includes overstory removals, shelterwood removals and two-aged removals or 

harvested for the construction of new roads or OGD) (Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 

2000, Lynch and Corbett 1990). The increase in streamflow is related to the amount 

of basal area removed. 

In central Pennsylvania, the effects of final harvest on streamflow returns to preharvest conditions in less than 5 years (Lynch and Corbett 1990). (Hornbeck and 

Kochenderfer 2000, Lynch and Corbett 1990). Even-aged harvests result in a 

vigorous increase in herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and tree seedlings. Once this 

flush of understory vegetation is established, changes to stream flow would be 

diminished to pre-harvest conditions. 

Vegetation treatments would be spread out over a 20-year period and are spread over 

three watersheds (North Fork Chappel, Kinzua Creek, and Meade Run). The Forest 

Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a) demonstrates minimal effects to water quantity when 

actions are dispersed over watersheds. Forest Plan design criteria (USDA-FS 2007b) 

would be applied to all proposed actions and there should be no adverse impacts on 

water quantity anticipated. 

In Alternative 1, no effects to stream flow are predicted as the amount of forest in the 

0-5 age class would only increase from previously approved projects. GIS data and 

district records indicate that timber harvests approved or completed in the cumulative 

effects analysis area include 616 acres of final harvest (overstory removals, 

shelterwood removals, and two-aged removals) associated with East Side and 

Blacksnake projects on National Forest System (NFS) lands and an estimated 100 

acres over the next 20 years on private land. The amount of forest in the 0-5 age class 

from final harvests would reach a maximum of 2.2 % (631 acres) of the project area 

in the next 10 years. 

In Alternative 2, forest in the 0-5 age class would reach a maximum of 10.5 % (2,869 

acres) of the project area over the next 10 years depending on when activities are 

implemented. This amount includes the proposed new road construction in this 

project, which will convert 1.5 acres of forest to road corridor. Increases in 

streamflow are not anticipated as basal area reduction would not exceed 25 % in the 

project area. 

 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 48 

Cumulative Effects 

In Alternative 1, no effects to stream flow are predicted as basal area reduction would 

not exceed 25 % in the cumulative effects area. The amount of forest in the 0-5 age 

class would increase to 15.3 % over the cumulative effects area through previously 

approved projects, private timber harvest actions, or private OGD. Increased stream 

flow is not anticipated 

Based on the combination of timber harvest actions and new road construction 

proposed in Alternative 2, approved and future Forest Service timber harvest actions, 

private timber harvest actions, and oil and gas development, cumulative effects to 

basal area reduction within the cumulative effects area are expected to be less than 

23 %. In Alternative 2, even-aged harvests are proposed on 8% of the cumulative 

effects area. Previously approved projects and private timber harvest actions will 

contribute an additional 2.2 % (631 acres ) to basal area reduction of the project area 

in the next 10 years. Vegetation treatments would be spread out over a 20-year period 

and are spread over three watersheds (North Fork Chappel, Kinzua Creek, and Meade 

Run). By 2030, OGD will contribute up to 13% basal area reduction within the 

cumulative effects area. 

There are currently an estimated 1,897 active oil and gas wells on public and private 

land within the cumulative effects analysis area. Over the next 20 years, 

approximately 1,323 new wells could be developed on private and NFS lands in the 

project area (see Appendix D). This would result in the disturbance of up to 6% 

(1,721 acres) of the project area. In 2030, it is predicted that up to 13% of the project 

area will be disturbed by OGD. This includes an estimate of the acreage in well pads, 

roads, tank batteries, and associated utility ROWs. This area of impact will decrease 

over time after the initial development phase is over to about half of the area as edges 

of roads and wells and the entire surface of buried pipelines revegetates. 

F: Recreation Opportunities and Forest Settings 

Analysis Framework 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is an inventory system used for planning and 

managing recreational settings by distinguishing the varying conditions and qualities in the 

landscape. Indicators such as access, site management, visitor management, social 

encounters, and visitor impacts help to determine ROS settings. Recreational settings are 

arranged along a continuum of six ROS classes progressing from least to greatest 

development: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded 

natural, rural, and urban. On the ANF, ROS classes range from semi-primitive nonmotorized to rural. The Upper Kinzua project area is located in roaded natural setting (MAs 

2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 7.1) (USDA-FS 2007c, p. C-2). 

