United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service

Allegheny 

National Forest 

March 2007 

Allegheny National Forest 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

To Accompany the 

Land and Resource Management Plan
This document is available in large print. 

Contact the Allegheny National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office 

1-814-723-5150 

TTY 1-814-726-2710 

Cover photo: Allegheny River Islands, R Hokans, photographer

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

To Accompany the 

Land and Resource Management Plan

Allegheny National Forest 

March 2007 

Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren, Counties, Pennsylvania 

 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

 

 Responsible Official: Randy Moore, Regional Forester 

 Eastern Region Office 

 USDA Forest Service 

 626 East Wisconsin Avenue 

 Milwaukee, WI 53202 

 414-297-3765 

 Information Contact: William Connelly, Planning Officer 

Allegheny National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office 

 222 Liberty Street 

 Warren, PA 16365 

 814-723-5150 

 

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documents analysis of four alternatives developed 

for programmatic management of the 513,000 acres administered by the Allegheny National Forest. Alternatives 

A, B, Cm, and D were analyzed in detail in this FEIS. Alternative Cm is the preferred alternative and was the 

foundation for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. 

This FEIS documents the analysis of all alternatives and displays the environmental effects at a programmatic 

level. The preferred alternative, outlined as the ANF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, guides all 

natural resource management activities on the ANF; addresses new information and concerns raised since the 

1986 Forest Plan was published; and meets objectives of federal laws, regulation, and policies. 

Availability of the FEIS is published in the Federal Register. 

Table of Conents 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement i

Contents 

Summary of the FEIS........................................................................ Summary-1 

FEIS Preface..........................................................................................Preface-1 

Chapter 1—Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement....................................1-1 

Chapter 2—Alternatives ..................................................................................2-1 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ......3-1 

Chapter 4—List of Preparers ..........................................................................4-1 

Chapter 5—Environmental Impact Statement Recipients ............................5-1 

Chapter 5—Glossary .......................................................................................6-1 

Chapter 7—Reference List..............................................................................7-1 

Chapter 8—Index .............................................................................................8-1 
Table of Conents 

ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
Table of Conents 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement iii

Summary of the FEIS Table of Contents 

PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................... SUMMARY - 1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................Summary - 1

Purpose and Need for Change ........................................................................................................Summary - 1

Proposed Action ...............................................................................................................................Summary - 1

Forest Plan Decisions ......................................................................................................................Summary - 2

Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning ...........................................................................Summary - 2

Issues.................................................................................................................................................Summary - 2

Forest Vegetation Management ....................................................................................................................Summary - 3

Habitat Diversity .............................................................................................................................................Summary - 3

Recreation and Special Areas .......................................................................................................................Summary - 4

Other Planning Areas.......................................................................................................................Summary - 4

ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................................ SUMMARY - 5

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................Summary - 5

Changes to Alternatives between DEIS and FEIS .........................................................................Summary - 5

Elements Common to all Alternatives ............................................................................................Summary - 6

Alternatives Considered in Detail ...................................................................................................Summary - 6

Alternative A: Continuation of the 1986 Forest Plan ...................................................................................Summary - 6

Alternatives B, Cm, and D: Modification of the 1986 Forest Plan ..............................................................Summary - 7

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................................Summary - 9

Selected Alternative .......................................................................................................................Summary - 10

Comparison of Alternatives...........................................................................................................Summary - 11

Oil and Gas Development ..............................................................................................................Summary - 11

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................ SUMMARY - 15

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................Summary - 15

Vegetation Management ................................................................................................................Summary - 15

Forest Composition......................................................................................................................................Summary - 15

Forest Age.....................................................................................................................................................Summary - 16

Forest Health.................................................................................................................................................Summary - 16

Land Suitable for Timber Production .........................................................................................................Summary - 17

Allowable Sale Quantity...............................................................................................................................Summary - 20

Habitat Diversity .............................................................................................................................Summary - 21

Landscape Patterns .....................................................................................................................................Summary - 22

Management Indicator Species...................................................................................................................Summary - 23

Game Species...............................................................................................................................................Summary - 25

Species with Viability Concerns..................................................................................................................Summary - 25

Recreation.....................................................................................................................................................Summary - 28

Special Areas................................................................................................................................................Summary - 30

Other Effects.................................................................................................................................................Summary - 33
Table of Conents 

iv Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Management Area Allocation by Alternative (Acres) ................................................................................. Summary - 12

Table 2. Past Management Activity Levels and Future Projected Management Activities (Annual Average/Year) by 

Alternative....................................................................................................................................................... Summary - 13

Table 3. Lands tentatively suitable for timber production ........................................................................................ Summary - 18

Table 4. Suitable Land for Timber Production (acres)............................................................................................. Summary - 19

Table 5. Percent of Remote Habitats Retained ....................................................................................................... Summary - 23

Table 6. Acreage managed with an emphasis on core areas and connectivity....................................................... Summary - 23

Table 7. Suitable Goshawk Nest Habitat by Alternative .......................................................................................... Summary - 24

Table 8. Mourning warbler habitat by Alternative, 2060 .......................................................................................... Summary - 26

Table 9. Viability Outcomes: Direct and Indirect effects of alternatives................................................................... Summary - 29

Table 10. Cumulative viability outcomes by alternative........................................................................................... Summary - 29

Table 11. Non-motorized recreation opportunities by alternative ............................................................................ Summary - 31

Table 12. Acres allocated to IUAs by alternative..................................................................................................... Summary - 32

Table 13. Equestrian use opportunities by alternative............................................................................................. Summary - 32

Table 14. Potential economic impacts..................................................................................................................... Summary - 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Forest types, current and estimated, 2060............................................................................................... Summary - 15

Figure 2. Age Class Outcomes by the Sixth Decade .............................................................................................. Summary - 16

Figure 3. Allowable Sale Quantity ........................................................................................................................... Summary - 20

Figure 4. Percent of forest land by structural habitat diversity by alternative, 2060................................................. Summary - 22

Figure 5. Cerulean Warbler Habitat by Alternative in the Year 2060....................................................................... Summary - 25

Figure 6. Wilderness and wilderness study are recommendations ......................................................................... Summary - 35
Table of Contents 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement v

FEIS Table of Conents 

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................... PREFACE-1

Organization of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................. Preface-1

Forest Niche/Historical Perspective .................................................................................................... Preface-3

The Allegheny Today............................................................................................................................. Preface-3

A Vital Watershed .................................................................................................................................. Preface-3

A Home to Native Plants and Animals................................................................................................. Preface-3

A Place to Play....................................................................................................................................... Preface-4

Working Woodland................................................................................................................................ Preface-4

The Research and Experimental Forest.............................................................................................. Preface-5

Planning Laws........................................................................................................................................ Preface-5

Allegheny National Forest at a Glance................................................................................................ Preface-6

1 PURPOSE, NEED, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .....................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Need for Action........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2.1 Vegetation Management Need For Change.....................................................................................................1-1

1.2.2 Habitat Diversity Need For Change..................................................................................................................1-2

1.2.3 Recreation and Special Area Designations Need For Change ......................................................................1-2

1.2.4 Other Resource Areas.......................................................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Scope of Plan........................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1 Items Outside the Scope of the Plan That Do Not Constitute a Need For Change ......................................1-3

1.3.2 Items Within the Scope of the Plan That Are Not Addressed ........................................................................1-3

1.3.3 Items within the Scope of the Plan that are Addressed .................................................................................1-4

1.4 Proposed Action...................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Decisions to Be Made ............................................................................................................................. 1-4

1.6 Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................. 1-5

1.7 Significant Issues .................................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.7.1 Forest Vegetation Management........................................................................................................................1-6

1.7.2 Habitat Diversity ..............................................................................................................................................1-13

1.7.3 Recreation and Special Areas ........................................................................................................................1-17

1.8 Other Areas of Concern........................................................................................................................ 1-21

1.8.1 Riparian Management......................................................................................................................................1-21

1.8.2 Soil Quality.......................................................................................................................................................1-21

1.8.3 Scenery Management......................................................................................................................................1-21

1.8.4 Transportation Systems..................................................................................................................................1-21

1.8.5 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................1-22

1.8.6 Management Areas..........................................................................................................................................1-22

1.8.7 Social and Economic Contributions ..............................................................................................................1-22

1.8.8 Oil and Gas Management ................................................................................................................................1-22

2 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Developing Alternatives.......................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Alternatives Developed and Analyzed in the DEIS .........................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Changes to Alternatives between DEIS and FEIS...........................................................................................2-2

2.3 Elements Common to Alternatives........................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Laws and Regulations.......................................................................................................................................2-4
Table of Contents

vi Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.3.2 Technical Information........................................................................................................................................2-4

2.3.3 Deer Management..............................................................................................................................................2-5

2.3.4 Trail Management ..............................................................................................................................................2-5

2.3.5 Forest Health......................................................................................................................................................2-5

2.3.6 Oil and Gas Development .................................................................................................................................2-5

2.3.7 Special Designations.........................................................................................................................................2-5

2.4 Description of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action and No Action..................................... 2-6

2.4.1 Alternative A: Continuation of the 1986 Forest Plan ......................................................................................2-6

2.4.2 Alternative B.......................................................................................................................................................2-8

2.4.3 Alternative C (modified) (Cm) .........................................................................................................................2-10

2.4.4 Alternative D.....................................................................................................................................................2-12

2.5 Description of Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study................................. 2-14

2.5.1 Allegheny Wild! by the Allegheny Defense Project (ADP) ...........................................................................2-14

2.5.2 A Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal for Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest by Friends of 

Allegheny Wilderness (FAW) ..........................................................................................................................2-27

2.5.3 Recreation and the Need to Increase Motorized Recreational Opportunities on the Allegheny 

National Forest by Allegheny Trail Riders.....................................................................................................2-29

2.5.4 Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield by Allegheny Alive..................................................................................2-30

2.5.5 Comments on Vegetation Management for the Allegheny National Forest Plan Revision by 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group (AHUG)............................................................................................2-32

2.5.6 The Nature Conservancy (TNC)......................................................................................................................2-34

2.5.7 Local Government Resolutions......................................................................................................................2-34

2.5.8 Other Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study......................................................................................2-37

2.6 A Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................................................................. 2-37

2.6.1 Management Area Allocation and Summary .................................................................................................2-38

2.6.2 Estimated Management Activities/Outputs ...................................................................................................2-49

2.6.3 How the Alternatives Addressed the Issues (Display of Evaluation Criteria) ............................................2-53

2.7 Identification of the Preferred Alternative........................................................................................... 2-59

2.8 Estimation of Future Oil and Gas Development................................................................................. 2-59

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .....................................................3-1

3.1 Introduction to Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Relationship of Forest Plan Decisions to the Environment ...........................................................................3-1

3.2 Physical Environment: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ....................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Geology and Minerals........................................................................................................................................3-3

3.2.2 Soil Resources...................................................................................................................................................3-7

3.2.3 Water Resources .............................................................................................................................................3-22

3.2.4 Air resources....................................................................................................................................................3-52

3.2.5 Transportation Resources ..............................................................................................................................3-64

3.3 Biological Environment—Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ................................................. 3-75

3.3.1 Forest Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................3-77

3.3.2 Plant and Animal Habitats.............................................................................................................................3-179

3.3.3 Non-native invasive plant species ...............................................................................................................3-290

3.4 Social Environment, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects........................................................ 84H3-296

3.4.1 Recreation Opportunities and Forest Settings ........................................................................................... 85H3-296

3.4.2 Congressionally Designated Areas.............................................................................................................. 86H3-329

3.4.3 Administratively Designated Special Areas ................................................................................................ 87H3-360

3.4.4 Scenery Management.................................................................................................................................... 8H3-370

3.4.5 Heritage Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 89H3-380

3.4.6 Forest Products ............................................................................................................................................. 90H3-385

3.4.7 Economics...................................................................................................................................................... 91H3-399
Table of Contents 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement vii

3.4.8 Social Conditions ..........................................................................................................................................3-419

3.5 Resource Commitments ..................................................................................................................... 3-444

3.5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Mitigation .............................................................................................. 94H3-444

3.5.2 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ....................................................... 95H3-445

3.5.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................................................ 96H3-445

3.5.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential..................................................................................... 97H3-446

4 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................................................... 98H4-1

4.1 Interdisciplinary Core Team ................................................................................................................... 9H4-1

4.2 Forest Leadership Team......................................................................................................................... 10H4-8

4.3 Other Major Contributors........................................................................................................................ 10H4-9

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECIPIENTS ............................................................................ 102H5-1

5.1 Agencies Consulted and Receiving Documents.................................................................................. 103H5-1

5.1.1 Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................................................... 104H5-1

5.1.2 Native American Tribal Governments.............................................................................................................. 105H5-1

5.1.3 State Agencies ................................................................................................................................................... 106H5-1

5.1.4 Local Officials, Groups, Organizations, and Individuals................................................................................ 107H5-2

5.2 List of Recipients..................................................................................................................................... 108H5-3

6 GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................................ 109H6-1

6.1 Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................................. 10H6-1

6.2 Terms........................................................................................................................................................ 1H6-2

7 REFERENCE LIST............................................................................................................................... 12H7-1

8 INDEX................................................................................................................................................ 13H8-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Management area allocation by alternative (Acres) ............................................................................................... 14H2-46

Table 2.2. Past management activity levels and future projected management activities (annual average/year except 

where noted) by alternative for decades 1 & 2 ............................................................................................................... 15H2-47

Table 2-3. Evaluation criteria by issue and alternative ............................................................................................................ 16H2-54

Table 2-4. Estimated number of wells and miles of road by midpoint of second decade ........................................................ 17H2-60

Table 3-1. ANF mineral ownership and status .......................................................................................................................... 18H3-4

Table 3-2. ANF Federal minerals (stipulations by alternative) acres ......................................................................................... 19H3-6

Table 3-3. Relative risk to soil nutrients from potential FS activities by alternative ................................................................. 120H3-17

Table 3-4. Proposed activities by alternative mapped on soil units with severe or very severe erosion potential ratings ....... 12H3-17

Table 3-5. Sub-basin, watersheds and acres, and percent FS lands within each ................................................................... 12H3-23

Table 3-6. Streams on the 303(d) list of water quality limited streams and lakes.................................................................... 123H3-28

Table 3-7. Fixed-width distances for the delineation of the riparian corridor in Alternatives B, Cm, and D.............................. 124H3-30

Table 3-8. Distribution of forest age across ANF lands within the riparian corridor................................................................. 125H3-30

Table 3-9. Watersheds and percentage of land suitable for timber management in watersheds within the proclamation 

boundary......................................................................................................................................................................... 126H3-44

Table 3-10. Proposed road work by 2060 within 300 feet of mapped streams (miles) ............................................................ 127H3-46

Table 3-11. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from prescribed burning on the ANF ........................... 128H3-59

Table 3-12. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from timber harvest on the ANF .................................. 129H3-61

Table 3-13. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from all terrain vehicles and off highway 

motorcycles on the ANF ................................................................................................................................................. 130H3-62

Table 3-14. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from prescribed burning, timber harvest, all 

terrain vehicles and off highway motorcycles on the ANF .............................................................................................. 13H3-63

Table 3-15. Total road and trail miles within the ANF proclamation boundary, 2003 .............................................................. 132H3-68

Table 3-16. Projected road system by alternative ................................................................................................................... 13H3-71

Table 3-17. Cumulative miles of road construction and pit acreage consumed ...................................................................... 134H3-74

Table 3-18. Present ANF forest types ..................................................................................................................................... 135H3-85
Table of Contents

viii Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-19. Overstory and understory species composition, summarized for all ANF tree species ........................................ 136H3-86

Table 3-20. Present age class distribution by forest type, ANF............................................................................................... 137H3-89

Table 3-21. Present stocking levels of forest vegetation more than 50 years old on the ANF................................................. 138H3-92

Table 3-22. ANF understory vegetation conditions based on surveys at three different scales and points in time ................. 139H3-92

Table 3-23. Cumulative defoliation on land (private and National Forest system) within the ANF proclamation 

boundary......................................................................................................................................................................... 140H3-95

Table 3-24. 1986 forest plan harvest and reforestation activity accomplishments by management area (1986-2005) ......... 14H3-106

Table 3-25. Forest type outcomes in decades 1 and 2 by LRMP alternative ........................................................................ 142H3-134

Table 3-26. Forest type outcomes in decade 6 by LRMP alternative .................................................................................... 143H3-134

Table 3-27. Age class outcomes in decades 1 and 2 by LRMP alternative........................................................................... 14H3-137

Table 3-28. Age class outcomes in decade 6 by LRMP alternative ...................................................................................... 145H3-139

Table 3-29. Characteristics of areas allocated for multi-aged, late structural, or old growth vegetation in each 

alternative – decade 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 146H3-140

Table 3-30. Characteristics of areas allocated for multi-aged, late structural, or old growth vegetation in each 

alternative – decade 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 147H3-142

Table 3-31. Estimated average annual amount (Decades 1 and 2) of understory treatments to improve understory 

and midstory condition.................................................................................................................................................. 148H3-147

Table 3-32. Estimated acres (rounded to nearest 100) regenerated by silvicultural system and management areadecades 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 149H3-151

Table 3-33. Estimated cumulative acres (thousands of acres) regenerated on the ANF by silvicultural system and 

management area- decades 1 through 6...................................................................................................................... 150H3-153

Table 3-34. Estimated cumulative reforestation and regenerated acres (thousands of acres) on the ANF by 

silvicultural system - decades 1 through 6 .................................................................................................................... 15H3-158

Table 3-35. Estimated acres (rounded to nearest 100) regenerated by silvicultural system and forest type --decades 1 

and 2............................................................................................................................................................................. 152H3-160

Table 3-36. Estimated cumulative acres (thousands of acres) regenerated by silvicultural system and forest type -- 

decades 1 through 6..................................................................................................................................................... 153H3-161

Table 3-37. Forest land1 ownership within four county cumulative effects area .................................................................... 154H3-162

Table 3-38. Vegetation within four county cumulative effects area (percent) ........................................................................ 15H3-167

Table 3-39. Structural size classes within four county cumulative effects area (Percent) ..................................................... 156H3-170

Table 3-40. Area of forest land by ownership group and stocking class -- Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties 

– 2004 (thousands of acres) ......................................................................................................................................... 157H3-171

Table 3-41. Harvest type acres by ownership class for Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties, 1986-2005................. 158H3-177

Table 3-42. Harvest projections decades 1 and 2 by ownership class for Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties........ 159H3-177

Table 3-43. Description of structural stages used in SPECTRUM modeling for the ANF...................................................... 160H3-185

Table 3-44. Landscape codes used to describe desired landscape conditions and management activities by 

management area......................................................................................................................................................... 16H3-186

Table 3-45. Core forested areas on National Forest System lands that occur greater than 1⁄4 mile from existing 

classified roads............................................................................................................................................................. 162H3-193

Table 3-46. ANF management indicator species and selection rationale.............................................................................. 163H3-195

Table 3-47. Preferred cerulean warbler nesting habitat......................................................................................................... 164H3-200

Table 3-48. Species with viability concern on the Allegheny National Forest........................................................................ 165H3-206

Table 3-49. Primary indicators and measures of plant and animal effects. ........................................................................... 16H3-213

Table 3-50. Current and estimated future (2020 and 2060) structural stage conditions for National Forest System 

lands by alternative....................................................................................................................................................... 167H3-220

Table 3-51. Alternative Landscape Conditions...................................................................................................................... 168H3-220

Table 3-52. Percent of oak managed by primary silvicultural system under each alternative. .............................................. 169H3-222

Table 3-53. Estimate of current oak types by structural stage at 2020 and 2060 by alternative............................................ 170H3-222

Table 3-54. Percent of the highest quality remote habitat that will remain relatively free of new Forest Service roads 

and motorized trails by alternative* (The present condition is the same as Alternative A)............................................ 17H3-228

Table 3-55. Acres managed with an emphasis on habitat connectivity ................................................................................. 172H3-229

Table 3-56. Alternative landscape conditions of active goshawk territories (percent of ANF) ............................................... 173H3-232

Table 3-57. Suitable goshawk nest habitat by alternative (percent of ANF).......................................................................... 174H3-232

Table 3-58. Goshawk territories within alternative IUAs........................................................................................................ 175H3-233
Table of Contents 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement ix

Table 3-59. Cerulean warbler alternative habitat changes .................................................................................................... 176H3-235

Table 3-60. Road densities of occupied cerulean warbler habitat ......................................................................................... 17H3-238

Table 3-61. Cerulean warbler habitat landscape conditions by alternative (% ANF lands) ................................................... 178H3-238

Table 3-62. Alternative mourning warbler habitat.................................................................................................................. 179H3-245

Table 3-63. Estimated intensive use area trail miles and density by alternative.................................................................... 180H3-250

Table 3-64. Species with viability concerns – outcomes by primary broad habitat by alternative for direct and indirect 

effects........................................................................................................................................................................... 18H3-256

Table 3-65. Optimal, suitable and less than suitable habitat for the Indiana bat by alternative. ............................................ 182H3-258

Table 3-66. Summary of habitat indicators by alternative...................................................................................................... 183H3-260

Table 3-67. Miles of new road and motorized (ATV/OHM) trail on Forest Service lands during the planning period by 

alternative. .................................................................................................................................................................... 184H3-267

Table 3-68. Percent of connected and core habitat within known oil and gas fields.............................................................. 185H3-267

Table 3-69. Northern goshawk cumulative effect summary................................................................................................... 186H3-270

Table 3-70. Cerulean warbler cumulative effects summary................................................................................................... 187H3-271

Table 3-71. Habitat considerations for timber rattlesnake, by alternative.............................................................................. 18H3-274

Table 3-72. Cumulative effects mourning warbler habitat by alternative in the sixth decade (percent of the analysis 

area boundary) ............................................................................................................................................................. 189H3-278

Table 3-73. Species with viability concerns – outcomes by primary broad habitat by alternative for cumulative effects....... 190H3-287

Table 3-74. ROS classifications and acreage on the Allegheny National Forest................................................................... 19H3-300

Table 3-75. Developed recreation sites and capacity, Allegheny National Forest................................................................. 192H3-301

Table 3-76. Occupancy rates, campgrounds on the Allegheny National Forest, 1997-2004................................................. 193H3-302

Table 3-77. Current miles of trail, Allegheny National Forest ................................................................................................ 194H3-303

Table 3-78. ANF snowmobile trails/connectors ..................................................................................................................... 195H3-304

Table 3-79. Existing trail by trail type, Allegheny National Forest.......................................................................................... 196H3-304

Table 3-80. Estimated site visits in millions at national forests by region, (2000 and 2001).................................................. 197H3-310

Table 3-81. ROS category by alternative .............................................................................................................................. 198H3-315

Table 3-82. Desired ROS class by management area, Alternatives B, Cm, and D ............................................................... 19H3-315

Table 3-83. Number of areas and acres of management area 7.2 by alternative.................................................................. 20H3-317

Table 3-84. Miles of road decommissioned to support remote recreation areas by alternative............................................. 201H3-319

Table 3-85. Acres and areas available for ATV/OHM trail development by alternative ......................................................... 20H3-320

Table 3-86. Allocation of EUAs by alternative ....................................................................................................................... 203H3-323

Table 3-87. EUA overlay and riding restrictions by management area ................................................................................. 204H3-324

Table 3-88. Forest plan revised roadless areas .................................................................................................................... 205H3-331

Table 3-89. Comparison of wilderness study areas by alternative ........................................................................................ 206H3-336

Table 3-90. Management area allocation by alternative for potential WSA........................................................................... 207H3-336

Table 3-91. Timber production and new road construction by alternative in RARE II areas.................................................. 208H3-338

Table 3-92. Projected wilderness visits for the ANF.............................................................................................................. 209H3-339

Table 3-93. Kinzua Creek nationwide rivers inventory summary........................................................................................... 210H3-345

Table 3-94. Outstandingly remarkable value classifications, Allegheny and Clarion Rivers.................................................. 21H3-346

Table 3-95. Management areas allocated in the NRA by alternative .................................................................................... 21H3-356

Table 3-96. Activities allowed in NRA vs. wilderness ............................................................................................................ 213H3-356

Table 3-97. Crosswalk of VMS and SMS terms .................................................................................................................... 214H3-371

Table 3-98. Scenic class allocation by acre and SIL ............................................................................................................. 215H3-371

Table 3-99. Final scenic integrity level assignments ............................................................................................................. 216H3-374

Table 3-100. Very high SIL acreage by alternative ............................................................................................................... 217H3-374

Table 3-101. Scenic integrity levels by alternative ................................................................................................................ 218H3-375

Table 3-102. Potential impacts to scenery by alternative ...................................................................................................... 219H3-376

Table 3-103. High impact harvesting in areas of scenic concern .......................................................................................... 20H3-377

Table 3-104. Actual harvest activity accomplishments (1986 – 2005) compared to “1986 Forest Plan” and “Timber 

Harvest Program Capability Report” harvest volumes for 1986 – 2005........................................................................ 21H3-391

Table 3-105. Lands tentatively suited for commercial timber harvest, 1986 and LRMP........................................................ 2H3-392

Table 3-106. Suitable land for timber production................................................................................................................... 23H3-394

Table 3-107. ASQ and LTSY by alternative .......................................................................................................................... 24H3-395
Table of Contents

x Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-108. Economic characteristics summary, Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties and Pennsylvania............... 25H3-408

Table 3-109. Current role of Forest Service-related contributions to the area economy ....................................................... 26H3-412

Table 3-110. Forest Service impacts upon ANF region economy ......................................................................................... 27H3-413

Table 3-111. Employment by program by alternative (average annual, first two decades) ................................................... 28H3-414

Table 3-112. Employment by major industry by alternative (average annual, first two decades).......................................... 29H3-415

Table 3-113. Labor income by program by alternative (average annual, first two decades) ................................................. 230H3-416

Table 3-114. Labor income by major industry by alternative (average annual, first two decades) ........................................ 231H3-416

Table 3-115. Forest Service revenues/payments to sounties (average annual, first two decades)....................................... 23H3-417

Table 3-116. Change in population, 1960-2000 .................................................................................................................... 23H3-423

Table 3-117. Population 1950 - 2020 by geographic region within Pennsylvania ................................................................. 234H3-424

Table 3-118. Population 1990 - 2000 by national, state and ANF counties........................................................................... 235H3-424

Table 3-119. Age cohorts by Pennsylvania geographic region ............................................................................................. 236H3-425

Table 3-120. Projected youth and senior populations by Pennsylvania region ..................................................................... 237H3-426

Table 3-121. Highest level of education by Pennsylvania geographic region........................................................................ 238H3-427

Table 3-122. School expenditure statistics by Pennsylvania geographic region ................................................................... 239H3-427

Table 3-123. Migration by Pennsylvania geographic region.................................................................................................. 240H3-429

Table 3-124. Households/families by Pennsylvania geographic region................................................................................. 241H3-430

Table 3-125. Possible rankings of alternatives by active interest groups .............................................................................. 24H3-440

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Watersheds on the Allegheny National Forest...................................................................................................... 243H3-24

Figure 3-2. Air quality cumulative effects analysis area........................................................................................................... 24H3-56

Figure 3-3. Maintenance Level 1 Road ................................................................................................................................... 245H3-66

Figure 3-4. Maintenance Level 2 Road ................................................................................................................................... 246H3-66

Figure 3-5. Maintenance Level 3 Road ................................................................................................................................... 247H3-67

Figure 3-6. Maintenance Level 4 Road ................................................................................................................................... 248H3-67

Figure 3-7. Maintenance Level 5 Road ................................................................................................................................... 249H3-67

Figure 3-8. Ecoregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994)................................................................................... 250H3-76

Figure 3-9. Subsections 212Ga and 212Gb............................................................................................................................ 251H3-76

Figure 3-10. ANF seedling age class (0-10) created by year (acres) ...................................................................................... 25H3-90

Figure 3-11. Beech bark disease complex progression of advancing and killing fronts on the ANF, 1985-2003 .................. 2 ..53H 3-99

Figure 3-12. Acres of deer and turkey winter range in each intensive use area by alternative.............................................. 254H3-249

Figure 3-13. PA Wilds market area ....................................................................................................................................... 25H3-298

Figure 3-14. ATV permit sales, 2002-2005............................................................................................................................ 256H3-306

Figure 3-15. Predicted future ANF visits................................................................................................................................ 257H3-311

Figure 3-16. Existing scenic integrity levels, ANF Source: GIS Inventory ............................................................................. 258H3-372

Figure 3-17. Average black cherry price ($/MBF) and average sawtimber price ($/MBF) adjusted for inflation, 

September 2005 ........................................................................................................................................................... 259H3-387

Figure 3-18. 1986 Forest Plan ASQ (1986-2005) and actual accomplishments (1986-2005) based on sales awarded ....... 260H3-390

Figure 3-19. ANF economic region........................................................................................................................................ 261H3-401

Figure 3-20. Employment by major sector, Pennsylvania ..................................................................................................... 26H3-403

Figure 3-21. Employment by major sector, ANF Region ....................................................................................................... 263H3-403

Figure 3-22. Per capita personal income............................................................................................................................... 264H3-405

Figure 3-23. Payments to local governments ........................................................................................................................ 265H3-406
Summary 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Cover photo: Allegheny River Islands, R Hokans, photographer
This page intentionally left blank.
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED

Introduction 

The executive summary provides an overview of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for 

revision of the 1986 Allegheny National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (1986 Forest Plan). 

The FEIS discloses the potential effects of applying 

four alternatives for revising the 1986 Forest Plan in 

a comparative format. Included in the analysis are 

potential physical, biological, and social effects from 

implementing each alternative. The selected 

alternative is Alternative C modified (Cm). 

The 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) replaces the 1986 Forest Plan. The Forest 

Plan revision process was conducted in accordance 

with planning regulations in place prior to November 

9, 2000, as allowed under the January 2, 2005 

Department of Agriculture final rule for National 

Forest System Land Management Planning (36 CFR 

Part 219). The FEIS follows the implementing 

regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) found in 40 CFR, Part 1500-1508. 

Purpose and Need for Change 

The Allegheny National Forest (ANF) has revised its 

1986 Forest Plan as required by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. 

The revised LRMP is designed to meet the legal 

requirements of the NFMA and to incorporate new 

scientific knowledge on topics including ecological 

information, vegetation management, species 

viability, soils, insects and diseases, known changes 

in forest conditions, and recreational user trends and 

preferences. Specifically, the revision addressed three 

major areas of change: (1) vegetation management, 

(2) habitat diversity, and (3) recreation and special 

area designation. 

Vegetation management involves maintaining 

healthy forest conditions capable of providing 

sustainable levels of forest products. It includes 

maintaining a diversity of tree species and age 

classes, addressing forest health, reforestation 

techniques, and the silvicultural systems used. 

Habitat diversity is primarily concerned with 

maintaining viability of native and desired non-native 

species. This includes providing for a diversity of 

forest structural conditions. Ecosystem and species 

diversity, and habitat connectivity are emphasized. 

Game species, threatened and endangered species, 

and non-native invasive species are considered. 

Recreation involves provision of an appropriate array 

of recreational opportunities for the public. It 

includes determining actual recreational settings 

across the ANF and determining the type and amount 

of opportunities provided. The analysis of the need 

for change also identified a need for consideration of 

additional special area designations including the 

potential wilderness study areas. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed changes to the Forest Plan include: 

• Restructuring the Forest Plan 

• Changes to desired conditions, goals, objectives, 

suitable uses, and standards and guidelines 

• Adjustment of management areas 

• Recommendations for wilderness study areas and 

other special designations 

• Establishing the allowable sale quantity, or ASQ 
Summary of the FEIS Summary 

Summary - 2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The proposed Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) is based on Alternative Cm. 

Forest Plan Decisions 

The ANF chose to narrow the scope for revising the 

Forest Plan by focusing on issues identified in the 

Need for Change section above as being most 

critically in need of change. The LRMP makes the 

following types of decisions: 

• Desired conditions, goals, and objectives that 

express an aspiration and form the basis for 

projects, activities, and uses that occur under the 

Forest Plan 

• Suitability determinations, standards, and 

guidelines that set requirements to limit or guide 

forest uses or activities that are expected to occur 

under the Forest Plan 

• Management area and special designations, or 

recommendations for special designations, that 

identify areas for different desired conditions, 

uses, standards, and guidelines 

• Monitoring and evaluation requirements for 

Forest Plan implementation 

Public Involvement and 

Collaborative Planning 

Citizens, tribes, government agencies, and public and 

private organizations were contacted by mail, e-mail, 

and through announcements in broadcast and print 

media throughout the Forest Plan revision process. 

This revision began in 1997 when the ANF solicited 

public comment to identify need for change (NFC) 

items. In 1998, the process halted due to Agency and 

Congressional direction, including budget 

constraints. Forest planning resumed in 2003 and 

comments received during the initial planning stage 

were reviewed. The ANF used “collaborative 

learning” workshops through the fall of 2003 to 

discuss and finalize the NFC and the forest planning 

process. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the 

Federal Register on September 23, 2003 and two 

public meetings were held to discuss the NFC and 

NOI. Comments (192) were received during the 

public comment period, which ran from September 

25, 2003 through November 10, 2003. In 2004, two 

facilitated workshops were used to develop draft 

alternatives. These initial draft alternatives were 

discussed at facilitated public meetings in 2005. 

The proposed LRMP and DEIS were released in May 

2006 and the comment period on the proposed Forest 

Plan and the DEIS ran from May 26, 2006 to August 

28, 2006. Following the release, there were eight 

open house meetings throughout Pennsylvania, 

meetings with stakeholder groups, and two hearings. 

More than 8,000 comments were received. 

In addition to these public meetings, government-togovernment meetings were held with the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Seneca Nation 

of Indians, county commissioners from Elk, Forest, 

McKean, and Warren counties, township supervisors, 

and school district superintendents. A description of 

the public involvement process is available in 

Appendix A of the FEIS. 

Issues 

Forest Plan revision issues are those areas of forest 

management that require a change as a result of new 

scientific information, resource changes, a better 

understanding of previous management based on 

monitoring and evaluation information, or changing 

public needs. 

The issues identified through the planning and public 

participation process were categorized into two 

groups, significant issues and other areas of concern. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 3 

This helped define the scope of the analysis 

documented in the FEIS. Significant issues contain a 

major dispute that necessitates varied approaches in 

the alternatives. Significant issues are addressed 

through Forest Plan decisions. Other areas of concern 

identified in the Notice of Intent are addressed 

through improved standards and guidelines or 

monitoring strategies in the LRMP. 

Each issue and relevant components are presented 

below. Components that were most likely to change 

across alternative were assigned specific evaluation 

criteria used to measure each alternative’s response to 

an issue and to help summarize the effects of each 

alternative. Components that do not change by 

alternative were discussed briefly to carry forward 

the discussion started in the Notice of Intent. 

Forest Vegetation Management 

This issue involves determining the desired mix of 

vegetative conditions needed for the ANF, the 

appropriate mix of management, and opportunity to 

provide forest products. The conditions estimated in 

the sixth decade were selected as a measure to 

compare long-term effects by alternative. The seven 

components discussed below will be used to answer 

the following questions: 

1. What mix of forest types should define the 

desired vegetation composition? 

2. What distribution by age classes should be 

assigned to the desired vegetation structure? 

3. How will forest health be addressed? 

4. What will be the acreage of forest land suitable 

for timber production? 

5. What will be the mix of silvicultural systems 

used? 

6. How will reforestation techniques be modified to 

meet changing conditions and new information? 

7. What harvest schedule and mix of forest products 

should be featured? 

Habitat Diversity 

This issue involves maintaining the viability of native 

and desired non-native species found on the ANF. 

The habitat diversity issue centers on the composition 

and arrangement of ecological communities present 

on the landscape. What mix of desired conditions 

should be featured and what mix of activities and 

protections will produce the desired outcomes? Five 

major components for this issue address the 

following questions: 

1. What combination of habitats and habitat elements 

are necessary to sustain the diversity of native and 

desired non-native species on the ANF? 

2. Where and how much area should be allocated to 

late structural forests while emphasizing habitat 

connectivity? 

3. What conservation measures are needed to 

conserve habitat for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species and ensure species viability? 

4. What guidelines and treatments are needed to 

effectively control non-native invasive species? 

5. How can habitat for game species be enhanced 

while providing hunting and fishing opportunities 

and managing populations in balance with the 

habitat?
Summary of the FEIS Summary 

Summary - 4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Recreation and Special Areas 

This issue involves determining the types and 

amount of recreation opportunities and special areas 

which will be provided on the ANF. Six components 

of this issue address the following questions: 

1. To what extent can the ANF provide developed 

recreation opportunities and how should they be 

managed? 

2. To what extent can dispersed recreation be 

addressed to improve non-motorized recreation 

opportunities and clarify direction for managing 

concentrated dispersed recreation use? 

3. How should trails be managed for different uses 

and in what areas should they be provided? 

4. What areas determined potentially suitable for 

wilderness should be recommended for 

wilderness study areas? 

5. How will Wild and Scenic Rivers be 

treated? 

6. What will be considered for other Special 

Area Management (Research Natural Areas, 

Scenic Areas, Historic Areas, and 

Experimental Forests)? 

Other Planning Areas 

The IDT also identified a need to clarify and 

strengthen guidance in the 1986 Forest Plan for 

seven other planning areas: 

1. soil and water quality 

2. heritage resources 

3. scenery 

4. transportation systems 

5. monitoring 

6. management areas 

7. reorganization of the Forest Plan format 

Although the ANF does not own 93 percent of its 

subsurface where private oil and gas development is 

legally established, the LRMP and FEIS contains 

direction and discussion of environmental effects for 

this development. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 5 

ALTERNATIVES

Introduction 

The alternatives provide a framework for analyzing 

different ways of meeting the purpose and need of 

the LRMP and for addressing the issues discussed in 

Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The alternatives show a range 

of options for guiding natural resources management 

activities on the ANF over the next 10 to 15 years. 

They express different desired conditions primarily 

through different management area (MA) 

allocations. While this document identifies a 

selected alternative, the key purpose of the document 

is to describe in detail the consequences of 

implementing any one of the identified alternatives. 

The ANF used the three significant issues as the 

primary basis on which to focus development of four 

alternatives that are carried forward for detailed 

analysis in the FEIS. While all four alternatives 

provide a wide range of multiple uses, goods, and 

services, each addresses the issues in different ways. 

Changes to Alternatives between 

DEIS and FEIS 

Comments received on the DEIS led to a number of 

changes in alternatives between the DEIS and the 

FEIS. All alternatives include the following 

technical changes: 

1. There is a net increase in lands tentatively 

suitable for timber production due to a 

correction in the acreage withdrawn for roads of 

20,140 acres. 

2. There is a projected decrease in lands scheduled 

for timber production due to adjustments in 

accounting for future OGM development under 

all four alternatives. 

3. Final harvest of overstories for existing 

shelterwood stands are scheduled in the first 

decade except in oaks stands that have already 

received a shelterwood cut. 

4. Due to greater conservation measures in the 

LRMP for various species and wetland 

management zones, 15 percent of the lands 

suitable for timber production have deferred 

timber harvest. This is increased from 10 percent 

in the DEIS (Alternatives B, Cm, and D). 

Because of the changes listed above, model results 

and timber schedules have changed. In the FEIS, 

activities and outcomes are displayed by decade 

rather than by planning period. See Table 2 for 

revised activity numbers under all alternatives. 

Additional technical changes made to model 

assumptions are described in Appendix B of the 

FEIS. 

MA 5.0 (Wilderness) has been subdivided into 

two MAs, 5.1 for existing wilderness and 5.2 for 

wilderness study areas under all four 

alternatives. 

Alternative C in the DEIS was modified based on 

public comments and is presented as Cm in the 

FEIS. Changes from Alternative C to Alternative 

Cm include: 

1. A net decrease in wilderness study areas (MA 

5.2) of 1,717 acres. The Tracey Ridge area 

(9,033 acres) is now in MA 8.2 (National 

Recreation Area) and 7,316 acres of the Minister 

Valley area (east of FR420) is now in MA 5.2.
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

2. A net decrease of 11,954 acres in Remote 

Recreation Areas (MA 7.2) based primarily on 

the reclassification of most of the Minister 

Valley area as wilderness study area. Decrease 

of acres also includes reclassification of the 

remaining 1,829 acres of the Minster Valley area 

as MA 3.0 and reclassification of the Morrison 

Area to Landscape Linkages (MA2.2). Morrison 

Valley is no longer considered suitable for 

remote recreation area due to recent increases in 

oil and gas development. 

3. A net decrease of 14,196 acres in intensive use 

areas (IUAs). The proposed Longhouse IUA has 

been dropped from this alternative. 

4. A net decrease of 2,269 acres in Landscape 

Linkages (MA 2.2) due to: 

• Several locations with oak stands were 

shifted to MA 3.0 

• Owls Nest Area MA 1.0 was enlarged to 

reflect current size. It had been reduced in 

acreage on the east with 1,722 acres having 

been allocated to MA 2.2 

• Morrison Area changed from MA 7.2 to MA 

2.2 

• Several locations were added to the MA 2.2 

from MA 3.0 to provide further protection 

for the timber rattlesnake 

5. A net increase of 1,848 acres in Late Structural 

Habitat (MA 6.1) including several visible 

hillsides along the Allegheny River previously 

included in MA 3.0. 

6. A net increase of 3,390 acres in MA 3.0 in the 

western part of Minister Valley and the addition 

of some oak areas previously classified as MA 

2.2. 

A number of standards and guidelines in the LRMP 

have been changed to reflect new knowledge and 

comments received. In particular, one management 

indicator species (MIS) representing early structural 

habitat has been added (the mourning warbler) and 

goals and objectives have been added relating to 

acquisition of subsurface mineral rights. Greater 

detail is available in the monitoring Forest Plan 

provided with the LRMP. 

Elements Common to all 

Alternatives 

All of the alternatives considered comply with 

applicable laws and regulations and all were 

evaluated with the same set of technical assumptions 

and data. The following elements are common to all 

alternatives: 

• White-tailed deer are managed for densities that 

range between 10 and 20 deer per square mile 

• Trail management for all uses except 

ATV/OHM and equestrian use 

• Forest health treatments for insects and disease 

• Management of oil and gas development, 

although Alternatives B, Cm, and D have new 

standards and guidelines 

• All areas with special designations under the 

1986 Forest Plan continue to be protected 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternative A: Continuation of the 1986 

Forest Plan 

Alternative A is a continuation of the management 

direction contained in the 1986 Forest Plan. It is the 

“no-action” alternative for the FEIS. While this 

alternative continues the management direction of 

the 1986 Forest Plan, the evaluation of activities, 

outputs, and environmental effects uses the same 

technical assumptions of all the other alternatives. In 

this way, Alternative A serves as a baseline for 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 7 

evaluating the effects of continuing the current 

management of the ANF. 

Alternative A emphasizes retention and regeneration 

of Allegheny hardwood and oak forest types, which 

is accomplished primarily through even-aged 

management. Older forests are provided in 

disconnected patches across the ANF (primarily in 

MA 6.1). Herbicide buffers in Alternative A would 

follow current Forest Plan direction. Alternative A 

provides the greatest amount of early structural 

habitat. Although patches of older forest are 

provided, they are not connected across the 

landscape. Approximately 92 percent of the ANF 

would be in management areas that feature evenaged harvest methods. The remaining management 

areas would have no active management. 

Alternative A includes: 

• Five intensive use areas (IUAs) for ATV/OHM 

use on designated trails 

• Open riding across the ANF for equestrians 

• Few areas for semi-primitive, non-motorized 

recreation 

• Current Forest Plan direction for protection of 

riparian areas and threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D: Modification 

of the 1986 Forest Plan 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D provide a range of 

opportunities for vegetation, recreation, and habitat 

management. The three alternatives have a number 

of features in common: 

• Updated standards and guidelines for herbicide 

application 

• Updated standards and guidelines for habitat 

protection for threatened and endangered species 

and species with viability concerns 

• Objectives, standards, and guidelines for greater 

protection of riparian corridors and wetland 

zones 

• Adjustment of MA 7.1 to provide developed 

recreation with considerable facilities 

• Provision of MA 8.1 for management of 

recreation and scenic river segments on Wild 

and Scenic Rivers 

• Recommendation for expansion of the Kane 

Experimental Forest 

• Recommendation of Buckaloons as a designated 

historic area 

• All previously identified RARE II areas do not 

allow scheduled timber production and new 

Forest Service road construction 

• Modified direction related to oil and gas 

development including goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines to better balance 

subsurface development with conservation of 

surface resources 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D all include intensive use 

areas (IUAs) in which ATV/OHM trail development 

and use is allowed only on designated trails. In 

addition to the modifications identified above, 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D vary as follows: 

Alternative B 

Alternative B emphasizes increasing the amount of 

younger forest habitat primarily through 

regeneration timber harvest of Allegheny hardwood 

stands. In addition to the features previously 

described, Alternative B modifies Alternative A by 

adding MA 2.2 to provide large patches of older 

forest in a connected pattern across the landscape. 

Approximately 73 percent of the ANF would be in 

MAs that feature even-aged harvest methods. Five 

percent would be in MAs featuring uneven-aged 

methods, and 22 percent in MAs with no active 

vegetative management. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative B includes: 

• The greatest level of early structural habitat 

conditions 

• One area (Clarion River) managed for remote 

recreation 

• One area (Minister Valley) managed for 

interpretive recreation 

• No recommendations for additional wilderness 

study areas 

• Five IUAs for ATV/OHM use on designated 

trails 

• Four EUAs where equestrian use is limited to 

designated trails but open riding is permitted on 

most of the rest of the forest 

Alternative C (modified) 

Alternative Cm emphasizes a balanced mix of forest 

age classes and habitat diversity. MA 2.2 is both 

larger and more connected in this alternative than 

Alternative B to provide a more contiguous forest 

canopy and increased resiliency to natural 

disturbance events. Greater retention of late 

structural conditions in MAs 3.0 and 6.1, and in 

wilderness and remote recreation areas also provides 

older forest habitat. Approximately 67 percent of the 

ANF would be in MAs that feature even-aged 

harvest methods. Seven percent would be in MAs 

featuring uneven-aged methods, and 26 percent in 

MAs with no active vegetative management. 

Alternative Cm includes: 

• Recommendation for two wilderness study areas 

(Minister Valley (east of FR420) and Chestnut 

Ridge), totaling more than 12,000 acres 

• Three remote recreation areas (Clarion River, 

East Fork Hickory Creek, and Hearts Content), 

totaling approximately 9,074 acres 

• Four IUAs for ATV/OHM use on designated 

trails (total acreage in IUAs is less in Alternative 

Cm than in Alternative B) 

• Four EUAs where equestrian use is limited to 

designated trails, but open riding is permitted on 

most of the rest of the forest 

Alternative D 

Alternative D emphasizes restoration of older forest 

conditions in upland and northern hardwood forest 

types. This alternative provides the largest acreage 

of land area in MA 2.2 to provide a more contiguous 

forest canopy and increased resiliency to natural 

disturbance events. This alternative provides the 

greatest acreage of land managed with uneven-aged 

silviculture in the long term. 

Greater retention of older forests in MAs 3.0 and 6.1 

and in wilderness and remote recreation areas also 

provides for late structural habitat. Early structural 

habitat has less emphasis and is provided in MAs 1.0 

and 3.0. Approximately 37 percent of the ANF 

would be in MAs that feature even-aged harvest 

methods. Thirty-two percent would be in MAs 

featuring uneven-aged methods, and 31 percent in 

management areas with no active vegetative 

management. 

Alternative D includes: 

• The greatest acreage in intermediate and older 

forest conditions 

• Recommendation for four wilderness study areas 

(Tracy Ridge, Chestnut Ridge, Minister Valley 

and Allegheny Front), totaling nearly 30,000 

acres 

• Six remote recreation areas (Clarion River, 

Lamentation Run, Hearts Content, Morrison, 

Longhouse, and South Cornplanter) totaling 

30,948 acres of remote recreation areas 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 9 

• Three IUAs for ATV/OHM use on designated 

trails with the least acreage in IUAs than any 

other alternative 

• Three EUAs where equestrian use is limited to 

designated trails 

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated 

The ANF received a variety of proposals for 

consideration during development of alternatives. 

These proposals included both full alternatives and 

specific design elements and came from citizen and 

local government groups and individuals. Many of 

the elements presented were considered during the 

planning process. For example, areas recommended 

for wilderness were considered through the roadless 

area inventory and possible wilderness study areas 

were identified and evaluated. Briefly, the following 

proposals were considered but eliminated from 

further analysis as complete alternatives: 

Allegheny Wild! By the Allegheny Defense 

Project. The Allegheny Defense Project (ADP) 

submitted 84 resolutions relating (broadly) to 

resource extraction, wilderness and special area 

management, biological diversity and ecological 

health, recreation, and the forest planning and 

appeals process. Essentially, ADP would like to see 

commercial logging and oil and gas development 

ended on the ANF and management redirected to 

restore the forest to “natural” (i.e., pre-settlement) 

conditions. Many of the issues raised in the ADP 

report are addressed in the LRMP either through 

revised standards and guidelines or consideration of 

the range of alternatives. Some of the issues raised 

(e.g. ending commercial timber harvesting) did not 

address the purpose and need of the revision, were 

considered to be outside the scope of the Forest 

Plan, or were infeasible. 

A Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal for 

Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest by 

Friends of Allegheny Wilderness. Friends of 

Allegheny Wilderness (FAW) recommended 

creating eight new wilderness areas, totaling roughly 

54,460 acres, and expanding other special area 

designations. Areas recommended were considered 

through the roadless area inventory and wilderness 

evaluation required for Forest Plan revision. 

However, not all of the areas recommended by FAW 

met the criteria for wilderness. Even though all of 

these areas were not analyzed in detail for 

wilderness study areas, they are considered in detail 

for other management areas (primarily remote 

recreation areas MA 7.2) that retain these areas in a 

natural condition without roads or scheduled timber 

harvest. 

Recreation and the Need to Increase Motorized 

Recreational Opportunities on the Allegheny 

National Forest by Allegheny Trail Riders. The 

Allegheny Trail Riders recommend planning for and 

building the entire 503 miles of trail and requisite 

support facilities that the 1986 Forest Plan EIS said 

the ANF could support and provided a variety of 

suggestions to enhance ATV/OHM opportunities on 

the ANF. Large expansion of the existing 

ATV/OHM trail system to 503 miles is not 

considered feasible as it would create too many 

problems in addressing the habitat diversity part of 

the purpose and need. It would also be impractical 

and unsafe to expand ATV/OHM use on open public 

roads. However, the FEIS does consider a range of 

IUA development specifically for ATV/OHM and 

motorized trail bike trail designation. 

Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield by Allegheny 

Alive. This proposal provides recommendations for 

recreation, timber management, and oil and gas 

development. The alternatives considered provide a 

reasonable range of trail development for 

ATV/OHM and snowmobile use, developed 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

recreation opportunities, and harvest methods and 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ). A number of the 

recommendations made in this proposal are projectlevel decisions (e.g. site selection for resorts, cabins, 

and trails) and are therefore outside the scope of the 

Forest Plan. 

Comments on Vegetation Management for the 

Allegheny National Forest Plan Revision by 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group. The 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group (AHUG) 

made specific recommendations to change existing 

vegetation management language in the 1986 Forest 

Plan. Recommended changes to standards and 

guidelines were considered during development of 

the LRMP. However, some of the recommendations 

are not feasible under current conditions (e.g. 

maintaining approximately 474,000 acres in lands 

suitable for timber production). 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The Nature 

Conservancy’s comments centered on improving 

landscape connectivity and reserve design, limiting 

oil and gas development, reducing impacts of whitetailed deer, and promoting or restoring native species 

composition, forest structure, and a mix of 

successional stages that reflects what would occur 

under a natural disturbance regime. Revised 

standards and guidelines, as well as revised 

management area designations, address many of 

TNC’s concerns. Ending legal development of 

private oil and gas rights is outside the legal 

authority of the ANF. The LRMP does contain 

objectives for acquisition of subsurface rights, 

especially where acquisition can contribute to 

recreation and special area issues in the purpose and 

need. 

Local Government Resolutions. A number of local 

governments passed and sent individual resolutions 

to the ANF regarding 12 points they support for the 

future planning of the ANF. Among these points 

were: 

1. 435,000 acres as suitable landbase for timber, 

with a minimum level of timber harvest of 80 

MBF 

2. Opening all oak areas for forest management 

3. Maintaining 20 percent of the ANF in early 

successional habitat at any one time 

4. Increased opportunities for recreation, including 

120,000 acres dedicated for intensive recreation 

use, accommodation for equine users, planning 

and site selection for inclusion of modern 

lodging facilities on or adjacent to the ANF, and 

a shoreline management strategy regarding the 

optimum utilization of the Kinzua Reservoir and 

all contiguous areas 

5. Opposition to creation of additional wilderness 

and landscape corridors 

A specific alternative was not crafted in response to 

these resolutions as some of the alternatives (notably 

A and B) are responsive to several of the points 

recommended, other points are not feasible (e.g. 

maintaining a suitable timber land base of 435,000 

acres), and some are outside of the scope of the 

Forest Plan revision. 

Selected Alternative 

The selected alternative to revise the 1986 Forest 

Plan is Alternative Cm. Alternative Cm is designed 

to maintain the current mix and quality of forest 

types on the ANF. It allocates harvest activities in all 

forest types, using approximately 67 percent evenaged management and 7 percent uneven-aged 

management, with the remaining 26 percent having 

no active vegetation management. The annual 

allowable sale quantity in Alternative Cm is 54 

MMBF. 

In the long run, Alternative Cm would provide 10 

percent of the forest in a young age structure, and 28 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 11 

percent in late structural or multi-aged forest, which 

would improve habitat diversity across the forest. 

Remote wildlife habitat would be enhanced under 

this alternative and most oak forest types would be 

actively managed to improve species habitat. 

Alternative Cm would provide increased 

opportunities for both semi-primitive remote types 

of recreation and ATV/OHM trail riding areas. It 

also provides opportunities for both managed 

equestrian trails and open riding. The alternative 

recommends two wilderness study areas. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Management area allocation is the primary tool used to 

achieve differing desired conditions across the Forest. 

Table 1 compares management area allocations by 

alternative. This table identifies the acreage allocated 

to each management area. Management areas are 

presented as numbers with a decimal (e.g. MA 2.1). 

Management areas shown in the table with an asterisk 

in parentheses (*) followed by a different number had 

a different management area identifier in the 1986 

Forest Plan. This table also shows overlay acres for 

IUAs and EUAs that are allocated on the same land 

area as management areas. 

Table 2 compares the estimated level of 

management activities and outputs expected in the 

first and second decades. These estimates are 

generally described as annual average amounts of 

the activity that could occur. 

The two tables are followed by a brief discussion of 

each resource analyzed and a summary of 

environmental consequences. 

Oil and Gas Development 

Approximately 93 percent of the ANF subsurface is 

owned by private parties. Today there are an 

estimated 8,000 wells in production and 1,250 miles 

of oil and gas roads. Recent development outside of 

historic known oil fields has occurred in the 

Hastings and Salmon Creek areas. 

Of the remaining 7 percent of the ANF’s subsurface 

rights, four areas totaling 870 acres are leased. As of 

2006, none of those leases were producing oil and 

gas. The LRMP contains direction regarding federal 

leasing. 

Surface disturbance with new well development 

includes approximately 0.3 acres for each well pad 

and an additional 0.25 miles of new OGM roads per 

well. Due to the nature of the oil/gas bearing sands 

drilled, wells can remain in production for 25 to 30 

years. 

The ANF has identified an average future projection 

of 512 new wells per year during the 10- to 15-year 

Forest Plan period. This would result in an estimated 

total of 15,680 wells and 3,122 miles of private oil 

and gas roads in 2020 on ANF lands. This would 

represent almost a doubling of the ANF surface area 

developed for oil and gas. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 12 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 1. Management Area Allocation by Alternative (Acres) 

Alternative 

MA # Emphasis A B Cm D 

MA 1.0 Early Structural Habitat 7,955 7,575 7,937 6,215 

MA 2.1 (*2.0) Uneven-aged Management 3,617 0 2,837 125,746 

MA 2.2 Late Structural Linkages 0 99,482 121,176 128,781 

MA 3.0 Even-aged Management 307,770 330,190 287,380 122,831 

MA 5.1 (*5.0) Designated Wilderness 8,979 8,979 8,979 8,979 

MA 5.2 Wilderness Study Area 0 0 12,379 29,981 

MA 6.1 Late Structural Habitat 126,904 11,922 16,421 28,377 

MA 6.2 10/30 Even-aged Management 21,297 0 0 0 

MA 6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife 

Management Area 1,167 1,122 1,122 1,122 

MA 7.1 (*7.0) Developed Recreation Area 1,040 1,772 1,772 1,477 

MA 7.2 Remote Recreation Area 0 4,668 9,074 30,948 

MA 7.3 Interpretive Recreation Area 0 3,367 0 0 

MA 8.1 Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

(NF land) 0 9,250 9,250 9,215 

MA 8.2 (*6.4) National Recreation Area 20,502 20,152 20,152 4,807 

MA 8.3 (*8.0) Scenic Area 2,115 2,115 2,115 2,115 

MA 8.4 (*8.0) Historic Area 306 306 306 306 

MA 8.5 (*8.0) Research Natural Area 2,111 2,111 2,111 2,111 

MA 8.6 (*8.0) Kane Experimental Forest 1,737 3,463 3,463 3,463 

MA 9.1 Managed with Minimal Investment 974 0 0 0 

Total Acres (ANF lands) 506,474 506,474 506,474 506,474 

Overlay Acres 

Intensive Use 

Areas ATV/OHM Use 98,974 113,019 83,202 40,519 

Equestrian 

Use Areas Equestrian Use 0 10,585 10,585 49,934 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 13 

Table 2. Past Management Activity Levels and Future Projected Management Activities (Annual 

Average/Year) by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D 

Management Activity 

Past 

Level 

(1986-

2005) 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Overstory Vegetation Mgt. (Acres) 

Intermediate Thinning Harvests 2,594 1,363 1,149 1,035 654 1,000 1,000 195 317 

Shelterwood Seed Cut Harvests 969 2,070 2,206 1,950 2,114 1,835 1,715 50 56 

Regeneration Harvests (Shelterwood 

Removal Cut and/or Clearcut with reserves) 1,424 2,423 2,043 2,341 1,917 1,754 1,673 699 812 

Uneven-aged Harvests+ 327 6 0 403 326 666 320 300 300 

Riparian Areas (Acres) 

Riparian Enhancements ++ NE (103) (107) (97) (99) (96) (92) (61) (64) 

Road Management (Miles) 

Road Construction/ Existing Corridor NE 13 13 14 14 13 13 11 11 

Road Construction New Corridor 9* 8 8 7 7 5 5 5 5 

Road Decommissioning 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 

Forest Road System (total by end of decade) 1,269 

(Existing) 1,459 1,649 1,459 1,649 1,429 1,589 1,399 1,529 

Reforestation Treatments (Acres) 

Herbicide 987 1,805 1,544 2,277 1,898 2,583 1,846 956 1,131 

Non-Native Invasive Species Control 30*** 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 

Fencing 735 1,054 1,138 1,285 1,331 1,701 1,429 501 791 

Fertilization 766 364 384 343 388 215 228 98 87 

Prescribed Burning 72 280 280 650 659 654 649 358 358 

Release for species diversity 531 1,562 1,837 1,630 1,997 1,727 2,271 774 1,042 

Site preparation 1,385 1,477 1,575 1,686 1,746 1,992 1,658 631 865 

Mechanical Hazard Fuel Treatments 3 100 100 350 350 350 350 200 200 

Wildlife and Fish Management 

Wildlife Enhancements 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,200 1,200 

Fish Habitat Structures 41 0 0 32 32 32 32 32 32 

Recreation 

Motorized Trail System 474 524 574 554 634 514 554 494 514 

Construction/reconstruction of developed 

facilities 

71 

(Existing) 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 

Wilderness Areas managed to standard 0 2 2 2 2 4 4 6 6 

Economics 

Budget (Thousands, 2005 dollars) $16,814 $27,854 $28,298 $28,301 $28,702 $26,358 $25,778 $17,936 $18,985 

Revenue (Thousands, 2005 dollars) $18,070 $69,066 $70,840 $64,554 $67,502 $53,411 $51,303 $27,176 $24,354 

+ Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an unevenaged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree 

selection harvest followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second 

or subsequent harvests are not displayed. 

++ Acres of riparian treatments are included in the activities listed above 

them 

+++ ATV/OHM/Snowmobile 

++++ Hike/Bike/Horse

* Represents total road construction (past levels were not tracked by new 

or existing corridor) 

** Average number is low due to change from past definition of 

reconstruction. Numbers going forward include heavy maintenance activity.

** *Treatment only applied past 5 years. 

**** Treatment only applied on ANF for the past 10 years 

***** Average from 2001-2005 

NE = Not Estimated 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 14 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 15 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction 

This section provides a brief summary of the major 

environmental consequences of the alternatives. It 

begins with a discussion of the major consequences 

on the major issues (vegetation management, habitat 

diversity, recreation, and special areas) of the 

activities estimated under the different alternatives. It 

then continues with brief discussions of transportation, soils, water, air, scenery, and economics. 

Vegetation Management 

This discussion on vegetation management compares 

the alternatives in terms of their influence on forest 

composition, forest age, forest health risks, and the 

resulting forest products. 

Forest Composition 

The discussion of forest vegetation on the ANF 

begins with a discussion of the major forest types. 

Four major hardwood types (shown here with their 

predominant tree species) dominate the ANF: 

• Upland hardwoods (red maple, black birch, 

American beech, and black cherry) 

• Allegheny hardwoods (black cherry, white ash, 

and yellow poplar) 

• Oaks (northern red, white, chestnut, black and 

scarlet oaks) 

• Northern hardwoods (sugar maple, American 

beech, yellow birch, Eastern hemlock) 

In addition, several minor forest types (such as 

hemlock, conifer, and aspen) together comprise less 

than 5 percent of the ANF land. 

Forest type transitions do not occur rapidly except in 

the case of a major ecological disturbance. Management of the ANF in the short term is not expected to 

change the mix of forest types substantially in the 

first two decades under any alternative. Figure 1 

displays the changes estimated from the current 

condition by the sixth decade for each of the alternatives. By the sixth decade, continued management 

under the different alternatives is expected to have 

these effects on forest vegetation: 

• Upland hardwoods are already the most abundant 

type on the ANF and are expected to increase in 

all alternatives. This is primarily because 

northern and Allegheny hardwoods and oak 

forest types all have a tendency to transition to 

upland hardwoods under different circumstances. 

Figure 1. Forest types, current and estimated, 2060 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 A B Cm D

Upland hardwoods Allegheny hardwoods

Oaks Northern hardwoods
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 16 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

• Allegheny Hardwoods are expected to slightly 

decline as this forest type ages and as more areas 

of the ANF are managed with uneven-aged 

methods or not actively managed. 

• Oaks are expected to decline in all alternatives 

due to the difficulty of developing oak seedling 

regeneration and limitations on even-aged 

management in reserved areas. 

• Northern hardwoods are expected to also decline 

in all alternatives primarily as a result of beech 

bark disease and sugar maple decline. 

Forest Age 

Currently, 83 percent of forest stands on the ANF are 

between 51 and 110 years old. Most of the remaining 

18 percent is less than 50 years old and nearly 4 

percent is older than 111 years of age. An important 

objective for the Forest Plan is to change this age 

distribution over a long period. The alternatives 

manage vegetation differently to emphasize how to 

create the future forest. 

Alternative A heavily emphasizes even-aged 

management to create a mix of different age classes. 

Alternatives B and Cm also emphasize even-aged 

management but also retain larger areas of unevenaged management to provide for older continuous 

forest conditions and increased areas with no active 

vegetation management. Alternative D emphasizes 

uneven-aged management and allocates more areas to 

no active management. 

Barring large disturbances, the major change in 

vegetative age classes will be the growth, aging, and 

mortality of the large group of stands in the 51 to 110 

year age range. While only limited change to the age 

class composition is expected in the first and second 

decade, by the sixth decade all alternatives would 

have greater amounts of older forest in the 111 to 140 

year and over 141 years age classes. Alternatives A, 

B, and Cm would also have larger shares of the forest 

in the 0 to 20 and 21 to 50 year age classes. 

With an emphasis on uneven-aged management, 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D would also create a multiaged component. Nearly 12 percent of forest lands 

would be multi-aged by the sixth decade under 

Alternative D. Figure 2 displays the current age 

structure and the changes expected as a result of 

continuing the Forest Plan by 2060. 

Forest Health 

Forest health is a complex situation on the ANF. 

Today’s ANF is substantially different than the forest 

that was dominated by northern hardwoods prior to 

its nearly complete removal in the early 1900s. As 

the earlier section on forest composition describes, 

today’s ANF consists primarily of upland and 

Allegheny hardwood types that have largely replaced 

the northern hardwood forests. These forests are 

variants of the broader northern hardwood type and 

consist of the same species but with different species 

dominating each type. Most notably, black cherry is 

more abundant in today’s forest, is less tolerant of 

shade than most other hardwoods on the Allegheny 

Figure 2. Age Class Outcomes by the Sixth Decade 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 A B Cm D

Multi-aged <20 21-50

51-110 111-140 >140
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 17 

Plateau, and is shorter-lived than the beeches, sugar 

maple, and hemlock that once dominated the region’s 

forests. 

Deer browsing has had a substantial impact on forest 

health over the past 70 years. High numbers of deer 

have selectively grazed the forest understory, heavily 

impacting some species and allowing others to 

dominate the forest understory. The result has been 

diminished diversity in the ANF and substantial 

difficulty in achieving tree regeneration. To address 

this problem the ANF has engaged in intensive 

silvicultural practices including fencing to allow tree 

seedlings to develop without deer browsing and 

application of herbicides to remove invasive 

understory vegetation that interferes with 

development of tree seedlings. Finally, the ANF has 

worked with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

with the DMAP program to bring the deer herd to a 

density between 10 to 20 deer per-square-mile. 

A number of cumulative impacts, primarily from 

non-native diseases or insects, pose some of the 

greatest threats to the forest health of the ANF. 

Currently the beech bark disease complex is already 

causing substantial death of mature American beech 

trees on the ANF (66% of all beech trees >6" in 

diameter in some areas). Hemlock woolly adelgid is 

an insect that has lead to widespread mortality 

throughout the Eastern United States and has now 

been located within Elk County. Sugar maple has 

also been in decline due to site-nutrient limitations in 

conjunction with other stressors such as drought and 

defoliation. 

The susceptibility of the ANF under the different 

alternatives to these forest health threats is evaluated 

to the extent that the alternatives would maintain and 

perpetuate forest conditions that are likely to be 

affected. Of the nearly 80 thousand acres of northern 

hardwoods that currently exist, between 54,200 and 

56,600 acres of northern hardwoods are estimated to 

persist in all alternatives by the sixth decade. As 

northern hardwoods are dominated by beech, 

hemlock, and sugar maple, these acres would be 

particularly susceptible to beech bark disease, 

hemlock woolly adelgid and sugar maple decline. 

Alternatives that plan to retain older Allegheny 

hardwood stands (greater than 120 years old) run a 

greater risk of mortality as the black cherry trees in 

those stands are more likely to die. At present, there 

is estimated to be less than a thousand acres of 

Allegheny hardwoods over 120 years of age, but all 

of the alternatives will lead to an increased aging of 

this forest type. By 2060, Alternative B would limit 

this to nearly 17 thousand acres, but Alternative D 

would retain 44 thousand acres of older Allegheny 

hardwoods in this age group. Alternatives A and Cm 

would retain nearly 25 thousand and 24 thousand 

acres respectively. 

Finally, thinning is often considered to be an 

effective way to increase tree vigor and overall forest 

health. By opening the canopy to allow greater 

sunlight and removing trees in dense stagnant 

clusters, thinning can improve both the health and 

vigor of existing trees. Alternative A would schedule 

the most thinning in the Forest Plan period with 

Alternative D scheduling the least. 

Land Suitable for Timber Production 

As part of the Forest Plan revision process, the ANF 

reviewed its lands that are suitable for timber 

production. As a result of this review, the ANF 

concluded that the land that is suitable for timber 

production must be reduced for this revised Forest 

Plan. The determination of lands suitable for timber 

production came in two steps. 

The first step is to determine the lands that are 

tentatively suitable for timber production, or have 

technical capability, and are available for such use. 

Table 3 shows a comparison of this first step for the 

1986 Forest Plan with the new Forest Plan. The table 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 18 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

shows the total Forest Service lands and then identifies 

the lands being removed from the suitable base. The 

major differences between the revised acres and the 

original 1986 Forest Plan are in three areas: 

1. With geographic information systems the ANF is 

better able to calculate the acreage of the ANF 

that is not forested. The current mapping revealed 

a substantially larger amount of roads, including 

both Forest Service roads and oil and gas roads. 

(Line 3). 

2. The National Recreation Area was not considered 

withdrawn from timber production to determine 

tentatively suitable forest lands in the 1986 

Forest Plan; in the revision it is withdrawn. 

(Line 4). 

3. Based on experience and improved mapping 

techniques, the ANF has identified additional 

lands that are physically unsuitable due to an 

inability to restock the lands in 5 years. 

(Line 5). 

Table 3. Lands tentatively suitable for timber production 

Category 1986 acres Revised Acres 

National Forest System Lands 510,530 516,843 

Water (8,305) (11,169) 

Non-forest land (22,561) (42,191) 

Forest land withdrawn from production (15,621) (34,536) 

Forest land Physically unsuitable because 

restocking is not assured in 5 years (450) (20,520) 

Forest land Physically unsuitable due to 

irreversible damage that could occur from 

timber operations 

(450) (0) 

Total unsuitable land 47,387 108,416 

Tentatively suitable forest land 463,143 408,427 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 19 

The second step is to determine of the tentatively 

suitable lands, which lands are not appropriate for 

scheduled timber production. This step varied by 

alternative primarily as different management 

areas further reduced the amount of land that 

would be appropriate for timber production, given 

various resource objectives. This revised Forest 

Plan proposes to further remove land from the 

suitable timber base where scheduled timber 

harvest is not a desired component of the 

management area. Table 4 displays this 

determination for each alternative.

Table 4. Suitable Land for Timber Production (acres) 

Category Acres 

Tentatively Suitable Forest Land 408,427 

Forest Land Not Appropriate for Timber Production by Alternative Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

MA 5.2 Proposed Wilderness Study Areas 0 0 11,577 13,641 

MA 6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area 479 479 479 479 

MA 7.1 Developed Recreation Areas 300 280 280 31 

MA 7.2 Remote Recreation Areas 0 4,310 8,417 27,493 

MA 7.3 Interpretive Recreation Area 0 3,077 0 0 

MA 8.1 Wild & Scenic River Corridor 0 5,662 5,662 5,640 

MA 8.4 Historic Area 172 172 172 172 

MA 8.6 Kane Experimental Forest Expansion 0 1,530 1,530 1,530 

MA 9.1 Managed with Minimal Investment 871 0 0 0 

Forest Land 

Not 

Appropriate 

for Timber 

Production 

Corridor along Wilderness, Remote, and Class A 

Wild Trout Streams 0 1,255 1,255 1,255 

Total Forest Land Not Appropriate for Timber Production 1,822 16,765 29,372 50,241 

Unsuited Forest Land 110,238 125,181 137,788 158,657 

Total Suitable Forest Land (MA 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 6.1) 406,605 391,662 379,055 358,186 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 20 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Allowable Sale Quantity 

The allowable sale quantity (or ASQ) is the 

maximum amount of timber that can be sold in each 

decade from the lands that are suitable for timber 

production. It represents the capability of the ANF 

under a particular set of management direction to 

produce timber on a sustainable basis. The ASQ is 

normally expressed as an average annual amount. 

The 1986 Forest Plan for the ANF identified an ASQ 

of 94.5 million board feet (MMBF) per year (1986 

Forest Plan). Following the 1986 Forest Plan a 

number of concerns emerged over the ANF’s ability 

to produce timber volume in a sustainable way at 

this level. 

This culminated in the 1995 Harvest Capability 

Report (1986 HCR) that estimated that a harvest 

level of 53.2 MMBF could be produced over the 

1995 through 2005 period. In actual production, the 

ANF has offered an average of 46.4 MMBF per year 

from 1986 to 2005 and 20.7 MMBF per year from 

2001 to 2005. 

Figure 3 shows the four bases for comparison of the 

ASQ to the four alternatives contained in the DEIS. 

The numbers for the alternatives show the ASQ for 

the first decade of the Forest Plan. For all alternatives 

the ASQ volume is the same for the first and second 

decades. 

Figure 3. Allowable Sale Quantity 

94.5

53.2

20.7

46.4

26.3

54.1

63.1

66.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1986

ASQ

1995

HCR

1986-

2001

2001-

2005

A B Cm D

Base or Alternative

Million Board Feet/Year
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 21 

Habitat Diversity 

The major effects on habitat diversity are 

summarized here: 

• Changes in forest structural habitat diversity 

• Habitat patterns across the landscape 

• Trends in habitat for Management Indicator 

Species (northern goshawk, cerulean warbler, 

timber rattlesnake, mourning warbler, and 

aquatic invertebrates) 

• Trends in habitat for game species and other 

species of public interest 

• Trends in populations and habitat for species 

with viability concerns including federally-listed 

species 

Structural Habitat Diversity 

Structural habitat diversity is described by the size of 

trees, the amount of cover provided by the canopy, 

the mix of dead trees or snags, and the amount of 

downed vegetation. In a forested setting, structural 

habitat diversity is closely tied to stand age. 

Providing an appropriate mix of structural habitats is 

a key objective in the management of the ANF. 

The FEIS and LRMP aggregate structural forest 

habitat into three major groups. Each of these large 

structural habitat groups has a number of 

representative wildlife species that commonly use 

structural habitat of this type. 

Early structural habitat, where the dominant layer of 

trees is less than 5 inches in diameter, sustains 

species such as ruffed grouse, Eastern milk snake, 

and Eastern cottontail. 

Mid structural habitat, where the dominant layer of 

trees is between 5 and 20 inches in diameter, sustains 

species such as red shouldered hawk, snowshoe hare, 

and scarlet tanager. 

Late structural habitat, where the dominant layer of 

trees is greater than 20 inches, sustains species such 

as bald eagle, Northern flying squirrel, and 

blackburnian warbler. 

Currently, 77 percent of the ANF is in a mid 

structural condition, 7 percent is in an early structural 

condition, and 4 percent is in a late-structural 

condition. The remaining land base is in a non-forest 

condition. Major shifts in structural conditions will 

not occur within the first two decades. However, if 

the Forest Plan were continued through the sixth 

decade long-term effects on structural habitat 

diversity would be evident, and each of the 

alternatives considered would provide a different mix 

of structural conditions (Figure 4). 

By 2060, all of the alternatives will feature a 

substantial increase of late structural habitat. 

Alternative D emphasizes this type of habitat; nearly 

39 percent of the ANF would be in this condition. 

Alternative A would provide the least amount of late 

structural habitat, at 24 percent. Early structural 

habitat is emphasized in Alternatives A, B, and to a 

lesser extent, Cm. Alternative D would maintain 

early structural habitat at the lowest level. 

Figure 4. Percent of forest land by structural 

habitat diversity by alternative, 2060 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current B D

Early Mid Late Nonforest
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 22 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Landscape Patterns 

Remote Habitats 

Of the 37 unroaded areas greater than 500 acres 

identified in the Forestwide Roads Analysis (USDA 

FS 2003), 29 areas are considered quality remote 

wildlife habitat and 8 areas are considered high 

quality remote wildlife habitat. The percent of the 29 

quality remote habitats (28,200 acres) and 8 high 

quality remote habitats (33,000 acres) that will 

remain in management areas where FS roads and 

motorized trails are prohibited or greatly restricted is 

shown by alternative in Table 5. 

Note that although ANF management would retain 

these remote characteristics, road construction for 

private mineral development could occur in these 

areas. One high quality area (Morrison) has lost its 

remote character due to oil and gas development, and 

thus it is not possible to retain all of these areas. 

Core Areas and Habitat Connectivity 

Under the 1986 Forest Plan (Alternative A), landscape connectivity of late structural forests is not 

explicitly provided, although late structural habitat is 

provided for in MA 6.1, MA 6.2, and existing special 

designations. The design of Alternatives B, Cm, and 

D provides for a connected approach of late structural 

habitat across the ANF landscape. This consists of 

core areas that are managed to develop late structural 

habitat, usually without active vegetation management and landscape linkages (MA 2.2) that are 

managed with active silviculture to provide for late 

structural habitat and remote habitat across the ANF 

landscape. 

The acreage that would be managed with an 

emphasis on connectivity and an emphasis on core 

areas is provided in Table 6. This table displays the 

acreage provided in each type and the percent of the 

ANF based on management area land allocations. 

None of these areas would allow new Forest Service 

road construction; therefore they would provide a 

relatively unroaded opportunity to maintain species 

associated with late structural forests across the ANF. 

Note that although ANF management would retain 

these characteristics, road construction for private 

mineral development could occur in these areas. 

Table 5. Percent of Remote Habitats Retained 

Alternative 

A B Cm D 

Percent of High Quality 

Remote Habitat 

Retained (8 areas, 

33,000 acres) 

63% 81% 88% 88%

Percent of quality 

remote habitat 

(29 areas, 28,200 acres) 35% 38% 60% 60%

Table 6. Acreage managed with an emphasis on 

core areas and connectivity 

Alternative 

Emphasis Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

Core Areas 

(MA 5.0, 7.2, 

7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 

8.5,) 

34,000

7% 

41,000 

8% 

55,000 

11% 

79,000 

15% 

Landscape 

Linkages 

(MA 2.2) 

0 

0% 

99,000 

19% 

121,000

23% 

129,000

25% 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 23 

Management Indicator Species 

Management indicator species (MIS) are used to 

gauge the effects of the alternatives on wildlife 

habitat. MIS are expected to reflect the effects of the 

alternatives on ecological communities of 

management interest. In revising the MIS list, 

emphasis has been placed on species that are closely 

associated with habitats of interest and species that 

can produce meaningful data about the effects of 

forest management activities on a few major 

communities of interest. 

Northern Goshawk 

While all alternatives maintain viable goshawk 

populations and provide adequate habitat to support 

desired nesting densities, they each vary in terms of 

the quality and quantity of habitat that will be 

provided at the landscape scale. Table 7 displays the 

percent of the ANF with suitable goshawk nesting 

habitat that would be expected to occur under each of 

the alternatives in the long term. 

Timber Rattlesnake 

Timber rattlesnake populations are declining 

throughout most of Pennsylvania, primarily due to 

human-snake encounters and loss of suitable habitat 

(Urban 2005). Eight dens are known to exist on the 

ANF with the potential for a half dozen more (that 

are currently unknown). Under all alternatives, 

forestwide guidelines are designed to protect den 

sites with the goal of reversing the downward trend in 

populations. 

The risk for human/snake interaction and harm to 

individual snakes is increased where roads or trails 

occur in suitable habitat. Road construction varies 

across the Alternatives and is based on levels of other 

resource activities, specifically vegetation 

management. Estimated annual averages, through the 

planning period, for road construction in existing 

corridors and new road construction is 13 miles and 8 

miles respectively under Alternative A, 14 miles and 

7 miles under Alternative B, 13 miles and 5 miles 

under Alternative Cm, and 11 miles and 5 miles 

under Alternative D. 

ATV/OHM/snake encounters and horse/snake 

encounters, increases the chance of snakes being 

purposely or accidentally killed. Alternative B 

includes the largest acreage in IUAs resulting in the 

highest risk of ATV/OHM-rattlesnake encounters. 

Alternative A provides the largest amount of open 

equestrian riding resulting in the highest risk of 

equestrian-rattlesnake encounters. Alternative D 

provides the least amount of ATV/OHM 

opportunities and open riding, reducing this risk. 

Cerulean Warbler 

Direct effects include any activity within suitable 

habitat that results in mortality or harassment leading 

to nest failure. Specific treatments include timber 

harvest, road and trail construction, oak release, and 

prescribed fire. Because the cerulean warbler is 

closely tied to oak and oak transition forests on the 

ANF, direct and indirect effects focus on changes in 

the oak forest community. 

Available cerulean warbler habitat that will occur 

under each of the alternatives varies based on the mix 

of commercial treatments described above. Figure 5 

displays the amount of optimum and unsuitable nest 

habitat created under each of the alternatives, as well 

as the amount of suitable oak habitat in the long term 

(2060). 

Table 7. Suitable Goshawk Nest Habitat by 

Alternative 

2006 2060 

Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

Suitable Nest 

Habitat1 79% 71% 72% 73% 83% 

1

Suitable goshawk nesting habitat = Forests >30 yrs. old.
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 24 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 5. Cerulean Warbler Habitat by Alternative in the Year 2060 

Mourning Warbler 

The mourning warbler serves as an indicator of 

availability of early structural habitat. Proposed 

activities that would affect this species include timber 

harvest, new road and opening construction, 

herbicide application, and prescribed burning. 

Natural disturbances, such as wind events and insect 

and disease damage, can also create mourning 

warbler habitat by opening up forest canopies. 

Table 8 shows the percent of the ANF that would 

provide suitable mourning warbler habitat through 

even-aged regeneration harvests and uneven-aged 

treatments, and the total percent of forest in suitable 

habitat by the sixth decade. 

Table 8. Mourning warbler habitat by Alternative, 

2060 

Habitat A B Cm D 

% ANF in early structural 

stage created by evenaged treatments 12.9 11.6 9.6 2.4

% ANF in multi-aged 

structure created by 

uneven-aged treatments 

<1 0.5 0.7 2.0

Total percent ANF 

considered preferred 

habitat 

13.0 12.1 10.3 4.4

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Unsuitable Nest Habitat Optimum Nest Habitat Suitable Oak Habitat

Year -2060

Habitat Conditions

A

B

Cm

D
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 25 

Aquatic Invertebrates 

Various activities associated with managing 

vegetation have the potential to indirectly affect 

aquatic invertebrates where the activity is located in 

close proximity to a stream. Runoff from logging 

activities that reaches a stream has the potential to 

affect habitat and embed cobble-size particles. 

Dirt and gravel roads constructed within 300 feet 

have the highest potential for contributing sediment 

to a stream. These roads can become a long-term 

source of sediment and result in the embeddedness of 

cobble substrate, habitats important for aquatic 

invertebrates. 

Game Species 

Effects to game species habitat are influenced by the 

amount of early structural habitat, availability of mast 

from oak, beech, black cherry, and other species, and 

the impacts of human disturbance (primarily roads 

and motorized trails) on winter ranges and brood 

rearing habitat. 

Early structural habitat will increase by 2060 under 

all alternatives except Alternative D. Under Alternative D, the quality and quantity of habitat for game 

species would generally decline from present conditions because of the decrease in early structural 

habitat. 

Oak forests are important for a variety of game 

species including white-tailed deer, black bears, wild 

turkeys, ruffed grouse, squirrels, and others. An oak 

component will be provided on 16 to 17 percent of 

the ANF under all alternatives. However, by 2060 

forested stands classified as the oak type (25% of 

basal area in oak) could decrease from 16 percent to 

14 to 15 percent of the ANF in all alternatives. 

Conifer habitat will be managed similarly under all 

alternatives providing winter thermal cover for deer 

and turkeys. A conifer component will be provided 

on a minimum of 10 percent of the ANF. 

Species with Viability Concerns 

Beginning with a list of more than 300 animal species 

and more than 1,200 plant species known to occur on 

the ANF, all species were screened to identify 78 

species with viability concerns using the best available 

data and in consultation with species experts. 

The viability outcome is a judgment, based on 

scientific information found in the literature and from 

discussion with taxonomic experts. The viability 

outcome should be thought of as an index of the 

capability of the environment to support population 

abundance and distribution, but not as an actual 

prediction of population occurrence, size, density, or 

other demographic characteristics. A scale of five 

viability outcome levels was developed for use by 

Eastern Region National Forests for summarizing the 

existing conditions in the planning area and to 

document the species distribution, population trend, 

life history needs and threats: 

Outcome A. Suitable ecological conditions are 

broadly distributed and of high abundance across the 

historical range of the species within the planning area. 

Outcome B. Suitable ecological conditions are either 

broadly distributed or of high abundance across the 

historical range of the species within the planning area, 

but there are gaps where suitable ecological conditions 

are absent or only present in low abundance. 

Outcome C. Suitable ecological conditions are 

distributed frequently as patches and/or exist at low 

abundance. Gaps where suitable ecological conditions 

are either absent, or present in low abundance, are 

large enough that some subpopulations are isolated. 

Outcome D. Suitable ecological conditions are 

frequently isolated and/or exist at very low abundance. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 26 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Outcome E. Suitable ecological conditions are 

highly isolated and exist at very low abundance, with 

little or no possibility of population interactions. 

Direct and indirect effects from Federal actions do 

not change outcomes by alternative for species that 

utilize primarily mid to late structural oak habitat, 

aquatic habitats, riparian/wetland habitats or 

grassland/seedling/sapling habitats for either the short 

(2020) or long term (2060). For mid to late structural 

habitat, there is one species, the timber rattlesnake, 

that has a reduced outcome in the long term. Table 9 

displays long-term species viability outcomes for 

direct and indirect effects. 

Timber rattlesnake – The outcome for the present 

condition of the timber rattlesnake is C. The viability 

outcome does not change in the short term (2020). By 

the year 2060, the magnitude of adverse impacts due 

to increased human activities and road construction 

causes a decrease in viability outcome for Alternatives 

A, B, and Cm. However, under Alternative D, the 

viability outcome remains the same. 

A number of species are expected to have declining 

viability outcomes associated with cumulative effects 

(Table 10). The species that experience a long term 

cumulative change in viability outcome from the 

present condition are described below. 

Cumulatively, the outcome for timber rattlesnake 

decreases to outcome D under all alternatives in both the 

short and long term as a result of increased oil and gas 

development and road construction. 

Table 9. Viability Outcomes: Direct and Indirect effects of alternatives 

Number of species (out of 77 total) 

Existing 

Condition 

Alt. A 

(2060) 

Alt. B 

(2060) 

Alt. Cm 

(2060) 

Alt. D 

(2060) 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 24 24 24 24 24 

Outcome C 30 29 29 29 30 

Outcome D 22 23 23 23 22 

Outcome E 2 2 2 2 2 

Table 10. Cumulative viability outcomes by alternative 

Number of species (out of 77 total) 

Existing 

Condition 

Alt A 

(2060) 

Alt. B 

(2060) 

Alt. Cm 

(2060) 

Alt. D 

(2060) 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 24 7 7 7 7 

Outcome C 30 22 22 22 22 

Outcome D 22 46 46 46 46 

Outcome E 2 3 3 3 3 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 27 

Northern flying squirrel – Only one location of the 

northern flying squirrel is currently documented 

within the proclamation boundary, although much of 

the potential habitat has not been adequately 

surveyed. The primary cumulative effect that would 

occur under all alternatives is the loss of hemlock due 

to the spread of the hemlock woolly adelgid. The 

cumulative outcome for the present condition is C; 

the outcome for all alternatives for both 2020 and 

2060 is D. 

Northern goshawk – Suitable habitat is presently 

fairly well distributed with some gaps in nesting 

habitat due to high density roads and oil and gas 

activity. Although recent nesting success has 

dropped for unknown reasons, the ANF has 

supported a fairly stable population for the last 15 

years and there have been 12 active territories 

documented within the last five years. The current 

outcome for this species is B. 

The change in outcome for the northern goshawk 

results from anticipated future oil and gas development. Although there will continue to be large 

areas on the ANF where oil and gas activity is not 

expected to occur, there are expected to be some 

large gaps in remaining suitable habitat. 

Additionally, up to 50 percent of the forestwide 

hemlock could be lost due to the HWA and for 

these reasons, the cumulative outcome C better 

reflects the viability of this species both in the 

short (2020) and long term (2060). 

Swainson’s thrush – Although the Swainson’s 

thrush utilizes second growth forest, it is considered 

an obligate of conifer and mixed hardwood/conifer 

forest and is strongly associated with 

riparian/wetland habitat. Although conifer and 

preferred habitat is well distributed, this species has 

only been documented on approximately 20 percent 

of the sites surveyed on the ANF and the current 

viability for this species is outcome B. 

The change in viability for this species is directly 

related to the potential loss of conifer that could 

occur as a result of the HWA. While it is estimated 

that only 10 percent of the conifer within the 

proclamation boundary could be lost by 2020, by 

2060, mortality on up 50 percent of the forestwide 

conifer could occur. As a result, and considering this 

species requirement for conifer, it is anticipated that 

by 2060, outcome C will better reflect the viability of 

this species because suitable ecological conditions 

may be distributed frequently as patches and because 

large gaps in suitable habitat may occur, further 

reducing its range within the planning unit from 

historical conditions. 

Aquatic – Nine fish, eleven dragonflies, and twelve 

mussels are projected to have a decrease in the shortor long-term cumulative outcome from the present 

condition. This decrease is primarily a result of the 

projected influx of zebra mussels from Conewango 

Creek and the upper Allegheny River in New York 

into the ANF section of the Allegheny River where a 

large amount of suitable habitat exists for aquatic 

species with a viability concern. 

Wood turtle and Eastern box turtle – The shortand long-term outcome for these two turtles 

decreases from the present condition primarily due to 

increased oil and gas activity that will adversely 

impact suitable habitat. Increases in miles of road 

would increase the risk of turtles being run over. 

Invasion of non native plant species into riparian 

areas would decrease habitat quality. 

Plants – Of the 23 plant species evaluated with 

viability concerns, none change viability outcome by 

alternative or by length of effect for direct or indirect 

effects. However, one species—butternut (Juglans 

cinerea)—changed from a present condition of D to 

E for all alternatives under the cumulative effects 

analysis for 2060. This change is a result of a fungal 

disease (canker) for which there is no known cure.
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 28 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Recreation 

Providing for diverse recreation opportunities on the 

ANF was a key consideration in the design of 

alternatives. The LRMP provides for a continuation 

of developed recreation sites, so developed recreation 

opportunities do not vary substantially by alternative. 

The LRMP also contains an objective (that would be 

implemented in Alternatives B, Cm, or D) to prepare 

a plan to specifically identify recreational 

developments in the vicinity of the Allegheny 

Reservoir, including trails, facilities and potential for 

lodging or restaurant facilities. Many other recreation 

opportunities such as hiking, fishing, hunting, driving 

for pleasure, snowmobiling, boating, wildlife 

viewing, and most other recreational activities would 

also not be changed as a result of implementing any 

of the proposed alternatives. 

There are three types of recreational opportunities 

that are affected by the alternatives. These 

opportunities are non-motorized recreation in semiprimitive or natural settings, motorized opportunities 

for all terrain vehicles (ATV) or off highway 

motorcycles (OHM), and equestrian opportunities. 

Each of these will be described individually. 

Non-motorized Recreation 

The current Forest Plan provides for the long-term 

retention of non-motorized recreation in semiprimitive settings only in specially designated areas 

(primarily in wilderness (MAs 5.1 and 5.2) or the 

national recreation area (MA 8.2)). The 1986 Forest 

Plan (Alternative A) did provide for MA 6.2 that was 

applied to four areas of the forest with the stated 

design of one entry for timber harvest in every 40 

year period. Once the area had been harvested the 

roads would be converted to non-motorized trail use 

and the area closed to motorized access. This 

approach is not considered to adequately provide for 

semi-primitive recreation in a natural setting and was 

not carried forward into Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D provide a new 

management area to provide for remote recreation 

settings for non-motorized recreation (MA 7.2) and 

one to provide for interpretive recreation (MA 7.3). 

Non-motorized recreation opportunities are also 

provided in the established Scenic (MA 8.3) and 

Research Natural Areas (MA 8.5) of the forest. 

Recommendations for wilderness study areas (MA 

5.2) will also provide opportunities for nonmotorized recreation. Alternatives Cm and D provide 

a greater emphasis on these recreation opportunities 

than Alternatives A and B. Table 11 displays the 

differences between the alternatives. 

Table 11. Non-motorized recreation opportunities 

by alternative 

Alternative 

A B Cm D 

Nonmotorized 

recreation 

(Acres) 

33,700 41,400 54,800 78,900

As the ANF does not own the subsurface rights to 

most of these acres there is a potential that portions 

of these acres could be roaded and developed for 

private oil and gas development. With such 

development, the opportunities and quality of these 

areas for non-motorized recreation would be 

diminished. 

All Terrain Vehicle and Off Highway 

Motorcycle (ATV/OHM) Recreation 

Alternative A continues the five intensive use areas 

(IUAs) established in the 1986 Forest Plan. The IUAs 

are areas where trails can be developed for 

ATV/OHM use. ATV/OHM use is only allowed on 

designated trails within the IUAs. IUAs are 

management area overlays. They are areas that 

consist of several management areas defined only for 

the purposes of managing ATV/OHM use. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 29 

Forest plans only identify areas that are suitable for 

ATV/OHM trail development and use. Project 

planning determines locations and other issues 

associated with specific trail segments. 

All of the alternatives continue the IUAs on the ANF, 

but different amounts and locations of IUA 

opportunities are provided in each alternative as 

shown in the Table 12. 

Table 12. Acres allocated to IUAs by alternative 

Alternative 

A B Cm D 

Intensive 

Use Area 

(Acres) 

99,000 113,000 83,200 40,500

Alternatives A and B provide for five IUAs on the 

ANF. Alternative B would replace the Westline area, 

included in the 1986 Forest Plan (Alternative A), 

with a new IUA in the Longhouse area. Alternative 

Cm provides slightly less acreage in IUAs than 

Alternative A with four IUAs (smaller versions of the 

areas in Alternative B without the Longhouse Area). 

Alternative D would reduce the amount of IUAs on 

the ANF and could lead to closure of some currently 

designated trails. 

Equestrian Use 

The 1986 Forest Plan did not specifically address 

equestrian use on the ANF. It essentially allows open 

riding across all of the ANF. Since the 1986 Forest 

Plan, several parts of the ANF have suffered resource 

damage from concentrated horse use. The ANF 

proposes to correct these problems in Alternatives B 

and Cm by creating equestrian use areas (EUAs) in 

areas of concentrated equestrian use. Within EUAs, 

horse riding would be restricted to designated trails. 

The ANF would work cooperatively with equestrian 

users to both restore currently damaged area and 

educate users to avoid creating further damage. 

Most of the rest of the ANF in Alternatives B and Cm 

would be available for open riding except for a few 

management areas where riding would be prohibited 

and some where riding would also be restricted to 

designated trails. In Alternative D, EUAs are 

substantially expanded but are also the only area of 

the ANF other than on roads where horse use would 

be allowed. Table 13 summarizes the equestrian 

opportunities of the alternatives. 

Table 13. Equestrian use opportunities by 

alternative 

Alternative 

 A B Cm D 

Equestrian 

Use Areas 

(Acres) 

0 10,600 10,600 50,000 

Areas for 

Open Riding 

(Acres 

506,500 470,100 456,700 0 

Restricted 

Areas (Acres) 0 18,100 31,500 0 

Prohibited 

Areas (Acres) 0 7,700 7,700 456,500 

EUAs are also management area overlays. They are 

areas that consist of several management areas defined 

only for the purposes of managing equestrian use.
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 30 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Special Areas 

A key element of the design of the alternatives was to 

address specially designated or nationally designated 

areas. Specially designated areas are designated by 

the Congress or administratively. Creating or 

modifying a specially designated area requires a 

process beyond the forest planning process. The ANF 

only makes recommendations for designation in the 

Forest Plan. The ANF currently has the following 

types of these designated areas: 

• Wilderness (Hickory Creek and Allegheny 

Islands) Congressionally designated (MA 5.1) 

• National Recreation Area Congressionally 

designated (MA 8.2) 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers (Allegheny and Clarion) 

Congressionally designated (MA 8.1) 

• Research Natural Area (Tionesta) 

Administratively designated (MA 8.5) 

• Scenic Area and National Landmarks (Tionesta 

and Heart’s Content) Administratively designated 

(MA 8.3) 

• Kane Experimental Forest Administratively 

designated (MA 8.6) 

All of the alternatives will maintain these specially 

designated areas consistent with their designations. 

Roadless areas have also become a kind of special 

area due to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

As the ANF does not own the subsurface rights to 

nearly all of these areas being considered for special 

designation, there is a potential that parts of these 

areas could be roaded and developed for private oil 

and gas development. With such development the 

size and quality of these areas for these special 

designations would be diminished. The LRMP does 

contain an objective for acquisition of subsurface 

rights especially where acquisition supports the 

purpose and need in relation to recreation and 

special areas. 

Most of the interest in specially designated areas on 

the ANF is in wilderness and roadless areas. This 

summary provides a discussion on wilderness, 

roadless areas and a brief discussion of the remaining 

special areas. 

Wilderness 

A substantial evaluation and analysis was done by the 

ANF in consideration of additional wilderness. This 

is detailed in Appendix C of the FEIS. Briefly, this 

analysis reviewed all large continuous blocks of land 

on the ANF to determine if they had characteristics 

for potential inclusion in the wilderness system. 

Included within this analysis were all of the areas 

recommended by the organizations that submitted 

comments on wilderness consideration. Among the 

criteria used in this analysis were the following: 

• Boundary, shape and size of the area 

• Opportunity for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation 

• Ability of the area to regain an untrammeled 

appearance 

• Nature of existing improvements in the area 

• Pattern of ownership 

• Proximity of the area to various developments 

that impact on wilderness values 

• Amount of improved road within the area 

• Percent of the area that has been harvested or 

planted with non-native vegetation 

Based upon this analysis, three areas were identified 

for further evaluation for possible recommendation as 

wilderness study areas. These areas are: 

• Tracy Ridge (9,033 acres) 

• Minister Valley (9,145 acres) 

• Chestnut Ridge (5,063 acres) 

In addition the Forest Supervisor decided to evaluate 

the Allegheny Front area (6,742 acres) for wilderness 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 31 

study. The evaluation of each of these areas is also 

contained in Appendix Cm of the FEIS. 

The four areas are allocated differently in each of the 

alternatives as follows: 

Alternative A (1986 Forest Plan): None of the four 

areas are recommended for wilderness study. Two of 

the areas (Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front) are 

managed as National Recreation Area (MA 8.2). 

Chestnut Ridge is managed in MA6.1 that conserves 

old forest habitat and manages timber on long 

rotations. Minister Valley is managed with several 

different management areas including MA 6.2 (see 

earlier discussion on non-motorized recreation), 

MA6.1, and MA3.0 that features even-aged 

management. Both Chestnut Ridge and Minister 

Valley would be available for scheduled timber 

harvest and road construction. 

Alternative B: None of the four areas are 

recommended for wilderness study. Two of the areas 

(Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front) are managed as 

National Recreation Area (MA 8.2). Chestnut Ridge 

is managed in MA3.0 that features even-aged 

management. 

Minister Valley is managed with several different 

management areas including MA 7.3 that features 

interpretative recreation, MA 2.2 that features 

landscape linkages of late structural habitat and 

MA3.0 that features even-aged management of 

timber. Chestnut Ridge and MA3.0 portion of 

Minister Valley would be available for scheduled 

timber harvest and road construction. 

Alternative Cm: Chestnut Ridge and Minister 

Valley east of FR420 are recommended as wilderness 

study areas. Tracy Ridge is managed as National 

Recreation Area (MA 8.2). Minister Valley west of 

FR420 (1,829 acres) is allocated as MA 3.0. 

Figure 6. Wilderness and wilderness study are 

recommendations 

Alternative D: All four of the areas are 

recommended as wilderness study areas. None of the 

four areas would be available for scheduled timber 

harvest or road construction. 

Roadless Areas 

Roadless areas on the ANF were originally 

inventoried during the 1970s as part of the Roadless 

Area Review Evaluation (RARE II) process. These 

areas have not been re-inventoried until this Forest 

Plan revision as described in Appendix C of the FEIS 

and summarized in the previous section of this 

summary. 

As of December 2006, the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule is in effect. Alternatives B, Cm, 

and D were developed to conserve these roadless 

(RARE II) areas. 

The RARE II inventory for the ANF is available 

online at http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us. Due to 

interest in these RARE II areas, this section will 

describe briefly the impact of the alternatives on 

these areas.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Acres

A BCm D

Recommended WSA Existing Wilderness
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 32 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

During RARE II, the following areas were 

inventoried on the ANF: 

Hickory Creek 9,337 

Allegheny Islands 368 

Tracy Ridge 9,188 

Cornplanter 3,012 

Clarion River 3,440 

Allegheny Front 7,424 

Minister Valley 1,375 

Heart’s Content 200 

Verbeck Island 14

 34,358 acres

Hickory Creek and the Allegheny Islands were 

designated as wilderness by the Pennsylvania 

Wilderness Act of 1984, reducing the remaining 

roadless areas to 24,653 acres. The Cornplanter, 

Allegheny Front, and Tracy Ridge areas were 

designated as the Allegheny National Recreation 

Area by the same act. These areas are not available 

for scheduled timber harvest or Forest Service road 

construction in all alternatives. 

Clarion River area is managed with MA 6.1 in the 

1986 Forest Plan (Alternative A). MA6.1 conserves 

old forest habitat and manages timber on long 

rotations. This includes scheduled timber harvests 

and allows new road construction. Under Alternatives 

B, Cm, and D, this area is managed as a remote 

recreation area (MA 7.2) in which scheduled timber 

harvest and road construction would not be allowed. 

Minister Valley is a much smaller area in RARE II 

than it is in the new inventory for potential 

wilderness previously described. The Minister Valley 

area is managed with MA 6.2 (see earlier discussion 

on non-motorized recreation) and MA6.1 in 

Alternative A. Both scheduled timber harvest and 

road construction is allowed. In Alternative B, the 

area is managed for an interpretive recreation 

emphasis (MA 7.3), and in Alternatives Cm and D, 

for wilderness study area (MA 5.2). In all three of 

these alternatives (B, Cm, and D), scheduled timber 

harvesting and Forest Service road construction 

would not be allowed in the RARE II portion of 

Minister Valley. 

Hearts Content is managed as a Scenic area and 

National Landmark (MA 8.3) in all alternatives. This 

does not allow scheduled timber harvest or Forest 

Service road construction. 

Verbeck Island is managed in the Wild and Scenic 

River management area (MA 8.1) in all alternatives. 

This is not available for scheduled timber harvest and 

road construction is not allowed on islands in this 

management area. 

When the Forest Plan revision is completed, the 

roadless area inventory for the ANF will be replaced 

with the new inventory previously described under 

Wilderness. Thus the ANF will have three roadless 

areas (Tracy Ridge, Chestnut Ridge, and Minister 

Valley) totaling 23,241 acres. 

Other Special Designations 

The FEIS does not propose changes to most of the 

other existing special designations on the ANF. A 

brief summary follows for each designation with 

changes proposed in the alternatives. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers are changed by creating a 

separate management area for them in Alternatives B, 

Cm, and D. This management area does not allow 

scheduled timber harvest, although it does allow 

harvest for a number of other purposes. The ANF 

also examined the potential for additional rivers since 

the previous Forest Plan due to changed conditions. 

This is described in Appendix D of the FEIS. The 

conclusion was that no other rivers merited further 

consideration at this time. 

There are no changes recommended to the National 

Recreation Areas. Where Tracy Ridge and Allegheny 

Front are recommended for wilderness study areas, 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 33 

they will have a dual designation of National 

Recreation and Wilderness Study area. 

For the Buckaloons Historic Area, Alternatives B, 

Cm, and D propose to establish this area as a 

nationally designated area in the Forest Service 

system of Special Interest Areas. 

An expansion of the Kane Experimental forest from 

1,737 acres to 3,463 acres is proposed in Alternatives 

B, Cm, and D. 

Other Effects 

Transportation Resources 

Road construction, maintenance, and 

decommissioning under each alternative are designed 

to provide full access to all necessary MAs for full 

implementation of each alternative. The road system 

is designed to: 

• Minimize the number of perennial and 

intermittent stream crossings 

• Minimize the length of road crossings on poorly 

drained soils 

• Utilize existing road corridors as much as 

possible 

• Minimize the use of rights-of-way 

• Minimize crossing MAs that exclude roads to 

access MAs that require additional access 

The total Forest Service road system is largest in 

Alternative A, with declining levels to lowest in 

Alternative D. At the end of the first decade, the total 

road system in Alternatives A and B could expand 

over the current level by 15 percent; in Alternative 

Cm by 13 percent; and in Alternative D, by 10 

percent. These additional roads will generally be 

Maintenance Level 1 or 2 roads, closed or restricted 

for public use. Many of these roads will be existing 

private oil and gas roads added to the Forest Service 

road system. 

In all alternatives, protection of soil, aquatic, and 

riparian systems would be given more attention in 

future road operations. Effects of road operations on 

soil, and water resources, and on habitat diversity are 

discussed in corresponding sections of the FEIS. The 

ANF would expect some beneficial effects (e.g. 

reduced erosion and sedimentation) when roads are 

resurfaced or decommissioned under all alternatives. 

Air Resources 

Although the majority of the area’s pollution comes 

from sources outside the National Forest, activities 

within the ANF’s boundaries can also affect air 

quality in the region. Timber harvesting, oil and gas 

development, road construction and use, ATV/OHM 

use, and prescribed burning were all considered in the 

analysis of effects on air resources. 

Briefly, effects on air resources do not vary by 

alternative. Administrative vehicle use and visitor 

vehicle use produce volatile organic compounds and 

nitrogen oxides, but use will not vary by alternative. 

Both herbicides used in all alternatives have a low 

volatility, are being applied from the ground, and are 

being applied in relatively small amounts. Therefore, 

effects on air quality would be minor, short-term, and 

localized. Neither herbicide is expected to contribute 

to soil acidification. Annual emissions from 

prescribed fire and timber harvest activities, and 

ATV/OHM use, are well below the regional pollution 

contribution threshold of 5 percent in all alternatives 

and therefore are not a major concern. 

Water Resources 

The analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects on water resources considers effects of Forest 

Service activities such as vegetation management, 

reforestation treatments (i.e. use of herbicides and 

fertilizers), road construction, and ATV/OHM and 

equestrian use on water quality and quantity. 

Standards and guidelines for all of these activities, 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 34 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

especially activities conducted in riparian areas, 

minimize adverse effects on water resources. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D are all expected to protect 

water and riparian conditions. These alternatives also 

provide more direction for protection of springs, 

seeps, vernal ponds, and other wetlands. Alternative 

A would have slightly less-restrictive standards and 

guidelines for perennial streams and floodplains, but 

would most likely achieve adequate protection. 

Forest Service management activities such as road 

construction, timber harvesting activities, and 

recreation activities have the potential to result in 

sedimentation of aquatic and riparian habitat. In order 

to accomplish short-term and long-term land 

management activities, sediment transport may be an 

unavoidable consequence. However, standards and 

guidelines integrated into all alternatives minimize 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to watershed 

integrity. Since ANF standards and guidelines will 

meet or exceed Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection Best Management 

Practices, they will meet the goals of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Acres of herbicide treatments for reforestation are not 

expected to have an adverse effect on water quality in 

any of the alternatives. 

Cumulatively, increased road construction for oil and 

gas development has potential to lead to increases in 

sedimentation and decreases in streamflow that do 

not vary substantially by alternative. 

Soil Resources 

Concerns about soil resources revolve primarily 

around three issues: nutrients, erosion, and 

compaction (including puddling and rutting). There 

are concerns that management activities, such as 

harvesting, fertilizer use, road construction, and 

ATV/OHM and equestrian use could contribute to 

adverse effects on soil resources. 

Alternative A has the greatest potential for nutrient 

loss, although anticipated effects would be minimal. 

Construction of roads, pits, and buildings causes a 

long-term change to soil structure and nutrient 

holding capability. The total Forest Service road 

system is largest in Alternative A, with declining 

levels to lowest in Alternative D. Pit development 

does not vary by alternative. Nitrogen-based 

fertilization has potential to increase leaching of base 

cations from the soil, and Alternative A has the 

greatest potential for use of nitrogen-based fertilizer. 

The effects of vegetation management on erosion and 

compaction vary only as much as levels of harvest 

vary across alternatives. Temporary erosion from 

even-aged management will be greater than 

temporary erosion from uneven-aged management, 

but due to the repeated entries required by unevenaged management, long-term erosion resulting from 

vegetation management is expected to be similar for 

all silvicultural systems. Potential compaction is also 

expected to be similar for all silvicultural systems. 

Standards and guidelines in the 1986 Forest Plan and 

the LRMP, and adherence to state Best Management 

Practices, moderate effects of vegetation 

management on soil resources. 

Alternative A has the greatest potential for new road 

construction, and therefore the greatest risk of soil 

erosion from this activity. Overall, Alternative D has 

the lowest potential erosion from all Forest Service 

activities proposed during the planning period; 

Alternative D has the lowest suitable acreage with 

severe erosion potential, the lowest number of 

potential new FS roads on severe erosion soils, and 

the lowest existing FS roads on severe erosion soils, 

the lowest acreage in IUAs on severe erosion soils, 

and no open equestrian riding. 

Cumulatively, OGM development and road 

construction are expected to have the greatest effect 

on soil resources, in terms of increased erosion and 

compaction and long-term commitment of soil 
Summary of the FEIS 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary - 35 

nutrients. Another cumulative effects concern is the 

effect of acid deposition on soil resources. Although 

the amount of acid deposition has been decreasing in 

the region, it is likely to continue to contribute to 

leaching of base cations from the soil. There is 

uncertainty over the cumulative effects from acid 

deposition on soil and water resources. A study of the 

changes in soil nutrients and pH over a 30-year 

period beginning in 1967, showed statistically 

significant reduction in exchangeable calcium and 

magnesium concentrations and pH throughout the 

soil profile. 

Scenery 

The LRMP and Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D adopt 

the new Forest Service Scenery Management System 

to provide a consistent approach to managing scenery 

across the ANF. Standards and guidelines include a 

range of mitigation measures to minimize the effects 

of management activities on scenic integrity. 

Vegetation and recreation activities are most likely to 

affect scenic integrity on the ANF. 

Even-aged timber harvests are “high-impact” zones 

with the greatest potential to effect on scenery. 

Alternatives A and B, and Alternative Cm to a lesser 

extent, emphasize even-aged management. 

Alternative D harvests are characterized by smaller 

openings that emphasize uneven-aged management 

or no active management. These “low-impact” zones 

have a minimal effect on scenery. 

Mitigation measures are applied to lessen the effects 

of harvest and regeneration activities. Fencing and 

herbicide effects on scenery are generally temporary, 

however, oil and gas activity by private oil and gas 

operators could double across the landscape, resulting 

in a roaded forest setting that is more modified than 

in the past. 

Economics 

The four Pennsylvania counties surrounding the ANF 

(Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties) have 

long had portions of their economies linked to natural 

resource industries especially production of lumber 

and wood products and oil and natural gas. 

Manufacturing has become the most important 

economic sector for jobs and income in the fourcounty area, but the amount of manufacturing activity 

has been in decline. Retail and wholesale trade, 

services and other economic sectors that are in part 

supported by recreation and visitation to the ANF 

region have increased in their economic importance. 

The primary contributions made by the ANF to the 

four economies is through provision of recreation 

activities, providing timber resources, payments to 

local governments and school districts, and direct 

expenditures of the ANF and its staff within the local 

economy. With full implementation of the 

alternatives under consideration, all of the 

alternatives have the potential to contribute to greater 

employment and income and increase the level of 

payments to local governments. Table 14 provides an 

estimate of the potential annual contribution in 

employment and labor income that could be made by 

the ANF under each of the alternatives as compared 

to the condition of the last 5 years. The table also 

shows the estimated level of payments to local 

governments and schools under the 25 Percent Fund 

and Secure Rural School Act. 
Summary of the FEIS 

Summary - 36 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 14. Potential economic impacts 

Alternative 

2001-2005 A B Cm D 

Jobs 

(total jobs) 

1572 2645 2572 2345 1726 

Labor Income 

(million dollars) 

46.1 87.8 85.0 75.9 51.1 

Payments to Local Governments 

(million dollars, 25% Fund) 

5.6 17.3 16.1 13.4 6.9 

Payments to Local Governments under Secure 

Rural Schools Act (million dollars) 5.6 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 

In a cumulative context, oil and gas extraction on the 

ANF also makes a substantial contribution to jobs 

and income in the local economy. Increased oil and 

gas development is expected to support even higher 

levels of local employment. 

Recreation activity on the ANF is not expected to 

substantially increase. However, if recreation based 

economic development initiatives such as 

Pennsylvania Wilds are successful, there could be 

further increases in jobs and income based upon this 

increased visitation. 

The potential contribution of the ANF to the four 

counties will not offset continued substantial decline 

in the manufacturing sector.
Preface 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Cover photo courtesy of US Forest Service
This page intentionally left blank 
FEIS Preface 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Preface-1

Preface 

Organization of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The Allegheny National Forest (ANF) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. This 

FEIS documents the effects of implementing various management options on the ANF. The FEIS is the basis for 

determining what changes were made to the revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the 

ANF. The FEIS is presented in four volumes. 

Volume 1 is organized as follows: 

• Summary – The executive summary provides an overview of the FEIS. 

• Preface – This chapter introduces the reader to the development of the LRMP and FEIS. It describes in 

general terms where the ANF is located, what the environments of the ANF are today, and the historical 

and contemporary uses of these areas. It also includes the applicable laws, regulations, and direction that 

national forests must follow when completing Forest Plan revision. 

• Chapter 1 – Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement. This chapter describes legal reasons for Forest 

Plan revision; decisions made in the Forest Plan; the purpose and need for change, the environmental 

analysis and decision-making process, public involvement and significant issues used to develop 

alternatives. 

• Chapter 2 –Alternatives. This chapter describes the process used to develop alternatives, lists important 

points common to all alternatives, gives a general description of each alternative, describes and explains 

why some alternatives were not considered in detail, and provides a comparison of the alternatives 

considered in detail. It also identifies the preferred alternative. 

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter describes the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the alternatives considered in detail. 

• Chapter 4 – List of Preparers 

• Chapter 5 – FEIS Recipients 

• Chapter 6 – Glossary 

• Chapter 7 – Reference List 

• Chapter 8 – Index 

Volume 2 –Appendix A, Volume 3 is Appendices B-F, and Volume 4 contains Appendix G. These volumes 

provide detailed information to support the analyses presented in the FEIS. 
FEIS Preface

Preface-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure P-1. Allegheny National Forest Location Map 
FEIS Preface 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Preface-3

Forest Niche/Historical Perspective 

The Allegheny Plateau was once a vast forest dominated by eastern hemlock and American beech growing on 

ridge tops and mammoth white pine and oak growing along the slopes and bottoms of the Allegheny River valley. 

The Allegheny Plateau was profoundly transformed by industrialization and consequent unregulated logging 

beginning in the early 1800s when the first European settlers reached the area and continuing into the 1900s with 

the advent of the wood chemical industry. The once vast forest of the Allegheny Plateau was almost completely 

removed, leaving barren, brush covered hillsides as far as the eye could see. By 1900, deer and their predators 

were almost completely eliminated due to unregulated hunting and loss of habitat. 

The Weeks Act, passed by Congress in 1911, allowed the Federal Government to buy land in Eastern United 

States for the establishment of national forests. The Allegheny National Forest was established in 1923. The land 

was so depleted of large trees that many residents jokingly called it the “Allegheny brush patch.” Some worried 

the forest would never recover, but a healthy, diverse forest started to grow. The Forest Service began to manage 

the land and brought new concepts in forest management to the Allegheny Plateau – multiple benefits and 

sustainability. By the 1940s, the forest began to take on an appearance of a healthy maturing forest and the Forest 

Service gradually resumed timber harvesting under strict, research-based guidelines to ensure sustainability for 

future generations. 

The Allegheny Today 

The ANF fulfills many ecological and social functions and continues to evolve as an important component of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. From the high points and ridgelines of the Allegheny Plateau to the river 

bottoms and stream valleys below, the ANF provides unique opportunities for watershed protection, plant and 

animal habitats, cultural history, recreation, wood products and research, not only today but for generations to 

come. 

A Vital Watershed 

As a result of industrialization and widespread unregulated logging of the Allegheny Plateau, many rivers and 

streams were threatened by intense pollution and channel instability. President Calvin Coolidge recognized the 

importance of watershed health and established the ANF with the aim of restoring and protecting the Allegheny 

River watershed. Since that time, conservation efforts to protect and restore the Allegheny River watershed led to 

a remarkable recovery of the Allegheny and Clarion rivers. This recovery resulted in their designation as wild and 

scenic rivers for having outstanding scenic, natural, recreational, scientific, historic, ecological and fisheries 

resource values. Protection of the Allegheny River watershed is one of the most important conservation efforts in 

the Commonwealth and the region. The ANF is uniquely positioned to help contribute to continued watershed 

conservation efforts. 
FEIS Preface

Preface-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

A Home to Native Plants and Animals 

The ANF supports a rich diversity of plants and animals and is part of the Allegheny High Plateau Ecoregion of 

Pennsylvania. This ecoregion has been described by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources as “having the highest stream quality for the state with the largest block of core forest state-wide.” The 

region hosts critically important concentrations of forest wildlife. Included are two important bird areas that focus 

on quality habitat for the yellow-bellied flycatcher (endangered species in Pennsylvania) and a host of woods 

warblers and an important mammal area that recognizes the quality of habitats for river otters, fishers, and 

northern flying squirrels. While early structural habitat declined across Pennsylvania and the region, the ANF has 

maintained this community on approximately 8 percent of the forest for the past 20 years. The forest habitats and 

river systems of the Allegheny provide refuge for an abundance of game species creating outstanding 

opportunities for hunting and fishing. Approximately 4,000 acres of remnant, original forest remains. Although 

this makes up less than 1 percent of the total ANF acreage, it comprises approximately 12 percent of the total old 

growth forest in Pennsylvania, and is the largest contiguous old growth beech-hemlock forest in the Northern 

United States. 

A Place to Play 

The ANF provides 108 miles of premier all-terrain vehicle/off-highway motorcycle trail riding opportunities, one 

of the most extensive systems within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The ANF is also a premier destination 

for equestrians as Pennsylvania has the fifth largest number of avid recreational riders in the United States. Waterbased recreation opportunities abound on the popular 8,000-acre Allegheny Reservoir and along the Wild and 

Scenic Allegheny and Clarion rivers. The Allegheny Reservoir offers outstanding scenery along its vast 

undeveloped shoreline and wooded uplands. Many easily accessible opportunities exist for developed or remote 

dispersed recreation across a lush forested landscape and within special areas, including federally designated 

wilderness areas, National Recreation and Scenic Areas. A rich heritage, ranging from early settlement by native 

peoples to the lumber and oil era, contributes to the interpretive and educational values that distinctively enhance 

the recreation opportunities on the ANF. 

Working Woodland 

The ANF is managed to sustain or improve forest ecosystem health and provide sustainable supplies of high 

quality timber and other forest products to present and future generations. Sustainable forest management includes 

a range of reforestation activities designed to help ensure adequate tree seedlings develop where deer herbivory 

and interfering plants limit their establishment or survival. Allegheny hardwood stands include black cherry, 

yellow poplar, white ash, and a wide variety of other species and represent the most economically valuable forest 

type in the eastern United States. The exceptional quality of the black cherry and other hardwoods found here 

makes it highly valued throughout the world for fine furniture and veneers. Millions of board feet of timber are 

harvested from the ANF annually, providing jobs for people involved in making a variety of wood products and 

furniture. For many rural communities, forest industries are key to the economy and cultural heritage. 
FEIS Preface 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Preface-5

The ANF lies in the heart of Pennsylvania’s oil and gas region, only 40 miles from the site of the first oil well in 

the United States. Much of the Commonwealth’s crude oil production comes from mineral rights owned by 

private individuals within the forest boundary each with an estimated 8,000 active wells. Because of its high 

paraffin content, Pennsylvania crude is one of the best lubricating oils in the world. The oil heritage plays a 

unique role in the settlement of the East and in history. 

The Research and Experimental Forest 

Since the 1920s, the Forest Service has conducted research on and around the ANF. The Northern Research 

Station’s Warren Forestry Sciences Laboratory, located in Irvine, PA, performs high quality basic and applied 

research on the forested ecosystems of the Allegheny Plateau and adjacent regions, with an emphasis on 

underlying principles to increase the applicability of results across the widest possible region. Its aim is to develop 

enhanced ecosystem management methods that incorporate new science and encourage ecologically sustainable 

forest and vegetation management. To accomplish this mission, research is carried out across the ANF with three 

areas having special significance. The 4,000-acre Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas contain one of the 

largest old growth remnants in the East. Research on the 1,737-acre Kane Experimental Forest focuses on 

understanding and managing forest ecosystems of the Allegheny Plateau region. The 220-acre Hearts Content 

Scenic Area is a National Natural Landmark recognized for its old growth and scenic qualities. It has been studied 

since the 1920s. As a research base for forest experimental study, the ANF is a proving ground for forestry 

practices and demonstration areas of what has been determined to be the best management of woodlands. 

Planning Laws 

Forest Service planning activities are guided by several key federal laws. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield 

Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), National Forest Service lands are 

managed for a variety of uses on a sustained basis to ensure a continued supply of goods and services to the 

American people. The NFMA amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(RPA) to specify that land and resource management plans (forest plans) be developed for units of the National 

Forest System. NFMA also specifies that plans are developed consistent with NEPA. 

National Forest Management Act Regulations (36 CFR 219, 1982 version) 

The NFMA regulations establish analytical and procedural requirements for the development, revision and 

significant amendment of Forest Plans. NFMA regulations describe procedures for formulating and evaluating 

alternatives and require that alternatives consider a full range of resource outputs and expenditure levels. NFMA 

regulations also acknowledge the need to comply with other laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean 

Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act and the Archeological Resources Protection Act. 

NFMA requires forest plans to be revised every 10 to 15 years. Although it has been more than 15 years since the 

Allegheny Forest Plan was approved, Congress passed P.L. 108-108, which states that the Secretary of 

Agriculture will not be considered in violation of NFMA if more than 15 years have passed without a revision to a 

Forest Plan providing that the Forest Service is acting expeditiously and in good faith. 
FEIS Preface

Preface-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA brought environmental analysis and public participation requirements into planning of federal activities. 

NEPA ensures that environmental information is made available to public officials and citizens before decisions are 

made and before actions are taken. The goal is to help Forest Service officials base their decisions on an 

understanding of environmental consequences and to take actions that protect, restore and enhance the environment. 

Accurate scientific analyses, expert agency input and public scrutiny are essential to the NEPA process. 

Allegheny National Forest at a Glance 

• Established in 1923 

• Current acreage: about 513,325 

• Within a days drive of 1/3 of the Nation’s 

population 

• 95% forested with 2nd growth maturing 

hardwood forest 

• Three primary forest health threats affect 

hemlock, beech, and sugar maple 

• Kinzua Dam: 

o Completed in 1965 

o Administered by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers 

o Impounds the 12,080-acre Allegheny 

Reservoir 

• Campgrounds – 16 with over 600 sites 

• Trails: 

o Hiking .................................... 201 miles 

o Cross-country skiing 53 miles 

o Interpretive ............................... 18 miles 

o All-terrain (ATV) ................... 106 miles 

o Allegheny Snowmobile 

Loop System .......................... 366 miles 

• Roads on the ANF 

o Forest Service ....................... 1270 miles 

o State and Township................. 281 miles 

o Oil, gas, minerals (estimated, 

not managed by ANF)........... 1236 miles 

• Minerals rights: 93% are owned by someone 

other than the Federal Government 

• Producing oil and gas wells were estimated 

at approximately 8,000 in 2005 

• Average acreage harvested annually since 

1987: 5,614 acres (1.1% of the total ANF 

acreage) 

• Primary method of timber treatment is 

thinning (annual average since 1987 of 

5,103 acres), followed by final harvest 

(1,908 acres) and selection cuts (396 acres) 

• Deer herd: 

o Deer density has been above 20 deer per 

square mile for more than 3 decades 

o With the implementation of the PA 

Game Commission Deer Management 

Strategy in 2001, the deer density has 

dropped to between 10 to 15 deer per 

square mile 

o This drop has been accompanied by a 

slight improvement in habitat conditions 

• Six Federal Threatened or Endangered 

Species are known to occur or there is 

suitable habitat within the Forest: 

o Bald eagle 

o Northern riffleshell (mussel) 

o Clubshell (mussel) 

o Indiana bat 

o Small-whorled pogonia (orchid) 

o Northeastern bulrush 

There are also two candidate mussel species: 

known to occur within the Forest: sheepnose 

and rayed-bean 

• Streams on the ANF: 

o About 770 miles of perennial cold-water 

streams 

o 43 miles are classified as warm-water 

fisheries
Chapter 1 

Purpose, Need, and 

Public Involvement 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-1

1 PURPOSE, NEED, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

1.1 Purpose 

The Allegheny National Forest (ANF) proposes to revise its Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter 

referred to as “Forest Plan” or LRMP) as required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The 

Forest Plan was originally approved in 1986 and has been amended 14 times to incorporate new information and 

to address changed conditions. The revised LRMP accompanies this document. 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes four alternatives for revising the 1986 Forest Plan 

and discloses the potential environmental effects of these alternatives. The effects analysis for this FEIS is 

displayed by decade for decades one and two. 

1.2 Need for Action 

The ANF is revising its 1986 Forest Plan to meet the legal requirements of NFMA and to incorporate new 

scientific knowledge on topics including ecological information, vegetation management, species viability, soils, 

insects and diseases, known changes in forest conditions, and recreational user trends and preferences. 

The ANF interdisciplinary team (IDT) identified three major areas of the 1986 Forest Plan that needed change to 

address preliminary issues. 

1.2.1 Vegetation Management Need For Change 

This revision sets forest type composition and vegetative structural/age class goals and objectives; adds forest 

health strategies to address new threats; updates human health and wildlife risk assessments for herbicide use; 

incorporates new information on silvicultural and reforestation techniques for forest types found on the ANF; and 

redefines uneven-aged management criteria and appropriate uses. It also assesses land suitability, and adjusts the 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) with information from the Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability Report 

for 1995-2005 (USDA FS 1995). 

The following changes have been made to Chapter 1: 

Purpose – The effects analysis in the FEIS is displayed by decade 1 and decade 2 rather than by 

the planning period displayed in the DEIS. 

Other Areas of Concern – Changes to oil and gas management were made. 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.2.2 Habitat Diversity Need For Change 

Under this revision, there is a need to add direction to maintain proper spatial and temporal arrangements of 

habitats, including early, mid, and late stand structures and habitat connectivity. This revision evaluates viability 

of native and desired non-native species; conserves habitat for federally-listed threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species; adds control strategies for invasive species; and evaluates landscape-level wildlife/habitat 

relationships. 

1.2.3 Recreation and Special Area Designations Need For Change 

Recreational uses of the forest need to be addressed due to changes since 1986. This revision clarifies direction 

for developed facilities management; improves direction for management of dispersed recreational trails and 

camping sites; provides semi-primitive and remote types of recreation based on resource capability and 

compatibility of uses; aligns intensive use areas (IUAs) for motorized trails based on resource capability and 

compatibility of uses; and adds direction for managing equestrian use. For special areas, this revision contains a 

roadless area inventory and evaluation of potential wilderness (recommendations to Congress may be made for 

potential wilderness study areas); clarifies Wild and Scenic River Management direction to reflect new 

information and understanding about river protection and management; considers opportunities to expand or 

designate new special areas such as National Recreation Areas or Scenic Areas; and adds new Management Areas 

to better define desired conditions, goals, and objectives for recreation and special area management. 

1.2.4 Other Resource Areas 

The IDT also identified a need to clarify and strengthen guidance in the Forest Plan for seven other resource areas, 

in order to bring the new Forest Plan into alignment with the 2004-2008 Forest Service Strategic Plan and desired 

settings. These include: 

1. Soil and Water Quality – Update soil and water goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for resource 

protection and add riparian area prescriptions to address riparian values to sustain over time and space. 

2. Heritage Resources – Update standard and guidelines to incorporate all current laws and regulations to 

enhance consultation with state and tribal historic preservation offices and address changing conditions with 

respect to archaeological sites. 

3. Scenery – Map and define new scenery objectives to integrate benefits, desires, and preferences for aesthetics 

with other resources using updated scenery planning tool. 

4. Transportation Systems – Reset road management goals (open, closed, and restricted) 

5. Monitoring – Realign monitoring to enable determination of the adjustments needed for achieving desired 

outcomes 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-3

6. Management Areas – Add management area descriptions for greater clarity of desired settings and outcomes. 

Realign sub-listing categories on compatibility and management intent and drop designations not moving 

toward desired conditions. 

7. Reorganization of Forest Plan Format – Use the National Model for Forest Plans completed in 2004. 

The 1986 Forest Plan management direction not needing revision has been reformatted and incorporated, or 

affirmed by the LRMP.

1.3 Scope of Plan 

Issues raised by the public were evaluated to determine whether they fell within the scope of forest plan revision. 

1.3.1 Items Outside the Scope of the Plan That Do Not Constitute a Need For 

Change 

Not all issues raised by the public are applicable to forest plan revision. For example, appeals and litigation 

processes, creation of jobs and community stability, and site specific improvements which are addressed by 

project implementation of the plan, are not applicable forest plan issues. These issues are not addressed in the 

revised plan. 

1.3.2 Items Within the Scope of the Plan That Are Not Addressed 

The following listed items were identified in the NOI, but are not addressed in this revision: 

1. Development of a Clarion River Management Plan with river corridor boundaries – A plan for Clarion River 

management will be completed under separate analysis and processed in a forest plan amendment. There was 

not sufficient funding or time to initiate this study at this time. 

2. Creation of a riparian management area – Riparian areas occur throughout the forest, making identification of 

a specific riparian management area difficult. The IDT determined that new management direction in goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines were sufficient to address riparian area protection and enhancement. 

3. Development of a systematic framework of criteria and indicators to assist in monitoring management 

outcomes – This approach was not instituted, but a revised monitoring plan is included. The 2004 Planning 

Rule has adopted an adaptive monitoring structure, which will be transitioned into over the next few years. 

This structure is called an environmental management system and follows an established international 

framework. 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

1.3.3 Items within the Scope of the Plan that are Addressed 

Impacts created from development of private mineral rights (oil and gas) are analyzed by resource area and in the 

cumulative effects sections of Chapter 3. Adjustment of management area boundaries have been made where 

extensive development has occurred to align management areas with desired future settings. Limited acquisition 

of mineral rights may be pursued in specific areas where needed to achieve surface management objectives.

1.4 Proposed Action 

The revised ANF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) is based on Alternative Cm. 

1.5 Decisions to Be Made 

The ANF has chosen to narrow the scope for revising the forest plan by focusing on issues identified in the Need 

for Action section above as being most critically in need of change at this time. For a discussion of the process 

used to narrow the range of Forest Plan revisions, please see the document entitled “Analysis of the Need for 

Change in Forest Plan Revision.” 

The NFMA provides direction for the decisions that are made in a forest plan. For this plan revision the 

Allegheny is using the Forest planning rule in place prior to November 9, 2000, as permitted by section 219(e) of 

the current planning rule (36 CFR Part 219, January 5, 2005). The elements below organize the decisions to be 

made in the forest plan based on their intent and sheds light on how they function together (also see Forest Plan 

Introduction). 

Decisions that express an aspiration and form the basis for projects, activities, and uses that occur under 

the plan. 

Desired Conditions – This describes a future that is the long term goal of the plan. The description identifies 

desired forest uses, ecological conditions, and forest infrastructure. 

Goals – Identify a future condition or accomplishment to be achieved. They are generally written in broad general 

terms. 

Objectives – These are concise, usually time-specific statements of measurable planned results. 

Decisions that set requirements to limit or guide the forest uses or activities that are expected to occur 

under the plan. 

Suitability – This is a basic description of what uses and resource management practices are appropriate on what 

type of land. Suitability determinations in the plan identify lands as suitable or not suitable for a particular use or 

management activity, subject to the design criteria of the plan (or by Management Area). 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-5

Design Criteria (standards and guidelines) – These provide technical information and direction guiding uses and 

activities of the forest. They are sideboards that impose limitations on activities or uses for reasons of 

environmental protection, public safety, risk reduction, or to achieve a desired condition or objective. 

The allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is also a forest plan decision. The ASQ is the upper limit for the timber 

harvesting schedule. 

Decisions that identify management areas that allocate zones of the forest to different desired conditions 

and uses (much like local municipal zoning regulations). Special designations or recommendations for 

special designations, are specific decisions to establish a specific type of area (e.g., a recommendation to 

create a wilderness study area. 

Management Areas (MAs) and Special Designations – management areas are spatially identified areas of the 

forest. Management areas may be assigned their own set of desired conditions, goals, objectives, suitable uses and 

activities, and standards and guidelines. The plan also makes recommendations for the establishment through 

legislation of congressional designations; such as wilderness study areas, National Recreation Areas, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. These designations, along with administrative designations such as Research Natural Areas, 

Experimental Forests, Historic Areas and Scenic Areas, usually are assigned their own Management Area number 

with appropriate direction to meet their desired conditions. 

Decisions that identify detailed monitoring requirements for a specific program of forest activities focused 

on evaluation of the implementation of the Plan and provide a feedback cycle (plan, analyze, implement, 

and evaluate) of information for planning new projects. 

Monitoring and evaluation requirements – Monitoring and evaluating the effects of management practices is 

required as implementation of the plan progresses. 

1.6 Public Involvement 

Citizens, tribes, government agencies, and public and private organizations were contacted by mail, e-mail, and 

through announcements in broadcast and print media throughout the forest plan revision process. This revision 

began in 1997 when the Need For Change (NFC) was produced and a series of public meetings was held. In 1998, 

the process halted due to agency and Congressional direction, including budget constraints. Forest planning 

resumed in 2003, and comments received during the initial planning stage were reviewed. The ANF hired Drs. 

Susan Sennecah, Gregg Walker, and Steve Daniels to facilitate “collaborative learning” workshops. Public 

meetings were held through Fall 2003 to discuss the NFC document and the forest planning process. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2003. Two public meetings 

were held to discuss the NFC and NOI and 192 comments were received during the public comment period, 

which ran from September 25, 2003 through November 10, 2003. Two facilitated workshops in 2004 were used to 

develop draft alternatives, and these initial draft alternatives were discussed at facilitated public meetings in 2005. 

In addition to these public meetings, government-to-government meetings were held with various groups, 

including township supervisors, county commissioners, school district superintendents, Seneca Nation of Indians, 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The comment period for the PLRMP and DEIS ran from May 26, 2006 to 

August 28, 2006. Eight open house meetings were held to exchange information with interested publics. Two 

formal hearings to record public comments were held. The first hearing was on August 21, 2006 at Slippery Rock 

University and the second on August 22, 2006 at the Kane High School. In addition, the ANF met with numerous 

groups specifically interested in the revision. Appendix A contains a summary of these meetings and the response 

to public comments. Over 8,000 comments were received. 

1.7 Significant Issues 

Forest plan revision issues are those areas of forest management that require a change as a result of new scientific 

information, resource changes, a better understanding of previous management based on monitoring and 

evaluation information, and/or changing public needs. The issues identified through the planning and public 

participation process were categorized into two groups, significant issues and other areas of concern, that helped 

define the scope of the analysis documented in this FEIS. 

Significant issues contain a major dispute that necessitates varied approaches in the alternatives. Significant issues 

may be addressed through management area allocations, resource goals or objectives, acres suited for timber 

production, allowable sale quantity of timber products, or monitoring requirements. 

The other areas of concern identified in the NOI will be addressed through improved standards and guidelines or 

monitoring strategies in the revised LRMP. 

In this section, each issue is described and broken down into major components in the form of questions. Early 

public involvement validated the issues originally identified in the NOI (see Appendix A, section 2.1.2). 

Comments received throughout the public involvement process helped focus each issue. Within issues, certain 

components are more likely to change across alternatives. Those that will change by alternative have specific 

evaluation criteria that will be used to measure each alternative’s response to an issue and to help summarize the 

effects of each alternative. Components that do not change by alternative are still discussed briefly to carry 

forward the discussion started in the NOI. 

1.7.1 Forest Vegetation Management 

This issue involves maintaining healthy forest conditions capable of providing sustainable levels of forest 

products and amenities. The conditions, estimated at the midpoint of the sixth decade, were selected as a measure 

to compare long-term effects by alternative. The seven components discussed below will be used to answer the 

following questions: 

• What mix of forest types and vegetation composition are desired? 

• What distribution by age classes should be assigned to the desired vegetation structure? 

• How will forest health be addressed? 

• What will be the mix of silvicultural systems used? 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-7

• How will reforestation techniques be modified to meet changing conditions and new information? 

• What will be the acreage of forest land suitable for timber production? 

• What harvest schedule and mix of forest products should be featured? 

Component 1: Vegetation composition 

There is considerable disagreement over the mix of forest types for setting desired future conditions in the Forest 

Plan. Interested publics have expressed a broad range of desired conditions, from expanding high value Allegheny 

hardwoods, thru maintaining present forest type compositions, to restoring pre-European settlement forest 

conditions with emphasis on northern hardwoods and hemlock. The most noteworthy item of contention is 

polarization over black cherry; its abundance now and in the future forest. 

The ANF describes plant communities in terms of dominant vegetation, and uses a system of eight forest type 

groups to describe forest communities: aspen, Allegheny hardwood, upland hardwood, northern hardwood, oak, 

hemlock, conifer, and open (non-forested land). The Allegheny hardwood type is presently the most valuable 

timber resource for producing high-quality hardwoods on the ANF, with black cherry being the most valuable 

species. Upland hardwood and northern hardwood areas with black cherry can be successfully regenerated, and 

red maple (a primary component in upland hardwoods) is increasing in relative numbers across the forest. The 

primary species mix in the northern hardwood type (sugar maple, beech, birch, and hemlock) is the most 

threatened by current insect and disease concerns. In oak stands, understory red maple is replacing more preferred 

oak species that are valued as a wildlife food source and as high quality hardwoods. Retaining the current level of 

oak types is a goal under the 1986 Forest Plan. The hemlock and conifer types are valued for wildlife cover and 

are often more concentrated in riparian areas (hemlock) or in association with oak types (white pine). Guidelines 

to maintain present levels of hemlock and conifer types exist in the 1986 Forest Plan, but natural regeneration 

success for hemlock is uncertain and it is threatened by the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid. 

Determination of future vegetation composition is constrained by several factors. Forests on the ANF today are 

predominately mature second-growth that are the result of human and natural events since the late 1800s. Ability 

to change, perpetuate, or feature different forest types is often limited by present site and overstory conditions. 

Abundant deer populations in the past have had a lasting effect on our ability to regenerate forest types today. In 

areas allocated to prescribed forest management practices on the ANF; natural seedling regeneration from existing 

seed trees has been the preferred method to perpetuate forest cover, but preparation of proper understory 

conditions has been necessary. Some planting of hardwood and conifer seedlings has been undertaken to 

supplement natural regeneration and improve diversity. 

Forest composition on the ANF is also an important consideration in terms of regional forest management. The 

current trend on non-industrial private lands in Pennsylvania is often low-investment, high-grade harvesting 

which results in lower value stands moving toward northern hardwood or upland hardwood species. On industrial 

private forest lands, management is considered more sustainable, with investments made in reforestation of 

harvested areas. 

Forest types may change due to a number of natural events, such as windthrow, insect and disease infestations, 

natural succession, mortality from aging trees, and human-caused events such as introduction of exotic forest 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

insects or disease. The effects of these events on forest health, composition, and structure are much more difficult 

to control in areas not allocated to prescribed forest management practices. A harvest program focused on shorterlived forest types, such as Allegheny hardwoods, would best maintain the abundance of these species. The vast 

majority of these types are rapidly maturing on the ANF and are anticipated to soon start declining in health. 

The broad range of desired forest type compositions expressed by interested publics will be evaluated in the 

alternatives. This will be done through varying the distribution of management areas not allocated to prescribed 

forest management practices and by varying the forest management practices in the areas that are. 

Evaluation criteria 

Predicted forest type conversions at the midpoint of the second and sixth decades 

Component 2: Vegetation age 

The other major element of vegetative diversity is the age of forest vegetation. Almost all of the ANF is currently 

even-aged second growth, a result of the intensive harvesting that occurred between the 1890s and 1930s 

(Marquis 1975). The uniform, even-aged second growth forest of the ANF is similar to most of the second growth 

forest found throughout the region. With regard to age class distribution, the ANF is presently comprised 

primarily of stands of intermediate ages. The majority of the ANF is older than 80 years (60%), with more than 

half (57%) of the ANF falls within a thirty year class (the 81-110 age class). Eight percent of the ANF is in the 

youngest age class (0-20 years old), and approximately four percent is presently older than 110 years. Existing 

young age classes on the ANF are a result of management activities in the past 20 years, as well as natural 

disturbances, such as the tornados that impacted nearly 11,000 acres on the ANF in 1985. Remnant old growth 

areas in excess of 300 years old comprise less than 1 percent of forest vegetation on the ANF. 

There is disagreement over how the age of forest vegetation on the ANF should be managed in the revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan. Some participants in the revision process want more young forest, while others 

want to increase or retain more older forest. Young forest (0-20 years old) is transitional in nature, and occur from 

wind, fire, disease, animals, and regeneration harvest activities. Older forest will take time to develop on the ANF, 

as the bulk of the ANF is presently 81-110 years old. The ANF intends to track this diversity by classifying this 

continuum in the following major age groups: 

• 0-20 

• 21-50 

• 51-80 

• 81-110 

• 111-140 

• 141-300 

• 301+ 

Ability to achieve a range of age classes is constrained by a number of factors. Harvesting activities directed at 

creating young forest are limited by patch size (usually under 40 acres) and require a number of sequential 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-9

treatments spread over 5 to 20 years to obtain the desired conditions. Natural disturbance patterns inherent to the 

ANF such as catastrophic wind events can result in sizable areas of blown down trees and interrupt patterns of 

forest succession, causing instantaneous change from mature forest condition to young forest or non-stocked 

conditions. 

Landscapes consisting of stands of similar sized and aged trees are more vulnerable to damage from a particular 

pest than if the landscape were composed of stands and forests of a variety of size and age classes (Waring and 

O’Hara 2005). Variation between alternatives on the level of young and older forest is set to address a range of 

concerns relating to forest health, forest types, wildlife habitat requirements, and desired harvest outputs. 

The amount and spatial arrangement of forest vegetation age classes varies by alternative. 

Evaluation criteria 

Percent of forested acres by age class at the midpoint of the second and sixth decades 

Component 3: Reforestation techniques 

ANF personnel have successfully reforested 96% of the acres final harvested (even-aged management) between 

1976 and 2001. The majority of these areas have been in the Allegheny hardwood forest type. There is more 

uncertainty about the reforestation treatments (i.e., type, timing, and sequence) necessary to achieve desired 

reforestation success, both tree species diversity and tree species abundance, in other forest types (e.g., northern 

hardwood, upland hardwood, oaks). 

Area fencing exclosures to limit deer browsing on desired tree seedlings is an expensive treatment. Project 

monitoring has confirmed that when interfering plants are removed, fencing is a reliable treatment for obtaining 

greater vegetative diversity. 

Fertilization in Allegheny hardwoods has been effective in obtaining adequate regeneration without fences. In 

response to new research, future use on plateau sites will be reduced to help maintain soil base cations on certain 

sites. 

Control of undesired interfering vegetation with herbicides remains the only feasible and effective option to 

prepare understories for seedling development when practicing even-aged or uneven-aged management. Concern 

over the health risks of herbicides continues. New information has been reviewed and incorporated into updated 

human health and wildlife risk assessments (see Appendix G). 

Increased levels of prescribed burning and mechanical scarification of oak seedbeds will be evaluated to promote 

oak regeneration on sites where ecologically fire dependant species have developed. Native American use of fire 

concentrated along the major river corridors is believed to have greatly contributed to the present distribution of 

oak on the ANF (Brose unpublished, Ruffner and Abrams 2002). New science indicates the shelterwood burn 

technique would be more effective in maintaining the oak types on the ANF than past methods (Brose et al. 

1999b). 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Release is a relatively new technique applied on the ANF in regenerating stands in order to maintain tree species 

diversity. The LRMP will evaluate greater use of release treatments to improve tree species diversity in young 

stands. 

No Evaluation Criteria was identified for this component. Past and proposed levels of reforestation treatments are 

listed by alternative in Table 2-2 Past and Proposed Management Activities. 

Component 4: Silvicultural systems used 

Some people continue to express strong opposition to even-aged management or, in some cases, to increased use 

of uneven-aged management on National Forest land. Others strongly support increased use of even-aged 

management, well above levels achieved on the ANF during recent years, citing a wide array of benefits. Most 

public opinion falls somewhere between these extremes, just as it did when the 1986 Forest Plan was prepared. 

To accomplish vegetative diversity, the ANF will apply three main types of forest management: even-aged, 

uneven-aged, and no active management. Even-aged management was discussed in the reforestation component. 

Uneven-aged management can achieve some resource management objectives better than even-aged systems 

(e.g., maintaining multi-age, within-stand structure), but there are certain considerations with uneven-aged 

management. Success rates for uneven-aged management, particularly single-tree selection, have been very low 

on the ANF in the past, limiting our ability to employ this system. In addition, substantial forest health concerns 

exist about the use of uneven-aged management, particularly single-tree selection (see three recognized threats 

under forest health section). New standards and guidelines for the use of uneven-aged management will allow for 

larger opening sizes, with the intent of regenerating a greater diversity of tree species, including shade-intolerant 

(e.g., black cherry, yellow poplar, ash, northern red oak) and mid-tolerant (e.g., red maple, birch, cucumber) 

species than would occur under current standards for uneven-aged management. These new standards and 

guidelines are anticipated to increase successful regeneration under uneven-aged management, while reducing 

forest health concerns by promoting a broader array of tree species. Also, adjustments to the uneven-aged 

management guidelines commensurate with what has been learned since 1986 about their anticipated effects and 

rates of success will be incorporated in the LRMP. The alternatives will analyze a wide acreage range of 

silvicultural systems. 

Evaluation criteria 

• Total acres allocated by dominant silvicultural system based on management area – even-aged, unevenaged, and no active management 

• Estimated total acres regenerated by forest type by silvicultural system predicted by the end of the second 

and sixth decades 

Component 5: Forest health 

There is disagreement over the appropriate management responses that should be used to address the range of 

options for maintaining forest health, and even over what a healthy forest would look like. The ANF has 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-11

experienced an unanticipated level of tree mortality and decline since 1985 in all forest types. The following three 

recognized threats (the first two of which are introduced to the United States) have been a matter of much 

discussion: the continuing decline and mortality from the beech bark disease complex, the pending advance of the 

hemlock woolly adelgid infestations occurring east of the ANF, and sugar maple mortality and decline being 

exacerbated by site nutrient limitations and acid deposition. 

There is new information about insect and disease management, exotic species, soil nutrient dynamics, use of 

prescribed fire, acid deposition, and site/tree species/nutrient suitability. Questions remain about how to establish 

tree seedlings for the more challenging tree species, the longevity of ANF forest types (particularly the half of the 

ANF that is 91-110 years old), and potential effects on production of forest products, particularly black cherry. 

A primary ecological challenge within the context of forest health and sustainability is the lack of developed 

forest understories on the ANF, which have been impacted by a legacy of overbrowsing by deer for the past 70 

years. This legacy of selective browsing by high deer populations has resulted in understories that are dominated 

by native invasive species such as ferns, grasses, striped maple, and beech, while desirable seedling regeneration, 

shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation is greatly reduced in abundance and diversity. At the same time, beech 

mortality from the introduced beech bark disease complex results in increased beech sprouting which further 

interferes with establishment and growth of a diversity of tree seedlings. Continuing high levels of acid deposition 

pose additional stresses for species, such as sugar maple, ash, and basswood that demand higher levels of base 

cations. 

The alternatives will develop a broad range of future vegetative conditions from active and passive management, 

thereby creating various levels of forest health concerns. Due to the threats listed above, the health of the northern 

hardwood forest type is of particular concern, which is dominated by a combination of American beech, sugar 

maple, and eastern hemlock. Another concern is expected from increasing mortality in the Allegheny hardwood 

type after stands reach 120 years old. Thinning harvests can often improve tree vigor and reduce forest health 

risks. 

Designing treatments to establish tree seedlings (thereby improving forest sustainability) in areas where 

vegetation management is currently very limited is an option to lower this risk. Appropriate responses to forest 

health threats on lands not managed for timber production are addressed. 

Evaluation criteria 

• Acres thinned in decades one and two combined 

• Acres of northern hardwood and hemlock forest types at the midpoint of the second and sixth decades 

• Acres of Allegheny hardwood forest type ≥ 120 years old at the midpoint of the second and sixth decades 

Component 6: Acreage of forest land suitable for timber production 

The process to determine the area suitable for timber production has three main elements. The first is a need to 

identify lands permanently in a non-forest condition. The second is an analysis of physical conditions (e.g., rocky, 

wet, steep) that limit sustainable timber production or reliable tree seedling regeneration. The third involves land 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-12 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

use assignments made to forest areas that emphasize other resource uses that preclude regular scheduled timber 

harvest. 

Under the 1986 Forest Plan, limitations based on physical conditions were underestimated. The forest area taken 

out of production from oil and gas operations (well pads, pipeline clearings, and roads) since 1986 has also 

appreciably reduced the area remaining for production of timber. The limitations for physical site conditions and 

reforestation treatments will not vary by alternative, but has been updated from the 1986 Forest Plan through the 

use of improved technology and ecological mapping methods. 

The latitude to vary the level of forest land suitable for timber production is therefore dependent on the third 

element in the process where the allocation of management areas are assigned for uses other than timber 

resources. Under the 1986 Forest Plan, only congressionally-designated areas (i.e., wilderness areas) have been 

withdrawn. None of these areas have been reconsidered for timber production. Within the design of the 

alternatives considered, the land assigned as suitable for timber production is balanced with those uses best met 

without scheduled timber production. 

Evaluation criteria 

Total acres suitable for sustainable timber production 

Component 7: Forest products 

A number of commenters believe it is important to continue marketing the valuable forest products the ANF has 

been producing over the past 20 years of forest plan implementation. Some believe the ANF could do much more 

and did not achieve product estimates of the 1986 forest plan. Still others believe other amenity values should be 

emphasized more, with further reductions in forest products from levels achieved over the past 20 years. A sample 

of such comments shows the full spectrum of views: 

”Timber harvest levels are too low. Timber resources need to be utilized and protected now and for future 

generations.” 

“Use best science, information and data to determine [Allowable Sale Quantity] ASQ that is sustainable, given 

forest health issues.” 

“Local communities are too dependent upon timber receipts and need to find alternate ways of achieving 

economic stability.” 

“Recreation is adversely affected by timber management on the ANF. End logging on the ANF.” 

The ANF is unique in that it contains nearly 25 percent of the Nation’s total inventory of black cherry sawtimber, 

which is also in many cases, of better quality than that found on private lands in the region. Demand for 

hardwoods from the Allegheny Plateau region remains very high as evidenced by the value of hardwoods, which 

has increased dramatically since 1986. The average real price (i.e., inflation removed) for black cherry and total 

sawtimber from the ANF has increased more than 400% since 1986. Hardwood values have increased at a greater 

rate than that predicted in the 1986 Forest Plan. Although harvest estimates fell short of the current forest plan 

estimates, harvest values nearly matched those projected for the period. 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-13

The ANF uses the Spectrum model to determine the most cost-effective mix of silvicultural practices and 

management prescription allocations to achieve desired conditions for each alternative. Information from the 

Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability Report for 1995-2005 (USDA FS 1995) has been recognized in 

the harvest level determination. The identified timber volume (i.e., ASQ) and its associated value will vary as an 

outcome of the alternatives. Plan components related to forest products have been reviewed and adjusted based 

upon latest knowledge and approach to plan decisions. There are plan components addressing special forest 

products. 

Evaluation criteria 

Annual Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) for the first and second decades 

1.7.2 Habitat Diversity 

This issue involves maintaining the viability of native and desired non-native species found on the ANF. The 

focus of the habitat diversity issue centers on the composition and arrangement of ecological communities present 

on the landscape. What mix of desired conditions should be featured and what mix of activities and protections 

will produce the desired outcomes? Five major components for this issue address the following questions: 

• What combination of habitats and habitat elements are necessary to sustain the diversity of native and 

desired non-native species on the ANF? 

• What conservation measures are needed to conserve habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species and ensure species viability? 

• What guidelines and treatments are needed to effectively control non-native invasive species (NNIS)? 

• How can habitat for game species be enhanced, while providing hunting and fishing opportunities and 

managing populations in balance with the habitat? 

• Where, and how much area should be allocated to late structural forests while emphasizing habitat 

connectivity? 

Component 1: Habitat for native and non-native species 

Concern over the levels and types of treatments to improve habitat quality and how species will be affected by 

proposed treatments is at the heart of this issue. Some publics favor active management strategies using a host of 

prescribed treatments and other publics favor a hands-off approach allowing natural changes to operate. Of 

primary interest are treatments to promote early and late structural habitats. 

More than 300 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mollusks; more than 70 fish species; more 

than 1,200 plant species; and more than 1,000 insects are known or believed to occur on the ANF. These species 

use a variety of habitats and many use very specific habitat features. Updated information on species needs and a 

landscape analysis of habitat patterns has been completed. 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-14 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The forest types and structural stages described below form the community types associated with particular plant 

and wildlife species and were used to evaluate how alternatives provide habitat for these species. To abbreviate 

the lengthy process of addressing the habitat relationships of every species and potential impacts of forest 

management activities, a coarse filter approach was used. Five management indicator species (MIS) were selected 

to represent groups of species that utilize similar habitats and that respond to forest activities in a similar manner. 

Forest structure is a combination of the spatial distribution and arrangement of different tree sizes and nonforested areas across the landscape (horizontal structure), and within-stand presence or absence of vegetation 

layers from the ground to the forest canopy (vertical structure). 

With regard to horizontal structure, the ANF is presently comprised primarily of stands in mid-structural stages. 

There is disagreement over how horizontal structure should be managed in the revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Some participants in the revision process want more early structural stages, while others want 

to increase or retain more late structural stages. The ANF intends to track this diversity by classifying this 

continuum in the following major structural stages based on dominant canopy tree sizes: early structural stages 

(canopy trees 0-5” diameter), mid structural stages (canopy trees 6-20” diameter), late structural stages (canopy 

trees >21” diameter), and savannahs (areas of < 40 % canopy cover). Vertical diversity is also limited on the 

ANF, due to the even-aged nature of many stands and the lack of understory diversity due to past browsing by 

deer. 

The amount and spatial arrangement of early and late structural habitat varies by alternative. 

Evaluation criteria 

See evaluation criteria for habitat diversity components 4 and 5 below. These same measures would reflect how 

the alternatives provide different levels of habitat for native and non-native species. 

Component 2: Habitat for federally-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

Concern for maintaining habitat for rare plants and animals has been expressed in public comments. Some publics 

believe federal actions are harming potential population recovery, particularly the Indiana bat. 

Four Federally-listed threatened or endangered species (T&E) are known to occur on the ANF: bald eagle, 

Indiana bat, clubshell, and northern riffleshell. Two species of mussel, the sheepnose and the rayed bean, are 

listed as federal candidate species and are known to occur on the ANF. Habitat for two additional species, the 

small whorled pogonia and the northeastern bulrush, is present, but no populations have been found on the ANF. 

Seventy-eight species with viability concerns have been identified on the ANF. A fine-filter approach is used to 

analyze important habitat components and to identify potential impacts to each species. A species viability 

evaluation (SVE) has identified species with viability concerns and conservation practices needed in the forest 

plan to increase the likelihood that these species will persist on the ANF. 

All alternatives provide habitat for viable populations, but to varying degrees. 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-15

Evaluation criteria 

Species viability outcomes at the midpoint of the sixth decade 

Component 3: Non-native invasive species (NNIS) 

While many non-native species have proven to be beneficial, it has been clearly demonstrated (US OTA 1993) 

that other non-native, invasive plant/pest species have caused billions of dollars of damage to the nation’s 

agriculture, environment, and economy. 

New management direction has been added for a Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) control program. As a 

result, new standards or guidelines are included on the prevention and control of NNIS that address non-native 

invasive species of current concern while retaining flexibility to address new non-native species that may be 

identified in the future. Non-native invasive species management does not vary by alternative. 

Component 4: Habitat for game species 

The ANF has heard a clear interest from many organizations in maintaining and improving habitat for game 

species. Partners, such as the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Sand County Foundation, 

and the Kinzua Fish and Wildlife Association, have been major partners in helping the ANF meet wildlife and 

fish habitat goals. On the other hand some groups would rather de-emphasize direct habitat treatments and let 

nature take its course. Opinions differ about what forest ages will provide adequate forest habitat for wildlife, 

particularly species that require early and late structural forest. 

Historically high deer populations have impacted habitat for other wildlife species and increased the costs of 

habitat improvements. Sustaining quality oak habitat, riparian habitat, and quality early and late structural habitat 

are key ingredients for providing game habitat. Re-establishing oak seedlings to ensure that new oak forests will 

develop has been difficult and in most cases requires intense management (e.g., prescribed fire, fencing, reduction 

of low shade). Movement toward a sustainable deer population that is consistent with the ability of the forest to 

sustain plant and animal diversity has been difficult for some hunters to accept. 

Hunting and fishing play an important role in maintaining the diversity and health of the ANF. The Deer 

Management Assistance Program (DMAP) and other seasons that allow doe harvest are recent tools approved by 

the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) that are working to lower the deer population. Also, providing 

sufficient road access for hunting by opening some gates during the fall hunting season is one of the best available 

management tools. All alternatives will provide habitat to support quality hunting and fishing opportunities. 

Evaluation criteria 

• Percent of NF lands in three structural stages at the midpoint of the second and sixth decades 

o Early structural habitat (canopy trees 0-5") 

o Mid structural habitat (canopy trees 6-20") 

o Late structural habitat (canopy trees > 21") 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-16 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Percent of oak type managed by dominant silvicultural system 

o Even-aged 

o Uneven-aged 

o No active management

Component 5: Old growth/late structural forests and habitat connectivity across the 

landscape 

This issue centers on how much area should be allocated to old growth/late structural forest and how should it be 

spatially configured on the landscape. Some publics want no more than the current forest plan level and others 

want substantial increases with emphasis on connectivity, versus scattered isolated areas. The 1986 Forest Plan 

sets various goals by management area without direction for connectivity. 

One option to address connectivity was initiated in 1995 in an informal paper titled, “A Landscape Approach to 

Providing Late-Successional Forests and Associated Functions and Values on the Allegheny National Forest” 

(USDA FS 1995). Some projects began to implement this through designating suggested areas as old growth; 

however, the 1986 Forest Plan was not amended to contain this as a goal. 

This concept consists of two elements: core areas and connecting habitat. The core areas are large areas such as 

wilderness, national recreation areas, scenic areas and remote recreation areas (see MA 7.2, Chapter 2) that permit 

only natural vegetation disturbances thereby promoting late structural conditions to develop. The core areas would 

be linked by late structural or older forest habitat. The Species Viability Evaluation identified several benefits of 

using this configuration for species requiring closed canopy conditions. 

For more details on the goals, objectives and management direction to implement this concept see proposed new 

Management Area 2.2 (applies to linkages, not the core areas) in the LRMP. Briefly, lands within the landscape 

linkages would remain suitable for timber production but their management emphasizes the sustainability of late 

structural forests and habitat for species with viability concerns. Stand replacing events (e.g., blowdown) may 

have salvage activities and reforestation activities to assure future canopy development. Roads not needed for 

management would be decommissioned and new road construction would be limited. 

Remote habitats are areas where human disturbance is minimal. Species that are sensitive to human disturbance 

survive and reproduce better in these remote habitats. One method for identifying remote habitats across the 

landscape is to identify large areas without roads. 

The amount and configuration of old forest and late structural conditions varies by alternative. Some have more 

core areas, some feature retaining isolated areas designated by projects under the current plan, and the width and 

number of linear connectors under proposed MA 2.2 also varies by alternative. 

Evaluation criteria 

• Percent of NF lands managed for late structural habitat 

• Percent of interior and remote habitat remaining at the end of the sixth decade 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-17

o High quality remote habitat 

o Other remote habitat 

1.7.3 Recreation and Special Areas 

This issue involves determining the types and amount of recreation opportunities and special areas which will be 

provided on the ANF. Six components of this issue address the following questions: 

• To what extent can the ANF provide developed recreation opportunities and how should they be 

managed? 

• To what extent can dispersed recreation be addressed to improve non-motorized recreation opportunities 

and clarify direction for managing concentrated dispersed recreation use? 

• How should trails be managed for different uses (hiking, ATV/OHM, snowmobile, equestrian, and 

mountain biking) and in what areas should they be provided? 

• What areas determined potentially suitable for wilderness should be recommended as Wilderness Study 

Areas? 

• How should Wild and Scenic Rivers be treated? 

• What areas should be considered for other Special Area Management (Research Natural Areas, Scenic 

Areas, Historic Areas, Experimental Forests)? 

Component 1: Developed recreation 

Public comment included a desire to provide more developed recreation opportunities spread across the ANF and 

a motel restaurant complex on the reservoir. Some wanted to see more developments near trailheads in support of 

ATV/OHM and horse use. Overall, there is agreement for better recreation management and a greater diversity of 

recreation opportunities. 

The 1986 Forest Plan emphasizes opportunities for developed recreation along the Allegheny Reservoir area and 

along the Allegheny, Tionesta, and Clarion River corridors. Most of the developed recreation was provided along 

the Allegheny Reservoir where many large-scale recreation areas and campgrounds have been reconstructed and 

expanded with infrastructure investments completed over the last ten years. In the 1986 Forest Plan, MA 7.0 

emphasized direction for these large-scale, high-density recreation developments. There is concern for providing a 

new emphasis for recreation development that incorporates both large and small scale facilities. Developed 

recreation opportunities that emphasize large-scale developments continue in MA 7.0 (1986 Forest Plan) or MA 

7.1 (LRMP). Developed recreation is constant across alternatives so no evaluation criteria are listed. Adjustments 

to management direction for MA 7.1 with revised standards and guidelines are included. 

A listed goal for developed recreation in the 1986 Forest Plan was for promotion of private capital for 

construction and operation of a motel/resort complex adjacent to Kinzua Beach. This effort was put on hold in 

1989 and remains the most controversial element within the Developed Recreation component. To address 

concerns for possible motel/resort development along the Allegheny Reservoir, the LRMP contains an objective 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-18 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

for further planning for recreation and other uses in the area surrounding the Reservoir including the National 

Recreation Area. 

Developed recreation opportunities do not vary by alternative. 

Component 2: Dispersed recreation 

Many comments were received for this component. The ultimate mix of dispersed recreation offered and the 

predominance of one type of opportunity over another is at issue. The two primary factors to be addressed are 

improvement of non-motorized recreation opportunities and clarification for managing concentrated dispersed 

recreation use. Over the last 20 years there has been a reduction in the semi-primitive non-motorized recreation 

opportunities on the ANF due to increasing road densities (mainly from private oil and gas development). Also, 

there is no clear direction for managing concentrated dispersed use areas or for constructing ancillary facilities 

that support the use of these areas. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish what constitutes a dispersed site as 

opposed to a developed site. 

The need for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities are addressed by adding the new 

Management Area 7.2 (remote recreation areas), which is assigned to areas with existing lower density road 

systems and where disturbances from oil and gas development are not currently anticipated. Varying land 

allocations for wilderness and remote recreation areas respond to this element of the dispersed recreation issue. 

There are no management guidelines for dispersed concentrated use areas throughout the ANF in the 1986 Forest 

Plan. Many of the sites and trails where dispersed activities are occurring are showing characteristic recreation 

impacts such as soil compaction, erosion, vegetation trampling, littering, and human waste. Some dispersed sites 

have been improved to help address resource concerns by providing parking areas, toilets, picnic tables and fire 

rings. Once development occurred, there was no management direction for transitioning these areas to developed 

sites or for rehabilitation back to a natural condition. This is addressed by developing a plan objective for 

concentrated dispersed use areas. 

Evaluation criteria 

Area of land managed for non-motorized recreation 

Component 3: Trails 

The alternatives provide a varying amount and distribution of lands available for ATV/OHM and equestrian trail 

development and use. Dedicated areas are proposed for ATV/OHM and equestrian trail development in order to 

minimize resource impacts and user conflicts. Hiking and mountain biking do not vary by alternative, except as a 

result of different management area allocations. 

Motorized Trails 

There were many comments received in support of expanding motorized trail opportunities. Other comments 

wanted to limit motorized use due to environmental impacts and disturbance to wildlife. Other concerns with 

managing motorized trails include: how can the forest plan adequately address allocations or resource capability 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-19

in establishing outputs for ATV/OHM trail development and should motorized recreation vehicles such as 

snowmobiles and ATVs be combined with passenger vehicle traffic on the same roads? 

For motorized use of ATV/OHMs, new trail construction is limited to Intensive Use Areas (IUAs) as identified in 

the 1986 Forest Plan. The 1986 Forest Plan also has an objective for 350 miles of trail designation for ATV and 

OHM trails; however there are only 108 miles available. While there is a demand for more miles of ATV and/or 

OHM trails, there is also concern that additional trail mileage for ATV use cannot be achieved in the current 

Intensive Use Areas due to resource concerns for soils, wildlife and water quality. A combination of new and 

existing IUAs dedicated to ATV trail development varies by alternative. 

The 1986 Forest Plan allowed for development and designation of 350 miles of snowmobile trails. There are 

currently 366 miles of designated snowmobile trail in which a large portion, (approximately 287 miles), is 

assigned to roads that allow both snowmobiles and passenger vehicles simultaneously. There is concern for the 

safety of vehicle operators on these joint use roads. The 366 miles is considered adequate to meet the demand for 

snowmobile use on the Forest, especially given that the State also provides approximately 2,600 miles of 

snowmobile trail. There is concern that the snowmobile connector trails may not be adequate to meet public 

needs. Goals for providing snowmobile connectors are provided in the LRMP. These goals do not vary by 

alternative. 

Equestrian Use 

Equestrian use is a popular and growing activity on the ANF, however there are currently no designated trails for 

this use. Where the 1986 Forest Plan did not address open riding, it has occurred across the forest. Open riding is 

popular among equestrians, however; the ANF is concerned about long-term unmanaged equestrian use and 

potential resource impacts this use causes. Soil erosion and sedimentation concerns exist over unmanaged user 

developed impacts from open riding in some areas. Some users want development of designated trails and others 

prefer the existing open riding opportunities. Opportunities exist to address a variety of approaches for managing 

equestrian use. Borrowing from the ATV/OHM management approach of delineating IUAs, Equestrian Use Areas 

(EUAs) are proposed where equestrian use will be restricted to designated trails. The EUAs are proposed in areas 

where concentrated use and resource impacts are occurring. Open riding will be allowed on other parts of the 

forest as an interim. The EUAs along with a combination of riding opportunities vary by management area by 

alternative. 

Evaluation criteria 

• Area of land managed for ATV/OHM use (IUAs) 

• Area of land managed for equestrian use 

o Equestrian use areas (EUAs) 

o Areas for open riding 

o Restricted areas 

o Prohibited areas 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-20 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Component 4: Wilderness/roadless areas 

The ANF has two wilderness areas totaling nearly 9,000 acres. Some publics want additional areas recommended 

for designation and others believe current designations are adequate. Some publics also believe national direction 

for wilderness evaluation is too stringent and that criteria and proposals made by interest groups should be 

incorporated to promote areas of local interest. 

The ANF has completed its updated roadless inventory using current national and regional direction and identified 

three inventoried roadless areas that have been further evaluated for wilderness study (Tracy Ridge 9,033 acres, 

Minister Valley – 9,145 acres, and Chestnut Ridge – 5,063 acres) (see Appendix C). Additionally, the Forest 

Supervisor has added Allegheny Front (6,742 acres) to the alternatives for wilderness evaluation and 

consideration even though this area is not an inventoried roadless area. The allocation of the four areas as 

wilderness study areas varies among the alternatives. 

Evaluation criteria 

Acres recommended for congressionally-designated wilderness study 

Component 5: Wild and scenic rivers 

Some publics want additional rivers recommended for designation and others believe the current national 

designations on the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers are adequate. Some publics also expected the Clarion River 

Management Plan to be a part of forest plan revision. 

An assessment was completed to determine changed conditions or new information regarding eligibility status for 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (see Appendix D). This assessment determined there were no new eligible rivers on the 

ANF and that Kinzua Creek, determined eligible in the 1982 Nationwide Rivers Inventory, is no longer eligible. 

New management standards and guidelines to protect current designations for the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers 

are proposed in Management Area 8.1 and do not vary by alternative. Work on the Clarion River Management 

Plan will be done under a future amendment to the forest plan. 

Component 6: Other special areas 

Several groups have submitted proposals for additional special area designations (in addition to potential 

wilderness or WSR mentioned above); others believe current designations (listed below) are adequate. Many 

people view special area designations as a way to conserve and protect areas from development, timber harvest 

and road construction, while others see special area designations as a threat to development opportunities and 

economic growth. 

The 1986 Forest Plan contains the Allegheny National Recreation Area, Tionesta Research Natural Area, Kane 

Experimental Forest, and Hearts Content and Tionesta Scenic Areas. The ANF also contains portions of the North 

Country National Scenic Trail and the Longhouse Scenic Byway. The Buckaloons area is identified as a Historic 

District. The LRMP considers an expansion of Kane Experimental Forest and management of Buckaloons as a 

special interest area. 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-21

1.8 Other Areas of Concern 

These include secondary issues that contain some important changes from the 1986 Forest Plan. These elements 

received additional analysis under Alternatives B through D. However; other than under Alternative A, there is a 

very limited difference from one alternative to the next. Proposed changes in the following categories make 

qualitative improvements over the 1986 Forest Plan. No specific evaluation criteria are identified. 

1.8.1 Riparian Management 

Activities that occur in riparian areas can directly or indirectly affect water quality and riparian-dependant species. 

Generally, the public agrees on the need to protect water quality. However, some publics have concerns that new 

riparian corridors and standards and guidelines for riparian area protection reduce the ASQ. The other concern in 

riparian areas is the need to manage some riparian areas for long-term maintenance of canopy closure to regulate 

stream temperature and development of large-diameter trees for restoration of stream habitat diversity. Direction 

for riparian areas is provided through the design criteria section of the LRMP. 

1.8.2 Soil Quality 

Long term effects from acid deposition on soil productivity and nutrient status are concerns. Soil disturbance and 

compaction from motorized equipment and dispersed recreation uses are concerns. Updated standards and 

guidelines address soil erosion, compaction, and productivity. Additionally desired condition, goal and/or 

objective statements are added to provide direction concerning soil quality. 

1.8.3 Scenery Management 

Incorporation of new national scenery management guidelines integrates benefits, desires, and preferences for 

aesthetics and scenery with other resource needs. The updated scenery management system replaces the current 

visual management system as a scenery planning tool. Mapping and defining of new scenic integrity levels 

provides direction to achieve desired scenic conditions across the ANF. 

1.8.4 Transportation Systems 

Concerns were raised on how to plan for and manage road systems on the ANF. This includes road construction, 

reconstruction, maintenance, and management. Some people want more access and others want existing roads 

closed and revegetated. Complicating the management of the National Forest System Roads are roughly 1,200 

miles of private oil and gas roads resulting in very high road densities in some areas. 

The forest plan includes direction on road management for the System Roads and differentiates whether roads 

will be open, seasonally restricted or closed to the public by management area. The desired mix of forest roads 

was set at 20 percent open, 20 percent restricted, and 60 percent closed in the 1986 Forest Plan. The LRMP 

identifies a road system managed for one third each in open, restricted, and closed roads as part of the forestwide 

desired condition. More roads than anticipated in the 1986 Forest Plan have been managed as open or seasonally 

open to provide public access, particularly during hunting season. Much of the new construction envisioned in the 

1986 Forest Plan, which would have been managed as closed, has not occurred. Whether roads are open or closed 
Chapter 1. Purpose, Need, and Public Involvement

1-22 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

needs to be addressed in concert with access to private ownership lands and ANF resource protection objectives. 

Access to private lands has been identified as important to landowners. 

1.8.5 Monitoring 

The convergence of new policy direction, new science, and new public policy expectations are the basis for 

improvements to the monitoring program in the LRMP. With acknowledgement of limited budgets, cost effective 

monitoring protocols will be identified in the monitoring implementation guide after the revised Plan is 

completed. Numerous developments have occurred in the agency’s commitment to ecosystem management and 

adaptive management since 1986. Ecosystem management is defined as an ecological approach to natural 

resource management to assure productive, healthy ecosystems by blending social, economic, and environmental 

values. Adaptive management is defined as a type of natural resource management that reflects decision making 

as an ongoing process. Both concepts rely on monitoring practices to provide the information needed to evaluate 

progress toward sustainability and to change course in a timely way when that progress is less than satisfactory. 

1.8.6 Management Areas 

The 1986 Forest Plan outlined 11 different types of management areas that primarily relate to timber outputs and 

vegetation management, recreation, special areas, wilderness and areas that emphasize managing habitats for 

wildlife. Each management area has a defined purpose, desired condition, prescriptions and standards and 

guidelines. Conflicting management goals have been identified in MA 6.2 and 9.1. Other management area 

boundaries were refined based on changed conditions. New subcategories in MAs 2.0, 5.0, 7.0, and 8.0 were 

established with new desired future conditions, or previously intended desired conditions that were not being 

accurately tracked or achieved under the 1986 Forest Plan. 

1.8.7 Social and Economic Contributions 

The ability of the ANF to contribute to local economies generally centers on the levels of timber, oil and gas, 

recreation and tourism. These areas have long been key elements in supporting the local economy and tourism is 

widely viewed as having a greater potential to make an increased contribution. The FEIS analyzes the nature of 

this contribution by alternative. 

1.8.8 Oil and Gas Management 

Ninety-three percent of the subsurface mineral rights on the ANF are privately held. In development of subsurface 

rights, owners need to cooperate with the ANF to protect surface resources. There is already substantial 

infrastructure associated with the development of these rights and further development is expected. The ANF 

works with the operators and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to identify and 

correct problems. 

The FEIS addresses the impacts associated with oil and gas related to specific resource areas. Management Areas 

have boundaries refined for areas already extensively developed by oil and gas activity. The LRMP includes goals 

and objectives for acquisition of subsurface rights. 
Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-1

2 ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Introduction to the Alternatives 

This chapter describes and compares the four management alternatives considered for the land and resource 

management plan (LRMP) for the ANF. Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, continues the policies and 

management area (MA) allocations of the 1986 Forest Plan, with some technical adjustments to keep information 

current and in line with new science. Alternatives B, Cm, and D modify elements of the 1986 Forest Plan in 

response to identified issues and comments received on the DEIS. 

These alternatives provide a framework for analyzing different ways of meeting the purpose and need of the 

LRMP and for addressing the issues discussed in Chapter 1. These alternatives show a range of options for 

guiding natural resources management activities on the ANF. Activities are described in terms of the average 

Based on comments on the DEIS, the following changes have been made to Chapter 2: 

Developing Alternatives – A summary of changes made to all the alternatives between DEIS 

and the FEIS is listed. A new Alternative Cm was developed in response to comments on the 

DEIS. It has replaced Alternative C in the DEIS. 

Elements Common to Alternatives – Some corrections to technical information, forest health, 

and oil and gas development are listed and explained here. 

Description of Alternatives – Alternative Cm is described in section 2.4.3. 

Description of the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study – Additional 

detail has been added in response to comments on the DEIS. 

A Comparison of Alternatives – New activity and outcomes numbers were generated for each 

alternative. Tabular display of ecosystem or other conditions on the land now shows the expected 

conditions likely to be present at the midpoint of the first, second or sixth decades. These may be 

referred to as years 2010, 2020 or 2060 in some parts of Chapter II and Chapter III. Display of 

projected amounts of management activities are generally displayed as the annual average 

amount expected to occur in the first or second decade of the plan. Some conditions or resources 

may be described differently. 

The following activities were added to Table 2-2: 

1. Shelterwood seed cut 

2. Pre-commercial thinning 

3. Motorized and non-motorized trail construction 

4. Dispersed site enhancement in concentrated use areas (CUAs) 

5. Construction and reconstruction of developed facilities 

6. Wilderness areas managed to standard 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

annual amount expected to occur by decade or decadal totals. When conditions on the ground are described, they 

are usually described for the midpoints of the decade. The midpoint of the first decade may be refered to as 2010, 

the midpoint of the second decade as 2020, and the midpoint of the sixth decade as 2060 to reference these 

conditions. The alternatives express different desired conditions primarily through different management area 

allocations. The key purpose of the document is to describe in detail the consequences of implementing any one 

of the identified alternatives. 

2.2 Developing Alternatives 

The alternatives include different options to resolve issues and to fulfill the purpose and need discussed in Chapter 

1. The public, other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as Forest Service employees, contributed to the 

identification of three “significant” issues that are addressed with alternatives in the FEIS. Following an 

interdisciplinary approach, the Forest Service used the three significant issues as the primary basis on which to 

focus development of four alternatives that are carried forward for detailed analysis in the FEIS. While all four 

alternatives provide a wide range of multiple uses, goods, and services; each addresses the issues in different 

ways. See section 2.6.3 for a display of evaluation criteria. 

2.2.1 Alternatives Developed and Analyzed in the DEIS 

Public participation through collaborative planning workshops held from 2003 into the summer of 2005 helped 

focus the issues and scope for alternative development. Following these meetings, Forest Service staff finalized 

four alternatives in response to the issues and need for change. 

The DEIS included a “No-Action” alternative (Alternative A) that continued the policies of the 1986 Forest Plan 

and three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) that modified elements of the current plan in response to 

the identified issues. All four alternatives were analyzed with an assumption of full funding and implementation. 

2.2.2 Changes to Alternatives between DEIS and FEIS 

Comments received on the DEIS led to a number of changes to the alternatives between the DEIS and the FEIS. 

All alternatives include the following technical changes: 

1. There is a net increase in lands tentatively suitable for timber production due to a correction in the acreage 

withdrawn for roads of 20,140 acres. 

2. Conversion of surface lands to oil pads and roads for oil and gas development was built into the analysis 

(6,660 acres in each of the first four decades). 

3. Final harvest of overstories for existing shelterwood stands are scheduled in the first decade except in 

oaks stands that have already received a shelterwood cut. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-3

As a result of the changes listed above, model results and timber schedules have changed. In the FEIS, activities 

and outcomes are displayed by decade rather than by planning period. See Table 2-2 for revised activity numbers 

under all alternatives. Additional technical changes made to model assumptions are described in Appendix B. 

MA 5.0 (Wilderness) has been subdivided into two management areas, MA 5.1 for existing wilderness and MA 

5.2 for wilderness study areas under all four alternatives. 

Alternative C in the DEIS was modified based on public comments and is presented as Cm in the FEIS. Changes 

to Alternative C include: 

1. A net decrease in wilderness study areas (MA 5.2) of 1,717 acres. The Tracey Ridge area (9,033 acres) is 

now in MA 8.2 (National Recreation Area) and 7,316 acres of the Minister Valley area (east of FR420) is 

now in MA 5.2. 

2. A net decrease of 11,954 acres in Remote Recreation Areas (MA 7.2), based primarily on the 

reclassification of most of the Minister Valley area as wilderness study area, but also including 

reclassification of the remaining 1,829 acres of the Minster Valley area as MA 3.0 and reclassification of 

the Morrison Area as Landscape Corridor (MA2.2). Morrison Valley is no longer considered suitable for 

remote recreation area due to recent increases in oil and gas development. 

3. A net decrease of 14,196 acres in IUA. The proposed Longhouse IUA has been dropped from this 

alternative. 

4. A net decrease of 2,269 acres in late structural linkages (MA 2.2) due to: 

a. Several locations with oak stands were shifted to MA 3.0 for even-aged management. 

b. Owls Nest Area MA 1.0 enlarged to reflect current size. It had been reduced in acreage on the east 

with 1,722 acres having been allocated to MA 2.2. 

c. Morrison Area changed from MA 7.2 to MA 2.2 as shown above. 

d. Several locations were added to MA 2.2 from MA 3.0 to provide further protections for the timber 

rattlesnake. 

5. A net increase of 1,848 acres in Late Structural Habitat (MA 6.1) including several visible hillsides along 

the Allegheny River, previously included in MA 3.0. 

6. A net increase of 3,390 acres in MA 3.0 through part of Minister Valley and the addition of certain oak 

stands previously classified as MA 2.2. 

A number of standards and guidelines in the LRMP have been changed to reflect new knowledge and comments 

received. In particular: 

1. One management indicator species (MIS) representing early structural habitat has been added (the 

mourning warbler). 

2. The Allegheny River riparian corridor was increased from 100 to 300 feet. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3. Heavy equipment direction has been added for riparian corridors and wetland management zones 

4. Wetlands now have a zone of limited activity of 100 feet and vernal pools have a zone of limited activity 

of 200 feet 

5. Direction has been added for management of surface runoff 

6. Directions for oil and gas development has been amended as follows: 

a. Goals and objectives have been modified with several new additions relating to OGM management 

b. Acquisition of private mineral rights is one of the new objectives 

c. Standards and guidelines have been improved 

d. Direction on USA minerals has been added with stipulations for limited surface occupancy and no 

surface occupancy 

e. Several questions related to OGM have been added to the monitoring plan 

Changes in standards and guidelines increased the proportion of land deferred from scheduled timber harvest from 

10 to 15 percent in alternatives B, Cm and D. 

2.3 Elements Common to Alternatives 

The four alternatives included for detailed analysis in the FEIS have a number of common elements. 

2.3.1 Laws and Regulations 

All alternatives were designed to comply with applicable laws and regulations that govern the FS and the 

management of National Forests. Generally, these laws and regulations are not repeated in the text of this FEIS or 

in the LRMP. 

This LRMP is being developed under the 1982 Forest Planning Rule, as described in Section 1.5. 

2.3.2 Technical Information 

Each alternative is evaluated with the same set of technical assumptions and data. In developing calculations of 

acres in different ecological conditions, available for certain uses, or production of different resources, the same 

sets of criteria are used for all alternatives. This is particularly important in considering Alternative A. Although 

management direction in the 1986 Forest Plan was based on technical information, some of this information is 

modified under this FEIS to be consistent with current knowledge. For example, Alternative A is considered with 

updated information on forest health concerns, lands that are suitable for timber production, methods to develop 

late-structural conditions, and calculations of ASQ. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-5

2.3.3 Deer Management 

All alternatives would have an objective of deer densities on the ANF ranging between 10-20 deer per square mile 

to restore and maintain a diverse understory habitat condition. The ANF will work with the Pennsylvania Game 

Commission and use its opportunities under the DMAP program to achieve this deer population objective. 

2.3.4 Trail Management 

With the exception of opportunities for all-terrain vehicles (ATV), off-highway motorcycles (OHM), and 

equestrian use, trail opportunities for other uses (e.g. bicycle, cross-country skiing, and hiking) do not vary by 

alternative except as a result of management area allocation. 

2.3.5 Forest Health 

Standards and guidelines relative to forest health activities incorporate strategies for dealing with introduced 

insects and diseases. Activities to support a healthy forest include reforestation practices and treatments to restore 

vegetative understories and to control the spread of invasive species and integrated pest management (IPM) 

activities to detect and reduce insect outbreaks, disease, and defoliation. 

2.3.6 Oil and Gas Development 

Approximately 93 percent of the ANF subsurface mineral rights are owned by private parties. Oil and gas drilling 

may occur on any part of the forest where subsurface rights are owned by private parties. Table 3-1 displays ANF 

mineral ownership and status. Of the federally-owned minerals roughly 20 percent are available for development 

through leasing. Presently, areas of Federal minerals that are withdrawn or not available for leasing are the 

Allegheny Islands and Hickory Creek Wilderness, Tionesta Research Natural Area (limited to any additional 

development only), Hearts Content Scenic Area, and the area beneath the Allegheny Reservoir. 

The ANF will cooperate in the development of these subsurface rights consistent with maintaining appropriate 

conservation of ANF surface resources. Alternatives B, Cm, and D will use objectives and design criteria 

contained in the LRMP to conserve ANF surface resources. An objective has been added in the LRMP to acquire 

private mineral rights in the following MAs: 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6. Upon acquisition, these 

areas (except 7.2 and 8.6) would be withdrawn or not available for leasing. MAs 7.2 and 8.6 would not allow 

surface occupancy for the development of Federal minerals.

2.3.7 Special Designations 

All of the areas with special (national) designations under the 1986 Forest Plan continue to be protected under all 

alternatives. As a result, all of the following specially designated areas are present in all alternatives: 

1. Hickory Creek Wilderness and Allegheny Islands Wilderness (MA 5.1) 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

2. Wild and Scenic River segments of the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers. (Note that Alternative A 

recognizes the scenic and recreational river segments of the current plan as an overlay to protect the 

outstandingly remarkable values of these rivers. The other alternatives manage these river segments under 

a new management area (MA 8.1) 

3. Allegheny National Recreation Area (MA 8.2). (Note that Alternative D shows different amounts of MA 

8.2 acreage as land within the NRA is allocated to wilderness study areas) 

4. Tionesta and Hearts Content Scenic Areas and National Landmarks (MA 8.3) 

5. Buckaloons Historic District (MA 8.4) is not proposed as a special designation in Alternative A, but is in 

all other alternatives. 

6. Tionesta Research Natural Area (MA 8.5) 

7. Kane Experimental Forest (MA 8.6) (Note that the acreage of the experimental forest is proposed for 

expansion in all alternatives except Alternative A) 

8. North Country National Scenic Trail 

Additions to these special designations are described in the appropriate alternatives. 

2.4 Description of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action and No 

Action 

This discussion highlights design features related to key elements of the three issues described in Chapter 1. At 

the end of this chapter, tables are provided to show management area allocations by alternative (Table 2−1), 

management activities associated with each alternative (Table 2−2), and a summary of the key evaluation criteria 

used to compare the alternatives (Table 2−3). 

2.4.1 Alternative A: Continuation of the 1986 Forest Plan 

Alternative A is a continuation of the management direction contained in 1986 Forest Plan. This constitutes the 

“No-Action” Alternative for this FEIS. While this alternative continues the management direction of the 1986 

Forest Plan, the evaluation of activities, outputs, and environmental effects uses the same technical assumptions 

as other alternatives, except for the retention of conifer stand overstories in Alternative Cm (see Appendix B for a 

description of technical assumptions). In this way, Alternative A serves as a baseline for evaluating the effects of 

continuing the current management of the ANF. Alternatives B, Cm, and D use the management direction in the 

LRMP. Alternative A responds to the issues identified in Chapter 1 in the following ways: 

Vegetation management 

The desired condition for vegetation is a mix of predominately younger (0-20 years) and intermediate (21-140 

years) forest with an emphasis on retention and regeneration of Allegheny hardwood and oak forest types. The 

desired condition is accomplished primarily through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. Older forests 

(>141 years) are provided in disconnected patches across the ANF in MA 6.1, MA 3.0 (where 5 percent of the 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-7

land area is dedicated to the retention of old forest), and areas without a scheduled timber harvest (primarily MAs 

5.1 and 8.2. 

Scheduling of regeneration harvests emphasizes optimal rotations for productivity for each forest type in MA 3.0. 

Harvest in early decades is primarily from Allegheny hardwood, upland hardwood, and oak forest types. Longer 

rotations are provided in MA 6.1, 6.2, and older forest areas of MA 3.0. Shorter rotations to emphasize younger 

forest conditions are provided in MA 1.0. MA 2.1 (2.0 in the 1986 Forest Plan) emphasizes uneven-aged 

management in three small areas of the forest. 

Updated human health and wildlife and aquatic species risk assessments have been completed for herbicide 

application (Appendix G-1 and G-2, respectively). Glyphosate and/or sulfometuron methyl will continue to be 

used to help control primarily fern, grass, striped maple, and beech brush using current water protection buffers of 

25 to 75 feet. 

Habitat diversity 

The desired condition is greater habitat diversity through increased provision of early structural (dominant stand 

layer is less than 5 inches in diameter) and late structural (dominant stand layer is greater than 20 inches) forest 

conditions. Early structural and mid structural (dominant stand layers are between 5 and 20 inches in diameter) 

conditions are provided in MA 1.0 and MA 3.0. Late structural conditions are provided in MA 6.1, MA 3.0 (in the 

5 percent dedicated to retention of old forest), portions of MA 2.1 (mid to late structural), and other management 

areas with special designations where no scheduled timber harvest is proposed. This emphasizes a dispersed 

approach to the location of both early and late structural conditions, although there are concentrations of latestructural habitat (MA 6.1 and MAs 8.1-8.6). 

Standards and guidelines in the 1986 Forest Plan as amended provide for the conservation of habitat for 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, as well as for game and non-game species. 

Riparian and aquatic species and habitats are conserved through standards and guidelines. Riparian values are the 

primary objective of forest management projects in riparian areas. Vegetation in these areas will be managed to 

restore structural and compositional diversity consistent with maintaining riparian values. 

Recreation and special areas 

MAs 6.1 and 6.2 are intended to provide for some remote non-motorized recreation opportunities. MA 6.2 is 

configured in four units that emphasize one substantial harvest entry every 40 years followed by a closure of 

roads to provide opportunities for semi-primitive recreation. Other remote non-motorized recreation opportunities 

are provided in areas with existing special designations (e.g. wilderness, national recreation area and scenic 

areas). 

Motorized recreation (ATV/OHM) is allowed in five Intensive Use Areas (IUAs) that overlay other management 

areas. Within these areas ATV/OHM use is restricted to trails established for this use. Recreational ATV/OHM 

use is not allowed anywhere else on the ANF. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Equestrian trail construction is considered appropriate in MAs 2.1, 3.0, 6.1, 6.2, 8.1, and 7.1. No restrictions or 

prohibitions are applied to any management area where cross-country riding occurs. 

Developed recreation with considerable capital facilities is provided for in MA 7.1 (7.0 in the 1986 Forest Plan) 

but other opportunities for developed recreation exist in other management areas as well. The plan contains a goal 

for the development of a lodge-restaurant complex at Kinzua Beach on the Allegheny Reservoir. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers of the forest are managed as an overlay with other management areas. The plan 

direction requires retention of the outstandingly remarkable values of the rivers with this direction. 

2.4.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B is designed to respond to the issues identified in Chapter 1 in the following ways: 

Vegetation management 

The desired condition for vegetation is a mix of predominately younger (0-20 years) and intermediate (21-140 

years) forest with an emphasis on retention and regeneration of Allegheny hardwood and oak forest types. The 

desired condition is accomplished primarily through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. MA 2.2 is 

managed to provide for large patches of older forest and link them in a connected pattern across the landscape. 

Areas without scheduled timber harvests (primarily MAs 5.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 8.2) also provide core areas that 

contribute to this connected landscape pattern. 

Scheduling of regeneration harvests emphasizes optimal rotations for productivity for each forest type in MA 3.0. 

Harvest in early decades is primarily from Allegheny hardwood, upland hardwood, and oak forest types. Longer 

rotations are provided in MA 6.1. Shorter rotations to emphasize younger forest conditions are provided in MA 

1.0. MA 2.2 uses limited harvest activity to maintain continuous forest canopies by even-aged management for 

oak, conifer, and aspen forest types and uneven-aged management or two-aged management for all other forest 

types. Other parts of MA 2.2 would not have active vegetation management. 

Updated human health and wildlife and aquatic species risk assessments have been completed for herbicide 

application (Appendix G-1 and G-2, respectively). Glyphosate and/or sulfometuron methyl will continue to be 

used to help control primarily fern, grass, striped maple, and beech brush using updated LRMP design criteria, 

including water protection buffers of 25 and 10 feet for mechanical application, and new 10-foot water protection 

buffers for backpack foliar and cut-stem treatments. 

Habitat diversity 

The desired condition is greater habitat diversity through increased provision of early structural (dominant stand 

layer is less than 5 inches in diameter) and late structural (dominant stand layer is greater than 20 inches) forest 

conditions. This alternative provides for the greatest level of early structural conditions. These are primarily 

provided by the emphasis on early structural conditions in MA 1.0 and MA 3.0. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-9

Habitat needs for species that use late structural habitat are provided by the spatially contiguous MA 2.2. This 

emphasizes a connected pattern of late structural conditions across the landscape. MA 2.2, in conjunction with the 

core areas (specially designated areas and MA 7.2), is also designed to provide remote forest conditions for 

species that need minimal human disturbance. Previously identified areas of older forest of high ecological value 

in MA 3.0 are also retained. Standards and guidelines in the LRMP provide for the conservation of habitat for 

threatened and endangered species and for species with viability concerns. 

Riparian and aquatic species and habitats are conserved through standards and guidelines. Riparian values are the 

primary objectives of forest management projects in riparian areas. Vegetation in these areas will be managed to 

restore structural and compositional diversity consistent with maintaining riparian values. Special riparian areas 

(e.g. Wilderness Trout Streams, Class A Trout Streams and Remote Trout Streams) are further protected with 

additional direction to conserve their values. Special management direction will also be applied to portions of the 

ANF that drain directly into the Allegheny River (13% Area). 

Recreation and special areas 

The Clarion River area is managed as a remote recreation area (MA 7.2) providing additional opportunities for 

remote non-motorized recreation. Part of the Minister Valley area is managed for higher levels of non-motorized 

dispersed recreation with an emphasis on interpretive opportunities (MA 7.3). Other remote non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are provided in areas with existing special designations (e.g. wilderness, national 

recreation area, scenic areas). 

Increased opportunities for motorized recreation (ATV/OHM) are provided in five Intensive Use Areas (IUAs) 

that overlay other management areas. One of these areas (the Longhouse Area east of the Southern part of the 

Allegheny Reservoir) would be a new IUA replacing the Westline IUA area in the 1986 Forest Plan. Within these 

areas, ATV/OHM use is restricted to trails established for their use. Recreational ATV/OHM use is not allowed 

anywhere else on the ANF. 

Four equestrian use areas (EUAs) are established to prevent resource damage from existing commercial and 

heavy recreational use in limited areas. In EUAs, equestrian use will be restricted to designated trails. Outside of 

EUAs, cross-country riding may occur in all management areas except MAs 5.1, 5.2, 6.3, 7.2, and 7.3, where 

riding may occur on designated trails only to protect resources. Within MAs 8.3, 8.5, and 8.6, all riding is 

prohibited. 

Developed recreation areas with considerable facilities (development levels 4 and 5) are included in MA 7.1. 

Other opportunities for developed recreation (of a lesser development level) exist in other management areas as 

well. The LRMP contains an objective for the completion of a management plan for the land surrounding the 

Allegheny Reservoir including all of the National Recreation Area around the reservoir. This management plan 

will identify locations for different types of recreational opportunities and developments including locations of 

possible lodging or restaurant facilities. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers of the forest are managed with a separate management area (MA 8.1) that focuses 

management within the Recreation and Scenic River segments on the conservation of their Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Kane Experimental Forest (KEF) is expanded to provide increased research opportunities to recognize the 

different types of forest conditions and forest management issues found on the ANF and the eastern United States. 

Buckaloons is recommended for designation as a historical area as part of the National Forest system of special 

interest areas. 

2.4.3 Alternative C (modified) (Cm) 

Alternative Cm replaces Alternative C from the DEIS. It is designed to respond to the issues in Chapter 1 and 

comments received on the DEIS. 

Vegetation management 

The desired condition for vegetation in this alternative is a mix of younger (0-20 years), intermediate (21-140 

years), and older (>141 years) forest conditions that emphasizes retention and regeneration of all forest types on 

the ANF. Younger and intermediate forest conditions are accomplished through even-aged management in MAs 

1.0 and 3.0. Older forests are provided in larger areas without scheduled timber harvest (primarily in MAs 5.1, 

5.2, 7.2, and 8.2) that are linked with other large patches of older forest in MA 2.2. Older forest is also provided in 

MA 6.1. 

Scheduling of harvest regeneration emphasizes optimal rotations for productivity for each forest type in MA 3.0. 

Harvest in early decades includes all forest types although harvest of Allegheny hardwood types is the largest 

share. Alternative Cm provides for an increase in the amount of thinning as compared to Alternative C in the 

DEIS. Longer rotations are provided in MA 6.1. Shorter rotations to emphasize habitat for species that use 

younger forest conditions are provided in MA 1.0. MA 2.2 uses limited harvest activity to maintain continuous 

forest canopies by even-aged management for oak, conifer and aspen forest types and uneven-aged management 

or two-aged management for all other forest types. Other parts of MA 2.2 would not have active vegetation 

management. 

Updated human health and wildlife and aquatic species risk assessments have been completed for herbicide 

application (Appendix G-1 and G-2, respectively). Glyphosate and/or sulfometuron methyl will continue to be 

used to help control primarily fern, grass, striped maple, and beech brush using updated LRMP design criteria, 

including water protection buffers of 25 and 10 feet for mechanical application, and new 10-foot water protection 

buffers for backpack foliar and cut-stem treatments. 

Habitat diversity 

The desired condition is greater habitat diversity through increased provision of early structural (dominant stand 

layer is less than 5 inches in diameter) and late structural (dominant stand layer is greater than 20 inches in 

diameter) forest conditions. In this alternative, early structural and mid structural (dominant stand layers are 

between 6 and 20 inches in diameter) conditions are emphasized in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. Late structural conditions 

are provided by the spatially-contiguous MA 2.2, MA 2.1 (mid to late structural), MA 6.1, and speciallydesignated management areas, MAs 5.1 and 5.2. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-11

MA 2.2, in conjunction with the core areas (specially designated areas and MA 7.2), is also designed to provide 

remote forest conditions for species that need minimal human disturbance. MA 2.2 is both larger and more 

connected in this alternative than Alternative B to provide a more contiguous forest canopy and increased 

resiliency to natural disturbance events. Greater retention of late structural conditions in MAs 3.0 and 6.1, and in 

wilderness and remote recreation areas also provides older forest habitat. Previously identified areas of older 

forest of high ecological value in MA 3.0 are also retained. Standards and guidelines in the LRMP provide for the 

conservation of habitat for threatened and endangered species and for species with viability concerns. 

Riparian and aquatic species and habitats are conserved through standards and guidelines. Riparian values are the 

primary objectives of forest management projects in riparian areas. Vegetation in these areas will be managed to 

restore structural and compositional diversity consistent with maintaining riparian values. Special riparian areas 

(e.g. Wilderness Trout Streams, Class A Trout Streams and Remote Trout Streams) are further protected with 

additional direction to conserve their values. Special management direction will also be applied to portions of the 

ANF that drain directly into the Allegheny River (13% Area). 

Recreation and special areas 

Clarion River, Hearts Content and East Fork Hickory Creek areas are managed as Remote Recreation Areas (MA 

7.2) to provide additional opportunities for remote non-motorized recreation. Other remote non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are provided in areas with existing special designations and in areas proposed for 

wilderness study. 

Opportunities for motorized recreation (ATV/OHM) are provided in the four IUAs that overlay other 

management areas. These four areas are smaller versions of the same areas in Alternative B without the 

Longhouse area. ATV/OHM use is restricted to trails established for their use within the IUAs. Recreational 

ATV/OHM use is not allowed anywhere else on the ANF. 

Four equestrian use areas (EUAs) are established to prevent resource damage from existing commercial and 

heavy recreational use in limited areas. In EUAs, equestrian use will be restricted to designated trails. Outside of 

EUAs, cross-country riding may occur in all management areas except MAs 5.1, 5.2, 6.3, 7.2, and 7.3, where 

riding may occur on designated trails only to protect resources. Within MAs 8.3, 8.5, and 8.6, all riding is 

prohibited. This alternative differs from Alternative B in terms of allocations for restricted, prohibited, and crosscountry riding according to variations in management area allocations. 

Developed recreation areas with considerable facilities (development levels 4 and 5) are identified with MA 7.1. 

Other opportunities for developed recreation (of a lesser development level) exist in other management areas as 

well. The LRMP contains an objective for the completion of a management plan for the land surrounding the 

Allegheny Reservoir including all of the National Recreation Area around the reservoir. This management plan 

will identify locations for different types of recreational opportunities and developments including locations of 

possible lodging or restaurant facilities. 

Minister Valley (7,316 acres east of FR420) and Chestnut Ridge are managed as wilderness study areas (MA 5.2). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-12 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Wild and Scenic River corridors of the ANF are managed with a separate MA (MA 8.1) that focuses 

management within the recreation and scenic river segments on the conservation of their outstandingly 

remarkable values. 

The KEF is expanded to provide increased research opportunities to recognize the different types of forest 

conditions and forest management issues found on the ANF and the eastern United States. Buckaloons is 

recommended for designation as a historical area as part of the National Forest system of special interest areas. 

2.4.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D is designed to respond to the issues identified in Chapter 1 in the following ways: 

Vegetation management 

The desired condition for vegetation in this alternative is a mix of predominantly intermediate (21-141 years) and 

older (>141 years) forest conditions in primarily upland and northern hardwood forest types. Younger (0-20 

years) forests are provided through even-aged management primarily in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. Older forests are 

provided in larger areas without scheduled timber harvest (primarily in MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, and 8.2) that are linked 

with other large patches of older forest in MA 2.2. Older forest is also provided in MA 6.1. Intermediate forest is 

provided through even-aged management in MA 3.0 and with uneven-aged management in MA 2.1. 

Timber harvest scheduling emphasizes repeated harvest entries in MA 2.1. This uneven-aged management strives 

to retain continuous forest canopies while providing for regeneration of largely northern and upland forest types. 

MA 2.2 uses limited harvest activity to maintain continuous forest canopies by even-aged management for oak, 

conifer and aspen forest types and uneven-aged management or two-aged management for all other forest types. 

Other parts of MA 2.2 would not have active vegetation management. Based upon estimates of the proportion of 

younger forest conditions present in pre-settlement conditions, even-aged harvests are scheduled in MAs 1.0, 3.0, 

6.1 and in oak types of MA 2.2. 

Updated human health and wildlife and aquatic species risk assessments have been completed (Appendix G-1 and 

G-2, respectively). Glyphosate and/or sulfometuron methyl will continue to be used to help control primarily fern, 

grass, striped maple, and beech brush using updated LRMP design criteria, including water protection buffers of 

25 and 10 feet for mechanical application, and new 10-foot water protection buffers for backpack foliar and cutstem treatments. 

Habitat diversity 

The desired condition is greater habitat diversity through increased provision of late structural (dominant stand 

layer is greater than 20 inches in diameter) forest conditions. Early structural (dominant stand layer is less than 5 

inches in diameter) and mid structural (dominant stand layers are between 5 and 20 inches in diameter) are 

provided in MA 1.0 and MA 3.0. This alternative places an emphasis on late structural habitat and continuous 

forest cover in MA 2.1 and MA 2.2, and would provide for the largest amount of late structural habitat. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-13

MA 2.2, in conjunction with the core areas (specially designated areas and MA 7.2), is also designed to provide 

remote forest conditions for species that need minimal human disturbance. This alternative provides the largest 

acreage of land area in MA 2.2 to provide a more contiguous forest canopy and increased resiliency to natural 

disturbance events. Greater retention of older forests in MA 3.0, MA 6.1 and in wilderness and remote recreation 

areas also provides for late structural habitat. Early structural habitat has less emphasis and is provided in MAs 

1.0 and 3.0. Previously identified areas of older forest of high ecological value in MA 3.0 are also retained. 

Standards and guidelines in the LRMP provide for the conservation of habitat for threatened and endangered 

species and for species with viability concerns. 

Riparian and aquatic species and habitats are conserved through standards and guidelines. Riparian values are the 

primary objectives of forest management projects in riparian areas. Vegetation in these areas will be managed to 

restore structural and compositional diversity consistent with maintaining riparian values. Special riparian areas 

(e.g. Wilderness Trout Streams, Class A Trout Streams and Remote Trout Streams) are further protected with 

additional direction to conserve their values. Special management direction will also be applied to portions of the 

ANF that drain directly into the Allegheny River (13% Area). 

Recreation and special areas 

Clarion River, Morrison, South Cornplanter, Longhouse, Hearts Content, East Fork Hickory Creek, and 

Lamentation areas are managed as remote recreation areas (MA 7.2) to provide additional opportunities for 

remote non-motorized recreation. Other remote non-motorized recreation opportunities are provided in areas with 

existing special designations and in areas proposed for wilderness study. 

Opportunities for motorized recreation (ATV/OHM) are provided in three IUAs that overlay other management 

areas. This alternative provides less land area in IUAs than the 1986 Forest Plan in order to minimize ATV/OHM 

effects. Within these areas, ATV/OHM use is restricted to trails established for this use. Recreational ATV/OHM 

use is not allowed anywhere else on the ANF. 

Equestrian use is allocated to three large EUAs in which riding is restricted to designated trails only. Outside of 

EUAs, all riding, either cross-country or on designated trails, is prohibited. 

Developed recreation areas with considerable facilities (development levels 4 and 5) are provided in MA 7.1. 

Other opportunities for developed recreation (of a lesser development level) exist in other management areas as 

well. The LRMP contains an objective for the completion of a management plan for the land surrounding the 

Allegheny Reservoir including all of the National Recreation Areas around the Reservoir. This management plan 

will identify locations for different types of recreational opportunities and developments including locations of 

possible lodging or restaurant facilities. 

Tracy Ridge, Chestnut Ridge, Minister Valley, and Allegheny Front areas are managed as wilderness study areas 

(MA 5.2); the largest amount of any alternative. 

The Wild and Scenic River corridors of the ANF are managed with a separate MA (MA 8.1) that focuses 

management within the recreation and scenic river segments on the conservation of their outstandingly 

remarkable values. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-14 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The KEF is expanded to provide increased research opportunities to recognize the different types of forest 

conditions and forest management issues found on the ANF and the Eastern United States. Buckaloons is 

recommended for designation as a historical area as part of the National Forest system of special interest areas. 

2.5 Description of Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study 

The ANF received a variety of proposals for consideration during development of alternatives. These proposals 

included both full alternatives and specific design elements, and came from citizen and local government groups, 

and individuals. Many of the elements presented were considered during the planning process. For example, all of 

the areas recommended for wilderness were considered through the roadless area inventory and possible 

wilderness study areas were identified and evaluated. The following discussion summarizes these proposals and 

why, after consideration, they were eliminated as a whole from detailed study. Various components are addressed 

by the issues and alternatives identified in Chapters 1 and 2. Appendix A displays public involvement in more 

detail. 

2.5.1 Allegheny Wild! by the Allegheny Defense Project (ADP) 

The Allegheny Defense Project (ADP) submitted a report containing 84 resolutions relating (broadly) to resource 

extraction, wilderness and special area management, biological diversity and ecological health, recreation, and the 

forest planning and appeals process. The following discussion summarizes each of these resolutions (and, for the 

purposes of this description, combines some of the resolutions (e.g. biodiversity concerns)), and then for each 

describes how the ANF considered ADP’s concerns: 

1. The FS should end commercial logging on the ANF. 

2. A new approach to oil and gas development, including phasing out new drilling over the next 30 years, 

and restoring degraded landscapes 

3. Adoption of 45,000 acres of new wilderness 

4. Designation of new National Recreation Areas, Research Natural Areas, Scenic Areas, Historic Areas, 

and Recreation Areas 

5. A redistribution of management areas to reflect management for multiple use, including watershed 

protection, soils conservation, conservation of rare species, Wilderness and forest restoration, including 

management area designations for federally-designated and special features (e.g. Wild and Scenic River 

corridors, National Scenic Trail corridors, remote trout streams, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, 

old growth). 

6. Reduce road mileage on the ANF by 1,000 miles over the next 10 years and incorporate roads into a 

roads-to-trail program 

7. Stop promoting growth of black cherry. Set DFCs to restoration of northern hardwood and other native 

forest types 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-15

8. Incorporate standards and guidelines, goals and objectives for state threatened and endangered species, as 

well as federally-listed sensitive species 

9. Draft the forest plan in a way that allows for ease of amendment (specifically, ADP mentions 

incorporating the ANF’s 1995 old-growth plan, not modifying sensitive species lists through 

administrative changes) 

10. Implement the 1995 Landscape Corridor Plan 

11. Specify timing, methods, and evaluation protocol for management activities must be spelled out with 

specificity in the forest plan. 

12. Reassess management strategies for effects on biodiversity, including: 

a. Reverse the progression towards black cherry-dominated stands. Allow for mid- and late-successional 

stages of development in northern hardwood-hemlock stands. 

b. Control white-tailed deer populations to promote herbaceous species diversity 

c. Control the effects of white-tailed deer populations through predator and habitat relationships 

d. Update the FS sensitive species list to include all fish species that are state listed, and all extirpated 

species that survive in nearby watersheds; manage bluebreast darter habitat 

e. Maintain diversity of aquatic invertebrates 

f. Protect amphibian and reptile populations and habitat (includes identifying amphibian and reptile 

management indicator species and increasing research and monitoring) 

g. Complete forest-wide surveys for terrestrial invertebrates 

h. Complete forest-wide surveys for lichen, moss, and fungi 

i. Adopt landscape corridor to promote avian habitat and revise MIS list to focus on restoring native 

avian species at their historical levels; Protect nesting habitat of sensitive and threatened species 

j. encourage native distribution of mammal species wherever possible 

13. Reassess management strategies for effects on forest habitat structure, including: 

a. Encourage recruitment of mid-story species and mid- to late-successional stands 

b. Leave forests alone to recruit standing dead trees 

c. Emphasize down woody debris throughout the ANF (esp. in MAs 3.0 and 6.2) 

d. Allow natural succession to take its course on the ANF 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-16 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

14. Reassess management strategies for controlling invasive species, including: 

a. ensuring genetically-resistant American beech are never cut down or removed 

b. reversing trends towards Allegheny hardwood stands in order to decrease potential for damage by 

“cherry scallop” moth 

c. Expand methods to prevent introduction of zebra mussel 

15. Reassess management strategies for air pollution, including: 

a. decreasing emphasis on black cherry, since black cherry is sensitive to ground level ozone, and 

developing standards and guidelines for “problems that originate in other jurisdictions” 

b. Incorporating an acid deposition management plan, including methods to preserve soil nutrition 

c. Taking a proactive approach towards issues involving air quality (e.g. taking an interest in planned 

expansion at United Refinery) 

16. Reassess management strategies for soils conservation, including: 

a. Retaining biomass and standing trees, decommissioning roads in areas of forest decline and resisting 

introduction of new pollutants 

b. replacing commercial nitrogen-rich fertilizers, discouraging use of fertilizers for black cherry 

regeneration 

c. Adopting more stringent limitations on soil disturbance; limiting multi-entry restoration work; and 

regulating equipment used in forest restoration work 

17. Reassess management strategies for threatened and endangered species management, including: 

a. developing old growth and wilderness habitat for Indiana bat 

b. Adopting standards and guidelines for Northern riffleshell and clubshell mussels and their habitats 

(including guidelines for managing Tionesta Creek) 

c. Adopting conservation recommendations for bald eagle as standards and guidelines 

d. Restore forest understories to support recovery of small whorled pogonia 

e. Identify cerulean warbler habitats on the ANF and begin standards and guidelines consistent with 

requirements of ESA 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-17

18. Reassess management strategies for recreation management, including: 

a. Issuing a moratorium on new ATV trails on the ANF 

b. Controlling illegal off-road vehicle use 

c. Adopting standards and guidelines to phase in mandatory conversion to four-stroke machines for 

snowmobilers on the ANF and enhancing scenic quality of trail routes 

19. Reassess management strategies for watershed management, including: 

a. Adopting a management plan for water quality in the upper Allegheny; recognizing high quality 

waters, exceptional value streams and wilderness trout streams through management areas 

b. Lower road densities of FS roads; discourage new construction; and ensure high-quality road 

surfacing 

c. Ending commercial logging to reduce potential future runoff; restoring already logged sites 

d. Eliminate use of herbicides in forestry practices 

e. Ending clearcutting and herbicide use to protect municipal watersheds 

f. Prohibiting the use of pesticides in riparian areas 

20. Reassess management strategies for oil and gas development, including: 

a. Phasing out future oil and gas development 

b. Surveying and monitoring all oil and gas facilities on the ANF and participating in permitting and 

pollution control 

c. Actively enforcing special use permitting for rights-of-way 

d. Implementing a plan to acquire all subsurface mineral rights on the ANF 

e. Ending all support for oil and gas drilling on the ANF 

21. Reassess management strategies for wildlife management, including: 

a. Developing a representative list of management indicator species 

b. Developing science-based protocol for monitoring wildlife population trends 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-18 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

22. Reassess Wild and Scenic River management, including: 

a. Increasing protection and proactive management of Allegheny River 

b. Developing a Wild and Scenic River Management Plan for Clarion River 

c. Developing management plans for Bear Creek, Tionesta Creek, East Branch Tionesta, Kinzua Creek, 

Salmon Creek, Spring Creek, Sugar Run, and Big Mill Creek. (including consideration for 

designation under Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) 

23. Purchase significant cave sites adjacent to FS lands and adopt a cave management plan on the ANF. 

Survey and monitor known caves for winter use 

24. Remove commercial logging or establish a “reasonable” ASQ 

25. Identify and adopt specially-designated historic areas 

26. Incorporate opportunities for research into standards, guidelines, and management area direction and 

adopt new Research Natural Areas. 

27. Provide a better distribution of trails, campsites, and feature recreation areas throughout the Allegheny. 

28. Designate new scenic areas and purchase mineral rights beneath Tionesta Scenic Area 

29. Replace commercial logging program with restoration-based program that emphasizes wildlife 

conservation and low-impact recreation and tourism 

30. Initiate forest restoration activities that lead to job creation 

31. Urge townships to accept guaranteed payment method 

32. Increase outreach for low-impact recreation activities. Halt all logging around areas of recreational value. 

Pursue mineral rights in these same areas. Provide interpretive stops for travelers. Develop more hiking 

trails. 

33. Emphasize ecosystem services 

34. End commercial logging to increase market value for timber on private lands 

35. Promote community investment 

36. Increase environmental education opportunities 

37. Increase quality disability experiences 

38. Institute public health and safety program 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-19

The following discusses each of the previous points. For each point, a brief description is provided as to how the 

ANF considered the point in developing the plan. The description may identify how the point is incorporated in 

the forest plan (LRMP), the alternatives, the FEIS or why the point was not specifically considered either in 

preparing a full alternative or a portion of an alternative. 

1. Since the Organic Administration Act of 1897, which allowed for the establishment of forest reserves, 

timber production has been an established purpose of National Forest management. This purpose is 

confirmed and repeated in the various laws and regulations that direct FS management, including the 

1960 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA), and the 1976 National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA). 

The ANF is not evaluating a total prohibition of a legally-established use and/or purpose of National 

Forests. Eliminating timber harvesting on the ANF does not meet the purpose and need of this plan 

revision that includes the provision of a diversity of vegetative habitats, including the provision of early 

structural forest conditions. The use of commercial logging is an important tool in achieving these 

habitats. Commercial logging is also an important tool to address forest health concerns. However, the 

amounts and levels of commercial logging are varied in the alternatives in response to different 

approaches to the major issues. Alternative D was specifically designed to provide for vegetative 

structural conditions that would result from historic levels of natural disturbances. Timber harvesting is a 

tool to accomplish this. A minimum benchmark that does not harvest timber was also considered (see 

Appendix B). 

2. The ANF does not own mineral rights on 93 percent of its land base and is not evaluating prohibition of a 

legally-established use on the forest. Further oil and gas development is an action of private parties. 

Unless the ANF acquires the entirety of subsurface rights, consideration of an alternative that assumed the 

ANF could stop such legal development would be outside of the legal authority of the ANF. The LRMP 

contains objectives for acquisition of subsurface rights, especially where acquisition can contribute to the 

recreation and special areas issue of the purpose and need for revision. Effects of mineral resources 

development are considered under cumulative effects on each resource analyzed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Rehabilitation of sites damaged by oil and gas development does occur and the LRMP contains standards 

and guidelines that address expectations for development of the ANF subsurface that is consistent with 

surface objectives. 

3. The ANF conducted a roadless inventory and wilderness evaluation as part of the revision process. Of the 

areas recommended by ADP, Tracy Ridge, Chestnut Ridge, Minister Valley, and Allegheny Front are 

considered for wilderness designation in Alternative D. Other areas recommended by ADP for wilderness 

did not meet the criteria for wilderness (see Appendix C). The ANF considered other management options 

for the conservation of natural areas identified by ADP for wilderness. This includes remote recreation 

areas for the Clarion River, Morrison, and Hickory Creek areas in Alternative D. The Tionesta area 

surrounding the existing Scenic and Research Natural Areas was not considered for special area 

designation due to the level of current roading and oil and gas development in this area. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-20 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

4. The ANF specifically considered all of the areas recommended by ADP. In most cases, the areas 

recommended did not contain the outstanding values necessary for designation, but many contained 

attributes that place them in management areas that emphasize wildlife habitat, recreation, scenic, and 

historic values. 

ADP proposed new National Recreation Areas (NRAs): Tionesta, Lamentation Run, and Bear Creek. At 

present, there are 23 NRAs in 19 states. The Allegheny contains one of four NRAs in Region 9 of the 

Forest Service (an area extending from New Hampshire to Missouri). The Allegheny NRA possesses 

regional outstanding values for hiking, remote recreation, and scenery. Of the areas proposed by ADP, all 

have been roaded and have oil and gas activity. These areas (with the possible exception of the Tionesta 

Scenic and Research Natural Areas already established) do not possess significant or exceptional features 

that would merit national designation. Tionesta and Bear Creek contain too many roads and oil and gas 

developments to merit consideration for remote recreation areas (MA 7.2) and Lamentation Run is 

included as a remote recreation area in Alternative D. 

ADP proposed the Muzette tract for inclusion as a Research Natural Area (RNA). At present the ANF 

contains one RNA at Tionesta that represents the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. Due to the extensive 

development of the ANF, it is difficult to find other representative areas for RNAS. Four candidate 

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) were proposed in the 1986 Forest Plan: the Muzette Tract, Crull’s Island, 

Thompson Island, and Sheffield Compartment 126. After review, Muzette was dropped from 

consideration because it was not unique and it was too small to manage for research purposes. The 

remaining three were recommended for designation as RNAs by the regional office. In 1990, the 

Washington Office of the FS decided against designation. The basis for their decision was that the future 

potential heavy use by dispersed recreationists would not make them suitable for RNAs. Given that 

decision, the ANF has elected not to reconsider this option as part of this revision. 

ADP proposed a scenic area at Bogus Rocks. While the area contains natural beauty and attractive 

scenery, it does not contain outstanding characteristics meriting national designation. The area is also 

small (<100 acres), and most scenic areas are considerably larger than 100 acres. 

ADP proposed the Colisomo Rockshelter and the Little Drummer Historical Pathways be designated as 

historic areas. Rock shelters have been known to have potential for having been used by prehistoric 

Native Americans, but the Colisomo Rockshelter yielded no prehistoric or historic artifacts. The area does 

not meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The “Little Drummer” is a 

synonym for grouse and this pathway was constructed as a wildlife viewing area. While located on a 

railroad grade, the grade does not retain any integrity of construction, design, and setting to be considered 

historically significant for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. For these reasons, these 

areas are not proposed as historic areas. Alternatives B, Cm, and D all contain a recommendation to 

designate Buckaloons as a historic area. 

ADP also proposed 12 areas as Recreation Areas. Of these areas, three (Buckaloons, Twin Lakes, and 

Loleta) are managed as developed recreation areas (MA 7.1) in the alternatives. The other nine all contain 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-21

recreation attributes common to the Allegheny. Standards and guidelines in the revised plan provide 

direction for maintaining the recreation and scenic quality of these areas. 

5. Management Areas are only one way to organize plan direction to provide for the different multiple uses 

of the forest. There is no need to specifically identify management areas for each use. Standards and 

guidelines of the plan specifically address watershed protection, soil conservation, conservation of 

species, the North Country Trail, remote trout streams and conservation of older forests. The ANF has 

management areas for Wild and Scenic River corridors (MA 8.1), Wilderness and Wilderness Study 

Areas (MAs 5.1 and 5.2), areas to promote late structural forest conditions (MAs 2.2 and 6.1) and nonmotorized recreation (MA7.2). 

6. Reducing the level of roads is not part of the purpose and need for this revision. However, the ANF has 

examined in the various alternatives establishing larger areas of the forest without roads, including nearly 

all of the specific areas recommended by the public for management without roads. The plan includes 

objectives for decommissioning roads. The ANF also faces limitations in considering decommissioning of 

state and township roads and OGM roads without the OGM operator’s or local government’s permission. 

Determining what roads are needed to meet management needs is primarily a project decision made 

through roads analysis at the project scale. For these reasons, the ANF has elected not to specifically 

examine an alternative focused specifically on a targeted level of road reduction. 

7. The four alternatives explicitly vary the emphasis on various forest types. Alternative B emphasizes forest 

types containing black cherry and Alternative D emphasizes northern hardwood forest types. 

8. Changes were made to the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list based on ANF proposals. The list 

contains all state-listed threatened and endangered species present on the ANF. The LRMP provides 

standards and guidelines for creation, enhancement, and protection of quality early and late structural, and 

riparian habitat. There are also specific standards and guidelines for species with viability concerns. 

9. The forest plan has been reformatted during for this revision. By more clearly labeling the forest plan 

decisions, it should be easier to more clearly interpret the plan and to clarify when amendment is needed. 

10. Varying acreage of older forest/landscape linkages developed from the 1995 landscape corridor plan is 

included as MA 2.2 in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. Isolated stands for future late structural forest are also 

considered in each alternative. 

11. The LRMP contains a summary of a monitoring strategy that includes key monitoring questions to be 

evaluated during plan implementation. Detailed information on monitoring protocols will be developed in 

a separate monitoring guide. 

12. Diversity of species (plant and animal) and habitat is a key element of the LRMPs desired future 

condition with goals and objectives for ANF management. 

a. Alternative D emphasizes northern hardwood stands. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-22 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

b. The LRMP (Alternatives B, Cm, and D) contains an objective to maintain a deer population of 

10-20 deer/square mile. White-tailed deer habitat relationships are a consideration in vegetation 

management decisions. 

c. The ANF has not specifically considered any alternative to reintroduce predators to control white 

tailed deer. It will cooperate with USFWS and Pennsylvania Game Commission in considering 

any potential actions of this type. 

d. The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list has been updated to include state-listed fish species 

that occur on the ANF. 

e. Standards and guidelines for protection of aquatic invertebrates are included in the LRMP. These 

include protections for vernal pools, springs, and seeps. 

f. Standards and guidelines for management of components of amphibian and reptile habitat (e.g. 

down woody debris, snags, riparian zones) and MIS are included in the LRMP. 

g. Comprehensive surveys for terrestrial invertebrates would be prohibitively expensive and thus 

infeasible. The determination of the need for surveys will be made either at the project level or as 

part of the monitoring protocols. 

h. Comprehensive surveys for lichens, moss, fungi would be prohibitively expensive and thus 

infeasible. The determination of the need for surveys will be made either at the project level or as 

part of the monitoring protocols. 

i. The landscape corridor concept is provided for in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. Northern goshawk, 

cerulean warbler and mourning warbler are identified as Management Indicator Species (MIS). 

Given the enormous amount of change that has occurred in this region, it would not be possible to 

restore avian species to historical levels. Sensitive avian species were considered in the Species 

Viability Evaluation (see Appendix E). 

j. The LRMP contains direction to protect the habitat and populations of those mammal species at 

greatest risk. In addition to major provisions for habitat contained in the alternatives, standards 

and guidelines are present to conserve populations of these species. 

13. The LRMP specifically addresses stand structure issues, including: 

a. Increasing mid-story recruitment and late structural stands in all management areas, with specific 

objectives, standards and guidelines for those that allow timber harvest. 

b. Standards and guidelines for retaining snags. 

c. Standards and guidelines for down woody debris. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-23

d. Opportunities for natural succession are provided in certain areas of the forest (e.g. MA 5.1, 5.2, 

and 7.2) depending on the alternative. Alternative D focuses on creating the mix of forest 

conditions in terms of structural stages that are estimated to have been present historically on the 

forest. It contains a component of active management to achieve this. 

14. The LRMP and FEIS considered strategies for a variety of invasive species: 

a. The LRMP promotes conservation of disease-resistant beech. 

b. Alternative D emphasizes restoration of northern hardwood forests rather than Allegheny 

hardwoods. 

c. Objectives, standards and guidelines for zebra mussel control are provided in the LRMP. 

15. The LRMP and FEIS considered strategies to address problems of air pollution. These include: 

a. The FS monitors ozone damage nationally, including sites on the ANF. The alternatives vary their 

emphasis on the extent of Allegheny hardwood forest. All alternatives emphasize sustaining a 

diversity of forest types, structural classes, and healthy ecosystems across the ANF. Black cherry 

is not considered to be disproportionately affected by ozone on the ANF. Impacts to ozone 

indicator plants such as black cherry on the ANF were small as compared to studies in other areas 

(Morin et al., 2006). These local studies also indicate that ozone has not substantially damaged 

woody vegetation on the ANF. 

b. Research efforts have been completed with information on the status of soils and vegetation on 

the ANF. The severity of acid deposition threat is described in the FEIS. The LRMP contains 

standards and guidelines to preserve soil nutrition. Methods of restoring soil nutrition, such as 

liming, are not precluded by the LRMP. 

c. The ANF plan does not include actions to control the impacts of others outside of the forest plan 

boundary. Although this is beyond the scope of the plan, the ANF LRMP has a goal to cooperate 

with regulatory agencies to reduce adverse effects of air pollution. 

16. The LRMP provides goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for water and soil management which 

include: 

a. Retaining down woody material, etc. and limitations to road and facilities development in riparian 

areas. 

b. Restrictions on the use of nitrogen- and phosphorus-based fertilizers and avoidance of broadcast 

application of nitrogen-based fertilizers on plateau, shoulder and upper backslope landforms to 

help maintain soil base cation status. 

c. Standards and guidelines or references to other directives to minimize compaction and erosion, 

and special attention for riparian-dependent resources in riparian areas, including establishment of 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-24 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

a minimum 200-ft riparian zone around Wilderness Trout Streams, Remote Trout Streams, and 

Class A Wild Trout Stream. 

17. The LRMP provides specific standards and guidelines for management of Indiana bat, Northern riffleshell 

and clubshell mussels, bald eagle, small-whorled pogonia, and cerulean warbler, as well as standards and 

guidelines for management of other species. 

18. A range of recreational opportunities are considered in the FEIS. 

a. ATV/OHM use is recognized as a legitimate recreational use of the ANF. Standards and 

guidelines of the LRMP only allow ATV/OHM use on designated routes and trails in designated 

areas. Alternative D considers the effects of a reduction of the land area available for ATV/OHM 

development. 

b. The ANF does not condone illegal ATV/OHM use on the forest and actively enforces 

compliance. 

c. The ANF has elected not to specifically examine establishing specific standards and guidelines 

related to the design or operation of snowmobiles as part of this plan. As the industry phases in 

machines that have four stroke engines, these would also be used on the ANF. 

19. All of the alternatives provide standards and guidelines that provide special attention to riparian values for 

forest management projects in riparian areas. Vegetation in these areas will be managed to restore 

structural and compositional diversity consistent with maintaining riparian values. 

a. The LRMP provides standards and guidelines for all streams including high quality streams, 

exceptional value streams, Wilderness Trout Streams, Class A trout streams, and remote trout 

streams, as well as other water resources 

b. Variations in road levels by alternative are discussed in the FEIS. Standards and guidelines for 

road maintenance and construction, including roads in riparian corridors, are included in the 

LRMP. 

c. Commercial logging is addressed in response #1. 

d. The ANF considers herbicide to be an important tool for vegetation management. Herbicide 

application is decided at the project level. The LRMP contains a substantial set of standards and 

guidelines to ensure that application of herbicides are implemented in a safe manner. Appendix G 

of the FEIS specifically examines the effects of herbicide application on the ANF. 

e. The ANF considered but rejected the need to prohibit logging or herbicide use within municipal 

watersheds. There is no discernible risk to human health related to water quality from either 

logging or herbicide application consistent with LRMP standards and guidelines. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-25

f. Vegetation management, including herbicide use, is restricted with specific standards and 

guidelines in riparian corridors 

20. The ANF does not own the mineral rights on 93 percent of its land base. It would not be feasible to 

consider a prohibition of this legally-established use across the forest. Since mineral development is an 

established use on national forest lands, the LRMP does not consider an alternative to acquire all oil and 

gas subsurface rights. Acquisition of all of these rights would be very costly and thus infeasible. 

Consistent with the purpose and need of the plan, the LRMP does contain objectives to acquire oil and 

gas subsurface rights to conserve special areas. It also contains a substantial section of standards and 

guidelines to manage surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development. The monitoring part of 

the plan contains questions related to the monitoring of oil and gas developments. 

21. The LRMP contains goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for wildlife management. Five 

management indicator species (MIS) are identified in the FEIS: Northern goshawk, cerulean warbler, 

timber rattlesnake, mourning warbler, and aquatic invertebrates. Specific elements of the monitoring 

strategy will identify protocols regarding MIS. 

22. Alternatives B, Cm, and D provide for management of Wild and Scenic River corridors under a separate 

management area and protection of special riparian areas through updated standards and guidelines to 

conserve their values. As a general rule, alternatives do not contain elements focused on developing 

future plans. The ANF intends to develop a Clarion River Management Plan. 

As part of the forest plan revision process, 13 waterways were evaluated for eligibility for Wild and 

Scenic River designation (Appendix D). The eligibility process resulted in finding no rivers or river 

segments eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 

23. The LRMP does not add specific provisions for caves as the ANF manages caves consistent with 

provisions of the Cave Resources Protection Act (PL 100-691) of 1988. 

24. See response #1. Each alternative identifies an appropriate ASQ relative to its design. ASQ is a ceiling on 

timber harvest and is not an objective of the plan. 

25. See response #4. 

26. See response #4 Research opportunities and limitations are described in the LRMP. 

27. Decisions about the locations of new recreational facilities such as campgrounds, trails, trailheads and 

other facilities are a project determination. The LRMP envisions greater amounts of trails for horse use, 

bicycle use, and other recreational developments throughout the ANF consistent with the management 

direction for the area. 

28. See response #4. The LRMP contains objectives to acquire the subsurface rights under the Tionesta 

Scenic Area. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-26 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

29. The ANF envisions a variety of activities that are part of management to move the forest towards the 

desired condition of the LRMP. These activities include a substantial set of activities, including 

commercial logging (see #1), designed to restore forest conditions. Alternative D provides the most 

opportunity for low-impact recreation activities. 

30. Job impacts associated with restoration activities of the plan are part of the federal expenditures identified 

in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the FEIS. 

31. The choice of whether local governments chose payments under the 25 Percent Fund or Secure Rural 

Schools is outside the scope of the plan. The financial implications of the alternatives relative to either 

choice are described in the Chapter 3 section on economic conditions of the FEIS. 

32. Some of these ideas are not parts of forest plan decisions such as area promotion and interpretive stops. It 

is not practical to acquire mineral rights for all recreation areas. The LRMP has objectives for acquisition 

of subsurface rights in many recreation areas. Management area direction and scenery objectives provide 

for limitations on logging impacts near areas of greatest recreational use. 

33. The LRMP provides standards and guidelines for management and protection of clean air and water, 

erosion and sedimentation prevention, soil element retention and recreational opportunities. Where these 

are not sufficient, restoration activities can be undertaken at the project level to achieve the direction of 

the plan. 

34. See response #1. 

35. Promotion of community investment opportunities are beyond the scope of the forest plan. 

36. Forest programs on environmental education are beyond the scope of the forest plan. 

37. Trail construction and access for people with disabilities are project-level decisions. In the construction of 

new facilities the ANF complies with the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

38. A comprehensive public health and safety program is outside the scope of the forest plan. Appendix G 

contains the Herbicide Use Risk Assessment, completed January 2006 that details the effects of herbicide 

application. 

After the consideration described above the Allegheny Wild alternative was not analyzed in detail, but a number 

of elements in the proposal were brought into the alternatives considered in detail, especially Alternative D. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-27

2.5.2 A Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal for Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National 

Forest by Friends of Allegheny Wilderness (FAW) 

The Friends of Allegheny Wilderness submitted a proposal focused on creating new wilderness areas and other 

special area designations within the ANF. This proposal contains the following recommendations: 

1. Create eight new wilderness areas in the following locations, totaling roughly 54,460 acres: 

a. The Allegheny Front (6,906 acres) 

b. Cornplanter (3,022 acres) 

c. Tracy Ridge (9,705 acres) 

d. A proposed area that totals 14,960 acres that includes the current Tionesta Scenic Area and 

Tionesta Research Natural Area 

e. An addition of 1,780 acres to the Hickory Creek Wilderness Area 

f. The area surrounding Indian Run headwaters, locally referred to as Chestnut Ridge (5,191 acres) 

g. An area along the Clarion River (6,009 acres) 

h. An area containing Morrison Run (6,887 acres) 

2. Expand the existing Allegheny National Recreation Area by 4,752 acres, and to establish two new 

National Recreation Areas: Hearts Content NRA (2,335 acres) and Minister Valley NRA (7,390 acres). 

3. Support traditional uses of the ANF, including timber harvesting (not in wilderness areas) and OGM 

development. 

4. Support continued use of ATVs on designated trails. 

5. Stop maintaining openings in wilderness areas. 

6. Maintain the North Country Trail in any wilderness area. 

7. Acquire OGM rights in wilderness areas and NRA. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-28 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The ANF considered these recommendations during the planning process, with the following response: 

1. The ANF considered all of the areas recommended in this proposal through the roadless area inventory 

and wilderness evaluation as required by the forest planning process (see Appendix C). The Tracy Ridge, 

and Chestnut Ridge areas met the criteria for wilderness and the Allegheny Front area was also evaluated 

for wilderness. All of these areas are allocated to wilderness study areas in Alternative D and Chestnut 

Ridge is also allocated to Wilderness Study in Alternative Cm. 

The Cornplanter, Tionesta, Hickory Creek, and Clarion River areas did not meet the criteria for 

wilderness as described in Appendix C. These areas were considered for other management that maintains 

natural character. Cornplanter, Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front are managed consistent with their 

designation as a National Recreation Area in all alternatives. Clarion River is managed as a Remote 

Recreation Area (MA 7.2) in Alternatives B, Cm and D. The FAW Hickory Creek expansion is also 

managed as a Remote Recreation Area in Alternatives Cm and D. The larger Tionesta area proposed by 

FAW has had substantial roading, oil and gas development and timber harvest. As a result it was not 

introduced into the alternatives for specific natural area management. However in all alternatives the core 

Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas are retained and Alternatives B, C and D manage portions of 

the area for late structural linkages (MA 2.2). 

2. Minister Valley, recommended for designation as an NRA under the FAW proposal, met the requirements 

for consideration as a wilderness study area under the roadless area inventory, and is treated as a 

wilderness study area in Alternatives Cm and D. The other two areas that FAW propose for NRAs, Hearts 

Content and expansion of the Allegheny NRA, are being considered as remote recreation areas (MA 7.2) 

in Alternative Cm and D. The areas do not contain outstanding examples of recreation opportunities 

combined with scenic grandeur or other special attributes on a national scale to merit NRA designation. 

The linkage of natural areas sought by FAW between the Allegheny Front portion of the NRA and the 

Minister area is provided with the combination of NRA (MA 8.2), Remote Recreation Area (MA 7.2) and 

Wilderness Study Area (MA 5.2) in Alternatives Cm and D. 

3. The LRMP provides for all of the traditional uses discussed. 

4. The LRMP contains standards and guidelines that restrict ATV/OHM use to designated trails in 

designated areas. 

5. Natural processes are generally expected in wilderness. Until wilderness is established created openings 

could be maintained in wilderness study areas. In the long term created openings are expected to naturally 

transition into forest conditions. 

6. The LRMP contains a goal for management of the North Country Trail. 

7. The LRMP contains objectives for the acquisition of subsurface mineral rights in wilderness, wilderness 

study and the national recreation areas. 

The FAW proposal was considered and incorporated into the alternatives as described above. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-29

2.5.3 Recreation and the Need to Increase Motorized Recreational Opportunities 

on the Allegheny National Forest by Allegheny Trail Riders 

This proposal deals exclusively with motorized trails. The proposal suggests: 

1. Planning for and building the entire 503 miles of trail and requisite support facilities that the 1986 Forest 

Plan EIS said the ANF could support. 

2. Linking the trail system to private communities to encourage economic growth 

3. Opening forest roads to motorcycles and ATVs to create a cross-forest trail system 

4. Building a multifunctional campground accessible only by motorcycle or ATV 

5. Increasing law enforcement to curb unauthorized riding 

6. Using volunteers and partners to reduce the costs of improvements 

Trail development is considered at the project level and the LRMP does not contain specific objectives to achieve 

a specific ATV/OHM trail mileage. However, concerns about ATV/OHM opportunities were considered during 

the planning process as follows: 

1. Determining a reasonable number of ATV/OHM trail miles requires detailed site-specific information that 

is not part of the planning process. All of the areas identified in the 1986 Forest Plan are not suited for 

ATV development. The alternatives in the FEIS do consider a range of Intensive Use Areas (IUAs) 

specifically for ATV and motorized trail and bike trail development. Alternative D has the least amount 

of acreage in IUAs; Alternative B has the greatest. 

2. The ANF explored opportunities to link IUAs to local communities and included a Forestwide objective 

to provide snowmobile trail system connectors to Tionesta, Ridgway, Sheffield, and Bradford. Additional 

opportunities may be explored during subsequent travel management planning and/or at the site-specific 

project level. 

3. Safety concerns for joint-use designation of ATVs on open public roads was the primary reason why this 

suggestion was not considered further. 

4. Such a site would be a project level decision and not within the scope of the plan. The plan does not 

preclude such a possibility on lands in IUAs. 

5. The ANF does not condone illegal ATV/OHM use on the forest and actively enforces compliance. 

6. The ANF embraces developing such partnerships. Methods to work with partners on ATV/OHM trail 

improvements are beyond the scope of the plan. 

The Allegheny Trail Riders proposal was considered in the ANF planning process as described above. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-30 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.5.4 Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield by Allegheny Alive 

This proposal provides recommendations for recreation, timber management, and oil and gas development, and 

also discusses the benefits of silviculture for wildlife and the group’s opposition to additional wilderness 

designations. The specific recommendations in the Allegheny Alive proposal include: 

1. Provide for overnight accommodations in land areas zoned for a high level of development that is easily 

accessible. 

2. Provide for more cabin development and developed RV campsites. 

3. Provide interpretive trails and convert old railroad rights of way to hiking, biking and handicapped uses. 

4. Provide for more motorized recreation opportunities (See Allegheny Trail Riders proposals). 

5. Provide for expansion of snowmobile system: 

a. Expand current system to a full 500 miles 

b. Add forest roads and designate additional joint use roads. 

c. Add connector trails to private services. 

d. Add trailhead services such as expanded parking areas and toilet facilities 

e. Use contractors of FS personnel to groom the designated trail system 

f. Increase Ranger/Law enforcement 

g. Plan placement of trails so snowmobilers can reach area communities 

h. Maintain an interconnected trail to allow long distance touring. 

6. Provide school group/nature tourism and driving tours on the ANF. 

7. The ANF needs to fulfill its timber obligations of nondeclining flow of the existing forest plan and needs 

to: 

a. Not reassign lands to management areas that would require less timber production 

b. Not de-emphasize even-aged management 

c. Increase the amount of early successional habitat 

d. Provide a credible ASQ of no less than 69 MMBF 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-31

8. The ANF should not seek to purchase subsurface private oil and gas rights. 

9. Additional wilderness on the ANF is unwarranted. 

The ANF considered the Allegheny Alive recommendations as follows: 

1. The determination of a site for substantial overnight accommodations is a site specific project 

consideration. The LRMP is a broad scale document that does not provide for such site specific detail. 

The LRMP does contain an objective to complete a management plan for the area around the Allegheny 

Reservoir to evaluate the type of recreational developments that would be desirable for this area. 

Overnight lodging would be considered as part of that management plan. 

2. Overnight lodging such as cabins and RV campsites are possible in different parts of the forest consistent 

with management area standards and guidelines for recreational developments. Larger scale developments 

are allowed in MA 7.1. 

3. Conversion of old railroads to trails is a site specific determination. The LRMP does not preclude 

development of these trails. 