Forest settings or scenery resources are measured by whether there are changes to the 

existing landscape character of the project area and/or whether the project area meets the 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 49 

Forest Plan Scenic Integrity Level (SIL). The landscape character of the project area is the 

existing vegetation (hardwood species, native and non-native conifers), along with 

topography (forested plateaus bisected by small streams). 

Scenic resources are measured based on two indicators: the degree of change to the existing 

landscape character and the ability to meet or exceed the Forest Plan Scenic Integrity Levels 

(SILs) within the project area (USDA-FS 1995, pp. 5-2 to 5-9). Landscape character of the 

Upper Kinzua project area includes the existing vegetation, such as hardwood species and 

native and non-native conifers, as well as the forested plateau topography bisected by small 

streams and large rivers. Land use, including areas developed for OGD, is also a part of the 

existing landscape character. SILs are a management tool and classification system used to 

define the scenic resources across the forest. The SILs within the Upper Kinzua Area range 

from high to low with the areas of most concern for scenery (i.e., high SILs) located along 

State Routes 59, 321 (Scenic Byway), 219, and 3006, the North Country National Scenic 

Trail, Red Bridge Recreation Area, Kinzua Creek, and the Allegheny Reservoir. 

Other areas of secondary concern for scenery generally have a moderate SIL. These areas 

are found along Forest Roads 122, 150, 186, 279, and 321; trails such as the Allegheny 

Snowmobile Loop including Connector Trails #1A, #20, #18, #17; Timberdoodle Flats 

Interpretive Trail; Westline X-Country Ski Trail; and Longhouse Trailhead. Popular fishing 

streams are also of secondary concern for scenery. These streams include South Branch 

Kinzua Creek, Meade Run, Kinzua Creek, and Camp Run, as well as developed recreation 

areas such as Camp Run Recreation Residence and Big Rock Overflow. 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-7: Effects of the alternatives on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

For Alternatives 1 and 2, there would be no change to the ROS classification. Effects 

to ROS could include a short-term loss of solitude (due to machinery noise and 

vehicle traffic from timber harvesting activities), easier access (due to additional 

roads), and a more modified environment (due to additional roads and well pads from 

private OGD). Cumulative effects are not expected to change the existing ROS 

classification. However, over time, effects to ROS may occur through expanding 

private OGD. 

IM-8: Effects of the alternatives on the existing Landscape Character and on the mapped 

Scenic Integrity Levels (SILs). 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

For Alternative 1, previously approved activities have the potential to affect the 

character and appearance of natural forest vegetation; the greatest impact to the 

landscape would be from harvest actions that remove large numbers of trees creating 

openings of sunlight on the forest floor. Due to natural processes, the existing 

landscape character, a natural appearing forest with canopy and understory 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 50 

vegetation, remains intact since natural stand development or disturbance processes 

usually have incremental effects in the short-term (USDA-FS 2009, pp. 19-23). These 

natural processes may produce pockets of dead and dying trees, large openings in the 

canopy, and stands with high densities lacking age class diversity. Disturbances such 

as high wind events causing blow down are consistent with the existing landscape 

character. If considerable differences between the existing and desired landscape 

character come to exist, it may be necessary to develop a transition strategy to meet 

the long term landscape character goals (USDA-FS 1995, p 5-9). Although these 

unmanaged changes could negatively affect scenery values, the natural appearing 

forest remains in its evolving state consistent with the landscape character. 

Impacts to scenery from the high density of roads associated with private OGD in the 

Westline area, including Kinzua Creek and Meade Run, would remain. Selecting 

either alternative would have no effect on the capacity to meet or exceed the SILs at 

these locations since these actions are due to private OGD activities. 

In Alternative 2, the proposed vegetation management and previously approved 

treatments have the potential to affect the character and appearance of natural forest 

vegetation; the greatest impact to the landscape would be from harvest actions that 

remove large numbers of trees creating openings of sunlight on the forest floor. Other 

treatments have less impact on the landscape character; reforestation treatments such 

as herbicide application, site preparation, fencing, prescribed fire, release, planting 

and fertilizing would improve the stand with long-term benefits to visual quality. 

Landscape enhancements such as vistas will benefit travelers viewing scenery along a 

forested corridor such as SR 219, which meets the Forest Plan objective of creating 

additional vistas to enhance scenery across the forest (USDA-FS 2007b, pp.19). 

To meet the SILs and maintain the landscape character in the project area, design 

features would be applied to areas with the greatest potential to impact scenery. The 

design features found in the ANF Scenery Management Implementation Guide 

(USDA-FS 2009, pp. 5-8) are used as a reference to manage scenery. Forest Plan 

Standards and guidelines would mitigate any potential effects to SILs. As a result, 

impacts from harvest treatments as seen from Concern Level (CL) 1 and CL 2 

corridors would meet or exceed the SILs as stated in the ANF Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 62-64). 

IM-9: Effects of the alternatives on recreation activities or use patterns. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

For Alternative 1, there would be no direct effect on recreation activities and use 

patterns because there are no new actions proposed. Previously approved treatments 

that remain to be implemented had effects disclosed in the Blacksnake EA (USDA FS 

2006) and Eastside EIS (USDA FS 2000). Indirect effects to recreation activities and 

their use patterns may occur in the long-term through untreated understory vegetation. 

Stands with dense interfering vegetation would create less than ideal conditions for 

hunting and dispersed camping. Areas with natural wind damaged trees, debris, or 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 51 

downed trees would continue to hinder hunting, wildlife viewing, and camping 

activities. If dispersed campsites remain unmanaged, they may change in quantity and 

quality. In addition, fishing access along Kinzua Creek would not be improved. Also, 

vistas along the US 219 corridor would not be implemented and therefore scenic 

views along the corridor would not be improved. 

For Alternative 2, direct effects to recreation activities and their use patterns could 

include a short-term disruption to snowmobile trail use and dispersed camping as a 

result of increased vehicle traffic (associated with harvesting) on roads at or near 

treatment units which are also designated groomed snowmobile trails (ASL – 

Allegheny Snowmobile Loop and Connectors), Westline X-Country Ski Trail, 

Timberdoodle Flats Interpretive Trail, and where dispersed campsites are located. 

Improvements to accessing Kinzua Creek would improve fishing opportunities. Vista 

creation along US 219 would improve the scenic viewing for travelers. Individual 

dispersed campsites may be unavailable while harvesting and/or reforestation 

treatments occur or for a short time period afterward (1-3 years) until vegetation is 

established. Potential road decommissioning to prevent sediment movement and 

improve water quality would decrease vehicle access to the area, but increase 

opportunities for a remote recreation experience. 

The indicator of remoteness may temporarily shift to inconsistent in the Roaded 

Natural ROS setting as a result of the noise from proposed harvest actions and pit 

development, especially near the North Country National Scenic Trail, the southern 

portion of the Timberdoodle Flats Interpretive Trail, and the Westline Cross Country 

Ski Trail. This would not be a long-term effect and would only last as long as the 

equipment is active in the area. 

For Alternatives 1 and 2, cumulative effects could occur through the effects of 

expanding private OGD. Effects to recreation activities and their use patterns could 

include a loss of solitude (due to machinery noise and vehicle traffic), easier access 

(due to additional roads), and a more modified environment (due to additional roads 

and well pads). Recreationists who are interested in fixed areas, such as a favorite 

campsite or fishing hole, or those who follow a defined trail, may see changed 

conditions along their route or may be displaced from that site or route, depending on 

personal preference. Effects to recreation activities and their use patterns could 

include a loss of solitude (due to machinery noise and vehicle traffic), easier access 

(due to additional roads), and a more modified environment (due to additional roads 

and well pads). 