4. See responses to Allegheny Trail Riders proposal. 

5. The ANF considered proposals to address snowmobile opportunities: 

a. Determination of the extent of the trail system is a project decision and not a forest plan decision. 

b. The LRMP contains an objective to evaluate adding roads for snowmobile use through the Travel 

Management process. 

c. The LRMP contains an objective to work with appropriate partners to provide snowmobile 

connector trails to several local communities. 

d. Trailheads and parking areas are a project decision and generally allowed in most of the ANF in 

the LRMP. 

e. The LRMP contains an objective to facilitate grooming of the ANF snowmobile trail system. 

f. The extent of law enforcement is not a forest plan decision. 

g. See c. above. 

h. See c. above 

6. Education, tourism and driving tours are not part of the forest plan decision and would not be precluded 

except in a few specified management areas. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-32 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

7. The ANF addressed opportunities to provide timber primarily through the alternatives. 

a. Alternative A was provided specifically to maintain the current mix of management areas and 

their emphasis on timber production. 

b. Alternative A maintains the current emphasis on even-aged management 

c. The ANF explored options to increase the amounts of early structural habitat in the different 

alternatives. Within the limitations of National Forest law and policy, there is not an ability to 

provide a large increase in the amount of this habitat. Alternatives A, B and Cm would increase 

the amount of this habitat above current levels. 

d. The level of timber harvest varied among the different alternatives. Consistent with the emphasis 

of the different alternatives, Alternative A identified an ASQ of 66.5 MMBF and Alternative B 

of, 63.1 MMBF. 

8. The ANF does not generally seek to acquire subsurface rights. However, consistent with the need to 

conserve natural areas of the ANF, the LRMP has an objective to acquire these rights in these key natural 

areas. 

9. Alternatives A and B provide for no additional wilderness. 

2.5.5 Comments on Vegetation Management for the Allegheny National Forest 

Plan Revision by Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group (AHUG) 

This proposal makes specific recommendations to change existing vegetation management language in the 1986 

Forest Plan. In summary, the proposal recommends: 

1. Sustaining and developing the black cherry resource 

2. Maintaining flexibility to use silviculture and harvest methods best suited to site-specific characteristics 

3. Restoring areas affected by forest health concerns, regardless of management area 

4. Creating better age-class diversity across the ANF 

AHUG also provided recommendations on the plan outside vegetation management: 

1. Holding deer populations at the capacity supported by the habitat and continue using hunters as the 

methods of deer control 

2. Promoting landowner education on forest health, regeneration and succession, impact of deer, and need 

for wildlife habitat 

3. Designating wilderness only on land not suitable for timber harvesting 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-33

4. Considering ANF certification as a pilot project for the FS 

5. Prioritizing direct and indirect economic stimulus to the region 

The ANF considered AHUG’s recommendations as follows: 

1. Alternative B specifically focused on emphasizing harvest and regeneration of Allegheny Hardwoods that 

feature black cherry. 

2. Decisions regarding specific methods of timber harvest are a project level site specific decision, and not a 

plan decision. However, the LRMP does contain standards and guidelines and other information 

(Appendix A) that identify limitations or the appropriateness of certain practices in certain situations. 

3. Generally, most management areas allow vegetative manipulation to address forest health concerns such 

as insect and disease problems, forest regeneration after a disturbance event, or treatment of non-native 

invasive species. 

4. Improving the diversity of age classes and structural conditions is approached differently in all 

alternatives and was a major theme in their design. It is also a part of the desired condition with specific 

objectives in the LRMP. 

5. The LRMP contains an objective to manage deer populations between 10-20 deer per square mile. 

6. Education programs are generally outside of the scope of forest plan decisions. 

7. Tradeoffs in the consideration of lands for wilderness versus other uses were considered. Alternative B 

contains no proposals for any additional wilderness. Of the four areas considered for wilderness, two 

(Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front) would not result in further reduction of suitable land for timber 

production. 

8. Although outside the scope of the plan revision, the ANF is participating in a study regarding 

certification. 

9. Through the varying emphases on timber, recreation and the forest budget, the potential for the ANF to 

stimulate job and other economic opportunities is described in the FEIS. 

Most of the suggestions of AHUG were incorporated into one or more of the alternatives under consideration 

(primarily Alternative B). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-34 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.5.6 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

The Nature Conservancy’s comments centered on four recommendations: 

1. Improving landscape connectivity and reserve design 

2. Acquiring mineral rights in ecologically sensitive areas to achieve desired vegetation management 

3. Reducing the impact of deer herbivory 

4. Promoting or restoring native species composition, forest structure, and a mix of successional stages that 

reflects what would occur under a natural disturbance regime 

The ANF has considered these recommendations in the following ways: 

1. The LRMP approach to landscape linkages was carefully designed to provide for reserve and connectivity 

of late-structural habitat and relatively undisturbed habitat at the landscape scale. Varying distributions 

and amounts of reserve type areas are provided in MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 and connective 

habitats (MA 2.2) are provided in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

2. The LRMP contains goals and objectives for acquisition of subsurface rights in environmental sensitive 

areas. 

3. The LRMP contains an objective to manage deer populations between 10-20 deer per square mile. 

Alternative D was specifically created to analyze an alternative that focused on limiting forest disturbance to 

levels that were estimated to have occurred historically. 

Most of the concerns identified by the Nature Conservancy were incorporated into Alternative D and to a lesser 

extent in Alternatives Cm and B. 

2.5.7 Local Government Resolutions 

A number of local governments (for a complete list see Appendix A) passed and sent individual resolutions to the 

ANF regarding 12 points they support for the future planning of the ANF. These points are generally: 

1. Improved government communication and establishing a memorandum of understanding for procedures 

and protocol for coordinated dialogue. 

2. 435,000 acres to be maintained for timber management and 10,000 acres annually addressed to 

reinvigorate forest health 

3. 80 million board feet per year as the minimum level of timber harvest along with a departed harvest 

schedule for the immediate short term over and above the 80 million board foot level 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-35

4. Early structural habitat (0-20 years of age) encompassing 100,000 acres or 20 percent of the forest at any 

one time. 

5. Oak areas open to various forms of forest management. 

6. 120,000 acres dedicated for intensive recreation use including: 

a. 300 mile ATV system 

b. Motorized recreation trails increased to 1,000 miles 

c. Increased parking capacity at trailheads 

d. Construction of clean and modern restroom facilities at all trailheads 

e. Connector trails into towns 

f. Increased access to trails from private property 

7. No creation of additional wilderness or ‘de facto’ wilderness 

8. No landscape corridors 

9. Accommodation of equine users 

10. No fewer than 1000 jobs directly linking to ANF activities and an increase in employment value 

11. Planning and site selection for inclusion of modern lodging facilities on or adjacent to the ANF. 

12. A shoreline management strategy regarding the optimum utilization of the Kinzua Reservoir and all 

contiguous areas. 

The ANF has considered the recommendations submitted in these resolutions in the following ways for its 

planning alternatives: 

1. The ANF supports improved communication with local governments and has been taking considerable 

steps towards such improvement. The question of a MOU on government to government communication 

is outside the scope of the revised forest plan. 

2. The ANF does not have the ability to manage 435,000 as part of the suitable land base. The ANF is 

limited to 408,000 acres of tentatively suitable land that can be considered for timber production. 

Alternatives A and B maintain the largest amount (406,600 acres and 391,700 acres respectively) of this 

land in management areas that are suitable for timber production. In the FEIS, Table 2-2 identifies the 

estimated annual levels of vegetative management activities associated with full implementation of the 

alternatives. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-36 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3. The alternatives identified by the ANF provide for high levels of timber production especially in 

Alternatives A and B at 66.5 MMBF and 63.1 MMBF. The departure harvest schedule analyzed for 

Alternative B does provide for 80 MMBF of production annually (see DEIS Appendix B for discussion). 

In addition to providing timber, the ANF must also address a variety of other legal requirements such as 

conservation of riparian areas, maintaining viability of vertebrate species, limiting size of created 

openings, etc. Alternative B was designed to provide for high levels of harvest consistent with meeting 

these other legal requirements. 

4. As the timber benchmark analysis indicates it is not possible within the legal and policy constraints of 

national forest timber management and the tentatively suitable base to maintain 100,000 acres in the early 

structural conditions. Through the sixth decade, the alternatives generally range from 12,400 to 65,600 

acres of land in early age classes at any one time (3-15% of the forest land on the ANF). 

5. Approximately 28 percent of the oak forest types on the ANF are in congressionally designated areas 

(National Recreation Area, Wild and Scenic River, and Wilderness Areas) that preclude active timber 

management. Of the remaining 72 percent, the amount that is available for active even-aged timber 

management varies among the different alternatives from 46 to 70 percent. 

6. Alternative B provides for 113,000 acres in land available for ATV/OHM trail use. In addition lands with 

developed recreation in MA 7.1 provide another 1,772 acres of intensive recreation opportunities. The 

specific mileage of trails that will be developed for these uses depends on a number of factors considered 

at the project level. The plan only identifies the suitability of different areas of the forest for such use. 

Other specific recreation questions (restrooms, specific connectors, parking capacity) are addressed at the 

project planning level. 

7. As part of the revision process, the ANF is required to consider areas for potential wilderness study. This 

varies in the alternatives presented with two alternatives featuring no additional wilderness areas 

(Alternatives A and B) and two alternatives considering two and four additional areas (Alternatives Cm 

and D). 

8. Alternative A does not provide a landscape corridor. The other alternatives provide a connective corridor 

that includes various levels of management directed at maintaining and restoring old forest conditions. 

This is an important element in addressing viability of a number of species on the ANF. 

9. Opportunities for equestrian recreation activity vary across the alternatives with only Alternative D 

limiting large parts of the forest from equestrian activity. 

10. The economic analysis in Chapter 3 of the FEIS estimates the number of jobs that are linked to activities 

on the ANF and each alternative. This section estimates that at least 1,000 jobs are contributed by the 

ANF and full implementation of Alternatives A and B have the potential to increase local employment by 

a 1,000 jobs. 

11. Site selection and consideration of any lodging facilities on the ANF must be consistent with national 

forest direction and will be done at the project level, not in the forest plan. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-37

12. The LRMP contains an objective to develop a comprehensive plan for the area surrounding the shoreline 

of the Allegheny Reservoir, including the Tracy Ridge and Cornplanter parts of the National Recreation 

Area. 

Given the infeasibility of some of these suggestions and the fact that a number of these concerns are already being 

addressed in one or more of the alternatives, the recommendations in the resolutions were not analyzed as a full 

alternative in detail. 

2.5.8 Other Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Most of the concepts that could be used to formulate alternatives and how they were considered have been 

addressed in the previous discussion in responding to the submitted citizen proposals. The ANF considered a 

number of other concepts for developing detailed alternatives. 

Although some analysis was done relative to benchmarks (see Appendix B, Appendix E), the ANF did not elect to 

develop any of the benchmarks ranging from minimums to maximums as detailed alternatives. Benchmarks 

identify the range within which alternatives can be constructed. As benchmarks are not responsive to the purpose 

and need of the revision or respond to all of the identified issues, they were not developed further. 

A number of other alternatives were considered but not developed in detail. For example, due to limitations 

associated with the shelterwood harvest method, the departure analysis of Alternative B could only begin 

accelerated harvest in later decades and thus would add little to the near term analysis. Consideration was given to 

another alternative with lesser or no amounts of MA2.2. Given that Alternative A does not include MA2.2 and in 

many respects produces results close to that of Alternative B, substantial additional insight would not be gained 

from this analysis. 

Finally, as only small modifications were made to Alternative C to Cm, Alternative C was not analyzed in detail 

for the final FEIS. 

2.6 A Comparison of Alternatives 

This section contains the following three comparisons made of each alternative described in Section 2.4: 

• Section 2.6.1 compares management area allocations by alternative and summarizes each management 

area. 

• Section 2.6.2 compares the estimated level of management activities and outputs expected in the first and 

second decades. 

• Section 2.6.3 compares how each alternative addresses the significant issues by displaying the evaluation 

criteria identified in Chapter 1. 

The detailed disclosure of the effects for all resources is found in Chapter 3. The DEIS displayed estimates of 

activities by the planning period. The FEIS is presenting estimates of activities for decades one and two. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-38 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.6.1 Management Area Allocation and Summary 

The allocation of land to different management areas is the major building block of the alternatives considered. 

The LRMP uses the same basic structure of management areas from the 1986 Forest Plan, with minor changes 

(described below). The primary difference between the four alternatives is in how management area allocations 

are made to respond to the issues identified in Chapter 1. 

Each management area has a unique emphasis, desired condition, list of suitable uses, and standards and 

guidelines. Each is described in the LRMP. The following list summarizes each management area and identifies 

changes in management area numbering from the 1986 Forest Plan. The description of the management areas is 

followed by a discussion on how the areas were delineated. Table 2.1 and the end of this section describes 

management area allocation by alternative. A map of the location of management areas under each alternative is 

provided in a separate map packet. 

Certain management areas (primarily all MAs 5.x and 8.x) are considered to be special designations. Special 

designations are areas of the forest that either have or are recommended in the LRMP for a type of permanent 

designation that cannot be changed by subsequent forest plans. These special designations are established through 

congressional legislation (congressionally-designated) or administratively designated at the national level. 

Management areas that correspond to special designations are identified in the descriptions that follow as either 

congressionally or administratively designated areas. 

Note that two overlay areas are identified in addition to the management areas listed below, Intensive Use Areas 

(IUAs) and Equestrian Use Areas (EUAs). The IUAs are the only areas of the ANF where ATV/OHM use is 

allowed and use is allowed on designated trails only. The EUAs are areas where equestrian use is limited to 

designated trails. 

Table 2.1 displays the acreage assigned to each management area for each of the alternatives. A brief summary of 

the management areas follows the table. Further information on the management areas can be found in LRMP. 

Each management area is referenced in the table with an identifying number and its emphasis. The acreage 

assigned to each management area in each alternative is shown in the table. Note that management areas from the 

1986 Forest Plan that were renumbered for the LRMP are shown first with the new number assigned in this 

process, and then with the number (marked by an asterisk) used in the 1986 Forest Plan. 

Management area description 

Management Area 1.0 Early structural habitat 

MA 1.0 is managed for early structural habitat for a variety of game and non-game wildlife species, especially 

ruffed grouse. Vegetation management emphasizes a young forest of hardwood stands with interspersed conifers 

and openings suitable for a variety of wildlife species. Timber harvesting, reforestation activities, and wildlife 

habitat improvement is intensive. Trails and facilities support roaded natural recreational opportunities. Road 

construction and maintenance occur in this management area. 

MA 1.0 is provided in all alternatives. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-39

Management Area 2.0 Uneven-aged management (1986 Forest Plan) 

This MA is renumbered as MA 2.1. 

Management Area 2.1 Uneven-aged management 

This management area is managed for a continuous high crown canopy consisting of primarily shade tolerant and 

intermediate vegetation with interspersed small temporary openings and associated plant and animal species. 

Uneven-aged vegetation management provides a continuous, forested scene that promotes shade tolerant species 

and produces quality sawtimber. Harvesting includes frequent and repeated treatments to achieve management 

objectives. Wildlife management emphasizes species associated with shade tolerant vegetation, primarily 

songbirds and cavity-nesting birds and mammals. This management area provides limited opportunities for 

dispersed recreation, motorized recreation, hunting, and fishing in a roaded natural setting. Forest Service roads 

are generally closed or restricted to public traffic, except for certain seasonal openings. 

MA 2.1 is provided in Alternatives A, Cm, and D. 

Management Area 2.2 Late structural linkages 

MA 2.2 is managed for older, late-structural forests that link relatively large areas of older forests (core areas) 

across the landscape. Vegetation management consists of a blend of uneven-aged, even-aged and passive (no) 

treatments, and is directed towards restoring late-structural forest habitat with an emphasis on sustaining forest 

structure and forest continuity. An early structural component consistent with historic disturbance regimes for the 

Allegheny Plateau would be sustained. Wildlife management emphasizes species with viability concerns, remote 

and interior species with high sensitivity to disturbance, and protection of unique micro and macro habitats (e.g. 

rock/boulder outcroppings and seasonal nesting and cover habitat). This management area provides a variety of 

opportunities for recreation in a roaded natural setting. Most existing roads are closed in this management area, 

and new Forest Service roads will be limited and restricted to existing road corridors. Trails and facilities support 

roaded natural recreation opportunities, and new motorized trails will be minimized. Facilities such as trailheads 

and parking areas will be located on the periphery of the management area. 

MA 2.2 is provided in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

Management Area 3.0 Even-aged management 

MA 3.0 is managed for a mix of early and late structural forest conditions. This management area provides a 

sustained yield of high-quality timber products that contribute to the local and regional economy. Vegetation 

management emphasizes even-aged management to provide a forest that is a mix of predominantly hardwood 

stands of various ages and associated understories, and habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species. 

Treatments are directed towards balancing age class distribution in MA 3.0. Wildlife management emphasizes 

early-structural species, including white-tailed deer in all forest types, and squirrel in oak forest types. Specialized 

habitats and inclusions within the management area receive treatments to specifically benefit game and non-game 

species, and certain species with viability concerns. Trails and facilities support roaded natural recreational 

opportunities. Road construction and maintenance occur in this management area. 

MA 3.0 is provided in all alternatives. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-40 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Management Area 5.0 Wilderness (1986 Forest Plan) 

This management area is divided into MA 5.1 (Designated Wilderness) and MA 5.2 (Proposed Wilderness Study 

Areas). 

Management Area 5.1 Designated wilderness 

MA 5.1 is managed for protection of congressionally designated wilderness. Management emphasizes the 

maintenance of wilderness values consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation. This 

management area provides outstanding opportunities for unconfined recreation, including exploration, solitude, 

risk, and challenge in a semi-primitive non-roaded ROS setting. Vegetation changes are left primarily to forces of 

nature. The area exists without roads or facilities, but trails are present in the management area. No new Forest 

Service roads will be built in this management area. 

MA 5.1 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 5.2 Proposed wilderness study area (Special Designation) 

This management area is managed for the protection of wilderness study areas (WSAs). Management emphasizes 

the maintenance of wilderness values consistent with potential future designation as wilderness. This management 

area provides outstanding opportunities for unconfined recreation, including exploration, solitude, risk, and 

challenge in a semi-primitive non-roaded ROS setting. Vegetation changes are left primarily to forces of nature. 

The ANF will not construct new roads or facilities in these areas. The area may continue to maintain existing 

roads or facilities, as long as there is no further development that would compromise possible wilderness 

designation. 

MA 5.2 is provided in Alternatives Cm and D, only. 

Management Area 6.1 Late structural habitat 

MA 6.1 is managed for conserving wildlife habitats, especially mature hardwood forests (e.g. for turkey, bear, and 

cavity-nesting birds and mammals). Vegetation treatments, primarily even-aged, are directed to meeting the 

primary purpose with an emphasis on sustaining forest structure and continuity to benefit small and non-game 

species, and species with viability concerns. This management area provides a variety of dispersed recreation 

activities in a roaded natural setting. Current roads remain in place and new roads will be limited and restricted or 

closed when not needed. Facilities to support recreation will be placed on the periphery of the management area. 

MA 6.1 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 6.2 10/30 Even-aged management 

MA 6.2 is managed for hardwood sawtimber production and a setting suitable for dispersed non-motorized 

recreation for 30 out of every 40 years. The management area is divided into four blocks which are harvested on a 

rotating schedule. Timber harvesting (primarily even-aged) and reforestation occur in a 10-year, intensive 

management period which occurs once every 40 years. During this 10-year period, road construction and 

motorized recreation may occur on certain roads within the management area. After this 10-year period, Forest 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-41

Service roads will be closed and revegetated. Non-motorized dispersed recreation activities are emphasized during 

the remaining 30 years of the 40-year cycle. 

MA 6.2 is provided in Alternative A only. 

Management Area 6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area 

MA 6.3, the Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area, is managed for wildlife habitat improvement and 

maintenance through a cooperative agreement with the Pennsylvania Game Commission. It is intensively 

managed for high populations of wildlife species, especially waterfowl, furbearers, and warm water fish. 

Vegetation management emphasizes habitat improvement and includes treatments such as planting, fertilizing and 

mowing of food plots, shrub planting, and tree pruning. This management area provides a variety of dispersed 

recreation activities particularly hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation in a roaded natural recreation setting. 

Trail and roads occur within this management area. 

MA 6.3 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 6.4 National recreation area (1986 Forest Plan) 

This management area is renumbered as MA 8.2. 

Management Area 7.0 Developed recreation (1986 Forest Plan) 

This management area is renumbered as MA 7.1. 

Management Area 7.1 Developed recreation area 

MA 7.1 is managed for large-scale developed recreation areas in a rural setting. This management area is 

primarily used in the summer months, and often provides a destination for visitors to use as a staging area for 

participating in other day use activities on the ANF (e.g. ATV riding, boating, fishing, hunting, sight seeing, 

driving for pleasure, horseback riding, biking, and hiking). Vegetation management is limited and is used 

primarily to support recreational and scenic objectives. Road and facilities development for recreation are featured 

here including road and trail construction and maintenance, campgrounds, sanitation facilities, water systems, 

electrical hookups, picnic areas, boat launches, and covered group sites and shelters. 

MA 7.1 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 7.2 Remote recreation area 

MA 7.2 is managed for recreation and wildlife habitat in relatively large, undeveloped areas that are primarily 

unroaded. Recreational use for both summer and winter activities is non-motorized. Vegetation management is 

limited to supporting primarily recreational and wildlife management objectives. Unless needed for recreational 

use or to meet existing private rights, existing roads will be decommissioned or converted to trails. There will be 

no additional Forest Service roads built in this management area. Small-scale facility construction to support nonmotorized recreation may occur. Areas larger than 2,500 acres are managed to an ROS class of semi-primitive 

non-motorized, while those smaller are managed to an ROS class of roaded natural. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-42 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

MA 7.2 is provided in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

Management Area 7.3 Interpretive recreation area 

MA 7.3 is managed for protection, maintenance and interpretation of unique natural and historic areas with an 

emphasis on non-motorized recreation in a roaded natural setting. Vegetation management is limited to supporting 

primarily recreational and wildlife management objectives. Existing roads may be maintained, but no new Forest 

Service roads will be constructed. 

MA 7.3 is provided in Alternative B only. 

Management Area 8.0 Special area management (1986 Forest Plan) 

This management area is divided into six new management areas (MAs 8.1-8.6). All of the management areas that 

begin with 8 are special designations. 

Management Area 8.1 Wild and scenic river corridor (special designation) 

MA 8.1 is managed to protect Congressionally-designated Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridors. Vegetation 

management focuses on protecting and enhancing the outstandingly remarkable values that led to WSR 

designation. Wildlife management in this management area emphasizes habitat enhancement for threatened and 

endangered species such as the bald eagle and freshwater mussels. Roads will be limited to those needed for 

public access, service, or maintenance. 

Both recreational and scenic river segments, with some differences in management emphasis, are in this 

management area. Scenic segments maintain very high scenic integrity. Recreational opportunities are provided in 

roaded natural (along scenic river segments) and rural (along recreational river segments) settings. Along the 

recreational river segments, recreational facilities including level 4 facilities may be present. 

MA 8.1 is provided in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. Note that Alternative A recognizes the scenic and recreational 

river segments in the 1986 Forest Plan as an overlay to protect the outstandingly remarkable values of these 

rivers. 

Management Area 8.2 National recreation area (special designation) 

MA 8.2 is managed for protection of the Allegheny National Recreation Area (NRA), established by the 

Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-585). The primary emphasis is to provide outdoor 

recreation opportunities in a relatively large expanse of predominantly natural landscapes. Vegetation 

management is limited, and emphasizes maintenance of the natural, undeveloped character of these areas while 

providing high-quality scenic and recreational opportunities for the public. Recreation trails and facilities are 

constructed and maintained to the appropriate development level associated with semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation. No new Forest Service roads will be built in this management area. Note: Tracy Ridge Campground, 

included in MA 8.2 under Alternative A is designated as MA 7.1 in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

MA 8.2 is provided in all alternatives. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-43

Management Area 8.3 Scenic area (special designation) 

MA 8.3 is managed for protection and maintenance of two administratively-designated scenic areas on the ANF: 

Tionesta and Hearts Content. Both areas are on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks in recognition of their 

significant ecological and historical values, and specifically because they each contain some of the last “old 

growth” remnant forests in Pennsylvania. Vegetation management activities are limited and focus on maintaining 

the natural, undeveloped character of these areas while providing high-quality scenic and recreational 

opportunities for the public. Trails systems are designed and maintained to be in harmony with the environment. 

Recreation opportunities are provided in a roaded natural setting. No new Forest Service roads will be 

constructed, but existing roads may remain. 

MA 8.3 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 8.4 Historic area (special designation) 

MA 8.4 is managed for protection, maintenance, and interpretation of the Buckaloons Heritage Area as an 

administratively-designated special interest area. Buckaloons contains a significant concentration of historic and 

prehistoric sites which are valued for heritage, research, education, interpretation, and tourism. Vegetation 

management is limited to activities consistent with this emphasis. Recreational opportunities are provided in a 

roaded natural setting. Facilities may be provided or enhanced for public use or resource protection. Construction 

of new roads and facilities may occur for recreation and interpretation purposes. 

MA 8.4 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 8.5 Research natural area (special designation) 

MA 8.5 is managed for preservation and protection of ecologically-significant natural features, high-quality 

representative ecosystems, and unique areas of the administratively-designated Tionesta Research Natural Area 

(RNA).The Tionesta RNA is on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks in recognition of its significant 

ecological and historical values. In particular, it has been characterized as the “largest virgin forest in the 

hemlock-white pine/northern hardwoods region of North America.” 

The emphasis in this management area is to maintain unmodified conditions for research, study, observation, 

monitoring, and educational activities. Vegetation management will be limited, but may occur to protect against 

defoliation and disease. Wildlife activities are primarily non-manipulative research activities. Construction of new 

roads, trails and facilities will be prohibited, and recreational use will be limited. 

MA 8.5 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 8.6 Kane Experimental Forest (special designation) 

MA 8.6 is managed for research and demonstration purposes on the administratively-designated Kane 

Experimental Forest (KEF). Most management activities are appropriate for this area as long as they are 

developed as part of research projects. This management area may also provide some production of wood 

products, conservation of wildlife, and provide dispersed recreation opportunities in a roaded natural setting. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-44 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Trails and facilities may be constructed, but new Forest Service roads will be limited. Leadership for the selection 

and evaluation of projects in the KEF is provided by the Northern Research Station in cooperation with the ANF. 

MA 8.6 is provided in all alternatives. 

Management Area 9.1 Managed with minimal investment 

MA 9.1 is managed with minimal investment to emphasize natural ecosystem processes. In this management area, 

the land condition is dominated by vegetation progressing through a natural succession process to mature and 

over mature hardwood and softwood forests. Natural forces play a dominant role in site or vegetation change. 

Vegetation management occurs primarily to protect the life, health, and safety of incidental forest users and to 

prevent significant loss of existing resources or productivity on the site or in adjoining areas. 

MA 9.1 is provided in Alternative A only. 

Management area delineation 

Management area delineation for forest planning occurs at a broad, landscape scale. This is an iterative process 

that uses a variety of spatial data of varying accuracy and precision, and incorporates goals, objectives, science, 

changed conditions, public input, and professional judgment. This interdisciplinary approach ensures that the final 

range of alternatives address the significant issues and concerns. A variety of methodologies, criteria, information 

and the best available data are used to determine the best placement of boundaries to meet the intent of the 

management area. 

The ANF geographic information system (GIS) was the primary tool used for mapping management areas. 

Management area delineation and mapping was initially based on management areas defined in the 1986 Forest 

Plan as currently mapped in the ANF GIS. Alternative A represents the existing condition of management area 

allocation. Alternatives to the current management area allocation were then developed for Alternatives B, Cm, 

and D based on the existing condition and significant issues identified through the planning and public 

participation process. Revised boundaries are based on different allocations identified in the alternatives. Existing 

congressionally and administratively designated area boundaries did not change. These include MAs 5.1, 8.2, 8.3, 

8.4, and 8.5. The wild and scenic river corridor (MA 8.1) was based on application of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act of 1968 (Appendix D). Lands adjacent to Kane Experimental Forest (MA 8.6) were identified for expansion 

of KEF based on forest cover types and the need for additional dedicated lands to conduct research. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D added wilderness study areas (MA 5.2), which were delineated based on the updated 

roadless area inventory and wilderness evaluation process which provided guidance on boundary determination 

(Appendix C). Areas that were included in the alternatives as remote recreation areas (MA7.2) used work done in 

the revised roadless inventory to identify boundaries. This included review and consideration of area boundaries 

submitted by the Friends of Allegheny Wilderness and the Allegheny Defense Project. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D added late structural linkages (MA 2.2). This MA was developed to connect core areas 

(relatively large areas of older forests) across the landscape. The core areas included MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 

8.3, and 8.5. The boundary delineation was initially based on the 1995 proposed landscape corridor framework 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-45

(USDA-FS 1995d), which coincides closely with existing MA 6.1. Configurations for MA 2.2 provided wider 

connections and multiple connectors as they range from Alternatives B through D. GIS was used to determine the 

spatial location of the late structural linkages to best meet the goals and objectives identified for MA 2.2, using a 

suite of landscape characteristics (FEIS Chapter 3, Plant and Animal Habitat). The boundary was adjusted through 

an interdisciplinary team process using district knowledge of current and anticipated future conditions on the 

ground. Public comment and professional judgment lead to further boundary refinements of MA 2.2 in 

Alternative Cm. 

The remaining management areas vary by alternative primarily as a result of changes in the MAs previously 

discussed. MAs 1.0 and 6.3 remained relatively similar in all alternatives, except where MA 2.2 was applied. MA 

2.1 mapped areas were the same in Alternatives A and Cm, except where MA 2.2 is applied in Cm. The expanded 

configuration of MA 2.1 in Alternative D was based on grouping northern and upland hardwood forest types into 

larger management units. The majority of MA 6.1 was incorporated into MA 2.2. Some areas of MA 6.1, as 

identified in Alternative A, were included in the other alternatives based on their capability to provide late 

structural habitat. MA 7.1 was revised from Alternative A to better define the extent of developed recreation 

areas. MA 7.3 was mapped to reflect an area that has unique, natural and historic value for interpretation and only 

occurs in Alternative B. MAs 6.2 and 9.1 were included in Alternative A only and no additional mapping was 

done for these areas. MA 3.0 primarily included lands outside of the other assigned management areas. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-46 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-1. Management area allocation by alternative (Acres) 

Alternatives MA # Emphasis A B Cm D 

MA 1.0 Early Structural Habitat 7,955 7,575 7,937 6,215 

MA 2.1 (*2.0) Uneven-aged Management 3,617 0 2,837 125,746 

MA 2.2 Late Structural Linkages 0 99,482 121,176 128,781 

MA 3.0 Even-aged Management 307,770 330,190 287,380 122,831 

MA 5.1 (* 5.0) Designated Wilderness 8,979 8,979 8,979 8,979 

MA 5.2 Wilderness Study Area 0 0 12,379 29,981 

MA 6.1 Late Structural Habitat 126,904 11,922 16,421 28,377 

MA 6.2 10/30 Even-aged Management 21,297 0 0 0 

MA 6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife 

Management Area 1,167 1,122 1,122 1,122 

MA 7.1 (*7.0) Developed Recreation Area 1,040 1,772 1,772 1,477 

MA 7.2 Remote Recreation Area 0 4,668 9,074 30,948 

MA 7.3 Interpretive Recreation Area 0 3,367 0 0 

MA 8.1 Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

(NF land) 0 9,250 9,250 9,215 

MA 8.2 (*6.4) National Recreation Area 20,502 20,152 20,152 4,807 

MA 8.3 (*8.0) Scenic Area 2,115 2,115 2,115 2,115 

MA 8.4 (*8.0) Historic Area 306 306 306 306 

MA 8.5 (*8.0) Research Natural Area 2,111 2,111 2,111 2,111 

MA 8.6 (*8.0) Kane Experimental Forest 1,737 3,463 3,463 3,463 

MA 9.1 Managed with Minimal Investment 974 0 0 0 

Total Acres (ANF lands) 506,474 506,474 506,474 506,474 

Overlay Acres 

Intensive Use 

Areas ATV/OHM Use 98,974 113,019 83,202 40,519 

Equestrian Use 

Areas Equestrian Use 0 10,585 10,585 49,934 
Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 2.2. Past management activity levels and future projected management activities (annual average/year excep

alternative for decades one and two 

Alt A Alt B Alt Cm 

Management Activity Decade Decade Decade 

Past Level (1986-2005) 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Even-aged Vegetation Mgt. (Acres) Intermediate Thinning Harvests 2,594 1,363 1,149 1,035 654 1,000 1,000 Shelterwood Seed Cut Harvests 969 2,070 2,206 1,950 2,114 1,835 1,715 Regeneration Harvests (Shelterwood Removal Cut &,or Clearcut with reserves) 

1,424 2,423 2,043 2,341 1,917 1,754 1,673 

Uneven-aged Vegetation Mgt. (Ac) Uneven-aged Harvests+ 327 6 0 403 326 666 320 Riparian Areas (Acres)  Riparian Enhancements ++ NE (103) (107) (97) (99) (96) (92) 

Road Management (Miles) Road Construction/ Existing Corridor NE 13 13 14 14 13 13 Road Construction New Corridor 9* 8 8 7 7 5 5 Road Reconstruction 7** 100 100 100 100 100 100 Road Decommissioning 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Forest Road System (total by end of decade) 

1,269 

(Existing) 1,459 1,649 1,459 1,649 1,429 1,589 

Additional Acres Cleared for Gravel Pits NE 5 5 5 5 5 5 Understory Vegetation Treatments (Acres) 

Herbicide –Reforestation Herbicide - Wildlife Herbicide - Non-Native Invasive Sp. 

977 

10 

0 

1,785 

20 

0 

1,524 

20 

0 

2,062 

105 110 

1,683 

105 110 

2,368 

105 110 

1,631 

105 110 

Non-Native Invasive Species Control 30*** 500 500 500 500 500 500 Fencing 735 1,054 1,138 1,285 1,331 1,701 1,429 Fertilization 766 364 384 343 388 215 228 Prescribed Burning - Silviculture Prescribed Burning - Wildlife Prescribed Burning - Hazard Fuels Reduction 

11*** 

53 

8 

65 90 

125 

65 90 

125 

100 300 250 

109 300 250 

104 300 250 

99 

300 250 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-48 Allegheny National Forest Final Environm

Alt A Alt B Alt Cm 

Management Activity Decade Decade Decade 

Past Level (1986-2005) 1 2 1 2 1 2 

Scarification for Oak 41** * 65 65 100 109 104 99 Release for Species Diversity 531*** 1,562 1,837 1,630 1,997 1,727 2,271 Site Preparation 1,385 1,477 1,575 1,686 1,746 1,992 1,658 

Wildlife and Fish Management 

Wildlife Opening Creation (Ac) 10 10 10 20 20 15 15 Wildlife Enhancements (Ac) 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Stream Restoration (Mi) 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Fish Habitat Structures (Ac) 41*** 0 0 32 32 32 32 Recreation Trails Management (Mi) Motorized Trail Construction +++ 4 5 5 8 8 4 4 Motorized Trail System 474 (Existing) 524 574 554 634 514 554 Non-motorized Trail Construction++++ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Non-motorized Trail System 271 (Existing) 321 371 321 371 321 371 Recreation Management (Each) Dispersed site enhancement in CUAs 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Construction/reconstruction of developed facilities 71 (Existing) 2 1 2 1 2 1 Wilderness Areas managed to standard 0 2 2 2 2 4 4 Economics Budget (Thousands, 2005 dollars) $16,814***** $27,854 $28,298 $28,301 $28,702 $26,358 $25,778 Revenue (Thousands, 2005 dollars) $18,070***** $69,066 $70,840 $64,554 $67,502 $53,411 $51,303 

+ Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree selection ha

selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed. ++ Acres of riparian treatments are included in the activities listed above them +++ ATV/OHM/Snowmobile ++++ Hike/Bike/Horse * Represents total road construction (past levels were not tracked by new or existing corridor) ** Average number is low due to change from past definition of reconstruction. Numbers going forward include heavy maintenance activity. ** *Treatment only applied past 5 years. **** Treatment only applied on ANF for the past 10 years ***** Average from 2001-2005 NE = Not Estimated
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-49

2.6.2 Estimated Management Activities/Outputs 

Table 2.2 displays estimates of the management activities that may occur in decades 1 and 2 under each of the 

alternatives. The LRMP does not make decisions about specific management activities. Each of those decisions 

must be made in an individual environmental document. Table 2.2 provides an estimate of the amount of these 

activities that could occur with the full implementation of the identified alternative. Although there are a few 

exceptions (described below) most of these activities are described as an average annual level expected to occur 

during the first and second decades (2006-2015 & 2016-2025). The estimated activity levels are based on an 

assumption of full funding to achieve plan objectives. 

Past comparable activity levels are displayed first to reflect current funding levels. Alternative A projects some 

levels at zero, because they were not analyzed at the time of the 1986 Forest Plan. 

The items described in the table are: 

Even-aged intermediate thinning harvests 

This displays the average annual acreage scheduled for timber harvest activities that remove a portion of the 

standing trees to reduce the density of standing trees. Thinning activity may occur to improve stand vigor, 

accelerate growth, or to reduce forest health risks by concentrating growth on healthy trees and removing those at 

risk of decline or dying. The acres displayed are limited to lands where even-aged regeneration harvest is 

anticipated to occur, usually within 20-30 years following the thinning activity. 

Even-aged shelterwood seed cut harvests 

This displays the average annual acreage scheduled for a shelterwood seed cut, the first step in an even-aged 

shelterwood regeneration system. A shelterwood system treatment is used on sites where it is desirable to 

establish tree regeneration and there is an opportunity on the landscape to increase the seedling component to 

achieve wildlife and/or age-class diversity objectives by completing the later removal harvest. In the shelterwood 

seed cut, about one-third of the overstory trees are removed to increase sunlight levels to the forest floor for 

seedling development. Once adequate tree seedlings develop, usually in 3 to 15 years, but sometimes as late as 20 

years, the second step called the shelterwood removal cut would occur (see explanation in the next subsection), 

allowing nearly full sunlight for seedlings to quickly grow. 

Even-aged regeneration harvests (shelterwood removal cut and/or clearcut with reserves) 

This displays the average annual acreage scheduled for regeneration through even-aged management techniques. 

Regeneration means the replacement of most of an existing stand with a younger stand of tree seedlings. The ANF 

predominantly uses a shelterwood system that involves two entries on the same area to achieve regeneration. 

Some of these treatments in the first decade occur where existing shelterwood seed cuts have already been 

completed. In some forest types the shelterwood removal listed here will result from a shelterwood seed cut made 

in the same decade listed under the previous line in the table (some stands will be listed in both places). In nearly 

all cases, areas regenerated using even-aged silvicultural systems retain trees (referred to as reserves) that serve as 

biological and structural legacies of the stand over the long term. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-50 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Uneven-aged harvests 

This displays the average annual acreage scheduled for timber harvest activities that removes a portion of the 

standing trees with the management objective of establishing at least three distinct age classes over time. The 

acreage displayed reflects the acreage that would receive the first entry harvest to transition an even-aged stand 

towards and uneven-aged stand. There are three distinct treatments grouped under this heading. These include an 

intermediate improvement cut, which is designed to improve stand quality and transition the structure towards 

that of an uneven-aged forest; single tree selection, which removes individual trees with the intent of developing 

tree seedlings on the forest floor; and group selection, which removes groups of trees in each entry to create a 

distinct age class. These harvests will create or perpetuate a situation of trees of multiple ages occurring within the 

same general area and will require repeated entries for harvesting on 15-30 year intervals. The acreage only 

reflects first entry harvests. Subsequent entries to treated areas are not displayed in this table. 

Riparian enhancement (Note these acres are included in the totals listed previously in the table for even and 

unevenaged management). 

This identifies the acreage of riparian enhancement harvest activities scheduled to occur within riparian areas. 

These harvests are designed to improve vegetative diversity and enhance vertical and big tree structural 

characteristics to enhance the values of riparian areas. 

Road construction/existing corridor 

This identifies the average annual mileage of Forest Service roads that are estimated to be improved and added to 

the FS system. These roads are built utilizing existing road corridors from oil and gas roads, old railroads or other 

road corridors. 

Road construction/new corridor 

This identifies the average annual mileage of Forest Service roads that are estimated to be constructed during the 

planning period. These roads are built with new road grades where roads presently do not exist. Some would 

require rights-of-way for access to NF lands. 

Road reconstruction 

This is the average annual mileage of FS or local government roads estimated for reconstruction work. 

Reconstruction includes surface rock or culvert replacement as well as improvement and realignment or existing 

roads. 

Road decommissioning 

This is the average annual mileage of roads that would be decommissioned and unavailable for use by all motor 

vehicles. This includes the removal of all roads in conflict with the management direction of the alternative plus 

anticipated project-level decisions to decommission unneeded roads over the next two decades. This does not 

include nonsystem roads that may be decommissioned at the site-specific project level. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-51

Forest road system 

This is the current level of the ANF road system and the number of miles in the FS road system at the end of 

decades one and two. It is the sum of the number of miles of existing and new roads minus the number of miles of 

roads decommissioned. 

Additional acres cleared for gravel pits 

This is an estimate of the additional acres of gravel pits needed for FS road construction and reconstruction on the 

ANF annually. 

Herbicide treatment 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF anticipated to be treated with herbicides. The estimated 

acreage is broken out by acres of treatment to support reforestation, wildlife improvements, and to eliminate nonnative invasive species. 

Non-native invasive species control 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF treated to eliminate or suppress non-native invasive 

species. This includes manual and mechanical treatments. 

Fencing 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be fenced to protect understory vegetation 

development. This displays the area actively fenced within a year, rather than the total area fenced from new and 

old fencing. 

Fertilization 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be treated with fertilizer for growth enhancement of 

tree seedlings. 

Burning 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be treated with prescribed burning. The estimated 

acreage is broken out by acres of treatment to support forest regeneration, to support wildlife improvements, and 

to reduce hazardous fuels. 

Scarification for oak 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be treated with scarification (30% disturbance of 

organic layer) to regenerate oak. 

Release for species diversity 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be treated with non-herbicide mechanical release 

treatments that reduce competing vegetation for desired tree seedlings to grow. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

2-52 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Site preparation 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be prepared for regeneration silvicultural activities by 

mechanical felling of unmerchantable stems. 

Precommercial thinning 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF that will have treatments to remove or fell some trees 

non-commercially so that the remaining trees will grow faster. 

Full planting tree seedlings 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to have planting of tree seedlings where low stocking is 

a concern. 

Mechanical hazardous fuel treatments 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to have hazardous fuel treatments (reduction of fuels 

available for wildfire) through mechanical (non-burning) methods. 

Wildlife opening creation 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be converted into permanent openings to support 

wildlife that use open conditions. 

Wildlife enhancements 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of the ANF to be treated with wildlife enhancements. 

Stream restoration 

This is the estimated average annual mileage of streams structurally restored suitable to aquatic habitat conditions. 

Fish habitat structures 

This is the estimated average annual acreage of fish habitat improvement/enhancement. These improvements 

include the placement of structures in impoundments. 

Motorized trail construction 

This is the estimated annual average of construction and reconstruction of ATV/OHM/snowmobile trails. 

Non-motorized trail construction 

This is the estimated annual average of construction and reconstruction of hiking, bike, and horse trails. 

Motorized trail system 

This is the total estimated mileage of all motorized trails. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-53

Non-motorized trail system 

This is the total estimated mileage of all nonmotorized trails. 

Dispersed site enhancement in concentrated use areas 

This is the annual average of dispersed site improvement and may include site hardening, kiosk construction, 

addition of fire rings or centralized vault toilets. 

Construction/reconstruction of developed facilities 

This is the annual average of construction or reconstruction of developed facilities including day use areas, 

campgrounds, information sites, and trailheads. 

Wilderness areas managed to standard 

Number of wilderness areas managed to standard, based on the number of designated wilderness or recommended 

wilderness study areas per alternative. 

ANF budget 

This is the estimated average annual budget needed to support full implementation in 2005 dollars. Note the past 

level for this item is an average from 2001-2005. 

ANF revenues 

This is the estimated average annual revenues of the ANF in 2005 dollars based on full implementation. Note the 

past level for this item is an average from 2001-2005. 

2.6.3 How the Alternatives Addressed the Issues (Display of Evaluation Criteria) 

Table 2.3 displays how the alternatives address the issues identified in Chapter 1. The items displayed in the table 

are also known as evaluation criteria or a set of indicators used to compare how the alternatives respond to the 

issues and their various components identified in Chapter 1. The nature of the items displayed varies depending 

upon the particular issue. Some are summaries related to the land allocations of the alternatives, others are 

estimates of activities, conditions or outputs (rounded to the nearest 100) anticipated under the alternative in the 

first or second decade, and others may present other specific items related to the alternatives. These specific items 

are described in more detail in Chapter 3 of this EIS. Some may be described in further detail in Appendix B. 

. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

2-54 Allegheny National Forest Draft EnvironmTable 2-3. Evaluation criteria by issue and alternative 

FOREST VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

Vegetation Composition - Predicted Forest Type Conversions Current condition (2005) and forest types predicted in each alternative for decades 2 and 6 shown as % of forested land (4436,800 acres in decade 6). The amount and nature of management activities (including shifts that occur under no active mfactors influencing the future mix of forest types in the alternatives. Note: See Forest Composition Section in Chapter 3 foto forest types. (Data shown is for the mid-point of the decade.) 

2005 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 D

Upland Hardwood 33% 34% 45% 34% 45% 34% Allegheny Hardwood 28% 27% 21% 27% 21% 27% Northern Hardwood 16% 16% 13% 16% 13% 16% Oak Types 16% 16% 14% 16% 14% 16% 

Vegetation Age- Percent of forested acres by age class Estimated percentage in each identified age class group in decades 2 and 6 from base of 442,600 acres of forested land on uneven-aged management in the future have no age class assigned and will contain multiple ages and thus are not associaNote: Span of age classes differ, zero acres are identified under uneven-aged management at the present time, and old groand Research Natural Areas & Hearts Content Scenic Area) remain constant by alternative. (Data shown is for the mid-po

2005 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 D

0-20 8% 10% 15% 10% 14% 8% 21-50 6% 11% 14% 11% 13% 11% 51-80 26% 9% 10% 8% 10% 8% 81-110 57% 59% 4% 57% 4% 58% 111-140 3% 10% 34% 10% 33% 10% 141-300 0% <1% 22% <1% 22% <1% 301+ <1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 
Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-3. Evaluation Criteria by Issue and Alternative (continued) 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Silvicultural Systems Used - Total acres allocated by dominant silvicultural system based on Management Areas Even-aged silvicultural systems are scheduled in MAs 1.0, 2.2, 3.0, 6.1 & 6.2. Uneven-aged silvicultural systems are sche2.2 (Landscape Linkages) has percentages of area assigned to even-aged, uneven-aged, and no active management based type. Areas with no silvicultural management scheduled include portions of MA 2.2 , MA 6.3 and all of MAs 5.x, 7.x, & information is based on total acreage in the MA. All even-aged and uneven-aged MAs include areas of even-aged, unevenmanagement, but they may be small proportions and are not broken out. Even-aged 463,900 371,900 340,100 Uneven-aged 3,600 22,900 33,700 No Active Management 38,900 111,700 132,700 Silvicultural Systems Used - Estimated total acres regenerated by forest type by silvicultural system predicted Estimated cumulative acres regenerated under even-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural systems. For even-aged harvests twith final harvest cut between 2006 and the end of the decade shown. For uneven-aged harvests, this represents the acreagleast one uneven-aged entry by the end of the decade shown. 

Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 De

Even-aged Management (acreage) 44,600 139,600 42,500 130,200 34,200 11Uneven-aged Management (acreage) 100 100 7,300 13,800 9,900 17Forest Health Measures This shows three measures of forest health risk. The first is an estimate of acres thinned over the next two decades. Thinntechnique to enhance tree growth and vigor. The second is estimated acreage of Northern hardwood and hemlock forest tymost vulnerable to beech bark disease, hemlock woolly adelgid, and sugar maple decline. The third is estimated acreage otype >120 years of age. These stands are more likely to experience increased mortality once they reach this age. (Acreage and sixth decade.) Acres thinned in Decades 1 & 2 combined 25,100 16,900 20,000 

2005 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 De

Acres of Northern hardwood and hemlock types 82,200 81,500 64,000 80,800 64,300 81,500 63Acres Allegheny type > 120 yrs 900 2,000 24,800 1,800 16,700 2,700 23
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

2-56 Allegheny National Forest Draft EnvironmTable 2-3. Evaluation criteria by issue and alternative (continued) 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternativ

Total acres suitable for sustainable timber production These lands are identified as suitable for timber production. From these acres, harvest activity may be scheduled, and harvAllowable Sale Quantity. The 1986 Forest Plan identified a suitable land base of 420,000 acres. The major reasons for chareduced land area due to OGM development and identification of some lands as technically unsuitable (see Chapter 3).  406,600 391,700 379,10Forest Products - Annual Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) for Decades 1 & 2 The ASQ is the maximum quantity of timber that can be sold in each decade from lands suitable for timber production. It estimate for decades 1 & 2, expressed in millions of cubic feet (MMCF) and millions of equivalent board feet (MMBF). TASQ of 14.9 MMCF/year (94.5 MMBF/year). The 1995 “Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability” estimated an afor 1995-2005 of 53.2 MMBF/year; with a long term potential of 77.1 MMBF/year when adequate tree seedling stocking actual volume awarded has averaged 46.4 MMBF/year, with an average award volume during the last five years (2001-20MMBF/year). Allowable Sale Quantity Decade 1 (MMCF) 10.9 10.3 8.9 Allowable Sale Quantity Decade 2 (MMCF) 10.9 10.3 8.9 Allowable Sale Quantity Decade 1 (MMBF) 66.5 63.1 54.1 Allowable Sale Quantity Decade 2 (MMBF) 66.5 63.1 54.1 

HABITAT DIVERSITY

Percent of NF lands in three structural stages Three structural classes are based on the average diameter of dominant canopy trees as listed below. Uneven-aged managemid-structural stage. Data is shown for the midpoint of the second and sixth decades. Note: Numbers will not add up to 10forested or developed land condition. 

2005 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 Decade 6 Decade 2 D

Early-structural (canopy trees 0-5”) 7% 9% 14% 9% 12% 8% Mid-structural (canopy trees 6-20”) 77% 72% 48% 71% 49% 72% Late-structural (canopy trees >21”) 4% 8% 24% 10% 25% 10% 
Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement Table 2-3. Evaluation criteria by issue and alternative (continued) 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

Percent of oak type managed by dominant silvicultural system Estimated percent of total amount of current oak type allocated to be managed by dominant silvicultural system. This is d75,000 oak forest type acres. (Even-aged in MAs 1.0, 2.2, 3.0, 6.1, & 6.2; Uneven-aged in MAs 2.1; No active manageme9.1) Note: Although MA 2.2 features a blend of uneven-aged, even-aged and no active management, oak in this MA is asand is shown that way here. Even-aged 77% 53% 49% Uneven-aged 0% 0% 0% No Active Management 23% 47% 51% Percent of NF lands managed for late-structural habitat Percent of ANF (506,500 Acres Total) allocated in MAs managed for late-structural forest (MAs 2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 7.2This is based on total acres allocated to these MAs whether or not they currently provide late structural forest.  33% 32% 40% Species viability outcomes in 2060The viability outcomes associated with the direct and indirect effects of alternatives for species with viability concerns do alternatives (See Appendix E). Outcomes for the mid to late structural forest species do vary. Shown is the number of theshabitat for each viability outcome. (A: Broadly distributed, high abundance; B: Gaps in habitat, but species dispersal and habitat cause some species isolation; D: Isolated habitat, limited population interaction; E: Habitat highly isolated, strong Mid to Late Structural Forest 2005 Outcome A 0 0 0 0 Outcome B 8 8 8 8 Outcome C 4 3 3 3 Outcome D 7 8 8 8 Outcome E 0 0 0 0 
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

2-58 Allegheny National Forest Draft EnvironmTable 2-3. Evaluation criteria by issue and alternative (continued) 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Percent of interior & high-quality remote habitat remaining The Roads Analysis Report (2003) describes 37 areas (totaling 61,196 acres) larger than 500 acres in size without roads thHigh-quality remote habitat is a subset of those areas — 33,005 acres in 8 areas that had a high wildlife value. Other remoremaining areas covering 28,191 acres. The numbers shown below are the estimated percent of those lands that will not hSystem Roads) through the end of the 6th decade when the projected Forest Road System is completed. High-quality remote habitat 63% 81% 88% Other remote habitat 35% 38% 60% 

RECREATION AND SPECIAL AREAS MANAGEMENT

Area of land managed for non-motorized recreation Estimated acreage based on allocation to MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5.  33,700 41,400 54,800 Area of land managed for ATV/OHM use Estimated total acreage allocated to Intensive Use Areas, where ATV/OHM use and trail development may occur.  99,000 113,000 83,200 Area of land managed for equestrian use Estimated total acreage by use class. Equestrian Use Areas are areas where horse use is limited to designated trails. Equesdesignated trails in areas for open riding. Restricted areas are where horse use is restricted to designated trails. Prohibited prohibited. Equestrian Use Areas 0 10,600 10,600 Areas for Open Riding 506,500 470,100 456,700 Restricted Areas 0 18,100 31,500 Prohibited Areas 0 7,700 7,700 Acres recommended for Congressionally-designated wilderness study MA 5.2 Note: Does not include existing wilderness acreage (8,979 acres)  0 0 12,400 
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-59

2.7 Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Cm is the Preferred Alternative for revising the ANF Forest Plan. This alternative is described in 

detail in Chapter 2 - Section 2.4 and includes the elements common to all alternatives described in Section 2.3. 

The management direction, land allocation descriptions, standards and guidelines for management practices, and 

monitoring and evaluation plan are found in the accompanying LRMP. 

2.8 Estimation of Future Oil and Gas Development 

A brief estimate of future mineral development on ANF lands is listed here at the end of Chapter 2 to recognize 

these developments will mostly likely occur and be additive to the resource effects and outputs displayed for all 

alternatives. This information is summarized from Appendix F. Because reasonable foreseeable federal actions on 

leased minerals (870 acres) affect less than 1 percent of the ANF, they were not analyzed separately from private 

oil and gas development. The levels of future development shown below include both private and federal mineral 

development and are analyzed under the cumulative effects analysis for each resource in Chapter 3. 

Surface disturbance with new well development includes approximately 0.3 acres for each well pad, and an 

additional 0.25 miles of new OGM roads per well, considered as private roads, pipelines and electric line 

corridors. The new surface disturbance figures differ slightly from the 1986 Forest Plan due to additional field 

information gathered after the initial Plan. An estimated 1,200 miles of private OGM roads are on ANF surface. 

Many new wells are also drilled off of existing Forest Roads. Operations occur across the entire forest. Recent 

development outside of historic known oil fields has occurred in the Hastings and Salmon Creek areas. 

Approximately 191,000 to 241,000 acres on the ANF are likely subject to future development, based on some 

expansion of the known areas developed at this time. 

Table 2.4 below displays three scenarios, the historic trend, high quarter scenario, and an average projection. Over 

the past 20 years, an average of 225 wells were drilled on the forest each year (column 1). If oil and gas prices 

remain strong, it is possible that development may increase beyond that projected by historic figures. In column 2, 

a high quarter scenario is displayed (200 wells in 3 months occurred in 2005 when 688 wells were drilled) and 

considered possible to continue. Extrapolating this information to 2020 results in an estimated 11,375 wells using 

the historic trend approach and 20,000 wells using the high quarter scenario (see bottom rows). These estimates 

do not include any allowance for plugging wells. Approximately 100 to 200 wells are plugged by private 

operators per year on the forest. However, most of the wells being plugged are abandoned wells, not counted in 

the current estimate of 8,000 active wells. 

The average future development scenario through the midpoint of the second decade is 512 new wells per year, 

the average of the 20-year average (225 wells) and the high-quarter scenario (800 wells). The rationale being that 

the energy market will continue to be cyclic as it has been in the past, but clearly respond to the higher demands 

developed over the past 2 years. This would result in an estimated 15,680 wells and 3,122 miles of private OGM 

roads in 2020 on national forest lands. Figures used for cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 3 will use the same 

development assumptions and include projections of OGM development on private lands within the boundary 

selected for analysis of each resource (e.g. proclamation boundary or four-county region). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives 

2-60 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Although it is impossible to predict the total number of wells that could occur on the ANF, our best estimate is 

that saturation would occur at 20,000 wells. This assumption is used to estimate the long term cumulative 

consequences of oil and gas development by the ANF in Chapter 3. The application of forestwide and 

management area standards and guidelines in the LRMP will limit the extent and duration of adverse 

environmental effects from oil and gas development. 

Table 2-4. Estimated number of wells and miles of road by midpoint of second decade 

Measure 

Scenario Existing 

Wells 

Additional 

Wells 

Total 

Wells 

Existing 

OGM 

Roads 

(mi) 

Additional 

OGM Roads 

(mi) 

Total 

Roads 

(mi) 

Additional 

Acres of 

Clearing 

Historic Trend 1986 to 

2005 (225 wells/year) 8,000 3,375 11,375 1,250 850 2,100 4,600 

High Quarter (800 

wells/year) 8,000 12,000 20,000 1,250 3,000 4,250 15,600 

Average Future 

Projection (Average of 

High Quarter and 

Historic Trend: 512 

wells/year) 

8,000 7,680 15,680 1,250 1,920 3,120 9,980 

(Note: plugging of abandoned wells would not reduce projected future active wells.) 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction to Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and social resources of the environment that may be affected by the 

alternatives presented in Chapter 2, as well as the effects that the alternatives may have on those resources. 

Affected environment and environmental effects have been combined into one chapter to give the reader a more 

concise and connected depiction of what the resources are and what may happen to them under the different 

alternatives. The environmental effects analysis forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of 

alternatives that appears at the end of Chapter 2. 

3.1.1 Relationship of Forest Plan Decisions to the Environment 

The LRMP and the FEIS alternatives do not authorize implementation of management activities described in the 

effects analyses. The LRMP sets the stage for what future management actions are needed to achieve desired 

outcomes (desired conditions, goals and objectives), and provides the sideboards (standards and guidelines) under 

which future activities will occur in order to manage risks to biophysical resources and the social and economic 

environments. 

To actually implement site-specific projects, project-level planning, environmental analysis, and decisions must 

occur. For example, the LRMP may contain direction to close or obliterate roads in order to benefit biophysical 

resources and to increase management efficiency, but a site-specific analysis and decision must be made for each 

proposal that involves any specific road closure or obliteration. This process is referred to as “staged decisionmaking,” because a series of decisions are necessary to carry out projects as site-specific needs, priorities, 

locations, conditions, and public concerns become evident. 

Geographic area 

Influence area 

The primary zone of influence of the ANF is the four-county area of Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties, 

Pennsylvania. Some local influence extends into various adjacent counties of Pennsylvania and into Chautauqua, 

Cattaraugus, and Allegany Counties of New York. These influences are due primarily to commerce (particularly 

timber, minerals, and construction), recreation, and relationships with the Seneca Nation of Indians, Allegany 

State Park in New York, and Cook Forest State Park in Clarion County, Pennsylvania. Regional influence extends 

to the Pittsburgh area and to the Youngstown-Cleveland area in Ohio. 

Changes to Chapter 3 are highlighted at the introduction to each resource. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Immediate forest 

The ANF is located in northwestern Pennsylvania with relatively comparable acreage in Elk, Forest, Warren, and 

McKean Counties. The Forest contains approximately 506,475 acres of land and 10,370 acres of surface water in 

the Allegheny River and Reservoir. The Legal Proclamation Boundary encompasses approximately 751,400 

acres, including the reservoir and river. See Preface for a more general overview description of the forest. 

Time period described 

The forest planning cycle is considered to be 10 to 15 years. However, the forest plan is expected to be updated as 

necessary through amendments to keep its strategic function in step with the best available science. Modeling of 

forest vegetation changes was carried out for 150 years from approximately 2005. 

For this analysis, activities are described in terms of the average annual amount expected to occur by decade or 

decadal totals. When conditions on the ground are described, they are usually described for the midpoints of the 

decade. The midpoint of the first decade may be refered to as 2010, the midpoint of the second decade as 2020, 

and the midpoint of the sixth decade as 2060 to reference these conditions. Short-term effects generally speak to 

effects within the first or second decade. Long-term effects analyzed by alternative focus on the sixth decade from 

the present. 

Overview of chapter 

The remainder of Chapter 3 is organized by resource, focusing on those resources that are related to major issues 

described in Chapter 1. Each resource section is organized and presented in the format described below. 

Affected environment 

Describes the current conditions of the resources related to the issues. This section may also include 

history, development, past disturbances, natural events, and interactions that have helped shape the 

current conditions. Recent trends are described to aid in understanding the current conditions. 

Environmental consequences 

Scope of the analysis – Briefly describes the geographic area or areas affected for the resource-related 

issues. Areas may differ for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Affected areas may also vary in size 

depending on the resource, issue, or anticipated activities. This section also describes the time frame over 

which effects are assessed. 

Introduction to effects – Describes the general type of effects that may occur to the resource from 

implementation of the alternatives, including any mitigating effects from resource protection methods. 

This section also identifies activities that might vary by alternative, but the variation is so small as to have 

negligible difference in effects across alternatives. 

Effects common to all alternatives – Lists activities, design criteria, or uses that do not vary by alternative.

Direct and indirect effects – Analyzes the amount and intensity of direct and indirect effects by alternative 

on the resource-related issues and environmental elements. Direct effects are caused by an action and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-3

occur at the same time and place as that action. Indirect effects are caused by an action but occur later in 

time or farther removed in distance. This section also looks at the relationship of temporary, short-term, 

and long-term effects. This section discusses effects that vary by order of magnitude across alternatives. 

Direct and indirect effects are focused on Federal actions. 

In the analysis included throughout Chapter 3, the numbers for management activities (e.g. road miles, 

acres of timber harvest, level of uses) are all best estimates based on the latest available information listed 

in Chapter 2. The analyses conducted for the FEIS are intended and designed to indicate relative 

differences between the alternatives, rather than to predict absolute amounts of activities, outputs, or 

effects. 

Cumulative effects – Analyzes the cumulative effects to the resource that may result from the incremental 

impacts of the alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions. 

3.2 Physical Environment: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

3.2.1 Geology and Minerals 

Affected environment 

Geology 

The ANF is located in the Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section of the Appalachian Plateau 

Geomorphic Province (Bailey 1980). It is a maturely-dissected plateau, characterized by sharper ridgetops and 

narrower valleys than the glaciated portions of the plateau just to the north and west. Drainage is dendritic. Mass 

wasting, fluvial erosion, and transport deposition are the primary geomorphic processes. Broad, low amplitude, 

NE-SW trending folds tilt the horizontally-bedded sedimentary layers approximately 6°, and lend a subtle grain to 

the topography. 

A veneer of unconsolidated materials overlay bedrock: residuum of flat and gently sloping uplands, colluvium at 

the base of steep hillsides, and alluvium in narrow valley bottoms. Thicker deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel 

are present in wider valleys. Beneath these sediments, the upper Devonian, lower Mississippian, and Pennsylvania 

bedrock is composed of a mixed siliciclastic sequence of sandstone, siltstone, shale, subordinate conglomerate, 

occasional limestone, and coal. 

The following changes have been made between draft and final: Table 3-1 was expanded and updated to 

include one new federal lease, and to support the data presented in Table 3-2 (new). Paragraphs discussing the 

new Table were also added. A section on potential acquisition of private minerals has been added consistent 

with new land acquisition objectives in the LRMP. The cumulative effects statement regarding Federal 

minerals was also updated to reflect one new lease that will be producing. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Energy minerals 

In 1859 Colonel Drake struck oil on Oil Creek in Venango County, which is about 15 air miles southwest of the 

forest. This strike started the worldwide commercial oil industry. Rapid development followed, and radiated 

northeast across the Allegheny Plateau, much of which was in corporate ownership by large timber companies. 

During this period, developers purchased oil and gas rights from private land owners, and began development. 

Some leases, particularly on the southwest corner of the ANF, date from the 1880s. 

In l923, following passage of the 1911 Weeks Act, a determination was made by the Forest Service that national 

forest objectives could be achieved with the mineral rights separated from the surface. Consequently, under most 

of the surface land acquired for the ANF, the subsurface rights are privately owned, either by a third party 

(outstanding rights), or reserved (reserved rights) by the seller. 

Ownership 

Seven percent, or about 35,000 acres, of the subsurface mineral estate is federally owned (26HTable 3-1). Of 

this total, 16,254 acres, or 46 percent, have been withdrawn from leasing. An additional 7,315 acres are 

unavailable for leasing. These areas include lands inundated by the Allegheny Reservoir. The following 

areas have Federal minerals withdrawn: Tionesta Research Natural Area (future development only), 

Hickory Creek Wilderness, Allegheny Islands Wilderness, and Hearts Content Scenic Area. 

Presently, four areas of Federal minerals are leased, totaling 870 acres. A leasable mineral is one that is 

owned by the Federal Government, and leased by a private individual or corporation through the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) lease process. The BLM oversees all Federal mineral leases. While there are 

currently four federally-owned mineral leases on the ANF, they are not producing oil or gas at this time. 

See Appendix F, Figure 1 for areas of Federal minerals. 

Table 3-1. ANF mineral ownership and status 

Source: Land status atlas (varies from GIS acreage)

Status Acres

Federal minerals 

Withdrawn (Hickory Creek and Allegheny River Islands 

Wilderness Areas and National Recreation Areas) 16,254 

Not available (under Reservoir) 7,315 

Mineral ownership only (surface owned by third party) 4,297 

Leased (4 current leases) 870 

Available for lease 6,267 

Total Federal minerals 34,973 

Outstanding and Reserved Ownership 478,283 

Total Acres (rounded to nearest whole acre) 513,256
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-5

Development and trends 

Between 1986 and 2005, approximately 4,493 new wells have been drilled on ANF surface; an average of 

225 new wells per year for the 20-year period. On an annual basis, the number of new wells ranges 

between 68 in 1996 and 688 in 2005. The total number of old wells that have been plugged is unknown. 

At present, an estimated 8,000 oil and gas wells are in production. Due to the nature of the oil/gas bearing 

sands drilled, wells can remain in production for 25 to 30 years. The number of wells drilled on the ANF 

annually is cyclic, and is driven by the price of oil and natural gas on the local and regional markets. 

When oil prices are high, the number of new wells drilled is also constrained by the availability of drill 

rigs, service equipment, and personnel in the private sector. Based on data reported since the 1986 Forest 

Plan, roughly 153 old wells are plugged each year (see Appendix F). See Appendix F, Figure 3 for 

location of new wells drilled since 1986. 

For each new well drilled, approximately 0.3 acres are cleared for each well pad, one acre is cleared for 

roads (0.25 mile x 35 foot clearing width), and 0.75 abandoned wells are plugged. Gathering pipelines are 

generally buried within the width of the road clearing. The lines may feed into a larger distribution line, or 

may be connected to a tank battery, which is a series of oil and brine storage tanks. Most people are 

unaware of natural gas storage pools, as the pools are underground at depths of 2,000 to 8,000 feet. 

Surface indicators of gas storage areas are compressor stations, meters, and pipelines. An estimated 1,200 

miles of private oil and gas roads are on ANF surface. Many new wells are also drilled off of existing FS 

roads. 

All of the wells currently in operation on the ANF are “shallow” wells. By definition, a shallow well does 

not penetrate the boundary between the Middle and Upper Devonian Series, or the top of the Tully 

Limestone or its equivalent in Pennsylvania. This generally equates to well depths of between 500 and 

5,000 feet. A “deep” well penetrates the boundary. Important source rocks for shallow oil and natural gas 

production include the Venango and Bradford Groups, and for deep reserves, the Onondaga, Oriskany, 

and Medina Groups. See Appendix F, Figure 2 which shows known oil and gas fields underlying the 

ANF. 

Some geologists project that there are deep (10,000 to 20,000 feet) oil and gas deposits in the 

Appalachian Basin, which includes the area of the ANF. To date, the existence of these reserves has not 

been proven; although a handful of deep wells have been drilled. If deep deposits are located and 

developed a new oil boom for the Allegheny Plateau could follow. 

Coal 

Pennsylvania is located at the northeastern end of the Appalachian Coal Basin. The ANF is at the extreme 

northern part of the Main Bituminous Coal Field, with sporadic and thin coal beds underlying the surface. 

The coals underlying the forest are considered low-rank high-volatile bituminous, meaning that they 

contain less than 69 percent fixed carbon. In contrast, the high-rank anthracite beds of eastern 

Pennsylvania contain up to 98 percent fixed carbon content. Thick beds of high-rank coal are much 

preferred, and more economical to mine than the lower quality, thin beds located under the ANF. Of the 

four counties which comprise the ANF, only Elk produced coal in 2002, the most recent year that 

Pennsylvania coal data is currently available. None of that production was on the ANF. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Material minerals 

Common variety minerals present on the ANF include unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits, and pit run stone. 

No commercial sand or gravel pits are in use on ANF land (See transportation section for effects from gravel 

pits). 

Direct and indirect effects 

From a high of nearly 5,000 acres leased in the early 1990s, interest in Federal mineral leasing has steadily 

declined. Currently, four areas, totaling 870 acres, are under lease. None of the leases are currently producing oil 

or gas, but one leaseholder is beginning the process of developing his lease. 

Due to the long leasing process, which may take years, and the availability of private minerals both on and off the 

forest, leasing is not a particularly attractive option for potential developers. If new reserves are discovered, and 

energy prices remain high, it is possible that interest in leasing Federal minerals on the ANF may increase. The 

small amount of direct and indirect effects of Federal mineral development will not be handled separately by 

resource, but cumulatively with the private minerals. 

267HTable 3-2 shows the availability of Federal minerals for lease by alternative. The LRMP amount of 27,658 acres 

of Federal mineral ownership excludes acres which lie under the Allegheny Reservoir. The remaining 93 percent 

(478,283 acres) of the ANF subsurface mineral estate is privately owned (source: lands status atlas; varies from 

GIS acres). 

Of the acres available for leasing under all alternatives, the following management areas have limited surface 

occupancy, unless withdrawn or within 1,300 feet of Allegheny Reservoir: MAs 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 6.1. In 

Alternative A, MAs 6.2, 8.6, and 8.4 allow limited surface occupancy. MAs 7.1 and 8.3 do not allow surface 

occupancy. No areas are considered to be unavailable. 

In Alternatives B, Cm, and D: 

• Unless withdrawn or not available, all areas within 1,300 feet of the Allegheny reservoir and MAs 7.2 and 

8.6 do not allow surface occupancy 

• MAs 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 are not available for leasing under the LRMP 

• MAs 5.1, 8.2, and 8.5 are withdrawn 

See Appendix F, for specific information on lease occupancy stipulations. 

Table 3-2. ANF Federal minerals (stipulations by alternative) acres 

Source: Land status atlas (varies from GIS acreage) 

Occupancy Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D 

Limited surface occupancy 9,394 8,623 8,429 7,614 

No surface occupancy 2,010 1,843 1,846 2,658 

Withdrawn 16,254 16,254 16,254 16,254 

Not available 0 936 1,132 1,132 

Acres 27,658 27,656* 27,658 27,658

* rounding error 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-7

Potential for Federal mineral acquisition 

There are objectives in the LRMP to acquire private minerals in certain management areas (MAs 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, 

8.3, 8.4, and 8.5). The amount of land varies by alternative. If successful, this acquisition could reduce the 

potential for oil and gas development. If these mineral rights are successfully acquired, the following are new 

totals for the land area of the ANF that would not be available or would be withdrawn from mineral development 

(this includes the acreage shown in 268HTable 3-2): 

• Alternative A 32,000 acres 

• Alternative B 45,000 acres 

• Alternative Cm 57,000 acres 

• Alternative D 59,000 acres 

Cumulative effects 

Because reasonable foreseeable federal actions on leased minerals (870 acres) affect less than 1 percent of the 

ANF, they were not analyzed separately from private oil and gas development. See Section 2.8 for projections of 

future mineral development on the ANF. Each resource section uses the projections in Section 2.8 to consider 

cumulative effects on the ANF surface from mineral development. 

3.2.2 Soil Resources 

Affected environment 

According to Jenny (1994): 

Soil is a natural body, differentiated into horizons of mineral and organic constituents, usually 

unconsolidated, of variable depth, which differs from the parent material below in morphology, physical 

properties and constitution, chemical properties and composition, and biological characteristics. (p.1) 

Soil is an integral part of the ecosystem and serves many roles: a medium for plant growth, a regulator for water 

supplies, habitat for organisms, an engineering medium, and an environmental interface (Brady and Weil 2002, 

p.2-3). Even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.” 

Soil formation is the result of an integrated set of factors that includes parent material, time, topography, climate, 

and biota (Jenny 1994, p.14-15). Parent materials influence the physical and chemical characteristics of the soils 

that develop (Brady and Weil 2002, p.40). Soils on the ANF are formed from parent materials of sandstone, shale, 

siltstone, conglomerate, mudstone, and small quantities of coal and limestone formed during the Devonian, 

Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian periods 290 to 405 million years ago (Berg, Geyer, Edmunds et al. 1980, 

In response to comments on the DEIS, this section contains additional information to clarify effects of soil 

acidification, prescribed burning and scarification on soil resources. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey 2000 (map 7)). Soils form as these parent materials weather over 

time. Large-scale disturbance events such as glaciations restart the soil forming process as they pass over an area. 

Even though recent glaciation came close, most soils on the ANF were not glaciated during the Wisconsinan, Late 

Illinoian, or prior to the Pre-Illinoian periods. Consequently, most of the soils on the ANF have been forming for 

more than 770,000 years. 

Climate influences the nature of soil weathering and consequently soil formation. Precipitation on the 

Northwestern Allegheny Plateau ranges from 40 to 50 inches per year, including 50 to 100 inches of snowfall, and 

is evenly distributed throughout the year (McNab and Avers 1994, p.14-10). The average winter temperature is 21 

degrees Fahrenheit and the average summer temperature is 64 degrees Fahrenheit. During glacial periods, areas 

that were not covered by glacial activity experienced a periglacial climate where soil was frozen to some depth 

throughout the year (permafrost). These conditions resulted in increasing specialized erosion processes associated 

with freeze/thaw cycles and changes in biota that influence soil development in the area (Sevon and Fleeger 1999, 

p.25-28). 

Topography influences soil formation by interacting with other factors to either hasten or retard soil formation. 

The ANF is composed of plateau tops with elevations up to approximately 2,300 feet and valleys down to 

approximately 1,000 feet above sea level. Slopes range from less than 5 percent to over 60 percent. Over geologic 

time the steeper slopes have greater natural erosion rates and a higher degree of mass movement (Brady and Weil 

2002, p.61-62). 

Finally, living organisms enhance the soil forming processes through profile mixing, organic matter 

accumulation, nutrient cycling and protection from erosion (Brady and Weil 2002). Plants, animals, and the 

changes in their communities enhance soil formation on the ANF. A description of plants and animals on the ANF 

can be found in the vegetation and wildlife sections. 

Soil quality is the inherent capacity of a specific soil, as determined by its inherent physical, chemical and 

biological characteristics, to perform its biologic, hydrologic, and other ecological functions. The elements of soil 

quality that are primarily affected by land management activities on the ANF are soil nutrient status, soil erosion 

and soil compaction. 

Soil nutrients 

There is a concern that forest management activities can cause the loss of some nutrients, i.e., base cations, from 

the soil. Soils in the ANF are typically lacking in base cations, primarily calcium and magnesium, due to the rarity 

of high base status geologies (i.e., limestone, dolomite) in the area. Additionally, most of the ANF was not 

glaciated so the soils are old and highly weathered. Acid deposition, also called acid rain, is prevalent on the 

ANF, and since soils across the ANF have a low buffering capacity, they are highly susceptible to becoming even 

more acidic. Acid deposition falls to the ground as sulfuric and nitric acids. These acids enter the soil displacing 

base cations, primarily calcium and magnesium, and eventually aluminum is released into the soil solution. This 

process acidifies the soil. Acidification of soils increases cation leaching, decreases soil pH and base saturation, 

and negatively affects many biological processes (Adams and Kochenderfer 1998, p.119-120). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-9

Biogeochemical modeling reveals that atmospheric deposition, especially sulfate, had the greatest effect on 

estimated soil calcium loss, while timber harvesting led to only a slight decrease in exchangeable soil calcium 

(Gbondo-Tugbawa and Driscoll 2003, p.182) 

A recent study comparing soil nutrients of archived soil samples from 1967 and samples collected between 1997 

and 1999 indicates that soils in and around the ANF have become more acid and there has been a significant 

reduction in base cations over the 30 year time frame (Bailey, Horsley and Long 2005, p.689). These reduced 

levels of base cations are evident on plateau, shoulder, and upper backslope landforms. Plateau and shoulder 

landforms represent approximately 28 percent of the area within the proclamation boundary of the ANF and are 

most susceptible to the loss of base cations through acid deposition and other factors. It is difficult to assess the 

area in the upper backslope landform, but it is likely in the range of 10 to 13 percent of the area within the 

proclamation boundary of the ANF. Lower backslopes, toeslopes, terraces, and floodplains are believed to have 

higher levels of base cations due to additions of these elements from water filtering through higher base status 

geologic layers and coming to the surface in ground water, seeps, and springs (Swistock et al. 1999 p.70). The 

additional nutrient and chemical input from the geology can reduce the acidity of the subsequent surface water. 

Due to higher levels of base cations, these lower landforms often support different vegetation, such as sugar 

maple, white ash, and basswood, than the plateau and upper landforms. See additional discussion in Forest 

Vegetation section. 

Soil erosion 

There is a concern that land management activities can cause soil erosion, which reduces soil productivity and 

adds sediment to local waterways. Erosion of topsoil can have broad and long lasting effects on soil quality. 

Erosion is a natural process (Dunne and Leopold 1978, p.510), but some types of land management can either 

accelerate the rate or change the type of erosion. 

Susceptibility to soil erosion is controlled by soil texture, slope gradient, length of slope, precipitation, and soil 

cover (e.g. vegetation, duff, and rock). Barring disturbance, soil erosion is limited by rainfall interception in the 

vegetation canopy, duff layers of leaves and other organic matter that greatly reduce the effects of raindrop impact 

on mineral soil particles. County soil surveys have developed erosion hazard ratings for each soil map unit based 

on soil texture, percent rock, and slope gradient. Soil erosion hazard rating is listed in the soil survey 

interpretations for both off-road erosion and on-road and trail erosion. This is done because roads and trails have 

heavily compacted areas with less ground cover making them much more susceptible to erosion than off-road 

areas, especially in a forested environment. For the off-road/trail erosion soil interpretation approximately 19 

percent of the ANF has a severe or very severe rating. For the on-road/trail erosion soil interpretation, the area of 

the ANF with severe or very severe rating increases to about 51 percent. 

Soil mass movement is rare on the ANF typically occurring after large rain events and land management activities 

(Eschner and Patric 1982, p.345; Pomeroy 1981, 1986, p.9; Schultz 1999, p.771). The primary areas of concern 

for future soil mass movement are on historic landslides and colluvial soils formed on a surface geology of shale. 

Colluvial soils are formed from material deposited at the foot of a slope usually eroded and moved downslope by 

gravity. Colluvial soils are found on about 18 percent of the area within the proclamation boundary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Soil compaction, puddling and rutting 

There is a concern that traffic from heavy equipment, ATV/OHMs and dispersed equestrian use will cause 

compaction, puddling and rutting leading to increased erosion and runoff. 

Soil compaction is defined as an increase in soil density (weight per unit volume) and strength that hampers root 

growth, reduces soil aeration and inhibits soil water movement. Puddling is an alteration of the soil structure 

severe enough to reduce the permeability and infiltration rate of the soil. Rutting is a severe form of soil puddling. 

Detrimental ruts are typically at least 6 inches deep and 10 feet long (USDA FS 2005a, p.11). 

Compaction, puddling, and rutting susceptibility depend on the soil texture, soil moisture, and rock content of the 

soil (Alexander and Poff 1985, p.3). Soil texture on the ANF ranges from silt loams to sandy loams which are 

relatively to somewhat susceptible to compaction, respectively (Brady and Weil 2002, p.136-140). Within the 

proclamation boundary, approximately 9 percent of the soils are poorly drained and another 45 percent are 

moderately well drained. Both of these classifications indicate a high risk of compaction due to the amount of 

time the soil is wet. Poorly-drained to moderately well-drained soils can be operated on when dry to avoid 

compaction, rutting, and puddling. However, even well drained soils are susceptible to compaction, especially 

during rainy periods. Adherence to FS Eastern Region soil quality standards (USDA FS 2005a) assumes that 

long-term losses in inherent soil productivity and function will be prevented. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects includes all federal lands administered by the ANF. This is the 

area potentially subject to soil disturbance as a result of Federal land management activities and uses implemented 

under the LRMP. 

The analysis area for cumulative effects will also include the private land within the proclamation boundary of the 

ANF. Generally, effects of FS activities and uses on FS lands do not extend to adjacent lands and vice versa, but 

landscape-level impacts are important to assess. The potential for sediment to leave ANF administered lands via 

the stream system is covered in the water resources section. For soil erosion and compaction, the cumulative 

effects analysis will be bound by the timeframe from the adoption of the 1986 Forest Plan until the next revision 

of the forest plan, approximately 2020. For soil nutrients, the cumulative effects analysis will be bound by the 

timeframe from 1967 until approximately 2020. The beginning year was chosen because it was the collection date 

of the soil samples used as the baseline soil nutrient data in a recent study on the changes in base cations in soils 

on the ANF (Bailey, Horsley and Long 2005). Pollution source areas well beyond the ANF boundaries will be 

discussed relative to soil nutrients in order to show the far-reaching nature of acid deposition effects on soil 

nutrients, but effects on soil nutrients will remain focused on the land within the proclamation boundary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-11

Introduction to Effects 

Soil nutrients 

Harvest methods affect the nutrient cycle of the forest floor differently (Elliott and Knoepp 2005, p.314). 

Methods that remove excess organic material (such as whole-tree harvesting) have more of an effect on 

nutrient availability than methods like stem-only, that leave organic material (branches, leaves, tree 

crowns) at the harvest site (Elliott and Knoepp 2005 p.297). Short harvest rotations also have shown 

decreases in soil base cations due to the lower accumulation of organic matter and higher soil disturbance 

(Grigal 2000 p.175). Likewise, soil-disturbing activities, including skidding and log yarding, decrease soil 

productivity to a minor degree by removing soil organic matter and compacting the soil (Berger et al. 

2004 p.2163). 

On average, about half of the nutrients stored in a tree are contained in the traditionally unmerchantable 

tops (Powers et al. 1990, p.60). Where only the stem wood is removed, as is standard practice on the 

ANF, about half of the nutrients in trees are left on site to be recycled. Whole-tree harvesting which does 

not retain tree tops on site has not been shown to cause depletion of exchangeable base cations in 

experimental work at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire (Johnson, Romanowicz and 

Siccama 1997, p.867) and at the Walker Branch Watershed in Tennessee (Johnson and Todd 1998, 

p.1734). Additionally, depletion of soil base cations did not occur following stem-wood-only harvests at 

the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in North Carolina (Knoepp and Swank 1997, p.6). Treetops that 

remain after stem removal store nutrients, releasing them slowly over time. Whole-tree harvesting does 

not occur on the ANF; tops and limbs are left on site. The influences of vegetation management on base 

cation dynamics on the Allegheny Plateau are, as yet, not fully understood, but scientific research is 

ongoing and previous research (cited above) indicates that additional base cation depletion did not occur 

following site changes from timber extraction even more dramatic than those proposed on the ANF. 

While fallen branches and slash left after timber harvest are very useful in recycling nutrients and organic 

matter back to the soil, the main stems of dead trees that have fallen to the ground decompose much 

slower and provide these same benefits for a much longer time period (Maser and Trappe 1984, p.1). 

Down trees and tops are known as down woody debris and exist in all life stages of a forest, but are 

usually more prevalent in older mature units. Down woody debris provides habitat for many species of 

fungi, bacteria, insects, and animals that in turn provide nutrients, organic matter, and other benefits to the 

soil (Maser and Trappe 1984, p.19-36). Down woody debris accumulates with time as trees die through 

natural thinning due to a lack of adequate resources, blowdown, insects or disease. Forestry practices 

disrupt the natural accumulation of down woody debris. Uneven-aged management enters a stand 

approximately every 20 years and removes trees that will otherwise die and contribute to down woody 

debris. Thinning in even-aged management does the same thing, but using a different time frame (see 

LRMP Appendix A). Salvage, for both sanitation and mortality, also harvests and utilizes down woody 

debris that will otherwise be incorporated into the soil nutrients. Down woody debris on the ANF is 

highest in areas greater than 110 years of age and in areas between 11 and 50 years of age (i.e., recently 

harvested areas where treetops are left on site) (Morin et al. 2001, p.37). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-12 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Following fertilization, where the majority of the large overstory trees have been harvested, nitrogendemanding species (e.g. pin cherry, black cherry, raspberries and blackberries) with shallow roots are 

positioned to take up excess nitrogen with minimal losses off-site (Marks 1974, p.86). Rapid uptake by 

these plants limits the increase of nitrogen and associated nutrients in the soil, preventing leaching loss. 

This uptake and utilization of nitrogen indicates that the plants on site can consume added nitrogen in 

fertilizer, indicating that soils of the ANF are not nitrogen saturated (Peterjohn, Adams and Gilliam 1996, 

p.516). However, it is assumed that some nitrogen in the fertilizer attaches to base cations (e.g. calcium 

and magnesium) in the soil and moves down through the soil profile transporting the base cations out of 

the rooting zone, making the nutrients unavailable to the tree species that require them (e.g. sugar maple, 

basswood and white ash). Fertilization is applied for the regeneration of a few even-aged species. 

Therefore, areas where even-aged management is promoted will be most susceptible to the affects of 

fertilization on soil nutrients. 

Use of herbicide increases light level on the ground and affects soil nutrient and water resource 

availability to regenerating vegetation by eliminating competing species. The typical half-life of 

glyphosate herbicide in soils on the ANF is approximately 60 days (Appendix G1, p. G1-42). Glyphosate 

herbicide binds readily to soils becoming relatively immobile, so there is limited potential for residual 

effects or effects to soil nutrients. It then breaks down completely and rapidly to aminomethyl phosphonic 

acid, which is more stable than glyphosate. Decomposition end products include carbon dioxide, water 

nitrogen and phosphate. The half-life is longer in sandy soils and shorter in silt loam soils, the two most 

common textures found on the ANF. 

Sulfometuron methyl herbicide is more mobile in soil than glyphosate, but has a short half-life in acidic 

soils, such as those found on the ANF. Sulfometuron methyl is also strongly adsorbed to soil particles at 

low pH (acidic conditions) and at high organic matter contents; therefore, little soil mobility is expected. 

Nonetheless, it is listed as “inhibitory” for some soil fungi and bacteria. Sulfometuron methyl is broken 

down by water and microorganisms. It can breakdown in a few days to several weeks depending on soil 

and air temperatures, but based on average soil conditions found on the ANF the half life is expected to be 

less than 3 weeks. Principle products of the breakdown of sulfometuron methyl include saccharin, carbon 

dioxide and methyl 2-(aminosulfonyl) benzoate (Appendix G1, pages G1-104, G2-42). Schreffler and 

Sharpe (2003, p.480-481) indicate that sulfometuron methyl applied after timber harvest slightly acidifies 

soil but the results are not statistically significant. While soil acidification is a concern, no other studies 

have indicated that sulfometuron methyl has a side effect of soil acidification. 

Excessive herbicide use above the normal rates used in forestry applications can inhibit soil 

microorganisms, but when used at normal rates both glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl do not 

significantly reduce the activity of soil microorganisms. The effects of sulfometuron methyl on soil 

microorganisms has not been researched as well as the effects of glyphosate, but it still appears that it 

does not significantly reduce activity of soil biota at typical rates (Appendix G2, pg. G2-42). At the 

application rates, both typical and maximum planned for the ANF, neither sulfometuron methyl nor 

glyphosate should significantly reduce the activity of soil microorganisms nor adversely affect them in 

such a way as to reduce site or soil productivity. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-13

Prescribed burning may also have an effect on soil nutrients. Low-intensity prescribed burns, like those 

done on the ANF, will likely increase soil pH as well as available calcium and magnesium in the short 

term (Arocena and Opio 2003, p.12). However, carbon and nitrogen in the soil will decrease due to 

combustion of organic matter (Neary, Klopatek, DeBano and Ffolliott, 1999, p.62). Detrimental soil 

effects are directly related to the severity of the fire. If prescribed burn plans are followed and lowintensity burns occur as planned, then the effects will be minimal and temporary. 

Soil erosion 

Soil erosion can have a direct effect on soil productivity through the loss of nutrients, organic matter, and 

fine-textured soil particles. These three elements play a major role in soil quality and productivity. 

Timber harvest can affect erosion potential by removing the vegetation and organic matter that protects 

the soil surface from raindrop impact. Harvest equipment can compact the soil, reducing soil porosity and 

infiltration rates, thereby increasing runoff and erosion. Severe rutting can concentrate sheet flows into 

rills and gullies, thereby increasing the erosion potential of the water moving across the soil. Soil erosion 

is generally low in the forested environment due to continual inputs of duff and organic matter from leaf 

fall. In a managed forest, erosion remains low due to the relatively long time between treatment activities. 

Harvest on slight-erosion-potential soils usually does not cause accelerated soil erosion. Stands on slopes 

greater than 40 percent are not suitable for timber harvest due to the high risk of accelerated erosion and 

damage from ground-based logging equipment. The potential for accelerated erosion from timber harvest 

will be assessed by comparing the potential for harvest (even-aged or uneven-aged) on soil map units 

classified as severe to very severe for off road/trail soil erosion potential between each alternative. 

Road decommissioning can help reduce erosion from roads. Decommissioning may involve removing the 

roadbed and recontouring the road prism. A decommissioned road can, through time, regain some 

productivity. The soil under and within a decommissioned road prism will exhibit qualities of a manmade 

soil for several decades, but will have improved drainage, allow subsurface flow, and support plant life. 

The actual decommissioning will likely cause short-term increases in erosion, but in the long-term, 

erosion will be reduced. 

Road construction and use can cause accelerated erosion levels by changing rainfall impact on road and 

soil surfaces and surface runoff on roadbeds. Road maintenance can cause temporary increases in erosion 

and sedimentation, but it will typically reduce erosion over the long-term. Mitigations such as improved 

drainage and more resistant surfacing can reduce the amount of road-related erosion or at least reduce 

sedimentation in nearby waterways (Weaver, Hagans and Popenoe 1995, p.120). The changes in runoff, 

drainage, and weight on a hillside can effect slope stability and change an area’s susceptibility to mass 

movement, such as landslides during very wet weather. Estimated levels of new road construction will be 

compared by alternative to assess the effects on soil erosion. Management areas that prohibit road 

construction will obviously not contribute to road-related soil erosion. 

Trail construction and use has similar effects on erosion as road construction and use, but at a smaller 

scale. Most ATV and OHM trails are surfaced with sandstone or limestone materials which help to reduce 

erosion. Limestone reduces erosion much more than the sandstone material because limestone does not 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-14 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

break down as quickly as sandstone under vehicle traffic. User-created horse trails are typically not 

surfaced and have few to no mitigations built into the trail to limit erosion or subsequent sedimentation to 

nearby streams. Designed horse trials, however, are intended to have surfacing near stream crossings to 

help limit sedimentation. Designed horse trails also contain other mitigations to help reduce erosion from 

trail construction and use. Designed hiking trails also typically have no surfacing to reduce erosion, but 

they usually have some mitigation to help reduce erosion and sedimentation. There are currently no 

bicycle trials on the ANF and bicycle and hiking trail construction potential does not vary by alternative. 

Prescribed fire can also effect soil erosion. Fires typically remove the duff layer from the soil, therefore 

exposing the soil to raindrop impact and soil erosion. The effect is short-term and only last until 

revegetation occurs. Mass movement susceptibility is also increased by fire (Neary, Ryan and DeBano 

2005, p.44). Detrimental soil effects are directly related to the severity of the fire. If prescribed burn plans 

are followed and low-intensity burns occur as planned, then the effects will be minimal and temporary. 

Ground scarification is used to promote oak and aspen regeneration on the forest. Scarification for oak 

involves a small dozer with a root rake. The scarification usually takes place after acorn fall but during 

leaf fall. Soil is exposed in the process but is quickly covered by the leaves. The leaves act as protection 

for the soil from raindrop impact which prevents erosion. Sensitive areas like drainages and steep slopes 

are avoided. Scarification for aspen occurs during the winter. Therefore, the scarification methods used on 

the forest will typically not cause detrimental soil erosion. 

Soil compaction, puddling and rutting 

Ground-based harvesting or salvaging of timber using heavy equipment can cause compaction. The extent 

and severity of compaction depends on the weight, surface area to which that weight is applied, number of 

passes, soil texture, soil moisture, and rock content of the soil (Alexander and Poff 1985, p.76-78, Liechty 

et al. 2002, p.44-45). Soil porosity has been identified as one of the keys to maintaining forest soil 

productivity. Heavy harvesting equipment, ATV, OHM, and horses can compact soils, resulting in a loss of 

soil porosity. Some soils have high water tables or fine textures that will not support equipment or horses 

unless the soil is dry or frozen. Other soils have impermeable layers (fragipans) at relatively shallow depths 

that restrict water movement and cause the soil to remain moist well into the summer. The retention of soil 

moisture in these soils increases the soils’ susceptibility to compaction, rutting, or puddling. 

Vegetation treatments have varying extents of associated compaction assuming ground-based activities 

are used to harvest the timber. Typically, the more timber removed and the more entries into a stand, the 

greater the extent and severity of detrimental soil compaction. Though only one pass over a given area is 

usually taken, heavy equipment used to apply fertilizer or herbicides can also have minor, cumulative 

impacts on soil compaction. Fencing of a stand creates an approximately 10–foot-wide disturbed area that 

will likely have moderate levels of compaction. The extent and amount of compaction also depends on 

factors such as whether the soil is frozen at the time of the activity, or the amount of slash lying on the 

skid trail. Scarification methods used on the forest may cause slight soil compaction. For oak 

scarification, the root rake following the dozer essentially rips or loosens the soil immediately after 

compaction. Aspen scarification is performed in the winter when the soil is typically frozen and 

compaction resistant. Therefore compaction from scarification should be slight. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-15

Roads and designated trails are long-term areas of very dense “extreme” compaction. As opposed to 

compaction that occurs as a result of vegetation treatments, compaction in road and trail beds is intended, 

and in fact beneficial, for the use and maintenance of the road/trail. The compaction helps to make the 

areas more stable for the user, but the compaction does limit plant growth, water infiltration, and soil 

aeration. Compacted areas contribute more runoff to streams and more soil is eroded from the compacted 

and adjacent areas. User-created trails may be compacted as much as designated trails but they are 

typically not used long-term and are across a greater extent of a given area. This is due to a tendency on 

the part of the user to just move to a new area as one trail is blocked or becomes impassable. A lone pass 

over an area by a horse will only cause very minor levels of compaction and if not walked over again will 

be inconsequential. It is the tendency of others to follow behind that result in user-created horse trails. 

Forest Service Eastern Region directives (USDA FS 2005a) address detrimental soil disturbance: 

compaction, displacement, puddling/rutting, burning, erosion, and mass movement. The combination of 

these conditions is limited to 15 percent of the activity area. Rutting is limited to 5 percent of the activity 

area, included in the 15 percent disturbance. Activity areas are areas of potential soil disturbance that will 

be expected to produce biomass in the future. Compaction is the main concern for the ANF as it has been 

seen to cause the highest amount of detrimental soil disturbance, but activities rarely cause the 

disturbance to exceed 15 percent. Any disturbance above the 15 percent threshold is addressed with 

corrective actions by the ANF. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

The potential for construction of new bicycle and hiking trails is the same for all alternatives. Therefore the 

associated soil erosion and compaction associated with development of these trail types remains the same for each 

alternative. Also, the potential for pit expansion and new pit construction is estimated to be the same for all 

alternatives. The estimated level of average annual road decommissioning will also be nearly the same for each 

alternative, so the benefits to the soil resource from this activity will be the same for all alternatives. 

Effects from each alternative 

Soil nutrients 

Alternative A

Currently the ANF has a policy that limits whole-tree harvesting. This policy helps to maintain 

slash which contains approximately half of the nutrients in trees. However, the policy is not in the 

1986 Forest Plan, so there is a risk that it will not be implemented over the course of the planning 

horizon. There is no direction for retention of large down woody debris. 

There are approximately 118,000 acres (23% of ANF land) in the landbase suitable for timber 

harvest on the plateau and shoulder landform (the upper backslope landform was not broken out 

in the ecological landtype mapping). This area is at greater risk for loss of base cations through 

removal of base cations stored in stem wood even though stem wood only contains approximately 

half of the nutrients in a tree. Of this area approximately 111,000 acres (22%) are primarily 

managed for using even-aged management (MAs 1.0, 3.0, and 6.2) and have potential for 

nitrogen-based fertilization as a regeneration tool. Nitrogen fertilization exhibits the risk to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-16 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

increase the leaching of base cations out of the soil. Base cations are important macronutrients to 

many tree species, especially sugar maple, basswood, and white ash. The potential for use of 

nitrogen-based fertilizer for regeneration is greatest in Alternative A (Table 2-2). 

There is policy but no direction for salvage of topsoil prior to pit development or building 

construction. Salvaged topsoil can retain many of the nutrients depending on the length of time 

stored prior to reclamation or adjacent use of the material. Construction of roads, pits, and 

buildings causes a long-term change to soil structure and nutrient holding capabilities. Under 

Alternative A there is the potential for approximately 3,400 acres to be “buried” and have soil 

nutrient processes limited by existing FS roads and potential new FS road construction. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D

Limits on whole-tree harvesting and guidelines to leave slash scattered throughout a unit are 

included in design criteria for Alternatives B, Cm, and D to help maintain soil nutrients in harvest 

units through the planning horizon. Additionally, there is a guideline for retention of one piece of 

large woody debris per acre that will further increase the potential for recycling of soil nutrients. 

Additionally there is a guideline to avoid nitrogen-based fertilization on the plateau, shoulder, and 

upper backslope landforms. These guidelines are not included in Alternative A. 

There is not much change in suitable area for timber harvest on the plateau and shoulder 

landforms across alternatives (high of 116,000 to a low of 106,000,269HTable 3-3) but some of the 

changes between alternatives are from one management area to another so even though both are 

suitable, there is an expectation of reduced timber production (e.g. MA 3.0 changed to MA 2.2). 

Therefore, the risk of nutrient removal over the long-term in stem wood from vegetation 

management, though minimal as described above, is greatest under Alternative A. The risk of 

base cation leaching from application of nitrogen-based fertilizer, though the true effects are not 

completely understood at present by the scientific community, appears greatest in Alternatives A 

and B. The potential for use of nitrogen-based fertilizer for regeneration is greatest in Alternative 

A with decreasing potential for use in each subsequent alternative (Table 2-2). 

There are design criteria in Alternatives B, Cm, and D that require salvage of topsoil prior to pit 

development and building construction. These design criteria are not in Alternative A. Under 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D there is the potential for approximately 3,200, 3,100 and 3,000 acres, 

respectively, to be “buried” and have soil nutrient processes limited by existing FS roads and 

potential new road construction (270HTable 3-3). 

Soil erosion 

Alternative A

Temporary erosion from even-aged management will be greater than the potential temporary 

erosion from uneven-aged harvest, but due to the different timing of stand entries the long-term 

erosion resulting from vegetation management will be about the same for all silvicultural systems 

(see LRMP Appendix A). In Alternative A there are approximately 75,000 acres suitable for 

timber harvest with an off-road/trail erosion hazard rating of severe or very severe (271HTable 3-4). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-17

Table 3-3. Relative risk to soil nutrients from potential FS activities by alternative 

Risk to Soil Nutrients Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Plateau and shoulder landform suitable for timber harvest (1,000 

acres) 118 114 116 106 

Plateau and shoulder landforms where even-aged management is 

suitable and featured (1,000 acres) 111 96 87 41 

Area buried under existing and potential new FS roads (1,000 acres) 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 

Table 3-4. Proposed activities by alternative mapped on soil units with severe or very severe erosion 

potential ratings 

Risk to Soil Erosion (activities on soils with a severe or very severe Alternative 

erosion potential rating) A B Cm D 

Area suitable for timber harvest on severe or very severe offroad/trail erosion potential soil (1,000 acres) 75 71 68 63 

Potential new FS road on severe or very severe on-road/trail 

erosion potential soil (miles) 250 190 170 160 

Existing FS road on severe or very severe on-road/trail erosion 

potential soil (miles) 600 600 600 580 

IUA on severe or very severe on-road/trail erosion potential soil 

(1,000 acres) 46 56 41 21 

Equestrian Use Area on severe or very severe on-road/trail 

erosion potential soil (1,000 acres) 0 6 6 30 

Open equestrian riding area on severe or very severe on-road/trail 

erosion potential soil (1,000 acres) 258 249 231 0 

There are approximately 250 miles of potential new FS road construction by 2060 and 

approximately 600 miles of existing FS roads on soil with an on-road/trail erosion hazard rating 

of severe or very severe. These road estimates go through 2060 to include the total potential new 

road system. Alternative A has the greatest potential for new FS road construction on soils with 

severe or very severe soil erosion ratings (27HTable 3-4). This indicates that the risk for soil erosion 

from roads is greatest in this alternative. 

There are approximately 46,000 acres of IUA with an on-road/trail-erosion-rating of severe or 

very severe. There are no acres of EUA with an on-road/trail-erosion-rating of severe or very 

severe. The area not in an EUA that is suitable for open riding has the risk of user-created trails 

which have no design criteria or project specific mitigation measures to help limit erosion during 

development and from use of these trails. There are approximately 258,000 acres in open riding 

areas with an on-road/trail-erosion-rating of severe or very severe. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-18 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives B, Cm, and D

Of the soil map units that have an off-road/trail-erosion-hazard potential of severe or very severe, 

71,000 acres are suitable for timber harvest in Alternative B; 68,000 acres in Alternative Cm; and 

63,000 acres in Alternative D (273HTable 3-4). There are approximately 190 miles of potential for new 

FS road construction and approximately 600 miles of existing FS roads with an on-road/trail 

erosion-hazard-rating of severe or very severe in Alternative B; 170 and 600 miles in Alternative 

Cm; and 160 and 580 miles in Alternative D (estimates rounded to nearest 10 miles). 

In Alternative B there are approximately 56,000 acres of IUA with an on-road/trail-erosion-rating 

of severe or very severe. In Alternative Cm there are approximately 41,000 acres and in 

Alternative D there are approximately 21,000 acres. 

In Alternative B there are approximately 6,000 acres of EUA with on-road/trail erosion rating of 

severe or very severe. In Alternative Cm there are approximately 6,000 acres and in Alternative D 

there are approximately 30,000 acres. The trails in EUAs will be designed and constructed 

through project-level proposals and have design criteria and mitigations to limit associated 

erosion. There are approximately 249,000 acres in open riding areas with an on-road/trailerosion-rating of severe or very severe in Alternative B; 231,000 acres in Alternative Cm; and no 

acres in Alternative D. Therefore, while Alternative D has the most area in an EUA on soil map 

units with a severe or very severe erosion rating, it is likely to have the least erosion from 

equestrian use because there is no open riding. In general, erosion rates from designed trails are 

much lower than from user-created trails. 

Overall it appears that Alternative D has the lowest potential erosion related activities. Alternative 

D has the lowest suitable acres with severe erosion potential, the lowest potential new FS road 

construction on severe erosion soils, the lowest existing FS roads on severe erosion soils, the 

lowest area in IUAs on severe erosion soils, and no open equestrian riding. 

Soil compaction, puddling, and rutting 

Alternative A

By the mid-point of the second decade, there is the potential for an additional 307 miles of FS 

road construction that will provide long-term severe compaction on approximately 600 acres. 

Trail development in IUAs and EUAs will also produce long-term severe compaction. The 

potential will be moderate to high in this alternative with the second most acres in IUAs and no 

area in EUAs. User-created horse trails in open riding areas which is almost the entire ANF 

(approximately 493,000 acres) in Alternative A will also create long-term severe compaction if 

they receive continued use or short-term severe compaction if the use is ended or moved after 

only one season. The second is likely the case in more remote areas, but continued use will likely 

be the norm in areas surrounding concentrated private horse related developments, such as guide 

services. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-19

Potential for compaction, rutting, and puddling is similar under both even- and uneven-aged 

silvicultural systems given that both require skid trails through a harvest unit assuming groundbased harvest. Therefore, the risk of compaction, rutting and puddling is determined by the area 

suitable for timber harvest: 467,543 acres in Alternative A. Of this area there are approximately 

210,700 acres on soil map units with a severe soil rutting hazard due to low soil strength, and 

approximately 92,000 acres that are poorly suited for harvest equipment operability. The area in 

vegetation management units that is compacted is usually restricted to skid trails and log 

landings. These areas will usually be small enough and scattered so that infiltration and tree 

growth at the stand scale will not be detrimentally impacted. Soil compaction, puddling, and 

rutting are long-term effects on the soil that can last for decades. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D

There is the potential for approximately 590 acres of long-term severe compaction in additional 

road construction in Alternative B (new road construction on new and existing road corridors), 

approximately 520 acres in Alternative Cm, and approximately 470 acres in Alternative D 

(estimates rounded to nearest 10 acres). Potential for ATV trail development and the associated 

risk of long-term severe compaction will be greatest under Alternative B, less in Alternative Cm, 

and least in Alternative D. Horse trail development in EUAs will be the same in Alternatives B 

and Cm, but higher in Alternative D. Alternatives B and Cm have similar risk of compaction in 

open riding areas, while Alternative D has virtually no risk as there is no open riding allowed 

under this alternative. 

The area suitable for timber harvesting on soil map units with a severe soil rutting hazard is 

approximately 202,000 acres under Alternative B, 197,600 acres in Alternatives Cm, and 190,000 

acres in Alternative D. The area suitable for timber harvest on soil map units poorly suited for 

harvest operability is approximately 92,000 acres under Alternative B, somewhat less at 83,000 

acres in Alternatives Cm, and least with 76,000 acres in D. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm, and D there is design criteria to consider field soil conditions in 

allowing heavy equipment to operate. This guideline goes beyond what is in Alternative A, and 

bases operability on season and time of the year for soil protection and reducing susceptibility to 

compaction, rutting, and puddling. 

Cumulative effects 

Soil nutrients 

The geology underlying the ANF is primarily composed of sandstones and shale with very little base 

cations, i.e., calcium and magnesium. As a result the soils formed from the bedrock are relatively lacking 

in these nutrients. Since most of the ANF was not glaciated, these soils are up to 770,000 years old. Due 

to the age of the soils, many base cations have leached out of the profile. Acid deposition in the region, 

although reducing in recent years, has likely contributed to leaching of base cations from the soil. A study 

of the changes in soil nutrients and pH over a 30-year period beginning in 1967, showed statistically 

significant reduction in exchangeable calcium and magnesium concentrations as well as pH throughout 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-20 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

the soil profile. Using modeling Bailey et al. (2005, p.688) showed that the level of reduction in calcium 

and magnesium over 30 years exceeded that which would have been expected to be utilized and stored in 

the trees on site. This indicates that some of these nutrients have been “lost” from the site. While other 

studies have not shown additional loss of nutrients from timber extraction (Johnson, Romanowicz, and 

Siccama 1997, p.867; Johnson and Todd 1998, p.1734), there is still a concern that cumulative effects 

could contribute to long-term loss of base cations. Monitoring the effects of soil acidification on physical, 

chemical, and biological soil properties has been identified as an LRMP research need (see table 16 in the 

monitoring section of the LRMP). 

Future oil and gas development activities on ANF land and other land within the proclamation boundary 

of the ANF leads to long-term commitment of soil nutrients through road construction, pit development, 

and building construction. There is expected to be an additional 666 acres per year cleared for oil and gas 

development from now until 2020 (9,995 acres total, see Appendix F, Table F-5). By 2020 there is the 

potential for 3.7 percent of the area within the proclamation boundary to be in a long-term soil resource 

commitment state (e.g. under roads, well pads, buildings, etc.) where soil nutrients are lacking or buried. 

Soil erosion 

Currently there are approximately 1,269 miles of FS roads, an additional 240 to 307 miles of potential 

new FS roads by 2020 depending on the alternative, 708 miles of municipal road within the proclamation 

boundary, 2,940 miles of non-system roads within the proclamation boundary, and 1920 miles of 

potential new oil and gas roads by the mid-point of the second decade. These approximately 7,000 miles 

of road within the proclamation boundary will contribute to accelerated erosion from both the roadbed 

and excess runoff creating gullies. Non-system roads may become another road type, so the estimated 

totals have potential to be slightly elevated. 

Vegetation management on private and other public lands (see cumulative effects in Forest Vegetation) in 

the proclamation boundary will also contribute to some level of accelerated erosion. Erosion from these 

sources will likely be similar to the erosion rates expected from FS vegetation management which is 

minimal provided State BMPs are followed. 

An analysis of historic mass movement (e.g. landslides) on the ANF done in 1986 by the U. S. Geological 

Survey identified 489 historic mass movements totaling approximately 18,000 acres within the 

proclamation boundary (Pomeroy 1986, map plate 1). These events typically are triggered by large rain 

events where the whole soil profile becomes saturated (Eschner and Patric 1982, p.345-346; Schultz 

1999, p.707-708). There have been few landslides or other forms of mass movement on the ANF since 

1986 and a large majority are related to road construction. There is design criteria for FS roads to avoid 

areas prone to mass movement so the number and area of mass movement is expected to remain relatively 

low especially related to FS roads. Regardless, as stated above, large rain events can cause mass 

movement and there is no way to prevent the occurrence of such an event only limiting the susceptibility 

of areas to mass movement as with road design criteria. The level of oil and gas development expected 

may cause developers to go into more landslide-prone areas with road and well pad construction which 

will make an area additionally susceptible to mass movement. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-21

Although minor relative to erosion across the ANF, erosion of the shoreline of the Allegheny Reservoir is 

affected by fluctuation of the water level in the reservoir controlled by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 

This fluctuation is typically seasonal (i.e., higher in spring and summer; lower in fall and winter) but can 

be affected by single rainfall events. As the water level rises the shoreline gets saturated and is less stable, 

but is usually supported by the water. However, as the water level falls, support is removed and the 

shoreline is more susceptible to slumping and erosion. The area between high and low water levels is also 

typically more susceptible to erosion in general as there is no vegetation to reduce erosion. Shoreline 

erosion along the Allegheny Reservoir is expected to continue into future decades. 

Soil compaction, puddling and rutting 

Since 1986, ANF vegetation management has occurred on approximately 86,900 acres. An additional 

23,600 to 71,000 acres are expected by the mid-point of the second decade on NFS land. Some of this 

area may have received more than one vegetation treatment making the area under vegetation 

management look higher than it really was or is estimated to be in the future. Additional vegetation 

management has occurred on private or other public land within the proclamation boundary since 1986 

and more is expected on private and other public land (see cumulative effects section in Forest Vegetation 

for estimates). Almost all of this area has some potential for compaction, puddling, and rutting due to the 

use of heavy equipment. Some of this area has had vegetation management activities more than once 

during the cumulative effects timeframe. In stands receiving even-aged management thinning, 

shelterwood harvest, and removal harvest more than one entry could occur. In stands receiving unevenaged management harvest, entries occur approximately every 20 years. Soil compaction, puddling, and 

rutting are long-term effects on the soil that can last for years to decades. 

Road mileage cumulative effects shown under soil erosion represent the area that will have long-term 

severe compaction within the proclamation boundary. Additional housing development, though slight will 

also be expected on private property within the proclamation boundary. Other activities causing 

compaction within the Forest include ATV/OHM and horse use. Cumulatively (by 2020) approximately 

3.7 percent of the land area within the proclamation boundary could be compacted in the long-term (e.g. 

under roads, well pads, buildings).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-22 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.3 Water Resources 

Affected environment 

Watersheds 

Watershed description 

The ANF comprises a portion of three hydrologic units at the 4th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 

scale known as sub-basins. They are located in the Allegheny River Basin which drains to the Ohio River 

and then to the Mississippi River. Within the sub-basins are 15 watersheds at the 5th level HUC which are 

presented in 274HTable 3-5 (See also 275HFigure 3-1). These watersheds are delineated by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) with some refinement of the watersheds by ANF staff (e.g. breaking the 

Reservoir and North Allegheny Front at the Kinzua Dam). They range from 77 square miles to 258 square 

miles in size. Twelve watersheds have more than 20 percent ANF ownership and 6 of these have more 

than 50 percent ANF ownership. The ANF could have a considerable influence on the condition of these 

watersheds through Federal management actions and collaboration with others. The remaining 3 

watersheds have less than 20 percent ANF ownership. In these watersheds, the ANF could affect 

conditions through collaboration with other agencies or watershed groups that take the lead role in 

assessment and management. 

The design criteria for the Water Resources section in 2500 Watershed and Air of the LRMP were reorganized 

and clarifications were made. Major changes include: The Allegheny River riparian corridor was increased 

from 100 feet to 300 feet and direction was changed; Heavy equipment direction was added for Riparian 

Corridors and Wetland Management Zones; Heavy equipment is now allowed up to 10 feet from intermittent 

streams, but restrictions will still be in place to protect soils and subsurface hydrology; Direction was added 

for the management of surface runoff; Substantial changes were made to the Wetlands section; Wetlands now 

have a zone of limited activity of 100 feet and vernal pools have a zone of limited activity of 200 feet; 

Definitions and Table-27 in the LRMP were added for Wetland Management Zones; Wilderness Trout Stream 

Guidelines were changed to standards. 

In the Affected Environment, more information was included under Surface Water for seeps and vernal pools. 

In 2006 the Existing Use Classifications for 3 streams was updated by the DEP. Segments of East Hickory and 

Middle Hickory Creek and Messenger Run were upgraded from a High-Quality Cold Water Fisheries to an 

Exceptional Value water. The 2004 303(d) listed streams were updated for the 2006 303(d) list, which 

included the addition of the West Branch of Millstone Creek. 

In the Environmental Consequences, changes were made to discussions on vegetation management, 

reforestation treatments, road construction, and riparian corridors to reflect the changes in the LRMP and 

Table 2.2. 

In the Cumulative Effects section, the discussion was edited for oil and gas development. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-23

The stream pattern is dendritic across most of the forest. Floodplains on the ANF are narrow in relation to 

their associated stream sizes due to the absence of glaciation on the ANF. Riparian areas are bound by 

steep topography which limits floodplain development and allows only moderate sinuosity or 

meandering. Therefore, streams are generally “flashy” after storm events, compared to streams in areas 

with wider forested floodplains or extensive wetland systems that are able to absorb more of the water 

into the floodplain and release it slowly over time. 

Watersheds on the ANF have much slower response times for streamflow than urban landscapes because 

the forested cover ranges from 87 percent to 99 percent and the amount of impervious area is about 2 

percent. The forested conditions on the ANF also correspond to the number of streams with high and 

exceptional water quality. Flooding of areas along the Allegheny River downstream of the Kinzua Dam is 

controlled by flow releases from the dam. The dam has altered the natural flow patterns and sediment 

regime of the river, which has probably caused changes in the natural processes of the river. 

Table 3-5. Sub-basin, watersheds and acres, and percent FS lands within each 

Sub-Basin Name 

(HUC 4) Watershed Name (HUC 5) Watershed HUC 5 Code 

Square 

Miles 

 Percent 

NF 

ownership 

Tunungwant Creek 5010001140 238 5.9 

Kinzua Creek 5010001215 178 58.3 

Reservoir 5010001220 219 41.7 

North Allegheny Front 5010001225 77 30.4 

Upper Allegheny 

River 

Brokenstraw Cr. 5010001280 258 0.2 

South Allegheny Front (Upper) 5010003010 109 24.0 

South Allegheny Front (Lower) 5010003015 116 45.0 

South Branch Tionesta Cr. 5010003020 86 71.4 

West Branch Tionesta Cr. 5010003030 131 51.9 

Tionesta Cr. (Upper) 5010003040 104 75.5 

Middle Allegheny 

River and Tionesta 

Creek 

Tionesta Cr. (Lower) 5010003045 158 40.1 

West Branch Clarion River 5010005020 93 11.6 

Spring Cr. 5010005050 88 70.7 

Clarion R. (Upper) 5010005060 160 52.2 

Clarion River 

Clarion R. (Lower) 5010005065 174 30.1 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-24 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-1. Watersheds on the Allegheny National Forest 

Bradford

Warren

Tidioute

Tionesta

Ridgway

Marienville

Kane

Brokenstraw 

Creek

Reservoir

Tunungwant

 Creek

Kinzua Creek

West 

Branch 

Clarion

River

Upper Clarion

 River

South 

Branch 

Tionesta 

Creek

Spring 

Creek

Lower Clarion River

Lower Tionesta 

Creek

Upper 

Tionesta 

Creek

South

Allegheny 

Front 

(lower)

South

Allegheny 

Front (upper)

West Branch 

Tionesta Creek

North Allegheny 

Front

Watersheds

Allegheny National Forest

7 0 7 14 Miles

N

Original data were compiled from multiple source data and may not meet

the U.S. National Map Accuracy Standard of the Office of Management and Budget.

This map has no warranties as to its contents or accuracy.

Watersheds 

Watershed Boundaries
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-25

The climate of the area is temperate with a mean monthly maximum of 79 degrees Fahrenheit and a mean 

monthly minimum of 15 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation usually occurs evenly throughout the year and 

averages 46 inches annually. About half of the total has the potential of falling as snow or rain during the 

colder months of October through April. During this time period, rain-on-snow driven runoff events are 

common and can create some of the largest streamflow peaks during the year. During the summer 

months, when some of the greatest monthly precipitation occurs, intense thundershowers can also 

generate large peak flows. The average runoff for streams near the ANF ranges from 25 to 27 inches per 

year (Siwicki 2005), leaving 19 to 21 inches of precipitation to be accounted for, in the annual water 

budget, by storage and evapotranspiration. 

ANF assessments and findings to date 

In 2001, the ANF conducted a Watershed Integrity Ranking to assess the overall condition and 

vulnerability of the 15 watersheds in which the ANF is located (USDA FS 2001f). For this assessment, 

the East-wide Watershed Assessment Protocol was followed and geographic information systems (GIS) 

data were utilized to assess a given watershed’s relative condition and vulnerability (USDA FS 2001f). 

Watersheds have also been assessed during some project level analysis, which have recently covered 

several 6th level sub-watersheds. One Ecosystem Analysis at the Watersheds Scale was completed on the 

Spring Creek 5th level watershed (USDA FS 2003e). Another was a forest level roads assessment that 

resulted in the Forest Wide Roads Analysis Report (USDA FS 2003b). This document identified roads of 

high concern to water resources. These different assessments drew the following conclusions about 

watershed health on the ANF: 

• The most vulnerable watersheds (Brokenstraw, N. Allegheny Front, Clarion River (upper), 

Kinzua Creek and Tunungwant Creek) are on the edges of the ANF boundary (USDA FS 2001f) 

and usually have higher populations and more developed land use. However, this also means that 

the ANF’s role in improving the condition of these watersheds is limited. This highlights the 

importance of working with local cooperators (i.e., watershed associations) to improve watershed 

conditions where necessary. 

• The primary activities that could potentially have a negative effect on watershed resources are 

road construction, activities associated with oil and gas extraction, vegetation management, and 

heavy recreational use. 

• Hydrologic modification occurs in all the watersheds, largely due to roads. 

• The major cause of sedimentation comes from roads less than 300 feet from streams or at stream 

crossings. Placing limestone on roads within 300 feet from streams can reduce sediment loads 

coming from pit-run surfaced roads. The road analysis matrix estimates that about 1,636 miles of 

road on the ANF have a high risk of influencing local stream channels and water quality due to 

pit-run type surfacing and proximity to a stream channel. 

• Watersheds are well forested, with 14 of the 15 watersheds having 87 percent to 99 percent 

forestland. Brokenstraw watershed has the lowest forested cover, but has 0.2 percent in FS 

ownership. This watershed is 67 percent forested, 30 percent agricultural, and 2 percent urban. 

The North Allegheny Front and the Tunungwant watersheds have the highest percentage of land 

in urban land use, both around 6 percent. Even watersheds with a low percentage of FS ownership 

have low development rates. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-26 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Most streams have fair habitat complexity but lack instream large wood. 