G: Soils

Analysis Framework

Soil considerations include erosion hazards, rutting, operability, mass wasting potential, and 

soils designated as prime farmland/farmland of statewide importance. 

Treatments that may lead to erosion include skid trail development, prescribed fire, 

scarification, wildlife opening creation, and road decommissioning. Erosion is mitigated by 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 52 

mulching, seeding, and re-establishment of vegetation. Short-term nutrient cycling effects 

occur due to timber harvesting, fertilization, herbicide, prescribed fires, and wildlife 

openings. Effects of harvesting activities on nutrient cycling include increased 

mineralization of organic material resulting in a increase of available nutrients, increased 

nitrification of soil nitrogen to nitrate, increased leaching of soil nutrients (nitrogen, calcium 

and magnesium) as uptake by plants decreases temporarily due to removal of the overstory, 

and increased rates of cycling of some nutrients in the upper soil horizons. 

Rutting hazard indicates displacement and puddling (soil deformation and compaction) may 

occur simultaneously with rutting. Standard rubber-tire skidders and bulldozers are assumed 

to be used for ground-based harvesting and transport. The mass wasting hazard indicates 

soils that are formed by colluviums with greater than 40% slope are prone to mass wasting 

when heavy equipment is used. 

 

Wet soils, when disturbed to the depth of the water table, have the ability to bring subsurface 

flows to the surface. These soils have a high sensitivity to compaction and disturbance. In 

addition, steep slopes are identified as being sensitive for activities for slippage potential 

through the use of mechanized equipment. Soils sensitive for flooding are found within the 

larger floodplains of the project area. 

Soils designated as “Prime farmland” and “Farmland of Statewide Importance” are federally 

designated by the USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Most of the 

project area has been designated as farmland by the NRCS. Presently, most of the project 

area is forested. There is no ANF Forest Plan direction to farm this area. ANF Forest Plan 

direction is continued forest management (USDA 2007b). 

Any proposed activities would be implemented consistent with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, as well as all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies regarding 

management of soil resources. Descriptions and maps of soil types in the project area are 

provided in the project record located in Bradford, PA (USDA NRCS 1985, 1987). 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-10: Effects of proposed activities on long-term soil productivity.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

For Alternative 1, effects to soils would include the continued soil movement on 

existing areas of bare soil including erosion around culverts and on non-revegetated 

cut banks on the existing road system and continued surface water flows down the 

middle of some roads during heavy precipitation events. In the long term, productivity 

would be sustainable as these areas are revegetated through natural processes.

For Alternative 2, soil erosion from roads would decrease due to the higher-quality 

surfacing and reconstruction. Short-term negative effects on soil conditions would 

result from timber harvest activities, prescribed fire, scarification, herbicide and 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 53 

fertilization. These activities are short in duration (3 years or less) and do not create 

detrimentally disturbed sites. Other short-term effects occur from activities that cause 

compaction, erosion, and nutrient cycling. Compaction is caused by repeated heavy 

equipment use on skid trails, fence lines, and firelines. The upper few inches of soil 

recovers quickly from light to moderate compaction due to organic matter additions 

from logging debris, soil biota activity, freezing and thawing, and plant root growth 

from existing and new vegetation. Erosion occurs in any area that is stripped of 

vegetation. 

Approximately 0.2 acres of NRCS designated statewide farmland would be impacted 

on the proposed new road corridor FR 456 G extension. Road construction alters soil 

status for the life of the road and beyond. Four acres of new pit development are 

located on NRCS designated prime farmland and 4 acres of new pit development are 

located on NRCS designated statewide farmland. In addition, 5 acres of new pit 

expansion are located on NRCS designated prime farmland. Pit development would 

permanently change a soil’s status as NRCS designated farmland. None of these 

changes to NRCS designated farmland related to this project were large enough to 

warrant comments from the NRCS following that agency’s notification about the 

Upper Kinzua project by the Forest Service. None of the vegetation management 

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

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

conversion of land. 