• Riparian areas are lacking seedling development due to browsing by deer and interference from 

dense fern and grass cover. This problem can delay reforestation following natural catastrophic 

events. (USDA FS 2003e, p. 52) 

Surface water 

Streams 

There are 2,126 miles of mapped streams within the ANF proclamation boundary, and there are 1,468 

miles on FS lands. Due to mapping omissions and seasonal changes the amount of unmapped perennial 

and intermittent streams is estimated to be 1,500 miles as digitized from historic maps within the 

proclamation boundary. Of these unmapped streams, only 130 miles are shown as perennial and the rest 

are intermittent. 

Water bodies 

Current ANF data show 273 water bodies either entirely or partially on the ANF. Most of these are manmade ponds and reservoirs created for flood control, water supply, recreational, and wildlife purposes. 

The largest reservoir on the NF lands is the Allegheny Reservoir, which encompasses 7,647 acres. There 

are many other small and large impoundments scattered across the Forest that amount to 488 acres, which 

range from 0.02 acres to 77 acres. Tionesta Lake, 383 acres formed by a dam on Tionesta Creek, borders 

the ANF. Another type of water body on the ANF results from dams created by beavers. These dams are 

limited to areas with wide floodplains and low gradient and are usually very small. Small ponds are also 

created by oil and gas operators for containing hydrofracturing fluids. 

Extensive wetland areas do not exist across the majority of the forest. In most cases, wetlands are located 

in floodplains along streams, at the head of drainages, on side slopes, and in flat and concave landforms 

such as benches and depressions. Within the ANF, there are 1,261 mapped wetlands found from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Where NWI wetlands are found, there is 

high probability of the occurrence of additional wetland acreage. Additional forested and non-forested 

wetlands exist across the ANF that are identified and analyzed at the project level and protected during 

implementation. 

Springs, seeps, and vernal pools are also considered wetlands because of the presence of hydric soils, 

water, and hydrophilic vegetation. The majority of springs and seeps on the ANF do not appear on 

topographic maps, and these unique ecosystems can be quite extensive. Seeps primarily occur on strongly 

sloping to steep side slopes and low slope colluvial landforms. Seeps are very important foraging and 

breeding habitat for some salamander and invertebrate species and the moist corridors surrounding seeps 

are important for salamander migration and dispersal. The area surrounding the springs and seeps is also 

important to plant distributions. During the winter months as the groundwater melts or reduces snow 

cover, seeps are important foraging areas for wild turkey, deer, and other wildlife. Canopy cover needs to 

be maintained around seeps and springs to maintain micro-climate and prevent conversion to grass or fern 

cover. Vernal pools are naturally occurring small pools or depressions that are inundated for a period of 

time each year, primarily late fall through spring, as a result of a combination of snowmelt, precipitation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-27

and high water tables. These pools dry up for a period of time, generally during the summer and early fall. 

Vernal pools are free of fish and the pool basin is used as breeding habitat for pool-dependent amphibians 

and invertebrates. In addition to the breeding pools, the surrounding upland forest is critical habitat that is 

used by pool-breeding amphibians during their life cycle. 

Protected water uses and criteria necessary to protect each use 

Protected water uses are designated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA 

DEP) for all state waters, and are inclusive of the following: aquatic life; water supply for potable, 

industrial, livestock, wildlife, and irrigation uses; and the recreational uses of boating, fishing, water contact 

sports, and aesthetics (PA DEP 2001). Of the mapped streams in the proclamation boundary, 67 miles are 

designated exceptional value (EV), 1,525 miles are designated high quality cold water fishes (HQ-CWF), 

418 miles are designated cold water fishes (CWF), and 41 miles are designated warm water fishes (WWF). 

Therefore the majority of streams on the forest should be managed in a way that maintains and/or 

propagates fish species as well as flora and fauna, which are indigenous to a cold-water habitat. Several 

streams have been upgraded over the years because macroinvertebrate sampling indicated high water 

quality. In 2001, segments of Brown’s Run sub-watershed were upgraded from a CWF to an EV. In 2006, 

segments of East Hickory and Middle Hickory Creek and Messenger Run were upgraded from a CWF to an 

EV (PA DEP 2006a). Minister Creek is also being reviewed for upgrade from a HQ-CWF to EV. 

The upgrades over the years on streams on the ANF indicate that water quality is among the highest in the 

state. The PA Division of Water Quality Assessment and Standards has assessed trends on regularly 

sampled streams (PA DEP 2004). Of the streams where trends were significant, Tionesta Creek and 

Clarion River best represent conditions resulting from management activities on the ANF. Both of these 

streams expressed a decreasing trend in nitrate. This report also stated that there are positive trends in 

water quality for all regions in PA except the southeast. 

However, water chemistry in the area has low buffering capacity due to acidic bedrock and soils in 

combination with acidic deposition. This can be exacerbated by acidic deposition as discussed in the air 

section (sulfur dioxide and acid deposition). Acidic deposition has been shown to degrade water quality 

by lowering pH levels (i.e., increasing acidity), decreasing acid-neutralizing capacity (ANC), and 

increasing aluminum concentrations (Driscoll et al. 2003). During snow melt or large rain events, 

episodic acidification can exacerbate pH, acid neutralizing capacity, and alkalinity and release high levels 

of aluminum by causing a pulse of acids and/or dilution of base cations (e.g. calcium and magnesium). 

Research on streams in central and southwestern Pennsylvania have shown severe and chronic episodic 

acidification causing fish mortality and affecting fish distribution (Baker et al. 1996). 

Water temperature monitoring on the ANF has shown that 1st through 3rd order streams are generally 

meeting daily average water temperatures suitable for cold water species (68° F), but larger streams 

generally exceed this standard from July through August because of the wide surface area exposed to 

solar radiation. Sedimentation above natural levels is also a concern in streams throughout the forest, and 

has been documented at several locations (PA DEP 2002). Sediment sources on the ANF can originate 

from road runoff, activities associated with oil and gas extraction, vegetation management, and heavy 

recreational use. Elevated levels of sediment can cause scouring during high flows, fill interstitial spaces 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-28 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

necessary for macroinvertebrates, reduce available habitat (e.g. pool depth), and reduce the algae- and 

bacteria-based food supply. 

The DEP has antidegradation requirements as a component of its water quality standards (PA DEP 2003). 

The objective of the antidegradation policy is that, at a minimum, existing instream water uses and level 

of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. Some limited 

point and nonpoint source discharges may be allowed, providing that they are of limited activity that 

results in no more than temporary and short-term changes in water quality. This means that degradation is 

limited to the shortest possible time, and is only allowed after all practical means of minimizing it are 

implemented. 

There are a few water bodies on the ANF that are listed as impaired on the 2006 303(d) list of water 

quality limited streams and lakes (PA DEP 2006), but most of them are related to natural chemistry or 

atmospheric deposition (276HTable 3-6). Mercury is a common pollutant in many streams and lakes 

throughout Pennsylvania and the source is not always known (PA DEP 2004), although it is suspected to 

be from atmospheric deposition. Fish consumption advisories are published on the PA DEP website. West 

Branch of Millstone Creek was added to the 2006 303(d) list for metals, pH, and siltation from natural 

sources. More investigation is needed on this stream to determine if there are other sources of impairment. 

The source of pollution for Dutchman Run, within the Browns Run watershed, is originating from 

residential developments along the stream (PA DEP 2001a). The 2001 report states that roadways, oil and 

gas extraction, and timbering do not appear to be impacting overall water quality. In addition, the reach of 

stream that was assessed above the town of Clarendon, but downstream of FS land was upgraded to an 

Exceptional Value water based on the presence of high quality aquatic communities. 

Table 3-6. Streams on the 303(d) list of water quality limited streams and lakes 

Stream or Lake Non-Support Source Pollutant 

Allegheny River Human Health Unknown Mercury 

Brokenstraw Creek Human Health Unknown Mercury 

Clarion River Human Health Unknown Mercury 

Tionesta Creek Human Health Unknown Mercury 

Allegheny Reservoir Human Health Atmospheric 

Deposition Mercury 

East Branch of Millstone 

Creek (5010005065) Aquatics Natural Sources pH 

West Branch of Millstone 

Creek (5010005065) Aquatics Life Natural Sources 

 Metals 

pH 

Siltation 

Dutchman Run 

(5010001225) Aquatic Life 

Package Plants 

Removal of 

Vegetation 

On Site Wastewater 

Low dissolved oxygen 

Siltation 

Nutrients 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-29

Consumptive water uses 

Water supply systems 

A municipal supply watershed is the area which contributes water to a public water supply system, as 

defined in FSM 2542.05. Not included are communities served by a well or confined ground water not 

affected by most surface activities. The three municipal watersheds on the ANF are Bradford, 

Johnsonburg, and Ridgway, which are located in the West Branch Tunungwant Creek, Silver Creek, and 

Big Mill Creek watersheds, respectively. The ANF manages 4,064 acres (15%) within West Branch 

Tunungwant Creek watershed, 348 acres (16%) within Silver Creek Watershed, and 18,731 acres (93%) 

within Big Mill Creek watershed. The municipalities test and report water quality to the state. 

There are 38 known water systems that exist on ANF property that are used for public water, residences, 

or non-potable uses. Of these systems, 31 are transient non-community systems that serve campgrounds 

or picnic areas. One of the systems also serves the Bradford Administrative Office. These systems are 

tested and results are supplied to the state. Throughout the ANF, several other roadside springs exist that 

are not maintained for public consumption. 

Riparian corridor 

Riparian areas are transition zones between terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems (e.g. streams, lakes, and 

wetlands). Riparian areas extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, 

up the near-slopes that drain to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the watercourse at a 

variable width (Ilhardt et al. 2000). 

Healthy and properly functioning riparian areas are physically and biologically diverse and highly productive 

environments. These land-water interfaces are generally very dynamic and support complex associations of 

upland and animal communities. Riparian areas also maintain or improve water quality, moderate impacts of 

flooding, and provide continuous groundwater recharge areas. The areas are also attractive for their diverse 

scenery and recreation potential. Riparian areas act as a buffer to trap sediment and nutrients moving from upland 

areas, moderate stream temperatures, provide streamside cover and food for wildlife, provide large wood reserves 

and organic matter to riparian areas and aquatic systems, maintain overall channel stability, and moderate 

cumulative effects of actions within the watershed. 

Digitally-mapped floodplains, wetlands, and riparian buffers are discussed as riparian corridors. The number of 

acres within the mapped riparian corridor was calculated using the miles of perennial and intermittent streams on 

the ANF that are digitally mapped from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 topographic maps. To account 

for streams not shown on USGS maps, streams were digitized from historic maps to provide a better account of 

the true mileage of 1st and 2nd order streams. The previously unmapped stream miles total 1,500 miles that are 

widely distributed geographically, and provide significant importance to the stream systems as a whole. Also, the 

mapped National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands, other water bodies, and floodplain ecotypes are included in 

the riparian corridor. Finally, the buffers in 27HTable 3-7 were applied to these water bodies to determine the acreage. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-30 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-7. Fixed-width distances for the delineation of the riparian corridor in Alternatives B, Cm, and D 

Water Features Distance from each bank or high water mark, 

measured as slope distance 

Allegheny River Minimum of 300 feet 

Wilderness Trout Streams, Remote Trout Streams, or Class 

A Trout Streams 

Minimum of 200 feet or 50 feet plus 4 feet for 

every 1 percent of slope, whichever is greater 

Perennial streams and other perennial water bodies Minimum of 100 feet or 50 feet plus 4 feet for 

every 1 percent of slope, whichever is greater 

Intermittent streams and mapped wetlands. Water does not 

need to be present on the surface at the time of inventory. 

Minimum of 50 feet plus 2 feet for every 

1 percent of slope 

Using the mapped water features and proposed buffers, the total riparian corridor area will be 57,039 acres in 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D. Alternative A will have less acres in the riparian corridor because it will not include 

an increase in buffer width for Wilderness Trout Streams, Remote Trout Streams, and Class A Trout Streams and 

the minimum width for perennial streams. 278HTable 3-8 shows the approximate distribution of forest age within the 

riparian corridor. Almost 80 percent of the riparian corridor is in forested condition, with the majority of the 

openings being water bodies. Open areas include areas covered with lowland shrubs, upland shrubs, sparsely 

stocked trees or ferns and grasses. They do not include permanent openings, including pipelines, roads, and 

openings for wells. 

Within the riparian corridor, several forest health concerns exist that are addressed in more detail in the Vegetation 

Management section. 279HTable 3-8 shows that the age distribution within the riparian corridor is similar to the rest of 

the forest and will have related forest health concerns, with more than half of the forest over 80 years old. In 

actuality, there is a higher proportion in the mature age group because vegetation management within the riparian 

corridor has been avoided. MA 3.0 surveys in 1992 determined that close to 70 percent of all riparian areas are 

stocked with enough ferns, grass, striped maple, and beech brush to interfere with desired tree seedlings and 

herbaceous vegetation (USDA FS 1995a, p. 26). Only 10 percent of riparian areas are adequately stocked with tree 

seedlings on the ground (well below the 23% average for all of MA 3.0) to provide vertical structure and sustain 

forest cover if the overstory were to experience significant mortality or decline (USDA FS 1995a p.26). 

Table 3-8. Distribution of forest age across ANF lands within the riparian corridor 

Riparian Corridor Forest Cover Age Percent of Riparian Corridor

Water 15.0 

Open Areas 5.7 

0-10 Years Old 3 

11-80 Years Old 24 

81-150 Years Old 52 

Greater than 151 Years Old 0.5 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-31

Most of the riparian areas across the ANF were logged and many were disturbed by roads and railroads by the 

beginning of the 20th century. Today, riparian areas are generally in a mid- to late-structural stage of forest 

development and riparian vegetation provides excellent canopy over streams. Most of the current disturbances in 

these areas are the result of access roads, activities related to OGM development, trails, developed recreational 

areas, and dispersed recreation. Natural disturbances result from floods, wind, insect infestations, and disease. 

A comparison of three streams on the ANF shows that in-stream large wood increased with riparian forest age 

(Williams and Moriarity 1999). Riparian areas are beginning to contribute large wood (e.g. small trees, limbs, and 

trees affected by mortality and windthrow) to stream channels and to recover the ecological processes and 

functions such as storage of sediment and coarse organic matter in small tributary streams and the creation of 

larger, deeper pools (Dolloff and Webster 2000). The current habitat is largely defined by a high frequency of 

riffle and glide features with few pools. Since pool habitat is important for aquatic organism survival and 

propagation, streams on the ANF may not fully meet Pennsylvania designated protected water uses due to the lack 

of adequate aquatic habitat in the form of pools. It will take several more decades of careful riparian area 

stewardship before these ecological processes are fully affecting larger fish-bearing streams. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects will be analyzed on FS lands within the proclamation boundary. 

Within this area, water resources are potentially subject to impacts as a result of land management activities 

implemented under the LRMP. Activities that have beneficial or negative effects on water resources including 

streams, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, and seeps will be analyzed. 

The hydrologic unit chosen for cumulative effects analysis is 5th level watersheds. This is an appropriate size area 

to determine effects from the LRMP because beyond this point effects are expected to be diluted. Streams on the 

ANF drain both from private and other public lands and to other public and private lands; therefore activities on 

the ANF can affect downstream users and be affected by upstream users. Data analyzed for cumulative effects 

will be from within the ANF proclamation boundary because the dataset outside of this boundary will not be 

comparable to the data available within the boundary. Also, water quality is believed to be comparable inside and 

outside the proclamation boundary because the four county area has similar forest cover and development rates as 

within the proclamation boundary. The time frame for this analysis will be from 1990 to 2020. This length of time 

is needed to project trends from past levels of disturbance to those projected in the new period. 

Introduction to effects 

Forest Service activities that impact water quality and quantity will be discussed. Water quality deals with the 

physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water. Knowledge of water quality characteristics helps to 

evaluate the ability of the water to support protected uses. Water quality effects will be addressed where they 

impact streams and wetlands. Water quantity deals with streamflow response after storms, spring runoff, and low 

flow periods. Watershed conditions can have indirect effects on water quantity. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-32 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Water quality 

Vegetation management

Timber management can affect a number of watershed processes and aquatic ecosystem functions 

by the removal of timber and potential for ground disturbance. Potential effects depend upon the 

quantity of timber removed, logging methods employed, and site-specific conditions. Removal of 

timber can potentially affect hydrologic cycles, nutrient cycles, large wood recruitment, stream 

shading, organic inputs, and channel and bank stability. These effects will be minimized through 

forestwide direction (i.e., standards and guidelines) for soils, riparian corridors, and wetland 

management zones. This direction meets or exceeds Pennsylvania’s forestry best management 

practices (BMPs) which are effective at controlling nonpoint source pollution (Lynch and Corbett 

1990; Stuart and Edwards 2006). Water quality protection in achieved in riparian and wetland 

areas when the majority of land-disturbing activities are kept 10 m to 30 m from streams and 

wetlands with greater widths being required on steeper slopes (Richards and Hollingsworth 

2000). This is very similar to the approach used on the ANF for riparian corridors. Also, timber 

harvesting practices on the ANF strive to minimize soil disturbance and maintain the forest floor 

which is critical for minimizing erosion and sedimentation (Stuart and Edwards 2006). 

Roads, trails, and landings are the primary cause of erosion and sedimentation from timber 

harvesting where BMPs have not been properly applied (Stuart and Edwards 2006). Research has 

shown that where BMPs are properly employed and forest floor disturbance is minimized, 

significantly less erosion and sedimentation occur (Phillips et al. 2000, Stuart and Edwards 2006). 

Standards and guidelines for soil and water resources, including riparian corridors and wetland 

management zones, are designed to keep sediment out of streams and wetlands. These standards 

and guidelines meet or exceed PA forestry BMPs. Pennsylvania’s BMPs (and similar BMPs in 

other states) will keep sediment levels on well managed forest lands within the normal range that 

occurs on undisturbed forestland (Lynch and Corbett 1990; Stuart and Edwards 2006). A 

Pennsylvania study utilizing state forestry BMPs found that levels of sediment are not large 

enough to cause concerns to municipal supply reservoirs (Lynch and Corbett 1990). In this study, 

110 acres of the 257 acre watershed were clearcut, which is much more intense than the typical 

harvest that would occur within a watershed on the ANF. 

When streamside vegetation that provides shade to the stream channel is removed, solar radiation 

is allowed to enter the water and cause warming. The majority of all vegetation management 

treatments will be kept outside the riparian corridor, thereby protecting stream temperatures (see 

280HTable 3-7 and standards and guidelines.) Mitigation measures (i.e., 50 feet from intermittent 

streams and 100 feet from perennial stream channels plus additional distance for slope) were 

found to be adequate to protect aquatic life and other Commonwealth protected water uses by 

protecting the channel from solar radiation (Lynch and Corbett 1990). Only treatments that 

improve composition and diversity of vegetation will be allowed within the riparian corridor, and 

these treatments will be designed to minimize downstream increases in stream temperature. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-33

Hemlock is located along many stream drainages. If hemlock woolly adelgid kills a large portion 

of hemlock in the riparian corridor, or areas adjacent to streams are blown down, increases in 

stream temperature could occur. Effects will depend on the remaining cover of the stream channel 

and regeneration of other tree species. Introduction of other conifer species and maintenance for 

the health of all conifer species is important in the riparian corridor. 

When logging, including clear-cutting, and related activities, are conducted following BMPs, 

changes in stream water chemistry are small or of short duration and should not adversely impact 

water quality (Stuart and Martin 2006). At the Leading Ridge Watershed study in central 

Pennsylvania, Lynch and Corbett (1990) found that concentrations of potassium, nitrate, and 

some macronutrients in streams periodically increased for up to 9 years following harvesting. 

These loses were small and within drinking water standards (Lynch and Corbett 1990, Stuart and 

Edwards 2006). Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry (BOF) BMPs were applied during this study 

and were found to be effective at reducing nutrient losses (Lynch and Corbett 1990). On the ANF, 

nutrient losses could be reduced further because a 50-foot buffer on intermittent streams is 

incorporated, whereas the PA BOF began applying this buffer after this study. In the Soil Section, 

LRMP standards and guidelines for vegetation management are discussed that will help abate 

nutrient concerns in streams (Hornbeck and Swank 1992, Martin et al. 2000). 

Timber harvesting can increase nitrogen loss which can also affect the acidity of the streams 

(Baldigo et al. 2005). A study in Catskill Mountain streams in New York analyzed stream 

acidification and mortality of brook trout as affected by different harvesting methods (Baldigo et 

al. 2005). Water quality and trout mortality were affected by episodic acidification only in the 

clearcut stream which harvested 73 percent of the basal area, and were not affected in the 

watershed which harvested 14 percent of the basal area (Baldigo et al. 2005); however, this study 

did not determine a threshold for effects from timber harvesting on water quality and trout 

mortality, and is specific to the Catskill Mountains. Due to the near clearcut of this watershed, 

peak flows were increased in addition to base flows. Acidification occurred during the peak 

flows. 

Levels of proposed timber harvesting on the ANF should not increase occurrences of stream 

acidification (i.e., pH and acid neutralizing capacity) or cause trout mortality. Projects are 

planned in watersheds on the ANF to minimize increases in streamflow through maintaining 

stream and wetland buffers, staggering harvest times and encouraging rapid regeneration (Martin 

et al. 2000). As mentioned above, standards and guidelines will be applied to minimize nutrient 

loss that may contribute to stream acidification. 

Reforestation treatments

The use of herbicide and fertilizer to aid in reforestation is a common practice on the ANF, as 

well as other lands on the Allegheny Plateau. The behavior of glyphosate and sulfometuron 

methyl in soil, water and groundwater is covered in more detail in Appendix G1 (pages G1- 40 to 

47, G1-103 to109). For glyphosate, soil degradation is fairly rapid and it adheres strongly to soil 

particles and does not have a tendency to leach (page G1-42). In aquatic systems, glyphosate is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-34 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

strongly adsorbed to both organic and mineral matter and is mainly degraded by micro organisms 

(page G1-44) and was shown to dissipate rapidly in standing water with half-lives of 1.5 to 3.5 

days (page G2-46). We expect glyphosate to behave similarly in saturated and non-saturated 

soils, i.e., strong adsorption to soil organic and mineral matter with a rate of dissipation similar to 

that found in standing water. There is little or no likelihood of ground water contamination 

because of the tendency of glyphosate to bind to soil organic matter and its subsequent rapid 

microbial degradation (page G1-44). 

Based on the findings in the herbicide risk assessment, sulfometuron methyl will be neither very 

persistent nor mobile in the types of soils found on the ANF because of the generally higher level 

of organic matter and the lower pH (pages G1-104 to106 for details). The layer of vegetation and 

litter present on the ground promotes infiltration into the soil. This decreases the likelihood of 

surface runoff of water which might contain chemical residues and increases the likelihood of the 

movement of this water into the upper portions of the soil. The high levels of organic matter in 

the ANF soils will limit the movement (leaching) of sulfometuron methyl and accelerate its rate 

of decomposition. The findings in the herbicide risk assessment indicate sulfometuron methyl 

would behave similarly in saturated and non-saturated soils, i.e., strong adsorption to soil organic 

and mineral matter. The herbicide risk assessment notes that its dissipation rate in water is 

uncertain, but based on the information cited in detail on pages G-1 (Pages 104 to106) it was 

concluded that there is no expectation it will be persistent in soils or leach to groundwater. The 

sulfometuron methyl formulation proposed for use is labeled for use on intermittently flooded 

low lying sites, seasonal dry floodplains and transitional areas between upland and lowland sites 

when no water is present and in marshes, swamps, and bogs after the water has receded. 

All the glyphosate formulations proposed for use on the ANF are labeled for aquatic use. The 

surfactant constituents are all on either US EPA list 3 or 4B. List 3 indicates that there is 

unknown toxicity; for inerts where “there was no basis for placing it on any of the other lists. List 

4B indicates materials which are considered to be of minimal concern and for which there is 

sufficient information to conclude that the current use patterns in pesticide products will not 

adversely affect public health and the environment. See G-1, Pages 2, 13, 14, 36, 37, and 101 for 

more details on surfactants and inerts and the EPA list definitions. The Agency (US EPA) will 

continue to evaluate these chemical substances, as additional information becomes available, to 

determine if reclassification to List 1, 2, or 4 is appropriate.” The herbicide risk assessment notes 

however that all the surfactants proposed for use on the ANF are also labeled for aquatic use. 

Based on the analysis conducted for the herbicide risk assessment, new water resource buffers 

were developed for glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl which will provide for necessary 

protection of human health or aquatic species (in Section 2100-Environmental Management: 

Pesticide Use in the ANF LRMP, p. 57, 58). Although buffers have narrowed since the 1986 

Forest Plan, the new buffer strategy was developed incorporating the experience of ANF 

managers with the management of power line right-of-ways, and the results of ANF monitoring 

of silvicultural and power line management operations (USDA FS 1988 p.18-19, 1989 p.15-17, 

1990 p.22-24, 2002 p.50-51) and buffer-width research (Appendix G, p. G2-56 to 59 and G2-67 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-35

to 70). Chemical water quality monitoring has shown no detectable concentration of glyphosate 

or sulfometuron methyl in water samples tested (Appendix G, p. G2-11). 

To minimize impacts to wetlands or riparian areas, herbicide standards and guidelines found in 

the LRMP will be implemented on all areas where herbicide is applied. These include marking 

treatment area boundaries and excluding treatment and/or equipment from buffer areas. 

Directional spraying away from buffer strips minimizes the chance of any herbicide falling within 

streams, wetlands, and other wet areas. Buffered areas would be adjusted at the time of 

application to reflect conditions at that time. Other mitigation measures include buffering ditches 

where runoff into a stream could occur, spraying away from protected areas, restricting 

application during wind and rain to avoid drift or runoff, and following all herbicide label 

directions, which are listed in Section 2100-Environmental Management: Pesticide use in the 

ANF LRMP. Also, herbicides will be applied in areas of dense understory vegetation which will 

intercept the herbicides before it reaches the ground. In combination with these mitigations, the 

low application rates used on the ANF reduce potential of streams exceeding water quality 

criterion for these chemicals. 

Four years of water testing on the ANF found no detectable levels of herbicide downstream from 

areas treated to achieve reforestation objectives (USDA FS 1988 p.18-19, 1989 p.15-17, 1990 

p.22-24, 2002 p.50-51). In 1998 and 1999, monitoring of herbicide treatments on powerline 

rights-of-way found the same results. In 1999, for example, water samples collected downstream 

from a right-of-way treatment contained no detectable herbicide with buffer strips as narrow as 13 

feet for cut-stem treatment (with glyphosate) or 58 feet for low volume foliar treatment (USDA 

FS, 2001d, p.43, 44). Based on the effectiveness of these mitigation measures, water quality will 

be maintained at a level that protects beneficial uses and supports the propagation of fish and 

other aquatic species. 

Typically, herbicide treatment areas are a substantial distance from water bodies. For example, a 

review of herbicide treatments applied on the Bradford Ranger District between 1999 and 2001 

indicates treatment area boundaries were located at least 100 feet from perennial streams. Fortyeight areas (98% of those reviewed) were located at least 200 feet from any perennial streams. 

Seventy-three percent of treated areas on the District, during this time, were at least 1,000 feet 

from any perennial streams. Springs, seeps, and any wet areas, at the time of herbicide 

application, are buffered through forest plan standards and guidelines. Onsite inspector 

monitoring helps to ensure that treatment occurs as planned and appropriate mitigation measures 

are implemented. Herbicide effectiveness has been monitored in past treatment areas through tree 

seedling stocking surveys and vegetation examinations. 

1986 Forest Plan standards and guidelines have also been found to be effective at protecting 

stream water quality from fertilizer contamination (USDA FS 1994). From a water quality 

standpoint, a fertilization project was monitored on the ANF in 1991 to determine if a buffer strip 

was adequate to prevent the movement of fertilizer from a nearby treatment area into an adjacent 

stream. During the project in 1991, a buffer of approximately 150 feet was maintained between 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-36 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

the fertilizer unit and a nearby stream. The results of the water quality analysis showed low levels 

of nitrate-nitrogen and total phosphate throughout the sample period (including the pretreatment), indicating adequate buffering. For this project the fertilizer was applied aerially. 

Fertilizers are now applied using ground-based equipment only. A buffer of 50 feet around 

flowing water will meet or exceed buffers used in Pennsylvania and prevent direct application of 

chemicals on streams. A study performed on the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia 

shows that nutrient loss can be minimized by applying rates based on soil nutrient deficiencies 

and avoiding application before rain storm (Edwards et al. 1991). The ANF follows these 

guidelines and applies fertilizers during the growing season for rapid vegetation utilization, so 

minimal impact is expected to water uses. 

When an effect to a groundwater-based public water supply is possible from actions proposed by 

the ANF, an evaluation will be done at the project-level as part of the NEPA process, and 

mitigations and BMPs will be followed to protect these sources. The types of herbicides used and 

the application rates pose negligible risk to drinking water supplies (see Appendix G1). Based on 

the limited mobility of both herbicides and limited persistence in ANF soils, there is expected to 

be no likelihood of ground water contamination from glyphosate (page G1-44) or sulfometuron 

methyl (pages G1-104 to106). The water buffers in the LRMP, which are listed in Section 2100-

Environmental Management: Pesticide Use, have been evaluated using conservative data and are 

effective at protecting human health (pages G1-42 to 47, G1-104 to 108, G2-55 to 59, and G2-67 

to 70). Therefore, activities proposed in the LRMP will not have an impact on municipal 

watersheds because there are sufficient standards and guidelines to protect these watersheds. 

Road construction

Sediment is the principle pollutant associated with forest management practices and is generally 

caused by the construction and use of logging roads, landings, and skid trails (Phillips et al.

2000). The Forest Wide Roads Analysis Report (USDA FS 2003b) discusses current conditions 

of roads and also provides additional detail of effects to water quality from roads. Based on forest 

monitoring of hydrologic connectivity or roads and streams, it is assumed that roads within 300 

feet of streams have the greatest risk of contributing pollutants. Indirect effects of timber 

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

with road use during the hauling of harvested timber. Where streams are close enough to a road, 

airborne particles from heavy truck traffic can be blown from the road into the water and runoff 

from roads and ditches can carry sediment to the streams if erosion occurs. To reduce the risk of 

sedimentation to nearby streams, limestone surfacing is generally placed on system roads and 

road segments within 300 feet of streams (Trieu 1999, Swift 1984). Construction of new roads, 

addition of existing corridor, and maintenance of existing roads will be designed to meet the 

water resource guidelines, particularly where roads are within 300 feet of streams or within 

wetlands management zones. This will minimize the amount of roads hydrologically connected to 

streams and wetlands and reduce sedimentation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-37

Stream crossings, wetland crossings, and the approaches of roads to these areas are the source of 

the majority of sediment contribution to streams and wetlands (Swift 1988). New water resource 

guidelines direct the avoidance of these areas first, but also address the proper design of roads for 

crossing streams and wetlands where they can not be avoided. 

Alternative logging methods such as full-suspension and helicopter logging can reduce potential 

soil disturbance and sedimentation associated with conventional methods. Selection of these 

methods could be made at the project level. These methods will reduce impacts in areas where 

steep slopes or wet soils prohibit conventional methods. 

Construction of roads or other facilities in riparian areas can also affect stream temperatures. 

Most new facilities will be constructed outside riparian areas, as described in management 

guidelines, with the exception of stream crossings. Some localized reduction in forested riparian 

areas will occur at new stream crossings, but the overall effect on stream shading and water 

temperatures will be minimal. 

Decommissioning of roads near streams and wetlands will decrease sediment reaching these areas 

once vegetation has recovered. 

Recreation

Effects on water quality from recreation trails are correlated to effects on soils. Erosion results in 

increased sedimentation into streams and wetlands when it occurs close to the water body. 

Equestrian use can break down streambanks, compact soils in sensitive wetland areas, and cause 

sedimentation and nutrient enrichment in streams when trails are used repeatedly or by a large 

number of riders. A couple of riders using the trail only once may have minimal impacts to water 

resources. Open riding would permit user-developed equestrian trails, which have been 

documented to have high impacts on water quality where trails are located on steep slopes near 

streams and where trails cross streams and wetlands (USDA FS 2003e, p. 51). User-developed 

trails result in impacts that could be minimized by developing a trail system that follows better 

design principles, and is constructed to address soil and water concerns. Restricting horse users to 

designated trails will ensure trails are designed to FS standards and guidelines and avoid concern 

areas. Also, horse use on existing closed roads will have minimal impacts to streams and 

wetlands. 

ATV/OHM trails can affect water resources and have similar effects as roads. Although the corridor 

for trails is narrower than for roads and will have greater interception from trees, the type of use 

that occurs on these trails can generate more fine sediment to streams. The primary sediment source 

to streams occurs where trails cross streams or where trails are located within 300 feet of streams. 

In the past 10 years, improvements have been made to trails by relocating sections of trails off of 

poorly drained soils and away from streams and incorporating improved trail design concepts (e.g. 

keeping trail grades below 10 percent, surfacing trails with limestone, using drainage structures in 

trail corridors, and seasonal trail closures) (USDA FS 2003e, 50-51). Sedimentation can occur 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-38 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

when surfacing and trail drainage are not maintained. The ATV/OHM trail capability model was 

used to minimize effects to water resources by placing IUAs in areas with low likelihood of 

wetlands and steep slopes. 

Unauthorized use of ATV/OHMs and user-developed trails cause the most degradation to streams 

when users cross streams with unstable banks and bottoms, create ruts and compaction in 

floodplains and wetlands, and ride on steep slopes. A study of the effects of ATV trails on stream 

characteristics was completed on the Ouachita NF where ATVs have designated trails and have 

also developed a network of unauthorized trails. Results indicated that embeddedness, percentage 

of sands and fines, and pool-depth parameters had declined and had significant pool-volume 

decreases as compared to reference streams (Chin et al. 2004). It was not determined what caused 

the degradation, but the undesigned trails and lack of stream crossing structures are suspected. 

Stream crossings will also be avoided. Where they are installed, crossings would have similar 

effects and mitigations to those discussed for roads in the water quality and water quantity 

sections. Most new stream crossings would only occur at 1st or 2nd order streams, or other 

streams that do not show on USGS topographic maps. 

With proper planning, design and maintenance, recreation opportunities such as camping and 

hiking can be provided with minimal impacts to water quality and riparian condition (USDA FS 

2003e, 43). Most ANF trails and campsites have very little impact to water resources. Userdeveloped trails and campsites often cause the most resource damage because they do not 

consider impacts to water resources. Heavy use along streams or wetlands can compact soils, 

weaken stream banks, and destroy vegetative cover. Fishing pressure on high-use streams also 

affects streambank conditions and damages vegetation which can affect water quality. There are 

no foreseeable future plans to develop any large-scale recreation facilities, but if this is proposed 

it will be analyzed at the project level. Construction or reconstruction of developed facilities or 

rehabilitation of dispersed sites will not vary by alternatives.. 

Water quantity 

Vegetation management

Vegetation management on the ANF should not measurably change the water quantity in any of 

the 15 watersheds because treatments will be planned and analyzed at the project scale to avoid 

cumulative effects. Studies from several areas of the Northeastern U.S., including the Leading 

Ridge Watershed Research Unit in Pennsylvania, provide an understanding of how forest 

disturbance influences water yield over time. This research, summarized by Hornbeck et al.

(1993), identifies three generalizations relative to water yield change. These include the 

following: 

1. Initial water yield increases can occur following forest cutting, with the 

magnitude being roughly proportional to the percent reduction in basal area; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-39

2. Water yield increases can be prolonged for an undetermined length of time by 

controlling natural regrowth; otherwise they diminish rapidly to predisturbance 

levels within three to ten years; and 

3. Changes in water yield also respond to changes in species composition. 

A study in central Pennsylvania demonstrated that hydrologic recovery takes approximately 4 

years (Lynch and Corbett 1990). Reductions in basal area that approach 25 percent were found to 

have measurable increases in annual water yield (Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 2000). On the 

ANF, 8 percent of forested land (Table 2-3) is in the 0 to 20 age class which has resulted from 

natural disturbance and scheduled timber harvest. Since water yield effects decrease after 3 to 10 

years, it can be inferred that less than 5 percent of the land is in 0 to 10 age class and stream flows 

have not had measurable increases. If changes in water yield do occur, it will most likely occur in 

small headwater areas and effects should dilute as the watershed size increases. Annual increases 

in water yield due to timber removal are largely a result of increases in summer low flow, as 

opposed to peak flows, and occur primarily during the growing season (Megahan and Hornbeck 

2000). It is assumed that watersheds on the ANF respond to forest disturbance in a similar 

manner as presented in the preceding studies from across the northeast. 

Streamflow changes may also occur from natural processes, diseases, or infestations. Increases in 

streamflow have been observed in watersheds made up of old growth (this study defined old 

growth as older than 125 years, Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 2000), although it is unclear how 

much of an increase will occur. Forest health conditions also have the potential to create changes 

in streamflow from the large-scale beech die-off and potential impacts to hemlock. Maintenance 

of conifer component is important to streamflow because they have greater interception and 

transpiration rates than hardwoods (Hornbeck et al. 1993), and they primarily occur in riparian 

areas. Wind storms also have the potential to affect large portions of forest cover in watersheds, 

and may cause streamflow increases. 

Road construction and decommissioning

The streamflow regime has likely been modified by the presence of roads and other compacted 

areas on the landscape. These areas have the potential to alter surface and subsurface flow 

patterns and have a longer-lasting effect where hydrologic connectivity exists between road 

drainage and the stream network. Wemple et al. (1996) found that road segments hydrologically 

connected to the channel network in Oregon increase flow routing efficiency that may be 

observed as increases in peak flows. Therefore, it is likely that the streamflow regime has been 

modified by the presence of the road network and these modifications are likely to appear as 

increases in peak flow magnitude and decreases in response time. Such changes in the streamflow 

regime can result in channel modification where channels are susceptible to such influences. 

Water resource guidelines will reduce impacts to surface and subsurface flow patterns by 

providing direction for road design and maintenance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-40 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

In addition to changes in natural drainage from roads, installation of stream crossings can affect 

channel morphology and streamflows, and can affect migration of aquatic species. Road crossings 

can influence stream channels by delivering sediment and other pollutants to the drainage 

network, by constricting channel widths and floodplain functions, by modifying the movement of 

water, wood, organic and inorganic sediments, and by modifying the movement and passage of 

aquatic organisms. Variables that affect the level of influence road crossings have on stream 

channels and their biota include the type of crossing, the width of the crossing relative to the 

bankfull width of the channel, the stability of the channel above and below the crossing, the level 

of road use, and the frequency of drainage structures on the road. Stream crossings, especially 

culverts, often constrict the natural width of the channel, which can create areas of deposition 

upstream of the pipe, restrict the movement of wood and sediment through the pipe, and increase 

channel scour below the pipe. LRMP guidelines are in place to minimize the number of stream 

crossings for new construction, design for adequate passage of flood flows, and allow for fish 

passage. Maintenance of existing roads and addition of existing corridors to the Forest system 

will bring existing stream crossings up to new LRMP standards and guidelines. Although these 

guidelines will be used for design of road crossings to minimize effects to streams, some effects 

may occur if crossings are not designed properly. 

Where roads are decommissioned at stream crossings, streams banks and their associated 

floodplains will be restored to natural conditions and allow for the passage of flood flows. 

Decommissioning of roads near streams and wetlands will also decrease runoff from roads and 

allow for more water to infiltrate into the groundwater. 

Riparian corridors 

The riparian corridor will serve as a buffer between management activities and streams and reduce effects 

to water quality and water quantity (Hornbeck and Swank 1992). By conserving conditions in the riparian 

corridor, streams with forested habitat will have a supply of organics and maintain water quality. To 

ensure riparian areas continue to have forested cover and supply of organic material over the long-term, 

some harvesting in the riparian corridor is proposed. This harvesting has the potential to disturb soils, 

riparian dependent species, and impact water quality. Standards and guidelines for soil and water 

resources, including riparian corridors and wetland management zones, are designed to minimize these 

impacts and keep sediment out of streams and wetlands. Within these areas, forestry activities are less 

intense and greater attention would be given to maintaining an intact forest floor (Stuart and Edwards 

2000). These potential effects are discussed in the previous Vegetation Management section. Effects to 

riparian areas from roads are discussed in the previous Road Construction section and motorized trails are 

discussed in the recreation section. The vegetation management activities in riparian corridors will not 

create new roads. These treatments will utilize existing roads. 

Treatments proposed in the riparian corridor include uneven-aged and two-aged treatments that will 

promote vegetation composition and structural diversity, and even-aged treatments to sustain aspen. 

Maintaining an even delivery of large wood and providing a mix of riparian species can be achieved by 

manipulating vegetation stand structure and composition (Richards and Hollingsworth 2000). Some 

salvage will be permitted within riparian areas where reforestation is needed due to insect infestation, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-41

disease, plant interference, or other natural disturbance. Salvage or harvest will not be permitted when 

trees are needed for the health or maintenance of riparian values of stream channels, wetlands, or 

floodplains. Thinning treatments could also include introducing unmerchantable and merchantable trees 

into the stream channel and riparian area to improve complexity of fish habitat, trap sediment, retain 

organic matter, and reduce flow velocities (Richards and Hollingsworth 2000). 

Where herbicide treatments are needed for reforestation of riparian corridor treatments, stand activity 

would adhere to herbicide buffers. Effects of herbicides on water resources are discussed in the 

reforestation treatments section. Herbicides would also be used to control the spread of non-native 

invasive species (NNIS) in riparian areas. These effects are discussed in more detail under the previous 

herbicide section and Appendix G. Herbicide use would help increase the diversity and abundance of 

understory plants and tree seedlings (Ristau pers. comm. 2005). 

Avoiding all vegetation management activities in riparian corridors could promote plant interference, 

limit seedling development in these areas, or encourage the establishment of short-lived species (see 

Canopy Gaps and Interfering Plants, p. 3-127). The forest health concerns addressed in the vegetation 

management section are also present in riparian corridors. Some management in these areas will promote 

a diversity of vegetation composition and structure and maintains forest cover. It can also allow for 

management to occur in areas affected by insect infestation, disease, native or non-native plant 

interference, or other natural disturbance. Silvicultural techniques would help accelerate the development 

of late structural characteristics in riparian corridors (see Most restoration of old growth..., p. 3-143), 

which would allow for the recruitment of large wood into the streams well into the future (Richards and 

Hollingsworth 2000). 

Prescribed fire 

Prescribed fire is generally used to reduce ladder fuels and restore or maintain desired vegetative 

conditions. In these circumstances, fire intensity, severity, and scale are generally lower and smaller than 

wildfire events. Control and containment features such as dug fire lines can result in ground disturbance, 

but the level of prescribed fire activity using dug firelines is relatively minor and the potential effects are 

negligible. The nature of prescribed fire on the ANF (see 2400 Vegetation Management section) does not 

produce large-scale watershed, riparian, or aquatic disturbances. If prescribed burn plans are followed and 

low-intensity burns occur as planned, then the effects will be minimal and temporary. 

Watershed improvements 

There is a broad range of efforts to restore watershed conditions across the ANF, such as protecting and 

restoring riparian areas, road obliteration projects, bank stabilization projects, and other efforts to 

revegetate and stabilize exposed soils. In the course of implementing these projects, ground disturbance 

and, to a lesser extent, vegetation impacts will occur. The intent is to minimize the short-term effects to 

correct long-term problems. Generally, most improvements are relatively small and localized, and have a 

minor effect on soil loss, sedimentation, and vegetation. These projects have the beneficial effect of 

reducing erosion and sedimentation over the long term. Additional mitigation such as seeding and 

mulching can ameliorate the short-term effects from sediment until soils are stabilized. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-42 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Opportunities for watershed restoration are typically identified during watershed assessments, project 

planning, and inventory and monitoring activities. These efforts are not likely to change between 

alternatives, although watershed restoration opportunities within MA 5.2 may be limited by the potential 

for wilderness designation. 

Fish and wildlife habitat improvements 

Fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects include activities such as the creation and maintenance of 

savannahs, instream habitat structure, and wildlife openings and their access roads. Implementation of 

these projects can result in vegetation impacts and ground disturbance in varying degrees depending on 

the scope of the project and site conditions. At a landscape scale, habitat improvement projects treat a 

minor part of the analysis area and the potential benefits and impacts are best analyzed at a localized 

scale. 

Facilities and structures 

A broad array of physical developments and structures, such as administrative facilities, utility 

developments, and communications sites authorized under special use authorizations have both short-term 

and long-term effects on water (e.g. construction, site clearing, and soil disturbance). Special use 

corridors that cross stream channels can have direct effects on riparian vegetation and water quality. 

These effects vary depending on the scale and nature of the development, as well as the setting. Road 

construction for installation and/or maintenance purposes can contribute to the impacts from the facility. 

In general, once an area is committed to a facility or structure, there is a permanent commitment of 

resources. Proposals will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis at the project level. No estimates are made 

by alternative for this analysis. 

Effects from each alternative 

The area that can be potentially harvested, acreage harvested annually, acres of herbicides and fertilizers, the 

miles of roads constructed or decommissioned, acres of riparian corridor treatments, acres of IUAs, and acres of 

EUAs can be used to compare alternatives and the potential effects to watershed and riparian resources. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm, and D it is anticipated that water and riparian conditions will be protected. Alternative 

A will have slightly less restrictive standards and guidelines for perennial streams and floodplains, but will most 

likely achieve adequate protection. The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, provides a streamside buffer of perennial 

and intermittent streams of 50 feet plus additional distance for slope. For Alternatives B, Cm, and D, the riparian 

corridor is increased on perennial streams to 100 feet and a 200 foot riparian corridor is established around 

Wilderness Trout streams, Remote Trout streams, and Class A streams. There would be some harvest that would 

be allowed within the riparian corridor to meet LRMP 2500 watershed objectives. These alternatives also provide 

more direction for protection of springs, seeps, vernal pools, and other wetlands. This includes a limited treatment 

zone of 100 feet around wetlands, springs, and seeps, and 200 feet around vernal pools. This increase in design 

criteria should provide increased protection of water quality. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-43

Although standards and guidelines do not completely eliminate water quality and riparian impacts, they will 

reduce impacts to acceptable levels. Since ANF standards and guidelines will meet or exceed Pennsylvania DEP 

BMPs, they will meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. 

Suitable acres by watershed 

The location of the potential harvest activity is defined as the suitable lands within management areas that 

allow harvest activities (281HTable 3-9). Management areas that permit a greater level of management activity, 

such as road construction and timber harvesting, are considered to have a greater potential to disturb 

watershed, riparian, and aquatic conditions than those that limit management actions and emphasize 

wilderness or remote areas. The management areas that allow timber management activities vary by 

alternative (see management area descriptions in Chapter 2). 

Not all of the acres located within the management areas are available for timber harvest. A number of 

acres have been removed from the suited timber base due to suitability issues, or to protect other 

resources such as Wilderness Trout and Remote Trout Streams. The remaining acres within the 

management areas are considered to be the suitable area for timber management. 

Using GIS, the suitable lands for each alternative were evaluated against 5th level watersheds to identify 

what watersheds are potentially affected and to calculate the acres of suitable lands within each 

watershed. The assumption is that watersheds with a large percentage of harvesting will have more 

potential for watershed, riparian, and aquatic effects to occur. 28HTable 3-9 displays the acres considered 

suitable for timber management within each 5th level watershed within the proclamation boundary by 

alternative. 

Overall, all watersheds in all alternatives have some amount of suitable acres for harvest. Alternative D 

has the fewest acres of suitable timber management acres and Alternative A has the most. Alternatives B 

and Cm fall in between the other alternatives. 283HTable 3-9 shows that the percentage of ANF suitable lands 

in watersheds within the proclamation boundary is well distributed. At least 9 percent of all watersheds 

are considered unsuitable for timber harvest. 

An analysis was also completed of the percentage of suitable lands in MA 3.0 per watersheds. Alternative 

B has the greatest amount of suitable acres in MA 3.0 and Alternative D has the least. The percentage of 

suitable lands in MA 3.0 is also well distributed, with the exception of Brokenstraw Creek which does not 

have any MA 3.0 in any alternative and Reservoir watershed which does not have any MA 3.0 in 

Alternative D. Therefore, effects to water quality and water quantity will be minimized by distributing 

projects throughout most watersheds. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-44 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-9. Watersheds and percentage of land suitable for timber management in watersheds within the 

proclamation boundary 

Watershed Name 

(HUC 5) 

Watershed 

Acres within 

the 

proclamation 

boundary 

Percent of 

Watershed in 

FS ownership 

Percentage of NFS land suitable for 

timber management in watersheds 

within the proclamation boundary 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. 

Cm Alt. D 

Brokenstraw Creek 407 0.2 57 53 53 53 

Clarion R. (Lower) 43,454 30.1 80 78 78 78 

Clarion R. (Upper) 61,062 52.2 83 70 70 70 

Kinzua Creek 91,301 58.3 83 83 83 73 

North Allegheny Front 25,699 30.4 74 73 73 70 

Reservoir 70,124 41.7 62 62 54 49 

South Allegheny Front 

(Lower) 58,300 45.0 65 63 58 58 

South Allegheny Front 

(Upper) 28,715 24.0 40 32 32 32 

South Branch Tionesta 

Creek 53,164 71.4 78 78 78 78 

Spring Creek 56,094 70.7 87 87 87 87 

Tionesta Creek (Lower) 71,158 40.1 87 87 87 71 

Tionesta Creek (Upper) 66,384 75.5 89 82 75 71 

Tunungwant Creek 13,927 5.9 84 84 84 84 

West Branch Clarion River 17,101 11.6 67 57 57 57 

West Branch Tionesta Cr. 83,879 51.9 90 91 86 82 

Potential harvest activity (acres) 

A major vegetative management objective is to provide better distribution of forest age classes, and 

timber harvesting is the primary tool to achieve the objective. Table 2-2 displays the potential annual 

average harvest activities by alternative. These numbers are used for the relative comparison of 

alternatives, and are based on full implementation of the alternative. 

The potential effects on watershed and aquatic conditions will depend on how the harvest activity is 

distributed in the suitable areas, the volume of timber harvested, and the logging methods used. 

Alternatives that effect fewer acres have a lower risk of impacting watershed, riparian, and aquatic 

conditions. Vegetation management method will also affect these conditions depending on the number of 

entries, as discussed in vegetation management effects. Even aged treatments will be at least 3 times 

higher in Alternatives A, B, and Cm than Alternative D. Alternative D features uneven-aged treatments, 

although Alternatives B and Cm actually have higher levels of uneven-aged treatments in the early 

decades. The total average annual harvest is lowest in Alternative D and highest in Alternative A (Table 

2-2). Over a 10-year period, there is maximum potential for harvest treatments to occur on 8 to 9 percent 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-45

of the suitable acres for Alternatives A, B, or Cm and there is potential for harvest treatments to occur on 

3 percent of suitable acres for Alternative D. 

Changes to streamflow regime are not expected from vegetation management when considering the 

amount of harvest that will occur in a 10-year period. Forest harvesting does not generally increase flow if 

less than 25 percent of the basal area of the watershed is harvested within a 10-year period (Hornbeck et 

al. 1993). Following this research, increases in flow should only be recognized in small watersheds 

during low flow periods, which may benefit aquatic species. Since past harvesting levels are similar to 

levels proposed in Alternatives A, B, and Cm, no measurable changes in streamflow should occur. Effects 

from management actions will be much lower than past levels in Alternative D. 

Acres of herbicides and fertilizers treatments 

Acres of herbicides used for reforestation will be similar in Alternatives A, B, and Cm. These levels will 

be two times what were used in the past on the ANF and levels proposed in Alternative D. Herbicide use 

in Alternatives A, B, and Cm would increase because the level of regeneration harvests is increasing 

about twice as much as past levels. Acres of fertilizers used for reforestation will be highest in Alternative 

A and lowest in Alternative D, with Alternative A using nearly half what was used in the past, and 

Alternative D is about 1/3 what is used in A. 

In Alternative A, glyphosate and/or sulfometuron methyl would continue to be used to help control 

primarily fern, grass, striped maple, and beech brush using either backpack foliar or mechanical ground 

foliar application techniques. 1986 Forest Plan buffer widths would be used (USDA FS 1986b, Chapter 4, 

p 24): a 75-foot buffer along perennial streams, lakes, impoundments, and intermittent streams flowing 

water on the day of treatment; a 50-foot buffer along intermittent streams not flowing water and spring 

seeps that drain into a stream; and a 25-foot buffer around small seeps with no outflow. 

In Alternatives B, Cm, and D, glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl would be applied to vegetation using 

backpack foliar, cut surface, or mechanical ground foliar application techniques to achieve a wider variety 

of resource management objectives. For the lower application rates using the mechanical ground foliar 

application technique, the buffer width would be 25 feet along perennial streams, lakes, impoundments, 

springs, seeps, and intermittent streams containing water on the day of treatment; and 10 feet along dry 

intermittent streams, springs, or seeps. For backpack foliar and cut surface treatments, no herbicide would 

be applied within 10 feet of standing or flowing water. Within 10 feet of an intermittent stream course not 

flowing water, only the cut surface treatment would be used, and these treatments would not be used 

within the channel. 

Although buffers in Alternatives B, Cm, and D are narrower than in Alternative A, less than 4 percent of 

herbicide treatments for reforestation would occur inside the riparian corridor. Inside the riparian corridor, 

herbicide treatments for reforestation would be least in Alternative D and most in Alternative B. Also, a 

small amount of the treatments would occur in the riparian corridor for developing and maintaining 

certain types of wildlife habitat, scenery enhancements, protecting heritage resources from woody plant 

damage, and controlling invasive plant species. These treatments would be least in Alternative A and 

greatest in Alternatives B and Cm. These treatments will help improve vegetation diversity and structure. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-46 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Herbicide Risk Assessment (Appendix G2) has reviewed effects to groundwater and surface water 

regarding aquatic life and human health water quality criterion and has found that the LRMP standards 

and guidelines will help ensure than treatment effects meet water quality protection criteria. 

Miles of road construction and decommissioning 

Road effects to sedimentation and streamflow will vary by alternative depending on the amount that is 

constructed, maintained, and decommissioned. Roads are considered hydrologically connected when they 

are within 300 feet of streams; therefore only the mileage within 300 feet of streams will be considered 

because they have the greatest potential to increase runoff and sedimentation to streams. 284HTable 3-10 

shows the total miles of proposed road work that could be completed by 2060 within 300 feet of streams. 

Table 3-10. Proposed road work by 2060 within 300 feet of mapped streams (miles) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D

Existing Corridor 17.3 17.3 17.2 16.6 

New Construction 7.1 5.4 4.8 4.3 

Decommissioning 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.2 

New road construction within 300 feet of streams has the greatest potential to cause changes to current 

streams conditions. These effects will be greatest immediately after construction and decrease once the 

road is stabilized (Swift 1984). Alternative A proposes to construct the greatest number of miles within 

300 feet of streams and Alternative D proposes the least by 2060. Existing road corridors that are 

converted to FS system roads will cause short-term sedimentation during reconstructions, but over the 

long term, sedimentation could be reduced if road conditions are improved because of FS standards and 

guidelines. Alternatives A and B convert the most non-system roads to system roads within 300 feet of a 

stream, but the mileages do not vary much between any alternative. In addition to roads within 300 feet of 

mapped streams, roads will also be constructed, or existing corridor will be upgraded, near first and 

second order streams in proportion to the miles of activity in each alternative. These streams will be 

identified and avoided where practical during project planning. Road decommissioning will also cause 

short-term sedimentation, but it will create the greatest long-term benefits where natural drainage and 

vegetation cover are restored. Alternative D decommissions the most miles of roads within 300 feet of 

streams. It is expected that more roads will be decommissioned as soil and water improvements are 

identified during project-level analysis. Overall, Alternative D will have least effect on water resources 

from roads. 

The distribution of the proposed road network within watersheds in 2060 was also evaluated. Conversion 

of non-system roads to system roads and new road construction is proposed in all watersheds for all 

alternatives. The proposed conversion of non-system roads remains close to the same for each watershed 

in all alternatives so there will be very little comparative difference between alternatives. Alternative A 

proposes at least 25 percent more roads than the other alternatives in 9 of 15 watersheds. Alternative B 

proposes at least 25 percent more roads than Alternative D in 7 of the 15 watersheds. For the rest of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-47

watersheds, the proposed new road construction will not vary more than 25 percent between alternatives. 

Alternative D will cause the least effects to the 15 watersheds and Alternative A will cause the greatest. 

Effects to wetlands, springs, seeps, and vernal pools are also possible from the construction of new roads 

or the conversion of non-system roads. Wetland management zone guidelines will direct the layout of 

roads to avoid wetlands, springs, seeps, and vernal pools. Proper road design will also avoid changes to 

surface and subsurface flow. 

Riparian corridors 

The direction for management in the riparian corridor will vary by alternative. Alternative A (1986 Forest 

Plan) has no direction for direct management of the riparian corridor, but allows for such treatment. 

Roughly 95 acres of vegetation management will be expected to occur per year. The LRMP has set 

objectives to manage 50 to 100 acres of the riparian corridor per year. The objective for this management 

is to restore compositional and/or structural diversity to riparian corridors. Vegetation management in the 

riparian corridor will be implemented following new Forestwide standards and guidelines for Alternatives 

B, Cm, and D. This direction is designed to minimize possible effects to water quality, streamflow, 

aquatic habitat, and riparian-dependent species. Alternative A will have slightly less restrictive standards 

and guidelines. Uneven-aged and two-aged treatments in the riparian corridor would be designed to avoid 

warming stream temperatures and to provide an intact filter strip. 

Of the 57,039 acres of riparian corridor, less than 35,000 acres are suitable for timber harvest in any 

alternative. Alternative A has the greatest amount of riparian corridor in the suitable land base (34,500 

acres) and Alternative D has the least amount in the suitable land base (30,500 acres). Alternatives A, B, 

Cm, and D propose treating 3 percent or less of the suitable acres within the riparian corridor with 

prescribed uneven-aged and two-aged treatments each decade. Alternative A would treat the largest 

number of riparian acres annually; Alternative D would treat the least (Table 2-2). This minimal level of 

harvest will allow for accumulation of large wood into streams, protection of water quality, and protection 

of riparian-dependent species. Alternatives A, B, and Cm have the greatest potential to cause negative 

impacts to riparian areas from activities within the riparian corridor, while Alternative D will potentially 

impact the least. Alternative D will potentially improve the least amount of vegetation condition within 

the riparian corridors, and the other alternatives will improve the most. 

Acres of EUAs 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm will have the greatest impact to streams and wetlands because the majority of 

the ANF will permit open riding. Alternatives B, Cm, and D will provide better direction for the 

maintenance and control of equestrian use throughout the ANF through the LRMP standards and 

guidelines. Also, the designation of EUAs around commercial outfitters/guides will help reduce impacts 

in these areas by keeping horses on designed trails. Alternative D will have the greatest beneficial impact 

to streams and wetlands because no open riding will be permitted. Alternative Cm will have the next 

greatest benefit because of the EUAs and the most acres of restricted riding areas, which would reduce 

sedimentation of streams and wetlands in high-use areas. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-48 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Acres of IUAs 

While the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, has direction for the protection of streams and wetlands, 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D incorporate additional standards and guidelines which will further minimize 

effects to these resources and protect against degradation of water quality. The location of IUAs in 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D was also constrained using a GIS model to avoid steep areas and wetlands and 

reduce impacts to streams. However, some amount of sedimentation will occur from the use and wear of 

motorized trails in all alternatives. Therefore, the amount of sedimentation will vary by alternative. 

Alternative B will have the greatest impact to water resources because it proposes to construct the greatest 

number of trail miles on FS lands, while Alternative D would construct the least. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for watersheds and riparian resources is the 15 watersheds within the 

proclamation boundary. These watersheds encompass 1,400,350 acres, but only 740,600 acres will be analyzed. 

Water quality is believed to be comparable inside and outside the proclamation boundary because the 4-county 

area has similar forest cover and development rates as within the proclamation boundary. The watershed that is 

least comparable is Brokenstraw watershed which only has 67 percent forest cover, but only 0.2 percent of this 

watershed is within the proclamation boundary. The time frame analyzed is from 1990 to 2020. 

On the ANF, streams move through several different ownerships; therefore effects from activities on one 

ownership can be transported to downstream ownerships. To estimate the cumulative effects of the alternatives on 

watershed and riparian resources, activities on adjacent non-federal lands must be considered. The percentage of 

FS ownership is a good reflection of the degree of influence FS resource management could have in any particular 

watershed (285HTable 3-9). This Table also infers the potential impacts from state and private activities. Many of these 

watersheds have state-owned lands such as state parks and state game lands which also will be managed for the 

public’s benefit. Within the proclamation boundary, West Branch of Tionesta and Spring Creek watersheds 

contain a large portion of State Game Lands. 

State and federal agencies with regulatory authority aid in the protection of watershed and riparian health during 

the implementation of activities on public and private that include energy and minerals development, timber 

harvesting, and housing development. Federal and state programs provide opportunities for private landowners to 

restore and improve wetland and riparian habitat. For instance, within Warren County the Conservation District is 

assisting watershed groups, providing public education, and improving riparian condition through streambank 

fencing. Warren County is in the process of developing a stormwater management plan which will identify and 

correct stormwater problems from roads and other development. Furthermore, federal and state agencies offer 

educational opportunities for private landowners to learn BMPs for logging, woodlands management, and riparian 

management. These programs are providing long-term beneficial effects to watershed health. FS activities such as 

soil and water improvement, fish habitat structures, and cooperation with watershed groups will also address areas 

of existing concern and maintain or improve conditions in the 15 watersheds. 

Antidegradation requirements in Pennsylvania are designed to protect and maintain the existing water quality of 

High Quality and Exceptional Value waters, as well as the protected uses for all surface waters (PA DEP 2003). 

All activities (including new and existing roads, oil and gas development, timber harvesting, and recreation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-49

activities) will be obligated to meet this requirement. Future monitoring and continued enforcement actions by the 

DEP and the Fish and Boat Commission are necessary to ensure compliance. 

Forest Service management activities such as road construction, timber harvesting activities, and recreation 

activities have the potential to result in sedimentation of aquatic and riparian habitat. In order to accomplish shortterm and long-term land management activities, sediment transport may be an unavoidable consequence. 

However, Forestwide standards and guideline integrated into all alternatives minimize direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects to watershed integrity. These forestwide standards and guidelines not only reduce the threat of 

short-term impacts, but minimize the likelihood for long-term adverse effects to water resources. 

The following cumulative effects discussion for water and riparian resources focuses on management activities 

that pose the greatest risk to water quantity or water quality. The factors that will be considered include the 

change in development levels, timber harvesting, and acid deposition. 

Development levels 

OGM road construction is the greatest impact to water resources from past, present, and predicted future 

development. Roads are often built with adequate soil and water protections but are not properly maintained 

allowing sediment runoff to directly reach streams and wetlands. The analysis below highlights the projected 

future development within the proclamation boundary. To analyze cumulative effects for development levels, the 

following assumptions were made: 1) housing and commercial development levels are static or only slightly 

increasing and will not be considered, 2) rates of private OGM development on FS lands are equal to development 

on private and other public lands, 3) stone pits will have minor effect on water resources and will not be 

considered because they are located in areas away from streams and riparian areas, 4) motorized trails are only 

predicted on FS lands. 

Roads 

Currently there are approximately 1,269 miles of FS road, 2,940 miles of non-system roads and 708 miles of 

municipality roads within the proclamation boundary. From 1990 to 2005, 135 miles of new road or existing 

corridor were added to the ANF transportation system and 1,100 miles of private OGM roads were constructed 

within the proclamation boundary. By the mid-point of the second decade, an additional 69 to 116 miles of 

potential new FS road will be constructed and 171 to 203 miles of existing corridor will be added to the system 

depending on the alternative and 1,920 miles of potential new oil and gas roads that will be constructed. There 

may be a slight difference in water and riparian resources effects between alternatives from the level of new road 

development. Alternative A will have the largest effect and then in descending order from B to D, but they all will 

combine with private OGM development and double the magnitude over levels that occurred between 1990 to 

2005 (see table 2-4). Where these roads are hydrologically connected to streams in these watersheds and 

mitigations are insufficient or not maintained, increased runoff and erosion could lead to channel scour, excessive 

sedimentation, and deposition. 

Along with OGM roads, there will be sedimentation and increased runoff to streams and riparian areas from well 

pads where they are in close proximity to these areas. From 1990 to 2005, it is estimated that 5,000 well pads 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-50 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

have been constructed and the most likely projection is for 7,680 private OGM well pads to be added in the next 

15 years (See Appendix F Table F-5). 

Pennsylvania BMPs set guidelines for road and well pad construction for developers to control erosion and 

sedimentation. In order for these BMPs to protect channel condition and water quality, these BMPs must be 

installed correctly and maintained. In addition to the BMPs, oil and gas operators will also be expected to meet 

the design criteria of the LRMP on their developments, unless it prevents reasonable access. This is a substantial 

improvement over the 1986 Forest Plan. In particular, roads and well pads will be expected to avoid riparian 

corridors and wetland management zones, which will provide an adequate buffer between water resources and 

development. Crossings of streams and wetlands will be minimized to those necessary to access their subsurface 

rights. Where sedimentation is likely to cause adverse impacts to streams and wetlands, additional mitigations 

such as directing runoff to filter strips, installing more frequent cross drains and water bars, and placing limestone 

on roads would be applied to prevent streams from being degraded. Cooperating with oil and gas operators, a new 

LRMP objective, would help resolve water resource concerns, improve the layout of roads, and reduce the 

number of stream crossings needed for development (USDA FS 2004d). It is possible that National Forest 

management will improve watershed conditions where oil and gas roads are adopted to the Forest Road system 

and standards and guidelines are applied during project level implementation. 

Currently there are no streams listed on the 303(d) list by DEP for sediment delivery from National Forest or 

OGM activities (PA DEP 2006). If streams are being degraded, the FS will work with OGM operators and PA 

DEP to control erosion from roads and protect water quality. A stream survey of Salmon Creek watershed was 

conducted by the PA DEP (2002) to determine effects from an OGM development with BMPs in place. They 

found that sediment movement into streams appeared to be associated with dirt and gravel roads rather than well 

pads. These roads were acting as a conduit to quickly move water and some sediment into streams and swales, 

possibly due to not implementing BMPs correctly. It was noted that scour from sand was the primary mechanism 

responsible for changing benthic and macroinvertebrate communities. Elevated levels of sediment can also fill 

necessary interstitial spaces in sediment, reduce available habitat and reduce the algae and bacteria based food 

supply. This study did not assess the implementation of the BMPs, but recommendations were made to improve 

runoff problems. Runoff conditions were improved when the ANF reconstructed FR 127 with limestone surfacing 

(USDA FS 2004g). In addition, portions of FR 165 and FR 631 were surfaced with limestone and stream 

crossings were improved to reduce runoff into streams. Follow-up is needed to determine if benthic and 

macroinvertebrate communities have improved. The ANF will continue to work with operators and the PA DEP 

to comply with anti-degradation requirements. 

The watersheds that will have the highest levels of roads in 2020 using the projected trends will be North 

Allegheny Front, Tunungwant, South Branch Tionesta Creek, Spring Creek, and Kinzua Watersheds, in order 

from most to least. 

Trails 

ATV/OHM trails also have potential to add to cumulative effects for water resources where trails occur in close 

proximity to streams and riparian corridors, but to a lesser extent than roads. Currently there are 108 miles of 

ATV/OHM trails. From 1986 to 2005, 48 miles of motorized trails have been added to the ATV/OHM trail 

system. During the life of the LRMP, the greatest number of miles and greatest potential effects are predicted in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-51

Alternative B, followed by Alternatives A and Cm. The least potential impacts are predicted in Alternative D. The 

trends in development will be expected to increase for B, decrease for D, and remain about the same in A and Cm. 

New trails and trail relocation will limit stream crossings and avoid riparian areas to minimize effects. 

The ANF ATV/OHM trail system may have beneficial impacts to nearby private and public lands, because 

ATV/OHM use has increased. Providing more opportunity for trail use on developed FS trails may reduce the 

number of user-developed or illegal trails on private and public lands and decrease sedimentation. When the 

public uses a fee trail system, the generated funds pay for maintenance of these trails. When the public rides on 

user-developed trails on public and private lands, the trails can deliver sediment to streams and wetlands if they 

are located in close proximity. 

Timber harvesting 

Water resource effects will be possible from timber harvesting levels on ANF, other public, and private lands. 

From 1990 to 2005, ANF vegetation management has occurred on approximately 65,200 acres and 19,100 to 

53,900 acres are expected to be harvested in the next 15 years on ANF land. Additional vegetation management 

has occurred on private or other public land within the proclamation boundary since 1990 and more is expected in 

this period on private and other public land (see cumulative effects section in 3.3.1 Forest Vegetation for 

estimates). These levels of vegetation management should not cause measurable increases in streamflow. 

Harvesting near these streams and riparian areas has some potential for effects to these resources, although no 

adverse cumulative effects are expected. On the ANF, streams and wetlands will be protected through standards 

and guidelines and on private and other public lands these resources should be protected where Pennsylvania 

BMPs are followed. Considering the forest health concerns that exist on the ANF, vegetation management will be 

critical in maintaining a forested condition in watersheds because forest cover maintains water quality and 

quantity. 

Acid deposition 

There is uncertainty over the cumulative effects from acid deposition on stream systems. This could affect water 

quality of streams by causing further decreases in acid neutralizing capacity and pH. Currently within the 

proclamation boundary, there are two streams listed on the 303(d) list for low pH from natural sources (PA DEP 

2006). Further monitoring of pH and acid neutralizing capacity is needed to determine trends. If streams are 

acidified due to acid deposition to a point where they no longer support aquatic species, treatments may be need 

to be evaluated to improve water quality. At the level which timber harvesting activities are occurring on public 

and private lands, loss of soil nutrients are not expected to cause cumulative effects to stream acidity (Baldigo et 

al. 2005). Effects from acid deposition are discussed in more detail in the air section.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-52 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.4 Air resources 

Affected environment 

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 established the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 

program. These amendments designated specific wildernesses and national parks as class I areas. The ANF does 

not have any class I attainment areas. Class I areas are larger national parks and wilderness areas in existence in 

1977, and include eight areas in the Eastern Region of the FS but none within 200 kilometers (about 125 miles) of 

the ANF. New areas may be designated as class I only through actions taken by the Governor of Pennsylvania. 

When looking at the impacts of air quality on ANF resources, it is important to keep in mind that only a handful 

of pollutants contribute to a variety of air quality related issues. These pollutants are a concern because of their 

impacts to both human health and ecosystems, and are described in detail below. Air pollutants are generally 

classified as either primary or secondary pollutants. Those emitted directly to the atmosphere as products of 

combustion are classified as primary pollutants, and those formed when primary pollutants undergo atmospheric 

chemical reactions are secondary pollutants. 

Sulfur dioxide 

About 69 percent of sulfur dioxide released to the air (11.2 million tons in 2000), comes from electric utilities, 

especially those that burn coal (US EPA 2003, p.2). Other sources of sulfur dioxide are industrial facilities that 

derive their products from raw materials, like metallic ore, coal, and crude oil, or that burn coal or oil to produce 

heat. Examples are petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers, and metal processing facilities. Also, 

locomotives, heavy marine equipment, and some non-road diesel equipment currently burn high-sulfur fuel and 

release sulfur dioxide in large quantities. Once sulfur dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, it undergoes 

chemical transformations to form secondary pollutants such as sulfates and sulfites. In the Eastern United States, 

these secondary sulfur pollutants are the major contributors to visibility impairment and acidic deposition. 

Monitoring data compiled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) shows that the 

Eastern Region receives 57 percent of the nation’s sulfur dioxide (sulfur dioxide) emitted from points sources. 

There are eight facilities within 200 km (125 miles) of the ANF that produce in excess of 100,000 tons of sulfur 

dioxide per year, and dozens more that produce in excess of 250 tons of sulfur dioxide per year. As a result of the 

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced (Driscoll et al. 2001, p.183). 

From 1983 to 2001 deposition of hydrogen ions (an indication of acidity), sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium is 

estimated to have been significantly reduced (Lynch, Horne, and Grimm 2003, p.58-59). The ANF is near one of 

the largest sulfur dioxide emitters in the country, and the resulting acidic sulfate deposition is among the heaviest 

in the nation. 

A few changes were incorporated in the air resources portion of Chapter 3 between Draft and Final EIS. These 

changes were incorporated to address items the public commented on and incorporate applicable new science 

that became available between Draft and Final EIS. The emissions tables were updated to show the changes in 

alternatives from draft to final. A discussion on carbon monoxide was added. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-53

There are two National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards for sulfur oxides. There is a 24-hour 

average of 0.14 ppm that is not to be exceeded more than once a year. The second standard is an annual average 

of 0.03 ppm. 

Sulfur dioxide and acid deposition 

Acid deposition occurs when acidic compounds in the atmosphere are deposited on the earth’s surface 

through rain, clouds, snow, fog, or as dry particles. These acidic inputs can contribute to degradation of 

stream water quality and decrease the amount of available base cations in the soil substrate. An 

ecosystem’s susceptibility to soil nutrient losses and decreases in stream water acid-neutralizing capacity 

are influenced by many factors, most notably the bedrock geology/lithology types and the level of acidic 

inputs. 

The bulk of acid deposition on the ANF is the result of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions near 

the ANF, and to a great extent, transported from the Ohio River Valley. At a broad-scale, most of the 

ANF is at risk for acid deposition based on the soils and geology of the area which contain very few 

neutralizing cations or base cations, such as calcium and magnesium. Specifically at greater risk of 

acidification are the plateau tops, shoulders, and upper side-slopes. These areas receive little to no input 

of groundwater. This groundwater may seep through calcium-rich rock layers and carry these base cations 

to the surface in lower side-slopes, foot-slopes, and valley bottoms (S. Horsley, pers. comm., 02/2004). 

Downward trends in sulfur dioxide emissions and sulfate deposition are predicted to have a positive effect 

on aquatic and soil resources on the ANF; however, the reductions are likely not great enough to reverse 

the degradation that has already taken place. 

Sulfur dioxide and regional haze 

During the last four decades, the Eastern United States has seen a significant regional reduction in 

visibility, brought on by a corresponding increase in ambient levels of visibility-impairing pollutants 

often referred to as fine particulates (Malm 1999, p.38-41). 

Monitoring of atmospheric particulates and other impairments of visibility suggest that the average visual 

range on the ANF is approximately 40 miles. This is a significant level of impairment considering natural 

visibility in the East is estimated to be between 60 and 80 miles. The reduction in visibility is primarily 

due to particulate matter in the air including sulfate, nitrates, soot, organic carbon, and soil. Ammonium 

sulfates, stemming from the emission of sulfur dioxide, are responsible for 60 to 90 percent of the 

visibility impairment across the Eastern United States and Canada. 

Nitrogen oxides 

More than 95 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions are in the form of nitric oxide. The primary sources of nitrogen 

oxide emissions are electric utilities, primarily coal powered and the transportation sector. Smoke from wild and 

prescribed fire is also a contributor to nitrogen oxide production, and is a concern for Federal land managers. 

However, it should be noted that thermal nitrogen oxide production increases with increased burn temperature. 

Relatively low-temperature prescribed burns emit very little nitrogen oxide as compared to wildfires. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-54 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Secondary pollutants formed from nitrogen oxides such as nitrates also reduce visibility and contribute to acid 

deposition. In the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight, nitrogen oxides rapidly 

contribute to the formation of ozone. Available evidence suggests that nitrogen oxides are a controlling factor in 

the formation of ground-level ozone in rural areas of the Southern United States (Chameides and Cowling 1995, 

p.75). Monitoring data compiled by the US EPA shows that the Eastern Region receives 45 percent of the nation’s 

nitrogen oxide emitted from point sources. The highest concentrations of nitrogen oxide sources are well south of 

the ANF, but the ANF is still surrounded by numerous nitrogen oxide sources. The NAAQS Standard for nitrogen 

oxides is an annual mean of 0.053 ppm. 

Ozone 

Ground level ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant, and its production is highly dependent on the presence of 

nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the right ratios, sunshine, and elevated temperatures. 

Therefore, high ozone levels will occur only during periods of warm weather, plentiful sunshine, and high levels 

of ozone-forming pollutants. For this reason, the ozone monitoring season extends from April to October. It is 

important to note that there are two locations in the atmosphere where ozone occurs; the stratosphere (upper 

atmosphere) and the troposphere (ground level). Although the presence of ozone in the upper atmosphere is 

highly beneficial, in sufficient doses at ground level, ozone is considered a free radical, capable of killing living 

tissue in plants and in the human lung. Ozone’s harmful effects are due to the pollutant’s chemical make-up. 

The compound ozone is composed of three oxygen molecules, and is less stable than diatomic oxygen (the 

oxygen our bodies need). This unstable molecule reacts with the tissues inside the leaf of a plant, sometimes 

causing the death of those tissues. This same ozone radical also reacts with tissues in the human lung, causing 

inflammation and respiratory ailments, and, in extreme cases, premature death. 

The NAAQS standard for ozone is set at levels considered protective of human health; however, damage to plants 

occurs at levels below the NAAQS standard for ozone. The ozone standard for human health is set at 0.085 parts 

per million (ppm) for a rolling 8-hour average. Monitoring of plants susceptible to ozone injury has shown only 

minimal damage to one species, but there is still concern over effects of ozone on the ANF. 

Particulate matter 

Particulate matter (PM) refers to any suspended atmospheric particle and is comprised of many different elements 

or compounds. It is defined based on various size classes of the particle’s aerodynamic diameter, i.e., particles 

with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns are referred to as PM10 and particles with an aerodynamic diameter 

of 2.5 microns are referred to as PM2.5. Particulate matter can be either a primary or a secondary pollutant, both 

of which affect ANF resources. 

Primary particulates tend to be larger in size, and are directly emitted from a combination of sources including 

combustion sources, agriculture, and road construction. Secondary fine particles are formed when combustion 

gases are chemically transformed into particles. The bulk of regional fine particles within the analysis area are the 

result of these chemically-transformed combustion gases, such as sulfates and nitrates; mainly sulfate particles 

(transformed sulfur dioxide) from coal-fired power plants. These smaller, chemically-transformed fine particles 

are largely responsible for regional haze. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-55

There are NAAQS standards for only one size class of fine particulates, PM2.5. The PM10 standard has been 

revoked by the US EPA, effective December 17, 2006. The PM2.5 is the standard of concern, since particles with a 

diameter of 2.5 microns or less have a greater ability to impair visibility and impact human health. The NAAQS 

standard for PM2.5 is a 24-hour average of no greater than 65 micrograms/m3

, or an annual arithmetic mean of no 

more than 15 micrograms/m3

. A new NAAQS standard for PM2.5 is a 24-hour average of no greater than 35 

micrograms/m3

 will be implemented in 2013. 

Carbon monoxide 

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a common air pollutant of which 77 percent is emitted by transportation sources, 

including highway and recreational motors. Other sources of CO include industrial processes and forest fires. CO 

can cause serious human health effects. CO is the product produced when fuels do not burn completely. The 

highest levels of CO commonly occur during thermal inversions in the coldest months of the year. There are two 

NAAQS standards for CO: a 1-hour standard of 35 ppm and an 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, both not to be exceeded 

more than once per year. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

Analyses for direct and indirect effects of air pollution are limited to pollution emitted from within lands 

administered by the ANF as a result of management activities. However, because air pollution disperses beyond 

political boundaries, levels of pollution emitted from ANF management activities must be evaluated taking into 

consideration regional pollution loads and current air quality monitoring data. Pollution coming from ANF 

management activities can affect air quality within ANF boundaries as well as outside. Likewise, pollution from 

sources outside the ANF boundary affects ANF resources as well as regional air quality. For this reason, air 

pollution must be evaluated in both a regional and cumulative context, and it is imperative that an area larger than 

just NFS lands is used in an air quality evaluation. An analysis area with a radius of 31.07 miles (50 kilometers) 

from the ANF boundary will be used to describe the effects of emissions from the ANF on regional air quality in 

this document. This distance was determined to be adequate to describe the area potentially affected by the mobile 

and area sources of pollution from ANF management activities. 286HFigure 3-2 shows the analysis area. The 

cumulative effects analysis will primarily be bound by the timeframe from the adoption of the 1986 Forest Plan 

until the assumed date of the next revision of the forest plan, 2020. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-56 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-2. Air quality cumulative effects analysis area 

40 0 40 Miles

N

Original data were compiled from multiple source data and may not meet

the U.S. National Map Accuracy Standard of the Office of Management and Budget.

This map has no warranties as to its contents or accuracy.

Elk

Erie

Erie

Potter

Butler

Clearfield

Allegany

Warren McKean

Crawford

Indiana

Cattaraugus

Mercer

Chautauqua

Clarion

Venango

Jefferson

Forest

Armstrong

Cameron

Ohio Pennsylvania

New York

West Virginia Maryland

Air Quality 

Allegheny National Forest

50 km Buffer

Counties 50 km from ANF

Air Qulity Assessment Analysis Area
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-57

Introduction to effects 

Although a majority of this area’s pollution comes from sources outside the National Forest, activities from within 

the ANF boundaries can also affect air quality in the region. Activities such as timber harvesting, oil and gas well 

drilling and operations, road construction, road maintenance, road use, off-highway vehicle use and prescribed 

fire all produce emissions. Additionally, effects of these activities may exacerbate existing air quality related 

issues (see soil resource section). However, not all of these activities are expected to change much by alternative 

within the timeframe of this analysis. The number of days where FS road construction or maintenance occurs is 

not expected to increase over existing levels or change much by alternative. Road use from visitors and 

administrative activities is not expected to vary much by alternative. Private oil and gas development and 

operations will be included in cumulative effects. The remaining activities, timber harvesting, ATV/OHM use, 

and prescribed fire, are expected to change by alternative. 

Though both volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides contribute to ozone formation, nitrogen 

oxide is the limiting factor in ozone production. Therefore nitrogen oxide emissions will be assessed in this 

analysis along with particulate matter. Particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide emissions from these activities 

will contribute to the total pollution load and are the major pollutants of concern in terms of contributions to 

NAAQS. Therefore, potential emissions of these pollutants will serve as indicators for air quality effects. 

Potential emissions of PM and nitrogen oxide from predicted timber harvest, ATV/OHM use, and prescribed fire 

activities will be evaluated in comparison to total PM and nitrogen oxide emissions in counties near the ANF. 

Current air pollution impacts occurring on the ANF are the cumulative result of numerous sources. Pollution from 

sources such as automobiles, off-road construction equipment, wildland fires, factories, oil refineries, and power 

plants all contribute to the regional pollution load. The ANF is situated near the industrial heart of the United 

States. It is within a day’s drive of a large percentage of the United States’ population, and is downwind of a high 

concentration of coal-fired electric generating facilities; the leading source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxide (NOx) emissions. This network of coal-fired power plants includes the generally defined “Ohio River 

Valley.” In the 20 counties in New York and Pennsylvania within 50 kilometers of the ANF there are 10 existing 

major coal-fired power plants (US EPA 2003). 

While sources of PM outside of the ANF have a major affect on air quality, FS activities can affect air quality. 

Smoke emitted from forest fires, both prescribed and wild, is a major concern in terms of ANF activities that have 

the potential to affect air quality. Soot particles from wildland fires are a small, but significant part of the total 

PM2.5 load. The LRMP prescribes smoke management standards and guidelines that will minimize the impacts of 

smoke from prescribed burning on smoke-sensitive sites. It is also important to note that production of thermal 

nitrogen oxide increases with increasing burn temperature. Relatively low-temperature prescribed fires emit very 

little nitrogen oxide as compared to wildfires where burn temperature is not controlled. Prescribed fire situations 

provide land managers with the opportunity to minimize the impacts of smoke on local communities, while a 

wildfire situation does not typically afford such an opportunity. 

Of the counties within 50 kilometers of the ANF, eight counties (Erie, Mercer, Butler, Armstrong, Indiana, and 

Clearfield, PA, and Chautauqua and Erie NY) are in non-attainment status for 8-hour ozone and three counties or 

parts of counties (Butler, Armstrong, and Indiana) are in non-attainment status for particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns (US EPA 2005). There were no other areas in non-attainment for any other criteria pollutants (carbon 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-58 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter less than 10 microns) listed in the US 

EPA Green Book. The eight counties in non-attainment are on the edge of the counties within 50 kilometers of the 

ANF, except for Chautauqua County NY, so are therefore less likely to affect or be affected by air quality on the 

National Forest. 

Pollution monitoring data from two stations in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program near the ANF 

(Kane Experimental Forest in Pennsylvania and Chautauqua County in New York) correlate with national trends 

in pollution. Sulfate deposition has decreased rapidly at both stations while ammonium and nitrate have also 

decreased over time, but at a slower rate. Precipitation pH has increased indicating that acidity has decreased. 

Calcium and magnesium levels have also decreased as they also are emitted as a pollutant from power plants that 

have seen increasing regulations to curb air pollutant emissions. The benefits to soil and stream pH of reducing 

acidic air pollutants such as sulfate and nitrate are somewhat reduced by the subsequent reduction in base cations. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

Administrative vehicle use and visitor vehicle use will produce emissions of primarily volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides. However, administrative and visitor vehicle use will not likely vary by 

alternative. 

Snowmobile use will produce emissions of volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and 

carbon monoxides. However, snowmobile usage is not expected to change between alternatives. 

Both herbicides proposed for use in all alternatives, glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl, have a low volatility, 

are being applied from the ground, and are being applied in relatively small amounts. Therefore effects on air 

quality will be minor, short-term, and localized. Likewise, neither herbicide is expected to add a significant 

contribution to acid rain. Even in an extreme case where a maximum dose of herbicide entered the air, the impacts 

will be minor and localized. 

Effects from each alternative 

Prescribed burning emissions 

Emissions estimates per acre burned in each alternative were derived using the First Order Fire Effects 

Model (FOFEM, Version 5.0, Rocky Mountain Research Station). This emissions estimate was then 

multiplied by the potential acreage that will be burned each year in each alternative to get an annual 

emissions estimate to compare to regional (all counties within 50 kilometers of the ANF) annual 

emissions. It is important to note that the number of acres treated with prescribed fire annually is highly 

dependent on weather and climatic conditions among other local factors. Because there is no way to 

predict where and when individual prescribed burns will occur, this analysis broadly assumes that the 

same number of acres will be treated with prescribed fire annually at the maximum level for each 

alternative. In reality, there will likely be some years with little prescribed fire activity, while others may 

be much closer to the maximum annual estimate. 

The regional emissions data were obtained from the most recent and accurate emissions database 

available. Currently, this is the 2002 VISTAS base case emissions database. It can be assumed that if 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-59

predicted emissions from the proposed prescribed fire activities contribute a small enough percentage to 

the total pollution load, they will not impact attainment of the NAAQS. Most counties within 50 

kilometers of the ANF are either in attainment or unclassifiable status (three counties are in nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 and eight counties are in non-attainment for 8-hour ozone out of a 

total of 20 counties in the region). A percentage threshold of 5 percent has been chosen for the emissions 

comparison. The threshold of 5 percent was chosen to be very conservative in protecting air quality. Air 

regulations often include a 5 percent change as a significance threshold for more rigorous or refined air 

quality analyses. If emissions from prescribed fire activities do not exceed 5 percent of the total pollution 

load in the region, they will be considered below our level of concern. 

Because site-specific burn units have not been identified within the scope of this assessment, fuel loading 

characteristics are unknown at this time. For this reason average fuel loading characteristics that were 

calculated from forest inventory data were used in the emissions analysis. For fuel moisture levels a range 

representative of fuel moisture under which prescribed burning will be conducted were used in the model 

to vary emissions. The range of potential emissions from the fuel loading characteristics and their effects 

on air quality are presented in 287HTable 3-11. 

Table 3-11. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from prescribed burning on the ANF 

Rx Fire Emissions (Tons 

per Year) 

Percent Rx Fire of Total 

Regional Emissions 

Decade Decade 

Alternative Pollutant 

1 2 

Total Regional 

Emissions (Tons 

per Year) 

1 2 

PM10 85 to 89 85 to 89 63,380 0.13 to 0.14 0.13 to 0.14 

PM2.5 72 to 76 72 to 76 27,770 0.26 to 0.27 0.26 to 0.27 

NOx 2 to 2 2 to 2 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

A 

CO 945 to 991 945 to 991 1,157,352 0.08 to 0.09 0.08 to 0.09 

PM10 158 to 166 162 to 170 63,380 0.25 to 0.26 0.26 to 0.27 

PM2.5 134 to 140 137 to 144 27,770 0.48 to 0.50 0.49 to 0.52 

NOx 4 to 5 4 to 5 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

B 

CO 1744 to 

1828 

1788 to 

1875 1,157,352 0.15 to 0.16 0.15 to 0.16 

PM10 160 to 167 157 to 165 63,380 0.25 to 0.26 0.25 to 0.26 

PM2.5 135 to 142 133 to 140 27,770 0.49 to 0.51 0.48 to 0.50 

NOx 4 to 5 4 to 5 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

Cm 

CO 1763 to 

1849 

1739 to 

1823 1,157,352 0.15 to 0.16 0.15 to 0.16 

PM10 94 to 98 94 to 98 63,380 0.15 to 0.15 0.15 to 0.15 

PM2.5 79 to 83 79 to 83 27,770 0.29 to 0.30 0.29 to 0.30 

NOx 2 to 3 2 to 3 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

D 

CO 1036 to 

1086 

1036 to 

1086 1,157,352 0.09 to 0.09 0.09 to 0.09 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-60 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Emission estimates per acre burned were derived from the FOFEM model. The number of acres 

potentially burned for fuels, wildlife, and silvicultural management purposes vary by alternative, and thus 

the prescribed fire annual emissions also varies (28HTable 3-11). Alternative B will propose the most area to 

receive prescribed burning per year. Slightly less prescribed burning is proposed in Alternative Cm and 

even less in Alternative D. Under Alternative A, prescribed fire usage will be the least of all alternatives 

at approximately 275 acres per year (Table 2-2). 

Annual emission estimates from prescribed fire activity in all alternatives are well below the regional 

pollution contribution threshold of 5 percent and therefore are not a major concern. This however does 

not preclude the ANF from using the best available smoke management techniques and technology to 

alleviate nuisance or human health impacts of smoke in local communities and smoke sensitive areas, or 

from avoiding impacting attainment status for any criteria pollutant in areas where burns are conducted. 

Vegetation management emissions 

Rough emissions estimates were made using some basic assumptions that have been developed for typical 

timber harvests in mountainous areas, such as the types of equipment that are likely to be used, the 

number of hours a day this equipment will be operating, and how many days out of the year this will 

occur based on the total volume of timber removed. Using these assumptions, an estimate of the hours of 

operation for each piece of equipment was derived and this was multiplied by an emissions factor (in 

pounds per hour) for each type of equipment. 

Emission factors used were developed by the US EPA (US EPA 2004, p.4-5; 2004a, p.5-8, 1997). These 

emissions were then converted to tons per year for comparison to regional emissions. Because the exact 

timing of harvesting activities can not be predicted within the scope of this assessment, the estimates are 

based on the total volume removed in each alternative by decade, which was apportioned equally over the 

ten-year period for which harvest activities are expected to occur. 

As in the prescribed fire analysis, emissions from timber harvest activities were interpreted in the context 

of the regional pollution load. The estimated annual emissions were compared to total annual emissions 

from all counties within approximately 30 miles of the ANF. Again, the emissions data for the analysis 

area were obtained from the 2002 VISTAS base case emissions database, and the 5 percent of total region 

emissions threshold was used for the comparison. The annual emission estimates from timber harvest 

activities in all alternatives are well below the regional pollution contribution threshold of 5 percent 

(289HTable 3-12). The relative contribution to regional pollution was greatest in Alternatives A and B and 

least in Alternative D with Alternative Cm contributing intermediate amounts of modeled emissions from 

timber harvest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-61

Table 3-12. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from timber harvest on the ANF 

Timber Harvest Emissions 

(Tons per Year) 

Percent Timber Harvest of 

Total Regional Emissions 

Decade Decade 

Alternative Pollutant 

1 2 

Total Regional 

Emissions 

(Tons per 

Year) 

1 2 

VOC 230 to 230 230 to 230 63,380 0.36 to 0.36 0.36 to 0.36 

PM 11 to 11 11 to 11 27,770 0.04 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.04 

NOx 219 to 219 219 to 219 223,110 0.10 to 0.10 0.10 to 0.10 

Alternative 

A 

CO 1176 to 1176 1176 to 

1176 1,157,352 0.10 to 0.10 0.10 to 0.10 

VOC 217 to 217 217 to 217 63,380 0.34 to 0.34 0.34 to 0.34 

PM 10 to 10 10 to 10 27,770 0.04 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.04 

NOx 207 to 207 207 to 207 223,110 0.09 to 0.09 0.09 to 0.09 

Alternative 

B 

CO 1101 to 1101 1101 to 

1101 1,157,352 0.10 to 0.10 0.10 to 0.10 

VOC 188 to 188 188 to 188 63,380 0.30 to 0.30 0.30 to 0.30 

PM 9 to 9 9 to 9 27,770 0.03 to 0.03 0.03 to 0.03 

NOx 179 to 179 179 to 179 223,110 0.08 to 0.08 0.08 to 0.08 

Alternative 

Cm 

CO 951 to 951 951 to 951 1,157,352 0.08 to 0.08 0.08 to 0.08 

VOC 91 to 91 91 to 91 63,380 0.14 to 0.14 0.14 to 0.14 

PM 4 to 4 4 to 4 27,770 0.02 to 0.02 0.02 to 0.02 

NOx 87 to 87 87 to 87 223,110 0.04 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.04 

Alternative 

D 

CO 460 to 460 460 to 460 1,157,352 0.04 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.04 

All terrain vehicle and off highway motorcycle emissions 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and off highway motorcycles in the United States currently emit annually 

about 130,000 tons of hydrocarbons (VOC), 550,000 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), and 4,000 tons of 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) (US EPA 2002, p.1). ATV and off highway motorcycle emissions were 

calculated using US EPA emission factors and estimated hours riders spend on forest. Three assumptions 

were used in the analysis: the ratio of four-stroke to two-stroke engines is 4:1, 80 percent of time spent on 

forest is actively riding, and the average riding speed is twenty-five miles per hour. US EPA has just 

implemented new emissions regulations for ATVs starting with models built in 2006. These new US EPA 

emissions regulations were not considered due to the lag time for full implementation. However, due to 

these regulations the total ATV emissions should decrease due to the higher standards. The predicted 

emissions from motorized trail use are shown in 290HTable 3-13. The ATV and OHM emissions are well 

below the 5 percent threshold in all alternatives so it appears that they will not appreciably contribute to 

regional air pollution. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-62 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-13. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from all terrain vehicles and off 

highway motorcycles on the ANF 

ATV Emissions 

(Tons per Year) 

Percent ATV of Total Regional 

Emissions 

Decade Decade 

Alternative Pollutant 

1 2 

Total Regional 

Emissions 

(Tons per Year) 

1 2 

VOC 80 to 105 43 to 110 63,380 0.13 to 0.17 0.07 to 0.17 

PM 3 to 4 2 to 4 27,770 1.01 to 0.01 0.01 to 0.02 

NOx 2 to 3 1 to 3 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

A 

CO 76 to 100 41 to 105 1,157,352 0.01 to 0.01 0.00 to 0.01 

VOC 82 to 108 44 to 113 63,380 0.13 to 0.17 0.07 to 0.18 

PM 3 to 4 2 to 4 27,770 0.01 to 0.02 0.01 to 0.02 

NOx 2 to 3 1 to 3 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

B 

CO 78 to 103 42 to 108 1,157,352 0.01 to 0.01 0.00 to 0.01 

VOC 79 to 104 43 to 109 63,380 0.13 to 0.16 0.07 to 0.17 

PM 3 to 4 2 to 4 27,770 0.01 to 0.01 0.01 to 0.02 

NOx 2 to 3 1 to 3 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

Cm 

CO 76 to 99 41 to 104 1,157,352 0.01 to 0.01 0.00 to 0.01 

VOC 57 to 76 31 to 79 63,380 0.09 to 0.12 0.05 to 0.13 

PM 2 to 3 1 to 3 27,770 0.01 to 0.01 0.01 to 0.01 

NOx 2 to 2 1 to 2 223,110 0.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 0.00 

Alternative 

D 

CO 55 to 72 29 to 76 1,157,352 0.00 to 0.01 0.00 to 0.01 

Cumulative effects 

Pollution monitoring data from 2 stations in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program near the ANF (Kane 

Experimental Forest in Pennsylvania and Chautauqua County in New York) correlate with national trends in 

pollution. Sulfate deposition has decreased at a steady rate at both stations while ammonium and nitrate have 

remained fairly constant. Precipitation pH has increased indicating that acidity has decreased. These trends have 

been primarily happening since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. 

Emissions from the three main sources of air pollution expected on the ANF were summed and again compared to 

regional emissions and again all alternatives are well below the 5 percent threshold so are assumed to not be 

appreciably contributing to regional air pollution. Additional emissions in and around the ANF include visitor 

vehicle use and administrative vehicle use by the FS both of which are not expected to vary by alternative. Also 

vehicles and equipment used in oil and gas extraction and development will add to regional pollutant emissions, 

but the level and amount of contribution is considered small and would be difficult to estimate. There are also 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-63

many various small emissions source on private land within the proclamation boundary and in the area around the 

ANF (e.g. timber harvest on private land, home and business heating, lumber mills). These many small emissions 

sources and the fewer larger sources of air pollution (e.g. 10 major coal-fires power plants, oil refineries) in the 

counties within 50 kilometers of the ANF contribute to the regional air quality of the ANF. 291HTable 3-14 shows the 

2002 emissions within that region and the relative contribution from activities on the ANF that vary by alternative 

(the high estimates of prescribed burning, timber harvest and motorized trail use) have on those emission levels. 

The four counties in which the ANF is located are currently in attainment of all NAAQS and the contributions of 

the alternatives do not appear to raise the emissions levels appreciably (usually less than 5%). The contributions 

from the ANF are all below 5 percent for both the regional and the four counties areas and are therefore 

considered to not appreciably contribute to air pollution in the region. 

Table 3-14. Estimated future average annual air pollutant emissions from prescribed burning, timber 

harvest, all terrain vehicles and off highway motorcycles on the ANF 

Including comparison against regional and four-county pollutant data. 

ANF 

Management 

Emissions 

(Tons per 

Year) 

Percent ANF 

Management of 

Total Regional 

Emissions 

Percent ANF 

Management of 4 

county 

Emissions 

Decade Decade Decade 

Pollutant 

1 2 

Total Regional 

Emissions 

(Tons per 

Year) 

1 2 

4 county 

emissions 

(Tons per 

Year) 

1 2 

VOC 337 342 63,380 0.53 0.54 12,047 2.80 2.84 

PM 91 91 27,770 0.33 0.33 5,322 1.72 1.72 

NOx 226 227 223,110 0.10 0.10 11,188 2.02 2.02 

Alt. 

A 

CO 2267 2272 1,157,352 0.20 0.20 66,765 3.40 3.40 

VOC 325 330 63,380 0.51 0.52 12,047 2.70 2.74 

PM 155 159 27,770 0.56 0.57 5,322 2.91 2.99 

NOx 215 215 223,110 0.10 0.10 11,188 1.92 1.92 

Alt. 

B 

CO 3032 3084 1,157,352 0.26 0.27 66,765 4.54 4.62 

VOC 292 297 63,380 0.46 0.47 12,047 2.42 2.47 

PM 155 153 27,770 0.56 0.57 5,322 2.91 2.88 

NOx 187 187 223,110 0.08 0.08 11,188 1.67 1.67 

Alt. 

Cm 

CO 2900 2878 1,157,352 0.25 0.25 66,765 4.34 4.31 

VOC 166 170 63,380 0.26 0.27 12,047 1.38 1.41 

PM 90 90 27,770 0.33 0.33 5,322 1.70 1.70 

NOx 91 91 223,110 0.04 0.04 11,188 0.82 0.82 

Alt. 

D 

CO 1618 1621 1,157,352 0.14 0.14 66,765 2.42 2.43 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-64 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.2.5 Transportation Resources 

Travel is associated with virtually every activity that takes place on the ANF. Travel is necessary for outdoor 

recreation, fighting wildfires, managing wildlife, removing marketable natural resources such as timber, oil, and 

gas, gathering fuelwood, access to private inholdings, maintaining electronic sites and utility corridors, and 

managing and monitoring the forest. 

Travel management is a tool used to facilitate the movement of people and products. It provides opportunities for 

the activities listed above and protects resources, mitigates impacts, and minimizes conflicts. Each time a travel 

management decision is implemented, some users will benefit and others may not. For example, when an area or 

road is restricted from motorized travel to protect wildlife, there may be a secondary effect on people. A closure 

prohibits motorized travel and protects the wildlife, but it also restricts access for persons with disabilities 

requiring vehicles for access, may limit firewood gathering, and may reduce opportunities for some forms of 

recreation. Conversely, it could likely give hikers, horseback riders, and those viewing wildlife or seeking solitude 

a more peaceful undisturbed experience. 

On November 9th, 2005, changes to 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261 and 295 were published in the Federal Register. 

These changes are referred to as the Travel Management Rule. 

The new Travel Management Rule is a fundamental change in how the FS designates where and how motor 

vehicles can operate on National Forest System Lands. The Travel Management Rule was developed to provide: 

1. A consistent national approach and terminology for travel management. 

2. A framework to manage motor vehicle use. 

3. Reduce the number of unplanned, unmanaged user created routes. 

The Travel Management Rule requires: 

1. Designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by 

time of year. 

2. Public involvement and coordination with state and local agencies. 

3. Prohibition of use inconsistent with the designations or off the designated system following the 

publication of the motor vehicle use map. 

This section has been updated to be consistent with modifications to Alternative C, and to add a brief 

discussion of the new travel management rule. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-65

As a result of the Travel Management Rule, some forests will be making significant changes in the way motor 

vehicle use is managed on the ground. For the ANF, the most significant change will be in the requirement to 

publish a motorized vehicle use map annually. The ANF is scheduled to publish their first map on July 8, 2008. 

Modes of vehicle travel on the ANF include large commercial trucks, automobiles, pickups, four-wheel drive 

vehicles, snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, mountain bikes, and wheelchairs. Other travel modes include crosscountry skiing, horseback riding, and hiking. These various forms of travel may occur on designated paved 

highways, gravel and dirt roads, unimproved roads, and trails designated for motorized and/or non-motorized use. 

Motorized travel is allowed only on designated roads and trails on the forest. Of particular interest in travel 

management is the emergence of mountain bikes, and increased ATV, OHM, and snowmobile use since the 1986 

Forest Plan. 

As use of the ANF increases, travel management will be increasingly important as a tool for mitigating impacts on 

the various resources and for coordinating uses. The ANF needs to work closely with all user groups to maintain 

travel and recreation opportunities and identify routes where these activities can continue. Public information and 

education regarding travel management and the need for restrictions must be emphasized. A balance between 

motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities needs to be achieved and is likely to require compromises 

by each user group to mitigate conflicting demands. Motorized and non-motorized trails are discussed in the 

recreation section of this document. 

Primary access into and out of the ANF for recreation, administration, private rights, and commodity production 

is provided by state highways. There are 677 miles of state highways and township roads within the proclamation 

boundary (29HTable 3-15). The ANF is a common destination for recreationists from major cities such as Buffalo, 

NY; Erie, PA; Cleveland, OH; Columbus, OH; and Pittsburgh, PA. There are many smaller cities within about 50 

miles of the ANF such as Corry, Meadville, Oil City, Franklin, Clarion, Dubois, and Clearfield, all in PA, and 

Jamestown and Olean in NY. Primary access to the ANF area occurs from the: 

• Southwest by way of I-80, then either US 62 through Oil City or SR 66 through Clarion 

• South by way of SR 66 through Clarion 

• Southeast by way of I-80, then US 219 through Ridgway 

• East by way of US 6 through Kane 

• Northeast by way of US 59 through Smethport or I-86 then US 219 through Bradford 

• North by way of I-86 then US 62 through Warren 

• Northwest by way of US 6 through Warren 

• West by way of US 27 through Youngsville or US 36 through Tionesta 

Reasonable access to private inholdings has to be considered in travel management. In addition, existing and 

future rights-of-way and easements will continue to ensure that public access to FS lands is maintained. As lands 

adjoining the ANF have shown a change in use patterns over time, previous access by the public across these 

private lands is also changing. Without public access, the portion of the roads on the ANF can lose their value and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-66 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

could be recommended for closure. Where public access is not available, roads on the ANF may be closed, 

motorized use eliminated, or a special use permit will be required for motorized access. This may restrict 

motorized access to portions of the ANF from some private lands. 

Affected environment 

The FS describes the road system by several different methods. Three are relevant to the effects analysis for the 

LRMP, and are described below: maintenance of the FS road system, road surfacing, and road management. 

Maintenance of the FS road system 

A road maintenance level (ML) defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific 

road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria (FSH 7709.58, Sec 12.3, 

Transportation System Maintenance Handbook). Road construction, maintenance, and decommissioning, 

addressed under effects, are linked to maintenance level classification. 

Maintenance Level 1 

The ML1 classification is assigned to intermittent service 

roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The 

closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial 

maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent 

resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to 

facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally 

given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. 

Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. 

Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and 

“eliminate.” Roads receiving ML1 maintenance may be of 

any type, class, or construction standard, and may be 

managed at any other maintenance level during the time they 

are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at 

ML1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open 

and suitable for non-motorized uses. 

Figure 3-3. Maintenance Level 1 Road 

Maintenance Level 2 

The ML2 classification is assigned to roads open for 

use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic 

is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, 

usually consisting of one or a combination of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or 

other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are 

either discourage or prohibit passenger cars, or 

accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. 

Figure 3-4. Maintenance Level 2 Road 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-67

Maintenance Level 3 

The ML3 classification is assigned to roads open 

and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort and 

convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in 

this maintenance level are typically low speed, 

single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some 

roads may be fully surfaced with either native or 

processed material. Appropriate traffic management 

strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” 

“Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be 

employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. 

Maintenance Level 4 

The ML4 classification is assigned to roads that 

provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads 

are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, 

some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be 

paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate 

traffic management strategy is “encourage.” 

However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to 

specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. 

Maintenance Level 5 

The ML5 classification is assigned to roads that 

provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. Normally, roads are double-lane, 

paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced 

and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management 

strategy is “encourage.” 

Figure 3-5. Maintenance Level 3 Road 

Figure 3-6. Maintenance Level 4 Road 

Figure 3-7. Maintenance Level 5 Road 

The ANF is unique in that there is a system of OGM roads in addition to the state, township and FS roads. There 

are an estimated 1,200 miles of OGM roads on the ANF. This number is our best estimate as of March 15, 2003. 

The OGM roads are not open for public use; however, many OGM operators do not gate their roads. Although FS 

roads are usually marked at the entrance with a road number, it is often difficult for the public to determine the 

difference between a FS road and an OGM road. 293HTable 3-15 shows miles of FS, state/township, and private roads, 

and motorized and non-motorized trails on FS lands and within the proclamation boundary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-68 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-15. Total road and trail miles within the ANF proclamation boundary, 2003 

Ownership Miles within Proclamation 

Boundary 

Miles On 

NFS Administered 

Land 

FS Maintenance Level 1and 2 677 670 

FS Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 590 561 

State/Township 677 281 

Private and Other Agencies 2,527 1,236 

Total – Road only 4,471 2,748 

Forest Trails (motorized and non-motorized- includes 

trails on roads) 672 635 

Forest Trails (motorized and non-motorized – trails 

not on roads 354 354 

Road surfacing (pit run/limestone/pavement) 

Choice of road surfacing material contributes to effects of roads on other resources, such as soil and water quality. 

Generally, the harder the running surface, the less likely it is to erode. Most FS system roads (91%) are surfaced 

with “pit run” material, local sandstone that fractures easily, and breaks down rapidly from exposure to the 

environment, and from the weight of vehicle traffic. These roads are resurfaced approximately every 12 years. 

Pit run is excavated by developing a ‘borrow pit’. Surface topsoil is first removed and stockpiled, and the pit run 

is then removed by excavator, front-end loader, or similar mechanized equipment. There are 335 active and 216 

closed borrow pits, of which 33 have been rehabilitated on the ANF. There are an estimated 1,100 acres of land 

occupied by borrow pits. 

There are two main concerns with pit run material. First, pit run tends to break down quickly into fine particles 

that are subject to creating dust during dry weather and sediment during wet weather and spring run-off. Second, 

there is concern that the quality, quantity, and access to pit run material is decreasing. Alternative road surfacing 

materials are being investigated for use. 

Limestone is preferred to sandstone as a road surfacing material because it is more resistant to physical 

breakdown, and therefore reduces erosion and potential sedimentation. In 1997, the 1986 Forest Plan was 

amended to address road-related concerns (among others) in riparian areas. Design criteria were summarized that 

address guidelines for road design in proximity to streams. Since 1997, 72 miles of limestone surfacing has been 

applied, generally on road segments that are within 300 feet of a stream and at stream crossings. Limestone is not 

found locally, and is therefore a more costly alternative to pit run material. While the use of limestone may be 

limited due to economic constraints, expanded consideration for its use outside of streamside zones has been 

made on public FS roads. 

Paved road surfaces result in the least erosion due to running surface; however, there are other kinds of pollutants 

such as thermal or chemical pollution that could occur. Paved roads are extremely expensive and generally are not 

economically feasible in most forest settings. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-69

Road management 

Connected to state highways and township roads are a system of FS administered roads. There are 677 miles of 

FS ML 1 and 2 roads and 590 miles of ML 3, 4, 5 roads within the ANF proclamation boundary (294HTable 3-15) 

(USDA FS 2003b Appendix A – Map 2). Forest Service roads are managed for public traffic. Guidance for 

determining how specific roads should be managed is found in the 1986 Forest Plan, and varies by management 

area. General management area direction and road guidelines information is summarized in the LRMP. Road

allocation by management area is shown in Appendix B, Table B-42. Forest Service road management on the 

ANF can be divided into three broad categories. Open roads are typically open for public traffic; closed roads are 

typically closed for public traffic; and restricted roads may be open or closed to public traffic or types of public 

traffic depending on the time of year and resource needs. 

Currently, when considering all ML 1-5 State, township, private, other agency, and FS Roads, 9 percent are 

restricted, 25 percent are open, and 66 percent are closed (USDA FS 2003b Appendix A, map 3). Of all FS Roads 

(ML 1-5), 30 percent are restricted, 36 percent are open, and 34 percent are closed. 

In the Spring of 2003, the ANF completed a Forest Wide Roads Analysis Plan (FWRAP, USDA FS 2003b). It is 

not a decision document but it provides valuable information for managing the road system on the ANF, 

providing “critical information needed to identify and manage a minimum road system that is safe and responsive 

to public needs and desires, is affordable and efficient, has minimal adverse effects on ecological processes and 

ecosystem health, diversity, and productivity of the land, and is in balance with available funding for needed 

management actions” (FSM 7712.1). The primary focus of the ANF FWRAP is the portion of the road system 

maintained for passenger car use (ML 3, 4 and 5 roads). The analysis does not cover roads maintained for highclearance vehicles (ML 2 roads), closed roads (ML 1 roads) or unclassified roads (user-created). Roads analysis at 

the site-specific and watershed level will address these roads. 

The FWRAP also includes a discussion on road density. On FS-administered lands, there are 1.9 miles of 

improved highways (state, township, and FS) per square mile and 1.5 miles per square mile of unpaved dirt and 

gravel roads. Within the proclamation boundary, using the same roads, there are 1.7 miles of improved highway 

per square mile and 2.2 miles of unpaved and dirt roads per square mile. These road densities are well within the 

standards and guidelines provided in the 1986 Forest Plan. Refer to the FWRAP for more information on road 

conditions, issues, benefits and risks, and opportunities on the ANF. 

Direct and indirect effects 

The following measures were used for the effects analysis and are found in the sections below: 

• Maintenance of the FS road system 

• Miles of road construction (new and existing corridor) 

• Miles of road reconstruction 

• Miles of road decommissioning 

• Miles of FS system roads 

• Road surfacing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-70 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Additional acreage for gravel pits 

• Total FS road system 

Table 2-2 provides estimates for each activity by alternative. Activity descriptions follow Table 2-2. 

Scope of the analysis 

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects includes all federal land managed by the ANF. The analysis area 

for cumulative effects includes all the area within the proclamation boundary. This includes both ANFadministered lands and transportation systems, and the adjacent lands administered by other owners, both public 

and private, with transportation systems that link to, or are directly affected by, actions taken on ANFadministered lands. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

In all alternatives, protection of soil, aquatic, and riparian systems will be given more attention in future road 

operations. Current inadequate stream crossings will either be rebuilt or removed. Bridges and open bottom arches 

will be preferred over round culverts to improve aquatic conditions. As the need for repair or replacement of 

existing structures arises, design will provide for added streambed and bank stability as well as for fish migration. 

Reconstruction of roads will include moving the travelways away from streams where feasible and reducing the 

size of the connected disturbed area. 

Under all alternatives, coordination and collaboration with other federal, state, and township officials in the 

management of transportation facilities to and through the ANF will be continued. This is to ensure that access is 

maintained, standards are consistent, safety issues are addressed, and efficiency is considered at all times. 

Effects of the alternatives 

Maintenance of the FS road system 

Road construction, maintenance, and decommissioning under each alternative are designed to provide full 

access to all necessary management areas for full implementation of each alternative. Road design under 

all alternatives considers results of the FWRAP, and other previous road planning efforts from the mid1980s to today, including integrated resource management opportunity analyses and project-level roads 

analyses. 

This section includes activities relating to developing and maintaining the FS road system. Future access 

planning was accomplished using GIS. Based on the management area direction and the proposed 

management area allocation, a complete road system was developed for each alternative that would 

provide full access for proposed management activities (e.g. timber sale access) by the end of the sixth 

decade. New additions anticipated by the midpoint of the second decade (2020) are based on harvest 

scheduling in each alternative. 

The following criteria were used in developing this potential road system: 

• Minimize the number of perennial and intermittent stream crossings 

• Minimize the length of road crossing on poorly drained soils 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-71

• Utilize existing corridors as much as possible (existing OGM roads and other travelways) 

• Minimize the use of ROWs 

• Minimize crossing management areas that exclude roads to access management areas that require 

additional access 

Note that these potential roads have not been field verified. There are many streams that do not show on 

the GIS layer for streams, there are many inclusions on poorly drained soils within well drained and 

moderately drained soils. A site-specific NEPA analysis will need to be completed prior to construction of 

any of these potential roads that may change the location and the length. Table 3-16 indicates the system 

of roads necessary to provide access in this planning period (2020) and for full system completion in 

2060. The 2020 estimate used the following criteria when adding new roads (construction) to the system: 

• All the existing roads and half of the new corridors in MAs 1.0, 2.1, 3.0, 6.2 will be added to the 

system by 2020 

• 10 percent of the existing roads and 10 percent of the new corridors in MA 6.1 will be added to 

the system by 2020 

• 25 percent of the existing roads in MA 2.2 will be added to the system by 2020 

• Half of the existing roads and half of the new corridors on private will be added to the system by 

2020 

Table 3-16. Projected road system by alternative* 

Management Area Second decade Sixth decade 

Current FS roads that remain (miles) 1269 1269 

New construction in existing corridor (miles) 191 271 

New construction in new corridor (miles) 116 344 

Alternative A 

Total FS Roads (miles) 1576 1884 

Current FS roads that remain (miles) 1269 1269 

New construction in existing corridor (miles) 203 269 

New construction in new corridor (miles) 103 214 

Alternative B 

Total FS Roads (miles) 1574 1751 

Current FS roads that remain (miles) 1261 1255 

New construction in existing corridor (miles) 192 265 

New construction in new corridor (miles) 85 178 

Alternative Cm 

Total FS Roads (miles) 1538 1703 

Current FS roads that remain (miles) 1226 1226 

New construction in existing corridor (miles) 171 258 

New construction in new corridor (miles) 69 152 

Alternative D 

Total FS Roads (miles) 1466 1636 

* This table does not include decommissioning beyond that needed to meet management area direction. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-72 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Road construction, in both existing and new corridors, occurs in all alternatives to provide access to all 

areas of the ANF scheduled for management activities. Alternatives A and B provide equal amounts of 

new road construction. Alternative Cm is 90 percent and Alternative D is 78 percent of the levels in 

Alternative A (see Table 2-2). 

Condition, location, level of use, and maintenance of roads are more important than number of roads 

(road density) in terms of water quality. Effects of soil erosion, compaction, puddling, and rutting relating 

to road construction and maintenance are described in the soil resources section. Effects of roads on water 

quality and streamflow are discussed in the water resources section. Effects of road construction and 

management on wildlife are discussed in the wildlife section (e.g. Table 3-54, Table 3-60, Table 3-67). 

Effects of roads and trails on recreation opportunities are discussed in the recreation opportunities section. 

Maintaining or decommissioning existing roads and trails occur in all the alternatives. All alternatives 

include 100 miles/year for road reconstruction. This is the level of maintenance needed to resurface 

approximately 8 percent of FS system roads per year (for a 12-year rotation of the entire system). 

Nationally, the trend is to direct maintenance funding to decommissioning unneeded roads and improving 

the maintenance condition of those remaining. Road maintenance and resurfacing will have an overall 

beneficial effect by reducing sediment runoff in streams. 

Methods of decommissioning include, but are not limited to, signing and physical closures such as earth 

berms, boulders, scattering downed vegetation, scarifying, seeding, recontouring, and removal of 

structures such as culverts. The goal is to return the roadway to a more natural state where the roadway is 

hydrologically self-maintaining and to permanently remove it from the transportation system. Roads 

could also be converted to motorized or non-motorized trails. 

Alternative D has the highest level of decommissioning; Alternatives A, B, and Cm are roughly equal 

with regards to decommissioning. 

Surfacing Material and Gravel Pits 

Based upon this road system, estimates were made for pit areas (Table 2-2), pit run surfacing, and 

limestone use. Because most of the pit run and limestone is used for reconstruction, which is equal across 

all alternatives, estimates of pit run and limestone was not adjusted across alternatives. Approximately 

650,000 cy of pit run and 500,000 cy of limestone would be used during the planning period in all 

alternatives. Approximately 2,000,000 cy of pit run and 1,600,000 cy of limestone would be used in all 

alternatives by 2060. 

In FY 2005, the ANF used 37,348 cubic yards (cy) of pit run and 24,264 cy of limestone on FS roads. For 

estimates of pit run use by 2020 and 2060, it was assumed that the FS would use 1,500 cy/mile for road 

construction in new corridors, 500 cy/mile for road construction in existing corridors, and 250 cy/mile for 

reconstruction. For estimates of limestone use by 2020 and 2060, it was assumed that the FS would use 

250 cy/mile for road construction in new corridors, 500 cy/mile for road construction in existing 

corridors, and 250 cy/mile for reconstruction. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-73

The wildlife and vegetation sections include more information on the overall effect of converting forested 

acreage to non-forest acreage through pit development. 

Road management 

Under Alternative A, roads are scheduled to be 20 percent open, 20 percent restricted, and 60 percent 

closed. Under Alternatives B, Cm, and D, the percentage of open/closed/restricted roads is projected to be 

roughly 33 percent in each category. On the ANF, hunting is considered to be the most important 

management tool available for controlling deer populations, and the new objectives allow for long-term 

distributed hunter access across the Forest. 

Other roads may be identified for closure for a period of more than one year (ML 1 roads). These roads 

are identified as roads not needed for current use but possibly needed for future management access. The 

intent is to preserve the road investment while eliminating vehicular use. These roads are retained as part 

of the transportation system. Methods of closure include gates and signing, earth berms, boulders, 

scattering downed vegetation, scarifying, and seeding. 

Total FS road system 

The total FS roads system is largest in Alternative A, with declining levels to lowest in Alternative D. At 

the end of the planning period (2020), the total FS road system in Alternatives A and B expands over the 

current level by 24 percent. In Alternative Cm, it expands by 20 percent. In Alternative D, it expands by 

16 percent. Expansion is largely a result of timber harvest scheduling in areas without access for groundbased logging systems. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects time period is 1986 to 2020. This will highlight the trends under the 1986 Forest Plan with 

those estimated through the LRMP. The primary activities for evaluation are the miles of new road construction 

and the acreage of land disturbed for gravel pit development. These two items create the greatest change both in 

short-term and long-term effects to other resources. The following assumptions are made in this analysis: 

1. Road development scenarios for future mineral development on National Forest lands are used as 

identified in Table 2-4. 

2. The oil and gas reserves are evenly spread within the proclamation boundary over all ownerships. 

Therefore, the road development scenario for private mineral development on all other lands within the 

proclamation boundary is prorated evenly with the percent of national forest lands projected for 

development (241,000/506,500 or 47%) or 234,000 x 0.47 = 101,000 acres. 

3. Only miles of road construction on new corridors is used on National Forest lands. 

4. Other private and public road development has been minor and is projected to continue through 2020 

adding very little new construction. Often the private mineral development levels are adding roads that 

can be utilized for other uses. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-74 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

5. Roughly 9,700 cubic yards of stone is available from 1 acre of gravel pit. 

6. Past and projected use of NF gravel includes construction, reconstruction, and maintenance levels. 

7. OGM roads built on other ownerships only utilize about 50 percent of gravel surfacing used for private 

OGM roads on NF land. 

Miles of Road Construction – The past level (1986 to 2005) of National Forest System road construction is 

roughly 10 percent of the roads constructed within the Proclamation Boundary. The other 90 percent was 

contributed by private mineral development. Also, roughly 70 percent of new road construction has been on 

National Forest lands. Future projected levels show National Forest System road construction at roughly 52 

percent of past levels in Alternatives D, 63 percent in Alternative Cm, 78 percent for Alternative B, and 89 

percent for Alternative A. 

Table 3-17. Cumulative miles of road construction and pit acreage consumed 

(Past levels compared to future projected levels) 

Future Levels 2006 to 2020 

Source and Ownership Past Levels 1986 to 

2005 Alt A Alt B Alt 

Cm Alt D 

Miles of New Forest System Roads 180 120 105 85 70 

Miles of Private OGM Roads on National 

Forest 1123 1922 1922 1922 1922 

Miles of Private OGM Roads on Other 

Ownerships 528 859 859 859 859 

Total Miles of New Roads 1831 2901 2886 2856 2851 

Acres of Pits NF uses 80 70 70 70 70 

Acres of Pits NF OGM uses 130 225 225 225 225 

Acres of Pits Other Ownerships 33 51 51 51 51 

Total Acres of Pits for gravel roads 243 336 336 336 336 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-75

3.3 Biological Environment—Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

One of the most significant undertakings since the 1986 Forest Plan was completed has been the national 

classification of terrestrial and aquatic systems into a National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units 

(McNab and Avers 1994). The terrestrial framework has been described by McNab and Avers (1994) and 

stratifies the earth into progressively smaller areas of increasingly uniform ecological potentials. The basic 

objective of the hierarchical framework is to provide a systematic method for classifying and mapping areas of the 

earth based on associations of ecological factors at different geographic scales (Cleland et al. 1997). The 

framework is used to improve efforts in national, regional, and forest level planning; and aids in consistent 

ecosystem management across National Forests. This framework assists in evaluating inherent capabilities of land 

and water resources and the effects of management on them (Cleland et al. 1997). This framework was used in the 

ecological context prepared for the species viability analysis (see Appendix E). 

Depending on scale, ecological units are designed to exhibit similar patterns in: 1) potential natural communities, 

2) soils, 3) hydrologic function, 4) landform and topography, 5) lithology, 6) climate, and 7) natural processes 

such as nutrient cycling, productivity, succession, and natural disturbance regimes associated with flooding, wind, 

or fire (Cleland et al. 1997). It should be noted that climatic regime is an important boundary criterion for 

ecological units, particularly at broad scales. In fact, climate, as modified by topography, is the dominant criterion 

at upper levels. Other factors, such as geomorphic process, soils, and potential natural communities, take on equal 

or greater importance than climate at lower levels. 

Ecological units do not provide all the information needed to classify, map, and manage ecosystems. Ecological 

units address the spatial distributions of relatively stable associations of ecological factors that affect ecosystems. 

When combined with information on existing biotic conditions and ecological processes, the National Hierarchy 

of Ecological Units provides a means of addressing spatial and temporal variations that affect the structure, 

function and management potentials of ecosystems. Ecological units provide basic information for natural 

resource planning and management. Ecological unit maps may be used for activities such as delineating 

ecosystems, assessing resources, conducting environmental analyses, and managing and monitoring natural 

resources (Cleland et al. 1997). 

Section 212G is a maturely dissected plateau characterized by sharp ridge tops and narrow valleys. Elevation 

ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 feet. A veneer of unconsolidated materials overlay bedrock. Thick deposits of clay, 

silt, sand, and gravel are present in wider valleys. Bedrock is composed of sandstone, siltstone, shale, subordinate 

conglomerate, occasional limestone, and coal. Precipitation ranges from 40 to 50 inches per year. Annual snowfall 

averages 50 to 100 inches. Mean temperature ranges from 46 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The growing season lasts 

from 120 to 150 days (McNab and Avers 1994). The section is comprised of approximately three million acres 

and is divided into two subsections; 212Ga (1.95 million acres) and 212Gb (1.65 million acres) (Figures 3-8 and 

3-9). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-76 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The ANF lies completely within Subsection 212Ga and comprises about 26 percent of the acreage in the 

Subsection. Some of the differences between these two Subsections are that 212Ga receives about 5 more inches 

of annual precipitation than 212Gb, including about 16 more days with more than a 1/10 inch of snowfall and 

more than 14 inches more of total snowfall. Subsection 212Ga has a slightly shorter growing season than 212Gb. 

Subsection 212Ga contains wider plateaus and has less elevation differences (i.e., relief) between the ridgetops 

and valley bottoms than 212Gb. Subsection 212Ga has more poorly drained soils, more seeps and springs, and 

more miles of stream than 212Gb. Some glacial influences are present in 212Gb, which contains steeper side 

slopes than 212Ga. Subsection 212Ga contains 16 Landtype Associations (LTAs), the ANF encompasses 9 of 

these LTAs (Williams et al. 2005). 

Allegheny National Forest

212Ga 212Gb

New York

Pennsylvania

N

Subsections 212Ga and 212Gb

Source: McNab and Avers 1994

Map created: ANF GIS, 3/18/05-jmh

ArcView 3.2a

50 0 50 100 Miles

Figure 3-8. Ecoregions of the 

United States (McNab and Avers 

1994). 

Figure 3-9. Subsections 212Ga 

and 212Gb. 

The ANF proclamation boundary is 

shown within 212Ga, 2005. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-77

3.3.1 Forest Vegetation 

The desired forest vegetation condition in all alternatives includes sustaining a diversity of forest types, vegetative 

structural conditions, and age classes across the landscape. Restoration of understory vegetation and vertical 

diversity would occur in forested stands, and understories would contain multiple, diverse vegetative layers that 

are resilient and capable of sustaining well stocked, healthy hardwood forests in the long term. Both horizontal 

and vertical vegetative diversity would be provided on the ANF landscape, and a multi-layered vegetative forest 

canopy would be present in most riparian areas. 

The forest vegetation discussion is divided into four broad categories. These include forest composition, forest 

age and stocking, forest health, and forest vegetation management. These aspects of ANF forest vegetation will 

play an important role in evaluating the environmental consequences of each alternative. Each of these topics will 

be covered in the same order in the affected environment, direct and indirect effects, and cumulative effects 

sections. Minor differences in quantities displayed in various tables are due to rounding of numbers. See the forest 

products section (3.4.6) for a discussion on lands suitable for timber production and forest products that might 

result from achieving the desired condition for each of the alternatives. 

Several changes were incorporated in the forest vegetation portion of Chapter 3 between Draft and Final EIS. 

These changes were incorporated to address items the public commented on, clarify the intent or direction for 

particular management areas, and incorporate applicable new science that became available between Draft and 

Final EIS. The following summarizes changes that occurred: 

• Updated various outcomes and outputs based on new SPECTRUM model runs that incorporated 

technical changes and changes to land allocations that would result in Alternative Cm (described in 

Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the FEIS). 

• A discussion was added on the results of monitoring even-aged regeneration treatments that occurred 

on poorly drained soils in the past 20 years. 

• A discussion was added on the potential long-term effects to forest vegetation from human-induced 

climate change. 

• Clarification was added on the blend of silvicultural systems, and large areas of no management, that 

might be applied in MA 2.2. 

• MA 2.1 features the use of uneven-aged management to sustain mid and late structural conditions, 

multiple age classes, and predominantly continuous high forest canopy, in contrast to management 

areas that feature even-aged management and age class diversity. Therefore, it was added to the 

grouping of MAs that are considered to feature structural attributes characteristic of older forests in the 

long term. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-78 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Affected environment 

The affected environment begins with a discussion that provides background and a historic perspective relative to 

forest vegetation present on the ANF today. Following this background discussion, the affected environment 

discusses: 

• Forest composition 

• Forest age and stocking 

• Forest health 

• Forest vegetation management 

Background and historical perspective 

Almost all of the ANF is currently even-aged second growth, a result of the intensive harvesting that occurred 

between the 1890s and 1930s (Marquis 1975). Younger third growth stands on the ANF are a result of more 

recent management activities or natural disturbance such as windstorms. Even-aged stands have a relatively small 

difference in ages of the majority of trees. Because of extensive browsing by deer (1920s to present), seedling 

regeneration and diverse herbaceous and shrub understory vegetation is usually absent within the ANF. 

Hobblebush, maple-leaved viburnum, spinulose wood fern, and shining club moss are examples of species that 

were relatively abundant under less deer browsing pressure. Other plant species (hayscented and New York fern, 

grasses and sedges, beech root suckers, and striped maple) fill the growing space vacated by browsed seedlings, 

cast dense shade at the forest floor level, and interfere with the establishment and survival of tree seedlings, along 

with other herbaceous and shrub understory vegetation. 

Natural disturbance 

Historically, wind, including tornados, was the primary disturbance in the Allegheny Plateau region, with 

drought and ice as secondary disturbances. Fire, from natural and human causes was also a force, 

especially areas burned by Native Americans near river drainages (Marquis 1994, p.11). Defoliation from 

native insects, forest diseases, and browsing by hare and deer (the latter common but not abundant during 

the 1920s), were undoubtedly part of the natural disturbance regime of the forest. Roosting and nesting of 

passenger pigeons (Ectopistes migratorius) may have also caused disturbances ranging from frequent, 

low-intensity crown thinning, to stand-initiation due to widespread limb and stem breakage and heavy 

nutrient loading (Ellsworth and McComb 2003). While many forest stands were mature or over mature, 

the pre-settlement forest was composed of stands of different age and size classes due to these natural 

disturbances. The variability in stand structure and composition represented the various stages of recovery 

from past disturbance. 

Wind events

Tornados and/or extreme wind events occur somewhere on the ANF, almost every year. Both 

small-scale and large-scale disturbances characterize the natural disturbance regime of the 

Allegheny Plateau (Runkle, 1985, Ruffner and Abrams unpublished 2000, 2003). Smaller scale 

disturbances that result in smaller (less than 2 acre) gaps in the forest canopy are much more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-79

frequent on the ANF than larger scale disturbances that create larger openings in the forest 

canopy (100s of acres). The natural disturbance rate within the Tionesta Scenic and Research 

Natural Areas (TSRNA) was estimated by Runkle (1981, 1982, 1985) to be 0.5-0.7 percent of the 

land surface area annually. The primary disturbance Runkle observed consisted of individual or 

small groups of trees that died and were replaced by younger trees in a process called gap phase 

replacement (Runkle in Davis, 1996, p. 167). Total area in gaps (land area directly beneath 

canopy opening) in the TSRNA was estimated to be 5 percent by Runkle (1982). Repeat 

disturbances affecting the same location may be common. Average gap size found by Runkle was 

200 square meters, and strongly favors shade tolerant species such as sugar maple, beech and 

hemlock. 

More recent estimates of the return interval based on actual tree ring analysis suggest that 10-20 

percent of the canopy may be disturbed every decade depending on the topographic position of 

the stand (Ruffner and Abrams unpublished 2000, 2003). Specifically, Ruffner and Abrams found 

that larger scale blowdowns affect the upland and sideslopes on average every 30 years, while the 

more protected riparian sites experience less intense canopy disturbances with large scale 

blowdown occurring only once in the last 250 years. As an example, on the Tionesta Scenic and 

Research Natural Areas, major stand replacing wind events occurred in 1808, 1870, and 1985 

(Bjorkbom and Larson 1977; Peterson and Pickett 1991). Several large tornados in 1985 created 

forest that is currently considered young on over 7,000 acres on the ANF, including 17 percent 

(nearly 700 contiguous acres) of the TSRNA old growth forest. This natural disturbance severely 

impacted nearly 11,000 acres of forest land on the ANF in several large tornado swaths. The 

damage consisted of large continuous areas as well as scattered patches of broken, splintered, 

twisted, and uprooted trees. 

Ruffner and Abrams (unpublished 2000, 2003) concluded medium intensity disturbances impact 

the upland and exposed sideslopes of the Allegheny High Plateau every 210-630 years, a shorter 

interval than predicted from historical sources. Disturbances such as tornados, glaze storms, and 

thunderstorm downbursts affect the region several times a century, creating widespread pitmound topography, large gaps, and unidirectional coarse woody debris. Other more common 

disturbances such as lightning and tree fall due to senescence affect the region nearly every 

decade. In general, small scale disturbances resulting in smaller canopy gaps (gap phase 

replacement) occur much more frequently than large scale disturbances that result in large, stand 

replacing canopy openings. 

Since 1985 over 29,000 acres of wind or storm damage has occurred across the ANF. Significant 

wind events impacted vegetation on the Allegheny Plateau a number of times in just the past 

decade, including 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2003 (USDA FS, 2004a). Natural disturbance 

patterns inherent to the ANF such as catastrophic wind events can result in sizable areas of blown 

down trees and interrupt patterns of forest succession, causing instantaneous change from mature 

forest condition to young forest or non-stocked conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-80 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ice storms

Ice storms, sometimes called glaze storms have probably been a recurring disturbance factor on 

the Allegheny plateau for thousands of years. A significant glazing event or ice storm can be 

expected to occur on this forest every 50 years (Hough 1963). Damage may include breakage of 

limbs and branches sometimes causing canopy gaps and prolonged periods of reduced tree 

growth (Ruffner and Abrams unpublished 2000). A severe ice storm occurred on the ANF in 

March 1936 (Bjorkbom and Larson 1977). The damage from that storm remains evident in some 

areas of the ANF today. The last significant glazing event on the ANF was in 1965. 

Native insects and disease

Native insects such as cherry scallopshell moth (Hydria prunivorata), elm spanworm (Ennomos 

subsignarious), forest tent caterpillar (Malacasoma disstria) and oak leaftier (Croesia 

semipurpurana) were present and caused periodic defoliation episodes prior to EuroAmerican 

settlement of the area. The pre-settlement patterns and severity of insect/disease outbreaks on the 

ANF are unknown, but they were probably cyclical with stand replacement events occurring at 

unpredictable intervals. Post-settlement insect and disease outbreaks most likely increased in 

quantity and intensity because of the introduction of non-native insects and diseases. 

Anthropogenic (Human-caused) disturbances 

Native American Indians lived here for thousands of years, at first hunting, gathering, and using fire to 

drive game animals and clear the land. Later agricultural-based villages were located in the rich fertile 

valleys along stream courses. The anthropogenic landscape in the Allegheny River Valley and its major 

tributaries during the Late Woodland period would have resembled a mosaic pattern of 1) crop lands near 

palisaded (wood fortified) settlements, 2) abandoned clearings with early structural species, and 3) open 

forest stands dominated by fire-adapted species such as oak and hickory (Chapman et al. 1982, Delcourt 

1987, Clark and Royall 1995, Ruffner et al. 1997). About 250 years ago European settlers began arriving 

in the area that is now the ANF. From around 1890 to 1930, widespread logging and settlement changed 

the landscape. When the ANF was established in 1923, nearly all of the land was devoid of the original 

pre-settlement forest. The extensive timber harvesting, subsistence agriculture, and uncontrolled fires that 

occurred 75 -115 years ago created a generation of even-aged stand conditions on the ANF that are now 

in the mid-structural stage (50-140 years old). 

Fire

Most fires can be considered an anthropogenic disturbance on the ANF, as fires in the area have 

historically been associated with human caused disturbances and ignitions. 

The principal cause of fuel formation leading to natural fire in ANF northern hardwood 

ecosystems is broad-scale, storm driven windthrow of catastrophic proportions (Hough 1936; 

Runkle 1982). Conversely, along major oak dominated drainages, Native American Indians set 

frequent to periodic low-intensity fires (11 to 26 year frequency) (Ruffner, et al. 1997, Ruffner 

and Abrams 2002) that helped maintain the oak forest types present on the ANF today. Evidence 

suggests that this process of fire and oak recruitment occurred for hundreds and thousands of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-81

years, but was broken during the early 20th century (Abrams 2005). The fire regime has changed 

for most oak forest and transition types on the ANF since settlement by Europeans. Current fire 

frequencies in the ANF are much lower than those during the pre-settlement period. 

Following settlement by Europeans and widespread intensive harvesting of timber, fires primarily 

started on the ANF from railroad locomotives associated with logging activity (Marquis 1994, 

p.24). Some areas of the ANF experienced intense fires in conjunction with the use of railroads 

during early logging period (1900s), particularly the southernmost portion of the Forest. Due to 

the build up of woody material, it is suspected that some areas burned for long periods of time 

and at extreme temperatures. 

Wildfires are not considered a significant concern on the ANF today. The nature of the fuels 

buildup in many forest types here is such that a sustained burn cannot often be maintained. 

Average annual precipitation of 40-45 inches, and the rapid rate at which woody debris decays, 

are the chief reasons that large fires are generally not considered an important disturbance factor 

on the ANF today. 

Historical harvesting

Harvesting of timber on the Allegheny plateau began slowly in the early 1800s and accelerated in 

the mid to late 1800s, with the forest products being used for lumber. Many of the second growth 

stands within the ANF originated from a series of cuts occurring from the late 1800s to the 1930s. 

The first cut was usually for hemlock; another entry was made for the remaining sawtimber sized 

material, followed very shortly by the removal of the remaining trees for chemical wood. 

Hemlock bark was used in the tanneries, and some of the smaller trees were used in the local 

distillate plants. A shelterwood-like sequence of cuts created young even-aged stands with only a 

few scattered residuals. Each of these partial cuts was followed by a surge of advance 

reproduction that influenced the composition and character of the stands on the ANF today 

(Marquis, 1975, 1994). 

Turn-of-the-century cutting brought about dramatic changes in the species composition of the 

ANF. A shift to shade-intolerant species occurred in many stands. Black cherry, only 0.8 percent 

of the pre-settlement tree species, represents 23 percent of the trees in today's forest. Red maple 

has increased from 5 to 28 percent, and sugar maple from 5 to 13 percent (Whitney, 1994, p. 

196). Much of the ANF became dominated by even-aged black cherry, red maple and other 

shade-intolerant or mid-tolerant tree species. 

Beginning in the 1920s custodial management occurred as much of the land that would become 

the ANF was acquired. Few records exist about management of the area for the following 20 

years. Starting in 1940, records indicate some commercial harvest was occurring at a relatively 

low rate on the ANF, with harvest volumes of 4,500 MBF (1940) to 28,200 MBF in 1962. Many 

of these harvests were intermediate thinnings to improve quality of the maturing forest, or 

designed to regenerate poorly stocked, low quality stands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-82 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Deer herbivory

White-tailed deer, nearly extirpated from Pennsylvania during the turn-of-the-century harvest 

period, made a remarkable recovery under protection from the Pennsylvania Game Commission 

beginning in 1907. By 1922, deer were causing serious damage to agricultural crops and forest 

reproduction (Marquis 1975). 

Since the 1930s, herbaceous and shrub species richness and abundance have declined on the ANF 

primarily due to deer browsing (Hough 1965, Whitney 1984, Tilghman 1989, Jones et al. 1993, 

deCalesta 1994, Redding 1995, deCalesta 1998, Horsley et al. 2003). At the same time, species 

that are less palatable to deer, such as beech, striped maple, and ferns and grasses, expanded to 

occupy understory growing space vacated by species preferred by deer (Horsley et al. 2003). 

Composition of understory vegetation has shifted from shrubs and herbs to hayscented 

(Dennstaedtia punctilobula) and New York (Thelypteris noveboracensis) fern, grasses, beech 

brush, and striped maple. Also during this time the abundance and species richness of tree 

seedlings has declined (Marquis and Grisez 1978, Horsley and Marquis 1983). 

Until recently, deer populations have been above the target levels established by state game 

managers and ecologists for the region to sustain ecosystem structure and health. For more 

information on the effects of white-tailed deer on forest development, see the discussion in the 

forest health and wildlife sections. 

Introduced insects and diseases

Non-native invasive species (NNIS), or exotic species, have the potential to reduce native plant 

diversity and disrupt entire ecosystems. Exotic species are plants, insects, animals, or diseases 

that come from countries or continents outside of North America. Some non-native species have 

the potential to become invasive because the natural control agents that kept them from spreading 

uncontrollably in their native habitat are not present here. Introduced invasive species alter 

structure, function and processes in natural communities. Some of the more well-known exotic 

insects and diseases present on the ANF include European gypsy moth, chestnut blight, beech 

bark disease complex, and pear thrips. 

Two introduced invasive species in particular are currently a concern on the ANF- beech bark 

disease complex and hemlock woolly adelgid. The beech bark disease complex has been an 

important influence on the ANF for more than a decade. While the hemlock woolly adelgid is not 

found yet on the ANF, it is present in Elk County, which contains the southeastern portion of the 

ANF. Other introduced insects present in the eastern United States that have not been 

documented on the ANF include the emerald ash borer, Asian long-horned beetle, and sudden oak 

death. The effects of these exotic insects and diseases, inadvertently introduced into the United 

States, pose serious forest health problems and will be discussed in greater detail in the Forest 

Health section. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-83

Climate change

It is generally accepted that a global “greenhouse effect”, causing gradual climate change, exists. 

Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are indisputable (Gucinski et al. 2004), and 

evidence exists that the Earth is warming, with global temperatures having increased by 0.6°C 

during the 20th century (Iverson et al. 2004). Evidence is also mounting that climatic change over 

the past several decades may already be influencing species physiology, distribution, and 

phenology (Hughes 2000). Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration and changes in 

temperature and precipitation patterns could alter ecosystem functions, species interactions, 

population biology, and plant distribution. Changing climates will likely have effects on the 

suitable habitat for many tree species, resulting in possible major shifts in biomes (Iverson et al.

2004), generally northward in the mid-Atlantic Region (Lassiter, et al. 2000). Climate change 

will likely increase forest productivity (as tempered by other factors such as atmospheric 

deposition, moisture stress, nutrient availability, etc), alter natural disturbance regimes, cause 

shifts in appropriate habitats for trees, plants and associated wildlife, and likely alter outdoor 

recreation opportunities (Joyce et al. 2001). 

Iverson and Prasad (2002) modeled five climate change scenarios to examine potential shifts in 

suitable habitat for major tree species in the eastern U.S. This study predicted that the optimum 

suitable habitat for more northern adapted species such as big tooth aspen, quaking aspen, sugar 

maple and paper birch would move north 20 km for more than 38-47 species, and more than 200 

km into Canada for 8-27 species. At the same time, the optimum suitable latitude could move 

north for species presently situated further south, such oaks, walnuts, elms, and some pine 

species. Conversely, in the scenarios modeled, the optimum suitable habitat for five species 

including red maple, American beech and black cherry could move south. Although the five 

scenarios were in general agreement with respect to overall tendencies in potential future suitable 

habitat for tree species, significant variations occurred in the amount of potential movement in 

many of the species. The actual distribution of species would be determined by migration rates 

and measures humans take to intervene. As summarized by Iverson and Prasad (2002) and 

Gucinski et al. (2004) uncertainties exist and the actual redistribution of species that might occur 

is dependent on a number of factors. These include the rate at which climate change might occur 

(some species may not be able to respond and colonize new areas that rapidly), disturbance, 

fragmentation of the landscape, competition, seed dispersal mechanisms, and the abundance of 

exotic species potentially better suited for colonizing or invading sites that may have been 

suitable for migrating tree species. Along with shifts in forest species, shifts in associated flora 

and fauna could occur. Invasive species could likely gain in importance because many are 

adapted to disturbance. 

Subsequent modeling completed by Iverson et al. (2004) concluded that there may be a 

substantial lag between the potential movement of suitable habitat and the potential for the 

species to migrate into the new habitat. The potential northward shift in optimum latitude of 

suitable habitat will likely outpace the actual northward migration of species. Habitat loss and 

fragmentation reduce the ability of natural systems to respond to changes in global climate or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-84 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

other environmental factors. Conversely, humans can assist species in becoming established in 

new settings. Iverson et al. acknowledged great uncertainty with their model of species shifts, due 

to a number of biological and human-caused influences that were not included in the model. 

In summary, global warming is likely affecting forest vegetation on the ANF and surrounding 

landscapes and region. This will over the long term (centuries) likely result in shifts in tree 

species composition and associated ecological communities. Uncertainty exists, however, as to 

what extent individual species and biotic communities will shift geographically or elevationally, 

and over what time frame. 

Forest composition 

Forest type distribution 

There are approximately 80 tree species found on the ANF (Hays, pers. comm. 2002, adapted from 

Rhoads and Klein 1993). Roughly half of these can be considered relatively common on the ANF. Many 

of these species are extremely valuable for commercial wood products as well as wildlife habitat. 

Particularly valuable for both lumber and food for wildlife are black cherry and northern red oak. Recent 

decline and mortality have affected the relative abundance of hardwood species on those sites where 

various tree species are dying at different rates. Even though trees have died, it is probable that no tree 

species has been eliminated from any stand. Therefore, local and regional tree species richness remains 

the same. 

The vast majority (90%) of the ANF consists of forest cover. Besides forested land, water comprises 2 

percent, permanent shrub or grass openings comprise 3 percent of the landscape, and the remaining 5 

percent consists of lands cleared for administrative sites, roads, openings for oil and gas facilities 

including wells, pipelines, and stone pits. Permanent openings are needed by wildlife for a variety of 

reasons and are a key component of a diverse landscape in a healthy forest ecosystem. 

Forest type and age class data is summarized for ANF land only. Typically, stands are typed according to 

the species or species combinations that account for more than 50 percent of the total basal area of the 

stand. The ANF contains a diversity of forest types, with a total of 30 types represented. Tree species 

commonly found on the ANF include black cherry, white ash, tulip poplar, red and sugar maple, black 

and yellow birch, American beech, oaks, red and eastern white pine, and eastern hemlock. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the forest types found on the ANF have been combined into 8 groups. 

These broad forest types vary in their acreage (see Table 3-18), and are distributed across the ANF as 

summarized below from satellite imagery, ANF stand data, and GIS maps generated in October 2005. 

• Allegheny hardwoods, while distributed throughout, are most heavily concentrated in the eastern 

and central portions of the ANF. 

• Northern hardwoods occur primarily in the north. 

• Upland hardwoods are the most widely distributed forest type throughout the ANF. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-85

• Oak primarily occurs in the western and southern portions of the ANF, abundant along major 

river drainages such as the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers and Tionesta Creek, where steep, drier 

slopes occur and periodic fires set by Native American Indians were likely an influence. 

• Conifer and mixed conifer types are relatively minor components on the ANF. Hemlock usually 

does not occur in extensive stands but tends to be more linear as it is common along stream 

drainages. White pine occurs often on drier ridgetops in association with oak forest types. Red 

pine was planted in scattered old fields on the ANF during the 1930 through 1950s. 

• Aspen is a minor component throughout the ANF. 

It should be noted that areas typed as hemlock forest presently comprise only 2 percent of forested lands 

on the ANF. Due to its scarcity, this unique forest type is an important component in maintaining 

biodiversity on the ANF landscape. In addition to areas typed as hemlock forest, many hardwood types on 

the ANF contain an understory hemlock component that is important for wildlife and aquatic habitats, and 

aesthetic and riparian values. 

Table 3-18. Present ANF forest types 

Forest Type Total Acres 

(Thousands) 

Percent of 

ANF 

Percent of 

Total Forested 

Land 

Upland Hardwood (red maple, American beech, black 

cherry, black birch) 154.0 30 33 

Allegheny Hardwood (black cherry, white ash, yellow 

poplar) 129.8 25 28 

Oaks (northern red, white, chestnut, black, scarlet oaks 

mixed with other hardwoods) 75.4 15 16 

Northern Hardwood (sugar maple, American beech, 

yellow birch, Eastern hemlock) 72.9 14 16 

Mix (low stocking) 9.0 2 2 

Hemlock 9.4 2 2 

Conifer (spruce, red pine, white pine) 10.3 2 2 

Aspen 2.7 <1 1 

Total Forested Land 463.5 90 

Water 11.2 2 

Shrub or Grass Opening 16.1 3 

Developed for other Uses 26.1 5 

Total Non-forested Land 53.4 10 

Total ANF 516.9 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-86 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

According to the information presented in Table 3-18, four major forest types dominate the ANF – upland 

hardwoods, Allegheny hardwoods, oak types, and northern hardwoods– which together comprise 93 

percent (over 432,000 acres) of forested vegetation on the ANF. Upland hardwoods occupy the largest 

area (33%) with Allegheny hardwoods following second (28%). Together, upland and Allegheny 

hardwoods occupy over 60 percent of the ANF. Oaks (16%) and northern hardwoods (16%) occupy about 

half the area of the two dominant forest types. The remaining three forest type groups, along with a mixed 

group of less well stocked areas, are much less common and together comprise 7 percent of forested lands 

on the ANF. 

Seedling regeneration species composition 

Tree seedling composition is an important consideration, as it often determines the future composition of 

forest vegetation as overstory trees mature and die out or are harvested. Information about tree seedling 

species composition comes from several types of forestwide surveys, each conducted within a specific 

time-frame during the past 12 years (USDA FS, ANF 1995a, Appendix L and Appendix M; Morin et al.

2001; Morin, et al. 2006). The time-frame and results for each are summarized in Table 3-19. Each 

survey focuses on a slightly different facet of the tree seedling development question. When viewed 

together, they give a more complete status of tree seedling development on the ANF. 

Table 3-19. Overstory and understory species composition, summarized for all ANF tree species 

 1992 Survey (6,000 

plots) 1

1998-2001 FHM Survey

(173 permanent 

plots)*2

1992 Herbicide and 

Fence Survey (220 

stands where Black 

cherry BA 30) 3

1992-2002 10- to 40-

year old stand survey 

(4,100 ac.) 4

 overstory understory overstory understory overstory understory overstory understory 

# of spp. 

(trees and 

shrubs) 

56 72 40 36 30 35 44 70 

# of 

commercial 

spp. 

42 32 32 23 21 19 32 29 

# of 

commercial 

spp. 5% 

5 3 6 4 4 3 4 4 

# of 

commercial 

spp. 2% 

9 5 9 5 9 5 7 4 

# of 

commercial 

spp. not in 

regen. 

10 -- 9 -- 3 -- 3 -- 

* FHM Survey only counts seedlings greater than or equal to 12” tall. 1

 USDA FS, ANF, 1995a, Appendix L 

2

 Morin et al., 2001; Morin et al. 2006 3

 USDA FS, ANF, 1995a, Appendix M 

4

 Unpublished data analysis, 2004 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-87

Briefly, these surveys showed: 

• Current overstory species distribution is not being maintained for forest types other than 

Allegheny hardwood, most likely due to deer browsing impacts over the past 70+ years. In the 

absence of management, there would be changes in forest type over time as stands develop 

following natural disturbance. 

• Shifts are occurring between the overstory and understory species composition. In many areas, 

the understory species composition is dominated by black cherry, with lesser amounts of red 

maple and black birch. Forest type conversion will most likely occur in the northern hardwood 

stands surveyed, with the next stand containing a higher percentage of black cherry. 

• Species richness is highest where deer densities were lowest (such as within fenced areas) at the 

time the stands originated, reflecting the ability of deer to selectively remove species preferred as 

food. 

• Recent forest health monitoring on the ANF found American beech (susceptible to beech bark 

disease) was the most abundant seedling species on non-oak sawtimber plots, followed by black 

cherry, striped maple, birch, and red maple. 

• In the oak type, red maple was the most abundant seedling species, followed closely by American 

beech. 

• Oak-dominated stands may transition to stands dominated by other species unless steps are taken 

to ensure its inclusion 

• Third growth stands on the ANF, or new forested areas that have resulted from even-aged 

management applied since the early 1960s, tend to be less diverse in species composition and 

contain a higher proportion of black cherry than the second-growth stands that resulted from the 

turn of the century harvesting, largely due to higher deer browsing impacts. More diverse third 

growth stands are anticipated in the future if recently reduced deer populations remain lower, and 

greater use of treatments to encourage tree seedling species diversity, such a release, are applied 

in regenerating areas on the ANF. 

The overall lack of diverse seedling species representative of overstory tree species raises concerns about 

the long-term sustainability of forest types presently found on the ANF. Reforestation practices should be 

implemented to encourage establishment and development of a diversity of tree species representative of 

overstory trees. Studies conducted on the ANF have shown that the most important factor in successful 

natural regeneration is the amount of advanced seedling regeneration present prior to the final overstory 

removal (Horsley et al. 1994). Differences in species composition in today’s young forests reflect the 

higher deer browsing impacts present when these third growth forests originated (1960s-1990s) versus the 

minimal browsing impacts that were present at the time of initiation of the majority of the existing ANF 

second growth forest (1880s-1920s) (Morin, et al. 2006). Other factors such as seed supply periodicity, 

seedbed conditions, light (including interfering vegetation), and predation on seed supply affect how well 

individual species regenerate. Black cherry is lower in food preference to deer (Horsley et al. 2003, 

Morin, et al. 2006), and therefore comprises a greater portion of stands which were regenerated when 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-88 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

deer browsing impacts were high. Additionally, black cherry produces seed more frequently, and the seed 

is viable longer in the soil than most other species present on the ANF (Horsley et al.1994 and Horsley, 

unpublished 2005b). 

In order to enhance seedling diversity and abundance, intensive reforestation treatments are presently 

applied on the ANF. In managed areas, local research and ANF seedling stocking data suggest that tree 

species and herbaceous diversity is improved where area fencing (often supplemented by an herbicide 

treatment to remove invasive, interfering vegetation) is used, and seedlings of some species preferred by 

deer begin to develop over time. Many reforestation treatments used today are specifically designed to 

reduce deer browsing impacts, remove invasive interfering vegetation, encourage regeneration of less 

common tree species, and release less common or unique tree species in order to better maintain seedling 

abundance and species diversity in regenerating areas. 

On the Allegheny Plateau, acid deposition has resulted in lower soil pH levels, calcium and magnesium 

nutrients, and more available aluminum (Bailey et al. 2005), lowering the calcium to aluminum ratio. 

Some feel that tree seedling regeneration difficulties on the Allegheny Plateau can be attributed to soil 

nutrient changes associated with acid deposition. Sharpe and Halofsky (2004) observed higher hayscented 

fern abundance on soils with lower O (organic) soil horizon calcium to aluminum ratios and lower percent 

canopy cover. The lower canopy cover investigated by Sharpe and Halofsky resulted in increased sunlight 

on the forest floor, allowing hayscented fern plants to expand. They concluded that the percent cover of 

hayscented fern was strongly correlated with lower tree canopy densities (accounted for 53% of the fern 

variation), while O (organic) soil horizon Calcium to Aluminum ratios accounted for 18 percent of the 

variation in fern cover. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that fern may be able to occupy 

forest sites with more acidic (lower calcium to aluminum ratios) soils, but to what degree is uncertain. 

However, the study by Sharpe and Halofsky (2004) did not consider the impacts of deer on understory 

forest vegetation, which is well documented in Pennsylvania and on the Allegheny Plateau (Hough 1965, 

Whitney, 1984, Tilghman, 1989, Jones et al., 1993, deCalesta, 1994, Redding, 1995, deCalesta, 1998, 

Horsley et al., 2003, USDA FS 2004e). Sugar maple seedling regeneration is highly preferred by deer, 

and hayscented fern and other plants not preferred as deer food expand in the presence of heavy deer 

browsing impacts (Horsley et al. 2003). Horsley et al. (2003) investigated the response of a number of 

herbaceous and woody understory plants at various deer densities. All sites in this study were equally 

affected by acid deposition, while deer densities were closely controlled. Ten years following overstory 

thinning (thinning increases light to forest floor by reducing overstory tree canopy cover), fern cover had 

increased the most under highest deer densities, suggesting that fern cover is highly correlated with 

increased light levels and high deer densities. 

Forest age and stocking 

Forest structure is a combination of the distribution of age classes across the landscape and within-stand vertical 

structure (the presence or absence of vegetation layers vertically arranged). Because of the even-aged nature of 

many stands, and the lack of understory diversity and structure due to past deer browsing, there is little withinstand vertical diversity on much of the ANF. Horizontal diversity, or diversity across the landscape, is a result of 

the spatial arrangement of forested and nonforested stands and the different age classes among forested stands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-89

Timber harvesting, rights-of-way, and natural openings have created both temporary and long-term gaps and 

variation in the forest canopy in the ANF, which affect horizontal diversity. The vast majority of the ANF is 

presently continuous, mature forest. See the plant and animal habitat section 3.3.2 for further discussion on 

vegetation structural classes from a habitat standpoint. 

Age class diversity 

Generally, commercial timber harvest has been the means by which the Forest manages age class 

distribution on lands available and suitable for commercial timber management. Much of the scheduled 

forest management activity in the past two decades on the ANF has emphasized creation of early age 

classes. The vast majority of early age classes result from management activities that occurred in MAs 1.0 

and 3.0. Some early age classes on the ANF were created through natural disturbances, such as the 

tornados that impacted nearly 11,000 acres on the ANF in 1985. 

Table 3-20 shows present age class distribution by forest type of forested lands on the ANF. As can be 

seen from the Table, the majority of the ANF is older than 80 years (60%), with more than half (57%) of 

the ANF in the 81-110 age class. Eight percent of the ANF is in the youngest age class (0-20 years old), a 

result of even-aged regeneration harvests and natural disturbances, and approximately three percent is 

presently older than 110 years. Presently, only 2 percent of the ANF is providing transitional seedling 

habitat. The uniform, even-aged second growth forest of the ANF is similar to most of the second growth 

forest found throughout the region. Remnant old growth areas in excess of 300 years old comprise less 

than 1 percent of forest vegetation on the ANF. 

Table 3-20. Present age class distribution by forest type, ANF 

Age Class (Thousands of Acres) 

Forest Type 0-20 21-50 51-80 81-110 111-140 141-300 301 + 

Upland Hardwood 9.0 6.6 42.4 93.3 2.7 0 0 

Allegheny Hardwood 22.1 14.9 29.9 62.0 0.9 0 0 

Oaks 1.3 0.6 19.0 51.5 3.0 0 0 

Northern Hardwood 3.6 4.1 13.3 46.6 4.0 0 1.3 

Mix (low stocking) 0 0 2.5 6.3 0.2 0 0 

Hemlock 0 0.1 2.2 4.3 0.8 0 2.0 

Conifer 0.2 0.9 7.2 1.9 0.1 0 0 

Aspen 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.2 0 0 0 

Total Forested Land 36.7 27.7 118.0 266.1 11.7 0 3.3 

% of Forested Land 8 6 26 57 3 0 <1 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-90 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Allegheny hardwoods, followed by upland hardwoods, comprise the largest portion of the 0-20 year age 

class, whereas northern hardwoods and hemlock forest types comprise the largest proportions of the 

oldest age classes. With the exception of shorter-lived aspen and younger conifer (generally planted red 

pine or other conifer species) types, the bulk (57%) of forest types on the ANF falls within the 81-110 age 

class. 

Young forest (0-20 years old) is transitional in nature, and occurs from wind, fire, disease, animals, and 

anthropogenic disturbance. Only 8 percent of the ANF is presently in the 0-20 year old age class 

compared with the 15 percent projected in the 1986 Forest Plan if the ANF had conducted final harvests 

at the maximum level (~3,300 acres per year; see USDA FS, 1986a, p. 4-18). Most of this harvest would 

have come from the 81-110 year age class, serving to reduce the imbalance that presently exists. If the 

existing poor distribution of age classes continues to age, gradual declines in timber and mast production 

capability will occur, and the forest will become more susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks and 

other age-related problems. 

Figure 3-10 displays how much seedling (0-10 year old) age class has been created annually since 1986. 

As can be seen from the figure, the amount of seedling age class created declined in the early 1990s. 

Additionally, the amount of seedling age class has fallen below levels predicted in the Harvest Capability 

Report (USDA FS 1995a, pp. 38-52) since 1997. 

Older forest (greater than 140 years old) provides compositional and structural values not found in younger 

communities. Important attributes and values to provide in areas managed for late structural and old growth 

conditions include large trees, canopy gaps, complex vertical structure with multi-layered vegetation, dead 

standing trees, and down woody debris. Presently less than 1 percent of forest vegetation on the ANF is greater 

than 140 years old. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Acres

1975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005

Total Final Harvest Accomp.

Fiscal Year of Harvest

Total Final Harvest

Accomp.

FP 1st Decade Outputs - 3300 acres FP 2nd Decade Outputs - 3400 acres

Actual Accomplishment for 1986 - 2005 is 43% of the Forest Plan Projection or 86% of THPC Projection

THPC Projection

1652 Acres/year

Figure 3-10. ANF seedling age class (0-10) created by year (acres) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-91

Several estimates have been provided for the amount of time it takes old growth to develop naturally in 

hardwood stands, such as the second growth hardwood stands on the ANF. Hemlock –hardwood old 

growth is believed to develop after 250 to 350 years (Haney and Schaadt 1996, p. 78). These processes 

could take even longer given impacts created by the introduced beech bark disease, potential impacts 

from the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid, and excessive browsing impacts from deer, which disrupt 

natural succession and stand development processes. While some of these characteristics, such as large 

diameter trees and old growth within-stand structure can be enhanced or promoted through silvicultural 

activities (Oliver and Larson 1996, pages 281-282; Runkle 1991; Trombulack 1996; Franklin and Van 

Pelt, 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004; Vora 1994; Singer and Lorimer 1997; Nyland pers. comm. 1998 and 2004; 

Litvaitis 2003; Lorimer and Frelich 1994), other old growth values can only be achieved over time. 

Two notable remnant (unharvested) forest areas remain on the ANF - Hearts Content Scenic Area and 

Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas (TSRNA). These remnant old growth areas comprise less 

than 1 percent of forest vegetation on the ANF. The forests in the TSRNA have been influenced by the 

same natural disturbances affecting the Allegheny Plateau for thousands of years, and experienced major 

stand replacing wind events three times in the past two centuries that created younger, second growth 

forests in portions of these areas (Bjorkbom and Larson 1977; Peterson and Pickett 1991). Nearly all of 

the original old growth forest remaining in TSRNA consists of northern hardwoods, dominated by 

hemlock and beech. The beech bark disease complex, is currently of particular concern in the TSRNA old 

growth areas, where American beech is the second most common tree species and comprises 35 percent 

of the trees greater than 10 centimeters in diameter (Zimmerman, 1984). The killing front of the beech 

bark disease was evident in TSRNA in 2002, and an estimated 50 percent of the beech trees in the area 

have suffered mortality since 2002 (MacKenzie, unpublished 2005b and pers. comm.. 2004). This disease 

complex is substantially altering forest structure in large portions of the TSRNA. The looming hemlock 

woolly adelgid is another great concern for the northern hardwood forest in the TSRNA, where eastern 

hemlock is the most common tree species, and comprises 42 percent of the basal area in trees greater than 

10 centimeters in diameter (Zimmerman 1984). 

During the past two decades of plan implementation, a total of 5,800 acres have been designated for 

development of future late structural and old growth characteristics. These areas consist of isolated stands, 

or groups of stands scattered across the ANF. The bulk of previously designated areas fall within MA 3.0, 

followed by MAs 6.1, 6.2, 1.0, 2.1 and 8.5. 

Stocking 

One of the primary objectives of ANF forest management is to maintain healthy, moderately to wellstocked stands in forested conditions capable of providing a variety of products and amenities (LRMP, 

Part 1, Vegetation Management Goals). One way of measuring how well a site is occupied is to evaluate a 

measure of stand stocking, or relative density (a measure of site utilization that accounts for variations in 

size and species composition [Marquis et al. 1992]). Table 3-21 shows that nearly half (45%) of the ANF 

is considered well stocked forest. Another 27 percent is presently considered moderately stocked forest, 

while only 3 percent is considered to be in a condition that falls far below the level of stocking that is 

considered to be fully occupying the site. Seventeen percent falls into a mixed category, which for the 

most part consists of third growth (less than 50 years old) regenerated forest that is typically well stocked. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-92 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The remaining 8 percent is considered non-forested. In total, nearly 80 percent of the ANF consists of 

moderately to well-stocked forest stands. 

Understory/midstory vegetation 

Stands with a high degree of vertical diversity typically develop multiple vegetative layers and are 

generally characterized by a diverse overstory, woody mid-story layers and a well developed understory. 

Structural diversity has important implications to wildlife, because many species, particularly songbirds, 

reptiles and amphibians, have requirements for different amounts of structural diversity. On the ANF, 

vertical diversity has been greatly affected by past and on-going deer browsing and interference from 

native invasive plant species, and is therefore lacking in many areas. 

Vertical and horizontal structure of the vegetation changes over time. Recent forest health surveys 

completed on the ANF indicated more than half of the forest is in the understory reinitiation phase (Morin 

et al. 2006). During understory reinitiation, gaps form in the formerly closed canopy, where decline or 

tree mortality has occurred. These gaps allow sunlight to reach the ground stimulating the understory 

plants and seeds in the seedbed. Theoretically, shrubs and tree seedlings should eventually occupy these 

gaps, creating a multi-storied stand. However, on the Allegheny Plateau, deer repeatedly browse 

wildflowers, herbaceous vegetation, shrubs and seedlings, and have virtually eliminated the shrub 

understory and greatly reduced the number of seedlings and herbaceous plants (Tilghman 1989; Jones et 

al. 1993; deCalesta 1994; deCalesta 1998; Horsley et al. 2003; Whitney 1984). Only 9 percent of the 

ANF (Table 3-22) presently contains adequate seedlings to sustain forest cover (Morin et al. 2006), 

thereby reducing the potential for improved vertical diversity. 

Table 3-21. Present stocking levels of forest vegetation more than 50 years old on the ANF 

Relative Density Age Thousands of Acres Percent of FS Lands 

Low (0-44%) 51+ 14.0 3 

Moderate (45-74%) 51+ 136.9 27 

High (>75%) 51+ 228.0 45 

All–Mix <51 84.6 17 

Non-forested Land N/A 42.2 8 

Total ANF Land 1 505.7 1

 Does not include areas classified as water.

Table 3-22. ANF understory vegetation conditions based on surveys at three different scales and points 

in time 

Understory Vegetation Category 

1992 

6,000 Plot Survey in MA 3.0

(307,000 acres)1

1994-1996 

Mortality Stand 

Data 

(~19,000 acres)2

1998-2001 

FHM Data 

(~480,000 acres)3*

% with interfering plants 70% 93% n/a 

% with adequate tree seedlings 23% 8% 9% 

1 USDA FS, ANF, 1995, Appendix L, Table 6 3 Morin, et al. 2006 2

 McWilliams et al. 1996 * FHM protocol counts only those seedlings ≥ 12 inches tall 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-93

Forest health 

The following discussion summarizes a number of factors that have affected the health of forest vegetation on the 

ANF in the past, or are anticipated to in the future. Though a number of forest health influences are discussed here in 

the affected environment, the environmental effects discussions will focus on a few measures relative to forest health. 

As trees mature, they naturally become more predisposed to decline and mortality from insect and disease 

infestations, and less resistant to stressors (Grief and Archibold 2000). Tree decline and mortality generally occurs 

in physiologically mature trees at or after the age when their ability to recuperate from external stresses is reduced 

(Manion 1991 p. 330-335; Nyland 1996, p. 454-458). Maintaining structural-age class and community 

composition diversity at the landscape level helps reduce the risks of insect and disease outbreaks and subsequent 

mortality (Nyland 1996 p. 466). 

The age, structure, and maturity of the forest on the ANF are fairly uniform. This uniform, mature second growth 

forest is vulnerable to damage from repeated natural stresses (droughts, late spring frosts, open winters, native 

defoliators such as elm spanworm, cherry scallop shell moth, fall cankerworm, and forest tent caterpillar) and 

exotic insects or diseases (beech bark disease complex, pear thrips, gypsy moth, and hemlock woolly adelgid). 

A variety of insects, diseases, droughts, windstorms, and local site nutrient limitations are affecting tree and forest 

health on the Allegheny Plateau. Some tree species or areas of the ANF are being affected disproportionately, 

particularly when subjected to multiple stresses over a relatively short period of time (several years). The health of 

the northern hardwood forest type on the ANF, dominated by a combination of American beech, sugar maple and 

eastern hemlock, is of particular concern. American beech is subject to mortality and decline from the beech bark 

disease complex, sugar maple on the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau is limited by site nutrient characteristics and 

currently subject to decline, and eastern hemlock is at risk from future invasion of the hemlock woolly adelgid. 

Deer herbivory/interfering plants 

On the Allegheny Plateau, excessive deer browsing and interfering plants have severely limited tree 

seedling development and growth, and healthy young trees may not be replacing trees that die, 

interrupting the natural cycle which normally maintains continuous forest cover on the land (Horsley et 

al. 2003). Normally, openings created in the overstory tree canopy, such as those created by individual 

trees dying would allow for increased plant growth on the forest floor. However, on the Allegheny 

Plateau, extensive and selective deer browsing has impeded the growth of seedlings and saplings, 

impacting natural regeneration and reforestation following natural or anthropogenic disturbances 

(Whitney 1984, Tilghman 1989, Jones et al. 1993, deCalesta 1994, Redding 1995, deCalesta 1998, 

Horsley et al. 2003). This legacy of extensive and selective browsing by deer has decreased the number of 

other hardwood seedlings, while increasing the abundance of beech seedlings and suckers (which are 

susceptible to beech bark disease complex mortality), striped maple, fern and grass that interfere with the 

establishment and survival of a diversity of seedlings (Horsley et al. 2003). Consequently, forested stands 

throughout the ANF lack the understory conditions that normally exist or that would result following 

natural disturbances, which raises concerns over the future sustainability of forested ecosystems on the 

ANF. Many other desirable native plants (including shrubs and some wildflowers) have been similarly 

affected by selective deer browsing thus reducing plant diversity. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3-94 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

When the 1986 Forest Plan was prepared, approximately 50 percent of the ANF was estimated to have 

interfering plants abundant enough to limit tree seedling development and require treatment (USDA FS 

1986a p. 4-37). Data from more recent forestwide vegetation monitoring efforts (Table 3-22) suggest a 

trend in increasing interfering vegetation in the ANF forest understory. 

Surveys in 1992 determined that close to 70 percent of all MA 3.0 land is stocked with enough ferns, 

grass, striped maple, and beech brush to interfere with desired tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation 

(Table 3-22) (USDA FS 1995a, Appendix L, Table 6). Only a small portion (23%) of the ANF has 

adequate understory stocking and the diversity of tree seedlings necessary to replace dying trees with a 

well-stocked forest canopy in the future. Close to 70 percent of all riparian areas are also stocked with 

enough ferns, grass, striped maple, and beech brush to interfere with desired tree seedlings and 

herbaceous vegetation (USDA FS 1995a, Appendix L, Table 9), and only 10 percent of riparian areas are 

adequately stocked with tree seedlings on the ground to replace forest cover with desirable tree seedlings 

if the overstory were to experience significant mortality or decline (USDA FS 1995a, Appendix L, Table 

6 and attachment 4, p.2). 

Additional surveys conducted during 1994 on the ANF (McWilliams et al. 1996) (Table 3-22) in areas 

experiencing forest decline indicated that only 8 percent of the sampled stands had adequate tree regeneration to 

successfully restock areas as described by Horsley et al. (1994). In the 1994 survey, vegetation that interferes with 

tree seedling development and growth was present in sufficient quantities to require treatment, as described by 

Marquis et al. (1992) and Horsley et al. (1994), in 93 percent of the stands evaluated. 

Forest health monitoring data collected in 1998-2001 indicates adequate tree seedlings are present on slightly over 

9 percent of the ANF (Morin et al. 2006) (Table 3-22). This most recent data found American beech to be more 

than twice as abundant as any species in both the seedling and sapling classes, with nearly as many stems/acre in 

each size class as all other species combined. This is because American beech is a prolific sprouter and less 

palatable (preferred) by deer. Beech suckers can become established in abundance even under high deer browsing 

impacts to the point that they interfere with a diversity of desirable seedling regeneration. This has raised 

concerns about sustaining areas well stocked with canopies of desirable, healthy tree species (Morin et al. 2006). 

American beech trees and associated root suckers are susceptible to the beech bark disease complex. The root 

sprouts that result following decline and death of larger beech trees will die off before maturing enough to provide 

high forest cover and other benefits such as mast for wildlife. 

When interfering plants are this abundant, local information indicates that tree seedlings have a limited ability to 

become established. When tree seedlings are not present on the ground and their development is severely 

restricted by interfering plants, natural catastrophic events (such as tree mortality) may not foster tree seedling 

establishment and development of well stocked future forests, particularly where activities to promote 

development of desirable tree seedling regeneration are not permitted. It is very difficult for vigorous young trees 

to grow from seed, gain dominance over the interfering plants, withstand deer browsing, and replace trees that die. 

Trees that die will most likely not be replaced by similar species or, in many cases, by any species of vigorously 

growing tree seedlings that are capable of growing to replace them. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-95

In 2003 the Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) was initiated on the ANF, allowing additional 

antlerless licenses to be issued to meet landowner goals (see the wildlife section for further discussion on DMAP). 

As a result, the deer population on the ANF has dropped more than 17 percent. Although browsing intensity has 

declined, the understory response lags behind the population drop (deCalesta 2005). Interfering understories that 

are well established as a result of a legacy of deer browsing impacts will still need treatment to encourage a 

diversity of tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation to become established. If current programs to sustain lower 

deer populations remain in effect, it is possible that one of the most important challenges to regeneration success 

on the ANF will be eased during the implementation period for the LRMP, and that improvements in understory 

health and diversity may become evident over time. However, it is also possible that deer impacts will return to 

historic and challenging levels. Regardless of future deer impacts, interfering understories that are well 

established as a result of the past legacy of deer browsing will still need to be treated to encourage establishment 

of a diversity of tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation. 

Insect infestations/defoliation 

Between 1965 and 1984, insects had a relatively small impact on the ANF. A substantial portion of the 

ANF and lands within the proclamation boundary were repeatedly defoliated between 1984 and 1998 by 

both native and exotic insects (Table 3-23), greatly exceeding that which occurred between 1965 and 

1984. Since 1985, more than half of the ANF has been defoliated two or more times, and over 15 percent 

has been defoliated three or more times. Between 1985 and 1995, more than 248,000 acres of the ANF 

were sprayed with insecticide (primarily the biological insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstakii) to 

reduce defoliation from gypsy moth, elm spanworm, and forest tent caterpillar. Without spraying, tree 

mortality/decline would have been much higher. Very little defoliation has occurred since 1998 (Morin et 

al. 2001, Morin et al. 2006). 

Two or more summers of defoliation can cause dieback or even tree mortality. Canopy disturbances such 

as defoliation episodes, particularly when concurrent with droughts or other abiotic stressors, may 

compound the injury to the tree ultimately causing unexpected mortality (Morin et al. 2001, pg. 59; Morin 

et al. 2006). 

Table 3-23. Cumulative defoliation on land (private and National Forest system) within the ANF 

proclamation boundary 

1984 through 19981 1999 – 20032 # of Years 

Defoliated Thousand Acres % of ANF Thousand Acres % of ANF 

0 100 13.4 684 93.7 

1 263 34.8 46 6.3 

2 271 36.7 <.1 <.1 

3 85 12.9 - - 

4 10 2.0 - - 

5 1 .2 - - 1

 Source: Morin et al. 2001 2

 Source: Forest Health Protection 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3-96 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Defoliations on the ANF were compounded by four significant droughts that occurred between 1987 and 

2001 (Palmer Drought Severity Index below -1.0). As a result of defoliation and severe drought, crown 

die-back and mortality has occurred with many tree species across the ANF. Across the landscape and 

over time, these stressors and related mortality have contributed to the current condition of ANF forest 

ecosystems. 

Native insects

Native insects and diseases are important components of a natural forest ecosystem. Native 

insects and diseases have many beneficial effects that include helping to decompose woody 

vegetation, contributing to diversity, enhancing habitat for plants and animals, and assisting the 

ecological succession of the forest. However, large outbreaks of native insects and diseases can 

have negative impacts such as reducing tree growth or value, causing large-scale tree die-back or 

mortality, decreasing water quality, increasing fire risk, creating safety hazards, diminishing 

scenic views, and reducing biodiversity. 

Between 1982 and 2003, native insects that reached epidemic levels on the ANF include the 

cherry scallopshell moth (Hydria prunivorata), elm spanworm (Ennomos subsignarius), forest 

tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria) and oak leaftier (Croesia semipurpurana) which 

cumulatively defoliated approximately 840,000 acres. 

Peach bark beetle (Phloeotribus liminaris) 

Peach bark beetle is a native bark beetle that has affected peach and cherry orchards in the 

northeastern U.S. since the mid-1800s. Localized outbreaks in black cherry can occur after 

periods of drought, following heavy defoliation, windthrow, where black cherry trees are 

weakened or under stress, or where freshly cut slash exists that allows the beetle to increase to the 

point of overcoming the natural defenses of vigorous trees. The insect causes gummosis and a 

decrease in wood quality and value. Trees are rarely killed, but are usually weakened which may 

predispose the tree to other stresses or insects. The peach bark beetle is not presently considered a 

significant concern on the ANF (Acciavatti, pers. comm., 2005). The value of black cherry from 

the ANF does not appear to be greatly impacted by the beetle. 

Exotic insects

Between 1985 and 1996 exotic insects that reached epidemic levels on the ANF include the 

European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) and pear thrips (Taeniothrips inconsequens). 

Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) 

This insect was introduced from France to the United States in 1869. The first defoliation 

outbreak occurred in 1889 (McManus et al.1989). Oak trees (especially white and chestnut oak) 

are the preferred host. Oak and mixed oak forest types are most susceptible to this non-native pest 

on the ANF, but the mixed hardwood and northern hardwood types may also be affected in severe 

outbreaks. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-97

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, gypsy moth caterpillars were defoliating thousands of acres in 

the western and northern sections of the ANF. During this time period, numerous areas on ANF 

land were treated to reduce gypsy moth populations. A population crash occurred in 1993, due to 

a virus (Nucleopolyhedrosis Virus) specific to gypsy moth, along with the fungus Entomophaga 

maimaiga. High humidity, frequent periods of rain, and fairly constant temperatures between 

14°C to 26°C are needed for the fungus to germinate and spread (Reardon and Hajek 1993). With 

the exception of a small amount of light defoliation in 1999, the last observed gypsy moth 

defoliation on the ANF was reported in the spring of 1993. 

Pear thrips, Taeniothrips inconsequens (Uzel)

This introduced species was first noted in California in 1904 and now occurs throughout the 

United States. It is a tiny insect that feeds on the expanding buds of many trees, but particularly 

affects sugar maple and black cherry. The pear thrips insect serves as a vector for a fungus that 

enters the thrips-created wound on the leaf and causes necrosis, deformity, and discoloration of 

leaf tissue. It was first observed in Pennsylvania in 1912, feeding on fruit orchards in Erie 

County. It was not identified as a forest pest until 1979 when, following heavy defoliation in 

1978, it was found to have caused severe leaf damage on an estimated 73,000 acres in 

Pennsylvania. There have been two cycles of recent pear thrips damage on the ANF; one in 1989, 

and one in 1993. Since 1994 the pear thrips population on the ANF has remained low. 

Disease 

Native diseases

A number of native diseases exist that are a natural component of vegetative communities and 

normal ecosystem functions on the ANF. One example is Nectria Galligena, a major cause of 

cankers and mechanical stem failure on yellow and sweet birch, which coincidentally impacts 

American beech trees in conjunction with the introduced beech scale insect. Most birch trees on 

the ANF become infected with the Nectria fungus and few exceed 60 years of age (Morin et al.

2006). 

Exotic diseases

Some of the more well-known exotic diseases that have affected forest vegetation on the ANF 

include chestnut blight, Dutch elm disease, butternut canker, and beech bark disease complex. 

The most significant disease currently affecting forests of the Allegheny Plateau at higher than 

normal background rates is beech bark disease complex. 

Beech bark disease complex

Beech bark disease is an introduced disease complex currently causing substantial beech 

mortality on the ANF and in the eastern United States. It is an insect-fungus complex composed 

of European scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga) and the exotic canker fungus (Nectria coccinea 

var. faginata), or the native canker fungus (Nectria galligena). Two waves of tree infestation or 

colonization actually occur. The first is the wave of colonization by the scale insect known as the 

“Advancing Front.” The second, known as the “Killing Front”, occurs as the fungus colonizes the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-98 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

feeding wounds left behind by the scale insects. Nectria infections result in lower tree vigor, or 

the resulting cankers may coalesce to girdle and kill the tree. 

The disease complex affects the largest beech trees first, which contain higher nitrogen content in 

the bark, but as the duration of the disease present in affected stands increases, trees with lower 

bark nitrogen concentrations are affected (Latty et al. 2003). This complex results in significant 

beech mortality, with an understory response of increased beech root sprouting. These root 

sprouts, like the parent trees from which they originate, are also susceptible to the disease. The 

dense regeneration of beech within the infested stands prevents the regeneration of other 

hardwood or conifer trees (Forrester et al., 2003; Hane 2003, Latty et al. 2003). This increase in 

the amount of susceptible beech stems in affected areas, may potentially lead to a second beech 

bark disease outbreak of more serious impact than the first (Otrofsky and McCormack 1986). As 

a result, the productivity of the stands decline as the disease progresses, decreasing stand health. 

Recent monitoring on the ANF indicated that the percent of standing dead beech is more than two 

times greater inside the killing front compared to outside (Morin et al., 2006). Long-term studies 

in New Hampshire have found that management directed toward removing poor beech trees over 

a period of decades can produce areas where stand level health is significantly improved, the 

effects of beech bark disease are reduced, and the basal area of beech trees resistant to the disease 

complex is increased (Leak 2006). 

The scale insect was detected on the ANF in the early 1980s, and is now present throughout the 

entire ANF. The killing front presently covers approximately 42 percent (see Figure 3-11) of the 

ANF (Morin et al. 2006). Recent surveys completed in portions of the ANF where the BBD was 

first detected indicated a 66 percent loss of beech basal area greater than 6” diameter between 

1991 and 2003 (MacKenzie unpublished 2005a). BBD is of particular concern in northern 

hardwood stands with a large beech component. In New England where beech bark disease 

complex has been present and killing American beech for over 50 years, on the average half of 

the trees die, and only 1 percent of the trees appear immune to the complex (Houston 2005), 

though some will demonstrate partial resistance. The overall effects of this widespread beech 

mortality on forest composition and structure on the ANF are not fully understood yet. Sustaining 

healthy American beech has been identified as an LRMP research need (see table 16 in the 

monitoring section of the LRMP). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-99

Figure 3-11. Beech bark disease complex progression of advancing and killing fronts on the ANF, 

1985-2003 

4 0 4 8 Miles

N

Beechbark Scale Advancing Front (428,829 acres)

Beechbark Scale Killing Front (311,876 acres)

Major Streams

% Towns

Allegheny Reservoir

Proclamation Boundary (740,705 acres)

Allegheny National Forest

Beech Bark Disease Areas

1985 - 2003

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Kane

Warren

Ridgway

Bradford

Tidioute

Tionesta

Lewis Run

Sheffield

Clarendon

Youngsville

Johnsonburg

Marienville

Mount 

Jewett
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-100 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica)

This fungus was probably introduced from Asia and first reported in the United States in 1904. 

Within 50 years the fungus occupied the tree’s entire range and had killed 80 percent of the 

American chestnut (Kuhlman 1978). Nearly all the remaining live trees were infected with the 

fungus and dying. Prior to the infestation, the American chestnut was a major component of the 

eastern hardwood forest, and comprised about 3 percent of the trees present on the ANF (Whitney 

1994, p. 196). This tree, which once grew up to 120 feet tall and over 7 feet in diameter, now 

rarely attains heights over 30 feet, with diameters up to 6 inches before the fungus kills the stem. 

The process starts over when the tree resprouts. The American Chestnut Foundation is working 

with researchers to develop blight resistant American chestnut trees, while the ANF is 

cooperating with the American Chestnut Foundation in testing susceptibility of potentially blight 

resistant American chestnut trees in forested ecosystems. Some time in the future the American 

chestnut may return to the eastern hardwood forest. 

Drought 

On the ANF precipitation is normally plentiful throughout the year and averages 40 to 45 inches per year. 

The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) indicates that droughts (PDSI less than or equal to -1) occur 

on the ANF every three to six years (Morin et al. 2001). Between 1972 and 1987 the Allegheny 

experienced a relatively drought free period, but four significant droughts occurred between 1987 and 

2001 (Morin et al. 2001). 

Ozone 

Recent forest health monitoring completed on the ANF included assessing damage to forest vegetation 

from ozone, a byproduct of industrial development. Impacts to ozone-indicator plants, such as black 

cherry and blackberry on the ANF were small compared to studies in other areas that have documented 

higher effects. Blackberry had the highest occurrence of ozone damage, with 40 to 60 percent of sampled 

plants showing symptoms of damage in 1998-2000, versus only 19 percent in 2001. Nearly 60 percent of 

black cherry plants sampled showed injury symptoms in 1998, but less than 16 percent showed symptoms 

between 1999 and 2001. However, even when these species show relatively high occurrences of ozone 

injury, the severity (percent of foliage on an individual plant showing signs of damage) has been low. 

Differences in the amount of ozone injury was more likely due to variation in precipitation levels (trees 

are less susceptible to damage during droughty conditions) than ambient ozone exposure levels (Morin et 

al. 2006). In conclusion, local monitoring indicates ozone has not substantially damaged woody 

vegetation on the ANF. 

Site/species nutrient capability 

Since the late 1970s, sugar maple across the northern tier of Pennsylvania has been suffering from a 

decline syndrome. Numerous factors have been thought to contribute to this decline, including droughts, 

late spring frosts, insect defoliations, disease organisms, forest management, atmospheric pollutants, and 

soil nutrient capability. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-101

Recent local research conducted across the Northern tier of Pennsylvania and the Southern tier of New 

York indicates unglaciated upper slope sites and the plateau top are sensitive sites where sugar maple and 

other high base cation-demanding species (such as white ash and basswood) may be more vulnerable to 

stress events such as insect defoliation (Horsley et al. 1999, pp 60-62). These conditions are exacerbated 

by drought conditions. Research results indicate the most important factors associated with sugar maple 

health are foliar levels of magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn), and defoliation history. The lowest 

foliar Mg, highest foliar Mn, and highest number and severity of insect defoliations were associated with 

unglaciated summits, shoulders, and upper backslopes. Locally, sugar maple decline has been associated 

with two or more moderate to severe defoliations within a decade on sites with low levels of base cations, 

especially magnesium and calcium (Horsley et al. 2002). The decline disease of sugar maple seems to 

result from an interaction between low levels of Mg (and perhaps elevated Mn) nutrition, topographic 

position, and stress caused by defoliation or drought. The unbalanced Ca, Mg and Mn nutrition 

predisposes sugar maple to decline by reducing crown vigor, and excessive stress such as defoliation or 

drought incites (triggers) decline. 

Within the ANF, where sugar maple occurs along plateau top and upper slopes, continued decline is 

expected. Sugar maple may not be sustainable on these sites. Sugar maple trees are less able to withstand 

stressors such as defoliations or droughts, due to these changes in soil nutrient status on the Allegheny 

Plateau. However, research has provided the following recommendations to maintain the health of sugar 

maple and other tree species (e.g. ash, basswood) with higher base cation requirements, which are 

incorporated in forestwide design criteria: 

• Forest managers should consider proactive insect suppression activities when necessary to help 

reduce stressful conditions for sugar maple and other species with high base cation requirements 

(Horsley et al. unpublished 2005a). 

• Choose appropriate sites to culture sugar maple. On upper slope and plateau top sites, landowners and 

managers should consider management activities that favor species with lower base cation 

requirements (Horsley et al. 1999, p 62; Horsley et al. 2000, pp 1365-1367; Horsley pers. comm.

2005). Recent local research results indicate that black cherry, American beech (subject to beech bark 

disease complex), white pine, chestnut oak, black birch, red pine, and red maple are examples of these 

species (Horsley et al. 2002, p 41; Long et al. 1997, pp 1563, 1564, and 1566; Long et al. 1999 pp 56 

and 57; Demchik and Sharpe 1999). Their growth and health seems unaffected by lower local base 

cation availability on many sites. Mid and lower slopes on the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau are 

better suited to culture sugar maple, where it is present (Horsley et al. unpublished 2005a). 

• Conserve base cations on sensitive upper slope and plateau top sites by retaining tops and branches on 

site to conserve Ca and Mg (Horsley et al. unpublished 2005a). Obtaining greater success in 

developing sugar maple seedlings and sustaining healthy sugar maple has been identified as an LRMP 

research need (see table 16 in the monitoring section of the LRMP). 

Atmospheric deposition 

For as long as the Pennsylvania Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Network has maintained records 

(since 1982), the ANF region has received heavy inputs of sulfates and nitrates through wet deposition. In 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-102 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

New England, deposition with similar characteristics on soils poor in base cations has been associated 

with accelerated soil acidification (Likens et al. 1998), which is associated with leaching of base cations 

from the soil. Soils of the Allegheny Plateau landform are unglaciated and formed on a geological 

substrate with little calcium and magnesium. This makes soils on the ANF inherently susceptible to 

acidification and base cation nutrient leaching. 

Recent local research compared archived soil (collected in 1967) from the Allegheny Plateau to soil 

collected 30 years later (Bailey et al. 2005). This comparison noted a statistically significant decrease in 

soil pH (increase in acidity), and calcium and magnesium soil nutrients. At the same time, a significant 

increase in available aluminum was noted. These findings indicate that changes in soil chemistry have 

occurred on the Allegheny Plateau in the past 30 years, consistent with changes that occur as a result of 

atmospheric deposition of sulfates and nitrates. Researchers were also able to establish soil nutrient 

thresholds necessary to sustain sugar maple heath (Bailey et al. 2004). In 1967, calcium and magnesium 

in Allegheny Plateau soils were above this threshold. In 1997, these soil nutrients were below the 

threshold. These results help explain sugar maple decline noted since the 1970s on the Allegheny Plateau. 

See Section 3.2.4 (air resources) and section 3.2.2 (soils) for more discussion on atmospheric deposition. 

See forest composition and seedling regeneration composition of this affected environment for discussion 

of potential influences of acid deposition on tree seedling development and interfering vegetation. 

Tree mortality/decline 

Two major periods of tree mortality and decline have occurred since 1986: 1) substantial oak mortality 

developed in 1988, and 2) tree mortality and decline in Allegheny hardwood, northern hardwood and 

upland hardwood types developed rather suddenly in 1994 with lower amounts continuing to develop for 

several years thereafter. 

Substantial amounts of oak mortality (10% to 80%) were confirmed in the fall of 1988 on about 18,000 

acres of the ANF. This oak mortality resulted from the combined effects of two major natural events: 

repeated and extensive moderate or severe gypsy moth defoliation between 1986 and 1988, and a severe 

drought that occurred in the summer of 1988. 

Insect and disease impacts in the early and mid-1990s created substantial stress on trees in the Allegheny 

hardwood, upland hardwood, and northern hardwood forest types, primarily affecting red and sugar 

maple, and beech. Evaluation of color infrared photos taken in mid-August 1994 showed that 89,565 

acres of Management Area 3 had higher levels of tree mortality (29% of MA 3). Over half of it appeared 

to be moderate to severe. Additional mortality occurred between 1995 and 1999 though it expanded to 

include black cherry (which has suffered repeated cherry scallop shell moth defoliations). 

In the more heavily impacted areas (~19,000 acres), stand data was collected in 1994 through 1996. Dead 

trees and trees at risk of dying account for 18.7 percent of the total basal area in this sample (McWilliams 

et al. 1996). Sparse tree seedling regeneration and the abundance of interfering vegetation in that survey 

raises serious concerns about tree seedling development and survival, as well as the long-term 

maintenance of forest cover on sites where tree mortality and decline are or may become most severe. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-103

In many cases isolated or moderate infestation by forest pests or disease will not cause the death of a tree. 

However, when these stresses are combined with other factors that damage or reduce a tree’s vigor, 

mortality may occur. Recent forest health monitoring completed across the ANF indicated that among the 

shade-tolerant species, 14.8 percent of the standing sugar maple basal area and 9.4 percent of the beech 

basal area are dead (Morin et al. 2006). Black cherry and red maple had the highest percent dead basal 

area in the 5-to10 inch class, probably due to self-thinning. This mortality would be expected to occur 

during self-thinning of a shade-intolerant species during the normal stand development process. American 

beech, conversely, had the highest proportion of standing dead basal area in the largest diameter class. 

This is from the beech bark disease complex, which tends to kill large trees (Morin et al. 2006). Among 

the five most abundant tree species on the ANF, dead trees are proportionally greatest for sugar maple 

(Morin et al. 2001, p. 59, Morin et al. 2006). 

Forest health monitoring showed that from 1989 to 1998-2001, black cherry, red maple, American beech, 

eastern hemlock, and sweet birch increased in abundance while sugar maple, northern red oak, and white 

ash decreased in abundance on the ANF. Black cherry and red maple account for more than half of the 

total average basal area per acre on the ANF (Morin et al. 2006). This same forest health monitoring 

indicated the central two-thirds of the ANF had the most numerous defoliations and highest estimated 

standing dead basal area. Identifying integrated pest management activities to sustain healthy hemlock on 

the ANF in the face of HWA infestation has been identified as an LRMP research need (see table 16 in 

the monitoring section of the LRMP). 

Looming forest health concerns 

There are several threats to forest health on the ANF that are on the horizon. Exotic insects and diseases 

such as the hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, Asian long-horn beetle, and sudden oak death 

have not been documented within the ANF. Their expansion to the ANF is likely, and their effects raise 

serious forest health concerns. 

Hemlock woolly adelgid

Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) (HWA) is a non-native insect that could substantially 

impact hemlock on the ANF within the next five to fifteen years. HWA was introduced into the 

U.S. from Asia in the 1920s, and it is spreading across the range of eastern and Carolina hemlock 

in the Eastern U.S. Both hemlock species are being killed and do not appear to have any 

resistance to the insect. HWA is considered to be the single greatest threat to the health and 

sustainability of hemlock as a forest resource in eastern North America (Knauer et al. 2002). 

Severe cold weather seems to slow the spread of this pest. Conversely, mild winter weather has 

resulted in rapid adelgid population growth and expansion the following seasons. Data suggests 

the adelgid is adapting quickly to colder temperatures as it spreads northward (McClure and 

Cheah 2002). 

HWA has not yet been detected on the ANF, but has been detected in 44 counties in PA; one 

county is to the immediate southeast of the ANF. In September of 2005, HWA was detected in 

Elk County- the first detection in that County to date. This small insect feeds by sucking hemlock 

sap at the base of needles. A mature tree can be killed in 3-5 years, but mortality is usually a slow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-104 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

process, occurring over a 2 to 12 year period or longer (Ward et al. 2004). Elongate hemlock 

scale (Fiorinia externa Ferris) is another introduced threat to hemlock trees that greatly hastens 

decline and mortality in mixed infestations with HWA. Other major factors that influence 

hemlock decline include stressors such as drought, poor site conditions, and insect and disease 

pests (Ward et al. 2004). Hemlock is an important forest component as thermal cover and habitat 

for many wildlife species, and its distribution along riparian areas is critical in maintaining 

appropriate water temperatures for aquatic species. 

Several introduced predators of the adelgid, including Ladybird beetles (Pseudoscymnus tsugae), 

Coleoptera beetles (Sasajiseymnus tsugae and Scymnus sinuanodulus), and Laricobius nigrinus

beetles, have been released in the State of Pennsylvania. Though predator release is considered to 

be an effective treatment to reduce established HWA populations, longer term establishment of 

these predators largely does not appear successful to date (PA DCNR, 2005). Chemical control 

can be used in easy access areas within or near developed recreation sites or high-quality scenic 

areas. However, this is very costly, and repeated treatments are needed to control the pest. Fungal 

controls are currently being researched, and may hold some promise to reduce HWA populations 

as part of an integrated pest management program (Costa et al. 2005). 

Forest Health Protection has been monitoring for the HWA on the ANF since 2004, and none 

have been detected to date. 

Emerald ash borer

Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) (EAB) native to western Asia, was discovered in 2002 

feeding on ash trees in southeastern Michigan. Recent dendrochronological evidence indicates 

that the beetle was present for at least 10 years before discovery. Larvae feed in the cambium 

between the bark and wood, producing galleries (tunnels) that eventually girdle and kill branches 

and trees. At least 16 endemic ash species, as well as naturalized species and cultivars used in 

landscaping are at risk (Cappaert et al. 2005). Movement of firewood infested with EAB into 

uninfested areas increases the risk of spread for this insect. As of November 2006, populations 

were confirmed in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Maryland (website accessed 12/6/06: 

http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/TriState_EABpos.pdf). Detection surveys and eradication 

(chemical treatments, cutting, chipping and burning) efforts continue in those States. On the 

ANF, public education efforts and EAB detection surveys are ongoing. A firewood transport ban 

may be considered for the ANF at some point in the future. 

Asian longhorned beetle

Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) is a serious pest in China and was 

discovered in 1996 on hardwood trees in Brooklyn, New York. Larvae feed in the cambium, 

sapwood and heartwood. Tunneling by the larvae girdles tree stems and branches and causes 

crown dieback and eventually tree death. In the U.S. it prefers maple species including but not 

limited to Norway, red, silver and sugar maple. Other known hosts are alders, birches, elms, 

horsechestnut, poplars, and willows (USDA FS 2004h). In 1998 populations were detected in 

New York (Long Island, Queens and Manhattan) and Illinois (Chicago). Beetles were also 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-105

detected in two separate areas of New Jersey in 2002 and 2004 and in California in 2005 

(websites accessed 1/11/07: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/alb/chron-96-99.html and 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/alb/chron-2000-pres.html). Detection surveys, quarantines and 

eradication (chemical treatments, cutting, chipping and burning) efforts continue in New York, 

Illinois, and New Jersey. 

Sudden oak death

A phenomenon known as Sudden Oak Death (SOD) (Phytophthora ramorum) was first reported 

in 1995 in central coastal California. Since then, tens of thousands of oaks have been killed in 

California. Other host species include Rhododendron spp., huckleberry, and laurels. Movement of 

infected nursery stock has lead to quarantines in PA and other states. SOD has been confirmed on 

nursery stock in 19 states, and was recently discovered on a mature tree in New York, which was 

subsequently destroyed. While monitoring for SOD will continue in the vicinity of the New York 

tree, SOD was not detected in the first year after treatment. Cankers form on the stems and once 

crown dieback begins, leaves turn from green to yellow to brown within a few weeks. The FH 

Monitoring program and its partners are conducting a national survey of forests at risk, focusing 

on forests of high and moderate risk. To date, with exception of the one tree already destroyed, no 

additional cases SOD in a forest setting have been detected in the eastern United States. In 

California a strategy of slow the spread is being adopted, and in Oregon an eradication strategy of 

felling and burning was carried out. 

Forest vegetation management 

Forest vegetation management is a tool used to achieve desired forest vegetation conditions on the landscape. 

These desired vegetation conditions include age and structural attributes (tree ages and sizes, canopy gaps, 

vegetative layers), forest composition (tree species), and healthy forested ecosystems. Most forest vegetation 

management applied on the ANF to date has been even-aged, with regeneration harvests creating young stands of 

a single age class within the broader maturing forest landscape. Even-aged treatments sustain a diversity of age 

classes, and provide horizontal structural differences across the landscape. Uneven-aged management has been 

applied on the ANF to a lesser extent, and overall with less success in obtaining sufficient tree seedling 

regeneration. Uneven-aged management sustains a greater degree of high forest canopy connectivity, and results 

in areas containing multiple age classes and trees from seedlings to large overstory trees, providing vertical 

structural diversity for wildlife. Reforestation treatments help achieve a number of land management objectives, 

ensuring healthy, diverse, well stocked forests are sustained on the landscape in the long term, particularly in 

conjunction with even-aged or uneven-aged regeneration methods. 

Since 1962, forest vegetation on the ANF has been actively managed, using primarily a blend of intermediate and 

regeneration even-aged harvests. Initially, regeneration harvests consisted of clearcuts with few reforestation 

treatments applied. A survey of 65 regeneration harvests made in the early 1970s revealed that satisfactory natural 

regeneration was only developing in 54 percent of them. Subsequent studies have shown that the most important 

factor in successful natural regeneration on the ANF is the amount of advanced seedling regeneration present 

prior to the final overstory removal (Horsley et al.1994). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-106 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

In the mid 1970s, much greater emphasis was placed on ensuring advanced seedling regeneration existed prior to 

final overstory removal. In many cases a shelterwood seed cut was applied to develop advanced seedling 

regeneration prior to the final overstory removal. As more was learned about successful regeneration of 

hardwoods under high deer browsing impacts on the Allegheny Plateau, various reforestation activities were 

incorporated into silvicultural prescriptions. Fertilization and fence construction began on the ANF in the mid 

1970s to ensure greater reforestation success under high deer browsing pressure. Herbicide application for 

reforestation purposes began on the ANF following completion of the 1986 Forest Plan. This was to remove 

interfering vegetation that exceeded levels that would permit establishment and development of desirable, diverse 

seedling regeneration as described by Horsley (1982). These reforestation activities have helped achieve a 96 

percent success rate in establishing tree seedlings in scheduled even-aged final harvests satisfactorily (USDA FS 

2004c, p. 27). 

Table 3-24 displays the level of various silvicultural and reforestation activities by management area that have 

occurred since implementation of the 1986 Forest Plan. Most forest management activities on the ANF have 

occurred in MA 3.0, followed by MAs 6.1, 6.2, 2.0 and 1.0. A relatively minor amount of forest management has 

occurred in MAs 6.3 and 9.1 since implementation of the 1986 Forest Plan. A primary emphasis of vegetation 

management on the ANF in the past twenty years has been improving the age class distribution of forest 

vegetation and creating younger age classes, particularly in MA 3.0 where most even-aged final harvesting has 

occurred. 

Table 3-24. 1986 forest plan harvest and reforestation activity accomplishments by management area 

(1986-2005) 

Activity MA 

1.0 

MA 

2.0 

MA 

3.0 

MA 

6.1 

MA 

6.2 

MA 6.3, 6.4 

and 8.0 

MA 

9.1 Totals 

Even-aged Intermediate Thinning 

Thinning (Acres) 170 31 45,053 3,156 3,022 0 445 51,877 

Even-aged Regeneration 

Final Harvest with Residuals 

(Acres) 556 7 24,459 2,467 872 43 83 28,487 

Shelterwood Seed (Acres) 97 0 17,265 1,193 797 0 33 19,385 

Uneven-aged Regeneration 

Selection Cuts (Acres) 0 1,214 4,142 624 131 0 0 6,111 

Reforestation Treatments 

Striped Maple Cutting 0 0 4,663 0 0 0 0 4,663 

Site Preparation 117 110 20,757 1,582 567 16 84 23,233 

Herbicide 54 550 17,828 619 384 0 112 19,547 

Fertilization 205 0 14,168 558 345 41 0 15,317 

Fencing 94 78 12,498 1,442 418 0 164 14,694 

Planting/Seeding 114 17 1,768 496 0 0 177 2,572 

Timber Stand Improvements 

Timber Stand Improvements 0 0 855 0 0 0 0 855 

Release 20 17 4,539 508 98 0 130 5,312 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-107

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The affected area for direct and indirect effects to forest vegetation consists of lands administered by the ANF. 

Direct and indirect effects will be assessed for the first, second and sixth decades of LRMP implementation to 

show how desired conditions relative to vegetation composition, age and stocking, and forest health would be 

provided over time as a result of proposed desired condition in each of the alternatives, associated management 

area allocations, silvicultural practices, treatment levels, investments, and outputs. This will be followed by a 

discussion of other cumulative effects on forest vegetation, such as development of privately owned mineral 

rights. 

Introduction 

This section introduces how changes to forest vegetation will be analyzed, what the key elements are, and how 

they will be tracked through the discussion. The key elements include: 

• Forest Composition 

• Forest Age and Stocking 

• Forest health 

• Forest Vegetation Management 

The direct/indirect effect of, or the vegetation outcome from implementing an alternative is a result of the 

application of all management practices needed to meet desired vegetation conditions for that alternative. For 

example, the practices of even-aged and uneven-aged silviculture, road construction, reforestation treatments, 

recreation development and uses, and wildlife habitat improvement all have effects on the vegetation resource. 

Each alternative requires a unique mix of these practices to provide the alternative's response to the management 

problems or the issues. This is largely determined by the acreage allocated to each Management Area by 

alternative. Therefore, the effect of each alternative on ANF vegetation will be unique. 

When assessing the direct/indirect effects of an alternative, consideration is given to the quantity of each practice, 

applicable standards and guidelines, where the practice would be applied, and over what time frame. All 

applicable standards and guidelines listed in the LRMP are incorporated into each alternative, and the effects 

evaluated accordingly. Standards and guidelines associated with vegetation management activities will help 

ensure a diverse, healthy and sustainable forest is provided for a variety of resources. All proposed vegetation 

management practices were evaluated in terms of the potential magnitude of their effects, which were integrated 

with the effects of other practices, to provide a comprehensive view of how a particular alternative would change 

the existing condition of each vegetation element. 

Forest composition 

Forestwide desired conditions in the LRMP include sustaining a diversity of vegetation species and forest 

types across the landscape in all alternatives. Forest composition generally refers to the presence and 

abundance of various tree species within forested areas. Forest composition can be influenced through 

activities that favor some species over others depending on the treatment, sequence and timing of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-108 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

activities, and regeneration method, or through natural processes (absent management activities) that 

result in changes to forest composition over time. Species composition can be affected by the selection of 

which trees to cut versus those to leave in managed areas, or through not managing forested areas. 

Modifying overstory tree stocking or structure can influence tree species composition through altering 

environmental conditions on the forest floor. The amount of sunlight provided on the forest floor through 

overstory treatment influences the seedling species that are likely to become established. For instance, 

even-aged regeneration treatments favor shade-intolerant and intermediate species such as tulip poplar, 

black cherry, ash, aspen, red maple, and birch by providing abundant sunlight for seedling establishment 

and growth. Conversely uneven-aged silvicultural activities feature shade-tolerant species such as 

American beech, eastern hemlock, and sugar maple by maintaining more overstory canopy and shade. 

Activities such as road construction, oil and gas development, and stone borrow pit construction or 

expansion can also affect forest composition by converting forested areas to non-forest. 

In conjunction with overstory manipulation, understory species composition can be influenced by 

reforestation treatments. This understory species composition, in turn, will eventually determine future 

overstory species composition. In order to ensure abundant and diverse seedling regeneration on the ANF, 

a number of conditions and intensive treatments are necessary, including: 

• Insuring a diverse seed supply. 

• Controlling deer browsing impacts through fencing and/or concentrating removal harvests within a 

small geographical area (creating abundant forage for deer). 

• Providing adequate light to the forest floor. 

• Removing low shade and interfering vegetation. 

• Controlling forest floor disturbance. 

• Waiting for seedling establishment, as many species take 5-20 years to become established. 

• Releasing less common or unique tree species in order to better maintain seedling abundance and 

species diversity in regenerating areas. 

Forest age and stocking 

Forestwide desired conditions include sustaining a diversity of vegetative structural stages and age classes 

across the landscape, including a variety of healthy functioning vegetation layers and well distributed 

habitats for wildlife in all alternatives. Forest structure refers to the size, amount (density and numbers), 

and arrangement (from forest floor to tree canopies, and across landscapes) of forest vegetation. Forest 

structure is primarily affected through overstory silvicultural activities, though natural disturbances, tree 

decline and mortality also affect forest structure over time. Reforestation treatments primarily affect 

understory vegetative structure. Intermediate thinning treatments reduce tree density, changing the 

overstory structure. Even-aged regeneration treatments most notably change forest structure by 

regenerating mature areas of large trees to temporary openings stocked with seedlings and small trees. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-109

Uneven-aged regeneration activities affect within stand structure, or vertical vegetative structure by 

promoting development of several age classes, while retaining the majority of the overstory tree canopy. 

As mentioned previously, forest vegetation on the ANF is uniform and of very similar age. In order to 

better balance age class distribution on the ANF, some areas will be managed for young forest and early 

age classes (0-20 years old) through even-aged management, others will be managed to more quickly 

develop attributes of old structural stages, and others will not be actively managed at all. Forestwide 

objectives exist for creation of early structural stages. 

Forest health 

Forestwide desired conditions include providing resilient and diverse vegetative layers capable of 

sustaining well-stocked, healthy hardwood forests in the long term in all alternatives. Vegetation 

management can affect forest health through a variety of overstory and understory treatments. Not 

actively managing forests can also affect forest health. Reducing the density of trees enhances tree vigor 

and growth rates. Declining, mature, or poorly stocked stands can be regenerated to vigorous well-stocked 

stands through a combination of silvicultural and reforestation treatments. Invasive species that interfere 

with diverse forest understories becoming established can be controlled through reforestation treatments. 

Overstory treatments and timber harvest can influence the species composition of individual stands, 

where some species are more susceptible to current forest health concerns than others, as well as the age 

of forest vegetation (Waring and O’Hara 2005). As described by Waring and O’Hara, landscapes 

consisting of stands of similar sized and aged trees are more vulnerable to damage from a particular pest 

than if the landscape were composed of stands and forests of a variety of size and age classes. 

Forest vegetation management 

Vegetation management is a tool used to sustain desired forest composition, age class distribution, and 

health of vegetation found on the ANF. Each of the alternatives would provide for different types and 

intensities of forest vegetation management to meet desired conditions for forest vegetation. Intermediate 

treatments, even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration methods, and no active vegetation management all 

result in different forested settings, structures, composition, and wildlife habitat. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

The following discussion describes effects and influences on forest vegetation that are considered common to 

each of the alternatives, though the degree to which they would occur varies by alternative. 

Integrated pest management practices 

It is anticipated that existing forest health concerns present on the ANF, including the introduced beech 

bark disease complex, defoliations by both native and exotic insects such as the European gypsy moth, 

sugar maple decline, and the threat of hemlock woolly adelgid will persist. Though it is difficult to predict 

the degree of impact from these stressors, particularly the cyclical populations of defoliating insects, 

droughts, and introduced exotic forest pests, it is likely that some form of chemical (e.g. insecticides), 

biological (e.g. introduced predators that feed on exotic insects) and cultural (vegetation manipulation) 

treatments will be necessary. Treatments such as application of Bacillus thuringiensis would reduce 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-110 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

defoliations and subsequent tree mortality from various forest pests. Systemic treatments, such as the 

selective use of imidacloprid or other appropriate insecticide may be necessary to conserve individual 

hemlock trees infested with the hemlock woolly adelgid (Ward et al. 2004). Silviculture is an important 

part of an integrated pest management program, and can be a valuable tool in the prevention, mitigation, 

and restoration of forest ecosystems threatened by introduced forest pests that are responsible for reducing 

biodiversity, compromising ecological integrity, disrupting ecosystem dynamics, and displacing native 

species (Waring and O’Hara 2005). 

The ANF will continue to work with Forest Health Protection to monitor forest health on the ANF, and 

develop strategies to reduce the impacts of stressors such as defoliating insects in all alternatives. 

General effects of vegetation treatments 

The following section defines the treatments presented under each alternative and their objectives, and 

describes some of the general effects of these silvicultural and reforestation treatments. The definitions or 

general effects of a particular treatment on a treated area do not vary by alternative. However, the 

magnitude of these treatments, and their cumulative effects on the landscape, are anticipated to vary by 

alternative. When silvicultural treatments are applied in stands that meet specified criteria, predictable 

results or outcomes can be achieved. Effects on vegetation will occur primarily from anticipated 

silvicultural treatments such as commercial timber harvest and reforestation treatments, non-commercial 

treatments, wildlife habitat improvement work, and from doing no treatment at all (allow natural 

processes to continue). These activities result in changes in understory and overstory conditions, forest 

structure, and changes in plant species composition and diversity, which in turn can affect forest 

sustainability and health. The specific effects of activities affecting forest vegetation will be evaluated at 

the project level. 

The LRMP incorporates an adaptive approach to managing forest vegetation (see Appendix A to the 

LRMP). We anticipate changes to occur over time that will require adaptation in silvicultural techniques. 

Change associated with deer browsing impacts, insect infestations, invasion by exotic species or other 

environmental factors could require modification to one or more of the treatments described here. Annual 

monitoring and evaluation of treatments and effects, as well as the application of new silvicultural 

methods will be the basis for adjustments (see the monitoring section of the LRMP). 

ANF vegetation management is implemented to accomplish multiple purposes. These will come from a 

variety of sources, including project level purpose and needs such as: 

• Produce wood and other forest products 

• Sustain, create, or modify wildlife and plant habitats 

• Sustain or enhance quality riparian habitat and aquatic resources 

• Help sustain long-term forest health 

• Improve forest structural conditions 

• Reduce probability of forest losses from wildfire or insects and diseases 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-111

• Control non-native invasive, or other undesired species of plants or animals 

• Enhance scenery resources or provide desired forest recreation settings 

Two silvicultural systems – even-aged and uneven-aged management – are proposed for use on the ANF. 

Reforestation treatments are used with either system. Standards and guidelines included in the LRMP to 

maintain snags, den trees, reserve areas and species diversity would apply to all vegetation treatments. 

See Appendix A to the LRMP for rationale for choice of vegetation management practices on the ANF. 

Two general assumptions are made in the discussion of effects. First, it is assumed that deer populations 

will continue to be maintained at the lower levels achieved in recent years (see affected environment 

discussion on deer herbivory and interfering plants). If deer populations were to increase, or to be variable 

from year to year, efforts to establish seedlings and eventual stand regeneration success might be less than 

what is indicated here. Interfering vegetation already established on most of the ANF due to a legacy of 

deer browsing impacts (see affected environment) will still need treatment when the objective includes 

establishment of tree seedling regeneration. Second, it is assumed that when regeneration treatments are 

prescribed, the full complement of treatments needed to achieve regeneration success will be applied, and 

that additional reforestation treatments could occur if monitoring indicates the need. 

Effects of harvest

Timber harvest activities occur in stands where silvicultural objectives are met through the 

removal of trees that have commercial value. The quantity and quality of trees to be removed is 

determined by the silvicultural treatment being applied in a given stand. Harvesting removes the 

main portion (bole) of the tree from the site. Trees removed in harvested areas vary in size from 

smaller pole-sized trees that are utilized for pulp or chipping, to larger sawtimber sized trees of 

high quality. The trees to be removed within individual harvest units are determined at the project 

level, and is guided by the silvicultural objectives for the harvest treatment. Tops of trees are left 

on the site, increasing the dead and down material component (small diameter) in the short run 

and increasing the number of low perches for wildlife. Since most of the nutrients in the trees are 

in the leaves, branches, stump and roots, leaving these portions of trees on site will help maintain 

nutrient cycling processes and soil fertility. Since some merchantable dying trees might be 

removed, there may be fewer snags on harvested sites than in stands that do not receive a harvest. 

Salvage harvest

Salvage harvest recovers the economic value of dead and damaged trees, in response to tree 

mortality, tree decline, or tree damage from insects, disease or catastrophic events. Salvage 

harvest involves the removal of dead, dying, damaged, or high-risk trees that would die within the 

next 5 to 10 years. The direct effect of salvage harvest is primarily limited to those effects 

associated with the removal of woody material from the site. Effects to species composition, 

stand density and structure are the direct effect of the agent causing tree mortality and would 

occur whether or not the salvage harvest occurs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-112 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Research (Marquis et al. 1992) suggests that when sites fall below 40 percent density in 

acceptable trees they should be considered for regeneration treatments because the overstory 

becomes too sparse and cannot fully utilize the site’s resources such as water and nutrients. When 

the density of healthy trees in a stand is below 40 percent stand conditions are generally assessed 

to determine what kinds of reforestation treatments are needed to help regenerate the stand. Either 

even-aged or uneven-aged methods could be used, depending on management area direction and 

stand conditions. Remaining healthy trees are used to facilitate re-establishment of the new stand, 

through acting as a seed source and providing shelter for seedlings to become established. 

Healthy trees may be removed in subsequent harvest actions once adequate seedlings develop. 

Even-aged management 

Even-aged management results in the development of stands that are of similar age and mostly of 

size. Tree species that are shade intolerant (black cherry, white ash, yellow poplar) or midtolerant (red maple, birch, basswood and others) grow well under these conditions. Tree species 

that are shade tolerant (hemlock, beech, sugar maple and others) are often a minor component in 

stands managed as even-aged. Roach (1972) determined that clearcutting (and therefore 

shelterwood removal cutting) resulted in better stocking, a greater diversity of species, a higher 

proportion of intolerant species, and a faster growing new stand than any other method. This is 

largely influenced by deer browsing impacts on the ANF. Soil drainage, animal damage, and 

other environmental factors also influence which trees will eventually occupy the site. Site 

capability, particularly site nutrients, also plays a role in what trees are found on a specific site. 

Though even-aged management results in stands with trees largely the same size, on the ANF, 

variation does exist in the size of trees the same age due to variations in the growth of individual 

tree species. This results in some vertical structure within even-aged stands on the ANF. Across 

larger landscapes, the application of even-aged silviculture creates horizontal (age class) diversity 

and spatial heterogeneity of forest ecosystems due to differences in vegetation age and sizes 

between stands. An even-aged forested landscape would contain a mosaic of seedling/sapling, 

poletimber, sawtimber, and old growth stands, scattered across the landscape. The mix of 

vegetative conditions found in a balanced even-age landscape provides for more diversity of 

wildlife habitats than the mix of conditions found across a landscape managed primarily as 

uneven-aged (DeGraaf 1987). 

Clearcutting, shelterwood seed cut/removal cutting, and two-aged harvesting are all even-aged 

regeneration methods. The removal of the overstory trees results in a flush of understory 

vegetation and rapid growth and development of tree seedlings, shrubs and herbaceous understory 

vegetation. Mature trees are replaced by young seedlings, with corresponding changes in stand 

age. ANF monitoring data shows that reforestation success rates have ranged from 94 percent to 

96 percent for areas treated with scheduled clearcut and shelterwood removal harvests between 

1996 and 2001 (USDA FS 2004c). In nearly all cases, areas managed using even-aged 

silvicultural systems retain trees that serve as biological and structural legacies of the stand over 

the long term. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-113

Shelterwood seed cut/removal cut with reserves

The shelterwood method is a multiple-step regeneration harvest where approximately one-third of 

the overstory is removed in the initial or shelterwood seed cut to encourage tree seedling 

development. The purpose of the shelterwood seed cut is to leave mid-sized, seed bearing tree, 

while removing enough trees to provide at least 50 percent sunlight on the forest floor for 

seedling development. Many of the trees removed will be pole-sized understory trees. These 

smaller trees, predominantly pulp material, are important to remove in order for adequate sunlight 

to reach the forest floor. Once adequate tree seedlings develop, usually in 3 to 15 years, but 

sometimes as late as 20 years, the second step called the shelterwood removal cut would occur. In 

the removal cut, nearly all of the overstory trees that were left as a seed source are removed, 

allowing full sunlight to reach established seedlings, resulting in rapid growth and development 

of tree seedlings, shrubs and herbaceous understory vegetation (Horsley et al.1994, p. 223-224). 

Residual trees that include snags, den trees, conifer, mast species and uncommon species are 

retained following harvest. This treatment results in the development of primarily shadeintolerant tree species, with lesser amounts of mid-tolerant species, and some shade-tolerant 

species. 

Clearcut with reserves 

Clearcutting is used on sites where it is desirable to establish tree seedling regeneration, and 

results in the development of primarily shade-intolerant tree species. Clearcutting is a 

regeneration method used to establish even-aged stands whereby all trees except residuals (snags, 

den trees, conifer, mast species and uncommon species) are removed in one harvest. It is 

normally used where adequate tree seedlings are already present on the forest floor (Horsley et al.

1994, pp. 219 and 221), where established sapling or small pole regeneration exists, or in areas 

with high potential to develop new stems from stump sprouts, buried seed, or seeds produced on 

the site (Roach 1972). Removal of the overstory trees allows full sunlight to reach the forest floor, 

resulting in rapid growth of tree seedlings, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation (Horsley et al. 1994, 

p. 223-224). 

Two-aged shelterwood seed cut/two-aged harvest

A two-aged shelterwood seed cut treatment, followed by a two-aged harvest, is used on sites 

where it is desirable to establish tree regeneration and there is an opportunity to increase the 

seedling component to achieve wildlife, riparian and/or age-class diversity objectives while 

maintaining two age classes on the site (Horsley et al.1994, p. 223-224, Stout 1994, p. 360). This 

treatment has less visual change and maintains a more diverse vertical stand structure as 

compared to a more traditional even-aged final harvest (Miller et al. 1995). 

Some uncertainty exists about the long-term results of two-aged management. Concerns exist 

about the feasibility of removing the second age class in 40 years due to the potential for these 

large-crowned trees to damage the small-crowned trees which would have been left as residuals. 

Research completed in areas that received a two-aged harvest twenty years ago indicates that 

residual overstory trees from original stand can have substantial influence over species 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-114 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

composition and growth of second age class (seedlings from original two-aged harvest). Miller et 

al. (2004) found that after 20 years, the crowns of the residual overstory trees had expanded by 

nearly 80 percent and collectively covered almost half of the stand area. They also noted 

significantly slower diameter and height growth for trees located under the canopy of residual 

overstory trees, and differences in the distribution of shade-intolerant and tolerant seedlings. With 

this treatment, regeneration of shade-intermediate and tolerant species such as red maple, beech, 

and birch is anticipated- particularly under residual overstory trees. Conditions for shadeintolerant regeneration such as yellow poplar, black cherry and ash would be maintained in the 

openings away from residual overstory trees, or less than half of the stand area. It may be 

necessary to gradually reduce the number of residual trees in order to maintain sufficient light 

levels for the new age class. 

Intermediate thinning 

Intermediate thinnings are designed to reduce stocking in highly stocked stands in order to 

enhance residual tree survival or to concentrate growth on the best trees, as well as harvest trees 

which are of poor quality or at risk of dying during the next 5 to 10 years. The harvest activity 

results in stands that are composed primarily of larger diameter trees with healthy crowns and 

adequate growing space, with many harvested trees coming from the smaller diameter classes 

(with a substantial pulp component). 

Where deer populations are high, thinning may result in the development of fern understories and 

undesirable understory plants (Marquis 1994, p. 253), potentially resulting in the need for 

herbicide application in the future if regeneration harvests are considered. However, the 

understory vegetation found in most areas on the ANF is already dominated by fern, grass, beech 

and striped maple, therefore the potential for increased undesirable understory vegetation as a 

result of intermediate thinning is low (see affected environment, deer herbivory and interfering 

plan section). 

Thinnings may also be used to help accelerate development of mature forest conditions in 

selected stands as described by Runkle (1991) and Singer and Lorimer (1997). This is an 

intermediate thinning that would remove approximately 20 percent of the trees overall, and be 

applied in a non-uniform manner to emulate the heterogeneity presently found in old growth 

forests as described by Franklin and VanPelt (2004). Some trees would receive complete crown 

release, while others would not be thinned around at all. This treatment would reduce canopy 

density to more rapidly develop larger diameter trees with enlarged crowns than would occur over 

time without intervention, as well as introduce more complex structure to the stand as the 

intensity of thinning will vary. It is designed to mimic small sized natural disturbances, where 

cutting would be a surrogate for competition-induced mortality. 

Uneven-aged management

Within individual treated stands, uneven-aged management results in the development of trees 

that are of varying age and size class, with at least three age classes present. A number of partial 

harvests are applied in a stand managed under an uneven-aged system, and every regeneration 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-115

entry has the objective of establishing a new age class (Stout 1994, p. 333). In some cases an 

improvement cut might be applied in areas where seedling regeneration is not an objective, in 

order to improve stand quality and transition the structure towards that of an uneven-aged forest. 

The1986 Forest Plan provided what can be interpreted to be conflicting information concerning 

harvest activities on poorly drained soils (Group 3). Page 4-23 of the 1986 Forest Plan (USDA FS 

1986b) stipulated that uneven-aged management should be used on poorly drained soils (Group 

3) to prevent regeneration failures. Conversely, page 4-87 of the 1986 Forest Plan stated that 

uneven-aged management may be an option on inclusions in Management Area 3.0, such as 

riparian areas, wet soils, or visually sensitive areas, and that its use would be based on individual 

site analysis. Since implementation of the 1986 Forest Plan, uneven-aged regeneration methods 

have been much less successful in establishing adequate seedling regeneration than even-aged 

regeneration methods. Uneven-aged regeneration methods have only been 52 percent successful 

in establishing adequate seedling regeneration compared to 95 percent success rate for even-aged 

regeneration methods on all soil groups (USDA FS 2002, p. 23). A recent analysis (unpublished 

data analysis 2005) revealed that even-aged regeneration methods were 86 percent successful in 

establishing adequate seedling regeneration on poorly drained soils (Group 3), a greater success 

rate than that achieved through uneven-aged regeneration methods on all soils groups (52%) 

(USDA FS 2002 p. 23). Additionally, uneven-aged management, which would require entry to 

stands every 15 to 20 years, would likely result in additional compaction from harvest equipment, 

compounding concerns about soil compaction on poorly drained soils. Consequently, direction in 

the revised Forest Plan allows for the use of either even-aged or uneven-aged silvicultural 

systems on all soil groups, provided soil quality and function is maintained (see 2500 Watershed 

and Air goals, and Soil standards and Guidelines in LRMP). Additionally, the revised LRMP 

regulates use of heavy equipment on poorly drained soils (Group 3 soils). Areas that have 

received uneven-aged silvicultural treatments in the past will continue to be monitored, and future 

entries for uneven-aged management will follow revised standards and guidelines relative to 

uneven-aged management in the LRMP. 

Uneven-aged stands are developed on the ANF through either single tree or group selection 

methods. Single tree selection in Alternative A (1986 Forest Plan direction) would result in 

openings up to one-quarter acre, and group selection openings up to one-half acre. Due to these 

small opening sizes, uneven-aged management in Alternative A, using either single tree or group 

selection would very strongly favor shade-tolerant species present on the ANF (sugar maple, 

beech, hemlock). These three species are presently subject to serious forest health concerns on the 

ANF. Additionally, with the exception of beech, limited success has been achieved in 

regenerating shade-tolerant sugar maple and hemlock on the ANF. Single tree selection in 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D results in openings of less than one half acre in the forest canopy, and 

also favors tree species that are shade tolerant (hemlock, sugar maple and American beech). 

Conversely, group selection in Alternatives B, Cm, and D would result in openings of one half to 

three acres, depending on the light requirements of trees comprising treated areas. This would 

allow for a greater range of tree species, including those more successfully regenerated in the past 

on the ANF and those moderately to less tolerant of shade (e.g. red maple, birches, oaks), to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-116 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

become established. The larger group sizes proposed in Alternatives B, Cm, and D would better 

maintain tree species diversity, including a component of species that comprise many dominant 

forest types present on the ANF today that are not tolerant to intermediately tolerant of shade. 

Soil drainage, site nutrient capability, animal damage, and other environmental factors also 

influence which trees would eventually occupy the site. 

Several concerns exist regarding the use of uneven-aged management on the ANF. Uneven-age 

management (particularly single tree selection) favors shade-tolerant species such as sugar maple 

(sensitive to site nutrients and subject to decline on nutrient poor sites), beech (subject to 

introduced beech bark disease complex), and eastern hemlock (subject to hemlock woolly 

adelgid). Serious questions remain on the effects of uneven-aged management on tree species 

composition, and subsequent forest health concerns, particularly under a single-tree selection 

system. 

There has been limited success in the application of uneven-aged management on the ANF 

(USDA FS 1998 pp. 18 and 86; USDA FS 2001d pp.16, 17, 76, 77; USDA FS 2002 p.23; Stout 

1994 pp. 333-334). Reforestation success with uneven-aged management (particularly single tree 

selection) has been very marginal on the ANF (37% adequately stocked with tree seedlings in 

2001), whereas results with even-aged management have been quite good (96% adequately 

stocked with tree seedlings in 2001) (USDA FS 1998, pp. 17-18 and 86; Table 16 in reforestation 

program effectiveness subsection, USDA FS 2002, p.21-23). This limited success can be largely 

attributed to two factors: deer browsing impacts, and group opening sizes that were limited to less 

than one half acre under 1986 Forest Plan direction. 

Considerable new information has emerged since the 1986 Forest Plan on the subject of unevenaged silviculture. Perhaps the most relevant information is that reported by Nyland (2003) who 

synthesizes a great deal of silvicultural research to focus attention on the problem of practicing 

uneven-aged silviculture in even-aged stands. Most stands on the ANF are even-aged, resulting 

from turn of the 19th century cutting (Marquis 1975). So, most uneven-aged management 

practiced during the foreseeable future will involve treatments designed to make the transition 

from an even-aged condition to an uneven-aged condition (Stout 1994, p. 334). Nyland (2003) 

recommends a series of selection cuts where uneven-aged stand structures are consistent with 

management objectives, and suggests that effective conversion may take as long as a century. 

These cuts seem particularly important for the ANF, where research has shown that advance 

regeneration is key to successful reforestation (Grisez and Peace 1973). Further, Nyland 

recommends that where forest management objectives require retention of shade-intermediate and 

intolerant species, these conversion cuts should include creation of patches with diameters 2 or 

more times the height of adjacent trees (Nyland 2003). Dale and others (1995) found that 

numbers of trees per acre (both total and of intolerant trees) increased steadily as distance from 

the edge of openings increased through openings about 3 acres in size. They found that there was 

a detectable suppression of growth up to 100 feet into the openings. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-117

Both single tree selection and group selection prescriptions can be used to achieve many 

landscape level objectives. Either single tree selection or group selection can also be applied in 

riparian areas or in areas where late structural characteristics are desired. These can be used to 

hasten stand development processes and initiate understory development, create gaps, multiple 

age classes, multi-layered canopies, irregular canopy cover, larger trees, down woody material, 

and vertical structure earlier than would occur naturally, as described by Nyland (pers. comm.

1998, 2004), Litvaitis (2003), Jenkins et al. (2004), Crow et al. (2002), Goerlich and Nyland, 

(2000), Franklin (2001), and Runkle (1985). 

Area fencing will likely be required in most stands treated with uneven-aged management. 

Seedlings can be subjected to browsing by deer for longer periods of time as compared to those 

under even-aged management due to the slower development and growth that occurs in the 

understory (Stout 1994, p. 334). In recent years, browsing intensity has decreased on the ANF, 

but understory response lags behind the deer population drop (deCalesta 2005). Assuming deer 

populations remain low, improved success with uneven-aged management on the ANF is 

anticipated. 

Uneven-aged management results in the development of greater vertical structure than even-aged 

management, and multiple age classes within treated stands. Uneven-aged management retains 

high forest canopy and does not create large blocks of early seedling-sapling stages. Horizontal 

diversity may develop within stands, however the diversity between stands (as would develop 

with the application of even-aged management) does not occur. If group selection is applied 

across larger landscapes, minor horizontal diversity would develop over time. 

Group selection

Group selection is an uneven-aged regeneration technique that involves harvesting trees in small 

groups, as well as harvesting individual trees between the groups (Stout 1994, p. 333). Generally, 

entries occur every 15-20 years, however longer periods of time (perhaps as long as 40 years) 

between entries could also occur where older trees are desired. Alternative A would utilize group 

sizes up to one-half acre in all forest types. In Alternatives B, Cm, and D the size of group 

openings differs by forest type, with the intent of regenerating a diversity of tree species, 

including shade-intolerant (e.g. black cherry, yellow poplar, ash, northern red oak) and midtolerant (e.g. red maple, birch, cucumber) species. See Appendix A of the LRMP, Vegetation 

Management Practices – Rationale for Choice, for more detail. The following group opening 

sizes would occur in Alternatives B, Cm, or D under group selection: 

• Upland hardwoods: 1 to 3 acres 

• Northern Hardwoods: 0.5 to 2 acres 

• Hemlock: 0.5 to 2 acres 

• Allegheny hardwoods: 2 to 3 acres 

• Oak hardwood: 1 (chestnut and white oaks) to 3 (northern red oaks) acres 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-118 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Large patch sizes could have value in establishing a mosaic of age classes and maintaining 

greater species diversity at a landscape scale (Nyland 2003). Groups would occupy up to 15 

percent to 20 percent of a stand to provide adequate sunlight conditions on the ground to enable 

the establishment, development and growth of a diversity of seedlings. Because a mature 

overstory would continue to predominate on most of the stand, group selection would provide 

habitat for primarily mid to late-structural wildlife species. 

Most of the tree seedlings that will thrive within these groups will likely be of intermediate shade 

tolerance (Stout 1994, p. 334). Over the long term, red maple, birch, and other mid-tolerant 

species would dominate most openings, while some shade-intolerant species such as yellow 

poplar and black cherry would persist in the center of the larger openings. Shade tolerant species 

(hemlock, beech, sugar maple) would dominate the edges of the openings. The shade-intolerant 

and some shade mid-tolerant trees that develop in the shadier portion of the opening are expected 

to either die or be of poor form or quality. Over the long-term, this shift in species composition 

may substantially reduce the quality and value of future hardwood products in stands consisting 

primarily of shade-intolerant species where uneven-aged management is applied. Over extended 

periods of time, some forest type conversions would occur – with Allegheny hardwoods tending 

to shift to upland hardwood, and upland hardwoods tending to shift to northern hardwood. 

Applying group selection as opposed to single tree selection has the added benefit of allowing 

seedlings to develop in concentrated groups without the reoccurring need to apply herbicide in the 

groups. 

Single tree selection

Single tree selection is designed to remove individual trees, creating very small gaps in the 

canopy and favoring primarily establishment of tree seedlings tolerant of shade, eventually 

leading to a decline in species diversity because the light conditions favor relatively few species 

(Miller and Smith 1993, Miller and Kochenderfer 1998). Single tree selection cuts perpetuate 

shade tolerant tree species, such as hemlock, sugar maple, or American beech that generally are 

of lower commercial value (Stout 1994, p. 330). Stands receiving this treatment are expected to 

develop increasing amounts of American beech. Planned openings created generally do not 

exceed 0.5 acre. As shade–tolerant species generally have lower growth rates and lower 

commercial value, single-tree selection will lead to an eventual reduction in economic returns 

from commodity products as the proportion of shade-intolerant species declines (Miller and 

Kochenderfer 1998). When a series of such cuts are each successful, they promote development 

of a stand with many different age classes, i.e., an uneven-aged stand. Each selection cut, 

generally 15 to 20 years apart, is designed to create small temporary gaps in the forest canopy. 

The length of time between entries could be longer (perhaps as long as 40 years where specific 

structural objectives would benefit from longer time between entries). This increases the amount 

of sunlight that reaches the forest floor, causing seeds to germinate and stumps to sprout. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-119

There is uncertainty related to the long-term use of single tree selection due to the anticipated 

need for herbicides in subsequent entries and the impact that herbicides would have on seedlings 

and saplings that develop slowly under partial shade of the selection system (Stout 1994, p. 334). 

There are also continued forest health concerns with the tree species (beech, sugar maple, 

hemlock) that would dominate areas managed under the single tree selection method. 

The long-term effect of single tree selection is to create relatively little horizontal diversity 

between stands across the landscape. However, if deer browsing is controlled, vertical vegetative 

diversity within each stand is high. Deer browsing and interfering plants can have a dramatic 

effect on the success of uneven-aged silviculture. Appropriate reforestation practices must be 

prescribed to ensure reforestation success at every entry. 

Effects of reforestation treatments

In a healthy, sustainable forest ecosystem, tree seedlings, herbaceous vegetation, and shrubs 

develop naturally whenever suitable light conditions are created on the forest floor. In both evenaged and uneven-aged management systems, the use of reforestation treatments to help stimulate 

the germination and growth of seedlings is commonplace. While there are several reasons why 

seedling development is difficult to achieve on the ANF, local research has provided management 

techniques that can be used for successful stand regeneration (Horsley et al. 1994, pp. 207-215; 

USDA FS 1995a, p. 26). 

Silvicultural guidelines for hardwood regeneration on the Allegheny Plateau recommend that in 

areas with heavy deer browsing, abundant seedlings must be present before the final harvest 

(Horsley 1982; Bjorkbom and Walters 1986; Horsley et al.1994, p. 220-223). Most of the 

reforestation treatments discussed here can be used in either even-aged or uneven-aged systems. 

In either case the purpose of the treatments is to promote the development of a diversity of 

desired tree seedlings, herbaceous vegetation, and shrubs. They are particularly important on sites 

where conditions favorable for seedling development are not found. 

Initial identification of the need for reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments is 

based on existing or anticipated conditions within individual stands. Stands are monitored 

throughout the regeneration process to determine if seedlings are developing as planned and 

whether or not treatment modifications are needed to respond to changed conditions. 

Herbicide application

Herbicide treatment is an important reforestation tool for both even-aged and uneven-aged 

management and has been used on the ANF since 1987. Interfering, invasive vegetation is present 

on most ANF understories due to a legacy of deer browsing impacts (see affected environment, 

deer herbivory and interfering plants section), and requires the use of herbicides as a site 

preparation technique in stands where establishing seedling regeneration is desired. 

Herbicide treatments are proposed in stands that lack adequate numbers of tree seedlings and that 

contain a dense ground cover of grasses, fern, beech root suckers, striped maple, birch and other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-120 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

woody vegetation (Horsley et al. 1994, p. 214-216, 231-238) that interferes with desired tree 

seedling establishment and growth. 

Treatments would occur on sites where we are trying to establish new tree seedlings in order to 

perpetuate well-stocked forest cover, enhance vegetative structure, restore forest understory 

conditions, improve wildlife habitat, establish regeneration under an uneven-aged or two-aged 

system, or where final harvest activities are planned to establish young, even-aged stands. 

(Horsley et al.1994, p. 215-216). It may also be used to prepare sites for planting, to create or 

maintain wildlife openings, create snags for wildlife, conserve heritage sites, create or maintain 

scenic vistas, maintain electric fences, and remove non-native invasive species. Sulfometuron 

methyl or glyphosate (or a combination of the two) is used during the latter part of the growing 

season (mid-July through mid-September) to control interfering vegetation where the objective is 

to sustain forest cover (Horsley et al.1994 p. 232). A number of standards and guidelines listed in 

the LRMP help ensure safe and effective herbicide application. 

Glyphosate is particularly effective in removing root-origin beech sprouts resulting from 

mortality of overstory beech trees, which are themselves susceptible to the beech bark disease 

complex, and are preventing other tree seedlings from becoming established (Horsley et al.1994, 

p. 214-216, 231-238; Kochenderfer et al. 2001; Kochenderfer et al. 2004; Otrofsky and 

McCormack 1986). The beech bark disease complex results in significant beech mortality, with 

an understory response of increased beech root sprouting, and an increase in the amount of 

susceptible beech stems in affected areas, potentially leading to a second beech bark disease 

outbreak of more serious impact than the first (Otrofsky and McCormack 1986). A strategy to 

sustain resistant beech trees on the ANF includes removing trees that are susceptible to the 

disease complex, while retaining those that appear resistant to the disease complex as suggested 

by Burns and Houston (1987) and Mielke et al. (1986). Following a period of time for beech root 

sprouts to develop, foliar glyphosate treatments are applied to reduce the abundance of beech 

sprouts. This creates growing space for diverse tree seedling regeneration, including resistant 

beech sprouts and seedlings that will develop around resistant beech trees retained in harvest 

treatment areas. These resistant beech seedlings and sprouts can then develop with little 

competition from stems of susceptible beech trees. This is part of an LRMP research need (see 

table 16 in the monitoring section of the LRMP). Experience on the ANF in the use of foliar 

glyphosate treatments has not provided any evidence of translocation of glyphosate from treated 

understory foliage to other, larger beech trees. 