Long-term effects would be associated with activities which displace the upper 

portions of the soil profile (topsoil). Topsoil displacing activities include road 

construction, gravel pit development and expansion, tree skidding and other heavy 

equipment that disturb the ground. Recovery from compaction activities would be 

slower in the areas where severe compaction occurs. These areas are associated with 

log landings and primary skid trails and roads where equipment has passed over the 

soil many times. In total, these activities would be limited to 15% of the area (330 

acres or less). 

 

 Cumulative Effects 

The effects of either alternative would occur in the context of activities from past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area both on private and 

NFS lands, including timber harvesting, private OGD, agriculture activities, and other 

minor residential disturbance. Additionally, there is extensive private OGD 

throughout the project area. These activities cumulatively decrease soil productivity 

and contribute to sediment loads within the watersheds. 

OGD roads (non-system), in varying degrees of condition, have been determined as 

the greatest likelihood of spreading sediment because not all of these roads were built 

in the past consistent with Forest Service design criteria. Based on surveys of the 

roads in the project area and past experience, it is likely that future OGD could result 

in the long-term loss of soil productivity. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 54 

Past Forest Service activities in the project area have had mitigations applied to them. 

For previously approved harvesting, there would less than a 15% soil disturbance per 

harvest area. The majority of the project area has been reclaimed to some degree 

either naturally or through active management. 

In the context of these other activities, Alternative 1 is likely to contribute further to 

loss of soil productivity, whereas the activities proposed in Alternative 2 are likely to 

have either minor, short-term negative effects on soil or beneficial effects by reducing 

erosion from roads. 

H: Vegetation: Non Native Invasive Plants (NNIP)

Analysis Framework 

This analysis considers the current status of non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species in the 

Upper Kinzua project area and the potential effects of the alternatives on future introduction 

and spread of these species. 

Surveys in the project area found 30 non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species infesting a 

total of 15 acres within vegetation treatment stands, riparian areas, pits, openings, recreation 

areas, and road corridors. NNIP species documented within the project area include: Reed 

canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Common reed (Phragmites australis), Brownray 

knapweed (Centaurea jacea),Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Bull thistle (Cirsium 

vulgare), Crown vetch (Securigera varia), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), Tartarian 

honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii) Multiflora rose 

(Rosa multiflora), Queen-annes lace (Dacus carota), Burdock (Arctium minor), Purple 

loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea biebersteinii (C. maculosa), Fuller’s also known as common teasel (Dipsacus 

fullonum), Goatsrue (Galega officinalis), Orange daylily (Hemerocallis fluva), Dame’s 

rocket (Hesperis matronalis), Yellow and white sweet clover (now considered one species)

(Melilotus officinalis), Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), Narrow-leaved cattail (Typha 

Angustifolia), Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Common periwinkle (Vinca 

minor), Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Winged euonymus, burning bush (Euonymus 

alatus), Goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), Dame’s 

rocket (Hesperis matronalis),and Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Proposed treatment 

over the next 10 years includes a combination of manual/mechanical treatment (hand pulling, 

clipping, digging) and/or herbicide (backpack foliar) application of glyphosate and/or 

sulfometuron methlyl (stand-level treatments in Appendix B). 

The general effects of management actions on NNIP are found within the ANF FEIS 

(USDA- FS 2007a, pp. 3-291-295) and are incorporated here by reference. To reduce the 

potential for proposed activities to cause and promote the spread of NNIP species, the ANF 

would implement Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and BMPs, including contract 

clauses for equipment washing and actively establishing desired vegetation in areas of shortterm ground disturbance. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 55 

Management actions that cause ground disturbance or open the forest canopy have the 

greatest potential to facilitate the introduction and spread of NNIP species. Changes in 

canopy cover may increase available habitat in the short-term. For example, timber harvests 

allow more sunlight to the forest floor, which creates suitable growing conditions for shadeintolerant NNIP species during the time after harvest but before the forest regenerates. In 

areas of canopy disturbance, the growth and reproduction of shade-tolerant species may also 

benefit from temporary increases in sunlight. Ground-disturbing activities that convert 

forested areas to non-forest (such as grass/forb vegetation or areas with no vegetation such as 

roads) are considered long-term effects. These activities create open habitat and edges 

suitable for shade intolerant plants, which includes the majority of NNIP on the ANF. Of the 

NNIP species documented on the ANF, Japanese barberry, glossy buckthorn, common 

periwinkle, goutweed, and garlic mustard are the most shade tolerant species, although they 

are also capable of growing in open (sun) conditions. Multiflora rose and Japanese knotweed 

can tolerate partial shade conditions and the remaining species prefer open areas. 