The primary method of applying herbicide to date on the ANF has been through ground-based 

broadcast spray equipment. Some manual foliar application methods have also been used. Manual 

application methods can be more target specific, but are far less efficient in treating larger areas. 

In addition to the ground-based broadcast and manual spray method of application, three cut 

surface treatments could occur – cut stump, cut and frill, and injection application methods. They 

are very target specific, and would utilize glyphosate herbicide to treat a variety of hardwood 

trees and other woody vegetation interfering with the establishment of desirable tree seedlings. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-121

The cut-stump method is an alternative to treating numerous undesirable small beech stems, as 

only larger cut “parent” stumps would be selectively treated. This is because Glyphosate is 

readily translocated from the surfaces of freshly cut beech stumps via parent root systems (unlike 

foliar glyphosate treatments), to attached root-origin stems. These root-origin stems are clones of 

“parent” trees that are susceptible to beech bark disease. The targeted tree to remove would be cut 

and the stump treated with glyphosate (Kochenderfer et al. 2006). Tree injection or cut and frill 

methods involve the application of herbicide to standing trees through small incisions in the bark. 

These methods reduce damage to desirable residual trees and provide standing dead wood for 

wildlife. Kochenderfer et al. (2001) observed some damage to desirable trees of the same species 

being treated through injection of glyphosate, most likely from translocation of herbicide through 

root grafts. Forestwide standards and guidelines address this concern for both cut and frill, and 

injection methods. 

Abundant tree seedlings, shrubs and forbs have the opportunity to develop beginning the first 

growing season after herbicide application (USDA FS 1991a, pp. 4-13 and 4-14). A wider range 

of plant communities could be expected to occupy the understory of treated areas (Horsley 1994, 

Ristau et al. pers. comm. 2005). Herbicide does not affect the viability of seed stored in the forest 

floor. Elimination of understory interference permits a larger variety of plants to occupy the area 

that are present at the time of treatment. Hardwood seedlings such as red maple, northern red oak, 

black cherry, yellow poplar, and birch are often found on the site the growing season following 

treatment. If deer browsing is low, eventually witch hazel, dogwood, elderberry, and hobblebush 

may become established in the treatment area, providing food, cover, and nesting sites for a 

variety of wildlife. Where deer browsing impacts are high, and fencing is used in conjunction 

with herbicide application, an even greater diversity of understory plants and tree seedlings would 

occupy the sites (Ristau pers. comm. 2005). 

Recent research completed on the ANF found that herbicide application temporarily reduced the 

average number of species found, but after 3 years the numbers returned to pre-treatment levels, 

and after 5 years there was higher diversity and lower single species dominance in treated areas 

(Ristau pers. comm. 2005). The treatments rarely remove every individual of the dominant 

species. 

Individual non-target plants within specific project sites may be injured or killed by herbicide 

application. The degree to which herbicides affect non-target plants varies by herbicide, time of 

year applied, and method of application. Glyphosate will kill most tree seedlings and shrubs 

which have green leaves at the time of spraying. Sulfometuron methyl will not harm, or may 

cause only slight damage to many of the tree seedlings present on the site if applied after 

September 1 (Horsley 1988, Horsley et al. 1992). 

If adequate numbers of seedlings of sufficient size and desirable species that would achieve 

regeneration objectives are present in an area, herbicide treatment is unnecessary. However, some 

areas contain some or a diversity of seedlings to merit saving, but not enough to establish a new 

stand. Where tree seedlings are present in the understory and the competing vegetation is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-122 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

primarily ferns or grass, spraying after September 1 with sulfometuron methyl would control the 

interfering vegetation without harming most of the tree seedlings. There is less impact on red 

maple, yellow poplar, white ash, and oak than on black cherry and some other species from 

sulfometuron methyl applied late in the season (Horsley 1988, Horsley et al. 1992). 

There may be rare instances where respraying of an area would be necessary in a subsequent 

year. There would be no impacts on overstory vegetation from the additional herbicide 

application. For more information refer to the updated herbicide risk assessment (Appendix G1, 

p.G1-17). 

Areas will be closely monitored through understory vegetation surveys to determine if herbicide 

application is necessary depending on interfering vegetation abundance and seedling stocking. 

Discussion of the potential effects of herbicide application on aquatic and terrestrial communities 

can be found in Chapter 4 of the ANF Understory Vegetation Management FEIS (USDA FS 

1991a, pp. 4-1 to 4-18), in Appendix G2 of this document (updated risk assessments), and in the 

soils, hydrology, plant and animal communities, and human health sections of this document 

(Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, and 3.4.8 respectively). In addition, the 1992 Understory 

Management EA appeal decision letter (USDA FS 1992c) provides a summary of effects to nontarget organisms. 

Wildlife species are mainly affected by habitat shifts, rather than from any direct affect of the 

spray mixture. The immediate effect of removing the dense ground vegetation layer will be 

temporarily decreased habitat for some wildlife species (e.g. voles) that utilize this shrub layer, 

while increasing habitat for other species (e.g. mice) (Stoleson pers. comm. 2005). As understory 

vegetation becomes established in treated areas, this habitat component will be re-established. 

Potential effects to wildlife from the herbicide application itself are evaluated in the updated 

wildlife risk assessment (see Appendix G2). More than a decade of herbicide treatments and 

monitoring on the ANF has shown that a diverse understory of woody and herbaceous species reinhabit the site within two or three growing seasons (USDA FS 1998, pp. 21-24, 73-74; Ristau 

pers. comm. 2005). 

Public concern over the health risks of herbicides continues. Appendix G displays updated risk 

assessments for human health and wildlife. 

Herbicide application amounts proposed in various alternatives are the upper limit of what would 

be required to ensure the success of all treatments where establishment of seedlings and restoring 

understory conditions is an objective. The amount of herbicide application that would actually 

occur in each alternative is likely to be less than that proposed. The final decision to apply 

herbicide will be made by site specific project decisions, and will be based on actual vegetation 

and environmental conditions at that time within proposed treatment areas, along with site 

specific mitigation measures. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-123

Fertilizer

This treatment is used to accelerate the growth of natural seedling regeneration and occurs 

primarily in the Allegheny hardwood type or where the great majority of seedlings are black 

cherry since other tree species do not respond to it as well (Auchmoody 1982; Horsley et al.1994, 

p. 234-236). This treatment generally is used only after the final harvest cut is complete, and 

normally only on unfenced stands that are more susceptible to deer browsing. Use on plateau and 

upper sideslopes will be limited to minimize loss of soil base cations. Fertilization generally 

involves the aerial or ground application of nutrients on existing seedlings, usually during the 

month of May or June. The formulation used on the ANF contains 200 pounds of nitrogen and 43 

pounds of phosphorous per acre (Auchmoody 1982; Horsley et al. 1994, p. 236). The immediate 

result is growth of a dense thicket of tree seedlings, primarily black cherry, that are tall enough to 

escape being browsed by deer. These seedlings naturally thin themselves, though some may also 

require a release treatment (see below) to help maintain tree species diversity on the site. 

New information, however, suggests a risk that addition of nitrogen based fertilizers on plateau, 

upslope and shoulder sites on the ANF can exacerbate loss of soil nutrients (Bailey et al. 2005, 

Hutchinson et al. 1998). Recent research conducted on the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau indicate 

that changes in soil chemistry have occurred on the Allegheny Plateau in the past 30 years, 

consistent with changes that occur as a result of atmospheric deposition of sulfates and nitrates 

(Bailey et al. 2005). In accord with the results of Hutchinson et al. (1998), we assume that 

nitrogen applied in fertilizer has similar effects on soil nutrient status as nitrogen added from 

atmospheric deposition. Following fertilization, the nitrogen in the applied fertilizer acidifies soil 

resulting in displacement of base cations (e.g. calcium and magnesium). As the wave of 

displacement moves down through the soil profile, base cations move out of the rooting zone and 

making nutrients unavailable to trees. In the short term, this is a particular problem for species 

that either have a requirement for these base cations, or are responsive to them (e.g. sugar maple, 

basswood and white ash). Consequently, new guidelines exist in the LRMP to limit application of 

nitrogen-based fertilizer, particularly on plateau, shoulder, and upper backslope landforms. 

Area fencing or individual tree fencing

Area fencing is used in locations where deer browsing impacts are high to exclude deer from a 

site and reduce the amount of browsing that occurs on desirable vegetation. Fenced areas develop 

taller seedling regeneration and higher seedling stocking with more desirable species where 

adequate light exists, as opposed to unfenced areas (Bjorkbom and Walters, 1986). A dense layer 

of seedlings, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation has been shown to develop inside fenced areas if 

adequate light exists and there are few interfering plants. Experience on the ANF shows that 

where a variety of tree species exist, area fencing can also greatly increase herbaceous and woody 

plant species diversity and abundance, as well as improve future stand structure (Horsley et al.

1994, pp. 236-238). Many areas managed under uneven-aged systems, or treatments designed to 

restore forest understories will need to be fenced for very long time periods, resulting in some 

large investments to achieve structural objectives. Fencing can also result in additional birch and 

pin cherry seedlings that rapidly overtop other tree species (Horsley et al. unpublished 1998), 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-124 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

sometimes resulting in the need for release in order to ensure a diversity of species dominate the 

future stand. Fencing has limitations in its practicality when roads or other travel corridors bisect 

areas in the process of regeneration. Fencing is an important treatment in both even-aged and 

uneven-aged management. 

In some tree or shrub planting areas, small woven-wire fences around clumps of planted stock 

(cribs) or protective plastic tree shelters are used to provide planted tree seedlings protection from 

deer browsing. 

Site preparation for natural regeneration and site preparation/striped maple cutting

This treatment is proposed to remove stems that would interfere with the development of a 

diversity of seedlings. It involves the cutting of mid-story beech, striped maple, birch, red maple, 

or other selected woody species in order to reduce shading and promote development of tree 

seedlings. These small trees are usually 5 to 30 feet tall. Sometimes site preparation occurs after 

the shelterwood removal or clearcut to reduce levels of interfering woody vegetation. 

Full and supplemental planting 

Tree seedlings are planted to help achieve several objectives: 1) to help establish tree seedlings in 

an area where natural regeneration has failed or is not attainable, 2) to help bring about a 

conversion of forest types (though this does not often occur on the ANF), and 3) to help achieve 

tree species diversity objectives in regenerating stands. Planting will increase the number and 

abundance of tree species on individual sites. Regionally, there will be no increase in the number 

of tree species because no new species will be introduced. Since planted stock is generally less 

than two feet in height, short-term benefits are limited to improvement in stocking and species 

diversity, and certification of stands as successfully re-established. However, over the long-term 

(>20 years), these treatments are expected to improve stand stocking, structure, and composition, 

as well as help to meet wildlife objectives through improved cover/forage and/or mast conditions 

in the treated stands. 

Mechanical scarification

Soil scarification is a site preparation technique designed to expose bare mineral soil to enhance 

the regeneration and establishment of tree seedlings, generally oaks or sometimes conifers. This 

treatment involves traversing the site with a small machine that rakes or otherwise disturbs the 

forest floor. The objective is to mix the forest floor and mineral soil surface, thereby increasing 

seed and mineral soil contact. In oak stands, this treatment also lightly buries acorns in the surface 

soils. 

Scarification has been shown to increase germination and survival of various oak species because 

the acorns are hidden from predators, have optimal soil conditions upon germination, and reduced 

desiccation. Measurements the growing season after scarification indicated that oak responded to 

the treatment with three to 12 times the number of seedlings when compared to control areas 

(Zaczek et al. 1997; Lhotka and Zazcek 2003). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-125

Prescribed burning

Timely surface fires have been shown to increase oak seedlings and sprout densities. This gives 

the species the competitive advantage needed to ensure an oak component in the next stand 

(Brose et al. 1999a; Brose et al. 1999b). Prescribed fires would be used when species that 

interfere with oak regeneration such as birch, striped maple, and red maple are most susceptible 

to killing, and oak is not. The fires would generally be characterized as moderate to high intensity 

surface fires that consume the upper portions of the leaf litter. This treatment would occur several 

years after the shelterwood seed cut when the oak seedlings have had enough time to develop 

their root systems so they will rapidly resprout following fire. Larger oak seedlings/saplings are 

quite resistant to fire; the rootstocks are capable of sprouting numerous times (Brose et al., 

1999b). Other species such as maples, beech, and birches are not tolerant of fire, and are not 

capable of sprouting as vigorously as oak species. Multiple burns over a 10 year period may be 

necessary to build the competitive advantage needed for oak seedlings to reach the main canopy. 

Prescribed burning may also occur to prepare seedbeds for white pine or hemlock regeneration, 

though on a limited basis. 

Timber stand improvement 

Release

Release treatment involves the non-commercial, manual cutting of tall-growing woody vegetation 

(generally of seedling or sapling size) that interferes with the growth and survival of tree 

seedlings, saplings, or shrubs (either naturally occurring or planted) desired in areas generally 5- 

to 20-years old. Release can promote growth and survival of species not common on the site 

(such as aspen, oak, ash and cucumber) which are at risk of being killed by species that out-grow 

them, potentially increasing species richness on the site. Release is expected to improve tree 

species composition in the long term (USDA FS 1998, pp. 26 and 79; Marquis 1994b, pp. 269 

and 282). 

Precommercial thinning 

Precommercial thinning fells trees in a stand that is not old enough for a commercial treatment. 

Trees are left on site where they are felled. The objectives of the treatment are to control species 

composition, maintain stand diversity, improve stand quality, to improve mast production, to 

improve wildlife habitat, and to increase growth rates on the preferred trees. The optimum stand 

age for completing this treatment is 20 to 30 years. 

Noncommercial thinning

Noncommercial thinning is implemented to complete the silvicultural prescription where the 

optional pulpwood is not cut in the commercial timber sale, or to thin stands that are inaccessible 

or low in commercial value, in order to meet a variety of resource objectives. Felling trees helps 

control species composition, stand quality, and improves growth rates on the preferred trees. 

Trees are generally left on site and increase small woody debris on the forest floor. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-126 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Creation of permanent openings 

In these treatments, most of the woody vegetation would be removed, and the site seeded to native warm 

or cool season grasses for wildlife. These treatments would convert currently forested areas to permanent 

wildlife openings. In some cases herbicide application may be used to remove undesirable vegetation so 

higher quality herbaceous vegetation for wildlife can be seeded or planted. 

Effects on forest vegetation where no active management would occur 

Similar to areas that are actively managed, areas where no active management would occur are also 

anticipated to result in changes to forest structure, composition, and forest health. In general, forest types 

that are considered part of the northern hardwood group (Allegheny, upland and northern hardwoods), are 

anticipated to slowly transition towards tree species tolerant of shade, such as beech, hemlock, and sugar 

maple. In the long term, this has implications for forest health, as all of these species are presently subject 

to serious forest heath concerns. In unmanaged portions of the ANF where oak types dominate, a slow 

transition towards red maple and other hardwoods is anticipated over the long term. This has been 

identified as an LRMP monitoring item (see Table 16 in the LRMP). 

A discussed previously, some management areas on the ANF permit forest vegetation management, 

where others will not. Management areas 5.1, 5.2 (designated Wilderness and wilderness study areas), 6.3 

(Buzzard Swamp), 7.1, 7.2 (developed and remote recreation areas), 7.3 (interpretive recreation area), 8.1 

(wild and scenic river corridor), 8.2 (National Recreation Area), 8.3 (Scenic area), 8.5 (Research Natural 

Area), and 9.1 (managed with minimal investment; Alternative A only) emphasize other values and 

generally do not permit scheduled vegetation management. For all alternatives, in areas where no 

vegetation management would occur, changes in the character of vegetation will generally be the result of 

natural stand development processes, along with the effects of native and non-native invasive insects, 

diseases, and vegetation, rather than management activities. Age class distribution would remain the same 

in the short term. Changes currently taking place due to tree maturity or decline will continue. The rate of 

change will be set by the interaction of natural forces such as additional drought, native insect defoliations 

or diseases, windstorms, or human caused forces such as introduced insects and diseases or atmospheric 

deposition. 

The following discussion applies to all alternatives, as each of the alternatives would result in some 

proportion of the ANF allocated to management areas where scheduled forest vegetation management 

would not be permitted, though the amount varies by alternative. Alternative A would result in the least 

amount (8%) of the ANF allocated to areas where active management is not permitted, followed by 

Alternative B (22%), and Alternative Cm (26%). Alternative D would allocate the largest proportion 

(31%) of the ANF to areas where scheduled vegetation management would not occur. In these areas, this 

limits our ability to provide a diversity of age and structural classes, influence species composition, and 

proactively respond to forest health threats. The LRMP provides direction on the suitability of different 

management areas to be salvaged and associated reforestation activities applied (see Suitable Uses and 

Activities section of LRMP), including management areas that are not considered part of the suited land 

area for scheduled timber harvest. Of the area considered unsuited for scheduled forest vegetation 

management, Alternative A would allow 13 percent, Alternative B 70 percent, Alternative Cm 66 percent, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-127

and Alternative D 70 percent to be salvaged and treatments applied to reforest them. Salvage and 

reforestation treatments would occur to sustain forest health, respond to natural catastrophes, restore 

forest cover, or to achieve recreation or wildlife objectives. 

Herbivory (deer browsing impacts)

On the Allegheny Plateau, extensive and selective deer browsing has impeded the growth of 

seedlings and saplings, impacting natural regeneration and reforestation following natural or 

anthropogenic disturbances since the 1920s (Whitney 1984, Tilghman 1989, Jones et al. 1993, 

deCalesta 1994, Redding 1995, deCalesta 1998, Horsley et al. 2003). Browsing has greatly 

decreased the number of seedlings that are preferred as browse on the ANF, such as oaks, maples, 

cucumbertree, yellow poplar, hemlock, white pine, and birches. At the same time, species they 

prefer less, such as beech seedlings and suckers (which are susceptible to beech bark disease 

complex mortality), striped maple, fern and grass have increased in abundance. These species 

interfere with the establishment and survival of a diversity of seedlings on the ANF (Horsley et 

al. 2003). This raises concerns over the future sustainability of fully stocked, diverse forested 

ecosystems on the ANF where the LRMP permits little human intervention to control forest and 

ground vegetation structure, composition, and development. 

In areas where no vegetation management will occur, no new 0-10 age class would be created, 

resulting in a low deer carrying capacity and continued deer browsing impacts on understory 

vegetation. In these areas, a loss of biological diversity in plant species over the long term (>50 

years) is expected (Tilghman 1989, Jones et al. 1993, deCalesta 1994, Horsley et al. 2003) due to 

anticipated increases in deer browsing impacts. At the same time, interfering vegetation would 

continue to limit seedling development. 

In recent years, browsing intensity has decreased on the ANF, but interfering understories are 

already well established on most of the ANF as a result of past deer browsing, and lag in their 

response to recent reductions in deer herds (deCalesta 2005). With continued use of the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Deer Management Assistance Program, improvements in 

understory health and diversity may become evident with time, however, to what degree is 

uncertain. 

Canopy gaps and interfering plants

Over time, individual declining tops and dying trees would permit more sunlight to reach the 

forest floor through gaps in the canopy, encouraging expansion and growth of understory 

vegetation. Shade-tolerant seedlings that do develop would often be browsed and eaten by deer. 

Consequently, the understory vegetation would likely consist of grass, fern, beech, and striped 

maple in these areas. Trees that die will most likely not be replaced by similar species or, in many 

cases, by any species of vigorously growing tree seedlings that are capable of growing to replace 

them. Beech (subject to beech bark disease), striped maple (short-lived understory tree) and 

birches (subject to nectria fungus, often resulting in mechanical stem failure by age 60) can grow 

into the midstory and contribute toward vertical diversity and habitat structure. These are most 

likely the species that will provide vertical diversity in the long term. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-128 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tree seedling establishment and growth

Fern and grass vegetation will persist unless it becomes shaded by woody vegetation such as 

beech, striped maple, or sweet birch. Where present, this interfering woody vegetation would 

similarly control light as low shade, which would prevent many seeds from germinating or 

prevent most seedling species from becoming established. In addition, this vegetation will 

aggressively occupy the site. That makes conditions difficult for new seedlings to compete for 

moisture and soil nutrients. 

Forest health monitoring data collected in 1998-2001 indicates adequate tree seedlings are present 

on only slightly over 9 percent of the ANF, though forest health monitoring protocol only counts 

seedlings >12 inches tall (Morin et al. 2006) ( 

Table 3-22). 

American beech

Recent forest health monitoring data found American beech (subject to beech bark disease) to be 

more than twice as abundant as any species in both the seedling and sapling classes, with nearly 

as many stems/acre in each size class as all other species combined (Morin et al. 2006). It is 

likely American beech will dominate understory vegetation in many areas where no vegetation 

management would occur. 

Recent surveys completed in portions of the ANF where the BBD was first detected indicated a 

66 percent loss, due to mortality, of beech basal area greater than 6-inch diameter between 1991 

and 2003 (MacKenzie, unpublished 2005a). In New England where beech bark disease complex 

has been present and killing American beech for over 50 years, on the average half of the trees 

die, and only 1 percent of the trees appear immune to the complex (Houston 2005), though some 

will demonstrate partial resistance. 

Within gaps created by dead beech trees, beech thickets formed by prolific root sprouting can 

pose significant competition to other seedlings (Forrester et al. 2003; Hane 2003, Latty et al.

2003). Forrester et al. (2003) concluded that the slow death of canopy trees caused by beech bark 

disease complex and lack of soil disturbance does not appear to offer recruitment opportunities to 

shade intolerant and mid-tolerant species. Long-term data from the Hubbard Brook Experimental 

Forest has found that advanced beech regeneration has radically impacted the understory structure 

of the forest, and given high densities of beech saplings and low densities of sugar maple, beech 

is likely to take over many of the new gaps that are created (Hane 2003). 

As beech scale complex continues to spread within the ANF, individual beech and northern 

hardwood stands with concentrated pockets of beech will be affected by mortality of larger beech 

trees and subsequent root-sprout origin beech regeneration. As almost all beech seedlings are of 

root sprout origin, those that do develop into saplings and small poles are clones of susceptible 

parent trees and will also be affected by beech bark disease complex. The effects of beech bark 

disease prevent beech trees from growing to maturity and often results in early death. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-129

Additionally, the lack of mature trees and stress from the disease complex severely affects mast 

production. The disease complex spreads and persists more strongly where the density of the 

beech population increases, as would be the case where no vegetation management would occur. 

In the long-term, unmanaged areas with a substantial beech component affected by the disease 

complex would develop into an "aftermath forest", with slow-growing trees of low value and 

volume (Mielke et al. 1986). 

Birch

Sweet birch can withstand moderate to high deer pressure when it becomes established in 

quantity, and has been increasing in abundance in recent years on the ANF as deer browsing 

impacts have declined in some areas. Sweet birch is of intermediate shade tolerance and grows 

rapidly in partial or full sunlight. As birch matures and grows to sawtimber size on the ANF, it is 

often affected by nectria fungus and develops cankers in the main stem. The canker usually 

substantially reduces the commercial value of the trees and often results in mechanical failure 

(breakage) of the stem. Few birch trees on the ANF exceed 60 years of age (Morin et al. 2006). 

Striped maple

Striped maple is a relatively small and short-lived tree species. It persists well in shaded 

conditions and multiplies effectively. If released to full sunlight, it grows rapidly and aggressively 

for about 30 years. At this point it becomes susceptible to wind or ice damage. Many of these 

trees die due to mechanical failure (breakage) of their roots or stems. In this case the tree often resprouts prolifically from the root or stump and repeats the cycle. 

Summary of long-term understory and overstory change

Beech, striped maple and birch are the species that would likely dominate the understory, 

midstory, and, eventually, the overstory of much of the unmanaged forest. A general shift towards 

mixed upland and northern hardwoods is anticipated in many areas on the ANF over the longterm in areas that will not be actively managed. The relative mix of species present in these future 

upland hardwoods will shift, however, with a far greater proportion of birch species anticipated 

(which tend to only live 60 years on the ANF) than that present in mature upland hardwoods 

today. In areas with a large beech component, the future northern hardwoods are projected to 

have a much higher proportion of beech stems, which are subject to the beech bark disease 

complex, than that present in these northern hardwood stands today. Over the long-term, it is 

possible that the seed-producing overstory would decline to the point where inadequate amounts 

of seed will be produced for successful, diverse natural regeneration. At the same time, 

interfering vegetation would create poor seed germination conditions or would prevent seedlings 

from becoming established, while continued deer browsing impacts would result in browsing of 

what seedlings do manage to become established. When left alone, this form of vegetative 

succession tends to occur in patches rather than evenly across the landscape. That is, dense 

patches of fern, with a sparse overstory or no overstory, tend to appear within dense patches of 

striped maple, beech, or sweet birch. Open canopy areas would have a mixture of open grass and 

fern patches, dense mixed or monoculture sapling stands of blocks of striped maple, beech, or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-130 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

sweet birch. In summary, most forested areas on the ANF will transition towards northern or 

upland hardwoods or grass and fern or sapling dominated savannahs where active management 

does not occur. 

Oak ecosystems

Oak ecosystems on the ANF, are likely to transition to other hardwood species such as red maple 

in the absence of active management. It is believed that the occurrence of oak forests in the major 

drainages (Allegheny River, Clarion River, Tionesta Creek and others) is related to Native 

Americans use of fire (Ruffner et al. 1997, Ruffner and Abrams 2002, Black et al. 2006). Prior to 

European settlement of the area, Native American Indians set frequent to periodic low-intensity 

fires (11 to 26 year frequency) (Ruffner et al. 1997, Ruffner and Abrams 2002) that helped 

maintain the oak forest types present on the ANF today. Evidence suggests that this process of 

fire and oak recruitment occurred for hundreds and thousands of years, but was broken during the 

early 20th century following extensive settlement by Europeans (Abrams 2005). 

Current fire frequencies in the ANF are much lower than those during the pre-settlement period. 

Oak recruitment has nearly ceased in the past 50-100 years in much of the eastern U.S., and the 

lack of fire has allowed many other hardwoods, like red maple, to increase in numbers and size, 

dominating oak forest understories and creating dense shade on the forest floor (Abrams 2005). 

Consistent with Abrams’ observations, recent forest health monitoring in oak types on the ANF 

found red maple to be the most abundant seedling species, followed closely by American beech 

(Morin et al. 2006). This virtual absence of oak regeneration indicates that oak-dominated stands 

will likely transition to stands dominated by other species in areas where forest management is 

not permitted. 

Alternative D allocates the largest proportion (63%) of oak types on the ANF to management 

areas that exclude active management of forest vegetation, while Alternative A allocates the least 

amount (23%) of oak forest types on the ANF to management areas that exclude active vegetation 

management. Since the presence of oak is associated with overstory disturbance and understory 

fire (Brose et al. 1999b) to develop adequate advanced oak seedling regeneration that is 

competitive with other species (Miller et al. 2002, Brose et al. 1999a, 1999b), Alternative D 

poses the greatest risk to sustaining oak types on the ANF. Alternative Cm allocates that second 

largest proportion of oak types on the ANF to management areas that exclude active vegetation 

management. Most of the oak types that would not be managed in any of the alternatives occurs 

in areas where dispersed recreation values are emphasized, such as designated Wilderness and 

Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic River corridors, remote recreation areas, and National 

Recreation Areas. However, of the oak types considered unsuited for scheduled forest vegetation 

management, Alternative A would allow 93 percent, Alternative B 96 percent, Alternative Cm 89 

percent, and Alternative D 64 percent to have treatments applied to sustain forest health, respond 

to natural catastrophes, restore forest cover, or to achieve recreation or wildlife objectives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-131

Other influences

Change will vary depending on current and future stress levels in the trees in each stand, the 

amount of stocking and natural disturbances. Future stress events such as drought or insect 

defoliation may combine to result in future mortality and decline in unmanaged portions of the 

ANF where no action would occur to direct forest vegetation composition, structure, and 

development. Other influences on forest vegetation will continue to varying degrees, across all 

alternatives. These include the effects of beech bark disease, atmospheric deposition (acid rain), 

threats to forest health, and oil and gas development activities that fragment forested areas (see 

cumulative effects discussion). 

Effects from each alternative 

The following four key elements will be used to order the presentation of potential effects to forest vegetation 

under each alternative. The intensity and type of forest vegetation management can influence the other three 

elements. 

• Forest Composition 

• Forest Age and Stocking 

• Forest health 

• Forest Vegetation Management 

These elements provide a valuable comparison of effects on ANF forest vegetation, or the outcomes, from the 

combined vegetation management treatments within each alternative. They provide important indications of the 

condition of the forest vegetation on the ANF over the short-term (next twenty years), as it relates to the issues or 

concerns identified for plan revision. These short-term changes also can be used to help project what may happen 

over the long-term (next 50 to 100 years). 

Projections of silvicultural and reforestation activities, and forest composition (forest types) and structure (age 

class distribution) displayed in both direct/indirect and cumulative effects discussions were calculated by the 

SPECTRUM, model, using a combination of current conditions, predicted treatments, and management 

constraints. Appendix B of this FEIS provides more information on vegetation modeling using the SPECTRUM 

model. 

Alternative A of the LRMP is a continuation of the management direction contained in the 1986 Forest Plan. The 

desired condition for Alternative A is to sustain a mix of predominantly younger (0-20 years) and intermediate 

(21-140 years) forests, primarily through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. Older forest is sustained in 

largely disconnected patches across the ANF. Alternative A emphasizes sustaining Allegheny and oak hardwood 

types. 

Alternative B, similar to Alternative A, has a desired condition of sustaining younger (0-20 years old) and 

intermediate (21-140 years) forest, primarily through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. Alternative B 

also emphasizes Allegheny and oak hardwood types, but late structural conditions would be provided in a 

connected manner across the landscape, portions of which would be actively managed to accelerate restoration of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-132 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

late structural attributes, as well as provide an early structural component consistent with historic disturbance 

regimes on the Allegheny Plateau. 

The desired condition for Alternative Cm is to sustain a mix of younger (0-20 years), intermediate (21-140 years), 

and older (>140 years) forests in all forest types. Younger and intermediate forests would primarily be sustained 

through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. Older forest would be provided in a connected manner 

across the landscape, portions of which would be actively managed to accelerate restoration of late structural 

attributes, as well as provide an early structural component consistent with historic disturbance regimes on the 

Allegheny Plateau. 

The desired condition for Alternative D is to sustain primarily intermediate (21-140 years) and older (>140 years) 

forest conditions primarily in upland and northern hardwood types. Younger (0-20 years) forests would be 

sustained on 2-4 percent of the ANF landscape as a whole, consistent with historical disturbance regimes for the 

area (see discussion under Affected Environment of vegetation, natural disturbance section). Younger forest 

would be sustained primarily through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 3.0, with smaller components 

sustained in MAs 2.2 and 6.1. 

Alternatives A and B emphasize harvest of Allegheny and upland hardwood types in early decades, and other 

forest types in later decades. Alternative Cm emphasizes a mix of forest management in all forest types to provide 

both young and older forest ages, and includes greater silvicultural activity in northern hardwoods and poorly 

stocked stands. Alternative D emphasizes the application of uneven-aged and passive (no) management to sustain 

predominantly mid and late structural upland and northern hardwood forests on much of the ANF, primarily in 

later decades of the planning period. Uneven-aged management in portions of MA 2.2 in Alternatives B, Cm, and 

D would be applied to accelerate development and restoration of diverse forest understories and late structural 

vegetation conditions, along with even-aged management to sustain an early structural component. Other portions 

of MA 2.2 would be passively managed in all of these alternatives. The amount of land area available for active 

silvicultural treatments in MA 2.2 may change over time as newly constructed roads for private oil and gas could 

be added to the Forest Service system in the future. Uneven-aged timber harvest scheduling emphasizes repeated 

harvest entries in MAs 2.1 and 2.2. Shade intolerant and intermediate forest types such as Allegheny, upland, oak, 

and aspen hardwood forest types would primarily be maintained through even-aged management in MAs 1.0 and 

3.0, and to a lesser extent in MAs 6.1 and 2.2. The amount of land area allocated to each Management Area and 

predominant silvicultural system (including no active forest vegetation management) varies by alternative. 

Forest composition 

For the purpose of this analysis, forest types will be used to discuss species composition, diversity, potential 

effects of NNIS, and maintenance or restoration of forest health. The amount of each forest type under each 

alternative will be compared to the existing condition and may change by alternative depending on the amount 

and types of activity allowed under each Management Prescription. The desired condition relative to forest 

composition in Alternatives A, B, and Cm is that dominant forest types on the ANF continue to be upland and 

Allegheny hardwoods. northern hardwoods are sustained, though to a somewhat lesser extent. Oak is maintained 

primarily in older forests and regenerated through silvicultural practices and prescribed burning. In Alternative D, 

the desired forest composition includes sustaining a greater abundance of upland and northern hardwood types. 

However, given the impacts of beech bark disease, it should be acknowledged that untreated northern hardwood 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-133

stands with a substantial beech component will contain a greater beech component in the future forest, which is 

susceptible to the introduced beech bark disease. Additionally, northern hardwoods with a large beech component 

will be structurally different than those present today, and likely be comprised of scattered overstory trees with 

dense thickets of root-sprout origin beech as described by Latty et al. (2003). 

Table 3-25 displays the forest types predicted in each alternative in decades 1 and 2 of LRMP implementation. In 

the short term, or the next twenty years, oaks, northern hardwoods, hemlock, conifer, aspen, and mixed (less well 

stocked areas) forest types would be sustained at similar proportions to those found on the ANF today in all 

alternatives. Forest type changes take a number of years to occur, particularly in the absence of active 

management, depending on disturbances to forest canopies and understory vegetation conditions (including 

presence or absence of interfering vegetation and tree seedling species). Therefore forest types on the ANF are not 

anticipated to greatly change in the next two decades in any of the alternatives barring any catastrophic events. 

Reforestation practices would be implemented to encourage establishment and development of a diversity of tree 

species representative of overstory trees and existing forest types in all alternatives. 

Table 3-26 displays the forest types predicted to develop in forested areas in each alternative by decade 6 of 

LRMP implementation. In general, areas managed under uneven-aged regeneration methods or with no active 

management are anticipated to trend towards upland and northern hardwoods in the long term. Areas managed 

using even-aged methods would generally tend to maintain forest types present on the ANF today. This is because 

the majority of forest types found on the ANF are comprised of primarily shade-intolerant and intermediate 

species, which require even-aged silvicultural systems to best maintain them (see Appendix A to LRMP, 

Vegetation Management Practices- Rationale for Choice). By decade 6 of implementation, all alternatives are 

anticipated to reflect some shifts in the relative abundance of forest types found on the ANF today. All 

alternatives would result in increases in upland hardwoods, with corresponding decreases in Allegheny, oak, and 

northern hardwoods. This is primarily due to the amount of forest land that would not be actively managed in 

each alternative and the amount of uneven-aged management applied. Additionally, the species that dominate 

upland hardwoods, particularly sweet birch and red maple are moderately tolerant of shade, allowing them 

become established and survive in the growing space created through the death of individual or small groups of 

trees. The species that dominate the upland hardwood type are also presently subject to fewer forest health 

concerns than species dominating the northern hardwood type (beech, sugar maple, and hemlock). However, it 

should be noted that few birch trees on the ANF exceed 60 years of age (Morin et al. 2006) due to native fungus 

species. Alternatives Cm and D would result in the greatest increase in upland hardwoods, while Alternative D 

would result in the largest concurrent decrease in Allegheny hardwoods by decade 6 (see also Table 2-3). This is 

due to the amount of uneven-aged management and amount of area not actively managed that would result in 

Alternative D, which favors shade-tolerant and intermediate forest types such as northern and upland hardwoods. 

Alternative Cm would sustain somewhat more of the oak type in the long term than the other alternatives. 

When the desired condition involves perpetuating Allegheny hardwoods, aspen, and oaks in particular, even-aged 

management provides the best response and is most successful in these forest types (Roach 1972; Bjorkbom and 

Walters 1986; Horsley et al. unpublished 1998; Marquis and Gearhart 1983, p. 138; Perala and Russell 1983, p. 

114; Sander et al. 1983, p. 117; Roach and Gingrich 1968). Alternatives A and B would sustain the most 

Allegheny hardwoods, primarily through even-aged management. Alternative D would sustain the least 

Allegheny hardwoods on the landscape. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-134 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-25. Forest type outcomes in decades 1 and 2 by LRMP alternative 

Decade 1 

Thousands of Acres 

(Percent of Forested land) 

Decade 2 

Thousands of Acres 

 (Percent of Forested land) 

Forest Type 

Present (2006) 

Thousands of 

Acres (Percent) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. 

Cm Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Upland Hardwood 154.0 

(33%) 

154.0 

(33%) 

154.0 

(33%) 

154.0 

(33%) 

154.0 

(33%) 

154.0 

(34%) 

154.6 

(34%) 

154.2 

(34%) 

153.0 

(34%) 

Allegheny Hardwood 129.8 

(28%) 

129.8 

(28%) 

129.8 

(28%) 

129.8 

(28%) 

129.8 

(28%) 

124.3 

(27%) 

124.6 

(27%) 

125.2 

(27%) 

125.3 

(27%) 

Oaks 75.4 

(16%) 

75.4 

(16%) 

75.4 

(16%) 

75.4 

(16%) 

75.4 

(16%) 

75.0 

(16%) 

74.8 

(16%) 

75.4 

(16%) 

75.0 

(16%) 

Northern Hardwood 72.9 

(16%) 

72.9 

(16%) 

72.9 

(16%) 

72.9 

(16%) 

73.0 

(16%) 

72.1 

(16%) 

71.4 

(16%) 

72.1 

(16%) 

72.2 

(16%) 

Mixed (low stocked) 9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

7.5 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

Hemlock 9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

9.4 

(2%) 

Conifer 10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

10.3 

(2%) 

Aspen 2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

Total forested land1 463.5 463.5 463.5 463.5 463.6 456.8 456.8 456.8 456.9 1

 The reduction in forest land from the present to decade 2 reflects an assumption that 6,660 acres will be converted to a non-forested condition during the 

first decade of implementation, due to privately owned oil and gas mineral developments. This is consistent with the assumptions listed in Appendix F. See 

Appendix B for additional details on SPECTRUM modeling assumptions relative to future oil and gas development. 

Table 3-26. Forest type outcomes in decade 6 by LRMP alternative 

Decade 6 

Thousands of Acres (Percent of Forested Land) 

Forest Type Present (2006) Thousands of Acres 

(Percent of Forested Land) Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Upland Hardwood 154.0 

(33%) 

199.2 

(45%) 

198.4 

(45%) 

204.2 

(47%) 

215.9 

(49%) 

Allegheny Hardwood 129.8 

(28%) 

93.3 

(21%) 

93.6 

(21%) 

90.6 

(21%) 

78.2 

(18%) 

Oaks 75.4 

(16%) 

60.9 

(14%) 

61.1 

(14%) 

63.5 

(14%) 

61.2 

(14%) 

Northern Hardwood 72.9 

(16%) 

55.1 

(13%) 

55.4 

(13%) 

54.2 

(12%) 

56.6 

(13%) 

Mixed (low stocked) 9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

9.0 

(2%) 

5.0 

(1%) 

5.6 

(1%) 

Hemlock 9.4 

(2%) 

8.9 

(2%) 

8.9 

(2%) 

8.9 

(2%) 

8.9 

(2%) 

Conifer 10.3 

(2%) 

7.8 

(2%) 

7.8 

 (2%) 

7.8 

 (2%) 

7.8 

(2%) 

Aspen 2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

2.7 

(1%) 

Total Forested Land1 463.5 436.9 436.9 436.9 436.9 1

 The reduction in forest land from the present to decade 6 reflects an assumption that 26,000 acres will be converted to a non-forested 

condition, due to privately owned oil and gas mineral developments. This is consistent with the saturation (20,000 wells) assumption listed in 

Appendix F. See Appendix B for additional details on SPECTRUM modeling assumptions relative to future oil and gas development. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-135

Uneven-aged management is not expected to sustain these shade-intolerant forest types; though some individuals 

of shade-intolerant species such as northern red oak, black cherry, yellow poplar, and aspen may persist, they will 

be far less abundant in areas managed under an uneven-aged system. Uneven-aged management trials in 

Appalachian hardwoods in West Virginia resulted in the development of shade-tolerant reproduction expanding at 

the expense of more shade-intolerant species after partial cutting, which eventually leads to a decline in species 

diversity (Miller and Kochenderfer 1998, Kochenderfer et al. 2004). In the long term, uneven-aged management, 

particularly single tree selection, favors shade-tolerant species (Stout 1994, p. 333) such as sugar maple (sensitive 

to site nutrients and subject to decline on nutrient poor sites), beech (subject to introduced beech bark disease 

complex), and eastern hemlock (subject to hemlock woolly adelgid). Group selection favors more shade intolerant 

and mid-tolerant species than single tree selection. The end result would be a transition towards northern and 

upland hardwood forest types in treated areas, and a reduction in the abundance of shade-intolerant forest types 

such as aspen, Allegheny hardwoods, and oaks in treated areas. In Alternative A, group selection sizes of up to 

one half acre would be utilized, which would result in a trend towards northern hardwoods in treated areas. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D all incorporate the use of larger group sizes (1-3 acres), which would better maintain 

forest types consisting primarily of shade-intolerant and intermediate species on the ANF. However, an overall 

trend towards upland hardwoods is anticipated where uneven-aged management is applied. 

Forest age and stocking 

The desired condition for forest vegetation in all alternatives includes sustaining a diversity of vegetative 

structural stages and age classes across the landscape, including diverse forest understories with multiple layers, 

within the context of multiple use management. Forested areas on the ANF would range from third-growth early 

structural stages to late structural stages in all alternatives, to varying degrees. Both horizontal and vertical 

vegetative diversity would be provided on the ANF landscape, and a multi-layered vegetative forest canopy 

would be present in many riparian areas. 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm place a greater emphasis on sustaining horizontal diversity across the landscape. 

Alternative D has a desired condition of sustaining forest structural and age classes closer to that which existed on 

the ANF prior to European settlement. Alternative A provides late structural vegetation across the ANF in a less 

connected manner than the other alternatives. In order to sustain mature forest conditions for wildlife, Alternative 

A would utilize primarily even-aged management on long rotations. In Alternatives B, Cm, D late structural 

vegetation is provided in a more connected manner on landscape, with a greater emphasis placed on restoring 

vertical canopy layers and structural complexity. Alternatives B, Cm, and D would treat invasive, interfering 

understories and use a blend of uneven-aged, even-aged, and passive (no) management to help achieve desired 

conditions for late structural vegetation, and sustain desired late structural habitat for wildlife. 

Even-aged regeneration treatments result in younger stands generally of a single age. Adding these younger age 

classes results in a number of age classes and tree sizes across the landscape, or enhanced horizontal diversity. 

Some degree of vertical structure results from even-aged management, due to the different sizes of various tree 

species found on the ANF. These areas of young trees benefit wildlife species that utilize an early structural forest 

component. Maintenance of sufficient early structural habitat to sustain associated wildlife communities will 

require active management (Brooks 2003). Conversely, areas managed using uneven-aged regeneration methods 

would result in greater within-stand vertical structural diversity than even-aged treatments, but less horizontal 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-136 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

structural diversity. Uneven-aged management tends to benefit mature forest wildlife species that require large 

trees, vertical structure, and small canopy gaps. Taken together, a combination of even-aged management, 

uneven-aged management, and no vegetation management across the ANF landscape will help sustain 

biodiversity and provide a variety of structural conditions for a number of resource purposes. See the plant and 

animal community section (3.3.2) of this FEIS for more detail. 

Changes in stand age 

Change in stand ages on the ANF is projected over a 150-year planning horizon, with decades 1, 2, and 6 

of LRMP implementation discussed in this section. The age class distribution depends on time, the 

amount of even-aged regeneration cutting anticipated in each alternative, and the timing of treatments. 

Management area allocations prescribe where vegetation management may occur, as well as the 

silvicultural system and intensity of management in order to achieve desired conditions of each 

alternative. The amounts of treatments vary by alternative and result in landscape level differences in the 

distribution of age classes across the ANF. 

Table 3-27 displays the age class distribution that is anticipated to result in each alternative in decades 1 

and 2 of LRMP implementation. Areas managed under uneven-aged regeneration methods would 

eventually result in a multi-aged condition, with a variety of size classes from seedlings to large trees 

present in treated areas, and are displayed in the bottom row of the Table. 

All alternatives propose even-aged management and even-aged forest regeneration methods, though to 

varying degrees. Even-aged regeneration methods (e.g. shelterwood removal cut, final harvest, or 

clearcut) would create young age-classes that would be interspersed with older age classes on the 

landscape, and would result in greater structural class diversity at the landscape scale, and a more resilient 

forest to insect or disease outbreaks as described by Nyland (1996 p. 466). Reforestation treatments 

designed to develop abundant, diverse tree seedling development and survival would promote long-term 

sustainability of diverse, well stocked forest stands. Alternative D would foster some tree regeneration 

and long-term sustainability of well stocked, high value stands, but to a much lesser extent than 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm. Alternative D would feature more uneven-aged management for multi-aged 

treated areas, and maintenance of high forest canopies. All alternatives would maintain and allow further 

development of mature forest conditions in management areas that feature mature or late structural forest 

conditions, such as MA 2.2, 5.0, 6.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5. Like the amount of even-aged 

regeneration that occurs, the amount of mature forest conditions featured varies by alternative and 

associated management area allocation. See the following section on late-structural/old growth forest for 

more detail. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-137

Table 3-27. Age class outcomes in decades 1 and 2 by LRMP alternative 

Decade 1 

Thousands of Acres 

(Percent of Forested Land) 

Decade 2 

Thousands of Acres 

 (Percent of Forested Land) 

Age Class (Years) 

Present 

(2006) 

Thousands 

of Acres 

(Percent of 

Forested 

Land) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. 

Cm Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

0-20 (Seedling/Sapling) 36.7 

(8%) 

48.5 

(11%) 

48.1 

(11%) 

45.1 

(10%) 

39.8 

(8%) 

45.2 

(10%) 

43.9 

(10%) 

36.8 

(8%) 

21.8 

(5%) 

21-50 (Pole-sized) 27.7 

(6%) 

27.7 

(6%) 

27.7 

(6%) 

27.7 

(6%) 

27.7 

(6%) 

49.7 

(11%) 

49.6 

(11%) 

49.5 

(11%) 

49.4 

(11%) 

51-80 118.0 

(26%) 

117.0 

(25%) 

110.8 

(24%) 

110.4 

(24%) 

99.9 

(22%) 

40.0 

(9%) 

38.2 

(8%) 

38.1 

(8%) 

33.8 

(7%) 

81-110 (Mature) 266.1 

(57%) 

252.1 

(55%) 

244.9 

(53%) 

245.0 

(53%) 

224.8 

(49%) 

267.2 

(59%) 

257.7 

(57%) 

261.8 

(58%) 

241.7

(53%) 

111-140 11.7 

(3%) 

11.4 

(2%) 

11.5 

(3%) 

11.5 

(2%) 

10.1 

(2%) 

47.4 

(10%) 

46.3 

(10%) 

46.3 

(10%) 

48.2 

(11%) 

141-300 (Late 

Structural/Transitional Old 

Growth) 

0 

(0%) 

0 

(0%) 

0 

(0%) 

0 

(0%) 

0 

(0%) 

0.6 

(<1%) 

0.6 

(<1%) 

0.6 

(<1%) 

0.6 

(<1%) 

301+ (Old Growth) 3.3 

(<1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

Allocated to uneven-aged 

silvicultural system (multiaged) 

n/a 0.1 

(<1%) 

13.8 

(3%) 

17.1 

(4%) 

54.8 

(12%) 

0.1 

(<1%) 

13.8 

(3%) 

17.1 

(4%) 

54.8 

(12%) 

The present age, structure, and maturity of the forest on the ANF are fairly uniform. Second growth 

forests within the ANF generally range from 50 to 110 years old, with forest over 50 years old occupying 

86 percent of the ANF and more than half (57%) of the ANF falling within a single thirty year age class: 

81-110 years old (see Table 3-20). Only 8 percent of the ANF is in the youngest age class (0-20 years 

old), and just 3 percent is older than 111 years, a considerable imbalance. 

This uniform, mature second growth forest is vulnerable to damage from repeated natural stresses, which 

may impact forest health more readily than a forest comprised of a more balanced age class distribution. 

Landscapes consisting of stands of similar sized and aged trees are more vulnerable to damage from a 

particular pest than if the landscape were composed of stands and forests of a variety of size and age 

classes (Waring and O’Hara 2005). Alternatives A, B, and Cm place a greater emphasis on improving 

structural-age class diversity across the ANF by establishing younger, more vigorous age classes than 

Alternative D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-138 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Conversely, others feel forest health is more related to maintenance of a forest matrix and biodiversity 

conservation achieved through activities that support populations of species, regulating the movement of 

organisms, buffering sensitive areas and reserves, and maintaining the integrity of aquatic systems 

through maintaining vegetative connectivity (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002, Chapter 1). Alternative D, 

which employs greater use of uneven-aged management and allocates more land area to management area 

prescriptions where active vegetation management would not occur, would maintain more continuous 

high forest canopy across the ANF landscape as a whole, and result in smaller openings in the forest 

canopy. Even-aged harvests in Alternative D are scheduled to achieve a desired condition of 2-4 percent 

of the ANF landscape in young forest (0-20 years old), consistent with the historical disturbance regimes 

for the area (see discussion under affected environment for vegetation, natural disturbance section). 

Alternative D would introduce the least amount of discontinuity in the forest canopy as a result of 

vegetation management. At the same time, the overall lack of harvesting, particularly regeneration 

treatments, would likely result in decreased browse availability on the landscape and consequently 

increased deer browsing impacts to understory vegetation in Alternative D. 

As can be seen from Table 3-27, there are small differences in the amount of seedling/sapling age class 

(the 0-20 year age class) that would be provided in Alternatives A, B, and Cm in the next 20 years. There 

is an emphasis on the sustained development of new age classes in Alternatives A and B, and to a lesser 

degree Alternative Cm. All alternatives focus on completing the regeneration process that was initiated in 

stands prior to this LRMP, by completing the shelterwood removal harvests on areas that have already 

received a shelterwood seed cut. Even-aged regeneration harvests would create new 0-20 year old stands, 

primarily in MAs 1.0 and 3.0. As time passes, existing and created 0-20 year old vegetation will age, 

grow, and move into the pole-size class (the 21 – 50 year age class). This is to better balance age class 

distribution, and emphasize regeneration of shorter lived forest types like Allegheny hardwoods, which 

are anticipated to begin declining in the coming decades. One result of this emphasis on the continued 

development of younger age classes is to create a mosaic of age classes across the ANF as described by 

Waring and O’Hara (2005). Alternative D, conversely, features more late-structural, older forest 

vegetation, with a greater use of uneven-aged management proposed to achieve desired vegetation 

conditions. This alternative would result in the least amount of young forest (0-20 year old age class) 

across the landscape, sustaining less forage for deer, and likely resulting in increased deer browsing 

impacts on tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation. However, in areas actively treated using unevenaged management, multi-aged stands and continuous high forest canopy would be expected. 

As can be seen from Table 3-27, over the next 20 years, all of the alternatives would provide similar 

amounts of older forest. This is largely a function of the existing age of forest vegetation on the ANF. 

Additional land was allocated to management areas that will provide late structural conditions and old 

forest over the long term in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

Table 3-28 below displays the age class distribution that is anticipated to result on the ANF under each 

alternative in decade 6 of LRMP implementation. Areas managed under uneven-aged regeneration 

methods would result in a multi-aged condition and are displayed in the bottom row of the table. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-139

Concerns exist locally, about long-term forest health and maintaining forest cover as large areas of the 

ANF progress to older ages, particularly when interfering plants dominate the understory and tree 

seedlings are sparse. These concerns would be lowest in Alternatives A, B, and Cm where there is a 

greater emphasis on improving structural-age class diversity across the ANF by establishing younger, 

more vigorous age classes in some areas through even-aged management, along with maintaining older 

age classes in other areas (Nyland 1996, p.466, Waring and O’Hara 2005), and highest in Alternative D, 

which would result in the least amount of structural-age class diversity. 

By decade 6 of LRMP implementation, the most abundant supply of 0-20 year age class (15%) would 

occur in Alternative A, followed closely by Alternative B (14%). This can be seen in Table 3-28. 

Alternative D would sustain the least amount (3%) of young forest on the landscape. This would likely 

result in decreased browse availability on the landscape and consequently increased deer browsing 

impacts to understory vegetation. Roughly half of the ANF would be over 110 years old in Alternatives 

A, B, and Cm by the sixth decade of implementation, compared to 3 percent that is presently this older 

than 110. Over the next 60 years, Alternatives A, B, and Cm would provide similar amounts of forest 

older than 140 (22%). This is primarily a function of time and the existing age of forest vegetation on the 

ANF. Alternative D would result in greater amounts of vegetation greater than 110 years old (65%) and 

greater than 140 years old (29%). Alternative D would also result in the largest proportion of the ANF 

(55%) allocated to the uneven-aged silvicultural system with multiple age classes eventually present in 

treated areas. 

Table 3-28. Age class outcomes in decade 6 by LRMP alternative 

Decade 6 

Thousands of Acres 

(Percent of Forested Land) 

Age Class (Years) 

Present (2006) Thousands 

of Acres 

(Percent of Forested Land) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. 

Cm Alt. D 

0-20 (Seedling/Sapling) 36.7 

(8%) 

65.6 

(15%) 

58.8 

(14%) 

48.6 

(11%) 

12.4 

(3%) 

21-50 (Pole-sized) 27.7 

(6%) 

58.6 

(14%) 

57.6 

(13%) 

51.9 

(12%) 

20.9 

(5%) 

51-80 118.0 

(26%) 

45.2 

(10%) 

45.5 

(10%) 

45.5 

(10%) 

44.2 

(10%) 

81-110 (Mature) 266.1 

(57%) 

19.0 

(4%) 

17.8 

(4%) 

18.5 

(4%) 

20.5 

(5%) 

111-140 11.7 

(3%) 

148.1 

(34%) 

146.0 

(33%) 

155.4 

(36%) 

156.3 

(36%) 

141-300 (Late Structural/Transitional Old 

Growth) 

0 

(0%) 

96.9 

(22%) 

94.0 

(22%) 

96.4 

(22%) 

124.5 

(28%) 

301+ (Old Growth) 3.3 

(<1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

3.3 

(1%) 

Allocated to uneven-aged silvicultural system 

(multi-aged) n/a 0.1 (<1%) 

13.8 

(3%) 

17.1 

(4%) 

54.8 

(12%) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-140 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Multi-aged, late structural, and old growth forest 

Table 3-29 displays characteristics of the vegetation within the area that would be allocated to provide 

multi-aged, late structural and future old growth conditions in each alternative during the second decade 

of implementation. The entire existing remnant old growth forest on the ANF is included in this area 

under all of the alternatives. In order to provide for future old growth, site specific projects implemented 

under 1986 Forest Plan direction resulted in the designation of isolated areas scattered across the 

landscape where future late structural vegetation would be featured. All previously designated areas, 

totaling 5,800 acres, would be retained in Alternative A. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D all incorporate a landscape approach to providing future late structural forest 

on the ANF. These alternatives all add a new Management Area, MA 2.2, which would be managed to 

provide older, structurally complex forest in a connected pattern across the landscape. A primary 

objective for these areas is to maintain connectivity between existing remnant old growth and other core 

areas managed for late structural conditions on the ANF. Additionally, Alternatives B, Cm, and D all 

would retain some of the previously designated isolated areas that fall outside of MA 2.2, to also provide 

potential late structural and future old growth forest. Alternative B would retain 2,400 acres, Alternative 

Cm 4,000 acres, and Alternative D 3,800 acres of areas previously designated to provide late structural 

conditions. These isolated areas are located in MAs 1.0, 2.1, 3.0, 6.1, 7.1 and 8.6. 

Table 3-29. Characteristics of areas allocated for multi-aged, late structural, or old growth vegetation in 

each alternative – decade 2 

Acres 

Alternative 

 A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

Cm 

Alternative 

 D 

Total acres (percent of ANF) 

managed for Late Structural/Old 

Growth Conditions (MAs 2.1, 2.2, 

5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 

8.3, 8.5, and 9.1) 

165,200 

(33%) 

162,000 

(32%) 

204,500 

(40%) 

371,100 

 (73%) 

Forest Types (percent) comprising the Area Allocated for Late Structure/Old Growth Conditions 

Northern Hardwood, Hemlock 24 21 22 20 

Oaks, Upland Hardwoods, 

Conifer, Mixed Hardwoods 64 63 60 57 

Allegheny Hardwood, Aspen 12 16 18 23 

Ages (percent) comprising the Area Allocated for Late Structure/Old Growth Conditions 

Old Growth (>301 Years Old) 2 2 2 1 

Late Structural (151-300 Years 

Old) 0 0 0 0 

Mature (51-150 Years Old) 91 91 91 88 

Young (21-50 years old) 6 6 6 9 

Early structural (0-20 years old) 1 1 1 2 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-141

Alternatives A and B would allocate similar amounts of the ANF to provide late structural conditions and 

older forests, while the desired condition for Alternatives Cm and D includes additional amounts of late 

structural, older forests. Alternative D allocates nearly three-quarters of the ANF to provide late structural 

conditions and older forests. Alternative A allocates much more land area to MA 6.1 than any of the other 

alternatives, which would provide mature forest conditions through even-aged management on long 

rotations. Alternative D includes 126,000 acres of MA 2.1 where uneven-aged management would be 

applied to maintain stands with multiple age classes and predominantly continuous high forest canopy. 

The successfulness of this will depend on the amount of acreage treated, overall deer browsing impacts, 

and use of intensive reforestation treatments. 

As can be seen from the table, over 90 percent of the area allocated for late structural forest would be 50-

150 years old in each of the alternatives in decade 2 of implementation. Less than 1-2 percent consists of 

existing remnant old growth forest, though this represents 100 percent of existing remnant old growth on 

the ANF in all alternatives. During decade 2 of implementation, about 6 to 9 percent would consist of 

young forest (21-50 years old) in each of the alternatives, and 1-2 percent would be early structural (0-20 

years old) forest vegetation. The amount of young and early structural vegetation that would result in each 

alternative depends on the amount of land area allocated for late structural conditions and future old 

growth. The amount of early structural vegetation that would be sustained in the area featuring late 

structural conditions in each alternative is to some degree consistent with the naturally occurring age class 

distribution present in the TSRNA. As noted previously, the remnant forest of TSRNA contains four 

distinct age classes due to large scale disturbances in 1808, 1870, and 1985, and approximately 17 percent 

of this primary forest (naturally occurring) is currently less than 20 years old due to a tornado in 1985. 

A variety of forest types commonly found on the ANF would be represented in the area proposed for late 

structural conditions and future old growth in each of the alternatives. As old growth conditions are 

estimated to take at least 250 years to develop (Spies 2004), it is important to feature long-lived tree 

species when managing for old growth conditions over the long term. Of the forest types displayed in the 

table, northern hardwood (sugar maple, American beech, eastern hemlock mix) and hemlock were 

historically the longest lived before the advent of exotic insects and diseases, based on the species 

comprising them. Mixed upland and oak hardwoods, along with conifer (primarily red pine) can also be 

relatively long-lived, depending on the species composition of individual areas. In total, forest types 

consisting of historically longer lived species comprise between 20 and 24 percent of the total land area 

that would be allocated for late structural conditions under any of the alternatives. Forest types that can be 

considered moderately long-lived on the ANF comprise an additional 57 to 64 percent of the total land 

area allocated for late structural conditions or future old growth under any of the alternatives. Forest types 

that are considered shorter lived, such as Allegheny hardwoods and aspen, comprise 12 to 18 percent of 

the total land area allocated for late structural conditions in Alternatives A, B, and Cm. Shorter lived 

forest types comprise 23 percent of this land area in Alternative D due to the existing composition of 

additional areas allocated to MAs 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.2 in this alternative. 

Table 3-30 displays estimated characteristics of the vegetation within the area that would be allocated to 

provide late structural and future old growth conditions in each alternative by the sixth decade of 

implementation. As can be seen from the table, though each alternative allocates a different amount of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-142 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

land to provide late structural conditions in the long term, similar age class distributions would result in 

the area by decade 6. This is primarily a function of time and the existing age of forest vegetation in areas 

allocated for future late structural vegetation in each of the alternatives. 

Alternative A would sustain 7 percent early structural and young forest (less than 50 years old) in these 

areas, compared to 2 to 3 percent in any of the other alternatives. This is less than the amount of young 

forest presently found in the TSRNA (17% is presently less than 20 years old). 

Beech-maple, hemlock-spruce old growth forests of the northeast have been characterized as requiring 

centuries to develop, with a high degree of vertical structure and large to very large, long-lived (>250 

years) trees, and fine grained patch size (Spies 2004). Some have estimated it will take more than a 

century for the forests in the eastern United States to mature and develop all the structural complexity and 

diverse age class distributions they currently lack if left idle (Litvaitis 2003a). These processes could take 

even longer given impacts created by the introduced beech bark disease, potential impacts from the 

introduced hemlock woolly adelgid, and excessive browsing impacts from deer, which disrupt natural 

succession and stand development processes. However, as noted by Runkle (1991) management actions 

to mimic gap and snag dynamics cannot replace all functions of an old growth forest but may allow 

certain species and processes to establish at a site several decades earlier than they would by natural 

changes. 

Table 3-30. Characteristics of areas allocated for multi-aged, late structural, or old growth vegetation in 

each alternative – decade 6 

Acres 

Alternative 

 A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

Cm 

Alternative 

 D 

Total acres (percent of ANF) 

managed for Late Structural/Old 

Growth Conditions (MAs 2.1, 2.2, 

5.0, 6.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 

8.5, and 9.1) 

165,200 

(33%) 

162,000 

(32%) 

204,500 

(40%) 

371,100 

 (73%) 

Forest Types (percent) comprising the Area Allocated for Late Structure/Old Growth Conditions 

Northern Hardwood, Hemlock 21 18 19 17 

Oaks, Upland Hardwoods, 

Conifer, Mixed Hardwoods 72 72 71 68 

Allegheny Hardwood, Aspen 7 10 10 15 

Ages (percent) comprising the Area Allocated for Late Structure/Old Growth Conditions 

Old Growth (>301 Years Old) 2 2 2 1 

Late Structural (151-300 Years 

Old) 11 11 11 11 

Mature (51-150 Years Old) 80 84 85 86 

Young (21-50 years old) 3 1 1 1 

Early structural (0-20 years old) 4 2 1 1 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-143

Most restoration of old growth in the eastern U.S. is occurring passively, without active management to 

accelerate development of selected old-growth attributes. However, there is a growing body of literature 

on applying silvicultural techniques to accelerate or hasten the development of selected old growth 

characteristics or components (Oliver and Larson 1996, pages 281-282; Runkle 1991; Trombulack 1996; 

Franklin 2001; Franklin and Van Pelt 2004; Jenkins et al. 2004; Vora 1994; Singer and Lorimer 1997; 

Nyland pers. comm. 1998 and 2004; Litvaitis 2003; Lorimer and Frelich 1994). As noted by Trombulack 

(1996, p. 311) the restoration of old growth may require more than simply “letting the forest be.” A 

heavily altered landscape, which characterizes much of the forest land in the U.S., experiences many 

stresses that slow the development of late structural and old growth attributes, such as high populations of 

herbivores and exotic pests. Therefore, the restoration of old-growth may require adaptive or restorative 

management until succession in the forested system becomes self-reinforcing. 

A passive approach to old growth development in second growth stands would maintain a high degree of 

naturalness, which is recognized as being important to old growth values and processes. As noted by 

Tyrrell (1996) it is important to distinguish between old-growth, extended rotations, and stands 

manipulated for old-growth characteristics. Tyrrell asserts that silvicultural treatments that extract timber 

or attempt to accelerate succession do not contribute to naturalness, an important feature of ecological, or 

natural old growth. Nyland (pers. comm. 1998) recognizes that some old growth attributes are dependent 

on site, natural disturbance, and time, and are not easily affected by silviculture. Examples include 

undisturbed soil, pit and mound surface relief, thick organic layer, and below ground cavities under large 

roots. 

The potential for restoration of old-growth on the Allegheny Plateau is significantly affected by several 

factors: most second growth forests created by historical logging are different in composition and 

structure than the original forests present prior to European settlement, introduced forest pests such as the 

beech bark disease are dramatically altering both the overstory and understory structure of some areas, 

and a legacy of excessive deer browsing impacts on understory vegetation. Examples include areas with 

understories dominated by fern or beech brush resulting from beech bark disease, uniform mid-structural 

stands, and stands lacking structural diversity. Therefore, in some cases, silvicultural treatments are 

appropriate to accelerate the development of selected late structural and old growth structural features 

such as large trees, canopy gaps, multi-layered canopies, complex structural diversity, dead and down 

wood on the forest floor, and snags. At the same time, efforts can be made to ensure the composition of 

the forest, as it evolves and develops late structural and old growth characteristics, is composed of a 

diversity of species to ensure a healthy, long-lived forest. This can be accomplished through opening the 

forest canopy to allow development of seedlings that will develop into understory and midstory structure, 

applying herbicide to remove vegetation that interferes with development of a diverse understory, fencing 

areas to reduce impacts of browsing by deer to promote a diversity of seedlings, and releasing seedlings 

through small group openings that are generally designed to mimic natural disturbance. 

Several silvicultural prescriptions were developed specifically for use on the ANF in second-growth 

hardwood stands, primarily in portions of MA 2.2, to accelerate development and restoration of late 

structural or eventual old growth structural attributes. These attributes include large trees, canopy gaps, 

diverse multi-layered vegetation, and complex structural conditions. The proposed treatments and their 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-144 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

anticipated effects are described in the direct and indirect effects of vegetation treatments section, effects 

common to all alternatives. See Appendix A to the LRMP, Vegetation Management Practices- Rationale 

for Choice, for more detailed discussion of these treatments. MA 2.2 is the primary area that features the 

use of silvicultural prescriptions to accelerate development and restoration of late structural conditions 

and eventual old growth characteristics. Other portions of MA 2.2 would be passively managed, and these 

characteristics would develop naturally over time. Treatments to develop late structural characteristics 

may also be used to enhance riparian area structure or wildlife habitat, or maintain scenic quality. Treated 

areas are expected to develop selected attributes sooner and promote tree species not subject to forest 

health concerns, than those areas passively managed. It is recognized that these silvicultural treatments 

would not promote natural disturbance characteristics such as pit and mound micro-topography or bole 

snap. In the unmanaged second growth forest in the ANF (8 to 31percent of the landscape, Alternatives A 

and D respectively, see Table 2-3), these conditions, including pit and mound micro-topography, 

windthrow and bole snap, will develop naturally through passive management, and ecological old growth 

would be featured. In Alternative Cm, roughly one-quarter of the ANF would be passively managed for 

these conditions. Though old-growth characteristics would develop over a longer period of time, a higher 

degree of naturalness would be provided. 

Portions of MAs 2.2 and 6.1 would be actively managed using even-aged silvicultural systems to sustain 

an early structural component and maintain shade-intolerant species such as oaks and aspen. A blend of 

uneven-aged and two-aged management would be used in other shade-intolerant or mid-tolerant forest 

types such as Allegheny and upland hardwoods and conifers, with the overall intent to developing late 

structural characteristics. Uneven-aged management would be used to sustain northern hardwood and 

hemlock forest. MA 2.2 would also feature substantial use of passive (no) management to achieve late 

structural conditions. MA 2.1 will be managed to develop multiple ages of trees in treated areas and 

sustain predominantly continuous high forest canopy. MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5 and 9.1 

would all develop and/or maintain late structural and old growth forest primarily through passive 

management, maintaining a high degree of naturalness as described by Tyrell. 

Overall, areas allocated for late structural and future old growth conditions in each alternative vary little 

in their quality with regard to species composition and age classes. They vary primarily in how the late 

structural and old growth conditions would be featured across the landscape (distribution) and in the total 

amount provided in each alternative. 

Stocking 

One of the primary objectives of ANF forest management is to maintain healthy, well stocked stands in 

forested conditions capable of providing a variety of products and amenities (LRMP, Chapter 2, 

Vegetation Management Goals). It is important to maintain well stocked stands to provide a healthy forest 

for numerous values including wildlife, scenic integrity, and water quality. This means that stands are 

maintained in a condition that utilizes the site, and are capable of sustaining a well-stocked forested 

condition over time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-145

Stocking levels (relative densities) are anticipated to remain fairly steady in the short term as stands 

mature and fill in, other areas decline and experience tree mortality that reduces stocking levels, and 

management activities maintain well stocked stands in all alternatives over the next 20 years. The 

exception to this would be beech stands, or areas with a substantial beech component, where beech tree 

mortality will likely result in lower overall stocking levels over the next 20 years, and a structural shift to 

smaller diameter understory trees. Beech mortality (already evident in the northern portion of the ANF) 

will become particularly evident on the southern portion of the ANF, where the advancing front of the 

disease complex is present, and the killing front is in the process of arriving. Other factors that will affect 

the stocking of forested areas on the ANF include wind throw, defoliation events, and decline (sugar 

maple and ash). 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm, which emphasize the use of even-aged management, would likely result in the 

highest level of regeneration of older, poorly stocked stands into young, fully stocked stands. Over the 

long term, Alternative D, which places greater emphasis on active uneven-aged management or passive 

(no) management, would likely treat fewer of these poorly stocked stands. Under an uneven-aged system 

it is not as feasible to treat poorly stocked stands, given less well stocked overstories and the need to 

invest in an increased number of reforestation activities. 

Understory and midstory condition 

Since tree mortality/decline and defoliation began to occur in the early 1990s, changes have occurred in 

the understory on the ANF. Generally, ground cover plants (particularly ferns and grasses) present have 

grown and become more dense because of increased sunlight. Over time, this adversely affects those 

plants that do not grow to larger sizes or dominate sites. For example, ferns will grow to two and 

sometimes three feet in height, forming a dense layer and shading out dog-tooth violets, wood sorrel and 

trout lily in the ground layer. They also affect woody plants that are capable of growing to larger sizes, 

since in the seedling stage many tall growing species are very vulnerable to browsing, and decline and 

mortality under poor lighting conditions. 

On the ANF, vertical diversity has been greatly affected by past and on-going deer browsing and 

interference from native invasive plant species, and is therefore lacking in many areas. Normally, gaps in 

the overstory canopy from the deaths of individual trees or natural disturbance would result in trees and 

shrubs eventually occupying the gaps. However, on the Allegheny Plateau, deer repeatedly browse 

wildflowers, herbaceous vegetation, shrubs and seedlings, virtually eliminating the shrub understory and 

greatly reducing the number of seedlings and herbaceous plants (Tilghman 1989; Jones et al. 1993; 

deCalesta 1994; deCalesta 1998; Horsley et al. 2003; Whitney 1984). Only 9 percent of the ANF ( 

Table 3-22) contains adequate seedlings taller than one foot to sustain forest cover (Morin et al. 2006), 

thereby reducing the potential for improved vertical diversity. Over the long term, this raises questions 

about tree composition and species changes in management areas where the LRMP permits little human 

intervention to control forest and ground vegetation structure, composition, and development. Where 

management activities are permitted, treatments such as herbicide application, site preparation, timber 

stand improvement (release), and area fencing are all activities that can alleviate the impacts of browsing 

by deer. This is through either directly reducing the abundance of interfering vegetation, which allows a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-146 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

greater diversity of seedling, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation to become established, or through 

excluding deer from browsing understory vegetation. 

All alternatives include activities to restore understory vegetative diversity and vertical structure, though 

to varying degrees. The desired condition includes forest understories that contain multiple, diverse 

vegetative layers that are resilient and capable of sustaining well stocked, healthy hardwood forests in the 

long term. If recently reduced deer populations are sustained on the ANF, understory vegetation and 

structural diversity should improve in the long term. However, understory response lags behind the deer 

population drop even though browsing intensity has declined (deCalesta 2005). Because of this, across 

the ANF as a whole, interfering vegetation is expected to remain constant in the next few decades, and 

will require treatment to provide conditions for diverse seedling and herbaceous vegetation to become 

established. 

Application of herbicide would provide opportunity for some increase in species diversity and 

distribution. Herbicide is used to reduce competing vegetation (fern, grass, striped maple, and beech), 

which often prevents tree seedlings from becoming established in the understory. Local research has 

shown that when more than 30 percent of the survey plots taken in a stand have substantial amounts of 

plants capable of limiting the development of other desired species, there is a need to remove many of 

those plants so other species have a chance to develop (Horsley et al.1994, pp. 216, 218, 231-238). In a 

1994 survey of areas with tree mortality, vegetation that interferes with tree seedling and other plant 

development and growth was present in sufficient quantities to require treatment, as described by Horsley 

et al (1994, pp. 214-216), in 93 percent of the stands evaluated on the ANF (McWilliams et al. 1996). 

Following treatment with herbicide, a wider range of plant communities could be expected to occupy the 

understory (Horsley 1994, Ristau et al. pers. comm. 2005). This could include tree species as well as 

shrubs, forbs, and wildflowers, which are presently absent. Recent monitoring of the effect of herbicide 

application in conjunction with a shelterwood over a ten year period found higher plant diversity and 

lower single species dominance on plots treated with glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl (Ristau et al.

pers. comm. 2005). Fencing the areas in the study removed deer browsing pressure and resulted in 

additional recovery of herbaceous species and increased tree seedling height growth. Though many of 

those interfering plants would eventually re-occupy treated sites, the window of opportunity created 

through removing interfering vegetation would allow seedling regeneration to become established, prior 

to re-establishment by interfering vegetation. Additionally, the density of interfering vegetation should be 

much lower for a number of years. 

Site preparation would provide for some change in species diversity and distribution. Site preparation is 

used to reduce competing vegetation (striped maple, beech, birch, and other woody vegetation), which 

often prevents tree seedlings from becoming established in the understory. It should be noted that both 

beech and striped maple would provide an acceptable midstory canopy for those wildlife species requiring 

a midstory structure, though both of these species are relatively short lived and neither of which is 

anticipated to mature to an overstory canopy tree. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-147

Table 3-31. Estimated average annual amount (decades 1 and 2) of understory treatments to improve 

understory and midstory condition 

Acres (rounded to Nearest 100) 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D 

Herbicide Application 1,700 1,900 2,000 800 

Site Preparation 1,500 1,700 1,800 700 

Release to Enhance Diversity 1,700 1,800 2,000 900 

Fencing 1,100 1,300 1,800 600 

Stand improvement (release) activities are designed to maintain or enhance species diversity and quality 

of young seedling stands in the process of regeneration. Release and pre-commercial thinning are an 

investment into future stand composition and stocking. 

Area fencing would provide an increase in species diversity and distribution by preventing deer from 

browsing tree seedlings and other understory vegetation. Vegetation that develops within fences is usually 

more abundant and diverse than that which is found outside of fences. 

All of these treatments are designed to enhance conditions for a diversity of tree seedlings and herbaceous 

vegetation to become established. In total, Alternative Cm, followed by Alternative B, would treat the 

greatest number of acres to restore diverse, abundant vegetation, and enhance understory and midstory 

structure in forest understories presently dominated by interfering vegetation (Table 3-31). Alternative A 

follows these two alternatives, and Alternative D would treat the fewest acres annually. 

Where uneven-aged treatments are proposed in MA 2.2, enhanced understory and midstory structural 

conditions are anticipated in treated areas. Alternatives B, Cm, and D all include potential treatments to 

accelerate development of late structural vegetative characteristics. Riparian vegetation treatments are 

included in all alternatives, and are designed to enhance understory and midstory structural conditions in 

areas presently lacking understory structure, primarily through two-aged or uneven-aged harvests. 

Alternative A would treat the most acres of riparian areas annually in the first two decades of plan 

implementation (103-107 acres) to enhance structural conditions, whereas Alternative D would treat the 

least (61-64 acres) (see Table 2-2). 

Forest health 

Desired conditions relative to forest health in each of the alternatives emphasize sustaining a diversity of 

vegetation conditions with improved resiliency of forest vegetation on the ANF and reduced levels of impacts 

from forest insects and diseases. Forestwide goals include providing a diversity of vegetation patterns across the 

landscape that present well distributed habitats, a range of forest age classes and vegetative stages, a variety of 

healthy functioning vegetation layers, and a variety of vegetation species or forest types necessary to achieve 

multiple resource objectives. Integrated pest management methods are emphasized in all alternatives to prevent or 

minimize pest problems by using the most current science and available control methods, including silvicultural 

treatments, maintenance of species diversity, pesticide application, and introduction of insect predators or 

parasites. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-148 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Three evaluation criteria have been identified to assess the relative effect each alternative would have on forest 

health. These criteria to compare include: 

• acres thinned 

• acres of northern hardwood and hemlock forest types, 

• acres of Allegheny hardwoods greater than 120 years old 

Acres thinned 

The first criteria used to compare anticipated effects on forest health by alternative will be intermediate 

thinning. Intermediate thinning stimulates growth and vigor of residual trees, and controls mortality by 

reducing intertree competition and removing trees susceptible to insects and diseases (Nyland 1996, pp. 

362-364). As shown in Table 2-3, Alternative A would result in the greatest amount (25,100 acres) of 

intermediate thinning in decades 1 and 2 of implementation, followed by Alternative Cm (20,000 acres). 

Alternative B (16,900 acres) would thin less, and Alternative D would result in the least amount of 

thinning (5,100 acres) of any of the alternatives- nearly 5 times less than Alternative A. Viewed as a 

proactive way to improve the health of residual trees, Alternative A would reduce losses to unpredicted 

forest health threats by thinning more acres, while Alternative D would carry a higher risk for tree 

mortality. 

Alternative A would result in the most acres thinned during the next 6 decades, or an estimated 76,000 

acres thinned during decades 1 through 6 of LRMP implementation. Alternative B follows A, with a 

projection of 54,400 acres of thinning by decade 6. Alternative Cm would thin 40,700 acres, while 

Alternative D would thin the least amount during the same time period, 10,700 acres. 

Acres of northern hardwood and hemlock forest types 

The health of some tree species or areas of the ANF are being affected disproportionately, particularly 

when subjected to multiple stresses over a relatively short period of time (several years). The health of the 

northern hardwood forest type on the ANF, dominated by a combination of American beech, sugar maple 

and eastern hemlock, is of particular concern. American beech is subject to continuing mortality and 

decline from the beech bark disease complex, sugar maple health on the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau is 

limited by site-nutrient characteristics, and eastern hemlock is at risk from future introduction of the 

HWA. Therefore, one criterion to evaluate the relative risk of forest vegetation on the ANF to current 

health threats will be the acres of northern hardwoods and hemlock forest types that would result from the 

management prescriptions in each alternative. According to the information presented in Table 2-3, 

Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D would result in very similar amounts of northern hardwoods and hemlock 

forest types in decade 2 of LRMP implementation. 

By decade 6, Alternative D would result in slightly more northern hardwood and hemlock forest types 

present on the ANF (see Table 2.3) placing more of the ANF at risk for decline and eventual mortality 

due to existing and imminent (looming) forest health concerns. Alternative Cm would result in the least 

amount of northern hardwood and hemlock forest types on the ANF in decade 6. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-149

Acres of Allegheny hardwoods greater than 120 years old 

The Allegheny hardwood forest type, dominated by black cherry, ash, and tulip poplar is shorter lived 

relative to other types on the ANF. It is a very unique forest type worldwide, and within the broader 

northern hardwood type of the Northeastern United States. Some uncertainty exists regarding the 

maximum life span for black cherry trees on the Allegheny Plateau (as opposed to the rotation age, which 

is based on culmination of mean annual growth increment, or financial maturity), and what age 

substantial loss of product value occurs. While Marquis (1990) suggests that beyond age 80 to 100 years, 

diameter growth slows and mortality of black cherry increases, others (Parker and Merritt 1995) 

recommended a rotation age of 70 to 90 years old for black cherry, with a maximum rotation age of 250 

years old. More recent observations within the Tionesta Research Natural Area noted black cherry trees 

over 180 years old that outwardly appeared healthy and appeared to contain high value per U.S. Forest 

Service grade guidelines (Engelman et al. unpublished). The monitoring plan (table 16 of LRMP) 

includes a research question to investigate the longevity of the Allegheny hardwood type on the ANF. 

Presently 57 percent of the Allegheny hardwood type on the ANF is 81 to 100 years old (Table 3-20). 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm strive to maintain shorter-lived, shade-intolerant forest types present on the 

ANF through even-aged regeneration methods. This includes maintaining the Allegheny hardwood type, 

the vast majority of which is rapidly maturing on the ANF. 

In order to assess the relative health of ANF vegetation with respect to age a second evaluation criterion is 

the amount of Allegheny hardwoods greater than 120 years present on the landscape in decade 6 of 

LRMP implementation. This age was selected as it is past the rotation ages recommended by Parker and 

Merrit (1995) for black cherry, and older than the age where Marquis suggested black cherry mortality 

starts to increase. Forest type changes take a number of years to occur, depending on disturbances to 

forest canopies and understory vegetation conditions (including presence or absence of interfering 

vegetation and tree seedling species), and therefore the relative abundance of Allegheny hardwoods on 

the ANF is not anticipated to greatly change in the next two decades. Determining when Allegheny 

hardwood can be expected to substantially decline in terms of seed production, value, and internal defect, 

and mortality has been identified as an LRMP research need (see table 16 in the monitoring section of the 

LRMP). 

According to Table 2-3, Alternative B would result in the least amount of Allegheny hardwoods greater 

than 120 years in decade 6. This is because Alternative B focuses on balancing age class distribution, and 

regenerating Allegheny and upland hardwood forest types in the earlier decades of LRMP 

implementation. Alternative Cm, conversely, strives to better balance harvest among different forest 

types, therefore regenerating less Allegheny hardwoods than Alternative B and retaining more Allegheny 

hardwood stands that are older. Alternative A would result in the second largest amount of Allegheny 

hardwoods greater than 120 years old, closely followed by Cm Alternative D, which features greater use 

of uneven-aged management, would result in the largest acreage of Allegheny hardwoods greater than 

120 years old, more than double the amount of Alternative B. This is because uneven-aged management 

tends to favor more shade-tolerant forest types such as northern hardwoods (Stout 1994, p. 330-333), and 

fewer Allegheny hardwoods would be regenerated with even-aged methods in this Alternative. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-150 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

An ecological challenge within the context of forest health and sustainability is the lack of developed 

forest understories on the ANF, which has been impacted by a legacy of overbrowsing by deer for the 

past 70 years. This legacy of selective browsing by high deer populations has resulted in understories that 

are dominated by native invasive species such as ferns, grasses, striped maple, and beech, while desirable 

seedling regeneration, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation is greatly reduced in abundance and diversity. 

Furthermore, stands with heavy mortality from the beech bark disease are often replaced by dense stands 

of susceptible beech sprouts that prevent the regeneration of other hardwood species (Latty et al. 2003). 

The degree to which each alternative treats forest understories on the ANF to enhance understory 

diversity, structure, and sustainability could also be considered a component of forest health. Alternative 

D would result in the least amount of annual reforestation treatments to treat interfering understory 

vegetation (see Table 2-2) and promote an abundance of diverse tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation. 

This will be discussed in greater detail in the forest structure section of environmental consequences. 

Forest vegetation management 

Total acres treated by silvicultural system 

Silvicultural and reforestation activities in all alternatives would be applied to achieve desired vegetative 

conditions. Even-aged management would be employed to sustain a diversity of structural and age classes 

on the landscape, while uneven-aged management would be applied to develop vertical structure and 

multi-aged stands, particularly in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. Reforestation treatments would be applied 

to sustain a diversity of tree species, and restore understory structure and diversity in areas impacted by a 

legacy of deer browsing impacts in all alternatives. Each alternative would utilize silvicultural techniques 

to varying degrees to meet desired vegetation conditions. 

As can be seen in Table 3-32, both even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration treatments are proposed in 

all alternatives. The silvicultural systems used and amount of treatments are based on the desired 

vegetation conditions for each alternative, the allocation of management areas, and management area 

prescriptions. Alternatives A, B, Cm, D would all maintain some degree of both horizontal and vertical 

diversity, each uniquely to varying degrees, on portions of the ANF through proposed timber harvesting, 

reforestation, and wildlife habitat improvement activities. Most managed stands would have improved 

vigor and be more resilient to disturbance. Harvest of trees as a result of management activities would 

contribute to a sustainable flow of forest products from the ANF. 

Alternatives A and B emphasize the use of even-aged silvicultural systems the most, adding more than 40,000 

acres of early structural vegetation by the end of decade 2, which would increase horizontal diversity across 

the landscape. Alternative Cm also emphasizes the use of even-aged regeneration harvest, but includes greater 

use of uneven-aged management. Alternative A would result in the most even-aged regeneration treatments in 

decades 1 and 2 of implementation. Alternative D would result in the least amount of even-aged regeneration, 

with roughly one-third the level as Alternative A. Alternative D also features uneven-aged silviculture, and 

follows Alternatives B and Cm in the amount of uneven-aged regeneration occurring in decades 1 and 2, with 

uneven-aged regeneration treatments increasing in later decades. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-151

Alternative A, which encompasses 1986 Forest Plan direction, includes two management area 

prescriptions not included in the other alternatives: MAs 6.2 and 9.1. MA 6.2 features even-aged 

silviculture in four areas on the ANF, with one scheduled for entry each decade and harvest activities in a 

given area limited to one decade every 40 years. It should be noted that one decade is not always allow 

enough time to develop sufficient seedlings in all forest types, particularly oak forest types. In Alternative 

A, the Hemlock Run MA 6.2 area on the Bradford Ranger District would be managed during the first 

decade of LRMP implementation. The vegetation in MA 9.1 features minimal investments only as needed 

to protect the environment or incidental forest user. 

Table 3-32. Estimated acres (rounded to nearest 100) regenerated by silvicultural system and 

management area- decades 1 and 2 

Decade 1 

Acres 

Decade 2 

Acres 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Management Area Acres of Even-aged Regeneration Harvest 

(Shelterwood Removal Cut and /or Clearcut) 

1.0 400 300 300 200 800 700 700 500 

2.2 n/a3 0 200 0 n/a3 0 600 1,900 

3.0 22,700 23,000 16,900 6,500 18,000 18,200 15,100 5,300 

6.1 800 100 100 300 1,400 200 300 400 

6.2 300 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 200 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3

Total Even-aged 

Regeneration 

Harvest1 24,200 23,400 17,500 7,000 20,400 19,100 16,700 8,100 

Management Area Acres of Uneven-aged Management 

2.1 100 n/a3 500 500 0 n/a3 500 500 

2.2 n/a3 4,000 6,200 2,500 n/a3 3,300 2,700 2,500 

Total Uneven-aged 

Management2 100 4,000 6,700 3,000 0 3,300 3,200 3,000 

1 Represents final harvested acreage. Acreage for shelterwood seed cuts are not displayed. 2

 Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree 

selection harvest followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed. 3

 Management Area is not included in the Alternative considered. 

MAs 1.0 and 3.0 feature shade-intolerant and mid-tolerant species such as black cherry, yellow poplar, white ash, 

aspen, and red maple, which thrive in full sunlight conditions. Even-aged regeneration methods utilized in these 

management areas feature forest types such as Allegheny and upland hardwoods, and oaks, which are comprised 

of primarily shade-intolerant or mid-tolerant vegetation. As can be seen in Table 3-32, in all alternatives, the bulk 

of even-aged management occurs in MA 3.0. Even-aged silviculture features these species presently occurring in 

these management areas, and would help maintain the hardwood communities found on the ANF today. Some 

uneven-aged management is anticipated to occur in MA 1.0 and 3.0 in order to meet site specific project needs 

such as meeting Scenic Integrity Objectives, enhancing riparian area structure, or providing wildlife habitat. 

MA 6.1 features mature forest conditions sustained by even-aged management, and is mostly featured in 

Alternative A. Compared to MAs 1.0 and 3.0, even-aged management in MA 6.1 would be less intensive, on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-152 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

longer rotations. Where even-aged management occurs in MA 6.1, shade-intolerant and mid-tolerant forest types 

such as oaks, aspen, pines, Allegheny hardwoods, and upland hardwoods would be maintained. Some upland and 

northern hardwood types dominated by intermediate and tolerant species such as sugar maple, American beech, 

eastern hemlock, red maple, birch, and cucumber would occur where uneven-aged management is applied, or 

where oak stands transition to red maple in the absence of forest management. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D all add MA 2.2, which would be managed to develop older, structurally-complex 

forests in a connected pattern across the landscape. Invasive understories would be treated and active vegetation 

management applied in portions of MA 2.2 to accelerate development and restoration of late structural 

characteristics consistent with natural disturbance regimes, address impacts of introduced pests such as the beech 

bark disease complex, and control species composition. Other portions of MA 2.2 would be more passively 

managed, influenced by natural changes and the effects of native and introduced invasive vegetation, insects, and 

diseases. Uneven-aged management would be actively applied in MAs 2.1 and 2.2, which would feature shadetolerant species such as sugar maple, American beech, and eastern hemlock that do well under shaded conditions, 

and species that are intermediate in shade tolerance such as red maple, birch, and cucumber where group selection 

occurs. A small amount of even-aged management would occur less intensively and on longer rotations in MA 2.2 

to sustain an early structural component in shade-intolerant types (4-6% in oak types; 2-4% in other forest types). 

Traditional even-aged management would be applied in oak, aspen, and white pine, while two-aged or unevenaged management would be applied in other forest types within MA 2.2. Due to the present lack of access, it is 

projected that roughly one-half of MA 2.2 would be passively managed, and eventually be comprised of upland 

and northern hardwood forest types that are dominated by shade-tolerant or intermediate species such as sugar 

maple, American beech, eastern hemlock, birch, and red maple. MA 2.1 permits even-aged management in order 

to maintain short-lived shade-intolerant forest types such as aspen. 

MAs 6.3 and 8.4 would be managed for a mix of structural stages, with a large proportion consisting of permanent 

grasslands. 

Management areas such as 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 8.1, where little vegetation management would occur, or MAs 5.1, 

5.2, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.5, where no vegetation management would occur, would be primarily influenced by natural 

succession, favoring shade-tolerant northern hardwood vegetation and deer browse-resistant vegetation such as 

American beech over time. Where oak predominates in essentially unmanaged areas, such as MA 8.1 (Wild and 

Scenic River corridor), 7.2 (Remote Recreation Areas), and 8.2 (National Recreation Area) vegetation is 

anticipated to slowly transition over the long term from oak to red maple dominance. MA 8.6 would permit 

vegetation management for research purposes only and could feature either shade-intolerant or tolerant vegetation 

depending on the treatments applied. 

Table 3-33 displays the estimated cumulative acres by Management Area that would be regenerated on ANF 

lands by silvicultural system through decade 6 of LRMP implementation in each of the Alternatives. These 

activities would create a mix of age-classes, which is emphasized more strongly in Alternatives A, B, and Cm. 

Most managed stands would have improved vigor and be more resilient to disturbance. Cumulatively, harvest of 

trees as a result of management activities would contribute to a sustainable flow of forest products from the ANF 

as well as private and other public lands in the CE area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-153

Alternatives A, B, and Cm emphasize the use of even-aged silvicultural systems which tends to increase 

horizontal diversity across the landscape, whereas Alternative D places greater emphasis on the use of unevenaged systems that promote vertical diversity within treated areas. Alternative A would result in the most evenaged regeneration and the least amount of uneven-aged regeneration treatments through decade 6 of 

implementation. Conversely, Alternative D would result in the least amount of even-aged regeneration. By decade 

6 of implementation, Alternative D results in the largest land area on the ANF managed using uneven-aged 

silviculture, more than three times the amount of Alternatives B or Cm. The vast majority of uneven-aged 

regeneration treatments in Alternative D would occur in MA 2.1. Of all the regeneration treatments applied in 

Alternative D, more than half would occur through uneven-aged regeneration methods. 

Table 3-33. Estimated cumulative acres (thousands of acres) regenerated on the ANF by silvicultural 

system and management area- decades 1 through 6 

Decades 1-6 Acres (thousands) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Management Area Acres (thousands) of Even-aged Regeneration Harvest (Shelterwood 

Removal Cut or Clearcut) 

1.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 1.7 

2.2 n/a3 2.3 3.2 3.6 

3.0 121.2 123.6 102.4 27.9 

6.1 11.6 1.3 1.7 3.1 

6.2 3.6 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3

Total Even-aged 

Regeneration Harvest1 139.6 130.2 110.3 36.3 

Management Area Acres (thousands) of Uneven-aged Management 

2.1 0.1 n/a3 1.0 40.6 

2.2 n/a3 13.8 16.1 10.0 

Total Uneven-aged 

Management2 0.1 13.8 17.1 50.6 

1 Represents final harvested acreage. Acreage for shelterwood seed cuts are not displayed. 2

 Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree 

selection harvest followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed. 3

 Management Area is not included in the Alternative considered. 

In total, Alternative B would regenerate the most acres using either even-aged or uneven-aged methods to achieve 

desired vegetation conditions, followed closely by Alternative A. Alternative D, on the other hand, would 

regenerate the least amount of land area by decade 6 of implementation using either method to achieve the desired 

vegetation conditions of this alternative. 

It should be noted that several concerns exist regarding the use of uneven-aged management on the ANF, 

particularly in the long term. As summarized by Nyland (2003), though attractive on the surface, conversion of 

even-aged forest communities to uneven-aged will take a century-long period and has some real costs, including: 

• a shift of composition towards more shade-tolerant species; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-154 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• a decrease in some commodity benefits through time; 

• a need to change traditional harvesting methods and equipment; 

• a loss or decrease of some historic non-market values in converted stands; 

• a change of habitat for some plants and animals. 

Uncertainty with reforestation has been associated with uneven-aged management on the ANF (USDA FS 1998, pp. 

18 and 86; USDA FS 2001d pp.16, 17, 76, 77; USDA FS 2002, p.23; Stout 1994, pp. 333-334). In addition, 

substantial concerns exist about the use of uneven-aged management that features strictly shade-tolerant species 

such as beech, sugar maple and hemlock which all presently face serious forest health threats. However new 

standards and guidelines for the use of uneven-aged management should reduce the uncertainty and forest health 

concerns associated with uneven-aged management on the ANF, and increase its long-term successfulness. These 

guidelines include allowing for larger opening sizes, with the intent of regenerating a greater diversity of tree 

species, including shade-intolerant (e.g. black cherry, yellow poplar, ash, northern red oak) and mid-tolerant (e.g. 

red maple, birch, cucumber) species than would occur under current standards for uneven-aged management. Deer 

browsing impacts on seedling regeneration in the past has reduced the potential successfulness of uneven-aged 

regeneration methods. In recent years, however, browsing intensity has decreased on the ANF as a result of 

implementation of new deer management options created by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, but understory 

response lags behind the deer population drop (deCalesta 2005). If current programs remain in effect, it is possible 

that one of the most important challenges to regeneration success on the ANF will be eased during the 

implementation period for this plan, but it is also possible that deer impacts will return to historic and challenging 

levels. A future with reduced deer impact may reduce the need for fencing and some of the barriers to successful 

implementation of uneven-aged silviculture. However, in most cases existing interfering vegetation will still need 

treatment, regardless of future deer populations. It is assumed that deer populations will remain at presently reduced 

levels during the planning period, increasing the potential successfulness of uneven-aged management in the future 

on the ANF. Some uncertainty exists, however, regarding future deer populations on the ANF. Alternative D would 

employ the greatest amount of uneven-aged management, and regenerate the fewest acres in the long term. The 

overall lack of harvesting, particularly regeneration treatments, would likely result in decreased browse availability 

on the landscape and consequently increased deer browsing impacts to understory vegetation in Alternative D. 

Therefore, Alternative D has the greatest amount of uncertainty associated with forest vegetation outcomes. 

Total harvest and reforestation acres 

Table 2-2 displays projected average annual management activities by alternative estimated for decade 1 

and decade 2 of LRMP implementation. The following discussion compares relative differences in average 

annual activity amounts anticipated by alternative, and is based on the amounts displayed in this table. 

Harvest activities

Alternatives A (2,043 to 2,423 acres annually) and B (1,917 to 2,341 acres annually) would result 

in similar even-aged regeneration harvest levels, and Alternative Cm would result in 1,673 to 

1,754 acres of even-aged regeneration harvests. Alternatives A, B and Cm all project higher than 

average levels of even-aged regeneration harvesting that have occurred on the ANF for the past 

20 years. It should be noted that harvest levels, and associated reforestation treatments have been 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-155

lower than the levels predicted in the 1986 Forest Plan, particularly during the past decade. The 

1986 Forest Plan projected accomplishments for each type of harvest activity (acres) necessary to 

achieve the desired future forest condition and the maximum allowable sale quantity for each 

decade (94.5 MMBF per year). The Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability completed in 

1995 (USDA FS, 1995a) projected a maximum annual harvest of 53.2 MMBF per year for 1995-

2005. The total final harvest acreage for 1986-2005 is only 43 percent of the 1986 Forest Plan 

maximum projection for 1986-2005, and it is 86 percent of the revised projection made in the 

1995 Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability (THPC). Actual thinning acreage 

accomplished is 30 percent of the 1986 Forest Plan level and 81 percent of the THPC level. 

Selection harvesting is 102 percent of 1986 Forest Plan or THPC level, while shelterwood seed 

harvests are 32 percent of the 1986 Forest Plan projection and 64 percent of the THPC projection. 

Alternative D would result in roughly one-third to one-half the amount (699 to 812 acres 

annually) of even-aged regeneration as the other alternatives. In all four alternatives of the 

LRMP, even-aged thinning is projected to be less than that which occurred on the ANF in the past 

20 years, with Alternative D thinning the least amount (195 to 317 acres) annually, and 

Alternative A thinning the most (1,149 to 1,363 acres). 

Similar levels of vegetation management to enhance riparian vegetation would occur in 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm (92 to 107 acres annually), with lower levels occurring in Alternative 

D (61 to 64 acres annually). Alternative Cm would result in the greatest amount (320 to 666 acres 

annually) of uneven-aged management in decades 1 and 2, followed by Alternative B (326 to 403 

acres annually). Alternative A would utilize the least amount (0 to 6 acres annually) of unevenaged management. 

Reforestation treatments

ANF personnel have successfully reforested 96 percent of the acres final harvested (even-aged 

management) between 1976 and 2001. However, the majority of these areas have been in the 

Allegheny hardwood forest type. There is less certainty about the reforestation treatments (type, 

timing, length of time for seedling development, and sequence) necessary to achieve desired 

reforestation success (both tree species diversity and tree species abundance) in other forest types 

(northern hardwood, upland hardwood, oaks, etc.). In the past 30 years, much has been learned 

about reforestation techniques that will foster greater seedling species diversity in all forest types 

on the ANF, including greater use of release, soil scarification, and the use of controlled burning 

in fire-adapted forest types such as oaks. These improved reforestation techniques are 

incorporated into the LRMP in order to foster successful regeneration of a broader array of tree 

species in all forest types. 

Associated reforestation activities necessary to successfully regenerate each treated forest type in 

each alternative were predicted during the SPECTRUM modeling, and are summarized below. 

All alternatives would result in a substantial increase in reforestation activities applied annually 

on the ANF over those applied in the past two decades- in many cases double the amount. These 

activities would be applied to ensure regeneration of well stocked, diverse forested areas, in order 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-156 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

to maintain diverse, healthy forested ecosystems into the future. In general, Alternatives A, B and 

Cm would implement the most reforestation treatments to regenerate a diversity of tree species, 

while Alternative D would utilize the least amount of reforestation treatments. 

Area fencing exclosures to limit deer browsing on desired tree seedlings have become the most 

reliable reforestation technique to help assure greater vegetative diversity, and therefore better 

success in regenerating more challenging tree species. Estimated future area fencing ranges from 

501 acres annually in Alternative D to 1,701 acres annually in Alternative Cm. Alternatives A, B, 

and Cm project higher levels of fencing than the amount that has occurred annually on the ANF 

for the past 20 years (735 acres). These are the anticipated acreages that would require fencing to 

meet silvicultural objectives for each alternative under current deer browsing impact levels. In 

recent years, deer populations have dropped on the ANF. In all of the alternatives, there is some 

uncertainty concerning the need for future fencing, particularly in Alternative D where 

substantially less harvesting would occur (Deer impact is a joint function of deer density and 

forage availability [deCalesta and Stout 1997]). Deer populations can quickly rebound if less deer 

harvesting would occur in the future. Should deer populations remain at this level or lower, it is 

possible that the need to fence areas could decline in the future, particularly where harvest 

activities are concentrated within a geographic area. 

In response to new science, future use of fertilizer will be reduced to minimize reduction of soil 

base cations on plateau and upper sideslope sites, and also to enhance tree seedling diversity 

through other methods such as fencing (see LRMP guidelines). The average annual amount of 

fertilization for the past 20 years has been nearly 800 acres on the ANF, though acres fertilized 

has decreased in recent years. Alternatives A and B would result in the most annual fertilization 

(343-388 acres), and Alternative D the least (87-98 acres), with less than one-third that amount. 

Though browsing intensity by deer has recently declined, interfering understories that are well 

established as a result of a legacy of deer browsing impacts will still need treatment to encourage 

a diversity of tree seedlings and herbaceous vegetation to become established. With continued use 

of the DMAP program, improvements in understory health and diversity should be evident with 

time. However, control of undesired interfering vegetation with herbicides currently remains the 

only cost effective option to prepare understories for seedling development and creation of early 

structural (age) forest classes. Increasing the types of treatment techniques available (e.g. more 

selective methods) will help to regenerate more difficult species (e.g. oaks) by selectively 

controlling interfering vegetation while allowing diverse seedling regeneration to become well 

established and competitive. Alternative A would utilize broadcast and manual foliar application 

methods only, whereas target-specific cut surface (cut and frill, injection, and cut stump) methods 

are added as treatment options in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. These application methods, along 

with new buffer zone widths along water courses (see LRMP standards and guidelines), would 

allow for treatment of interfering understory vegetation in riparian areas in Alternatives, B, Cm 

and D. Alternative A would utilize the same buffer widths along water courses that are presently 

used, which excludes any necessary treatment of interfering vegetation in riparian areas. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-157

Alternatives A, B, and Cm would result in herbicide application levels higher than those actually 

applied on the ANF in the past 20 years (977 acres annually). Alternative D would result in the least 

amount (756 to 931 acres annually) of herbicide application to treat interfering understory 

vegetation, and Alternative Cm proposes the most (1,631 to 2,368 acres annually) in decades 1 and 

2. In Alternatives A, B, and Cm, site preparation, another technique to remove interfering woody 

vegetation, would increase over levels that have occurred on the ANF for the past 20 years (1,385 

acres annually). Alternative Cm projects the highest level (1,658 to 1,992 acres annually) of site 

preparation, while Alternative D would result in the least amount (631 to 865 acres annually). 

Alternative Cm would result in the most herbicide application for regeneration purposes (39,900 

acres) by the end of the second decade of LRMP implementation, while Alternative D would 

result in the least (16,870 acres). This would result in a reduction of fern, striped maple, beech 

brush, other interfering hardwoods, and grasses, cumulatively increasing the tree seedlings and a 

diversity of other herbaceous understory species. Upon successful establishment of seedlings on 

these acres, overstory trees would be harvested (future foreseeable action) through even-aged or 

uneven-aged methods, and in most cases new stands of trees would result (future foreseeable 

action). Even-aged regeneration harvesting would occur on 15,100 acres (Alternative D) to 

44,600 acres (Alternative A) during the first two decades of implementation. The indirect effect 

would be a substantial change in age class distribution. Uneven-aged harvesting would remove 

primarily groups of trees on 60 acres (Alternative A) to 9,860 acres (Alternative Cm) during the 

first two decades. 

Prescribed burning and mechanical scarification are relatively new techniques on the ANF, and a 

minimal amount has occurred on the ANF in the past 20 years. Increased levels of prescribed 

burning and mechanical scarification of oak seedbeds are incorporated to promote oak 

regeneration. New science indicates the shelterwood burn technique would be more effective in 

maintaining the oak types on the ANF than past methods (see Appendix A of the LRMP, 

Vegetation Management Practices- Rationale for Choice). Alternatives B and Cm would result in 

the most (99 to 109 acres annually) prescribed burning for the purpose of regenerating tree 

seedlings, and Alternative D the least (8 acres annually). Likewise, Alternatives B and Cm would 

result in the most scarification to prepare seedbeds for seedling establishment (99 to 109 acres 

annually), and Alternative D the least (8 acres annually). 

Release is a relatively new technique (since 1995) applied on the ANF in regenerating stands in 

order to maintain tree species diversity. The LRMP incorporates greater use of release treatments 

to improve tree species diversity in young stands. All alternatives would result in increased levels 

of release to maintain tree species diversity over average levels applied on the ANF for the past 

20 years (531 acres annually). Alternative Cm incorporates the greatest use of release to promote 

tree species diversity (1,727 to 2,271 acres annually), whereas Alternative D proposes the least 

(774 to 1,042 acres annually). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-158 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Harvest and reforestation activities by decade 6

The following table displays the cumulative intermediate thinning and regeneration harvests, and 

reforestation treatments estimated as needed to achieve the desired conditions for each alternative 

through decade 6. As can be seen from Table 3-34, Alternative A, followed closely by Alternative 

B would result in the most even-aged regeneration and thinning activity on the ANF, while 

Alternative D would implement substantially less of these activities over the next 6 decades. 

Conversely, Alternative A would utilize the least uneven-aged management, whereas Alternative 

Table 3-34. Estimated cumulative reforestation and regenerated acres (thousands of acres) on the ANF by 

silvicultural system - decades 1 through 6 

Decades 1-6 Acres

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Treatment Acres (thousands) of Harvest Activity 

Intermediate Thinning 76.0 54.4 40.7 10.7 

Even-aged Regeneration1 139.6 130.2 110.3 36.3 

Uneven-aged Management2 0.1 13.8 17.1 50.6 

Treatment Acres (thousands) of Reforestation Activity 

Site Preparation 126.9 134.9 118.3 76.5 

Herbicide Application 122.3 132.3 118.3 78.4 

Fencing 111.5 118.7 104.7 69.9 

Prescribed Burning 5.7 8.4 7.7 2.4 

Scarification 5.7 8.4 7.7 2.5 

Fertilization 11.2 12.3 10.7 5.3 

Release 144.0 145.9 137.5 83.5 

1 Represents final harvested acreage. Acreage for shelterwood seed cuts are not displayed. 2

 Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree selection harvest 

followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed. 

D would implement far more uneven-aged regeneration treatments than any of the other 

alternatives. Alternatives A and B would implement similar levels of herbicide application and 

site preparation to treat invasive, interfering understory vegetation in order for diverse tree 

seedling regeneration to become established, while a lesser amount is projected for Alternative 

Cm by the end of decade 6. Alternative D would implement roughly 2/3 the amount of herbicide 

application and site preparation as the other alternatives. Much of this would occur in Alternative 

D every 20 to 40 years in conjunction with overstory treatments. 

Alternative B would utilize the most fencing in the next 6 decades, while Alternative D would 

utilize the least amount. Most of the fencing in Alternative D is for seedling development under an 

uneven-aged system, where shade would reduce seedling height growth and fences would likely 

need to be in place longer than under an even-aged system. Additionally, lower overall forage 

created and maintained by vegetation management in Alternative D, will result in greater impacts 

from deer browsing. In all of the alternatives, there is some uncertainty concerning the need for 

future fencing, particularly in Alternative D where substantially less harvesting would occur. The 

figures shown in Table 3-35 are the anticipated acreages that would require fencing to meet 

silvicultural objectives for each alternative under current deer browsing impact levels. Should deer 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-159

populations remain at present levels or lower, it is possible that the need to fence areas could 

decline in the future, particularly where harvest activities are concentrated within a geographic area. 

Alternatives B and Cm would implement the most prescribed burning and scarification to 

regenerate oak forests, while Alternative D would result in far less during the next 6 decades. 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm would result in similar levels of fertilizer application, while 

Alternative D would fertilize less than half the acreage of the other alternatives over the next 6 

decades. Alternative D would complete release to promote species diversity on the fewest acres 

(just over 50% of the other alternatives), while Alternatives A and B would release similar 

amounts of acreages. Alternative Cm would release less acreage than Alternatives A and B. In 

summary, Alternatives A and B would do the most to create greater age class diversity on the 

ANF, and treat the most interfering vegetation, followed by Alternative Cm. 

Total acres regenerated by forest type and silvicultural system

Table 3-35 displays the estimated acreage by forest type that would be regenerated through evenaged and uneven-aged methods in each of the alternatives during decades 1 and 2 of LRMP 

implementation. Alternatives A and B would regenerate the most Allegheny hardwoods using 

even-aged management. All alternatives, particularly A and B would regenerate more Allegheny 

hardwoods in the first two decades of LRMP implementation, as this forest type is considered 

shorter lived relative to most other forest types found on the ANF. Even-aged management best 

maintains Allegheny hardwoods (Bjorkbom and Walters 1986). These alternatives would 

regenerate other forest types more in subsequent decades of LRMP implementation. Even-aged 

management best maintains upland hardwoods and oaks as well (see Appendix A to LRMP, 

Vegetation Management Practices – Rationale for Choice). Alternative Cm strives to balance 

harvest activities more evenly across all forest types. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D use more uneven-aged systems that would promote vertical diversity 

over the long term (see cumulative effects section) than Alternative A. The majority of unevenaged management applied in Alternatives B and Cm would be applied to help meet desired 

conditions for late structural vegetation in MA 2.2. These forest types would transition towards 

upland hardwoods, with an abundance of species that are intermediately tolerant of shade, 

assuming a group selection system would generally be used. As shown in Table 3-35, most 

uneven-aged treatments would occur in upland and Allegheny hardwoods. 

Table 3-36 displays the estimated cumulative acreage by forest types that would be regenerated 

on ANF lands through even-aged and uneven-aged methods in each of the alternatives through 

decade 6 of LRMP implementation. Alternatives A and B would regenerate the most Allegheny 

and upland hardwoods using even-aged management, and Alternative D the least amount. 

Alternatives A and B would also regenerate the most oaks through even-aged management by 

decade 6 of implementation, and Alternative D the least. Alternatives A, B, and Cm would best 

maintain the shade-intolerant Allegheny, upland, and oak hardwood forest types present on the 

ANF today. Alternative Cm would regenerate the most northern hardwoods through even-aged 

management. Northern hardwoods regenerated through even-aged management will have a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-160 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

greater shade-intolerant or intermediate component and shift towards upland hardwood forest 

types. Efforts will be made to sustain the aspen type on the ANF through commercial or 

noncommercial treatments that will be identified at the project level. Additionally, efforts will be 

made to sustain or increase the aspen present as a component of forest stands not typed as aspen 

as a whole. 

Alternative D places greater emphasis on the use of uneven-aged systems to meet desired conditions of 

providing more late structural, older forest vegetation with greater continuous forest canopy over the long 

term. As shown in Table 3-36, most uneven-aged management would occur in upland and Allegheny 

hardwoods in all of the alternatives, with D regenerating a greater variety of forest types using unevenaged regeneration methods. Allegheny and northern hardwoods would transition towards upland 

hardwoods under a group selection system, with an abundance of species that are intermediately tolerant 

of shade, and towards northern hardwoods under single tree selection. Oaks regenerated through unevenaged methods would result in less abundant oak trees in treated areas, with a greater abundance of species 

more intermediate in shade tolerance, such as red maple and birches. 

Table 3-35. Estimated acres (rounded to nearest 100) regenerated by silvicultural system and forest type -

-decades 1 and 2 

Decade 1 

Acres 

Decade 2 

Acres 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Forest Type Acres of Even-aged Regeneration Harvest (Shelterwood Removal Cut or 

Clearcut) 

Upland hardwood 2,500 2,200 2,100 600 1,200 300 3,700 300 

Allegheny Hardwood 21,500 20,200 13,500 6,200 19,200 18,800 10,300 4,000 

Oaks 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 

Northern Hardwood 100 1,000 900 200 0 0 1,700 0 

Mixed (Low stocked) 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 3,400 

Aspen n/a1 n/a1 n/a1 n/a1 n/a1 n/a1 n/a1 n/a1

Total Even-aged 

Regeneration Harvest2 24,200 23,400 17,500 7,000 20,400 19,100 16,700 8,100 

Forest Type Uneven-aged Management 

Upland hardwood 0 1,000 1,400 1,000 0 1,000 1,400 1,000 

Allegheny Hardwood 100 2,300 4,400 1,200 0 1,500 900 1,200 

Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Northern Hardwood 0 700 900 800 0 800 900 800 

Total Uneven-aged 

Management3 100 4,000 6,700 3,000 0 3,300 3,200 3,000 

1 Aspen will be sustained through commercial or noncommercial methods to be determined at the project level. 2

 Represents final harvested acreage. Acreage for shelterwood seed cuts are not displayed. 

3

 Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree 

selection harvest followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-161

Table 3-36. Estimated cumulative acres (thousands of acres) regenerated by silvicultural system and 

forest type -- decades 1 through 6 

Decades 1-6 

Acres 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Forest Type Acres (thousands) of Even-aged Regeneration Harvest (Shelterwood 

Removal Cut or Clearcut) 

Upland hardwood 70.5 55.9 34.6 6.0 

Allegheny Hardwood 59.4 62.5 53.5 23.8 

Oaks 7.0 10.5 9.9 2.2 

Northern Hardwood 2.5 1.2 10.3 0.9 

Mixed 

(Low stocked) 0 0 2.0 3.4 

Aspen 0.2 0.1 n/a1 n/a1

Total Even-aged 

Regeneration Harvest2 139.6 130.2 110.3 36.3 

Forest Type Acres (thousands) of Uneven-aged Management 

Upland hardwood 0 4.0 5.2 23.1 

Allegheny Hardwood 0.1 6.8 8.7 14.7 

Oaks 0 0 0 1.6 

Northern Hardwood 0 3.0 3.2 11.2 

Total Uneven-aged 

Management3 0.1 13.8 17.1 50.6 

1 Aspen will be sustained through commercial or noncommercial methods to be determined at the project level. 2

 Represents final harvested acreage. Acreage for shelterwood seed cuts are not displayed. 

3

 Represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent an improvement cut or single tree 

selection harvest followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed. 

Cumulative effects 

Scope of analysis 

The vegetation cumulative effects discussion assesses the combined effects from past, present, and "future 

foreseeable" actions from activities on Federal and non-Federal land in the four county area surrounding the ANF. 

"Future foreseeable actions" in this instance are those actions which might reasonably be expected to occur on 

private land or those which reasonably might be expected to occur in the future from past, present, or future ANF 

decisions. 

The affected area for cumulative effects on vegetation is forest lands in the four counties that have ANF lands 

located within them. In some discussions a State-wide context is used to highlight differences from the fourcounty area. ANF personnel considered using the northern unglaciated Allegheny Plateau (Subsection 212Ga) for 

the cumulative effects area, but data was less available for that area than the four counties surrounding the ANF. 

Forest lands constitute approximately 84 percent of the entire land area in the four county region, with the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-162 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

remaining 16 percent consisting of non forest land (cropland, pasture, water). Forest land in the four county 

region (Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties) that includes the ANF is generally representative of 

vegetation conditions occurring on the ANF and the immediately surrounding area. According to 2004 FIA data, 

the forest lands in the four counties around the ANF are similar in species composition and age to the ANF, 

though they vary somewhat in size and stocking. Effects on forest health, forest composition, and forest age and 

stocking are analyzed in the context of treatments and management intensity. 

The cumulative effect of vegetative management activities will be evaluated by totaling past ANF treatments in 

the last two decades (since implementation of the 1986 Forest Plan), estimated treatments on private and other 

public lands in the past two decades, anticipated ANF treatments under each alternative, and anticipated future 

treatments on private and public lands for the next twenty years based on past and anticipated future trends. This 

would incorporate completed and ongoing activities since approval of the 1986 Forest Plan. A time frame of 20 

years into the future was used to evaluate ANF, private, and other public land management activities in the 

cumulative effects analysis area, as this would allow time for much of the anticipated ANF management activity 

to be implemented, resulting vegetative changes to occur, and is a realistic time frame to predict reasonably 

foreseeable actions from this planning cycle. 

Introduction 

The primary effects on vegetation will occur from proposed commercial timber harvest, reforestation treatments, 

non-commercial treatments, wildlife habitat improvement work, activities that convert forest to non-forested land, 

past and future development, and from doing no treatment at all on a site (allow other influences and natural 

processes to continue). These activities can result in changes in understory and overstory conditions, forest 

structure, age of forested areas, and changes in plant species composition and diversity. 

Other influences on forest vegetation in the cumulative effects analysis area will continue to varying degrees, 

across all alternatives. These include the effects of beech bark disease, atmospheric deposition (acid rain), deer 

browsing impacts, natural disturbances, and threats to forest health. These will be discussed in further detail in the 

following cumulative effects section. Lands within the cumulative effects area for vegetation are categorized by 

ownership (Table 3-37). The cumulative effects analysis area totals slightly more than 1.7 million acres of forest 

lands, of which, ANF lands comprise 29 percent. Other public lands comprise 14 percent, and the remaining 57 

percent of the cumulative effects analysis area consists of private lands. 

Table 3-37. Forest land1 ownership within four county cumulative effects area 

Ownership Class Four-County Area (1,000 acres, %) 

National Forest 496.7 (29) 

Other Public 248.9 (14) 

Total Public 745.6 (43) 

Private Industrial 51.7 (3) 

Private Non-industrial 946.2 (54) 

Total Private 997.9 (57) 

Total All Ownership Classes 1,743,500 

1

 Total acres classified as forest land by 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-163

Cumulative effects common to all alternatives 

The following discussion describes effects and influences on forest vegetation that are anticipated to occur in the 

cumulative effects analysis area regardless of the alternative selected. It is divided into two broad sections: oil and 

gas development and cumulative effects where forest vegetation management will not occur. 

Oil and gas development 

Past oil and gas development

Oil and gas development is assumed to be constant across the alternatives evaluated, and is based 

on the analysis provided in Appendix F of this document. Approximately 93 percent of the 

minerals underneath the ANF are privately owned. Assuming that each oil and gas well site, 

along with associated access roads, results in an average of 1.3 acres of disturbance (well pad and 

access road) and the average annual amount of disturbance between 1986 and 2005 was about 

225 wells per year, an estimated 5,800 acres of disturbance occurred during the past 20 years. 

Generally this disturbance has the effect of converting a forested area to non-forested or nonvegetated condition where access roads and well pads are located. There are presently 

approximately 8,000 oil and gas wells, along with an estimated 1,250 miles of associated access 

roads on the ANF. It is estimated that oil and gas clearing (including associated roads) currently 

occupy 1.4 percent of the ANF land base. 

Assuming oil and gas development levels are similar on other public and private lands in the four 

county cumulative effects analysis area, it is estimated there are now about 28,000 wells, and that 

oil and gas clearing (including roads) occupies 1.4 percent of the entire cumulative effects 

landbase (includes ANF lands). 

Close well spacings of 400 to 500 feet are frequently used on areas of the ANF that contain oil 

and gas reserves. This equates to one well drilled per five acres of land. Oil and gas wells, 

associated access road construction, facilities, and powerlines have the indirect effect of 

increasing operational costs for activities such as reforestation treatments, and reducing the 

efficiency of managing forested ecosystems, as blocks of contiguous, uniform forest vegetation 

are reduced in size where dense networks of roads exist. Since the amount and location of 

development is unpredictable, the potential impact to plant and animal communities is difficult to 

quantify. However, in general, as the density of wells and roads increase, ecosystem integrity 

decreases. 

Future oil and gas development

For the purposes of the following cumulative effects analysis, a future development rate of 512 

wells per year (see Table 2-4), or an additional 666 acres annually converted to non-forest land on 

the ANF will be assumed for the next 20 years. Assumptions used in Table 2-4 to the mid-point 

of the second decade were extended to 2025 for this analysis. Beyond that, oil and gas 

development is difficult to predict due to changing markets and demand, and factors such as 

changes in drilling technology. Using this annual average, it is anticipated over 18,000 wells 

could exist on the ANF by the year 2025, occupying about 4 percent of the ANF land base. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-164 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Presently, an estimated 28,000 wells exist within the entire four-county cumulative effects 

analysis area (including ANF, State, and private lands). By applying the same anticipated future 

oil and gas development rates to the surrounding four county area, it is estimated a total of nearly 

63,000 wells could exist in the entire cumulative effects analysis area (includes ANF, State and 

private lands) by the year 2025. This would result in nearly 5 percent of the total cumulative 

effects analysis area consisting of non-forested lands from oil and gas development. Areas 

developed for roads associated with oil and gas activities on private and other publicly owned 

lands will not vary by alternative. 