Roadways are considered the primary corridors for NNIP spread via human activities 

(Gucinski and others, 2000). Haul roads have been shown to be the primary conduit for the 

dispersal of introduced species into the interior of managed stands in upper Michigan and this 

study is considered to be applicable to the ANF (Buckley and others, 2003). However, the 

factors influencing the establishment and spread of NNIP vary by invasive plant species, 

habitat type disturbed, presence of a seed source, and dispersal vectors (Parendes and Jones 

2000). 

Some NNIP species may be adequately controlled via manual/mechanical treatment, but 

effectively controlling other species such as Japanese knotweed require the use of herbicide 

treatment along with manual/mechanical control. Herbicide use is permitted in all 

management areas to treat native and non-native invasive plant species (USDA-FS 2007b, 

pp. 35). Herbicide treatment of NNIP within the project area would entail the use of 

backpack sprayers for spot-treatment of small, scattered locations (infestation areas typically 

less than 10 square feet). Only aquatic labeled glyphosate formulations would be used in 

areas near surface waters with appropriate buffers as prescribed in current ANF Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 54-59). These standards and guidelines are 

based on the Human Health Risk Assessment completed for the Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix 

G (USDA-FS 2007d). Appendix A of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. A43-A45) 

contains additional information on site selection, herbicide selection, and application 

methods and rates. 

Environmental Consequences 

IM-11: Effects of the alternatives on promoting the spread of NNIP. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 1, existing infestations of NNIP species that have not been 

previously approved for treatment would likely persist or spread. New proposed 

NNIP treatments and associated benefits for desired plant and animal communities 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 56 

would not be realized under this alternative as their habitat would continue to be 

degraded by NNIP. 

Under Alternative 2, several activities could create conditions conducive to the spread 

of NNIP species. Among the proposed actions in Table 1, vegetation management, 

wildlife opening expansion/restoration, road construction, road reconstruction, road 

decommissioning, and pit expansion were identified in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDAFS 2007a, pp. 3-291–3-295) as potentially resulting in direct and indirect effects from 

the introduction or spread of NNIP species. However, potential impacts would be 

minimized by applying design criteria to reduce the risk of spreading NNIP and by 

implementing the proposed treatment of 15 acres of existing NNIP populations to 

reduce or eliminate the potential for these infestations to spread. 

The proposed timber harvesting may temporarily create conditions conducive to the 

spread of NNIP species through ground disturbance and reduction or removal of tree 

canopy. Approximately 2,962 acres (10%) of the project area is anticipated to have 

regeneration harvests by 2030 (vegetation report). However, because the openings 

will be reforested, this is expected to be a short-term effect. Within 10 years after 

harvest, shade-intolerant herbaceous and shrubby vegetation will be overtopped and 

outcompeted by desirable tree species. By this time, the stand would be 10 to 15 years 

old with a closed canopy and would no longer provide desirable growing conditions 

for shade-intolerant NNIP species. 

NNIP species infestations are often found along roadways adjacent to treatment 

stands and within treatment stand; therefore, it is possible that logging equipment 

used on these sites could facilitate the spread of NNIP species by carrying seeds or 

reproductive fragments into non-infested areas. In order to reduce this potential of the 

indirect introduction and spread off-site, an equipment cleaning provision is included 

in timber sale and other contracts. 

Wildlife opening expansion/restoration, road construction, road reconstruction, road 

decommissioning, and pit expansion all create non-forest conditions and edge habitat. 