Should Federal minerals become developed on the ANF in the future, the effects to forest 

vegetation would be similar to those from private oil and gas developments. 

Cumulative effects where forest management will not occur 

Forest type transitions are anticipated to occur in each of the alternatives on ANF, State, and privately 

owned lands in the cumulative effects analysis area, particularly unmanaged areas and areas where 

reforestation investments are not made to sustain existing forest types. These changes are expected to 

occur over a number of decades. 

Northern hardwoods and hemlocks

Northern hardwood stands with a large beech component in the cumulative effects area will 

continue to suffer beech bark disease mortality, and associated understory response of increased 

beech sprouting. The end result in unmanaged stands is a transition from high canopy overstory 

beech trees, to dense thickets of young root-sprout origin beech trees that are also susceptible to 

the disease complex as described by Latty et al. (2003). As previously discussed, if the hemlock 

woolly adelgid impacts hemlock stands on the ANF and surrounding four-county area, causing 

widespread hemlock mortality, these areas will convert to hardwood forest types, most likely 

upland hardwoods in the absence of management. 

Upland hardwoods

Upland hardwoods will likely increase in their abundance on the ANF and surrounding four 

county area in all of the alternatives. Red maple, birches, and black cherry are primary 

components of upland hardwoods, but most unmanaged areas that transition to upland hardwoods 

will be dominated by birch species. As mentioned previously, sweet birch has been increasing in 

abundance in recent years on the ANF as deer browsing impacts have declined. Birches in the 

ANF region are often affected by nectria fungus and develop cankers in the main stem. The 

canker usually substantially reduces the commercial value of the trees and often results in 

mechanical failure (breakage) of the stem by age 60. 

Allegheny hardwoods

The Allegheny hardwood type is unique to this part of the world (Marquis 1975, 1990). This 

forest type is a distinct subtype of the far more common northern hardwood or beech-birch-maple 

forest that spans the entire northern portion of the Eastern U.S. from New England to the Lake 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-165

States. Using FIA forest type classification, the ANF contains 19 percent black cherry forest 

types, compared to 17 percent in the surrounding four county area, and 7 percent Statewide. In 

fact, black cherry forest types comprise only 2 percent of forest land in the entire Northeastern 

United States (Morin pers. comm. 2005). Allegheny hardwoods occur on a relatively small 

portion of the northern hardwood distribution, primarily occurring on the Allegheny Plateau in 

Pennsylvania and New York, with smaller amounts in West Virginia. 

According to 2004 FIA data, black cherry is the second most common tree species greater than 1” 

in diameter on the ANF (17%), similar to the surrounding four county area (15%) (Alerich pers. 

comm. 2006). Allegheny hardwoods, which typically have a large black cherry component, are 

shorter lived relative to other forest types. Each alternative would result in a different amount of 

Allegheny hardwoods being maintained across the landscape. In the long term, Alternative B 

would sustain the most Allegheny hardwoods on ANF lands, primarily through even-aged 

management, closely followed by Alternative A then Cm. Alternative D would sustain the least 

Allegheny hardwoods on the landscape. 

Beyond age 80 or 100 years, diameter growth slows and mortality of black cherry increases 

rapidly (Marquis 1990). In the long term it is anticipated that unmanaged Allegheny hardwood 

stands, as they experience increasing mortality due to senescence, will slowly transition to upland 

hardwood, though they will most likely retain a substantial black cherry component. 

Oaks

As mentioned previously, oak recruitment has nearly ceased in the past 50-100 years in much of 

the eastern U.S. on all but the driest and nutrient-poor sites (Abrams 2003, 2005). Partial 

overstory removals and the exclusion of fire have favored the development of shade tolerant 

species that limit the establishment, growth, and survival of oaks, and the continued dominance of 

oaks in eastern forests appears unlikely without intensive management (Gould et al. 2005). In the 

absence of frequent, low-intensity fires set by Native Americans over the past several thousand 

years, oak forest types along the Allegheny River and its major tributaries are slowly transitioning 

to understories and forests that will be dominated by red maple and birch. 

Oaks and hickories range from intolerant to moderately tolerant of shade (Sander et al. 1983, p. 

116), and therefore oak seedlings do not exhibit long-term survival or growth under closed 

canopy conditions (Abrams 1992). However, many associated trees, such as the maples and 

beech, are more tolerant of shade than oaks. Consequently, if undisturbed, oak stands on the ANF 

and surrounding four-county area will transition to shade-tolerant species. 

The leaf litter of species that are presently replacing oaks is less flammable and decomposes more 

rapidly than that of upland oaks, rendering them less combustible in the future for those who wish 

to restore natural fire regimes (Abrams 2005). This is exacerbated by large deer populations that 

eat acorns, preferentially browse oak seedlings, and indirectly affect understory flammability by 

reducing leaf litter from understory vegetation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-166 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Recent forest health monitoring completed in oak stands on the ANF found red maple to be the 

most abundant seedling species, followed closely by American beech. This virtual absence of oak 

regeneration indicates that oak-dominated stands may transition to stands dominated by other 

species unless steps are taken to ensure its inclusion (Morin et al. 2006). In the long term, 

unmanaged oak forest on the ANF is anticipated to transition to red maple and upland hardwoods. 

Oak forests in the cumulative effects area, including the ANF, will likely transition to other forest 

types with far fewer oaks where no action is taken to open forest overstory canopies, reduce deer 

browsing impacts, or help oak seedlings gain a stronger competitive position through the use of 

fire, as has been observed in much of the eastern North America (Abrams 2003, 2005). 

Additionally, the trend towards increases in non-oak tree species (red maple, American beech, 

birch, other hardwoods) will continue in oak forests that lack understory fire disturbances. The 

sustainability of the oak forest type is in question where no activities will occur to promote 

development of oak seedling regeneration. This concern is greatest in Alternative D where the 

largest acreage (63%) of oak types on the ANF is allocated to management area prescriptions that 

exclude active management of forest vegetation, and the least in Alternative A where the largest 

acreage (77%) of oak types is available for active management to promote conservation of oak 

forests on the ANF. 

Cumulative effects on key vegetation elements from each alternative 

The following elements will be used to discuss the potential cumulative effects to forest vegetation under each 

alternative based on past and anticipated levels of management activities that could have effects on vegetative 

composition, structure, forest health, and vegetation management activities necessary to meet the desired forest 

vegetative condition in each of the alternatives. 

• Forest Composition 

• Forest Age and Stocking 

• Forest health 

Forest vegetation management 

These four elements provide a valuable comparison of effects on ANF forest vegetation, or the outcomes, 

from the combined treatments within each alternative. Past and anticipated activities on ANF, State, and 

privately owned lands that affect forest vegetation in the cumulative effects analysis area are also 

discussed in this section. They provide important indications of the condition of the forest vegetation on 

the ANF and cumulative effects area over the short-term (next twenty years), as it relates to the issues or 

concerns identified for plan revision. These short-term changes also can be used to help project what may 

happen over the long-term (next 50 years). 

The following summary of anticipated cumulative effects takes into account both what has happened and 

what can reasonably be expected to take place on both public and private land within the cumulative 

effects area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-167

Table 3-38. Vegetation within four county cumulative effects area (percent) 

Ownership Class ANF Surrounding Four-County Area 

Total Forest 97 84 

Total Non-forest 3 16 

Forest composition 

This section is divided into two discussions: one concerning the amount of non-forested lands anticipated 

and the other concerning forest type outcomes anticipated in each alternative. Table 3-38 displays the 

forested and non-forested lands on the ANF and surrounding four county cumulative effects area 

according to 2004 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006). 

Non-forested lands – roads and other developed uses

Similar to the surrounding four-county area, 3 percent of ANF lands are considered to consist of 

shrubs and permanent grass openings. In addition to lands classed as permanent openings, 

approximately 5 percent (26,000 acres) of the ANF landbase is presently considered non-forested 

and developed for other uses, due to Forest system roads, non-system roads (including oil and gas 

roads), oil and gas clearings, gravel pits, and administrative sites. 

Forest roads

Forest roads are required for a number of reasons, including transportation of forest products, 

public and administrative access. On the ANF, road construction has the effect of converting a 

forested corridor to a non-forested or non-vegetated condition where the roadbed lies. 

Existing roads on the ANF (2,800 miles) occupies about 2.2 percent of the land base (includes 

both FS system, municipal, and privately-owned non-system roads). Of this, there are presently 

approximately 1,300 miles of FS system roads on the ANF, occupying roughly 1 percent of the 

ANF landbase. Management Area 3.0 presently contains the most miles of roads. One important 

indirect effect of forest roads that provide public access to forested areas can be reduced deer 

browsing impacts on understory vegetation. Hunting is considered the single most important 

factor affecting deer density on the ANF, and actual deer numbers are largely a function of hunter 

access and success. As a result, more remote portions of the ANF that provide little motorized 

access (such as MAs 5.0, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, and portions of 2.2 and 6.1), along with 

reduced forage availability may experience greater impacts from deer browsing. Conversely, 

areas that provide greater hunter access, such as MA 3.0, along with forage created and 

maintained by vegetation management, will experience lower impacts from deer browsing. 

Without hunting mortality to keep deer densities within bounds, deer populations will increase 

whether there is adequate forage or not (deCalesta pers. comm. 1997). 

Road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning activities, along with access 

management, vary by alternative. It is predicted that Alternatives A and B would result in a net 

increase of 100-120 miles of new Forest Service roads on new corridors, occupying less than 1 

percent of the total ANF land base by 2025. Alternative D would require the least road miles to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-168 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

implement, resulting in a net increase of roughly 40 miles of new roads. Alternatives A and B 

would consequently convert the most land area to a non-forested condition. Alternative D, 

conversely, would result in the least amount of new road construction (mostly in MA 2.1 and 

3.0), and the largest amount of road decommissioning (most in MA 7.2). All alternatives would 

result in similar land clearing for gravel pits by the end of the second decade of implementation, 

roughly 100 acres. The alternatives do not vary in the percent of roads closed to public access 

year-round. 

Cumulative developed lands

When viewed cumulatively with other land clearing activities, such as oil and gas development, 

all of the alternatives would result in roughly 8 percent of the ANF landbase cleared for Forest 

system roads, non-system roads (including oil and gas roads), oil and gas clearings, gravel pits, 

and administrative sites by 2025. The vast majority of new development is associated with 

privately owned oil and gas development on ANF lands, constituting nearly 2.6 percent additional 

clearing of ANF lands by the year 2025. New FS road construction and gravel pit development 

would result in less than 1 percent of the ANF land base developed, or converted to a nonvegetated condition, in any of the alternatives by 2025. 

Summary of forest type outcomes

It is anticipated that forest types present today on most private lands in the cumulative effects area 

will gradually transition towards upland and northern hardwoods, with diminishing amounts of 

Allegheny and oak hardwood types. 

One-half to two-thirds of the region’s forests would need some form of remedial treatment (e.g. 

herbicide application, fencing) if preferred tree seedling species are desired (McWilliams et al.

2005). If disturbed, nearly half of Pennsylvania’s forests would fail to adequately regenerate into 

a new forest of similar tree species composition (USDA FS 2004e). The lowest abundance of 

regeneration to satisfactorily regenerate forested areas was found in the Plateau Region, which 

includes the ANF (McWilliams et al. 2004). This holds true across various ownerships. At the 

same time, as noted by Nowak (1997), the amount of timber cut from non-industrial private 

landowners has been increasing in the past few decades. If these landowners don’t take steps and 

make necessary investments to assure adequate, diverse seedling establishment on harvested 

areas, degraded species composition (particularly with regard to maintaining existing forest types) 

or loss of forest cover is likely, reducing the sustainability of these forests in the long term. 

As summarized by Jones and Finley (1993), a number of factors influence sustainability of forest 

management on non-industrial private lands in the region and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

These include: 

 Short-tenured ownership (averaging less than 15 years) 

 Lack of knowledge about forestry is pervasive among forestland owners 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-169

 Only an estimated 10 percent of Pennsylvania’s non-industrial private forests are covered 

by written forest management plans (which would include reforestation plans) 

 Timber harvest is supervised by a professional forester only an estimated 20 percent of 

the time. 

 In Pennsylvania, non-industrial private forests supply about 80 percent of the raw 

material for the Nation’s largest hardwood industry. Thus, the potential for long-term 

resource degradation is high. 

On non-industrial private lands in the cumulative effects area, a trend towards upland hardwoods 

is anticipated due to harvest methods applied, and a lower level of reforestation treatments made 

to perpetuate forest types present on these lands today. Increasing thickets of understory beech 

are anticipated in particular on private non-industrial forest lands with a large beech component, 

where efforts are not made to remove prolific beech sprouts that prevent other tree species from 

becoming established. An increase in upland hardwoods on private non-industrial lands is 

anticipated largely due to the use of partial overstory harvests, with few associated reforestation 

investments. On non-industrial private lands in the cumulative effects area, the trend would likely 

be a reduction in Allegheny hardwoods, due to the reduced levels of reforestation investments 

that are often made on these lands to perpetuate this forest type. On private lands in the 

cumulative effects area, the trend would likely be a reduction in oak types, due to length of time it 

takes to successfully regenerate oak types (up to 20 years), as well as the large amount of 

reforestation investments needed to sustain this forest type (e.g. controlled burning, fencing areas, 

and releasing oak seedlings). Typically reduced levels of reforestation investments are made on 

private non-industrial forest lands in the cumulative effects area to sustain forest species 

composition. 

In areas where no management will occur, including reforestation investments, over the long term 

beech, striped maple and birch are the species that would likely dominate the understory, 

midstory, and, eventually, the overstory in much of the cumulative effects area. It is possible that 

the seed-producing overstory would decline to the point where inadequate amounts of seed will 

be produced for successful, diverse natural regeneration. At the same time, interfering vegetation 

would create poor seed germination conditions or would prevent seedlings from becoming 

established, while continued deer browsing impacts would result in browsing of what seedlings 

do manage to become established. The virtual absence of oak regeneration on the Allegheny 

Plateau indicates that oak-dominated stands will likely transition to stands dominated by other 

species (primarily red maple) where no management or reforestation treatments occur in the 

cumulative effects area. 

In the long term, all alternatives would result in changes to forest composition on the ANF, 

though Alternatives B and Cm would best sustain the relative abundance of forest types found on 

the ANF today. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-170 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-39. Structural size classes within four county cumulative effects area (Percent) 

Ownership Class ANF Four County Area 

Non-stocked 0 1 

Seedling/Sapling (<5” diameter) 11 11 

Pole-sized trees (6-10.9” diameter) 9 20 

Large trees (>11” diameter) 80 68 

Forest age and stocking 

Table 3-39 displays the structural size classes of forest lands on the ANF and surrounding four 

county cumulative effects area according to 2004 Forest Inventory and Analysis data (Alerich 

pers. comm. 2006). 

Nearly eleven percent of forest lands on the ANF are classed as seedling/sapling (less than 5 

inches diameter at breast height); roughly the same amount as the surrounding four-county area 

and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The ANF contains less pole-timber sized forest land 

(9%), than the surrounding four counties (20%). Overall, trees on the ANF are large compared 

with the surrounding four counties. Forest land on the ANF is comprised of about 80 percent 

sawtimber sized vegetation, compared to 68 percent in the surrounding four counties. 

Like the ANF, most forests on adjacent private and other public lands within the four county area 

surrounding the ANF (Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren) are also second growth and fairly 

uniform in age. These lands experienced similar natural disturbances and human caused 

influences for centuries as did the ANF. 

From 1989 (USDA FS-NFES unpublished) to 2004 (Alerich pers. comm. 2006), areas classed as 

seedling/sapling forest (less than 5 inches diameter) decreased from 15 percent of areas classed 

by FIA as timberland on ANF to 11 percent. Areas classed as sawtimber (greater than 11 inches 

diameter) increased from 73 percent in 1989 to 80 percent in 2004. 

Age class diversity

Pennsylvania has nearly 17 million acres of forest land. A long-term trend of decreasing seedlingsapling stands and an increase in sawtimber stands that are approaching financial maturity 

continues. Currently, 11 percent of the State forestland area is seedling-sapling stands. Statewide, 

the seedling-sapling class has decreased by well over 50 percent since 1955. The situation may 

have impacts on early structural habitat-dependent wildlife species. Statewide, sawtimber stands 

have more than doubled in area since 1955 (McWilliams et al. 2004). 

From 1989 (Alerich 1993) to 2004 (Alerich pers. comm. 2006), the acreage in seedling-sapling 

sized trees on private non-industrial lands in the four-county cumulative effects area decreased 

from 16 to 12 percent. Statewide, harvesting on private lands is expected to remain constant or 

increase given current hardwood lumber values (Jacobson pers. comm. 2005). Final harvests on 

private lands are expected to increase in the next 20 years in the cumulative effects analysis area, 

over that which occurred in the past 20 years (see Table 3-42). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-171

Similar to ANF lands, forests in the surrounding four county area are also maturing, and some are 

starting to develop late structural conditions, though harvesting activities particularly on private 

lands in the four county area affects the potential to develop late structural conditions in the long 

term. The four county CE analysis area includes approximately 660 acres of existing remnant old 

growth forest on State Lands at Cook Forest and Anders Run Natural area. Approximately 4,000 

acres of remnant, original forest remains on the ANF. Although this makes up less than one 

percent of the total ANF acreage, it comprises approximately 12 percent of the total old growth 

forest in Pennsylvania (website accessed 4/3/06 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wlhabitat/forest/oldgrowth.htm), and is the largest contiguous oldgrowth beech-hemlock forest in the northeastern United States (Ruffner and Abrams 2003). 

Stocking

Table 3-40 displays present stocking levels based on 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006). 

According to the table, the vast majority of forest vegetation on the ANF is classed as fully 

stocked or moderately stocked similar to the surrounding four counties and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. Industrial private lands have substantially greater proportions of forest lands in an 

overstocked or poorly stocked condition than any other land ownership class in the cumulative 

effects analysis area. 

Stocking levels (relative densities) on the ANF are anticipated to remain fairly steady as stands 

mature and fill in, other areas decline and experience tree mortality that reduces stocking levels, 

and management activities maintain well stocked stands in all alternatives over the next 60 years. 

The exception to this would be areas with a substantial beech component, where beech tree 

mortality will likely result in lower overall stocking levels over the next 60 years, and a structural 

shift to smaller diameter understory trees. 

Table 3-40. Area of forest land by ownership group and stocking class -- Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren 

Counties – 2004 (thousands of acres) 

Ownership 

Nonstocked (0-

9% relative 

density) 

Poorly 

stocked (10-

34% relative 

density) 

Moderately 

stocked (35-

59% relative 

density) 

Fully 

stocked (60-

100% 

relative 

density) 

Overstocked 

(>100% relative 

density) 

Total 

Forest 

Land1

Federal 

(ANF) 0 35.0 (7) 147.4 (30) 277.8 (56) 36.5 (7) 496.7 

State/Other 

Public 1.7 (1) 5.1 (2) 100.8 (40) 127.0 (51) 14.3 (6) 248.9 

Private Nonindustrial 17.5 (2%) 51.8 (6) 294.3 (31) 505.8 (53) 76.8 (8) 946.2 

Private 

Industrial 0 20.4 (39) 0 18.9 (37) 12.4 (24) 51.7 

Total 19.2 (1) 112.3 (7) 542.5 (31) 929.5 (53) 140.0 (8) 1,743.5 

1

 Total acres classified as forest land by 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-172 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives A, B, and Cm, which emphasize the use of even-aged management, would likely 

result in the highest level of poorly stocked stands being regenerated. This would result in young, 

fully stocked stands replacing older, poorly stocked stands. Over the long term, Alternative D, 

which places greater emphasis on uneven-aged management, would likely treat fewer of these 

poorly stocked stands. 

Under an uneven-aged system it is not as feasible to treat poorly stocked stands, given less well 

stocked overstories and the need to invest in an increased number of reforestation activities. 

Stocking levels in areas managed under an uneven-aged system would vary, depending on 

whether group or single tree selection is applied. Most uneven-aged harvests would utilize group 

selection regeneration methods. Regular harvests under group selection generally result in an 

average residual relative density of 50 percent, whereas regular harvests under single tree 

selection would result in an average relative density of about 60 percent (Stout 1994, p. 337-338). 

There is also greater uncertainty in successfully developing abundant seedling regeneration under 

an uneven-aged system than an even-aged system. If insufficient seedling regeneration is 

developed, stocking levels in treated areas under uneven-aged management can be expected to 

decline. Alternative D reflects a reduced level of proposed regeneration and reforestation 

treatments on more of the Forest, resulting in less land area in a well stocked condition. 

On private lands, stocking levels may decline somewhat due to periodic selective harvests, 

particularly where diameter limit cuts are applied and where investments are not made to develop 

seedling stocking to replace harvested overstory trees. 

Understory and midstory condition

Concerns with interfering forest understories and overall lack of diverse seedling regeneration 

exist throughout the region. Recent sampling of seedling regeneration indicated deer browsing 

impacts are increasing the amount of understory interfering vegetation, which limits development 

of tree seedling regeneration, throughout the State of Pennsylvania. These findings indicate onehalf to two-thirds of the region’s forests would need some form of remedial treatment (e.g. 

herbicide application, fencing) if preferred tree seedling species are desired (McWilliams et al.

2005). If disturbed, nearly half of Pennsylvania’s forests would fail to adequately regenerate into 

a new forest of similar tree species composition (USDA FS 2004e). The lowest abundance of 

regeneration to satisfactorily regenerate forested areas was found in the Plateau Region, which 

includes the ANF (McWilliams et al. 2004). Shifts in species composition between overstory 

trees and seedling regeneration are evident throughout the Allegheny Plateau region, primarily 

due to the effects of selective browsing by deer on species they prefer to eat. Statewide, species 

that are more abundant in the understory (seedling-sapling) than in the overstory include black 

cherry and birch, consistent with conditions observed on the ANF (USDA FS 2004e), though on 

the ANF, American beech is more than twice as abundant as any species in both the seedling and 

sapling classes (Morin et al. 2006). As noted by Horsley et al. (1994) the abundance and 

composition of this advanced seedling and sapling reproduction directly effects the future 

composition of the forest canopy. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-173

High levels of deer browsing impacts have also affected private and other public lands within and 

surrounding the ANF. Industrial forests, private woodlots, and other public lands within the ANF 

are managed for forest products. Timber harvesting has occurred, and continues to occur, on 

private and other public lands within the ANF proclamation boundary. Due to the legacy of high 

deer browsing impacts in the area, industrial forest landowners, and forest managers on other 

public lands must presently employ similar reforestation techniques to develop desirable tree 

seedlings and ensure successful natural reforestation of regenerated areas. 

Until recently, deer populations have been above the target levels established by state game 

managers and ecologists for the region to sustain ecosystem structure and health. It should be 

noted that in many areas on the ANF, interfering vegetation in the understory is already well 

established due to the legacy of deer browsing impacts that have existed on the ANF since the 

1920s. This interfering vegetation will still need to be treated in order for a greater diversity of 

understory vegetation and tree seedlings to become established. With continued use of the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Deer Management Assistance Program, if lower deer 

populations are sustained, improvements in understory health and diversity should be evident 

with time. Consequently, there may be a reduced need for some reforestation activities, such as 

fencing, in the future. However, in all of the alternatives, there is some uncertainty concerning the 

need for future fencing, particularly in Alternative D where substantially less harvesting would 

occur and less forage sustained on the ANF landscape. 

Where no vegetative management would take place, overstory stands would continue to mature. 

Established interfering vegetation and selective browsing impacts from deer would continue to 

limit the number and abundance of tree, shrub, and herbaceous species in most of the cumulative 

effects area. Current encroachment of fern, grass, striped maple and beech brush in the understory 

would inhibit growth of seedlings and spread as tree mortality in the overstory occurred. 

Alternatives B and Cm propose the greatest amount of herbicide application, and therefore the 

greatest potential for a wider range of plant species to occupy the understory on the ANF. 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm would result in the most release treatments. Alternatives A and B 

propose the greatest amount of area fencing, while Alternative D proposes the least amount. 

Forest wide desired conditions include restoration of diverse understory vegetation and 

enhancement of vertical diversity. In total, Alternatives A and B would treat the greatest number 

of acres to promote development of diverse tree seedling and other plant species in the understory 

and midstory. Alternative D would treat the least amount of acres on the ANF to improve 

understory and midstory structural conditions. 

On private non-industrial lands in the cumulative effects analysis area, it is likely that few 

reforestation investments will be made to sustain the diversity of tree species today. On State and 

industrial forest lands in the cumulative effects analysis area, reforestation techniques are more 

likely to be applied to sustain forest cover and diversity in the long term. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-174 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest health 

It is anticipated that existing forest health concerns present on the ANF, including the introduced beech 

bark disease complex, defoliations by both native and exotic insects such as the European gypsy moth, 

sugar maple decline, and the threat of hemlock woolly adelgid will persist on the ANF. Though it is 

difficult to predict the degree of impact from these stressors, particularly the cyclical populations of 

defoliating insects, droughts, and introduced exotic forest pests, it is likely that some form of chemical 

(e.g. insecticides), biological (e.g. introduced predators that feed on exotic insects) and cultural 

(vegetation manipulation) treatments will be necessary in order to reduce their impacts. Treatments such 

as application of Bacillus thuringiensis reduce defoliations from various forest pests. Systemic treatments, 

such as the selective use of imidacloprid or other appropriate insecticide may be necessary to conserve 

individual hemlock trees infested with the hemlock woolly adelgid (Ward et al. 2004). The ANF will 

continue to work with Forest Health Protection to monitor forest health on the ANF, and develop 

strategies to reduce the impacts of stressors such as defoliating insects. Changes currently taking place 

due to maturity or decline will continue on the ANF. The rate of change will be set by the interaction of 

natural forces such as additional drought, insect defoliations, or windstorms, or human caused forces such 

as introduced insects and diseases or atmospheric deposition. 

Trees on adjacent private land within and around the ANF have been equally affected by numerous 

stresses and face the same forest health concerns described in the affected environment discussion for the 

ANF. In 1991 a defoliation epidemic occurred in northwestern Pennsylvania that continued through 1994. 

Major defoliators included elm spanworm, pear thrips, gypsy moth, cherry scallop shell moth, fall 

cankerworm, and forest tent caterpillar (in order of number of acres defoliated) (Pennsylvania Forestry 

Association, undated). Application of Bacillus thuringiensis to reduce defoliations from various forest 

pests occurred on private and other public lands within the ANF. Through observation, it appears they 

have experienced similar levels of mortality, decline, and blowdown as has the ANF. 

As beech bark disease complex continues to spread within the ANF, individual beech and northern 

hardwood stands with concentrated pockets of beech will be affected by mortality of larger beech trees and 

subsequent root-sprout origin beech regeneration. Beech mortality (already evident in the northern portion 

of the ANF) will become particularly evident on the southern portion of the ANF, where the advancing 

front of the disease complex is present, and the killing front is in the process of arriving. The percentage of 

standing dead American beech is more than twice as great inside versus outside the killing front of beech 

bark disease (Morin et al. 2006). Stands with heavy mortality from the beech bark disease are often 

replaced by dense stands of susceptible beech sprouts that prevent the regeneration of other hardwood 

species (Latty et al. 2003), potentially resulting in a second beech bark disease outbreak of more serious 

impact than the first (Otrofsky and McCormack 1986). As almost all beech seedlings are of root sprout 

origin, those that do develop into saplings and small poles are clones of susceptible parent trees and will 

also be affected by beech bark disease complex. This is of greatest concern in areas with a high beech 

concentration where no active management will occur to promote the regeneration of other tree species. 

Conversely, in actively managed areas it is anticipated the effects of this disease complex will decline over 

time as beech trees susceptible to the disease complex are removed, and healthy beech trees are retained. In 

the long-term, the proportion of beech trees resistant to the disease may increase, as observed in New 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-175

Hampshire (Leak 2006). According to 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006), beech comprises the 

most trees per acre greater than 1” in diameter on the ANF (21%) compared to 17 percent in the 

surrounding four counties. This raises forest health concerns, as the most common tree stem occurring on 

the ANF is subject to the beech bark disease complex. The overall effects of this widespread beech 

mortality on forest composition and structure on the ANF and surrounding area are not fully understood yet. 

Changes in soil chemistry have occurred on the Allegheny Plateau in the past 30 years, consistent with 

changes that occur as a result of atmospheric deposition of sulfates and nitrates (Bailey et al. 2005). 

Specifically, significant decreases in soil pH (increase in acidity), and calcium and magnesium soil 

nutrients have been documented, along with significant increase in available aluminum. Some uncertainty 

exists regarding future trends with atmospheric deposition, and continued affects on soil nutrient status on 

the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. See Section 3.24 (air resources) and section 3.2.2 (soils) for a more 

discussion on anticipated cumulative effects of atmospheric deposition. Given past trends on the 

unglaciated Allegheny Plateau, where sugar maple occurs along plateau top and upper slopes, continued 

decline is expected. Sugar maple may not be sustainable on these sites. 

The ANF and surrounding four counties contain similar amounts of eastern hemlock (23-24 stems per 

acre) (Alerich pers. comm. 2006). However, when all conifer species are included (particularly pines), the 

ANF contains less conifer stems per acre as a whole than the surrounding four county area. While the 

hemlock woolly adelgid is not found yet on the ANF, it was detected in the cumulative effects analysis 

area (Elk County) in 2005. This raises serious concerns over the future health of hemlock trees and 

associated ecosystems on the ANF and surrounding four-county area. If the hemlock woolly adelgid 

impacts more hemlock trees in the ANF four-county area, substantial mortality can be expected. 

However, the timing, location, and degree of any hemlock mortality is uncertain and difficult to predict. 

Monitoring of hemlock woolly adelgid in New Jersey forests indicated mortality in the most heavily 

infested areas was above 90 percent (Mayer et al. 2002). Monitoring in this study indicates that one-third 

of the plots had an average of 95 percent mortality, and two-thirds had 34 percent hemlock mortality after 

13 years of HWA infestation. Similar monitoring that occurred in southcentral Connecticut found 

overstory and understory hemlock mortality of 50 to 99 percent following up to 12 years of HWA 

infestation (Orwig 2002). Stands differed in their mortality rates, with some experiencing steadily 

increasing mortality, and others exhibiting large pulses of mortality in certain years. Hemlock saplings 

experienced similarly high mortality rates, and after 6 years of monitoring, only 20 to 30 percent were 

alive at any study sites. The result is more open canopy conditions, and increased understory light levels. 

Where substantial mortality occurs on the ANF, the hemlocks will most likely transition to deciduous 

species such as red maple and birch, particularly where deer browsing impacts are extensive (Ward et al.

2004). The potential replacement of much of the hemlock component by deciduous hardwoods will have 

long-term ecological and esthetic impacts, including the loss of habitat diversity and quality of terrestrial 

ecosystems (Ward et al. 2004). 

For most tree species, the number of standing dead trees on the ANF is greater than for other forested 

portions of Pennsylvania (Morin et al. 2006). According to 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006), 

the ANF (45.3 cubic feet per acre) contains about twenty percent more cubic volume in standing rotten 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-176 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

and salvageable dead trees than the four county region (36.8 cubic feet per acre). This can in part be 

explained by the beech bark disease complex, which has been progressing across Pennsylvania and the 

ANF from the northeastern corner. While the scale insect (advancing front) is currently present across the 

ANF and the killing front covers approximately 42 percent of the ANF (Morin et al. 2006), the advancing 

front has not spread throughout the entire State of Pennsylvania at this point in time. The higher number 

of standing dead black cherry trees per acre is likely due to the fact that the Allegheny Plateau, where the 

ANF is situated, contains a much greater proportion of black cherry than the remainder of Pennsylvania 

(Marquis 1975). 

Forest vegetation management 

Total acres managed by silvicultural system

On private industrial lands in the cumulative effects area, even-aged management is the primary 

method of regenerating forest stands, whereas on private non-industrial lands, partial harvests 

(thinning) are predominantly used, though there is also a smaller amount of even-aged 

regeneration harvest. Vegetation management on State Game Lands and State Forests is generally 

even-aged, similar to much of the ANF. Forest vegetation in State Parks in the cumulative effects 

boundary is not generally managed. Estimates of past and anticipated harvest activities on other 

land ownerships within the four county cumulative effects area were made by contacting various 

landowners and applying estimates made by Nowak (1997) for private non-industrial lands. 

Harvest activity in the four-county cumulative effects area

Table 3-41 displays total harvest levels that have occurred on all lands in the cumulative effects 

analysis area in the past 20 years. As can be seen in the table, proportionally, total harvest rates in 

the past twenty years were similar on ANF, other publicly owned lands, and private industrial 

lands, while they were higher on private non-industrial forest lands in the cumulative effects 

analysis area. The bulk of harvests on private non-industrial lands can be classified as partial 

harvests, or thinnings. Final harvest rates in the past two decades were proportionally greatest on 

private non-industrial lands (10%), and the least on ANF (6%) lands, compared with other 

ownerships in the four county area. Selective harvests on private lands that result in multi-age 

stands result primarily from diameter limit cutting. 

When viewed across all ownerships in the entire cumulative effects analysis area, final harvests 

have occurred in the past two decades at a rate of 4 percent per decade, thinnings at 13 percent 

per decade, and selection or multi-age harvests on an estimated 1 percent per decade. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-177

Table 3-41. Harvest type acres by ownership class for Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties, 

1986-2005 

Table 3-42. Harvest projections decades 1 and 2 by ownership class for Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren 

Counties 

Thousands of Acres by Harvest Type (Percent of Ownership Group) 

Ownership Class 

Total Forest 

Land 

Ownership1-

Thousands of 

Acres 

Final Harvest2 Intermediate 

Thinning 

Selection / 

Multi-Age3 Total Harvest 

State/Other Public 248.9 26.7 

(11%) 

17.7 

(7%) 

0.4 

(<1%) 

44.8 

(18%) 

Private NonIndustrial 946.2 151.4 

(16%) 

211.0 

(22%) 

75.7 

(8%) 

438.1 

(46%) 

Private Industrial 51.7 8.3 

(16%) 

11.4 

(22%) 0 19.7 (38%) 

Federal (ANF) 

Alternative A 

44.6 

(9%) 

25.1 

(5%) 

0.1 

(<1%) 

69.8 

(14%) 

Federal (ANF) 

Alternative B 

42.5 

(9%) 

16.9 

(3%) 

7.3 

(1%) 

66.7 

(13%) 

Federal (ANF) 

Alternative Cm 

34.2 

(7%) 

20.0 

(4%) 

9.9 

(2%) 

64.1 

(13%) 

Federal (ANF) 

Alternative D 

496.7 

15.1 

(3%) 

5.1 

(1%) 

6.0 

(1%) 

26.2 

(5%) 

Total 1743.5 

Totals in Thousands of Acres for Four County Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (Percent of Cumulative Effects 

Analysis Area) 

Alternative A 231.0 

(13%) 

265.2 

(15%) 

76.2 

(4%) 

572.4 

(33%) 

Alternative B 228.9 

(13%) 

257.0 

(15%) 

83.4 

(5%) 

569.3 

(33%) 

Alternative Cm 220.6 

(13%) 

260.1 

(15%) 

86.0 

(5%) 

566.7 

(32%) 

Alternative D 

1743.5 

201.5 

(12%) 

245.2 

(14%) 

82.1 

(5%) 

528.8 

(30%) 1

 Total acres classified as forest land by 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006). 2 For ANF ownership, represents final harvested acreage. Acreage for shelterwood seed cuts are not displayed. 

3

 For ANF ownership, represents acreage that receives a first entry harvest under an uneven-aged system. This can represent improvement 

cut or single tree selection harvest followed by group selection harvest. Acreage for second or subsequent harvests are not displayed.

Thousands of Acres by Harvest Type (Percent of 

Ownership Group) Total Forest Land 

Ownership1-Thousands 

of Acres Final 

Harvest 

Intermediate 

Thinning 

Selection / 

Multi-Age 

Total 

Harvest 

Federal (ANF) 496.7 28.5 

(6%) 

51.9 

(10%) 

6.1 

(1%) 

86.5 

(17%) 

State/Other Public 248.9 18.9 

(8%) 

23.3 

(9%) 

.3 

(<1%) 

42.5 

(17%) 

Private Non-Industrial 946.2 95.3 

(10%) 

378.4 

(40%) 

19.0 

(1%) 

492.7 

(52%) 

Private Industrial 51.7 4.1 

(8%) 

5.7 

(11%) 0 9.8 (19%) 

Total (% of CE Area) 1,743.5 146.8 

(8%) 

459.3 

(26%) 

25.4 

(2%) 

631.5 

(36%) 1

 Total acres classified as forest land by 2004 FIA data (Alerich pers. comm. 2006) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-178 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-42 displays the total harvest activities anticipated to occur in the four county cumulative 

effects analysis area in the next two decades. These estimates were made by contacting various 

landowners within the cumulative effects area, using past treatment levels to project future 

harvest, and applying techniques used by Nowak (1997) to estimate harvest on private, nonindustrial lands. 

As can be seen in the top portion of the table, Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D would all result in 

lower total harvest rates than private lands in the cumulative effects analysis area. Alternative D 

would result in substantially lower total harvest levels through 2025 (less than half of any of the 

other alternatives considered). Total harvest levels on non-industrial and industrial private lands 

are anticipated to be substantially greater than levels proposed on ANF lands in any of the 

alternatives. The bulk of harvest anticipated on private lands through 2025 is anticipated to 

consist of intermediate thinning harvests. 

Final harvests on private lands are expected to increase in the next twenty years, over that which 

occurred in the past twenty years (see Table 3-41 and Table 3-42). These rates are assumed to 

increase in the next twenty years over past levels due to the increasing maturity and value of 

forests in the four-county region surrounding the ANF, though this increase is not assumed to 

occur Statewide. It is feasible, given overall harvest levels projected in Alternative D, and an 

associated decrease in timber products supplied by the ANF, that harvesting on private lands near 

the ANF might increase even more under that alternative as suggested by Strauss et al. (2004). 

Often this harvest on private lands occurs without reforestation investments made, resulting in a 

poorly stocked (see Table 3-40, stocking class by ownership) pole-sized stand (see Table 3-39, 

structural size class by ownership) of residual lower values trees, rather than young, seedling 

stands that are well-stocked with desirable seedlings. 

Overall, trees on forest lands in the four counties surrounding the ANF are large compared to the 

rest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Forest land on the surrounding four counties is 

comprised of about 71 percent sawtimber sized vegetation, compared to 59 percent on forest 

lands in the rest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Alerich pers. comm. 2006). The 

surrounding four counties contain a higher proportion of high value black cherry than the 

remainder of the Commonwealth, and nearly double the per-acre volume of Grade 1 sawtimber 

compared the rest of the Commonwealth. It is anticipated that final harvest rates on private lands 

(16%) will be greater than either ANF lands (3-9%) or other publicly owned lands (11%) in any 

of the alternatives considered. ANF final harvest rates are somewhat higher than those anticipated 

on other publicly owned lands in the cumulative effects analysis area, while a greater amount of 

thinning is anticipated on ANF lands in all alternatives than on other publicly owned lands in the 

next two decades. In general, all harvest activities are anticipated to be higher on privately owned 

lands than the ANF in all alternatives, particularly thinning and other partial harvests.

Cumulatively, along with private and other publicly owned lands, Alternatives A, B, and Cm 

would result in very similar levels of intermediate and final harvesting through 2025 in the 

cumulative effects analysis area, while Alternative D would result in slightly less thinning and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-179

final harvesting. Similar amounts of selection harvest are expected to occur across all ownership 

groups in Alternatives B, Cm, and D through the second decade in the cumulative effects analysis 

area, and less in Alternative A. Total harvest levels within the cumulative effects analysis area 

vary little between alternatives, with Alternatives A and B resulting in harvest activities on the 

largest portion (33%) of the cumulative effects area, followed by Alternative Cm (32%), and 

Alternative D on the smallest portion (30%). 

Overall, the past level of total harvest (36%) is more than levels anticipated in the next 20 years 

(30-33%) in the cumulative effects area, under any of the alternatives. 

Total harvest and reforestation acres

Within the cumulative effects area, current trends on non-industrial private lands include low 

investment high-grading harvests with a limited amount of reforestation investments, which 

results in lower value stands often moving toward northern (often beech stems susceptible to 

beech bark disease complex) or upland hardwood (predominantly birch species) type 

composition. Forest products harvested from the ANF contribute to regional economies and a 

dependable supply of timber. Silvicultural activities on the ANF have, and will continue to serve 

as a model for forest stewardship and sustainable forestry practices on private lands (see LRMP 

Goals 2400 Vegetation). On industrial private forest lands, management is considered more 

sustainable than management on nonindustrial private lands, with investments made to the 

reforestation of harvested areas. On other public lands near the ANF where forest management 

occurs, similar silvicultural and reforestation techniques to those applied on the ANF are utilized. 

3.3.2 Plant and Animal Habitats 

Introduction 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to provide for diversity of plant and 

animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area so that overall multiple-use 

objectives can be met. The 1982 regulations implementing the NFMA direct National Forests to provide habitat 

that can maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 

area (36 CFR 219.19). Additional direction extends this mandate to include vascular plants (USDA Regulation 

9500-4). 

The primary change between draft and final was the addition of the mourning warbler as a Management 

Indicator Species for early structural habitat. Based on changes in the SPECTRUM model and changes in 

management areas under Alternative Cm, some refinements were made to acreages of early, mid, and late 

structural habitat, percentages of oak that would be managed and unmanaged, percentages of remote habitat, 

and acres managed for connectivity and as core areas. The Wabash pigtoe was added as a species with 

viability concern, and the Northern goshawk was added as a Regional Forester Sensitive Species. The viability 

outcomes and rationale were refined and strengthened. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-180 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

These regulations direct that habitat be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive 

individuals. That habitat must be well distributed so that individuals can interact with others in the planning area 

(36 CFR 219.19). 

More than 300 aquatic and terrestrial vertebrate species, in addition to countless invertebrates and over 1,200 

plant species are known to inhabit the ANF sometime during their life cycle. Species viability evaluations (SVEs) 

conducted as part of Forest Plan revision demonstrated that habitat diversity is the key to the conservation of these 

plants and animals (Appendix E). 

Evaluation of species viability concluded that the ANF plays a primary role in providing habitat for species with 

viability concerns. One example is the timber rattlesnake, a species that is declining throughout Pennsylvania as 

human activities increase throughout its habitat (Urban 2005). Another example is the northern flying squirrel, 

where the only documented population in western Pennsylvania occurs within the ANF proclamation boundary 

(Turner 2005). Important aquatic species include two federally endangered mussels, the Clubshell and northern 

riffleshell. The Allegheny River contains the largest populations in the world of these two species. The small 

streams found throughout the ANF contain habitat that supports mountain brook lamprey, numerous darter 

species, and several other rare fish. The Allegheny Reservoir supports a growing population of bald eagles and 

ospreys and is considered a key source habitat for recovery of these species in northwest Pennsylvania. 

Some plant and animal species provide visitors to the ANF with a wide variety of recreational opportunities, such 

as hunting, fishing, and nature viewing. Major game species include white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, 

ruffed grouse, American woodcock, squirrels and others. Many streams flowing through the ANF provide brook, 

rainbow, and brown trout fishing opportunities. The Allegheny River and Reservoir provide walleye, northern 

pike, muskellunge, and small mouth bass fishing. Special forest products such as ground pine are also collected. 

Organization of the analysis 

To address the requirements for maintaining diversity and viable populations, a two-part approach that is referred 

to as a “coarse-filter/fine-filter” approach was used (Haufler et al. 1999). 

Coarse-filter analysis refers to evaluating biodiversity conservation through a classification and assessment of the 

component ecosystems that make up a landscape (Haufler et al. 1999). It is based upon the theory that conserving 

an adequate representation of natural plant and animal communities will maintain most species that occur in a 

given planning area (Haufler et al. 1999). In conserving representative communities, natural disturbance regimes 

and the historic range of variability of natural communities are considered (Haufler et al. 1999). The historic 

range of variability, generally defined as the range of communities and forest structure classes that existed prior to 

European settlement, represents conditions to which native species and communities are best adapted. It measures 

how close the coarse-filter strategy comes to providing representation of natural communities. A summary of the 

SVE process can be found in Appendix E of this FEIS. For more information on natural communities, disturbance 

and historic range of variability please refer to the Ecological Context report for the ANF (USDA FS 2006). 

The coarse-filter analysis begins with a description of how the ANF fits into the National Ecological Framework, 

beginning at the broad Province scale and narrowing to the Land Type Association (LTA) scale. This ecological 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-181

description is followed by an analysis of key habitats that influence the distribution and abundance of wildlife on 

the ANF. Management indicators are identified to focus monitoring efforts during LRMP implementation. 

Landscape level conservation approaches to provide plant and animal habitats across the landscape are primarily 

incorporated into LRMP objectives and management area allocations. In general the objective is to identify rare, 

declining, or threatened ecosystems and evaluate how well the alternatives conserve them. 

Evaluation 

Several analyses were completed to help develop the indicators and evaluate the alternatives. These include the 

SVE which includes the ecological context, the biological assessment (BA) and biological evaluation (BE) of 

federally-listed, threatened and endangered species, Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and comments 

from the public including comments from agencies and organizations provided throughout the planning process. 

As part of the consultation process on federally listed species, a biological assessment was prepared and submitted 

to the USFWS; the same information which is included in the BE. 

These analyses provided some key findings about current habitat conditions which were summarized in the 

Ecological Context: 

Key findings 

The land area that now comprises the ANF has undergone significant environmental, biological and social change 

since its first human occupation approximately 12,000 – 15,000 B.C. Natural disturbance regimes of wind, ice, 

drought, native insects and diseases continue to shape the landscape. Ecological conditions are further modified 

by non-native invasive species, land use patterns, and resource utilization. By 1920, the once vast expanse of 

northern hardwood forest in the region was almost completely clearcut and eventually replaced by shade 

intolerant species such as black cherry and red maple. In the absence of fire set by Native Americans, oak forests 

along the Allegheny River and its major tributaries are slowly changing to forests of red maple and birch. Since 

the discovery of oil in the region in 1859, oil and gas extraction is still an important commodity actively pursued 

in the region. Plants and animals have adapted to changing conditions, migrated or have gradually become either 

extinct or extirpated from both natural and human causes. 

High water quality, aquatic species richness, and large forested blocks of core habitat are repeatedly identified as 

important contributions the ANF provides to larger regional landscapes. Specifically, East Hickory Creek 

watershed, Hickory Creek Wilderness Area, the Allegheny River subbasin, and Tionesta Scenic and Research 

Natural Areas are noted as high value areas for biodiversity conservation. 

The Allegheny River subbasin and the ANF are located within the Teays-Old Ohio ecoregion, which is 

considered globally outstanding because of its aquatic species richness. East Hickory Creek in the Hickory Creek 

Wilderness area has been recognized by the National Water Quality Assessment program as having the best 

quality (based on aquatic invertebrates) nationally of the 140 sites sampled between 1996 and 1998. 

In the High Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion (The Nature Conservancy), the ANF holds the largest managed 

contiguous area of the nearly 20 percent (approx. 3,319,000 acres) of the ecoregion held by organizations with a 

conservation mission. This ecoregion has the highest percentage of natural cover (81%) of any northeastern 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-182 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

ecoregion and a number of primary target species are known to occur within or adjacent to the ANF. Within the 

ANF, Tier 1 matrix forest blocks, selected as high quality examples of representative forested ecosystems, are 

Hickory Creek, Tionesta, and part of the Allegany State Park block. The adjacency of the ANF to Allegany State 

Park in New York has regional significance as an important forested core area. 

At the mid-Atlantic scale, important findings for the ANF, relative to the five-state region, include low human 

population density, air pollution is high, and ozone exposure is moderate. Forest cover is high on many streams, a 

moderate number of streams have roads within about 100 feet, and there is a low density of impounded streams. 

Soil erosion is low, forest cover is high, and forest edge habitat is low. The amount of forest interior habitat is 

high and the average forest patch size is large. 

At the state scale, the ANF is part of the Allegheny High Plateau Ecoregion which was ranked “very good, with 

the highest stream quality for the state and the largest block of core forest, with critically important concentrations 

of forest wildlife”. Hickory Creek and Tionesta Creek areas are identified as Important Mammal Areas and 

Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas and part of the East Hickory Creek watershed are recognized as 

Important Bird Areas. 

Under the National Framework of Ecological Units, the ANF is located within Province 212 – Laurentian Mixed 

Forest, Section 212G – Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. The ANF lies completely within the Subsection 

212Ga and comprises about a quarter of the acreage within this subsection. The Subsection is further divided into 

Landtype Associations (LTAs) and Ecological Landtypes (ELTs). Ecological conditions were quantified at the 

forestwide scale using LTAs and a multi-scaled approach to analyze wildlife habitat relationships. 

The largest LTAs within the ANF are 212Ga3 and 212Ga4. While the larger LTAs generally contain the highest 

proportions of features when summarized across all LTAs, there are notable exceptions. LTA 212Ga2 is 

characterized as low and wet/high and dry with a relatively high proportion of poorly drained soils, bottomland 

and plateau landforms, openings, and aspen, including most of MA 1.0, which emphasizes early successional 

species. Of note, nearly one-third of the oak type occurs in 212Ga10 and is abundant along the Allegheny and 

Clarion river drainages on the steeper, drier slopes. 212Ga10 contains the highest proportions of MAs 6.1, 6.2, 

and 6.4, management areas that tend to emphasize more mature forest and less young age classes. Thirty percent 

of unroaded areas also occur in 212Ga10. 

The ANF, being mostly forested, contains approximately 25 percent more mature forest than the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania and almost twice that of the Mid-Atlantic region. The ANF provides ‘core’ forest areas with less 

human disturbance than the state or Mid-Atlantic region, important for many wildlife species. Allegheny 

hardwoods occur more often in the eastern and central part of the ANF, while northern hardwoods range 

northward and upland hardwoods are scattered throughout. Conifer and mixed conifer generally make up less than 

10 percent of forest cover within each LTA and tends to occur along stream drainages. Aspen is a minor 

component throughout. Vertical diversity and understory development is lacking and negatively affected by high 

deer populations and invasive plant species. Horizontal diversity is relatively low in areas managed for late 

successional habitat and moderate on most of the forest where there is a mix of mature forest conditions and 

younger age classes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-183

Most of the ANF is in the mid-successional stages of 21-149 years old while a small proportion of the forest is 

less than 21 years old and stands greater than 149 years old are lacking. Although the amount of forest land in the 

State has increased, early successional forest has been declining statewide since the early part of the 20th century, 

a trend similar to the Mid-Atlantic Region. The amount of early successional forest, although relatively stable on 

the ANF, is still a relatively low proportion of the age class distribution. The ANF contains a much smaller nonforest component compared to the state, and most of the non-forest habitat occurs as openings less than 50 acres. 

The ANF has abundant streams, springs and seeps, and several large river valleys, however, lacks extensive 

floodplain development due to topography and impoundments on major rivers. The steepest terrain occurs around 

the major river valleys of the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers, and Kinzua and Tionesta Creeks. Average stream 

density is 1.0 mi./sq. mi. MA 6.1, while a relatively small land area with fewer perennial streams, contains the 

most documented TES species from nineteen streams surveyed. The Allegheny Reservoir (~8,000 ac.) is the 

largest impounded body of water within the ANF. 

Most of the road miles within the ANF are from non-system roads (not municipal or part of the Forest Service 

road system). Forest Service road miles make up about 30 percent of road miles in each LTA. Most of the roads 

within the ANF are closed to public use. Areas of high road density are attributed to oil and gas developments, 

major towns, and developed recreation areas. Oil and gas activity is widespread across the ANF and is currently 

undergoing a period of heavy expansion and is the most significant land use change over the past 20 years. 

The largest area of “stewardship lands,” lands with a conservation emphasis also known as conservation lands, in 

Pennsylvania is located in the north-central region where a stronghold of public lands is located, including the 

ANF. While the ANF only has jurisdiction over approximately 11 percent of the National Gap Analysis Project 

status 1-3 conservation lands statewide, within the ecoregion (212Ga – Subsection), the ANF has jurisdiction over 

95 percent of the status 1 lands, 100 percent of the status 3 lands and 72 percent of the total conservation land. As 

a whole, stewardship lands play a critical role in conserving Pennsylvania’s plant and animal species and are 

important because they can provide a relatively high degree of protection from human disturbance. 

Presently, approximately 20 percent of the ANF has management emphasis for late successional and old growth 

values. Old growth management lands contain a larger oak and conifer/mixed hardwood component and a smaller 

Allegheny hardwood component than the ANF as a whole. While there are no known old growth obligate species, 

the abundance and diversity of many species have been found to significantly increase in old growth stands. 

Approximately 4,000 acres of old growth forest occur on the ANF. Although this makes up less than 1 percent of 

the total ANF acreage, it comprises approximately 15 percent of the total old growth forest in Pennsylvania. 

Forest health on the ANF has been affected by a variety of insects, diseases, invasive plants, herbivory, droughts, 

windstorms, atmospheric deposition, and local site nutrient factors. In addition to the loss of American chestnut, 

one of the most striking effects in recent times has been the loss of mature American beech to beech bark disease. 

Cumulative acres defoliated by native and exotic insects exceeded one million acres between 1982 and 2003. The 

loss of open space and wildlife habitats by development is the largest threat to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in 

Pennsylvania. On the ANF, mineral development poses the most significant land use changes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-184 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Based on all of the analyses plus comments we received from the public and various agencies the following 

indicators were developed to help evaluate the effects of the alternatives on habitat diversity. 

1. Amount and trends in habitat structure across the landscape with emphasis on early structural habitat and 

late structural habitat provided during the first two decades (2020) and over the long term (2060). 

2. Amount and trends in habitat composition with emphasis on changes in the quality and quantity of oak 

(an important habitat for many plants and animals). Conifer, wetland/riparian and aquatic habitats were 

determined to be important habitats but were generally not affected differently between alternatives. 

3. Changes in habitat patterns across the landscape with emphasis on providing larger patches of late 

structural habitat and habitats with less human disturbance (described as remote habitat). 

4. Amount and trends in habitat for Management Indicator Species: northern goshawk, cerulean warbler, 

timber rattlesnake, mourning warbler, and aquatic invertebrates. 

5. Amount and trends in habitat for game species and other species of public interest. 

6. Amount and trends in populations and habitat for species with viability concerns. 

Affected environment 

The affected environment provides a description of the current conditions in terms of the six habitat indicators. 

Habitat indicator 1: Amount and trends in structural class diversity 

Early, mid, and late structural stages have been defined for the ANF based on the size of the dominant vegetation 

layer and percent canopy closure (Table 3-43). Used in modeling, these structural stages result from a number of 

previously discussed factors that affect forest vegetation, including historical harvesting, deer browsing impacts, 

natural disturbances, anthropogenic influences, mortality from various agents, recent vegetation management, and 

composition and age of forest stands on the ANF. A definition of the early, mid, and late structural stages to be 

used in this analysis is provided in the following table. The term “structural” rather than “successional” is used to 

describe the vegetation conditions (diameter of the dominant vegetation) rather than the species composition (e.g. 

aspen is an early successional species). Because structural stages are utilized differently by a wide variety of 

plants and animals, they are an indicator of changes in plant and animal habitats as management activities change 

between alternatives. 

Early structural habitat 

Young forests (early structural forests) 

Habitat for early structural species includes primarily seedling and sapling communities or 

forested stands primarily in the 0-20 year age class, as well as open areas where woody 

vegetation is encroaching. Of the species that utilize these habitats on the ANF, approximately 30 

species utilize exclusively seedling/sapling habitat, while another 150 species utilize a 

combination of mature and regenerating forest conditions (adapted from DeGraaf et al. 1992). 

While early structural habitat has been declining across the State and Region, on the ANF, this 

community has been maintained on approximately 7 percent of the ANF for the last 20 years. The 

mourning warbler is the management indicator species for early structural habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-185

Table 3-43. Description of structural stages used in SPECTRUM modeling for the ANF. 

Dominant Characteristics of Structural Stage 

 Label Canopy 

Closure 

Herbaceous 

Layer 

Shrub 

(<5 ft) Tree Representative Wildlife Species 

Early Structural Characteristics

Seedling/Sapling 40-100% 

Robust to 

Sparsescattered 

Robust to 

sparseabsent 

Seedling (<1 in. dbh*) 

Sapling (1-5 in. dbh) 

Chestnut sided warbler, 

mourning warbler 

Swainson's thrush, ruffed 

grouse, broad winged 

hawk, Eastern cottontail, 

Eastern milk snake Veery, 

rose-breasted grosbeak, 

ruffed grouse, eastern 

towhee, snowshoe hare 

Savannah <40% Robust scattered Woody 0-99 in. dbh 

Eastern bluebird, common 

yellow throat, song 

sparrow, red-shouldered 

hawk 

Mid Structural Characteristics

Pole 40-100% 

Sparseabsent to 

Patchy 

Infrequent 

to Patchy Trees (5-20 in. dbh) 

Indigo bunting, woodland 

jumping mouse, Hermit 

thrush, black-throated 

green warbler, scarlet 

tanager, ovenbird, redeyed vireo, redshouldered hawk 

Late Structural Characteristics 

Late 40-100% 

Scattereddense to 

patchy 

 Scattered Trees (20-99 in. dbh) 

blackburnian warbler, 

hoary bat, bald eagle, 

fisher, N. flying squirrel, N. 

goshawk 

* DBH – Diameter at Breast Height. 

Late-structural habitat 

Old forests (late structural forests)

For this analysis, late structural forests have a dominant layer of trees with diameters greater than 

20 inches. Specific characteristics of late structural forests on the ANF include increased amounts 

and sizes of standing dead and down wood, large diameter trees, often with a hemlock component 

and canopy gaps with understory and mid-story development. Although old growth 

characteristics may begin to develop at 110 years of age, a full complement of these 

characteristics usually develop at about 300 years old. 

The 1986 Forest Plan contained direction for providing old growth habitat in various MAs. No 

spatial criteria for implementing that direction in site-specific projects was provided. During the 

early stages of analysis for Forest plan revision, it was determined that old growth characteristics 

would be provided in portions of MAs 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5. The small 

parcels selected to provide old growth characteristics in past site-specific projects in Management 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-186 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Area 3.0 were reviewed to determine if indeed they would provide large trees, large standing and 

down dead wood, canopy gaps, and a multi-layered vertical structure. 

On the ANF, the Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas and the Hearts Content Scenic Area 

contain remnant old forests that have never been harvested. Estimated at 300 years or older, these 

forests are called remnant old growth; a subset of late structural forests. 

While there are no known old growth obligate species, the abundance and diversity of many 

species have been found to significantly increase in old growth stands (PA Game Commission 

1998 draft). Of the more than 300 vertebrate species inhabiting the ANF, more than half use latestructural habitats (Degraaf et al. 1992). About 20 of the 78 species with viability concerns on the 

ANF utilize late structural forests (Appendix E). 

Another method of evaluating structural conditions across the landscape is to examine the desired 

landscape conditions produced by each management area (Table 3-44). By totaling the acres of 

each Management Area that produces a certain landscape condition, the amount of each 

landscape condition can be determined. Vertical diversity is a measure of foliage height diversity. 

Table 3-44. Landscape codes used to describe desired landscape conditions and management activities 

by management area. 

Landscape 

Code MAs Desired Landscape Conditions Management Vertical Diversity 

Horizontal 

Diversity 

1 

(7%)*

2.2, 5.0, 

7.2, 7.3, 

8.2, 8.3, 

8.5 

Predominantly late structural 

conditions with a continuous 

forest canopy. Some scattered 

inclusions of early structural and 

small openings. 

Predominantly 

passive 

management. Some 

active management. 

High Low 

2 

(26%)* 2.1, 6.1 

Predominantly mid to late 

structural conditions with a 

continuous forest canopy. A 

small early structural and 

opening component exists. 

A combination of 

passive and active 

management 

High Low 

3 

(65%)*

3.0, 6.2, 

7.1, 8.6, 

9.1 

Predominantly forested 

landscape with a mix of mid and 

early structural conditions. 

Openings of various scattered 

across the landscape. 

Predominantly active 

with some areas of 

passive management 

Moderate High 

4 

(2%)* 1 

A combination of early and midstructural stages with openings 

of varying size evident 

throughout the area. 

Active management Low High 

5 

(<1%)*

6.3, 8.1, 

8.4 

Landscape dominated by 

forested savannas, open bodies 

of water and riparian vegetation. 

Active management 

with areas of passive 

management 

Low Moderate 

* - % of the Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-187

In other words, vertical diversity is the diversity of vegetation layers beginning at ground level 

and moving upward to the tree tops. Horizontal diversity is a structural feature of a habitat 

describing the regularity of vegetation as it is distributed in the horizontal plane (Cooperrider et 

al. 1986. pg.647-648).The cerulean warbler and northern goshawks are late structural 

management indicator species. 

Landscape diversity 

Each management area identified in the LRMP has a different landscape condition and management 

emphasis, both of which affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife species abundance and composition 

is greatly affected by the spatial relationships of available habitat or horizontal diversity. Similarly, 

structural conditions within stands or sites, or vertical diversity also greatly affects wildlife use and 

distribution. Table 3-44 groups MAs with similar desired landscape condition and management and 

assigns a “landscape code” to similar MAs, identifies the desired landscape condition and management 

within each, and provides a relative index of the vertical and horizontal diversity. 

Openings 

Approximately 53,000 acres of the ANF are classified as non-forest habitat, including 15,000 acres of 

permanent openings. Of these 15,000 acres, 85 percent exists as perennial herbaceous openings, 7 percent 

as upland shrub openings, and 8 percent as lowland shrub openings. The remaining acreage occurs as 

openings created from wells and road corridors. 

Most of the existing herbaceous and shrub habitat occurs as smaller openings <50 acres in size and less 

than one percent, of the forest occurs as larger openings greater than 50 acres (41 sites), that would be 

preferred by most grassland species. On the ANF, 10 of the 19 grassland bird species that occur are 

considered area sensitive (Brauning 1992), or grassland species that prefer larger openings. These larger 

grasslands take on greater significance when you consider that intact grasslands large enough to support 

breeding populations of some of the more area-sensitive species and those with larger home ranges are 

rare in the Allegheny Plateau Physiographic Region (Robertson and Rosenberg 2001). As a result, larger 

fields are the highest priority in terms of maintenance for grassland species. While there are 11 grasslands 

greater than 100 acres in size on the ANF, only two fields exceed 150 acres in size. 

Presently very little shrub habitat occurs on the ANF. However, shrub habitat that exists along 

power line and pipeline corridors provides habitat for many shrub nesting species (Robertson and 

Rosenberg 2001). This is a consideration on the ANF, since there are over 600 miles of utility 

rights-of-way across the ANF. Additionally, management of larger rights-of-way and small shrub 

openings has further implication on the ANF, since many shrub species can take advantage of 

small habitat patches distributed across predominantly forested areas (Robertson and Rosenberg 

2001), such as the ANF. 

Upland non-forest communities provide basic habitats for distinct groups of species. These nonforest types are seasonally important elements for wildlife that also use forested habitat. Although 

regenerating forest less than 10 years of age serves as temporary openings, wildlife communities 

associated with upland non-forested habitat are quite different from those found in regenerating 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-188 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

forest stands. This difference is largely due to the amount of dense, herbaceous cover, which lasts 

longer in permanent openings than in regenerating stands. The presence of non-forest vegetation 

is necessary for over 50 vertebrate species found on the ANF. Of these, nine rely totally on nonforested habitat (adapted from DeGraaf et al. 1992). 

Habitat indicator 2: Amount and trends in habitat composition 

Habitat composition is an important consideration when analyzing habitat quality and quantity. The amount and 

distribution of oak forests, conifer forests, riparian and wetland habitats, and aquatic habitats are analyzed for the 

ANF. Riparian and wetland habitats have a high diversity of plant and animal species. Riparian and wetlands are 

analyzed under the Water Resource section. 

Oak and conifer components 

Unlike much of Pennsylvania’s woodlands, oaks on the ANF primarily occur in the major river drainages. 

Only about 15 percent (73,000 acres) of the ANF is comprised of oak and oak transition types. More than 

90 species of wildlife consume acorns (Martin et al. 1961) including game species such as, deer, wild 

turkeys, black bears, ruffed grouse, and squirrels, and non-game species such as deer mice, chipmunks, 

blue jays, and red-headed woodpeckers (DeGraaf et al. 1992; McShea and Healey 2002). Cerulean 

warblers are the management indicator species for oaks. 

Conifer, primarily hemlock but also white pine and red pine, is more prevalent on the ANF than in most 

of the hardwood forests of Pennsylvania (the exception is the Pocono Plateau) (Goodrich et al. 2003). 

Many north facing slopes and valley bottoms have a conifer component that ranges in density from a few 

scattered white pines across the hillside to a dense closed canopy of conifers that completely shade the 

forest floor. Red pine plantations, many of which were planted by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) 

in the 1930s, are found on 9,900 acres of the ANF. Sometimes considered “biological deserts” because of 

their sparse understories with deep layers of pine needles and simple structure, these plantations are 

inhabited by red squirrels which are actively pursued by fishers. Brown creepers and nuthatches are also 

common in these plantations. 

Conifers can provide protection from winter winds, cold temperatures, and deep snows (winter thermal 

cover) and protection from the hot summer sun (summer thermal cover). Goodrich et al. (2003) reported a 

high species richness of coniferous forest birds on the ANF. Swainson’s thrushes, blackburian warblers, 

and barred owls utilize the large hemlocks in the Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas and 

northern flying squirrels utilize the large hemlocks in the bottoms. Hemlock woolly adelgid is a potential 

threat to hemlock on the ANF (see forest vegetation section for details). 

Wetland habitats 

Springs, seeps, and vernal pools are considered wetlands because of the presence of hydric soils, water, 

and hydrophilic vegetation. The majority of springs and seeps on the ANF do not appear on topographic 

maps, and these unique ecosystems can be quite extensive. 

Seeps primarily occur on strongly sloping to steep side slopes and low slope colluvial landforms. Seeps 

are important foraging and breeding habitat for some salamander and invertebrate species and the moist 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-189

corridors surrounding seeps are important for salamander migration and dispersal. The area surrounding 

the springs and seeps is also important to herbaceous plant distributions. During the winter months as the 

groundwater melts or reduces snow cover, seeps are important foraging areas for wild turkeys, deer, and 

other wildlife. Canopy cover around springs is needed to maintain micro-climate and prevent conversion 

to grass or fern cover. 

Vernal pools are naturally occurring small pools or depressions that are inundated for a period of time 

each year, primarily late fall through spring, as a result of a combination of snowmelt, precipitation and 

high water tables. These pools dry up for a period of time, generally during the summer and early fall. 

Vernal pools are free of fish and the pool basin is utilized breeding habitat for pool-dependent amphibians 

and invertebrates. In addition to the breeding pools, the surrounding upland forest is critical habitat that is 

used by pool-breeding amphibians during their life cycle. Habitats adjacent to wetlands can serve as 

stopping points and corridors for dispersal to other nearby wetlands. 

The amount of terrestrial habitats used during migrations to and from wetlands and for foraging defines 

the terrestrial core habitat of a population. This aggregation of breeding adults constitutes a local 

population centered on a single wetland or wetland complex. Local populations are connected by 

dispersal and are part of a larger metapopulation, which extends across the landscape (Semlitsch and 

Bodie 2003). Within this habitat, it is important to maintain forest floors with suitable conditions, such as 

minimal compaction and rutting, deep litter, coarse woody debris, and canopy shade (Calhoun and 

deMaynadier 2004). The Jefferson salamander and the four-toed salamander are two species with viability 

concerns that utilize forested vernal pools. These pools are crucial habitat because salamanders have a 

small home range that isolates them from surrounding populations and other landscape features. 

Rivers, streams, and impoundments 

Rivers and streams

Streams are numerous across the forest, and occur primarily as smaller cold headwater streams 

(1st-3rd order). Higher order streams (>4th), while not as numerous in miles, provide more 

habitat on a per mile basis due to their increased width and depth. These higher order streams also 

tend to be more productive and can support a higher diversity and abundance of aquatic species, 

including game and non-game fish and aquatic TES species. Examples of the larger streams on 

the ANF include Tionesta Creek and its branches, Kinzua Creek, Spring Creek, and the two 

rivers, Clarion and Allegheny. 

Extensive fisheries surveys have been conducted Forest-wide since the 1986 Forest Plan was 

approved. Where water quality is suitable for the propagation of fish, a population of one or more 

species is usually encountered in streams as small as only a few feet wide. A number of streams 

have been newly documented as wild trout streams and are now included on the Pennsylvania 

Fish and Boat Commission’s wild trout stream list. 

A lesser amount of physical stream habitat surveys have been conducted. Of the physical habitat 

surveys that have been conducted, the most common element lacking in streams are quantities of 

large wood and in-stream cover, as well as pool quantity and quality. Larger, deeper pools are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-190 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

important for holding larger mature fish, even in the smallest of streams. Stream temperatures and 

shading are adequate to support cold-water fisheries in headwater streams, with the exception of 

some streams that flow through savannahs. The majority of these savannah streams are in the 

southern part of the ANF in the Clarion River drainage. Wildfires in heavy logging slash in the 

early 1900s created these conditions, and to date limited tree regeneration has occurred to restock 

these areas. 

While most streams on the ANF support fish populations, there are numerous ones that do not 

because of acidic water conditions. Some streams are naturally acidic due to soils and parent 

material. Fish and water quality surveys conducted on the ANF have documented numerous 

streams with low pH levels. These conditions can significantly affect biological diversity, habitat 

quality, and the ability to support a quality fishery. Sedimentation from dirt and gravel roads and 

trails to streams is another source of concern for aquatic habitat, especially with an increase in oil 

and gas development. 

Class A trout streams, a Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission classification, are streams that 

support a high biomass of brook trout (>30kg/ha) or brook/brown trout combination (>40kg/ha). 

This is the highest classification a stream can attain, and currently only three streams on the ANF 

are classified as such. 

Streams with state classifications of Exceptional Value, High-Quality Cold-Water Fishery, and 

Cold-Water Fishery provide potential habitat for numerous species. These streams include small 

cold headwater streams that occur in forested settings to larger streams such as Tionesta Cr. 

(CWF) and the Clarion River (CWF). MA 3.0 contains the highest amount of these classified 

waters that could (and do) provide habitat for game and non-game fish as well as TES species. 

Game fish that are primarily encountered in these streams are brook trout, brown trout, and 

smallmouth bass. 

The warm-water fishery classification has the least amount of miles and includes only the 

Allegheny River. However, because of the size of the Allegheny River, it provides a significant 

amount of habitat for a variety of game and non-game fish and aquatic TES species. Game fish 

include species such as smallmouth bass, walleye, muskellunge, and catfish, as well as a quality 

trout fishery in the section downstream of Kinzua Dam to Warren. 

Reservoirs and impoundments

The ANF has numerous, smaller impoundments distributed across the forest that provide fish 

habitat for warm-water species, with the exception of Twin Lakes which is cold enough to 

support a catchable trout fishery. Most impoundments support populations of warm-water species 

such as largemouth bass, sunfish, yellow perch, and bullhead. These impoundments were 

constructed, and are primarily managed for waterfowl propagation, and thus were not designed 

with fisheries as a primary objective. The exception is Twin Lakes which was constructed for 

recreational purposes. Due to the shallow nature of a majority of these, they are acidic and can 

only support limited, stunted, or no fish populations at all. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-191

The few impoundments that do provide better habitat and support catchable populations of a 

variety of game fish include the largest Buzzard Swamp pond, Ridgway Reservoir, Tionesta 

Lake, and the Allegheny Reservoir. These bodies of water are larger and deeper and can support 

quality fisheries that include walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, yellow perch, 

muskellunge, northern pike, crappie, among others. Two current state record fish, the northern 

pike and walleye, were taken from the Allegheny Reservoir. 

Fish habitat improvement has been an ongoing effort on the Allegheny Reservoir since the late 

1980s. In cooperation with numerous volunteers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, a variety of structures have been placed into the 

reservoir each year in an effort to provide cover and suitable spawning habitat. Monitoring of 

these structures has shown that several different species are using these structures, some in large 

abundance. Fish habitat improvement in smaller impoundments has not been a focus of the ANF 

since water quality in most of them is the limiting factor to healthy fish and aquatic species 

populations. 

Habitat indicator 3: Changes in habitat patterns on the landscape affecting late structural patch 

size and habitats with less human disturbance (remote habitats) 

Besides the quantity and composition of habitats, the spatial and temporal arrangement of habitats on the 

landscape is important for maintaining viable populations of plant and animal species. Habitat for reproduction, 

foraging, resting, cover, and dispersal should be provided at a variety of scales across time and space (Morrison et 

al. 1992). To ensure species viability, the Forest Service is mandated to provide habitat that is “well distributed so 

that individuals can interact with others in the planning area.” (36 CFR 219.19). The Appalachia Regional Forest 

Stewardship standard (approved by the U.S. Forest Stewardship Council) recognizes the need for the spatial 

arrangement of habitats by specifically addressing habitat connectivity across the landscape (Forest Stewardship 

Council – US 2005). 

Large blocks of older forests are declining in the Mid-Atlantic Region, a habitat essential to an entire guild of 

forest interior dwelling birds (PGC and PFBC 2005 pg. 11-9). Brauning (1992) identifies 42 bird species found on 

the ANF that prefer forest interior habitat and of these, 22 species are considered obligates of large forest blocks. 

Although forest area has increased in PA in the past century, incursions of human development in the form of 

openings and roads can decrease potential habitat for species that prefer or require large blocks of relatively 

undisturbed habitat (Goodrich et al. 2003, PGC and PFBC 2005 pg 12-20). The importance of these large 

contiguous tracts of high quality forest habitat as “source” habitats for area-sensitive species is emphasized in 

Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (PGC and PFBC 2005 pg 12-25). Conservation of 

highly productive “source” populations may be essential to maintaining viable populations throughout the entire 

region. Keller et al. (2003) recommends that land managers maintain a large core area of mature forests while 

providing small clearcuts and seed-tree cuts on the periphery. 

Not all scientists agree that “landscape corridors” are beneficial to wildlife (Simberloff et al. 1992). However, 

McKenzie (1995) and Fischer and O’Neil (1997) provide important criteria to consider when designing a 

landscape corridor system, including: (1) developing clearly stated objectives, (2) examining the temporal and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-192 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

spatial context, (3) emphasizing obtaining data on the spatial needs of species, and (4) addressing corridor 

management and restoration issues. 

Spatially managing landscape patterns involves the consideration of the following 3 units (Lindenmayer and 

Franklin 2002): 

1. Patches – non-linear blocks or relatively homogeneous habitat. Examples of patches on the ANF include 

the Hickory Creek Wilderness, the National Recreation Area, and Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural 

Areas. These patches are sometimes referred to as core areas. 

2. Corridors – linear patches that usually differ from the “patch type” on either side of the corridor and 

which connect to the patches. 

3. Matrix – the dominant “patch type” in a landscape. For example, the matrix on the ANF could be 

described as a predominantly mature forest interspersed with young even-age stands with an extensive 

road and trail network with variable intensities of oil and gas development. 

Morrison et al. (1992) state that landscape design should: 

1. Be objective and location specific, and 

2. Ensure that patches are accessible throughout the landscape to species most habitat specific and to those 

with lowest vagility. 

To address these landscape design criteria, species with viability concerns were grouped by broad primary 

habitats that could be delineated at the landscape scale. (For the specific habitat needs of each species with 

viability concerns see Appendix E). The landscape design of connecting core areas (MAs. 5, 7.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5) 

using late structural linkages (MA 2.2) emphasizes a spatial and temporal habitat arrangement for the 22 species 

with viability concerns that utilize primarily mid-late structural forests and, secondarily the 15 species that utilize 

riparian/wetland habitats. 

The core area/landscape linkage design uses the locations of the 1986 Forest Plan management areas as a starting 

point. Since the forest matrix will continue to experience increased oil and gas development, road and trail 

development, and expansion of utility rights-of-way, linkages between core areas are an important consideration 

in the landscape design. Modifying the current location of MA 6.1 to increase patch size and habitat connectivity 

became the focus of this landscape design effort. 

Accurate information for the distribution of species and communities at a variety of scales is essential to 

designing landscape patterns (Morrison et al. 1992). Lands that would complement the ecological values of the 

proposed core areas were identified as late structural linkages. Information considered in the spatial design 

included: 

• The current location of MA. 6.1 

• The location of unroaded and roadless areas (identified in the Forestwide Roads Analysis 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-193

• The location of raptor concentration areas (with an emphasis on goshawks) or preferred habitat utilized by 

landscape level species. 

• The location of rattle snake dens, bat caves, and other unique habitat features 

• The documented locations of Northern flying squirrels, Allegheny woodrats, Yellow-bellied flycatchers, 

and other species with viability concerns 

• The location of late structural habitats identified in prior project analyses 

• The location of Exceptional Value watersheds, Wilderness Trout streams, and Class A trout streams 

• The results of a fragmentation computer model 

• The diversity of forest types and the ecological land types (ELTs) including aspect and slope position. 

• The location of high concentrations of oil and gas development. 

Core forest habitat 

Second only to the lack of regeneration, encroachment of development and roads is the second most 

serious threat facing forest quality in Pennsylvania (Goodrich et al. 2003). In an effort to identify tracts of 

forest that have little disturbance from roads and motorized trails, (and thus provide habitat for species 

that are adversely effected by human disturbance) the ANF identified forested tracks on NFS lands that 

occur greater than 1⁄4 mile from existing classified roads (USDA FS 2003b). The larger tracks of 

undisturbed forest are identified as core habitat (Table 3-45). While many forest interior species will 

successfully utilize forest land within the 1⁄4 mile buffer, information presented in Table 3-45 provides a 

relative measure of some of the most undisturbed habitat on the ANF. 

Table 3-45. Core forested areas on National Forest System lands that occur greater than 1⁄4 mile from 

existing classified roads. 

Core Size 

(Acre range) 

Total 

Acres 

# of 

Sites 

% of 

Forest Service 

Lands 

5000-10,000 14,713 2 2.8 

1000-5000 33,919 17 6.5 

500-1000 12,117 18 2.3 

<500 44,027 950 8.4 

Total 104,776 987 20.1 

(adapted from USDA FS 2003). Core areas= large patches of homogeneous habitat 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-194 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Remote habitat 

Remote habitats are areas where human disturbance is minimal. Species that are sensitive to human 

disturbance survive and reproduce better in these remote habitats. One method for identifying remote 

habitats across the landscape is to identify large unroaded areas. The Forest-wide Roads Analysis (USDA 

FS 2003b) identified 37 unroaded areas greater than 500 acres. All 37 areas were evaluated for 6 wildlife 

criteria, resulting in 8 areas with a wildlife index of 26 or greater (USDA FS 2003b). These 8 areas 

(33,000 acres) are believed to be the highest quality remote habitats on the ANF and include Allegheny 

Front, Clarion River, Cornplanter, Hickory Creek Wilderness, Tracy Ridge, Morrison Run, Indian Run 

(recently referred to as Chestnut Ridge), and Steck Run. Depending upon which Management Area each 

of these 8 remote habitats is located in, some will remain unroaded while new Forest Service road 

construction may occur in others. During the summer of 2006, extensive oil and gas development in 

Morrison Run has reduced the quality of remote habitat. 

Some wildlife species are sensitive to human disturbance. For example, great blue heron’s nest in isolated 

areas away from human activities (Bent 1963). Timber rattlesnakes do best in areas where humanrattlesnake encounters are infrequent (Urban 2005). Declines in wood turtle populations show a strong 

correlation with increasing human activity (Garber and Burger 1995). Northern goshawks, red-shouldered 

hawks, and other raptors may abandon their nest if human disturbance escalates (Nelson and Titus 1989). 

Habitat indicator 4: Amount and trend in habitat for management indicator species 

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

alternatives on wildlife habitat in general. MIS are expected to reflect the effects of the LRMP on ecological 

communities of management interest. In revising the MIS list the emphasis has been placed on species that are 

closely associated with habitats of interest and species that can produce meaningful data about the effects of forest 

management activities on a few major communities of interest. 

The selection of MIS and the rationale are provided in Table 3-46. The overall approach is to use a limited 

number of MIS considered to be of special importance for maintaining viable populations of native and desired 

non-native species in the planning area. By selecting a limited but appropriate set of management indicator 

species, resources for inventory and monitoring can be focused where needed. 

Species that were utilized as indicators in the 1986 Forest Plan but will not remain as management indicators in 

this Plan Revision include: white-tailed deer, American woodcock, magnolia warbler, beaver, black-throated 

green warbler, hermit thrush, barred owl, great blue heron, ruffed grouse, red-shouldered hawk, yellow-bellied 

sapsucker, pileated woodpecker, brook trout, walleye, and small mouth bass. 

Criteria used for selecting indicators emphasize: 

• Species identified as ecologically important through the Species Viability process and through 

development of the alternatives for the LRMP. 

• The availability of credible monitoring protocols. 

• Those that can be effectively and efficiently monitored
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-195

Table 3-46. ANF management indicator species and selection rationale. 

Management Indicator Habitat Represented Rationale for Selection 

Timber Rattlesnake 

Remote deciduous 

forests with minimal 

human disturbance 

Indicator of critical den sites that meet criteria 

needed to support populations. These sites should 

be maintained to provide remote or well connected 

habitat where human disturbance is minimal 

including fewer roads and trails. Monitoring active 

dens and the number of individual snakes at dens 

(including males, females, and young of the year) 

will provide an indication of the quality of 

remoteness and the relative absence of human 

disturbances. 

Northern Goshawk 

Mid to Late structural 

mixed deciduous/ 

conifer forest 

Indicator of mature mixed deciduous/conifer forest, 

often containing diverse landscape and structural 

conditions. Due to its sensitivity to disturbance, this 

species can be used assess disturbance related 

effects of management and it can be monitored by 

field surveys and banding of adults and young. Due 

to its preference for predominantly late structural 

forests, this species can be monitored to assess 

effects of timber harvest at both the site and 

landscape scale. Threats include increased human 

disturbance to nesting habitat and loss of conifer 

from future infestations of the hemlock woolly 

adelgid 

Cerulean Warbler 

Mid-late structural oak 

forest with some 

canopy gaps 

Indicator of mature oak forest important for a 

diversity of game and non-game species. Can be 

monitored using point/count transects and 

analyzed using appropriate statistics. Threatened 

by the long term loss of oak and a reduction in 

mature forest suitable for nesting. 

Aquatic Invertebrate Diversity and 

Relative Abundance 

Aquatic habitat and 

water quality in ANF 

streams 

Indicator of stream quality important for a diversity 

of fish, dragonflies, mussels and other aquatic 

species. Can be monitored using established 

protocols. Important for assessing the effectiveness 

of standards and guidelines to protect aquatic 

resources. 

Mourning warbler Early structural habitat 

Indicator of early structural habitat that is utilized by 

early successional species for foraging, 

reproduction, or hiding cover, including many game 

species and declining early successional species 

with viability concerns. Can be monitored utilizing a 

tape call-back technique to evaluate effects of 

activities that create early structural habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-196 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Northern goshawk 

Habitat status and trends

Although the northern goshawk is relatively abundant and widespread (NatureServe 2006), 

Pennsylvania is on the edge of its range and records of this species were not common anywhere 

in State (Brauning 1992). Within Pennsylvania goshawk observations were concentrated in the 

northeast and northwest portions of the State and reports were most frequent within the 

Appalachian Plateau Province, which includes the ANF. Research in Pennsylvania (Kimmel and 

Yahner 1994) indicates that this species is expanding its range into suitable habitat into the 

southern half of Pennsylvania. 

On the ANF the goshawk is considered an uncommon species and since 1986, 74 nests have been 

identified Forest-wide. Collectively these nests make up 43 distinct territories. Seven of these 

territories were known to be active between 1986 and 1990, 15 territories were documented as 

active between 1991 and 1999 and since 2000, 12 territories have been documented as active. 

Although the Forest appears to have provided relatively stable goshawk populations for the last 

15 years, nest production has been down in the last two years. While weather and possibly West 

Nile Virus (Brinker pers. comm. 2006) are suspected, the exact reason(s) for this decline are 

unknown. 

Preferred habitat and forest use

Within Pennsylvania, confirmed observations of nesting goshawks were correlated highly with 

the percentage of forest in each county (Kimmel and Yahner 1994, Roberson et al. 2003). 

Comparisons of landscape habitat surrounding these nests indicated that in the Northern 

Hardwood Region (which includes the ANF), goshawks selected nest sites with the following 

parameters; 1) extensive forest, 2) nest sites farther from medium and heavy duty roads, buildings 

and forest edges, 3) nest sites near the tops of plateaus and on relatively level ground and 4) nest 

sites with a mixed or coniferous forest component (Kimmel and Yahner 1994). 

In order to identify suitable habitat and better evaluate potential effects, a GIS analysis of known 

nests was completed. This analysis looked at habitat conditions and relationships at two scales 

including an assessment of known nest sites (8-32 acres) and territories (500-1200 acres). This 

analysis supports many of the habitat preferences identified by Kimmel and Yahner (1994) and 

goshawks on the ANF; 1) select nest sites that contain 4-6 times more conifer and mixed 

conifer/hardwood forest, 2) prefer sites that occur on level ground, 3) select nest sites with greater 

amounts of mature forest and fewer openings 4) select territories that include a variety of forest 

types, age classes and small openings, and 5) select nest sites and territories that contain a greater 

density of trails than is available across the landscape 

Although lower standard roads are commonly found in close proximity to nests and within 

territories, high use roads are avoided and 90 percent of all roads within 300 ft. of a nest are 

closed to public access during the breeding season. Also goshawks selected unroaded areas at a 

higher frequency than their availability at both scales. While preferred habitat is characterized by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-197

a combination of early, mid and late structural conditions, 96 percent of known nests and 91 

percent of known territories are characterized by mid-late structural forest. 

Landscape considerations

Based on results of habitat use and availability comparisons at different scales, Kimmel and 

Yahner (1994) suggested that goshawks select an area that is extensively forested, has little 

human disturbance and adequate prey habitat. Conifer was the most important landscape variable 

and Kimmel and Yahner (1994) suggested that the amount of conifer related to potential foraging 

habitat and the availability of foraging habitat may influence nest site selection at both the site 

and landscape scale. Other landscape features that may have been important to habitat selection 

by goshawks in Pennsylvania included the amount and distribution of stands of different size 

classes and canopy closure (Kimmel and Yahner 1994). 

Presently 4 percent, 17 percent and 79 percent of known goshawk territories occur in Landscape 

Codes 1-3 respectively and the high percentage of occupied habitat in landscape code three, in 

part reflects its preference for predominantly forested but diverse landscapes preferred for 

foraging. The reduced use of landscape code 1, may in part be due to the larger oak component on 

these lands and the tendency for goshawks to less frequently utilize oak in the northern hardwood 

forests of Pennsylvania (Kimmel and Yahner 1994). Also plateau sites within landscape code 1 

lands generally have less conifer, which is preferred by goshawks. 

Forest population

Using nest data collected from the northern hardwood region including nests on the ANF, 

Kimmel and Yahner (1994) identified a minimum and ecological nesting density of 1.17 and 1.44 

nests/100 km2

 of forest. Using these estimates, the ANF could expect to support between 23 and 

29 goshawk pairs Forest-wide. Goshawk nests have been monitored on the Forest for over 20 

years and this data, as well as that reported by Kimmel and Yahner (1994) represents the best 

scientific information available at this time. 

Management emphasis

Management emphasis for the northern goshawk includes the following: 

• Providing the habitat conditions necessary to maintain a minimum of 45 potential 

territories 

• Maintaining >70 percent forest cover on National Forest System Lands. 

• Manage suitable goshawk habitat at the landscape level to provide desired foraging and 

nest site conditions 

• Protect active goshawk nests and maintain preferred structural conditions within active 

territories. 

• Identify area requirements and continue to refine and identify landscape and site 

characteristics preferred by the northern goshawk 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-198 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Work with research and in-service and out-service partners to reduce risks from the 

HWA. 

Cerulean warbler 

Habitat status and trends

The cerulean warbler breeds from New York State and the Great Lakes States south to the central 

and southeastern United States. Although the range of this species has expanded, particularly in 

the Northeast (NatureServe 2006), it is one of the fastest declining songbirds in North America. 

The cerulean warbler has a status of threatened, endangered or is identified as a species of 

concern in 15 states, is a high priority species in Partners In Flight (PIF) and was petitioned for 

federal protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2002, although in December 2006, the 

USFWS determined that listing was not warranted (Federal Register 2006). In Pennsylvania it is 

listed as apparently secure and statewide breeding bird records indicate that this species is still 

broadly distributed in the western third of the State, particularly in the southwest (Brauning 

1992). 

In the PIF Allegheny Plateau region, the cerulean warbler is showing a non-significant decline of 

3.2 percent per year, but it is showing a significant survey wide decline of 4 percent (Sauer et al. 

2005). The largest known present-day populations within the Allegheny Plateau Region are in the 

Allegany State Park area of New York (which adjoins the ANF), the Delaware River drainage of 

northeastern Pennsylvania, and in the Lake Metro parks area near Cleveland, Ohio (Rosenberg et 

al. 2000). The Allegheny Plateau Region and this physiographic area shares a high responsibility 

for the long-term sustainability of the cerulean warbler (Partners in Flight 2001). 

Threats

Anthropogenic land use changes are probably the primary cause of population declines for 

cerulean warblers (Robbins et al. 1989, Rodewald 2004) and fragmentation of mature, deciduous 

forest on its breeding grounds, particularly along stream valleys, is cited as an important 

contributing factor (Hamel 2000). While cerulean warblers are considered area sensitive, the 

minimum patch size varies (Hamel 2000) and this variation in area requirements is likely a 

consequence of different amounts of regional forest cover and land uses (Rodewald 2004). 

Nevertheless, maintaining large blocks of mature forest habitat is necessary to provide habitat for 

this species (NatureServe 2006). 

Preferred habitat

Cerulean warblers nest in a variety of tree species (Hamel 2006, in press) and prefer stands that 

contain sawtimber size trees (>11’ d.b.h.). In addition to large diameter trees, stands that contain 

tall trees (>60'), complex vertical structure and more heterogeneous stand conditions are also 

preferred (Hamel 2006, in press). Typically cerulean warblers choose to place their nest high in 

the canopy, closer to the outer edge of the canopy and away from the bole, suggesting that nest 

trees may have been opened up and experienced full sunlight at some point in time (Hamel and 

Rosenberg 2006, in press). Robbins et al. (1989) studied 469 forest sites in Maryland and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-199

adjacent states and found the occurrence of cerulean warblers to be associated with large tracts of 

mature, semi-open deciduous forest. He also found that their distribution was positively 

correlated with the area of the forest and basal area and negatively correlated with the percent 

canopy cover by coniferous trees. 

Although research has shown that cerulean warbler use is often associated with canopy gaps and 

more open canopy conditions (Rodewald 2004, Stoleson 2004, Stoleson pers. comm., 2005a., 

Robbins et al. 1998, Nicholson 2004, Hunter et al. 2001, Wood et al. 2005), this is not consistent 

across its range and some researchers (Jones 2000), do not associate the birds with canopy gaps 

(Hamel 2006, in press). On the ANF, cerulean warblers have been found to be associated with 

canopy disturbances and occur at higher densities in areas with more open canopy conditions and 

in portions of the stand where there are canopy breaks (Stoleson pers. comm. 2005a). Other key 

structural features preferred on the Forest include increasing levels of ground cover and vertical 

structure, close proximity to water, multiple oak species, and reduced levels of maple. 

Because the cerulean warbler utilizes sites with specific structural conditions and considering 

stand stocking is an accepted measure of assessing site specific stand conditions, recent research 

has utilized stocking to assess site specific habitat utilized by the cerulean warbler. Like other 

elements of cerulean warbler breeding habitat, stocking varies somewhat across its range. In the 

Mississippi Valley, nests selected at two of the three study sites were in stands that were between 

80 percent and 98 percent stocked, whereas stocking was greater than 120 percent at the third 

study site, although these sites were not oak stands, but were cottonwood dominated bottomlands 

with an oak component. In southern Indiana, birds were detected in stands that were between 65 

percent and 110 percent stocked and pairs were found at sites less than 70 percent, whereas in 

southern Ohio, cerulean warblers were found in stands between 60 percent and 90 percent 

stocked, with higher densities in stands <70 percent stocked (Hamel 2006, in press). Within 

stands monitored on the ANF, higher densities of cerulean warblers were found in stands between 

60 percent and 84 percent stocking and no birds were found in stands greater than 100 percent 

stocked (Stoleson pers. comm. 2005a). This research suggests that on the ANF, cerulean warblers 

prefer stands less than 100 percent stocked and that higher densities occur in more open stands, or 

stands that are between 50 percent and 75 percent stocked (Stoleson pers. comm. 2005a). 

Landscape considerations

Because the cerulean warbler is considered a forest interior species, tract size is an important 

consideration and research suggests that patch size and the proportion of forest in the landscape 

affects habitat suitability (Twedt et al. 2006). Tract size varies across its range and while it is 

confined to larger tracks (>4,000 ha) of land in the southwest portion (10,000 acres) of its range, 

it occupies a much wider array of tract sizes in the north and northeast (Rosenberg et al. 2000 and 

Weakland and Wood 2005). The amount of forest cover was also found to be important by 

Rodewald (2004) and in her Pennsylvania study she found that birds were positively associated 

with a high proportion of forest area within 0.6 miles. Because over 90 percent of the ANF is 

forested, and considering mature forest conditions predominate, the ANF landscape provides 

preferred cerulean warbler habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-200 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest-wide habitat and use

Between 1991 and 2005, cerulean warblers were found on 26 percent of the sites surveyed on the 

ANF which included oak and non-oak sites, riparian and plateau sites, old-growth and secondgrowth sites, and sites with and without timber harvest. Eighty-nine singing males were 

documented during this effort, including 27 on non-Federal lands and 62 on the ANF. Of those 

documented on the ANF, all but three occurred in the oak forest type or in upland hardwood 

forest that contained an oak component. The three occurrences outside oak were in sycamore 

trees on wilderness islands on the Allegheny River. While its preference for forest type varies 

across its range, on the ANF cerulean warbler has only been documented on sites that contain an 

oak component or in riverine habitat. As a result, preferred cerulean warbler habitat is restricted 

primarily to these two communities. 

Suitable landscape habitat includes all seventh order watersheds that contain an oak component 

and riverine habitat, which cumulatively comprises approximately 223,000 acres or 44 percent of 

the ANF. Although the amount preferred nesting habitat is much less and presently only 75,000 

acres occurs as mature typed oak and riverine forest that is considered preferred nesting habitat. 

Because research on the Forest indicates that cerulean warblers prefer to nest in stands where 

more open canopy conditions occur, existing mature oak/riverine habitat was broken down by 

stocking levels and is presented in Table 3-47. Currently, approximately 12 percent of the Forest 

provides preferred cerulean warbler nesting habitat and of this, it is estimated that approximately 

79 percent has stocking levels that might be utilized for nesting (i.e., <100 %). 

The landscape condition that contains preferred nesting habitat varies somewhat and 

predominately forested landscapes with little early structural habitat (Codes 1 and 2) comprises 

65 percent of the preferred nesting habitat, whereas landscape code 3, or predominately forested 

landscapes with a mix of early and mid structural forest contains 38 percent of the preferred 

habitat. Landscape code 5, which includes riparian/riverine habitat contains approximately 2 

percent of the preferred nesting habitat. 

In an effort to estimate potential breeding pairs that could be found on the ANF, Stoleson (pers. 

comm. 2005a) compared survey data collected in the oak forest community on the ANF, with that 

provided by Baird (1990) in Allegany State Park and came up with similar numbers. Based on 

this comparison and the present availability of oak habitat, it is estimated that the ANF could 

support between 500 and 1500 pairs of cerulean warblers, with higher densities occurring on sites 

that provide optimum habitat conditions. 

Table 3-47. Preferred cerulean warbler nesting habitat 

Use Stand Condition Acres % of the Forest % of Preferred Habitat

Suitable - No documented use Mature Oak/Riverine 

>100% stocked 16,000 3 21 

Suitable - Low density use Mature Oak/Riverine 

75-100% stocked 40,200 8 53 

Optimum - high density use Mature oak/Riverine 

60-75% stocked 19,800 4 26 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-201

Management emphasis

 Minimize the loss of the oak forest community 

 Maintain >70 percent of the oak forest type as suitable cerulean warbler nest habitat (i.e. 

>50 years of age) 

 Provide habitat conditions capable of supporting a minimum of 1200 pairs of cerulean 

warblers 

Timber rattlesnake 

Habitat status and trends

The timber rattlesnake is considered uncommon to rare in much of Pennsylvania. While sizable 

populations are believed to still occur in the Appalachian Mountains from Pennsylvania through 

the Virginias, across eastern Kentucky and Tennessee to northeastern Alabama, (NatureServe 

2004), the species is still declining or has been extirpated in all northeastern states. NatureServe 

(2004) suggested denning populations in New York have been reduced by 50 to 75 percent of 

their historical numbers. Martin (NatureServe 2004) stated that long-term observer’s feel that 

most dens are at 15 percent to 20 percent levels compared to 40 years ago. 

Most recent information indicates that the rattlesnake populations have declined throughout their 

range in recent decades and continue to decline. The timber rattlesnake is a candidate for being 

listed as threatened in Pennsylvania (Keystone Wild Notes 2005). 

Preferred habitat

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

2004). 

This snake is at home in timber-covered terrain, especially that of second-growth woodland 

where an abundance of rodents may be found. It likes wooded hillsides accented with rock 

outcrops where ledges of stone might provide opportunities for basking. When winter sets in, 

fissures in these places provide passage to deep dens for hibernation. Slopes with a southern 

exposure are preferred. 

Open forest edges, openings, meadows and open shrub-land edges have been noted to be used 

most frequently by gravid females. Non-gravid females and males will pass through these areas 

but do not remain in them for long periods of time. Dens occur at elevations of up to about 5,000 

feet in the southern Appalachians, 2,200 feet in New England, and about 1,300 feet in 

northeastern New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; individuals may range between elevations in 

the summer (NatureServe 2004). Forest structure is based on the timber rattlesnake preference for 

second growth forest interspersed with foraging and basking areas. Decayed logs provide areas 

for timber rattlesnakes to escape hot summer days. Snakes use other downed logs to “ambush” 

small mammals as they run across them. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-202 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Habitat indicator

Dens - Several factors pertaining to timber rattlesnake biology and life history, indicates that 

denning habitat may be the limiting factor in supporting viable populations of this species. Dens 

consist of rocky crevices, outcrops or rocky slopes most often on southern exposures that occur 

near forested openings. Dens that are located in somewhat remote and/or unroaded areas add an 

additional level of protection to population viability. The den site is the focal point of rattlesnake 

activity. Rattlesnakes exhibit a high fidelity to their den site returning each year to winter inside 

the den (Amato and Rosenthal 2002). 

Basking habitat – Open forest edges, meadows and open shrub-land edges and exposed rock 

outcrops. This habitat type is used most frequently in and near the den site and is vital to gestation 

of young. Talus slopes, rocky ledges and outcrops, and boulder fields with open, primarily 

southern-facing exposures also create conditions ideal for basking. 

Second growth forest – These forests can be a mix of conifer and various hardwoods and are 

interspersed with openings. For foraging rattlesnakes prefer upland forested areas where they 

forage for small mammals like mice and chipmunks. 

Mourning warbler 

Habitat status and trends

The mourning warbler breeds from Alberta and North Dakota to southern Canada and south to 

northeastern U.S. and the higher Appalachians to West Virginia. In Pennsylvania mourning 

warbler nesting was reported in 19 percent of the survey blocks statewide. Breeding bird atlas 

volunteers found mourning warblers scattered across much of northern Pennsylvania but most 

frequently in the glaciated section, where it was recorded in 25 percent of the blocks, in the 

Allegheny High Plateau Section (15% of the blocks), which includes the ANF and the eastern 

lakes section (11%) (Brauning 1992). 

Preferred habitat

Mourning warblers nest within the full range of elevations, but in Pennsylvania are largely 

restricted to the northern hardwood forest (Brauning 1992). Habitat includes disturbed second 

growth, deciduous, shrubby early successional growth, dense undergrowth in open woods and 

occasionally in partially open coniferous and deciduous woodlands with herbaceous and shrub 

understories (Pitocchelli 1993). 

Nesting habitat includes stands of dense saplings and shrubs (Pough 1949 p.185) and primary 

requirements are a partially open canopy and good mixture of herbaceous and shrubby ground 

cover (Cox 1960). In New England, mourning warblers depend on activities that create early 

successional habitat (DeGraaf and Yamasaki (2001) and in northern Pennsylvania the highest 

densities occurred in areas that have been clearcut (www. Great Lakes Bird Conservation). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-203

Due to its dependence on dense low growing woody vegetation, use of disturbed habitats is 

temporary and in New England it first appears in regenerated areas 2 years after harvest, became 

abundant in 5 years and began to decline after 7-10 years (DeGraaf 1991). This is consistent with 

monitoring in the ANF which indicates that the highest densities occur in stands less than 10 

years of age and it is generally absent in stands 20 years of age or older. On the ANF this species 

has also been documented on sites that have received a shelterwood harvest (Scott Stoleson pers. 

comm. 2006b) and although regenerated areas contain higher densities, mature forest stands with 

open understories and small canopy gaps that permit establishment of dense, low growing woody 

vegetation provide suitable nesting habitat. 

Landscape considerations

Because of the increased amount of early structural habitat provided, those lands identified as 

landscape codes 3 and 4, which comprise 67 percent of the ANF would be preferred and it would 

be expected that higher densities of the mourning warbler would occur on these lands. However, 

because this species utilizes small gaps in the forest canopy, the entire ANF landscape would 

provide potentially suitable habitat. Additionally, suitable habitat would also be expected to occur 

along or adjacent to many of the roads or utility rights-of-way (ROWs) that occur across the ANF 

landscape.

Habitat indicator

Due to their dependence on shrubs and dense woody vegetation, the mourning warbler is an 

indicator of early successional vegetation and because they utilize small gaps as well as large 

disturbed areas, they can be used to monitor effects of both even and uneven-aged timber harvest. 

A tape call-playback technique will be used to monitor singing males and determine densities in 

areas that receive active management, in areas where the canopy has been opened up though 

naturally occurring disturbances such as blowdown and in areas that have been affected by 

defoliation from native or non-native species. 

Management emphasis

 Maintain a minimum of 5 percent of the Forest in early structural forest and shrub habitat 

capable of supporting mourning warblers 

 Increase monitoring of shrub nesting birds, with emphasis along utility corridors and in 

areas managed through timber harvest 

 Maintain or improve the distribution of non-forested shrub habitat 

Aquatic invertebrates 

Habitat dtatus and trends

Commonly referred to as aquatic insects, this group of invertebrates occurs in just about any 

stream or impoundment where water quality conditions and habitat conditions are suitable. 

Within the ANF, this includes several hundred miles of cold-water streams, including small 

headwater streams to larger streams and rivers that provide suitable habitat. Pennsylvania 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-204 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Department of Environmental Protection recently completed aquatic insect surveys on named 

streams within the ANF as part of a State-wide effort to assess stream quality. The results from 

this effort indicate all streams surveyed provide suitable aquatic habitat except for three. Two of 

the three streams (Table 3-6) are affected by natural causes, while the third is affected by nonForest Service activities. 

Preferred habitat

Depending on the group of aquatic invertebrates, some prefer flowing water over rocky cobblesize substrates with low embeddedness, while others prefer slow, back-water areas or pools in 

streams. Good water quality is also an important feature for supporting a diverse and abundant 

population. The focus for assessing aquatic insects in ANF streams will be in flowing water of 

streams where protocols for conducting surveys have been established. 

Habitat indicator

Aquatic invertebrates are indicators of stream habitat quality, including substrate and water 

quality. Some invertebrates are less tolerant to altered stream conditions while others are more 

tolerant of disturbance. Depending on which invertebrates are collected will determine the habitat 

condition. 

Management emphasis

Contribute to water quality and physical habitat conditions that provide for the maintenance 

and/or enhancement of aquatic invertebrates. 

Habitat indicator 5: Amount and trends in habitat for game species 

Black bear populations have increased across the ANF and habitat conditions are considered good. Black bears 

will utilize dense seedling/sapling habitat as escape/hiding cover particularly during hunting season. Black 

berries, found in early structural habitats are a favorite late summer food. Acorns and beech nuts are consumed in 

large quantities in the fall when available. A diverse forest in terms of composition and structure provides a 

variety of food sources for black bears (Ternet 2003). 

After many decades of high deer populations, recent efforts to reduce the deer herd have been successful. 

Although understory habitat conditions have not fully recovered, progress is being made to restore habitat, 

improve deer condition and population structure (size, buck/doe ratio, doe/fawn ratio) while maintaining a quality 

hunting experience. Early structural habitat provides abundant browse for deer. Oaks, black cherry, and beech 

provide important fall food sources. 

Turkey populations are increasing slightly and habitat conditions are good in most areas. Turkeys utilize early 

structural habitat for nesting and mid to late structural habitat for feeding and roosting. Like many other game 

species, oaks provide an important food source. Wildlife opening construction and maintenance provide spring 

and summer foraging habitat and summer brood rearing habitat. 

Grouse and woodcock populations fluctuate and quality hunting opportunities are variable. Currently about 10 

percent of ANF lands are in early structural habitat utilized by these game birds. Management Area 1.0 has an 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-205

emphasis on short rotation forests specifically for ruffed grouse. Currently about 8,000 acres are in MA 1.0. 

Wildlife openings provide summer brood rearing habitat for grouse. Woodcock will utilize openings near alder, 

willow, and crab apple thickets where soils are moist and deep. Both of these game birds utilize old farm habitats 

where shrubs, openings, and thickets are present. 

The Allegheny Reservoir provides suitable habitat for several game fish. Among these are two of the most highly 

sought after fish by anglers, walleye and smallmouth bass. Northern pike, muskellunge and yellow perch are also 

species that anglers seek. Populations of these and other species in the reservoir can, and do, fluctuate from year 

to year. Habitat exists in the form of fallen trees, rocky drop-offs, rocky points, and some shallow bays. Aquatic 

vegetation is a habitat condition that is lacking in the reservoir due to the fluctuating water levels by Kinzua Dam. 

The ANF is dominated by cold-water streams that support brook and some brown trout populations. Habitat 

conditions are generally suitable for these species, with forested and well-shaded riparian areas and suitable 

substrate conditions for spawning. The amount of pools is less than desired in most streams due to a lack of large 

trees. Water quality is generally suitable for trout, but where pH levels are low (acidic), trout occur in low 

numbers or not at all. 

Substantial investments have been made in habitat enhancements, many of which directly benefit game species. 

Most large decadent aspen stands have been regenerated to benefit grouse and woodcock. Most small 

impoundments have been retrofitted with Clemson beaver excluders and new water control structures to benefit 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Numerous grass and shrub openings have been constructed to benefit turkeys, grouse 

and bears. Fish structures have been placed in the Allegheny Reservoir to benefit game and non-game fish.

Habitat indicator 6: Species with viability concerns 

The National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations require national forests to preserve and 

enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities to meet multiple use objectives based on the suitability and 

capability of the land. The regulations further require maintenance of viable populations of existing native and 

desirable non-native species (16 U.S.C. 1600(6)(g)(3)(B);36 CFR219.19, 219.26, and 219.27(g)). 

The viability process used a multi-scale analysis to ensure that the needs of all species are met at both the 

landscape (coarse filter) and site levels (fine filter). This approach is well established in conservation biology 

literature and ensures adequate representation of ecological land units, natural disturbance regimes and historical 

range of variation required at the landscape or coarse filter scale, as well as a fine filter assessment of individual, 

rare or specialized species needs. A combination of coarse and fine filter considerations were used to 1) evaluate 

species specific needs, 2) identify species and habitats that may be at risk, 3) identify conservation 

recommendations, 4) identify Forest objectives and design criteria and 5) evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects. 

The fine-filter analysis focuses on maintaining viable populations of individual species that are identified as 

having potential viability concerns. The process for determining which species have viability concerns is outlined 

in Appendix E. Fine-filter analysis can serve as verification that the coarse-filter component is working, as well as 

a safety net to identify species-specific conservation actions that are necessary for maintaining viable populations 

of species that are not adequately conserved by the coarse-filter approach (Haufler et al. 1999). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-206 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Starting with the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Natural Heritage list of species for Pennsylvania, more than 

300 animal species and 1,200 plant species known to occur on the ANF were identified. This subset of species 

was screened using a decision tree using the best available data. This final list of species was developed in 

consultation with species experts associated with the various technical committees of the Pennsylvania Biological 

Survey. 

A total of 78 species were identified with potential viability concerns for the ANF (Table 3-48). Of the 78 species 

with viability concerns, six species are currently listed as Federally threatened or endangered, two are Federal 

candidates, and 60 are Regional Forester Sensitive Species (includes the two Federal candidates as well). A 

detailed description of the life history, distribution, and habitat requirements for the following species is contained 

in the planning record – Species Viability Evaluation Section as species long forms, a Biological Assessment, a 

Biological Evaluation, and Ecological Context Report. 

Table 3-48. Species with viability concern on the Allegheny National Forest 

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name 

Amphibian Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum 

Amphibian Jefferson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum 

Aquatic Insect Green-faced clubtail Gomphus viridifrons 

Aquatic Insect Harpoon clubtail Gomphus descriptus 

Aquatic Insect Maine snaketail Ophiogomphus mainensis 

Aquatic Insect Midland clubtail Gomphus fraternus 

Aquatic Insect Mustached clubtail Gomphus adelphus 

Aquatic Insect Ocellated darner Boyeria grafiana 

Aquatic Insect Rapids clubtail Gomphus quadricolor 

Aquatic Insect Resolute damsel Coenagrion resolutum 

Aquatic Insect Ski-tailed emerald Somatochlora elongata 

Aquatic Insect Uhler’s sundragon Helocordulia uhleri 

Aquatic Insect Zebra clubtail Stylurus scudderi 

Bird Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Bird Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens 

Bird Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Bird Golden winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 

Bird Great blue heron Ardea herodias 

Bird Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 

Bird Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 

Bird Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

Bird Raven Corvus corax 

Bird Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-207

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name 

Bird Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Bird Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris 

Fish Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum 

Fish Burbot Lota lota 

Fish Channel darter Percina copelandi 

Fish Gilt darter Percina evides 

Fish Gravel chub Erimystax punctata 

Fish Longhead darter Percina macrocephala 

Fish Mountain brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon greeleyi 

Fish Mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus 

Fish Northern madtom Noturus stigmosus 

Fish Spotted darter Etheostoma maculatum 

Fish Tippecanoe darter Etheostoma tippecanoe 

Mammal Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis 

Mammal Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus macrotic 

Mollusk Clubshell Pleurobema clava 

Mollusk Creek heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa 

Mollusk Long-solid Fusconaia subrotundra 

Mollusk Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa rangiana 

Mollusk Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica 

Mollusk Rainbow Villosa iris 

Mollusk Rayed-bean Villosa fabalis 

Mollusk Round pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia 

Mollusk Sheepnose Plethobasis cyphyus 

Mollusk Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra 

Mollusk Threeridge Amblema plicata 

Mollusk Wabash pigtoe Fusconaia flava 

Mollusk White heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata 

Plant American fever-few Parthenium integrifolium 

Plant American ginseng Panax quinquefolius 

Plant Canada yew Taxus canadensis 

Plant Bartram shadbush Amelanchier bartramiana 

Plant Boreal bog sedge Carex magellanica ssp. Irrigua 

Plant Bristly black currant Ribes lacustre 

Plant Butternut Juglans cinerea 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-208 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name 

Plant Checkered rattlesnake plantain Goodyera tesselata 

Plant Creeping Snowberry Gaultheria hispidula 

Plant Hooker's orchid Platanthera hookeri 

Plant Kidney-leaved twayblade Listera smallii 

Plant Mountain starwort Stellaria borealis 

Plant Mountain wood fern Dryopteris campyloptera 

Plant Northeastern Bulrush Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Plant Queen-of-the-prairie Filipendula rubra 

Plant Red currant Ribes triste 

Plant Rough cotton-grass Eriophorum tenellum 

Plant Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides 

Plant Stalked bulrush Scirpus pedicellatus 

Plant Sweet-scented Indian plantain Hasteola suaveolens 

Plant Threadrush Juncus filiformis 

Plant White trout-lily Erythronium albidum 

Plant Wiegand’s sedge Carex wiegandii 

Reptile Coal skink Eumeces anthracinus 

Reptile Eastern Box turtle Terrapene carolina 

Reptile Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus 

Reptile Wood turtle Glyptemys insculpta 

Migratory birds 

A list of migratory birds known to inhabit the ANF was developed as part of the Species Viability 

Evaluation and is provided in the project file. Migratory birds that occur on the ANF that were determined 

to have viability concerns were further analyzed as part of the species viability process. Guidelines were 

incorporated into the LRMP to conserve specific species or to mitigate impacts of specific management 

activities. 

As part of a statewide effort to identify high priority habitats for birds, two Important Bird Areas were 

developed within the ANF by the Ornithological Technical Committee and Pennsylvania Audubon 

Society. These two areas encompass Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas and East Hickory Creek 

watershed comprising about 13,000 acres. Yellow-bellied flycatchers and Cerulean warblers are two 

species of special emphasis. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-209

Federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species 

The Indiana bat, bald eagle, clubshell, northern riffleshell, Small whorled pogonia, and northeastern 

bulrush are federally listed threatened and endangered species that occur or have high potential habitat on 

the ANF. The sheepnose and rayed-bean are Federal candidate mussels. A detailed habitat description and 

life history for each of these species is provided in the Biological Evaluation. A brief summary for each of 

these species is provided below. 

Indiana bat

Much of the forested habitat on the ANF contributes in some way towards maternity 

landscape/roost habitat and foraging habitat, however some acres provide more beneficial habitat 

conditions than others. Currently, more than 70 percent of the ANF is optimal foraging and 

roosting habitat and an additional 8 percent is suitable foraging and roosting habitat. Bat surveys 

have been conducted on the ANF since 1998 and during the last eight field seasons (1998-2005), 

a total of 311 sites have been surveyed for a total of 2,619 net nights. Only one male Indiana bat 

has been captured and released (Gannon and Blackburn 2002a). This capture occurred in 1998. 

Bald eagle

Bald eagles generally nest near coastlines, rivers, large lakes or streams that support an adequate 

food supply and where human disturbance is limited. Pennsylvania’s rivers, as well as Lake Erie, 

were a stronghold for nesting bald eagles, both historically and at the present time. In 

northwestern Pennsylvania, bald eagles nest in large trees near a body of water. Preferred nest 

trees tower above the adjacent hardwood canopy allowing unobstructive access to the nest while 

providing some concealment and shade. In 2005, bald eagle nests had been documented in 25 

counties, or 37 percent of the counties in Pennsylvania and on the ANF approximately 47,000 

acres or 9 percent of the Forest are considered primary bald eagle nesting habitat. This area 

includes all National Forest System lands within 1⁄2 mile of the Allegheny Reservoir, the 

Allegheny and Clarior Rivers and Tionesta Creek. Although there are other areas where eagle 

nesting may occur, due to the proximity to foraging habitat, these areas have the greatest potential 

for nesting. 

Eagles forage along rivers, large streams, and lakes where there is an ample supply of fish and the 

best foraging and roosting habitat on the Forest occurs along the Allegheny Reservoir and the 

Allegheny River, although many of the larger streams on the ANF also provide suitable foraging 

habitat. In addition to the Allegheny River and Allegheny Reservoir, eagles have been observed 

foraging along Tionesta Creek, Salmon Creek, Kinzua Creek, the Clarion River, Millstone Creek, 

Big Mill Creek, Martin Run, and Willow Creek. Eagles also occasionally utilize the small 

impoundments distributed throughout the ANF and sightings have been made at Buzzard Swamp, 

Beaver Meadows, Twin Lakes and the Mead Run ponds. In total, approximately 23,000 acres or 4 

percent of the Forest is considered primary bald eagle foraging and roosting habitat. Off the ANF, 

eagles have been observed along Brokenstraw Creek, Conewango Creek, and the upper 

Allegheny River in New York. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-210 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ten bald eagle nests have been documented within the proclamation boundary since 1992 

including four nests on side hills above the Allegheny Reservoir, four nests along the Allegheny 

River and two nests on side hills above Tionesta Creek. All nests are monitored annually and 

since the first nest on the ANF was located in 1992, 64 eagles have fledged from nests within the 

proclamation boundary. This level of nest success is consistent with that found in northwest 

Pennsylvania as a whole. 

Clubshell and northern riffleshell

Suitable habitat for these mussels is provided in the Allegheny River within the ANF and 

populations of these endangered mussels have been documented from Warren down river for 

more than 30 miles. Recent surveys have documented that the largest reproducing concentration 

in the U.S. of both clubshell and northern riffleshell are now in the Allegheny River at Hunter 

Station (Villella and Smith 2002). This is outside the ANF proclamation boundary but in the Wild 

and Scenic section of the Allegheny River. Prior to the above survey, the largest concentration 

was recorded within the proclamation boundary of the ANF in the Allegheny River at W. Hickory 

Bridge (USGS 2000). 

Clubshell and northern riffleshell abundance increases as you move downstream from just below 

Warren to Tionesta. The clubshell is far less abundant than the northern riffleshell based on 

USGS surveys. 

Small whorled pogonia

Across its range, small whorled pogonia is found in several types of habitat. In Pennsylvania, this 

rare orchid occurs on dry oak sites, on benches or saddles, and near the beginning of intermittent 

drainages, usually on south or southeast facing slopes (USDI FWS 1992). In Maine and New 

Hampshire, botanists have found colonies along braided channels of vernal streams and in gullies 

up-slope from where streams arise in the water-sorted leaf litter along these streams (USDI FWS 

1992). The orchid prefers highly acidic, nutrient poor soils. At several New England sites, an 

impermeable soil layer (fragipan) beneath the highly acidic soils blocks water from further 

percolation. In the past, habitat was described as “dry woodland.” Currently, the plant is known to 

occur on much more moist sites than previously indicated. In 1994, following discussions with 

the USFWS and P. Wiegman of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, the ANF defined 

suitable habitat for the species as mature or maturing forest conditions, topographic saddles and 

swales between ridges, slopes with benches and/or ephemeral streams, and sites with little or no 

understory and without dense fern. 

Small whorled pogonia occurs in mixed deciduous/coniferous forests ranging in age from 30 to 

80 years. The forest types can be variable, but are usually dominated by hardwoods such as 

beech, birch, maples, oaks, and hickory. Less often, it may grow under softwoods such as 

hemlock or white pine. The majority of small whorled pogonia sites share several common 

characteristics including a sparse to moderate ground cover in the microhabitat of the orchids 

(except when among ferns), a relatively open understory canopy, and a proximity to logging 

roads, streams, or other features that create long, persistent breaks in the forest canopy (Mehrhoff 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-211

1989). Shade may be important at sites where the small whorled pogonia no longer exists. 

Population declines may be attributed to canopies becoming denser and there is not enough light 

reaching the forest floor. 

Typical overstory species associated with this orchid include white pine, red oak, white oak, 

black oak, red maple, eastern hemlock, American beech, and tulip poplar. A few ground layer 

species are associated with both the northern and southern parts of the species’ range. These 

include partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana), New York 

fern (Dryopteris noveboracensis), sweet low-bush blueberry (Vaccinium augustifolium),

spicebush (Lindera benzion), false ginseng (Aralia nuducaulis), and white snakeroot (Eupatorium 

rugosum). 

With small populations occurring 15 miles to the west and 55 miles to the southeast, the ANF is 

within range of this orchid. The ANF possesses suitable overstory and understory vegetation, 

favorable topographic formations, physical features, and soil conditions similar to other habitats 

occupied by the plant. Mature or maturing stands of oak (species) or stands having a significant 

component of oak are currently considered areas of high potential habitat. The ANF contains 

approximately 100,000 to 150,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat (USDA FS 1998g). 