These areas may become infested with NNIP species by natural agents such as wind 

and water, as well as by vehicles and other uses. Wildlife opening/expansion is 

anticipated to be 20 acres or less; road construction, reconstruction, or 

decommissioning is anticipated to be less than 15 miles total, and pit expansion is 

anticipated to be 30 acres or less by 2030. These areas of disturbance will be seeded 

with a native seed to establish desired vegetation quickly, which will aid in reducing 

the potential for NNIP species establishment. Although wildlife openings are seeded 

and revegetated within one growing season, these activities to produce an open 

canopy and edge that provides suitable habitat for shade intolerant NNIP. 

Introduction of seeds or reproductive fragments from equipment to and from the pit 

area is also a concern. In order to reduce the potential spread of NNIP species in these 

areas, additional surveys and NNIP treatments would occur prior to these activities to 

eliminate seed sources, as well as equipment cleaning before work begins to prevent 

future introductions. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 57 

 Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 would not address problems associated with existing NNIP species in 

the project area. In the context of reasonably foreseeable private activities in the 

project area, not treating NNIP species could allow further spread and introduction to 

new areas where private activities create conditions favorable to NNIP species. 

The vegetation management, road work and wildlife opening work proposed in 

Alternative 2 would be implemented in the context of reasonably foreseeable private 

activities and Forest Service activities in the project area that are not proposed in this 

project (either previously approved or regular maintenance). Because the proposed 

activities would be implemented with appropriate standards and guidelines, their 

incremental effects on facilitating the introduction and spread of NNIP species would 

be small relative to the substantial potential effects of private activities that may not 

apply strict measures regarding NNIP. The proposed treatment of existing NNIP 

species in Alternative 2 could reduce the impact of private activities on the future 

spread of NNIP species by eliminating potential seed sources. 

Under either alternative, previously approved vegetation management on 452 acres 

would still occur, including sites where the NNIP species Japanese barberry, Canada 

thistle, and multiflora rose have been found (in Compartments-Stands 476-29, 481-

30, 482-16). Four acres of manual/mechanical NNIP treatments were previously 

approved in the Trails End Reentry and Black Snake projects (2 acres each) and 

would still occur. These projects occurred prior to the addition of NNIP herbicide in 

the revised ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007b). 

Non-federal activities most likely to result in introduction and spread of NNIP species 

include short-term effects from private timber harvesting and long-term effects from 

activities in residential areas and private OGD activities that convert forest to nonforest and create edge habitat. 

Within the cumulative effects analysis area, 709 acres are privately owned, of which 

8 acres exist as opening and 50 acres as 0-20 year age class. The largest parcel of 

private lands (Westline area -194 acres) has a large number of homes and seasonal 

camps interspersed with hardwoods and mixed hardwood and conifer forests. Land 

conversion from residential development is not anticipated to occur within these 

private lands in the next 20 years based on past and current levels of residential 

development. Aerial photo interpretation and field surveys revealed that 

approximately 50 acres (less than 1%) of private land is in an age class of 0-20 and 

future harvest of 300 acres could occur on private lands within the cumulative effects 

boundary. Future private OGD on both private and NFS lands would most likely 

have the greatest potential for ground disturbance and increased road activity that 

could facilitate the introduction and spread of NNIP species in both the short- and 

long-term. These private activities are equally likely to occur regardless of the 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 58 

alternative selected for the Upper Kinzua Project and the effects are largely 

independent of those from the proposed activities. 

I: Wildlife and Plants

The Forest Plan identifies 78 species with potential viability concerns for the ANF. The 

choice of species selection and rationale are provided in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 

2007b, pp. 3-194 to 204). Five of these species are Federally listed as Threatened or 

Endangered (T&E), two of the species are Federally listed candidate species, and 61 of the 

species are Forest Service Region 9, Regional Forester listed sensitive species (RFSS) and 

two are RFSS candidate species (USDA-FS 2007b). 

Eleven species with viability concerns (SVE), not included on the RFSS or T&E lists for the 

ANF, are evaluated in the project Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Report (refer to 

Appendix C). 

The project area analysis for wildlife and listed plants showing the effects of the alternatives 

on Management Indicator Species (MIS), T&E, RFSS, and SVE are provided in Appendix C 

(Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species, BE for RFSS, and Wildlife 

Report for MIS and SVE) ( refer to Appendix C). 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 59 

References 

Buckley, D.S.; T.R. Crow; E.A. Nauertz, K.E. Schulz. 2003. Influence of Skid Trails and 

Haul Roads on Understory Plant Richness and Composition in Managed Forest 

Landscapes in Upper Michigan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 175 

(2003): 509–520. 

Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. An Evaluation of the 

Pennsylvania Air Quality Program [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/DEPUTATE/AIRWASTE/AQ/attain/APCA%205-

Year%20Report%20042209.pdf Accessed 2010 April 28. 

Executive Order 13112. 1999. Invasive Species 

 

Gucinski, H.; M.J. Furniss; F.F. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of 

Scientific Information. USDA Forest Service. 

Lynch, J.A. E. S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of best management practices for controlling 

nonpoint pollution from silvicultural operations. Water resources bulletin 26(1):41-

52. 

Hornbeck, J.W., and J.N. Kochenderfer. 2000. Linkages between forest and streams: A 

perspective in time. In: Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern 

United States. Edited by E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff. Ch. 5, 91p. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2009. Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Fire Aviation Operations for Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics. www.nwcg.gov

Parendes, L.A. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic Plant 

Invasion Along Roads and Streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. 

Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, Number 1. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Timber harvest operations 

field guide for waterways, wetlands and erosion control. Technical Guidance No. 

3930-BK-DEP4016. 

Scheetz, B.; S. Bloser. 2008. Research Summary: A Sediment Reduction Study. Center for 

Dirt and Gravel Road Studies, Pennsylvania State University. 

Stuart, Gordon W. and Pamela J. Edwards. 2006. Concepts about Forests and Water. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(1): 11-19.

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

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

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

Gas Development on the Allegheny National Forest. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 60 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Allegheny National Forest Fire 

Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Allegheny National Forest Scenery 

Management Implementation Guide, Warren, PA. unpublished. 

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

Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Warren, PA. 

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

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

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

Environmental Impact Statement Apendix G. Herbicide Analysis. Warren, PA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Blacksnake Environmental 

Assessment. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Eastside Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision for Understory Vegetation Management on the Allegheny 

National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Allegheny National Forest Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management on Electric Utility 

Rights-of-way. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA: Environmental Consultants 

Incorporated. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource and Conservation Service (Soil 

Conservation Service) 1985, 1987. Soil Survey of Warren and Forest Counties, 

Pennsylvania and Soil Survey of McKean County Pennsylvania 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. NWI National Wetlands 

Inventory [Web Page] Located at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Criteria Pollutants [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html Accessed 2010 Apr 27. 
Upper Kinzua Environmental Assessment 61 

List of Preparers 

Alan Wetzel, ANF Bradford District Wildlife Biologist 

April Moore, ANF Forest Ecologist & Botanist 

Ava Turnquist, ANF Bradford District Natural Resource Specialist (ID Team Leader) 

Brent Pence, ANF Forest Fisheries Biologist 

Chuck Keeports, ANF Forest Hydrologist 

Gary Dunn, ANF Bradford District Archaeologist 

Iran Martinez, ANF Bradford District Civil Engineer, Transportation Planner 

Janet Stubbe, ANF Forest Landscape Architect 

Jason Rodrigue, ANF Bradford District Silviculturist 

Jeremy Boley, ANF Bradford District Forester 

Mark Conn, ANF Bradford District Recreation Planner

Matthew Trager, ANF Bradford District Planning Team Leader 

Michael Spisak, ANF Bradford District Silviculturist 

Ralph Perron, FS Regional Zone Air Quality Specialist 

Raymond Nelling, ANF Bradford District Forester 

Ron Neff, ANF Forest Soils Scientist 

Sandy Kase, ANF Forest GIS Specialist 

Consultations 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Seneca Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

State Historic Preservation Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service