Northeastern bulrush

Throughout its range, northeastern bulrush is found in open, tall herb-dominated wetlands. Often 

it grows at the water's edge, or in a few centimeters of water, but it may also be in fairly deep 

water (0.3-0.9 m) or away from standing water. In the southern part of its range, the most 

common habitat is sinkhole ponds, usually in sandstone. Water levels in these ponds tend to vary 

both with the season and from year to year. There are no known occurrences on the ANF. Ongoing county natural heritage inventories and the wetland rare plant survey conducted by WPC 

(1989) have not located any populations to date. The WPC will be surveying within the 

proclamation boundary during the 2006-2007 field season. Finding the species on the ANF would 

represent a significant range expansion. However, considering the recentness of the species 

description, the similarity to common species, and the number of new discoveries in the past 15 

years, it would not be surprising to find on the ANF (S. Grund pers. comm. 2006) 

Federal candidate species 

Sheepnose and rayed-bean

Suitable habitat for both of these federal candidate species is provided in the Allegheny River. 

Habitat requirements are similar to the clubshell and northern riffleshell, however the population 

numbers for the sheepnose and rayed-bean are far less than the clubshell and northern riffleshell 

based on recent surveys conducted by USGS. Within the proclamation boundary and Wild and 

Scenic River section, the sheepnose has only been collected from between Tionesta and Oil City. 

For the rayed-bean, it has been collected at several locations of the upper Allegheny River, but 

never in any abundance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-212 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of the analysis 

The scope of the analysis is primarily focused on the direct and indirect effects associated with the 506,000 acres 

of National Forest lands. Temporal analysis will address short-term effects through the second decade, and longterm effects through the sixth decade. 

Introduction to effects 

Effects are described as ecosystem level and species level effects. Ecosystem effects include an analysis of habitat 

structure, habitat composition, and habitat patterns across the landscape and an analysis of management indicator 

species. Species effects include an analysis of game species and species with viability concerns. A framework for 

the effects analysis is provided in Table 3-49. Alternatives are evaluated based on the same six indicators outlined 

in the previous section, Affected Environment: 1) habitat structure, 2) habitat composition, 3) habitat patterns, 4) 

habitat and populations of Management Indicator Species, 5) habitat for game species, and 6) habitat for species 

with viability concerns. Management activities that influence the habitat indicator are listed in Table 3-49Table 

3-49. A list and the amount of management activities by alternative are contained in Chapter 2 (Table 2-2). This 

analysis assumes full implementation of the LRMP and its activities. Some effects are best described at the 

ecosystem level while others are best addressed at the species level. Some activities have only minor effects to 

plant and animal habitats. Activities that are not Federal actions, such as private oil and gas development, and the 

invasion of the hemlock woolly adelgid are addressed under cumulative effects. 

Habitat indicator 1 –Structural class diversity 

Effects Common to all Alternatives

Under all alternatives the remnant old growth habitat provided in Hearts Content Scenic Area and 

Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas would not be actively managed. No commercial 

timber treatments would be scheduled in these areas. Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas 

would continue to serve as areas for non-manipulative research, as baseline areas for measuring 

long-term ecological changes, and as control areas for comparing results from manipulative 

research conducted elsewhere. 

Vegetation management

While all proposed activities have the potential to directly affect wildlife and/or indirectly alter 

habitat conditions, some impacts of vegetation management activities such as herbicide and 

prescribed burning are often misunderstood. Timber harvest also has the potential to alter wildlife 

habitat conditions and the following is a summary of direct and indirect effects of these 

treatments. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-213

Table 3-49. Primary indicators and measures of plant and animal effects. 

Primary Indicator Habitat Assessed Activities considered in the Analysis 

Indicator 1. Amount and 

trends in Habitat Structure 

Early, mid, and late structural 

habitat 

Management Area allocations, vegetation 

management, reforestation practices, 

wildlife opening construction. 

Indicator 2. Amount and 

trends in Habitat 

Composition 

Oak, conifer, riparian/wetland, and 

aquatic habitats 

Vegetation management and reforestation, 

management area allocations, road and trail 

construction, acid deposition, invasive 

species 

Indicator 3. Changes in 

Habitat Patterns on the 

Landscape 

Habitat connectivity, habitat patch 

size (core areas), remote habitat 

Road construction. 

Trail construction and number and size of 

IUAs. 

Management Area allocations (wilderness 

study areas, remote recreation areas). 

Indicator 4. Amount and 

trends in habitat for 

Management Indicator 

Species 

Northern goshawk – mid to late 

structural, deciduous/conifer forest 

Cerulean warbler – mid-late 

structural oak forest with partially 

open canopy 

Timber rattlesnake – Remote and 

connected deciduous forest 

Mourning warbler – Early structural 

habitat 

Aquatic Invertebrate Diversity and 

Relative Abundance – stream water 

quality and physical habitat 

Vegetation management, structural stages, 

recreation (including IUAs). 

Oak management, vegetation management 

and reforestation treatments. 

Vegetation management and reforestation 

treatments, road construction and trail 

construction (IUAs and EUAs), pit 

development. 

Vegetation management and reforestation, 

road and construction, herbicide application 

and prescribed burning 

Road construction and management, 

motorized trails (IUAs), vegetation 

management and reforestation, herbicide 

treatment. 

Indicator 5. Amount and 

trends in habitat for Game 

Species 

Early and late structural habitat, oak 

habitat, managed openings, old 

field/farm habitat 

Vegetation management, oak management, 

motorized recreation (IUAs), winter range 

and brood rearing habitat, management 

area allocations 

Indicator 6. Amount and 

trends of habitat for 

Species with Viability 

Concerns 

Landscape and species level 

habitats and features, habitat 

structure and composition 

Vegetation management, reforestation, 

road and trail construction and 

management, pit development, recreation 

activities, invasive species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-214 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Timber harvest

The following is a discussion of anticipated changes in wildlife habitat conditions that are 

expected to result from timber harvest proposed under each of the alternatives. Although there are 

a variety of different timber harvest treatments, some treatments have similar effects on wildlife 

and wildlife habitat and have been grouped together to more clearly display anticipated effects. 

For the purpose of this analysis, harvest activities have been grouped into three categories 

including even-aged partial harvest, even-aged final harvest and uneven-aged management 

treatments. A detailed description of harvest activities and treatments are provided in the 

vegetation section of Chapter 3 and in Appendix A of the LRMP. 

Even-aged partial timber harvest (thinning and shelterwood harvest) 

Direct effects to wildlife from these types of treatments are generally short-term in nature and 

may involve some direct mortality of some species during logging, if cutting occurs during the 

breeding season. While cutting may result in avoidance of the site by some species sensitive to 

disturbance, because of the increase in browse and cover provided by increased levels of slash, 

other species are attracted to logging sites. 

Although partial harvests maintain a mature overstory, they do alter stand structure and 

understory conditions by removing small to medium diameter trees and by increasing light levels 

to the forest floor. This results in an increase in the establishment of woody (trees and shrubs) and 

herbaceous (grass/forbs/fern) vegetation and is expected to improve wildlife forage and cover 

conditions on the site. While even-aged partial harvest treatments will result in some changes in 

stand structure, since mature forest conditions will continue to predominate following treatment, 

wildlife diversity on these sites is not expected to be significantly altered. This is supported by 

ANF monitoring of songbird, amphibian and small-mammals in areas receiving partial harvest 

activities (deCalesta 1998). However, the abundance of certain species will change, depending on 

the individual stand changes in the understory and mid-story that develops. 

Even-aged final timber harvest (shelterwood removal, two-age harvest, and clearcutting) 

As with partial harvest activities, effects may include some direct mortality if cutting occurs 

during the breeding season and some species that are sensitive to disturbance will avoid these 

areas. Since most of the mature overstory is removed, effects of these treatments on wildlife 

differ from those of partial harvest treatments. Also, while partial harvest treatments result in 

relatively minor changes in wildlife use, final harvest treatments can result in a much more 

dramatic change and some mature forest wildlife may be displaced for up to 50 years, or until a 

predominantly mature canopy is re-established. The reduction in overstory trees also results in a 

tremendous increase in herbaceous vegetation (grasses/forbs), shrubs (blackberry), and tree 

seedlings. This flush of understory vegetation provides habitat for early-successional species, as 

well as mature-forest species which utilize seedling/sapling habitat. 

Due to increases in herbaceous, shrubby, and woody seedling vegetation, final harvest treatments 

are expected to favor early successional species over species that prefer or require mature forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-215

conditions. Although wildlife species diversity is not expected to decrease on sites receiving a 

final harvest treatment, there will be a short-term increase in the abundance of early successional 

species and a reduced abundance of some mature forest species on the site. This increase in early 

successional species is considered short-term in nature, because early successional habitat 

conditions decline within 10 years, and early successional species are replaced by wildlife that 

prefer the structural conditions provided by sapling/pole stands and some mature forest species 

(Thompson et al. 2001). Additionally, on the ANF, individual reserve trees and clumps of 

wildlife trees are retained during all regeneration harvest activities. As a result, the species 

present following regeneration harvest are expected to be similar to those that occupy the 

regeneration stage under natural succession (DeGraaf et al. 1992, DeCalesta 1998). 

Uneven-aged timber harvest 

Uneven-aged treatments include traditional uneven-aged management, as well as treatments that 

that will accelerate mature forest conditions (AMFC) and harvest that will restore understory 

conditions within existing mature forest (RUMFC). All of these treatments are designed to 

provide some of the structural conditions that characterize late successional forest, as well as 

restore understory diversity. 

Uneven-aged treatments result in small patches of regenerating forest while maintaining a 

predominately mature canopy over most of the site. As a result, these treatments provide habitat 

primarily for mature forest species, including those species that use or require a small young 

forest component. Although these treatments will benefit a diversity of wildlife, due to the small 

size of the groups and patches of young forest created, this treatment would not be expected to 

provide habitat for early successional species that require larger openings, including some 

declining brush and shrubland species (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003). Like even-aged harvest, 

species sensitive to disturbance would likely move off the area during logging, although some 

direct mortality of wildlife could be expected to occur during implementation. While there are 

expected to be some changes in species abundance on the affected sites, uneven-aged treatments 

are not expected to reduce wildlife diversity. 

Herbicide application 

Toxicity 

The wildlife and aquatic species risk assessment (Appendix G2) provides a detailed analysis of 

the hazards (toxicity) and exposure and assesses the potential risk from using sulfometuron 

methyl and glyphosate. Studies have shown high elimination rates and low tissue retention for 

both herbicides, indicating a very low risk of bioaccumulation. The results indicate that there are 

no substantial risks of acute or chronic adverse effects to any fish or wildlife species for typical 

and maximum exposures. Also, because proposed herbicides have been designed to target 

biochemical processes unique to plants, they exhibit a low level of direct toxicity to animals and 

when used according to label instructions, pose little risk to wildlife (Wildlife Society 2004). 

Finally, literature reviews on the direct acute effects of herbicides on wildlife have concluded that 

at recommended rates and normal use scenarios, herbicides used in forest management operations 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-216 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

pose little if any acute toxicity hazards to wildlife species, are not mutagenic or oncogenic and are 

rapidly eliminated from animal systems once ingested/absorbed (Tatum and Tatum 2004). 

Habitat effects 

Although herbicides generally are non-toxic to non-target organisms, they do affect wildlife 

communities by altering plant communities and successional trajectories, thus affecting plant 

community characteristics and animal communities via changes in habitat structure and 

composition (Guynn et al. 2004, Miller and Miller 2004). These effects can be both positive and 

negative. Also research on the effects of herbicides on small mammal habitats and the associated 

changes in species composition have also been reported with mixed results, which is believed to 

be largely due to the variety of habitats and treatment methods evaluated. In an effort to more 

accurately document effects of herbicide treatments and changes in wildlife habitat conditions 

specific to the ANF, the Understory Vegetation Management EIS (USDA FS 1991a) proposed 

pre- and post-treatment monitoring. This monitoring study was implemented in 1992 at ten 

Allegheny hardwood sites on the ANF. All sites received a shelterwood and herbicide treatment, 

with some sites being treated with herbicide prior to the shelterwood harvest and some sites 

receiving a herbicide treatment following cutting. In order to assess impacts on birds, small 

mammals and amphibian communities, pre-treatment, post herbicide and post 

herbicide/shelterwood data was collected between 1992 and 2002. The following summary of 

effects is based on the data collected during the study and preliminary analysis conducted to date 

(Scott Stoleson, pers. comm. 2004). 

Mammal species richness, abundance and demography were evaluated. While effects varied by 

species, small mammal species richness initially declined after herbicide application, whereas 

herbicide treatment resulted in no detectable effect on the overall abundance of small mammals. 

Effects on abundance also varied by species, with no effect on mice as a whole, but a slight 

increase in Peromyscus mice, a short-term decrease followed by a recovery within 2 years for 

Clethrionomys voles and chipmunks and a decrease for shrews. Data also indicates that some 

responses reflect the behavior and habitat use of individual species, that there was no effect of 

herbicide application on the age ratios of chipmunks and Peromyscus (indicating no change in 

productivity), and that resulting changes observed were largely in response to changes in ground 

cover following treatment (Stoleson pers. comm. 2004). 

Although there will be a slight tendency for sites treated with herbicides to support fewer bird 

species, there were no significant differences between treated and control sites in any single year.

Differences among treatments were also minimal, and effects were no greater after the herbicide 

application or shelterwood cut, than before, which suggests that treatments had no discernable 

effect on the qualitative make-up of the avian community. 

Following herbicide application, treated sites tended to have slightly reduced bird abundance 

compared to control sites, although the magnitude of those changes was far less than that of 

natural fluctuations resulting from an outbreak of elm spanworm. This reduction was not the 

same for all birds however and the relative impacts of herbicide treatment on avian abundance 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-217

varied among avian guilds, as well as among species within a single guild. The individual species 

responses reflect their dependency on those vegetative components affected by herbicide. Effects 

also varied by nesting guild, with no significant effect to ground nesters and cavity nesters, and a 

short-term decrease followed by recovery for canopy nesters. Populations of shrub-nesting birds 

did not recover by six years after herbicide application, probably due to the inhibition of 

regeneration by white-tailed deer. Following the establishment of deer fences in 2000, woody 

regeneration, and shrub birds, responded rapidly such that by 2004 there were no longer any 

differences between treatments in abundance of shrub birds, or any other measure of avian 

community. Overall, avian species richness, diversity and dominance were not affected by 

treatment, whereas avian abundance showed a decrease, which did not rebound until deer fencing 

allowed the regeneration of the understory. 

Terrestrial amphibians were sampled using board complexes and pitfall traps. Preliminary data 

shows that almost all animals recorded were red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereous) and 

numbers found under board complexes were negatively correlated with soil temperature and 

declined signficantly following shelterwood cutting presumably because loss of canopy cover 

increased solar radiation. Although the decline was most pronounced on subplots treated with 

herbicide prior to shelterwood cutting, the ANF found no independent effect of herbicide 

application on salamander numbers. The decline due to shelterwood treatment was rather short 

lived and numbers had rebounded two years after cutting. No other effects of either shelterwood 

or herbicide treatment on salamanders were found. 

In conclusion, effects of herbicide application on wildlife are determined largely by the 

dependence of the individual species on the woody and herbaceous vegetation affected by 

treatment. Many of these effects are short-term in nature and considering most sites proposed for 

herbicide application will be followed by a removal cut within 5-10 years, long-term effects on 

wildlife will be determined largely by the dramatic changes in overstory vegetation following the 

final harvest treatment (described previously). 

Prescribed burning

Some prescribed burning is proposed under all alternatives in order to meet management 

objectives related to establishment of oak seedlings. Proposed burning is expected to have some 

direct effects on wildlife inhabiting the site at the time of treatment. Behavioral avoidance of 

wildlife by fire is documented in Landers (1987) and it has been observed that less mobile species 

such as small rodents are most likely to panic, while larger mammals usually move calmly during 

the fire. Upland game birds, raptors and many smaller birds are often attracted to fire or to the 

smoking landscape as foraging sites. Prescribed burning in the southeast indicates that deaths of 

wild animals are seldom attributed to fire (Landers 1987). Although Means and Campbell (1981) 

noted deaths of several reptiles, they went on to say that very few reptiles and amphibians are 

killed by prescribed fire. Similarly, review papers edited by Wood (1981), listed no fire induced 

mortality of tree squirrels, furbearers or black bears. The ability of small mammals to go 

underground or to emigrate apparently accounts for the scant evidence of mortality from heat or 

suffocating smoke (Taylor 1981). Indications are that fast moving burns in habitats of less mobile 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-218 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

species would likely be involved when death results. When mortality does occur, it is usually 

negiligible at the population level (Lyon et al. 1978). 

Most undesireable direct effects are overcome by choosing proper times, places and methods of 

prescribed burning. Since proposed burning will consist of a relatively slow moving strip headfire 

or backing fire and will be done on a small scale, direct mortality resulting from proposed 

burning is not expected to be significant. 

Indirect effects of proposed burning include modifications or changes in conditions on the 

affected sites. In the short term, effects on vegetation from burning include maintaining relatively 

open understory conditions followed by development of herbaceous and woody vegetation. While 

vertical stand structure may be temporally reduced on controlled burn sites, overall plant species 

diversity is expected to increase on the site, as well as create more complex understory conditions 

than existed prior to the burn. This is supported by on-forest monitoring, in which a comparison 

of species richness shows a dramatic three-fold increase in the total number of species present in 

the treated stand over the adjacent unmanaged stand (Hays unpublished 2001). Additionally, due 

to excessive browsing by deer, many of these species are not commonly found on the ANF and 

the three-fold increase is believed to be due to a combination of fencing, opening up of the 

overstory and burning. 

Effects of burning on the bird community can vary over time and burning usually does not affect 

bird communities through habitat changes for several years (White et al. 1999). Bendell (1974) 

summarized a number of studies that evaluated the effects of burning on birds and concluded that 

overall, the number of species of birds increased after burning. The number of species that fed on 

or near the ground increased the most, as might be expected with the increase in grasses, herbs 

and shrubs following burning. Dormant season (April 15 though May 1) burns produce lowgrowing, sprouting regeneration of shrubs and trees and stimulate the production of soft mast 

(Stansky and Rose 1984). These responses would provide forage, cover and arthropod prey for 

many songbird species (Dickson 1981). 

Proposed burning is expected to result in mortality of some overstory trees. However the creation 

of dead and dying trees provide important foraging sites for woodpeckers and other bark gleaning 

species such as the black and white warbler. Snags also provide perching/hawking sites and 

roosting/nesting habitat. 

The increase in soft mast from rejuvenated shrubs, as well as the increased vegetative structure 

and diversity that occurs on the site following burning, is expected to increase the diversity and 

abundance of wildlife species utilizing the stand. Additionally, since oak is a fire tolerant species 

and has developed on the ANF as a result historic burning by Native Americans, proposed 

burning is expected to restore fire adapted ecosystems and help sustain the oak type over the long 

term. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-219

Effects by alternatives

Early structural habitat

Vegetation management activities and time are the primary means through which vegetative 

structural conditions will change on the ANF in the first and second decades of LRMP 

implementation. The average annual amount of each major vegetation treatment is provided in 

Table 2-2. Structural conditions anticipated by 2020 by alternative are displayed in Table 3-50. 

Alternatives A and B would result in the largest acreage of early structural conditions (9 percent 

of FS lands), whereas Alternative D would result in the lowest acreage of early structural 

conditions (4% of FS lands). In the long term (2060) Alternatives A through D would result in 14, 

12, 10, and 3 percent early structural conditions, respectively. These structural classes are based 

on the average diameter of dominant canopy trees as shown. Uneven-aged management maintains 

stands in the mid to late structural stages where it is applied. 

Late structural habitat

By 2060 the amount of late structural forest would vary from 24 percent of National Forest land 

in Alternative A to 39 percent in Alternative D (Table 3-50). Over the long term, Alternative A 

provides a more even distribution of structural classes with 14 percent early structural forest, 48 

percent mid structural forest, and 24 percent in late structural forest. Alternative B provides the 

second most even distribution of structural classes with a mix of 12, 49, and 25 percent early, 

mid, and late structural conditions, respectively. 

About 5,800 acres consisting of unconnected areas were identified to provide future old growth 

forest habitat (late structural forest) in site specific project analyses under the 1986 Forest Plan. 

Some of these areas may not have old growth characteristics at this time, some may have 

experienced intensive oil and gas development that diminished their old growth characteristics, 

and none of them are over 300 years old. Under Alternative B, 3,869 acres previously identified 

as old growth habitat would continue to be managed to provide old growth characteristics. These 

previously identified areas would be re-evaluated in future site-specific analyses to determine the 

appropriate management emphasis. In Alternatives B, Cm, and D, areas with old growth 

characteristics are primarily provided in portions of MAs 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 

8.5. Part of the rationale for MA 2.2 in Alternatives B, Cm, and D is to avoid an approach that 

provides small, scattered parcels of old forests and instead provides large patches of old growth 

that are more connected across the landscape. 

Landscape changes

The landscape codes described previously, which break the Forest down by predominate 

landscape condition and management were used to compare the relative landscape conditions 

under each of the alternatives, which are displayed in Table 3-51. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-220 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-50. Current and estimated future (2020 and 2060) structural stage conditions for National Forest 

System lands by alternative. 

A B Cm D 

Current 

2020 2060 2020 2060 2020 2060 2020 2060 

Early-structural (canopy trees 0-5”) 7% 9% 14% 9% 12% 8% 10% 4% 3% 

Mid-structural (canopy trees 6-20”) 77% 72% 48% 71% 49% 72% 48% 75% 51% 

Late-structural (canopy trees >21”) 4% 8% 24% 10% 25% 10% 28% 9% 39% 

Note: Numbers will not add up to 100%—remainder is either non-forested or developed lands. Data derived from SPECTRUM model 

Table 3-51. Alternative Landscape Conditions 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt Cm Alt. D 

Landscape 

Code Acres %* Acres %* Acres %* Acres %* 

1 33,707 6.7 140,874 27.8 175,986 34.7 207,722 41.0 

2 130,521 25.8 11,922 2.4 19,258 3.8 154,123 30.4 

3 332,818 65.7 335,425 66.2 292,615 57.8 127,771 25.2 

4 7,955 1.6 7,575 1.5 7,937 1.6 6,215 1.2 

5 1,473 0.3 10,678 2.1 10,678 2.1 10,643 2.1 

Total 506,474 506,474 506,474 506,474 

*percent of total National Forest System lands 

The biggest difference between alternatives is in the amount of predominately late structural 

habitat (Landscape Codes 1 and 2) that will be provided in the future and in the amount of forest 

that contains a diversity of forested age classes and structures (Landscape Code 3). Due to the 

increased amount of MA 2.2 lands and lands devoted to uneven-aged management, Alternative D 

will result in the greatest amount of late structural habitat and under this alternative, over 70 

percent of the Forest will have a landscape condition where late structural conditions 

predominate. Whereas the amount of forest that contains a greater diversity of forested age 

classes will be reduced by approximately 40 percent under Alternative D and Landscape Code 3 

will be reduced to approximately 25 percent of the ANF. 

There will be little change in landscape condition under Alternatives A and B, both of which will 

continue to provide approximately 30 percent of the Forest in a predominately late structural 

condition (Codes 1 and 2) and approximately 65 percent of the Forest in a landscape that contains 

a greater diversity of age classes (Code 3). Under Alternative Cm, the amount of late successional 

forest across the landscape will increase slightly (6%), whereas more diverse landscape 

conditions (Code 3) will decrease by almost 8 percent. 

Permanent openings

Two percent of the ANF will be managed as permanent openings for wildlife under all 

alternatives. Most permanent wildlife openings are less than 5 acres in size and occur in a variety 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-221

of ecological land types. Existing permanent openings would continue to be managed in all 

management areas except MA 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 8.3, and 8.5. New permanent wildlife openings would 

be permitted in all management areas except MA 5.1, 5.2, 2.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 under all 

alternatives. Openings would benefit species such as ruffed grouse, wild turkeys and woodcock. 

In summary, Alternatives A, B, and Cm provide increased levels of early and late structural 

habitat, both in the short and long term. Alternative D will result in a short- and long-term 

reduction in early structural habitat and the largest increase in late structural habitat. Early 

structural species such as the American woodcock, ruffed grouse, beaver, and white-tailed deer 

would benefit the most under Alternative A and mid to late structural species such as the barred 

owl, black-throated green warbler, great blue heron, hermit thrush, pileated woodpecker, redshouldered hawk, and yellow-bellied sapsucker would benefit most under Alternative D. 

Over the long term, Alternatives A and B, and to a lesser extent Alternative Cm, would encourage 

more horizontal structure. Even-aged regeneration activities would create early structural 

vegetation that would otherwise be declining, except for what might be created on private lands 

or through larger scale natural disturbances. Alternative D would result in the greatest amount of 

late structural vegetation after 5 decades of LRMP implementation. 

Habitat indicator 2 – Amount and Trends in habitat composition 

Effects common to all alternatives

The ANF recognizes the value of sustaining a diverse composition of habitats for sustaining a 

diversity of plant and animal species. Under all alternatives wetland and riparian habitats will be 

buffered (see water resources section). Management actions will emphasize retaining, enhancing, 

and restoring of riparian and wetland values. Aquatic habitats (rivers, streams, and 

impoundments) will be managed to maintain the water quality important to many species of fish, 

mussels, insects and others. Both the oak and conifer components will be maintained across the 

landscape. All alternatives will utilize prescribed burning and even-aged management to restore 

oak communities and enhance mast production over the long term. The amount of conifer and the 

effects to conifer habitat will not change by alternative. 

Effects by alternative

Oak forests

Since oak forests are valuable to many plant and animal species, research has focused on ways to 

regenerate healthy oak stands and enhance acorn production to ensure that oaks remain a viable 

habitat component in Eastern Forests (McShea and Healy 2002). Even-aged management and 

prescribed burning are two treatments that promote the regeneration of healthy oak forests (Brose 

and Van Lear 2004, Loftis 2004). These treatments are permitted in MAs 1.0, 2.2, 3.0, 6.1, 6.2, 

8.6, and 9.1. As a result, under Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D, 77 percent, 53 percent, 49 percent, 

and 33 percent respectively of the ANF oak acreage are allocated to MAs where scheduled 

regeneration treatments could occur (Table 3-52). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-222 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-52. Percent of oak managed by primary silvicultural system under each alternative. 

Percent of oak type managed 

by primary silvicultural 

system* 

Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

Even-aged 77% 53% 49% 33% 

Uneven-aged 0% 0% 0% 4% 

No Active Management 23% 47% 51% 63% 

*Estimated percent of total amount of current oak type allocated to be managed by primary silvicultural system. This is 

determined by MA from a base of 75,000 acres. (Even-aged in MAs 1.0, 2.2, 3.0, 6.1, and 6.2; Uneven-aged in MAs 2.1; No 

active in MAs 5.x, all 7.x, all 8.x, and 9.1). Note: Oak is usually managed with even-aged silviculture in MA 2.2 and is shown 

that way here). 

Table 3-53. Estimate of current oak types by structural stage at 2020 and 2060 by alternative. 

Year 2020 Year 2060 

Structure/Alternative Current A B Cm D A B Cm D 

Early structural (ac.) 1200 250 200 700 700 4100 6300 5500 1200 

Mid structural (ac.) 61,000 41,000 32,900 33,300 34,200 2300 3100 4400 1800 

Late structural (ac.) 13,000 33,000 41,500 41,800 40,200 54,700 51,800 53,400 58,200 

 (Acres from SPECTRUM model) 

Oaks in management areas where these treatments were not employed would continue to grow 

large, some developing large cavities and some dying and eventually falling over. Uneven age 

management that utilizes 3-acre group selection openings (RUMFC prescription) would likely be 

effective for regenerating oaks and remains an option in MA 2.1, 2.2, and 6.1. Although these 

large oaks would provide dens and cavities for a variety of wildlife, some tradeoff is expected in 

both acorn production and the likelihood that oaks will remain a component of the stand in the 

future (Gribko et al. 2002, McShea and Healy 2002). By 2060, the oak type would not change by 

more than 2 percent under any alternative. 

Structural stages of oak on the ANF at the end of the planning period and at year 2060 are 

provided by alternative in Table 3-53. During the planning period not much change occurs in the 

structural stages of oak but over the long term Alternative B provides slightly more even 

distribution of oak across structural stages than the other alternatives. However, across all 

alternatives late-structural oak will comprise between 84 and 94 percent of the oak by 2060. 

Wetland habitats

In Alternative A, the 1986 LRMP would provide very minimal direction for the protection of 

amphibian habitat around wetlands and vernal pools. In the other alternatives, standards and 

guidelines for wetland management zones (2500 Watershed and Air section in the LRMP) 

provide better direction for the protection of critical amphibian habitat. Within this habitat, it is 

important to maintain forest floors with suitable conditions, such as minimal compaction and 

rutting, deep litter, coarse woody debris, and canopy shade (Calhoun and Maynadier 2004). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-223

Rivers, streams, and impoundments

The Water Resource Environmental Consequences provides a thorough discussion on the effects 

of various management activities to water resources, which can affect fish and other aquatic 

species and their habitats. The reader should review this section as well. Some of the following 

discussion is similar. 

Aquatic habitat management 

Treatment of stream habitats would occur in all alternatives (Table 2-2). Specifically, Alternatives 

B, Cm, and D provide an objective for the restoration or improvement of an average of 2 miles of 

instream habitat conditions per year. Alternative A does not provide an objective, but does allow 

this type of work to occur. Efforts would be focused on improving the amount and quality of 

cover and pool habitat that is lacking in many streams on the ANF, but would also provide 

important hydrological benefits as well. For example, large wood in headwater streams traps 

sediment which would benefit species downstream, such as mussels, in the larger streams and 

rivers. Large wood within the stream channel would also provide cover and refuge areas for a 

variety of stream fish and aquatic invertebrates, including many of the RFSS aquatic invertebrates 

(such as the dragonflies). Pools are important features for holding larger, mature fish and as 

refuge areas during high flows. 

Efforts to provide improved habitat conditions in impoundments would occur in Alternatives B, Cm, 

and D on an average of 32 acres per year. The improvements would provide cover and spawning 

areas for a variety of game and non-game fish. Numerous fish habitat improvement structures placed 

in the Allegheny Reservoir in the past have been monitored and have shown a higher percentage of 

fish usage when compared to areas where there is no structure. Fish habitat work in Alternative A is 

currently dependant on individual project analysis, and would continue under this direction. Thus, all 

alternatives would provide improved habitat conditions in impoundments. 

Vegetation management 

The harvesting of trees along streams has the potential to affect stream shading through the 

removal of potential large wood recruitment, and the introduction of sediment to intermittent and 

perennial stream channels. These potential outcomes could indirectly impact fish and other 

aquatic species that inhabit not only streams in the immediate area of the activity, but downstream 

as well. The loss of shading can lead to increases in stream temperature and potential loss of leaf 

litter input until trees become large again. However, small, scattered openings along streams 

generally will not negatively affect stream water temperature and in some cases can increase 

productivity. Vegetation management in riparian areas may increase the potential for sustaining 

trees on the site. 

The removal of larger trees along streams can result in the loss of potential large wood to fall into 

streams and create a greater diversity of aquatic habitat. Large wood provides aquatic species 

with cover and creates pools and slow-water areas. Hydrological functions provided by large 

wood in a stream and important to aquatic habitat could potentially be affected as well. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-224 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The use of herbicides to treat understory vegetation for reforestation purposes as well as for 

treating non-native invasive plants, for wildlife habitat, and for meeting visual objectives would 

occur in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. The use of herbicide would also still occur under Alternative 

A, but with a different set of standards and guidelines. The Wildlife and Aquatic Species Risk 

Assessment (Appendix G2, pp. G2-5 to G2-10) shows that there is no significant risk to wildlife 

or aquatic species exposed to either glyphosate or sulfometuron methyl when properly applied. 

The potential for the above vegetation effects to occur is similar for Alternatives A and B, and 

slightly less in Alternative Cm. Alternative D provides a much lower harvest rate and herbicide 

application and thus the potential for effects to occur are the least. However, in all alternatives, 

several LRMP standards and guidelines related to protecting aquatic resources would be 

implemented that would protect aquatic species and their habitat. This includes such things as 

providing filter strips to protect streams from sedimentation, providing buffer strips along streams 

and other waters to protect aquatic resources from herbicides, and providing for adequate shade to 

prevent excess water temperatures in streams. To provide for the long-term maintenance and 

natural recruitment of large wood to streams, riparian vegetation would be managed using 

uneven-aged management and would occur on three percent of the riparian acreage per decade in 

MAs suitable for vegetation management. 

Road construction and management 

Forest roads located within 300’ of a stream have the highest potential for contributing runoff. 

These dirt and gravel roads can be a potential long-term source of sediment that can fill pools and 

embed gravels, habitats that are important to various life history stages of fish and aquatic 

invertebrates in headwater streams and mussels in the larger waterways, including the Allegheny 

River. New roads proposed for construction within 300 feet of a stream is highest in Alternative 

A and lowest in Alternative D (Table 3-10, 2500 Water Resource section). Implementation of 

standards and guidelines and site-specific mitigation measures would minimize the amount of 

runoff reaching a stream. Likewise, the conversion of non-system roads to Forest Service roads 

within 300 feet of streams is similar in Alternatives A-Cm, but slightly less in Alternative D. 

While these roads will also continue to be a potential long-term source of sediment to streams, the 

amount would be reduced because of a higher quality of surfacing material that would be used 

than currently exists on these roads. 

As part of the road proposals, some existing dirt and gravel roads within 300’ of a stream would 

be decommissioned. A beneficial effect to aquatic habitat would result due to the elimination of a 

potential long-term source of sediment, primarily in Alternative D, where 2.2 miles would be 

decommissioned. Alternatives A and B propose only 0.1 miles each, and Alternative D is 0.5 

miles. 

Motorized ATV/OHM Trails 

Several areas of the ANF are proposed for Intensive Use Areas (IUAs) where motorized 

ATV/OHM trails can be constructed. The effects described for road construction and 

management are similar for these types of trails. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-225

During the implementation of the current 1986 Forest Plan, a better understanding of the effects 

of trails on streams was developed between various resource specialists that have led to the 

improvement of many miles of trails. These adaptive improvements identified after trail 

monitoring include such things as using a harder stone surfacing in more sensitive areas, rerouting sections of trails, conducting maintenance more frequently, among others. This has led to 

a further reduction of fine sediment. 

Assuming the effects are proportional to the number of acres available for development of trails, 

Alternative B has a much higher potential for effects to occur. This is followed by Alternative A, 

Alternative Cm, and Alternative D. Using this rationale, Alternative D would pose the lowest 

potential risk to aquatic species and their habitat. 

Wilderness study areas 

Additional areas on the ANF are proposed in Alternatives Cm and D for inclusion into Federal 

Wilderness Study Areas (Table 2-1). The proposed areas include several miles of cold-water 

streams providing suitable habitat for trout and other headwater aquatic species. 

Alternative D would provide the greatest mileage of streams and aquatic habitat into Wilderness 

Areas. Aquatic resources would be protected from potential land-disturbing activities such as dirt 

and gravel roads and off-highway vehicle trail construction and maintenance. The beneficial 

effects would be greatest for the Minister Creek Valley and Chestnut Ridge because these are 

currently in management areas where land-disturbing activities can occur. Tracy Ridge and 

Allegheny Front are currently in National Recreation Areas where currently no land-disturbing 

activities are occurring. 

Alternative Cm, while only providing for two Wilderness Study Areas, include Minister Creek 

and Chestnut Ridge. The number of miles of streams would be less than Alternative D, but as 

described above, these two areas would move from management areas with potential landdisturbing activities to a more protected status. 

See Game Fish section for more effects discussion from the proposed Wilderness Study areas. 

Herbicides

Because herbicide treatment is complex and sometimes controversial and can affect both habitat 

structure and habitat composition, it is addressed separately here. All alternatives allow both 

sulfometeron methyl and glyphosate to be used to reduce vegetation that interferes with the 

establishment of tree seedlings (primarily ferns, grasses, striped maple and beech suckers), and to 

enhance wildlife habitat where vegetation interferes with the establishment of planted shrubs and 

trees (e.g. viburnums and apple trees). Alternatives B through D allow these two herbicides to 

also be used to control non-native invasive species (e.g. garlic mustard or Japanese knotweed) 

and to achieve heritage resource and visual management objectives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-226 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Herbicide spraying affects animals by causing short-term and long-term habitat alterations. 

Physical disturbance may occur when animals are present when herbicides are applied. For this 

discussion short term habitat alterations are the immediate effect of the herbicide on the 

vegetation and last less than 3 years. Long term habitat alterations are described as the effect 

herbicide treatment has on the vegetation three years after application and beyond. 

The Wildlife and Aquatic Species Risk Assessment (Appendix G2) provides a detailed analysis 

of the hazards (toxicity) and exposure and assesses the potential risk from using sulfometuron 

methyl and glyphosate. Studies have shown high elimination rates and low tissue retention for 

both herbicides, indicating a very low risk of bioaccumulation. The results indicate that there are 

no substantial risks of acute or chronic adverse effects to any aquatic or wildlife species for 

typical and maximum exposures. 

Water quality monitoring of silvicultural treatments have shown that buffer zones are adequate 

for protecting stream water quality (USDA FS 1988 p.18-19, 1989 p.15-17, 1990 p.22-24, 2002 

p.50-51) using the buffer guidelines in the 1986 Forest Plan. Specifically, water samples collected 

and analyzed for the specific active ingredients (glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl) were 

within water quality protection criteria and thus any effects were prevented from occurring. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D provide new guidelines for herbicide application when working near 

water (Appendix G2, pp. G2-10 and G2-11). The buffers would be narrower depending on the 

method of application (e.g. individual stem) and the herbicide that is used, but the risk assessment 

indicates that these buffers are adequate for protecting aquatic species. Additionally, surfactants 

used in the application are approved for aquatic use should any accidentally enter water where 

aquatic species occur. 

Herbicides impact the habitat by altering the understory structure and composition. Research on 

the ANF has shown that understory alterations cause a decrease in the number of shrews and an 

increase in the number of mice (Stoleson pers. comm. 2005). Shrub nesting birds also showed a 

decrease in abundance. All impacts were short-lived as the site became re-vegetated (Stoleson 

pers. comm., 2005). 

Although the acreage treated with herbicide varies by alternative, none of the alternatives are 

expected to have a substantial impact to aquatic and wildlife species. Impacts to shrews and shrub 

nesting would be minor and short term under all alternatives. 

Habitat indicator 3 – Changes in habitat patterns on the landscape 

Effects common to all alternatives

Under all alternatives the Allegheny Front, Cornplanter, Hickory Creek Wilderness, and Tracy 

Ridge would remain in management areas where Forest Service roads would be prohibited or 

greatly restricted. The result would be about 21,000 acres (>1/4 mile from a road) of high quality 

remote habitat under all alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-227

Silviculture treatments within the late structural linkages would be focused on restoring late 

structural forests and enhancing habitats for certain species with viability concerns. Specific 

uneven–aged treatments that restore forest structure and promote understory development would 

occur in Northern, Upland, and Allegheny hardwood stands. Even-aged management would be 

practiced in oak dominated habitats to restore understories, enhance mast production, and 

regenerate oak forests. The resulting conditions would include the enhancement of many older 

forest characteristics such as big trees; multiple layered canopies; canopy gaps; diverse forbs, 

shrub, and seedling understories; and large dead wood both standing and down. 

Effects of alternatives

Remote habitats

Adverse effects to existing remote habitats will be measured by the level of new road and 

motorized trail construction in unroaded areas which increase human access and increase noise 

levels resulting in disturbance to some wildlife species. 

Of the 37 areas without roads greater than 500 acres identified in the Forestwide Roads Analysis 

(USDA FS 2003b), 29 are considered quality remote wildlife habitat and 8 are considered high 

quality remote wildlife habitat. The percent of the 29 quality remote habitats (28,200 acres) and 8 

high quality remote habitats (33,000 acres) that will remain in management areas where Forest 

Service roads and motorized trails are prohibited or greatly restricted (MAs 2.2, 6.3, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 

8.2, 8.3, and 8.5) is provided by alternative in Table 3-54. This does not mean that all areas 

without roads in management areas that allow new road construction will be roaded. 

Under Alternative A, the Morrison Run area would remain in MA 6.2 where intensive timber 

harvest would occur on about 2,070 acres for 10 years followed by no timber activity for 30 

years. An additional 1,200 acres of high quality remote habitat would remain in MA 3.0 subject 

to new road and timber harvest reducing its value as remote habitat. Under Alternative B, 

Chestnut Ridge would become an IUA for off-highway vehicles diminishing its value as high 

quality remote habitat. Currently Chestnut Ridge is not within a known oil and gas field, so if it is 

not designated as an IUA it is likely to retain a large amount of its remote habitat character. In 

addition to Chestnut Ridge, about 8,100 acres (29%) of quality remote habitat would become 

intensive use areas where new motorized trails would be constructed. 

Under Alternatives Cm, 88 percent of the highest quality remote habitat and 60 percent of the 

quality remote habitat (respectively) would remain in management areas that contain direction 

compatible with sustaining these remote habitats. Impacts could occur from future private mineral 

development and are addressed under cumulative effects. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-228 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-54. Percent of the highest quality remote habitat that will remain relatively free of new Forest 

Service roads and motorized trails by alternative* (The present condition is the same as Alternative A). 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Percent of High Quality Remote Habitat that will remain in 

management areas that substantially restrict new road/ 

motorized trail construction (8 areas, 33,000 acres) 

63 81 88 88 

Percent of quality remote habitat that will remain in 

management areas that substantially restrict new 

road/motorized trail construction (29 areas, 28,200 acres) 

35 38 60 60 

*Roading by private mineral development could occur on all areas (except where USA minerals have been withdrawn from development). Oil 

and gas development expanded into a portion of the Morrison Run area during the summer of 2006. 

Core areas and habitat connectivity

Under Alternative A, landscape connectivity of late structural forests would primarily be 

provided by Management Area 6.1 where the forest would “generally progress to a mature 

hardwood type.” Connectivity was not a focus of the 1986 Forest Plan and the arrangement of 

MA 6.1 would not provide any north-south connection between Clarion core area and core areas 

to the north. Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas would not form an east-west connection 

with Hickory Creek Wilderness and Allegheny Front. Designation of late structural habitat in MA 

3.0 would primarily remain as small scattered parcels. The forest matrix as a whole would 

become less connected and more fragmented as 120 miles of new Forest Service roads, and the 

potential capability of 73 miles of new motorized trails could be constructed during the planning 

period. Private oil and gas roads are covered under cumulative effects. As the forest matrix 

becomes less contiguous and more roaded, movement of some species between core areas 

becomes more difficult resulting in less genetic interchange and loss of resiliency (Lindenmayer 

and Franklin 2002, Morrison et al. 1992). More roads would result in some species with viability 

concerns becoming more limited in their distribution across the landscape (e.g. timber 

rattlesnakes, wood turtles, northern flying squirrels, etc.). The acreage that would be managed 

with an emphasis on connectivity and an emphasis on core areas is provided in Table 3-55. 

Under Alternative B, core areas are connected with a relatively continuous high canopy and 

designated as MA 2.2. The Clarion River unroaded area becomes a remote recreation area with 

contiguous high forest canopy. Throughout the forest matrix about 105 miles of new road would 

be constructed, and the potential capability for 124 miles of new motorized trail could be built. In 

essence, MA 2.2 in Alternative B rearranges most of MA 6.1 from Alternative A to link the core 

areas. About a third of the known rattlesnake dens on the ANF would occur in MA 2.2 where the 

emphasis is on connectivity, while 18 percent of known goshawk nests would occur in core areas. 

By spatially arranging late structural habitat so that core areas are connected, genetic 

heterozygosity will likely be maintained and species resiliency enhanced in the core areas. 

The Longhouse IUA could potentially impact connectivity under Alternative B. Potential impacts 

to a Class A trout stream, to concentrations of nesting raptors, and to turkey winter range and 

brood rearing habitat are some of the important habitats that would need careful consideration in 

trail design in this IUA. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-229

Table 3-55. Acres managed with an emphasis on habitat connectivity and an emphasis on core 

areas. (Percentages are percent of total National Forest lands, The present condition is the same as Alternative A) 

Emphasis Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

Acres Managed for Connectivity 

(MA 2.2) 

0* 

0% 

99,000 

19% 

121,000 

23% 

129,000 

25% 

Acres Managed as Core Areas 

(MA 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5,) 

34,000 

7% 

41,000 

8% 

55,000 

11% 

79,000 

15% 

*Although connectivity was not a specified objective of MA 6.1, it none-the-less provided some late structural landscape level 

connectivity. 

New remote recreation areas (M.A. 7.2) under Alternatives B through D would become new core 

areas as existing roads are decommissioned. Silviculture treatments in the new core areas (MA 

7.2) would be limited to management activities that address recreation and scenery objectives, 

user safety, wildlife concerns, forest health, or catastrophic events such as wind or ice storms. 

These types of treatments for the core areas would be the same under Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

However, the amount of each treatment would change as the Management Area acreages change 

by alternative. 

Under Alternative Cm, Chestnut Ridge becomes a proposed wilderness study area. The result 

would be the creation of two large core areas separated by State Route 321. About 75 miles of 

new Forest Service road would be constructed and the potential capability for 45 miles of new 

motorized trails could be developed throughout the forest matrix during the planning period. Both 

the acreage of connected late-structural habitat and core areas are substantially increased under 

Alternative Cm from that in Alternative B (Table 3-55), providing well distributed and 

connected habitat. In the event of large catastrophic weather events or large scale intensive 

mineral development, this alternative provides less risk than Alternative B that late structural 

habitat connectivity would be substantially compromised. Species re-colonization and resiliency 

of core areas would be expected to increase over Alternative B. Fifty five percent of known 

rattlesnake dens would occur in MA 2.2 and 32 percent of the known goshawk nests would occur 

in the core areas under this alternative. 

Alternative D widens the late structural linkages, increases the number of connections, and 

includes seven remote recreation areas (MA 7.2) as core areas. Under this alternative, about 40 

percent of the ANF would be managed as late structural forest using core areas connected with 

high canopy forests (the most of any alternative). Habitat connectivity is enhanced with a 

reduction in the size of the existing Duhring-Allegheny IUA and no development of new IUAs. 

About 70 miles of new Forest Service roads would be constructed and the potential capability for 

12 miles of new motorized trails could be built throughout the forest matrix during the planning 

period. Fifty-five percent of the known rattlesnake dens would occur in MA 2.2 and 33 percent of 

the known goshawk nests would occur in the core areas under this alternative. Several miles of 

existing trails would be eliminated. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-230 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative A provides landscape patterns that would benefit species that utilize early structural 

habitat and edges such as American woodcock, ruffed grouse, beaver, and white-tailed deer. 

Alternative D provides mid-late structural landscape patterns that would benefit the barred owl, 

black-throated green warbler, great blue heron, hermit thrush, pileated woodpecker, redshouldered hawk, timber rattlesnake, and yellow-bellied sapsucker. 

Alternatives B and Cm provide mixes of landscape patterns between Alternatives A and D. 

Alternatives B and Cm provide core areas and linkages of late structural habitat while increasing 

the amount of early structural habitat from the present condition. 

Habitat indicator 4 – Amount and trends in habitat for management indicator species 

Effects to the five management indicator species are described in this section. 

Northern goshawk

Direct and indirect effects

Direct and indirect effects will be evaluated by looking at management area allocations, standards 

and guidelines and management activities that may cause direct mortality or harassment to 

individuals, as well as activities that may alter habitat conditions at either the site or landscape 

scale. Both short- and long-term effects will be evaluated and for the purpose of this analysis, 

short term effects will be looked at by evaluating habitat conditions in the year 2020, whereas 

2060 will be used as the point in time when potential long-term effects are evaluated. A more 

detailed discussion of habitat and effects is discussed in the Biological Evaluation since this 

species is also a RFSS. 

Effects common to all alternatives

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

nesting birds. Any activity that occurs within active goshawk territories, or any activity that 

creates unsuitable goshawk habitat, could have adverse direct and indirect effects. In order to 

reduce harm and harassment to nesting birds, all alternatives include design criteria to provide 

some level of nest protection that will reduce harm or harassment to nesting birds and maintain 

suitable habitat conditions around the nest site. With implementation of these design criteria, 

adverse effects to nesting birds will be greatly reduced. 

Because the number of active nests on the Forest has declined in the last two years and in an 

effort to reduce potential cumulative effects in the face of increasing oil and gas development, 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D raise the level of protection to active goshawk nests by doubling the 

area around the nest site that is protected. In addition, Alternatives B, Cm, and D include design 

criteria that will ensure that 1) suitable habitat is maintained for alternate nest sites, 2) desired 

habitat conditions are maintained within active territories, and 3) nest protection design criteria 

stay in place for up to five years following the last year of documented occurrence. So while all 

alternatives will reduce the potential impact to nesting birds, a greater level of protection is 

provided under Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-231

Because of the northern goshawks sensitivity to disturbance, new road construction as well as 

management of existing roads has the potential to adversely affect this species, although the 

actual disturbance varies with both the type of road and intensity of use. On the ANF, goshawks 

successfully nest in areas with low-standard roads and prefer areas where existing roads receive 

little daily use. While the amount of new road construction varies by alternative, all alternatives 

require that roads within active territories be closed to public use and as a result, potential impacts 

from any new road construction will be reduced to a level that Forest monitoring indicates is 

consistent with goshawk use. 

Approximately 79 percent of the ANF presently provides the structural conditions preferred by 

the northern goshawk for nesting, and although the amount of suitable nesting habitat varies 

somewhat by alternative (described below), all alternatives will ensure that suitable nest habitat is 

maintained across the landscape. Similarly, although the amount and quality of foraging/post 

fledgling habitat varies somewhat by alternative, all alternatives will continue to maintain a 

predominance of suitable conditions across the landscape and ensure that forest-wide viability for 

this species is maintained. 

Effects by alternative

While all alternatives maintain viable goshawk populations and provide adequate habitat to 

support desired nesting densities, they each vary in terms of the quality and quantity of habitat 

that will be provided at the landscape scale. Table 3-56 displays the landscape conditions that will 

characterize currently active territories under each of the alternatives. 

Although the goshawk prefers mature forest for the nest site, on the ANF it selects landscapes 

that are relatively diverse, as is indicated by the large amount of occupied habitat that presently 

occurs within landscape code 3. This is consistent with research that indicates that goshawk prey 

species need a variety of habitat conditions from early to mature seral stages (Kimmel and 

Yahner 1994). Landscape conditions within active territories under Alternatives A and B will 

remain relatively unchanged in the future. There will be a slight increase in late structural 

landscape conditions under Alternative Cm (Codes 1 and 2) and a large increase in predominately 

late structural conditions within active territories under Alternative D. Although landscape 

conditions preferred by the northern goshawk vary somewhat by alternative, all alternatives will 

provide landscape level nesting and foraging habitat conditions that Forest monitoring indicates is 

consistent with goshawk use. 

While goshawk territories on the ANF contain diverse habitat conditions, they prefer 

predominantly mature forest conditions for nesting and Table 3-57 displays the amount of 

suitable nest habitat that will occur under each of the alternatives both in the short and long term. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-232 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-56. Alternative landscape conditions of active goshawk territories (percent of ANF) 

Landscape Code Present Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D

1 

2 

3 

0.2 

17.8 

82 

0.2 

17.8 

82 

7.2 

0.4 

92.4 

22.3 

0.3 

77.4 

31.8 

34.8 

33.4 

Table 3-57. Suitable goshawk nest habitat by alternative (percent of ANF) 

 2006 2020 2060 

 Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt. D Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt. D 

Suitable Nest Habitat1 79 76 76 77 80 71 72 73 83 

1

 Suitable goshawk nesting habitat = forests >30 yrs. old. 

By 2020, suitable goshawk habitat will decline by 2-3% under Alternatives A, B and Cm and 

there will be a slight increase in habitat under Alternative D. However, due to the amount of 

even-aged regeneration harvest proposed over the long-term (2060), suitable goshawk nest habitat 

will be reduced by 15 percent, 14 percent and 10 percent under Alternatives A, B and Cm 

respectively. Whereas under Alternative D, available nest habitat will increase by 4 percent over 

the long term. While even-age final harvest activities will result in unsuitable goshawk nest 

habitat for up to 30 years, even-age thinning and selection harvest are expected to improve 

structural conditions preferred by the northern goshawk and by the year 2060, proposed 

treatments will improve structural conditions on 13 percent, 14 percent, 13 percent and 12 percent 

of suitable goshawk nesting habitat under Alternatives A through D respectively. 

Motorized trails 

Of all the woodland raptors found on the ANF, the northern goshawk is most sensitive to 

disturbance and any activity that increases human disturbance into suitable breeding ground has 

the potential to have adverse effects. Because of the noise and concentrated use during the 

breeding season, summer motorized trail use has the greatest potential to adversely affect nesting 

birds. Because all motorized use is restricted to Intensive Use Areas (IUAs), potential impacts to 

the northern goshawk are limited to these areas and Table 3-58 displays by alternative the number 

of currently active goshawk territories included within IUAs. 

Presently IUAs with motorized use occur on approximately 15 percent of the Forest and this will 

remain unchanged under Alternative A. Lands included in IUAs will increase to approximately 

18 percent and 15 percent of the Forest under Alternative B and Cm respectively and decrease to 

approximately 6 percent of the Forest under Alternative D. While direct effects to the northern 

goshawk could occur under any alternative, all alternatives include design criteria that restrict 

new motorized trail use within active territories and as a result there are not expected to be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-233

Table 3-58. Goshawk territories within alternative IUAs 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D 

Active Goshawk Territories 5 6 5 4 

impacts from new motorized trails to active goshawk nests under any alternative. Alternatives B, 

Cm, and D all include increased protection of known territories and as a result potential risks to 

known nests will be reduced under these alternatives. Potential conflict with future use varies by 

alternative depending on the acreage of IUAs. Only Alternative D reduces potential risks between 

future motorized trail development and the northern goshawk. Risks to future use are increased 

somewhat under Alternatives B and Cm, due to the larger acreage included within IUAs. 

Effects summary 

While all alternatives have the potential to adversely affect the northern goshawk and its habitat, 

Forest-wide design criteria in place under all alternatives are expected to reduce potential impacts 

from proposed activities to a level that will allow continued use and successful reproduction of 

active nests and territories. 

While the amount of suitable nesting habitat varies by alternative, all alternatives will provide 

landscape level nesting and foraging habitat conditions that Forest monitoring indicates is 

consistent with goshawk use. 

All alternatives will maintain adequate habitat to meet forestwide populations objectives for the 

northern goshawk and while the amount and quality of suitable habitat varies by alternative, all 

alternatives will continue to maintain a predominance of suitable habitat across the landscape and 

ensure that the forestwide viability of this species is maintained. Also, ANF monitoring indicates 

that the level of activity proposed will continue to provide suitable habitat for the northern 

goshawk and as a result, all alternatives meet Forest goals and objectives related to providing 

habitat for species that utilize late structural and remote forest conditions, as well as mature forest 

species with viability concerns. 

Cerulean warbler

Direct effects include any activity within suitable habitat that results in mortality and/or 

harassment leading to nest failure or mortality. Specific treatments include timber harvest, road 

and trail construction, oak release, and prescribed fire. Because the cerulean warbler is closely 

tied to oak and oak transition forests on the ANF and considering suitable riverine habitat is 

largely protected by design criteria under all alternatives, direct and indirect effects will focus on 

changes in the oak forest community. 

Because this species utilizes mature forest conditions, any activity that eliminates mature oak 

forest has the potential to have adverse direct and indirect effects. These treatments include 

timber harvest, new road construction, gravel pit construction and opening construction. While all 

alternatives will result in removal of trees, new road construction and pit and opening 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-234 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

construction will result in small localized reductions in mature forest and will exist as a small 

inclusion within the larger forested landscape. Due to the small acreage proposed for treatment 

and considering Forest monitoring indicates that higher densities occur within stands that contain 

the canopy gaps created by these activities, potential impacts to cerulean warbler nesting are 

greatest from proposed timber harvest. Potential effects can be both positive and negative and 

vary with the amount and type of timber harvest proposed under each of the alternatives. 

Because research, including Forest monitoring (Rodewald 2004, Stoleson pers. comm. 2005a) 

indicates that higher densities of cerulean warblers exist on sites that had recently received a 

partial harvest activity (described previously), it is anticipated that improved cerulean warbler 

habitat and increased densities of birds will occur on sites receiving oak shelterwood harvest, 

thinnings or uneven-aged treatments. The length of time the improved condition lasts will vary by 

treatment, for example, because oak shelterwood treatments are followed by a removal cut. The 

improved canopy conditions resulting from the shelterwood will last for 10 to 20 years, after 

which a removal cut will be implemented and the site will be made unsuitable for nesting 

(described below). The improved conditions resulting on sites receiving a thinning or unevenaged treatment may last for a longer period of time, particularly under uneven- age management, 

due to the more frequent entries. 

While partial harvest treatments can improve cerulean warbler habitat, final harvest activities 

including removal cutting can create unsuitable nesting habitat for up to 50 years due to the loss 

of the mature forest canopy following treatment. Although considered a final harvest treatment, 

cerulean warblers continue to use sites that have received a two-aged harvest, but at reduced 

densities (Miller et al. 1995) and as a result, sites that receive a two-aged harvest will continue to 

provide suitable cerulean habitat. Although removal cutting will eliminate suitable habitat until 

the stand matures, oak regeneration, in combination with associated reforestation treatments such 

as fire, are necessary to maintain oak on a site. As a result, final harvest treatments will increase 

retention of oak on the Forest and better provide for the long-term retention of preferred cerulean 

warbler oak habitat. 

Long-term changes in cerulean warbler habitat are displayed by alternative in Table 3-59 and 

include total oak/riverine habitat, total nesting habitat, and total preferred nesting habitat. 

Due to the conversion of oak to birch and red maple, which results largely from a lack of 

disturbance, all alternatives will result in a short- and long-term reduction in oak habitat with 

Alternative Cm maintaining the largest oak component (84% of existing oak) and Alternatives A, 

B and D, maintaining approximately 81 percent of the existing oak component. While Alternative 

Cm retains more oak than the other alternatives, due to increased levels of regeneration activities 

proposed under this alternative and Alternatives A and B, by 2060, Alternative D will maintain 

the greatest amount of cerulean warbler nesting habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-235

Table 3-59. Cerulean warbler alternative habitat changes 

2060 

Alt. 

A 

Alt 

B 

Alt 

Cm 

Alt 

D 

Suitable oak/riverine habitat1 12.4 12.4 12.8 12.4 

Suitable nesting habitat (mature oak/riverine)1 11.6 11.2 11.7 12.2 

Preferred nesting habitat (mature oak/riverine <75% 

stocked)2 31.2 33.2 35.3 28.3 

1

 – expressed as % of the Forest 

2

 – expressed as % of suitable habitat 

Presently, approximately 25 percent of the available oak habitat has the more open canopy 

conditions that would be expected to result in higher cerulean warbler densities, and although 

there have been some partial harvest treatments in oak, most of the existing open canopy 

conditions are naturally occurring. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that similar 

levels of open canopy conditions will continue to occur and the amount of preferred nesting 

habitat identified in Table 3-59, represents 25 percent of the naturally occurring open canopy 

habitat combined with the acreage under each of the alternatives that receive a partial harvest 

treatment. 

Cerulean warbler densities can be estimated by multiplying the acreage in preferred and suitable 

nesting habitat under each of the alternatives by the cerulean warbler density/acre observed in 

each of these habitats (Stoleson pers. comm. 2005a). While there is some variation in the number 

of pairs that each alternative could support, all alternatives will maintain adequate habitat to 

provide approximately 1400 to 1500 cerulean warbler pairs Forest-wide. 

Landscape effects

Landscape level effects will be evaluated by looking at the potential for fragmentation related 

effects such as increased nest parasitism and predation as well as an evaluation of the 

predominate landscape condition that will be provided under each of the alternatives. 

Forest fragmentation and its associated effects on wildlife are well documented (Robbins et al.

1989, Paton 1993, Webb et al. 1977) and in an effort to assess potential fragmentation related 

effects, the ANF established 20 breeding bird transects in 1992. One of the objectives of this 

monitoring was to determine the effects of timber harvest on breeding bird diversity. Sites 

sampled include a variety of forest types and conditions, including both managed and unmanaged 

forests. Sampled sites also had various levels of fragmentation, including highly fragmented areas 

of intensive oil and gas development and areas that are virtually unfragmented. In addition to 

these transects, the NE Forest Experiment Station has collected data on songbirds, small 

mammals and amphibians from over 50 sites across the Forest (deCalesta 1998) and this 

information will be used to assess potential effects to the cerulean warbler and other neo-tropical 

migrants. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-236 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

When evaluating potential effects of fragmentation, landscape characteristics such as the amount 

of intact forested and non-forested habitat need to be considered. For example, while Robbins et 

al. (1989), identified a minimum tract size for a number of breeding birds, he found that for most 

area-sensitive species, the relationship between the probability of occurrence and area is 

significant only for forests that are greatly isolated (e.g. less than 33% forest within 2 km2

). This 

is a consideration on the ANF due to the predominately forested nature of the landscape both 

within and surrounding the ANF. For example, nest parasitism is a well-documented edge-related 

effect in more fragmented landscapes with a large, non-forest component. However, breeding 

bird monitoring from 35 sites across the forest has documented fewer than 15 cowbirds out of 

8,000 birds censused (deCalesta 1998). Although there may be localized areas of increased 

parasitism close to openings near private land inclusions, considering the low number of cowbirds 

in predominantly forested areas like the ANF, nest parasitism by cowbirds is not expected to have 

a significant effect on interior-forest songbirds such as the cerulean warbler. This is supported by 

other research in the northeast (Rodewald and Yahner 2001), which indicates that effects of 

fragmentation such as brood parasitism and nest predation may not occur or may be reduced in 

extensively forested areas such as the ANF, when compared to landscapes that are not 

predominantly forested. Also, after three years of songbird nest monitoring on the Forest, there 

has been no documented nest parasitism in any of the nests monitored. (Stoleson, pers. comm. 

2006). 

While nest parasitism is reduced in extensively forested landscapes such as the ANF, nest 

predation does occur and more recent research has indicated that edge effects such as increased 

nest predation occur in forested, as well as agriculturally dominated landscapes (Manolis et al.

2002). There is also research that shows that elevated populations of nest predators occur near 

edges of forest and non-forest, as well as near edges created through even-age regeneration 

harvest (Manolis et al. 2002, King et al. 1998, King et al. 1999). Although nest predation has 

been found to be higher near edges, effects on reproduction are complex. For example, Flaspohler 

et al (2001) studied the effects of forest edges on ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) demography in 

a managed forest landscape where many of the forest edges are the result of clearcutting. While 

they found higher levels of nest predation near clearcut edges, nest density in edge habitat was 

28.6 percent higher than in interior habitat. Also on average, birds nesting in edge habitat laid 

clutches that were 15.5 percent larger than clutches in interior habitat and they found that the 

apparent “ecological trap” resulting from the combination of relatively high nest density and low 

nest success in edge habitat was largely offset by the difference in mean clutch size between edge 

and interior habitat. Finally their model of habitat specific population demography indicates that 

ovenbirds breeding in northern hardwood forests are producing an annual surplus of offspring, 

which is consistent with the hypothesis that areas dominated by contiguous forest are source 

habitats for some forest interior species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-237

Monitoring conducted on the Forest to date shows that the eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) is 

the biggest nest predator on the ANF. Although this would vary somewhat by site, this is 

consistent with other research in predominately forested areas, which identified the chipmunk as 

the most common or one of the most common nest predators (King et al. 1999, Manolis et al.

2002, Flaspohler et al. 2001). Preliminary monitoring information also appears to support the 

complex relationship described above (Flaspohler et al. 2001). For example, the NRS has been 

monitoring canopy, shrub and ground nesting species for three years and while data collected to 

date indicates that high levels of nest predation can occur to shrub nesting species such as the 

black-throated blue warblers, nest success is higher in sites receiving timber harvest, than in uncut 

sites, indicating that higher nest densities in the treated sites may offset increased nest predation 

(Stoleson pers. comm., 2006a). 

As described previously, final harvest treatments on the ANF are considered temporary and 

deCalesta (1998) suggests that even aged timber harvesting, such as that proposed under all 

alternatives, will not result in forest fragmentation, but rather habitat fragmentation, and that the 

openings created through even-aged harvest are temporary. As a result, while proposed even-age 

regeneration treatments may result in increases in early successional species and an increase in 

nest predators, these effects are expected to be temporary in nature. Also it is anticipated that 

successful reproduction of forest interior species such as the cerulean warbler will continue to 

occur and that preferred site and landscape conditions will be maintained. This is supported by 

on-forest monitoring, where sites manipulated by even-aged forest practices similar to those 

proposed, contained a similar compliment of interior-forest songbirds, amphibians, and mammals 

when compared to uncut, second-growth and old-growth habitat (deCalesta 1998). Finally, the 

ANF has some of the highest densities of forest interior species in the State, including blackthroated blue warblers, black-throated green warblers, blackburnian warblers and scarlet tanagers 

(Stoleson pers. comm. 2006), indicating that the existing forest management activities similar to 

those proposed will continue to provide suitable habitat for forest interior species such as the 

cerulean warbler. 

While effects of forest fragmentation from proposed timber harvest are expected to be temporary 

in nature, long-term effects such as increased predation or competition may occur along 

permanent openings and new roads, which have breaks in the Forest canopy and a well defined 

herbaceous layer. Although this will vary by site depending on surrounding landscape conditions 

and associated predator populations. Proposed activities that may increase the amount of 

permanent edge and reduce interior habitat include opening and gravel pit construction and new 

road construction under all alternatives. In addition to the acreage affected by the treatments, it is 

expected that edge related effects such as increased nest predation may occur for an additional 

300 ft into the Forest and that by 2060, these effects could occur on approximately 6 percent of 

the Forest under Alternative A, 5 percent under Alternatives B and Cm and 4 percent under 

Alternative D. 

Considering roads have the greatest potential to cause fragmentation on the Forest, and in an 

effort to determine whether or not forest interior species such as the cerulean warbler utilize sites 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-238 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

with higher road densities, a GIS evaluation of sites that are known to be occupied by the 

cerulean warbler was done and occupied sites were compared with the forestwide availability of 

the varying road densities. This information is displayed in Table 3-60. 

Information from Table 3-60 shows that while 83 percent of the occupied cerulean warbler 

habitat occurred at road densities below 4 mi/mi2

, occupied habitat occurred at a variety of road 

densities and at levels similar to the Forest-wide availability. This is consistent with work done by 

Stoleson (pers. comm. 2006) and indicates that road densities commonly found on the ANF do 

not preclude use of the Forest by forest interior species such as the cerulean warbler. 

In addition to potential effects from fragmentation, the overall landscape condition needs to be 

considered. Using landscape codes identified previously, alternative landscape conditions that 

characterize suitable cerulean warbler habitat on the Forest are displayed by Alternative in 

Table 3-61. 

Landscape codes 1 and 2 will be characterized in the future by predominately late structural 

conditions and 65 percent, 53 percent, 61 percent and 78 percent of the suitable cerulean warbler 

habitat will be managed with this landscape condition under Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D 

respectively. The reduced level of management that characterizes landscape codes 1 and 2 is 

partly reflected in the amount of new road construction proposed within suitable cerulean warbler 

habitat. For example, only 16 percent (maximum) of the total forestwide road construction 

proposed would occur in suitable cerulean warbler habitat. 

Table 3-60. Road densities of occupied cerulean warbler habitat 

Road Density 

(mi/mi2)

Forest-wide 

Availability 

Occupied 

Cerulean Warbler 

Habitat 

<0.15 2% 6% 

0.015-2.087 24% 21% 

2.087-4.159 47% 56% 

4.159-6.232 19% 11% 

6.232-8.304 2% 2% 

8.304-10.376 1% 4% 

Table 3-61. Cerulean warbler habitat landscape conditions by alternative (% ANF lands) 

Landscape Code Alt. A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

1 22 51 59 67 

2 43 2 2 9 

3 34 42 32 17 

4 <1 0 0 0 

5 <1 7 7 7 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-239

Effects summary

Up to 6 percent of the Forest will be affected by permanent edge associated with proposed road 

and opening construction and potential impacts such as increased nest predation may occur on 

this area. While proposed timber harvest may increase levels of nest predation in the short term, it 

is anticipated that nest production of forest interior species such as the cerulean warbler will 

continue to occur at levels that support local and Forest-wide populations of this species. 

It is anticipated that existing forest health concerns that presently threaten oak and oak transition 

stands will continue. Although it is difficult to predict the degree of impact from these stressors, 

particularly the cyclical populations of defoliating insects, droughts and introduced exotic pests, it 

is likely that some form of chemical, biological or cultural treatments will be necessary. 

Preferred riverine habitat will be maintained under all alternatives and all alternatives will 

maintain over 80 percent of existing oak habitat as suitable cerulean warbler nesting habitat. Also, 

available habitat will be well distributed and will continue to exist in all watersheds where it 

presently occurs. As a result, all alternatives are expected to continue to provide the landscape 

conditions preferred by this species, as well as landscape conditions consistent with documented 

cerulean warbler use on the Forest. 

While the amount and quality of suitable cerulean warbler habitat varies by alternative, all 

alternatives will continue to maintain a predominance of suitable habitat across the landscape and 

ensure that the Forest-wide viability for this species is maintained. Also, all alternatives will meet 

Forest-wide goals of providing habitat for species that require interior habitat conditions, 

including species with viability concerns. 

Timber rattlesnake

Timber rattlesnake populations are declining throughout most of Pennsylvania primarily due to 

human-snake encounters and loss of suitable habitat (Urban 2005). Eight dens are known to exist 

on the ANF with the potential for a half dozen more (that were historically known to exist). 

Under all alternatives, Forestwide guidelines are designed to protect den sites with the goal of 

reversing the downward trend in populations. Efforts are underway to increase public awareness 

of the ecological value of rattlesnakes and the need to protect them. Under all alternatives the 

management emphasis is to maintain 20 to 60 rattlesnakes per den at 10 to 15 den sites by the 

year 2020. 

Introduction to effects

This section will focus on the effects of activities as they apply to the primary threats to the 

timber rattlesnake. As stated above, these include loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and 

isolation of populations. Direct mortality caused by humans (including illegal snake hunters) and 

vehicle deaths will be assessed by levels of activities that increase human/snake encounters. Both 

short- and long-term effects will be evaluated, and for the purpose of this analysis, short term 

effects will be looked at by evaluating habitat conditions by the year 2020, whereas 2060 will be 

used as the point in time when potential long-term effects are evaluated. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-240 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Activities with effects 

Based on the variety of habitats used by this species, the majority of timber harvest activities will 

continue to provide the forested settings necessary to support the timber rattlesnake. While this 

species is at home in timber-covered terrain, especially that of second-growth woodland, it also 

utilizes open forest edges, openings, meadows and open shrub-land edges. Clearcuts with 

reserves (groups of trees left standing) and areas of early structural vegetation are especially 

important for providing small mammals for foraging. Uneven-aged management, thinning, 

shelterwood seed cuts, clearcut with reserves and two-age harvesting may improve foraging and 

basking habitat by reducing dense canopy cover. Removal of overstory vegetation near potential 

and known den sites (during winter months) would improve den site conditions by preventing 

shade over and increasing basking opportunities. Most reforestation activities would restore 

habitat, but the benefits would be more evident in the long-term. 

Herbicide treatments will not adversely affect rattlesnakes or their habitat. Alternative B proposes 

the most herbicide treatment (2,222 acres/year). Some researchers (Miller and Miller 2004) have 

theorized that following herbicide application there would be a reduction of seed from fruitproducing shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, which could reduce the food source for small 

mammals, particularly rodents, which could reduce the prey base for the timber rattlesnake. 

However, a study was conducted by the Northern Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory 

on Responses of Wildlife Communities to Herbicide Application that does not support this 

theory. The assessment was conducted on 16-20 acre stands for 12 years, 2 years prior to 

herbicide application and 10 years following herbicide application. While data collation and 

analysis are still ongoing, the summary results to date are as follows: “Responses to treatments 

varied among taxa, probably based on their differing requirements for ground cover. Overall 

mammal species diversity was reduced by herbicide treatment, primarily due to its effects on 

shrews. In contrast, overall mammal abundance increased immediately following cutting, 

primarily due to a temporary increase in Peromyscus mice, the most abundant species. The results 

indicate that there were no effects of treatments on age ratios of the two most frequent mammal 

species, suggesting no impacts on demographic rates” and not a significant impact on prey of the 

rattlesnake. 

Stone Pit Development/Expansion could be detrimental to individual basking snakes or denning 

populations if managers are not aware of denning sites. Underground crevices and dens can be 

accessed by a single hole on the surface and while this may be rare, areas that are being proposed 

for new excavation should be thoroughly surveyed. Also, stone pits provide optimal conditions 

for snakes to bask and if they are near a den the snakes found in a pit may be gravid females. If 

basking snakes are observed in existing stone pits, seasonal restrictions and mitigations should be 

implemented. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-241

Effects by alternatives 

Vegetation management 

Direct killing of snakes by humans during random encounters continues to be a concern to 

resource managers. All timber harvest activities conducted during the summer season have the 

potential to increase human/snake encounters thus increasing the chance of purposeful killing or 

accidental killing by machinery. 

There are several effects to the timber rattlesnake associated with timber harvest that will be 

influenced and measured by the levels of harvest proposed under each alternative. The effects to 

consider are: loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation and isolation of populations and direct 

mortality caused by humans and vehicles (including illegal snake hunters and poachers) as habitat 

is made more accessible by roads and human/snake encounters increase. 

While the clearcut, and shelterwood removal methods of harvest may be indirectly beneficial in 

that prey sources could increase for a period of time, they also would likely reduce the canopy 

cover to less than preferable levels, especially where basking sites occur. However, this is a shortterm effect because the forest stand would mature over time and become suitable once again and 

would not cause a detrimental decline in rattlesnake abundance. The amount of early structural 

vegetation, resulting from overstory tree removal, proposed to be created by the year 2020 ranges 

from 4 to 9 percent (Table 3-50). In the long term (2060) between 3 and 14 percent of the ANF 

would provide early structural conditions, respectively. All other vegetation management 

practices would not have a measurable effect on habitat used by the timber rattlesnake. 

This snake is at home in timber-covered terrain, especially second-growth woodlands in mature 

or late structural forest stages. Acres managed for late structural forested habitat vary by 

alternative. The percentage of lands managed for late structural habitat by 2020 is 8 percent under 

Alternative A, 10 percent under Alternative B, 10 percent under Alternative Cm, and 9 percent 

under Alternative D. By 2060 the amount of late structural forest would vary from 24 percent of 

National Forest land in Alternative A, 25 percent in Alternative B, 28 percent in Alternative Cm, 

and 39 percent in Alternative D (Table 3-50). 

It is unlikely that timber harvest activities would fragment rattlesnake habitat to the point where 

populations would become isolated under any alternative. Timber harvest and related activities 

are relatively small scale, well distributed across the forest and are temporally spaced. In addition, 

Management Area 2.2 (under Alternatives B, Cm and D) is proposed to be managed specifically 

for connectivity between core areas with late structural and old growth characteristics. These 

connectors would reduce the impacts of fragmentation and would provide the timber rattlesnake 

opportunities to migrate during the spring and fall within a somewhat undisturbed forested setting 

with fewer roads. These corridors would also provide optimum foraging areas because other 

species, such as rodents, would benefit from little disturbance. Acres managed for connectivity 

and core areas for the planning period are proposed on 0 percent (connectivity) and 7 percent 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-242 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

(core) of the ANF under Alternative A, 19 percent and 8 percent under Alternative B, 23 percent 

and 11 percent under Alternative Cm and 25 percent and 15 percent under Alternative D. 

Additional protection for timber rattlesnake habitat will be provided during timber harvesting and 

other activities through the implementation of the following: 

The 1986 Forest Plan (Alternative A) contains standards and guidelines which state: 

• Habitat of endangered, threatened, and Forest Species of Concern will be protected or 

enhanced. 

• Enhance rattlesnake denning and basking sites by release cutting. 

• New roads, trails, recreation facilities and other developments will be located to avoid the 

following: rocky areas on southern and southeastern exposures suitable for snake dens. 

• Existing ORV and foot trails will be managed to avoid conflicts between the public and 

“Species of Special Concern in Pennsylvania.” As an alternative, the trail will be relocated to 

provide the protection required for these species. 

• Local roads will be closed to public use when necessary to provide additional protection for 

the bobcat and rattlesnake. 

The LRMP includes either Forest-Wide standards or guidelines under Alternatives B - D that 

allow for seasonal restrictions, road and trail closures and other conservation measures for species 

with viability concerns. In addition, the following are specific guidelines for rattlesnakes: 

• Known den sites and basking areas should be protected with a 450-foot buffer zone. 

Within this zone, new trails, roads, and log landings should be prohibited. Protect the 

integrity of the den site by not moving rocks larger than 2 feet in diameter and by not 

creating excessive soil compaction. 

• Timber harvest may be permitted between November 1 and March 31 within the buffer. 

Prescribed fire is not identified (in current literature) as a primary threat to the timber rattlesnake 

or its habitat and there is little research on the effects of prescribed fire. However, ground fires 

have the potential to harm individuals that do not move away from the area. The majority of 

prescribed fires on the ANF would occur prior to rattlesnakes emerging from the den. A 

prescribed fire that occurs after April 15th could adversely affect individuals if conducted in 

suitable habitat. Prescribed fire may result in enhanced growth of the understory, which could be 

beneficial for prey species. The average annual amount of prescribed fire proposed in the first two 

decades for silviculture, wildlife and hazardous fuels management under Alternative A is 280 

acres (the lowest), 650 acres under Alternative B (the highest), 564 acres under Alternative Cm, 

and 358 acres under Alternative D (Table 2.2). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-243

Road and trail management 

The risk for human/snake interaction and harm to individual snakes is increased where roads or 

trails occur in suitable habitat. Road construction varies across the Alternatives and is based on 

levels of other resource activities, specifically vegetation management. Estimated annual 

averages, through the planning period, for road construction in existing corridors and new road 

construction is 13 miles and 8 miles respectively under Alternative A, 14 miles and 7 miles under 

Alternative B, 13 miles and 5 miles under Alternative Cm, and 11 miles and 5 miles under 

Alternative D (Table 2.2). 

Habitats with minimal human activity are often characterized as remote. Like core habitat, remote 

habitat is often measured by the presence of roads and trails. The Forestwide Roads Analysis 

(USDA 2003b) identified eight unroaded areas on the ANF > 500 acres with a wildlife index of 

26 or greater. These eight areas represent high quality remote habitat. Each unroaded area was 

evaluated against six criteria to determine an index for the wildlife values associated with each 

area. The highest possible score for all six criteria is 30. A description of the criteria can be found 

on pages 50 and 51 of the Forest-wide Road Analysis. There are 33,006 acres of unroaded habitat 

across the ANF. The percentage of high quality remote habitat that will remain relatively free of 

new Forest Service roads and trails (through the planning period) is 63 percent under Alternative 

A, 81 percent under Alternative B, 88 percent under Alternative Cm and 99 percent under 

Alternative D. 

These areas would provide relatively undisturbed, remote habitat for the rattlesnake and decrease 

the occurrence of human/snake encounters. 

Roads, trails, and other disturbances that remove forest ground cover interfere with mating 

behavior in snakes. Male snakes searching for females follow the pheromonal trails of the 

females. Using their forked tongues, males detect the pheromones of females on the vegetation. 

When roads and trails remove vegetation the ability of males to detect and follow females is 

disrupted (Shine et al. 2004). 

Animal mortality, a significant direct effect, can occur when off-road vehicles hit grounddwelling animals, destroy birds and small mammals or cause the collapse of needed burrows or 

crevices. Although animal mortality is an obvious and familiar direct effect, displacement, 

avoidance and disturbance at specific sites, often associated with breeding and raising young, are 

the most commonly reported direct effects of motorized trails on wildlife (Kassar 2005). Intensive 

Use Areas and Equestrian Use Areas also increase the chance of human/snake encounters, 

ATV/OHM/snake encounters and horse/snake encounters, which increases the chance of snakes 

being purposely and/or accidentally killed. Twenty-five percent of known dens on the ANF are 

within IUAs. Alternative B includes the largest acreage in IUAs resulting in the highest risk of 

ATM/OHM-- rattlesnake encounters. Alternative D has the least acres in IUAs (Table 3-85). 

Alternative A provides the largest amount of open equestrian riding resulting in the highest risk 

of equestrian-rattlesnake encounters. Alternative D has no open riding. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-244 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Mourning warbler

Effects by alternative

Because the mourning warbler utilizes early successional vegetation associated with both canopy 

and understory disturbance, proposed activities that would affect habitat for this species include 

timber harvest, new road and opening construction, herbicide application and prescribed burning. 

Since most of the understory treatments are used in association with timber harvest, effects will 

be evaluated by looking at the amount and type of structure provided under each of the 

alternatives. 

Early structure resulting from even-age regeneration harvest 

Forest monitoring indicates that mourning warblers first come into a site after the shelterwood 

harvest because of the understory development that occurs following treatment. As a result, sites 

receiving a shelterwood treatment could be expected to have low densities of mourning warblers 

as they begin to occupy the site. Typically, a final harvest treatment occurs within three to five 

years of the shelterwood, which creates the dense layer of shrubby vegetation preferred by this 

species and as a result, higher densities would be expected to occur following the final harvest 

treatment. As described previously, the dense low-growing woody vegetation that results 

following the final harvest is temporary in nature and while higher densities of mourning warblers 

can be expected to occur on a site within 2 and 10 years of a final harvest treatment, suitable 

mourning warbler habitat would be eliminated within 15 to 20 years of the final harvest, as 

preferred low-growing vegetation is over-topped. As a result, the amount of early structural 

mourning warbler habitat created through even-age management is ephemeral in nature with 

lower densities occurring for three to five years prior to and 10-15 years following final harvest 

and higher densities occurring 2 to 10 years following harvest. Due to the closed canopy 

conditions that exist, a site is considered unsuitable within 20 years of the final harvest, although 

this would vary somewhat by site. 

Multi-age structure habitat 

Multi-age structure habitat resulting from uneven-aged management differs in both the type of 

habitat provided, as well as in the length of time it remains suitable. While mourning warbler 

habitat would be created on the entire site receiving traditional uneven-aged management, higher 

densities would be expected to occur within and adjacent to those portions of the stand that 

receive a group selection cut (approximately 20% of the site) and generally it would be expected 

that lower densities of mourning warblers would occur between groups (on approximately 80% of 

the site). Although in areas of high deer density, it is unlikely that the areas between groups 

would contain any mourning warblers, due to suppression of the shrub component. While habitat 

created through even-age harvest has a 20-year life span, because of the more frequent re-entry 

period (20 years) associated with uneven-aged management, suitable mourning warbler habitat 

within the site could remain for decades. As a result, although densities may be lower, mourning 

warbler habitat created under uneven-aged management may remain suitable in the long-term and 

would not be ephemeral in nature. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-245

Table 3-62. Alternative mourning warbler habitat 

2020 2060 

Habitat Alt 

A 

Alt 

B 

Alt 

Cm 

Alt 

D 

Alt 

A 

Alt 

B 

Alt 

Cm 

Alt 

D 

Percent of Forest in Early Structure created through 

even-age final harvest 8.9 8.7 7.3 4.3 12.9 11.6 9.6 2.4 

Percent of Forest occurring in Early structure through 

group selection harvest1 <1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <1 0.5 0.7 2.0 

Percent of Forest considered preferred mourning 

warbler habitat2

 8.9 8.8 7.4 4.4 13.0 12.1 10.3 4.4 

Percent of Forest in Multi-age Structure created 

through uneven-aged management 0 0.6 0.6 0.6 <1 2.7 3.3 10 

1

 includes 20% of acreage treated by uneven-aged management. 

2 acreage used to calculate densities 

Table 3-62 displays early structure habitat, or the amount of regenerating forest created through 

even-age management and associated reforestation treatments and multi-age structure, or the 

amount of Forest that contains a mix of early, mid and late structural conditions that result from 

uneven-aged management and associated reforestation activities. 

Approximately 8 percent of the ANF occurs as early structural habitat and in the short term this 

would be maintained under Alternatives A, B, and Cm, and decreased under Alternative D. In the 

long term, early structural habitat would increase by 61 percent, 48 percent, and 21 percent under 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm, respectively, and decrease by 44 percent under Alternative D. While 

preferred habitat will be created through even-aged vegetation management, it is anticipated that 

only those portions of the site that receive a group selection harvest will have higher densities of 

nesting birds, although lower densities may occur between groups if deer browsing is low. 

Because mourning warblers respond to the edge habitat created by new road and opening 

construction, in addition to habitat created through timber harvest, it is expected that suitable 

habitat would be created on another 1 percent to 2 percent of the Forest under all alternatives due 

to proposed road and opening construction. 

Effects summary

Using the average mourning warbler densities observed within harvested stands (13.6 pairs/100 

acres, Stoleson, pers. comm. 2006b) on the Forest, by 2060, it is estimated that preferred habitat 

conditions created through timber harvest would support approximately 9,000, 8,000, 7,000 and 

3,000 pairs of mourning warblers under Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D respectively. 

Suitable mourning warbler habitat associated with existing roads and utility ROWs will continue 

to be available. Additionally, naturally occurring disturbances that open up the forest canopy, as 

well as disturbances that result from native and exotic pests would be expected to continue to 

create suitable mourning warbler habitat. However, development of understory vegetation 

required by this species is largely dependent on the size of the deer herd and suitable habitat will 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-246 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

only be created if the deer herd is low. While the amount of habitat created varies by alternative, 

it is expected that naturally occurring habitat, combined with the suitable habitat created through 

management, will continue to occur at levels that support local and Forest-wide populations of 

this species. Finally, based on the analysis presented above, all alternatives will maintain 

adequate habitat to meet Forest goals related to providing habitat for game species and early 

successional species with viability concerns. 

Aquatic invertebrates

Direct and indirect effects to aquatic invertebrates will be evaluated by examining the effects of 

vegetation management, road construction and management, and ATV/OHM trails. As an MIS, 

the objective is to maintain the diversity and relative abundance of the population that existed 

before initiation of a land-disturbing activity. To validate the effects conclusions under the subsections that follow, aquatic invertebrates will be assessed at selected sites where proposed landdisturbing activities have the potential for causing impacts. Through the use of established 

methods, and depending on the circumstances and timing of the activity, aquatic invertebrates 

could be surveyed before, during, and after an activity to assess the effectiveness of Best 

Management Practices, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, or site-specific mitigation measures. 

Effects by alternative

Vegetation management 

Various activities associated with managing vegetation have the potential for indirectly affecting 

aquatic invertebrates where the activity is located in close proximity to a stream. Runoff from 

logging activities that reaches a stream has the potential to affect habitat and embed cobble-size 

particles. Cobble substrate generally supports the highest number of individuals and species 

because of more open space for increased numbers to occur. 

Other activities that could occur from logging include the removal of shade-producing trees near 

or along a stream that can cause streams to warm and cause a shift in the types of species present. 

The removal of these trees can also lead to a long-term loss in potential large wood input to 

streams, thus the creation of a diversity of habitats could be limited in certain sections of streams. 

In addition, a reduction in leaf litter input, a primary source of nutrients for aquatic insects, could 

change the composition of species in a section of stream. 

The use of herbicides is another activity that has the potential to affect aquatic insects if it were to 

enter a stream. Herbicides are not only proposed for use in reforestation, but for treating nonnative invasive plants, for meeting wildlife objectives, and for meeting visual quality objectives. 

The Wildlife and Aquatic Species Risk Assessment (Appendix G2) shows that there is no 

significant risk to wildlife or aquatic species exposed to either glyphosate or sulfometuron methyl 

when properly applied. 

The potential for any of the affects to occur is highest where the most land is allocated to 

allowing vegetation management. This potential is highest, and similar, in Alternatives A and B, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-247

and slightly less in Alternative Cm. Alternative D provides a much lower harvest rate and 

herbicide application and thus the potential for effect to occur are the least. However, in all 

alternatives, numerous LRMP standards and guidelines related to protecting aquatic resources 

would be implemented. As a result, there would be no anticipated decline in the aquatic 

invertebrate population, including the diversity and relative abundance. The primary guideline 

that would prevent any of these affects to occur is the implementation of buffer strips related to 

logging and the application of herbicides. 

Road construction and management 

The effects from this activity are similar to that described for Rivers, Streams, and 

Impoundments. Dirt and gravel roads constructed within 300 feet have the highest potential for 

contributing sediment to a stream. These roads can become a long-term source of sediment and 

result in the embeddedness of cobble substrate, habitats important for aquatic invertebrates. 

The alternative with the highest potential of this occurring is Alternative A with 7.1 miles of new 

road construction occurring within 300 feet of a stream, and the least potential in Alternative D 

(4.3 miles) by 2060. Localized effects to a stream population could occur during, and for a short 

period following, construction. It is possible that existing populations could be reduced during 

this short period, but would likely re-populate once a newly constructed road has stabilized and is 

maintained. If roads are not maintained to a higher standard in more sensitive areas, populations 

could remain reduced. To minimize this potential effect in all alternatives, LRMP standards and 

guidelines, as well as any site-specific mitigation measures, would be implemented. 

Motorized ATV/OHM trails 

Like the road construction and management section, the effects described for rivers, streams, and 

impoundments is similar. Assuming the effects are proportional to the number of acres available 

for development of trails, Alternative B has a much higher potential for effects to occur. This is 

followed by Alternative A, Alternative Cm, and Alternative D. Using this rationale, Alternative D 

would pose the lowest potential risk to aquatic insect populations. 

Depending on the trail location, there could potentially be more effects because of the high use 

the trails receive and the constant generation of fine sediment that is more erodable and that can 

reach a stream. Where trails will contribute runoff to a stream, local aquatic invertebrate 

populations could have reduced diversity and/or relative abundance depending on site conditions, 

the amount of trail use, and the level of maintenance. To minimize this potential effect in all 

alternatives, LRMP standards and guidelines, as well as any site-specific mitigation measures, 

would be implemented. 

Habitat indicator 5 – Amount and trends in habitat for game species 

Effects to game species habitat are influenced by the amount of early structural habitat, availability of 

mast from oak, beech, black cherry, and other species, and the impacts of human disturbance (primarily 

roads and motorized trails) on winter ranges and brood rearing habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-248 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects by alternative

Early structural habitat will increase by 2060 under all alternatives except Alternative D (see 

structural habitat section). This increase will benefit deer, bears, grouse, woodcock, and to a lesser 

extent, turkeys. Under Alternative D, the quality and quantity of habitat for game species would 

generally decline from present conditions because of the decrease in early structural habitat. 

Oak forests are important for a variety of game species including white-tailed deer, black bears, wild 

turkeys, ruffed grouse, squirrels, and others. As described in the section on Oak Forests, all 

alternatives would promote management of oaks to regenerate oak stands and enhance acorn 

production. An oak component will be provided on 15 to 20 percent of the ANF under all alternatives 

Conifer habitat will be managed similarly under all alternatives providing winter thermal cover for 

deer and turkeys. A conifer component will be provided on a minimum of 10 percent of the ANF. 

Species that utilize conifer such as the barred owl, black-throated green warbler, great blue heron, 

hermit thrush, and magnolia warbler would find similar conifer habitat under all alternatives. 

Riparian management guidelines are similar under all alternatives, ensuring that these systems 

remain intact to support the needs of waterfowl, furbearers, and game fish. Buzzard Swamp, 

which is managed for waterfowl, game birds, furbearers and other wildlife in cooperation with the 

PA Game Commission, is managed the same under all alternatives. 

Permanent wildlife openings will occur on a variety of ecological land types on 2 percent of the 

ANF under all alternatives. These openings provide brood rearing habitat for wild turkeys, and 

ruffed grouse, late-fall foraging habitat for turkeys, and early spring foraging for deer. Openings 

in bottomland ELTs, such as the Beanfields, Hall Farm, and Buzzard Swamp provide food and 

cover for American woodcock under all alternatives. Maintaining alder and crab apple thickets 

and other shrub habitats that provide breeding, nesting, and brood rearing habitat for woodcock 

will occur as a wildlife enhancement treatment under all alternatives. Old farm habitats such as 

the Economite Farm, Scott Farm, and Hall Farm will continue to be managed as grass, shrub, and 

early structural habitat to benefit both game and non-game species. 

Landscape diversity

Black bear, turkey and deer are all landscape level species and have seasonal food and cover 

requirements that are best met within landscapes that have higher levels of horizontal diversity. 

The amount of horizontal diversity provided under each of the alternatives is displayed in Table 

3-51 and Table 3-20. Because of the greater distribution of structural stages that are provided, 

landscape conditions 3 and 4 (MA 1. 3.0, 6.2, 7.2, and 8.6) would be expected to provide greater 

horizontal diversity. When compared by alternative, approximately 67 percent of the landscape 

under Alternatives A and B and 59 percent of the landscape under Alternative Cm would provide 

a high level of horizontal diversity preferred by many game species. Although Alternative D 

contains a greater amount of late structural stages and vertical diversity than the other 

alternatives, it is estimated that only approximately 26 percent of the landscape under this 

alternative will have higher levels of horizontal diversity preferred by deer, bear and turkey. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-249

Effects of motorized recreation

The LRMP includes forestwide design criteria that require that new roads and trails to be located 

to avoid deer and turkey winter ranges and turkey brood rearing habitat. While both of these 

activities have the potential for adverse effects on wildlife, effects of new roads are mitigated by 

restricting access and associated disturbance during critical periods. Because of the use and noise 

associated with dispersed motorized use (snowmobiles, ATVs, trail bikes), and considering this 

use can occur during critical periods of the year and/or affect key habitat for species such as deer 

and turkey, potential conflicts between alternatives were evaluated. 

While final layout of each project will be determined at the site level, the potential for conflict 

between alternatives varies depending on how much key habitat could be affected, as well as by the 

maximum amount of trail that could be constructed. Because all motorized trail must be developed 

within IUAs, an assessment of IUAs by alternative was completed in an effort to identify which 

IUAs had the greatest potential for conflict with key turkey and deer winter range. Figure 3-12

displays the estimated amount of winter range that will occur within the proposed IUAs.

Figure 3-12. Acres of deer and turkey winter range in each intensive use are by alternative.

A

B

Cm

D

IUA Winter Range

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Marshburg/stickney

Longhouse

Grunderville/Chapman

Bluejay/Duhring

Highland/Owls Nest

Total

IUA

Acres of Winter Range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-250 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-63. Estimated intensive use area trail miles and density by alternative. 

 Alternatives 

 A B Cm D 

IUA Trail 

Miles* 

Trail 

Density** 

Trail 

Miles 

Trail 

Density 

Trail 

Miles 

Trail 

Density 

Trail 

Miles 

Trail 

Density 

Marshburg/Stickney 55 2.4 83 2.4 61 2.3 41 2.3 

Longhouse 0 0.0 41 1.6 0 0 0 0 

Grunderville/Chapman 22 1.9 22 1.8 22 1.8 10 1.7 

Bluejay/Duhring 38 0.6 61 0.9 57 0.8 30 1.5 

Highland/Owls 

Nest/Twin Lakes 37 1.4 26 0.9 14 0.7 0 0 

* – Maximum trail miles. 

** – Expressed as the maximum miles of trail/sq mile of IUA.

The potential conflict between motorized trail development and turkey winter range is highest 

under Alternative B, and the amount of winter range potentially affected will increase. The 

Longhouse IUA has the greatest potential for conflict between motorized use, because of the 

large amount of key winter range contained within this IUA (6500 acres). 

The amount of trail proposed under each of the alternatives will also influence the potential for 

conflict between key areas such as turkey brood habitat. Because brood habitat, or for that matter 

other unique wildlife habitat cannot be accurately identified at the ANF scale, potential conflicts 

between motorized use and IUAs can be relatively evaluated by looking at the maximum trail 

density that will occur within the individual IUAs under each of the alternatives (Table 3-63). The 

maximum trail miles that will occur within each of the IUAs is displayed in Table 3-85. A 

summary of anticipated effects within each of the IUAs follows. 

Marshburg/Stickney – The potential for conflict between trail development and brood habitat or 

other key wildlife habitats is greatest within this IUA because of the higher trail density and 

because this IUA contains up to 36 percent more trail than the largest IUA (Bluejay/Duhring). 

Although the trail density within this IUA will not change by alternative, the greatest potential 

impact to wildlife habitat will occur under Alternatives B and Cm, due to the larger amount of 

turkey and deer winter range potentially affected. 

Longhouse – This is a new IUA proposed under Alternative B. Because it contains the largest 

amount of deer and turkey winter range of any of the IUAs, the potential for conflict with turkey 

and deer is high. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-251

Grunderville/Chapman – This is the smallest of the IUAs and has the fewest acres of winter 

range. Much of this area also receives intensive oil and gas and as a result is generally less 

preferred habitat for species such as turkey. There is virtually no change in the trail density or the 

amount of winter range affected between alternatives. Although Alternative D shows a higher 

trail density than Alternatives A-Cm because of the reduction in IUA size, the amount of trail will 

be reduced by half and potential effects to wildlife would also be expected to be reduced. 

Bluejay/Duhring – There will be a small increase in the amount of winter range affected under 

Alternatives B and Cm because of inclusion of the Salmon Creek drainage. Trail density may also 

increase by 61 percent and 50 percent under Alternatives B and Cm respectively and it would be 

anticipated that potential conflicts with wildlife would increase as well. Although the trail density 

increases under Alternative D, the total miles of trail and potential conflicts with wildlife will be 

reduced from the present condition. 

Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes - Although the size of this IUA will increase under Alternatives 

B and Cm, potential conflicts with game species are expected to decrease from the present 

condition under all alternatives, due to the reduction in trail construction. 

Game birds

Early structural habitat is the primary habitat utilized by ruffed grouse and American woodcock 

on the ANF. As stated above, a variety of permanent openings and old farm habitats throughout 

the ANF will be managed to provide habitat for game birds under all alternatives. 

Management Area 1.0 specifically emphasizes short rotations to provide early structural habitat 

for ruffed grouse. Alternative A provides about 8,000 acres in MA 1.0, Alternative B about 7600 

acres, Alternative Cm about 7,900 acres and D about 6200 acres. The total amount of early 

structural habitat under each alternative is presented in Table 3-50 with Alternative A having the 

most and Alternative D providing the least. 

Game fish

Activities that increase sedimentation and reduce water quality can be detrimental to game fish 

habitat. Some streams have higher quality game fish habitat (e.g. Class A Trout streams) or 

provide a remote fishing experience (e.g. Wilderness Trout Streams, Wilderness Areas). 

Recreation 

Several areas of the ANF are proposed for Intensive Use Areas where motorized off-highway 

vehicle trails can be constructed. These areas are located where headwater streams occur, several 

of which support brook trout populations. In particular, a Class A Wild Trout stream is located 

within the proposed Longhouse IUA in Alternative B. Where a stream does not support a 

population, it contributes to downstream water quality where fish typically become more 

abundant and diverse. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-252 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

During the implementation of the current 1986 Forest Plan, a better understanding of the effects 

that trails can have on streams was developed between various resource specialists that have led 

to the improvement of many miles of trails. These improvements, identified after trail monitoring, 

include such things as using a harder stone surfacing in more sensitive areas, re-routing sections 

of trails, conducting maintenance more frequently, improved culvert placement, among others. 

This has led to a further reduction of fine sediment from trails. 

Assuming the effects are proportional to the number of acres available for development of trails, 

Alternative B has a much higher potential for effects to occur. This is followed by Alternative A, 

Alternative Cm, and Alternative D. Using this rationale, Alternative D would pose the lowest 

potential risk to aquatic species and their habitat. To address any future trail construction in any 

alternative, Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or site-specific mitigation measures would 

be implemented to protect fish habitat in streams. 

Alternative B has the potential for more effects based on acreage, but in particular because it also 

would encompass Fourmile Run, a Class A Wild Trout stream. Flowing through the middle of 

this IUA is one of only three Class A Trout streams (as designated by the Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission) on the ANF, and only one of two based on native brook trout. The third 

stream is based on wild brown trout. Fourmile Run, is located in an area of the ANF where little 

oil and gas management activity has occurred, and where recent vegetation management was 

conducted with extraordinary mitigation measures to protect the stream. Portions of the most 

recent timber sale were harvested with a helicopter in a portion of the Fourmile Run watershed to 

avoid building any additional stream crossings in the watershed because of its unique character. 

Considerable effort has also been made in the past to provide harder stone surfacing on existing 

stream crossings and for timber harvesting to occur further away from the stream than is required 

in the Forest Plan. Combined, the three Class A Trout waters make up approximately 1.4 percent 

of perennial streams on the ANF. Although Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and sitespecific mitigation measures are implemented, the potential for reducing the quality of this 

fishery is high for Alternatives B, with no effects for Alternatives A, Cm, and D. The high risk 

given for Fourmile Run is because the stream just meets the Class A Trout stream requirement, 

and small effects could cause it to drop below this level. Although Fourmile Run and its 

tributaries are a dominant feature that bisects the Longhouse IUA, some trail could be constructed 

outside the watershed that would not impact the Class A trout fishery. 

Wilderness 

Some of the higher quality native brook trout streams on the ANF would be included in the 

Allegheny Front Wilderness Study Area in Alternative D. Three of the streams support very good 

to excellent trout fisheries, with an ability to support higher than normal abundances of 

reproducing trout when compared with other cold headwater streams on the ANF. This area is 

currently in the National Recreation Area where there is little to no land-disturbing activities and 

provides approximately 18.4 miles of perennial and intermittent streams. The streams also 

provide good water quality to the Allegheny River where numerous game fish, federally listed 

mussel species and RFSS fish occur. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-253

Minister Creek Valley, included in Alternatives Cm and D as a proposed Wilderness Study Area, 

provides approximately 23.9 miles of perennial and intermittent streams. These streams provide 

suitable habitat for brook trout and other aquatic species. The majority of the mileage is within 

the Minister Creek drainage which includes approximately 18.8 miles of perennial and 

intermittent streams. Minister Creek is part of Pennsylvania-Department of Environmental 

Protection’s water quality network sites in the state and was selected as a reference site because 

of its high aquatic qualities. Alternatives Cm and D would provide a large amount of land in an 

undisturbed condition that would eliminate possible effects to water quality and aquatic habitat 

from Forest Service surface disturbing activities. 

Additionally, any streams within Wilderness Areas would provide the angler with the opportunity 

to fish for native brook trout and wild brown trout in a remote setting requiring walk-in access. A 

portion of the public seeks this type of opportunity. A wilderness designation would perpetuate 

this experience. 

Fisheries in impoundments and reservoirs would not change by alternative. Habitat for walleye, 

small mouth bass and other game fish that inhabit reservoirs and impoundments would be 

provided similarly under all alternatives. 

Habitat indicator 6 - Species with viability concerns 

A viability outcome was determined for each of the 78 species identified during the species viability 

evaluation process. A range of five viability outcome levels was developed for use by Eastern Region 

National Forests to facilitate the comparison of species viability under each alternative in forest plan 

revision. The viability outcome should be thought of as an index of the capability of the environment to 

support population abundance and distribution, but not as an actual prediction of population occurrence, 

size, density or other demographic characteristics. A viability outcome is a judgment, based on scientific 

information found in the literature and from discussion with taxonomic experts and it does not make a 

yes-or-no determination of viability. It is important to note that the concept of ecological conditions, 

distribution and quality must be based on the knowledge of the species distributional range and life 

history. For example, some species may have received a viability outcome level of D or E. The reader 

must realize that many plants and animals occur in a localized or patchy distribution, and thus would 

never occur in the conditions described in outcome levels A, B, or C. The uncertainly associated with 

determining outcomes is acknowledged. 

We used the following analysis scales: 1) to summarize conditions on ANF lands within the proclamation 

boundary; and 2) to summarize existing conditions on all lands within the proclamation boundary 

(number 2 discussion is found in the cumulative effects section). 

Viability outcomes based on ANF lands

These outcome descriptions were used for determining present condition and direct and indirect 

effects in the short term (2020) and long term (2060) by alternative for ANF lands within the 

proclamation boundary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-254 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Outcome A. Suitable ecological conditions are broadly distributed and of high abundance across 

the historical range of the species within the planning area. The combination of distribution and 

abundance of ecological conditions provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous 

intraspecific interactions for the species. 

Outcome B. Suitable ecological conditions are either broadly distributed or of high abundance 

across the historical range of the species within the planning area, but there are gaps where 

suitable ecological conditions are absent or only present in low abundance. However, the disjunct 

areas of suitable ecological conditions are typically large enough and close enough to permit 

dispersal among subpopulations and potentially to allow the species to interact as a 

metapopulation across its historical range within the planning area. 

Outcome C. Suitable ecological conditions are distributed frequently as patches and/or exist at 

low abundance. Gaps where suitable ecological conditions are either absent, or present in low 

abundance, are large enough that some subpopulations are isolated, limiting opportunity for 

species interactions. There is opportunity for subpopulations in most of the species range to 

interact as a metapopulation, but some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low density that 

they are essentially isolated from other populations. For species for which this is not the historical 

condition, reduction in overall species range from historical within the planning area may have 

resulted from this isolation. 

Outcome D. Suitable ecological conditions are frequently isolated and/or exist at very low 

abundance. While some of the subpopulations associated with these ecological conditions may be 

self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the 

suitable environmental patches. For species for which this is not the historical condition within 

the planning area, reduction in overall species range from historical condition within the planning 

area may have resulted from this isolation. 

Outcome E. Suitable ecological conditions are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance, 

with little or no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, 

resulting in strong potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of such patches. There has likely been a reduction in overall species range from 

historical within the planning area, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted 

in this condition since the historical period. 

Changes in outcomes by alternative

Species are grouped by primary habitat and results are summarized in Table 3-64. The outcomes 

for all species are provided in Appendix E. Outcomes do not change by alternative for species 

that utilize primarily mid to late structural oak habitat, aquatic habitats, riparian/wetland habitats 

or grassland/seedling/sapling habitats for either the short (2020) or long term (2060). For mid-late 

structural forest, there is one species, the timber rattlesnake, that has a reduced outcome for NFS 

lands in the long-term (2060) under Alternatives A, B and Cm. The current status of this species 

is that it has declined from historic numbers and continues to decline across Pennsylvania. There 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-255

is currently suitable denning, foraging and basking sites on the ANF but they are broadly 

distributed and the species is uncommon. The outcome for the present condition of the timber 

rattlesnake is C. 

In the short term (2020), for all alternatives, suitable habitat is sometimes isolated and the timber 

rattlesnake occurs at low abundance. Small gaps in the habitat may occur causing some isolation 

of subpopulations. Most subpopulations can interact, specifically in the southern half of the ANF, 

although interaction between the northern ANF subpopulations and southern ANF subpopulations 

may be limited. 

By the year 2060, the magnitude of adverse impacts from road and motorized trail construction 

and other human activities on the timber rattlesnake increases to the point where the viability 

outcome changes. The amount of new FS road construction within new road corridor ranges from 

152 to 344 miles (Table 3-71). The result is that suitable habitat is frequently isolated with large 

habitat gaps. Most subpopulations are isolated with limited opportunity for most subpopulations 

to interact. The result is a viability outcome of D for both NFS lands and all lands in 2060. 

The viability outcome for the timber rattlesnake is not projected to decline in Alternative D for 

NFS lands as it is in Alternatives A-Cm. The viability outcome for this species will remain 

unchanged from the present outcome for NFS lands under Alternative D. When compared to 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm, Alternative D provides: 1) fewer FS roads, 2) fewer miles of 

motorized trail and fewer IUAs, 3) improved landscape connectivity and core habitat, 4) 

increased availability of preferred late structural and remote habitat and 5) no open equestrian 

riding. Collectively, these changes are expected to create more suitable ecological conditions and 

help to facilitate dispersal and interaction among subpopulations. 

Aquatic species outcomes would not change as a result of Forest Service activities because Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines and/or site-specific mitigation measures to protect aquatic species 

would be implemented on activities that could potentially have an affect. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-256 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Table 3-64. Species with viability concerns – outcomes by primary broad habitat by alternative for direct 

and indirect effects 

Existing 

Condition 

(number of 

species 

Direct and Indirect Effects – 2020

(number of species by 

alternative) 

Direct and Indirect Effects – 2060

(number of species by 

alternative) 

A B Cm D A B Cm D 

Mid-Late Structural Forest 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 

Outcome C 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 

Outcome D 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 

Outcome E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mid-Late Structural Oak Forest 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Aquatic (rivers, streams and impoundments) 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 

Outcome C 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 

Outcome D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Riparian/Wetlands 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Outcome C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Outcome D 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Outcome E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Grassland/Seedling/Sapling 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Outcome E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-257

Migratory birds 

At the landscape level, all alternatives provide sufficient early, mid, and late structural habitat to support 

current populations of migratory birds. Forestwide guidelines have been developed to provide additional 

conservation for specific species or specific activities. For example: 

Since many high priority grassland nesting songbirds can raise two or more broods in a single 

season, maintenance activities in large grasslands greater than 75 acres should be limited to 

outside the nesting season (April 15 to September 15) unless the site has been surveyed and it is 

determined that species with viability concerns are not nesting. 

Site preparation, cleaning and weeding treatments that remove saplings from forested stands 

should occur outside the songbird nesting season (April 1 to June 30). 

The ANF is a partner in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and in compliance 

with Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

Federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species 

A detailed analysis of potential effects to Federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species is 

provided in Appendix E. The following is a brief summary of the effects on each species. 

Indiana bat

Results of mist net surveys conducted on 311 sites throughout the ANF since 1998 have revealed 

that Indiana bat use may be limited to occasional summer visits by wondering males. With the 

capture of 3,092 bats over an eight year period, only one was an Indiana bat. No maternity roosts 

or winter hibernacula have been documented. 

Forest Service activities that remove suitable roost trees may have a direct effect on Indiana bats. 

These activities include such things as commercial timber harvest, road and trail construction and 

pit development/expansion (Table 2-2). However, because Indiana bat habitat use is so minor, 

potential impacts of these activities is negligible and discountable. 

Using canopy closure criteria identified by Romme et al. (1995), suitable, optimal, and less than 

suitable roosting and foraging habitat are presented for each alternative in Table 3-65. All 

alternatives provide at least 70 percent of Forest Service lands in optimal Indiana bat habitat. 

Because Indiana bat use is so minor on the ANF and suitable and optimal habitat conditions are 

dominant on the landscape, a determination of “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” is made 

for all alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-258 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-65. Optimal, suitable and less than suitable habitat for the Indiana bat by alternative. 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D

Optimal (acres) 72% 72% 70% 75% 

Suitable (acres) 8% 9% 11% 11% 

Less than suitable (acres) 9% 9% 8% 4% 

Bald eagle

The LRMP requires that suitable habitat be maintained for nesting, roosting, and foraging eagles 

and includes standards and guidelines to accomplish this. Because suitable habitat for nesting, 

roosting, and foraging would be maintained, and management activities near known nesting sites 

would be conducted in a manner that protects existing nest sites under all alternatives, the primary 

avenue of negative effects to bald eagles would be human disturbance associated with public use 

of the forest, particularly recreational use within primary bald eagle habitat. 

On the ANF, the primary forms of disturbance include canoeing on major rivers, and boating and 

other forms of water based recreation on the Allegheny Reservoir. Although use can be high 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day, the heaviest activity is concentrated on the weekends. 

Recreational use along primary eagle nesting and foraging habitat has been taking place on the 

ANF for decades. The increase in bald eagle numbers over the past 10 years, indicate that if 

negative effects are occurring as a result of human disturbance, they are temporary and isolated. 

None of the alternatives propose management actions that would substantially increase water 

related recreation activity on the Allegheny Reservoir or major rivers and streams. 

A “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” determination is made for the bald eagle under all 

alternatives. 

Clubshell and northern riffleshell

Standards and guidelines to address potential runoff and sedimentation in the 13 percent of the 

ANF that drains directly into the Allegheny River will prevent potential adverse impacts to the 

clubshell or northern riffleshell from Forest Service activities under all alternatives. Monitoring 

has indicated that Forest Service activities are not contributing to the establishment of zebra 

mussels in the Allegheny River. Therefore, a “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination is reached for clubshell and northern riffleshell for all alternatives. 

Small whorled pogonia

Suitable habitat for small whorled pogonias occurs across the ANF. However, none have been 

documented by extensive survey efforts. Standards and guidelines are included in the LRMP to 

ensure that these rare orchids are not adversely affected by herbicides or other management 

activities. A “no affect” determination is reached for the small whorled pogonia under all 

alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-259

Northeastern bulrush

Suitable habitat for the northeastern bulrush occurs on the ANF. However none have been 

documented. Standards and guidelines are included in the LRMP to ensure that management 

activities, including herbicide application, do not adversely affect this species. A “no affect” 

determination is reached for the northeastern bulrush under all alternatives. 

Candidate species- sheepnose and rayed-bean

Found in the Allegheny River the effects to these two mussels are similar to those for the 

clubshell and northern riffleshell. Therefore, a “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination is made for the sheepnose and rayed-bean for all alternatives. 

Summary of direct and indirect effects 

A summary of the direct and indirect effects to plants and animals as analyzed under each indicator by 

alternative is presented in Table 3-66. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-260 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-66. Summary of habitat indicators by alternative 

Indicator Alt. 

A 

Alt. 

B 

Alt. 

Cm 

Alt. 

D 

1. Habitat Structure 

Percent of NF lands (2060): 

Early Structural 

Mid Structural 

Late Structural 

14% 

48% 

24% 

12% 

49% 

25% 

10% 

48% 

28% 

3% 

51% 

39% 

2. Habitat Composition 

Percent in oak type of NF land (2060) 

Percent of NF with conifer component 

Percent of NF in permanent openings 

Miles of stream improvement 

Annual Acres of Impoundment improvements 

Annual Acres of Riparian/wetland enhancement 

12% 

10% 

>2% 

0 

0* 

85 

 12% 

10% 

>2% 

2 

32 

93 

 13% 

10% 

>2% 

2 

32 

101 

12% 

10% 

>2% 

 2 

32 

38 

3. Habitat Patterns 

Percent of NF lands managed for connectivity (MA 2.2) 

Percent of NF lands providing core or interior habitat (MA 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 

8.3, 8.5) 

Percent of high quality remote habitat that would remain free of new roads and 

motorized trails (8 areas-33,000 acres) 

Percent of quality remote habitat that would remain free of new roads and 

motorized trails (29 areas-28,200 acres) 

0 

7% 

63% 

35% 

19% 

8% 

81% 

38% 

23% 

11% 

88% 

60% 

25% 

15% 

88% 

60% 

4. Management Indicator Species 

Northern Goshawk – Percent of NF Suitable Nest Habitat (2060) 

 - Percent of NF Managed for predominately late structural 

landscape conditions 

Cerulean Warbler – Percent of NF suitable oak/riverine habitat(2060) 

 - Percent of NF Suitable Nest Habitat (2060) 

Timber Rattlesnake – percent of quality remote habitat that would remain free of 

new roads and motorized trails (29 areas-28,200 acres) 

Aquatic Invertebrate Diversity – Miles of new road within 300 feet of stream 2060) 

Mourning Warbler – Percent of Forest in Preferred Habitat (2060) 

71% 

33% 

12% 

11% 

35% 

7.1 

13% 

72% 

30% 

12% 

11% 

38% 

5.4 

12% 

73% 

38% 

13% 

11% 

60% 

4.8 

10% 

83% 

71% 

12% 

12% 

60% 

4.3 

4% 

5. Game species 

Percent of NF lands in early structural habitat (2060) 

Percent in oak type of NF land (2060) 

Conifer, riparian/wetland/openings – see habitat composition above 

14% 

14% 

22% 

12% 

14% 

22% 

10% 

14% 

22% 

3% 

14% 

22% 

6. Species with Viability Concerns 

Number of species with improved viability outcome risk from present condition 

(2060) 

Number of species with worse viability outcome risk than present condition (2060) 

(drop from outcome B to outcome C) as a result of FS actions 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

* acres determined with site-specific analysis 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-261

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative habitat effects include effects from past, present, and future foreseeable actions from activities on 

Federal and non-Federal lands. The affected area for cumulative effects on animal and plant habitats varies by 

section. In general the four-county area is used to assess cumulative effects for habitat structure and composition, 

while the proclamation area is used for other elements. The cumulative effects area depends largely on the 

availability of data at larger scales. Time frames used in the cumulative effects analysis are 2020 to address shortterm effects and 2060 to address long-term effects. 

Some of the non-Federal actions and events that contribute to cumulative effects include: 

1. Development of private oil and gas reserves including construction of roads and well pads and installation 

of pipelines and tank batteries. 

2. Spread of non-native zebra mussels throughout the Allegheny River system from Conewango Creek and 

the Allegheny River in New York. 

3. Spread of non-native plant species from private lands onto Forest Service lands. 

4. Spread of hemlock woolly adelgid from nearby infested areas. 

5. Decrease in the quality of oak habitat on private lands due to the lack of investment in burning, fencing 

and other intensive reforestation practices necessary to regenerate oak. 

Habitat indicator 1 – Structural class diversity 

Much of the data for cumulative effects to plant and animal habitats is extrapolated from vegetation information 

provided in the vegetation management cumulative effects section. The four county area contains more than 1.7 

million acres of forested land of which 29 percent is National Forest, 14 percent is other public land (primarily 

State Game lands and State Forest lands), 3 percent is private industrial forest, and 54 percent is private nonindustrial forest. 

By 2060 early structural habitat will comprise 14 percent, 12 percent, 10 percent, and 3 percent of National Forest 

land for Alternatives A through D, respectively (Table 3-50). By 2060 late structural habitat will comprise 24 

percent of the total National Forest lands under Alternative A, 25 percent under Alternative B, 28 percent under 

Alternative Cm and 39 percent under Alternative D (Table 3-50). For all alternatives this is a substantial increase 

over the present condition of 4 percent late structural forest. 

Nowak (1997) estimated that for all ownerships across all of Pennsylvania that 26 percent of forest land would be 

late structural (200+ years), and 24 percent would receive cuts that remove 80 percent or more of the basal area 

(even-age third and fourth growth forest) by the year 2100. 

Based on these data some general conclusions can be drawn about the habitat structure of forest lands in the fourcounty area by 2060: 

• Early structural habitat will increase from the current level of about 7 percent to somewhere in the range 

of 10 percent to 17 percent for Alternatives A, B, and Cm. For Alternative D the range may be about 3 to 

5 percent. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-262 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Late structural habitat will increase from the current level of about 4 percent to somewhere in the range of 

25 percent to 40 percent for all alternatives. 

• These cumulative increases in both early and late structural habitat for all alternatives except D would 

result in a more even distribution of structural habitat stages. Some of the current large acreage in the mid 

structural stage would shift to both early and late structural stages. No cumulative effect to animals and 

plants is anticipated due to these shifts in structure under Alternatives A, B, and Cm. 

• Under Alternative D the amount of early structural habitat would actually decrease from current levels. 

This decrease would likely cause a decrease in distribution and abundance of some species that utilize 

early structural habitat. 

Habitat indicator 2 – Amount and rrends in habitat composition 

Oak forest 

Management of oak on non-industrial private land is critical to ensuring that oak is sustained across the 

landscape. Because non-industrial private lands will likely not receive the intensive reforestation 

necessary to regenerate oak (i.e., prescribed fire, fencing, soil scarification) many oak stands will 

regenerate to red maple or other hardwoods. Since oak forests provide acorn mast for a variety of wildlife, 

a decline in habitat quality in oak forests on a portion of the private non-industrial forest land is expected 

over the long term. This decline in habitat quality increases the importance of sustaining healthy oak 

forests on public forests and private industrial forests in the four-county area. 

Conifer forest 

The major threat to conifer forests in the four-county area is the loss of hemlock due to the predicted 

infestation of the hemlock woolly adelgid. The cumulative impact of the loss of about 50 percent of the 

hemlock by 2060 would adversely affect several species with viability concerns (addressed later in this 

section) as well as thermal cover for deer and turkeys. 

American Beech Component 

Beech is a component of much of the hardwood forest in the four-county area. Beech bark disease has 

infected a large portion of the landscape killing a large percentage of the mature beech trees on all 

ownerships. Although some beech trees are resistant, a large portion die and fall over, reducing their 

value as den trees for wildlife and eliminating their ability to provide beech mast, an important food 

source for game and non-game species. The large beech trees are often replaced by beech root suckers 

which develop into dense stands of beech saplings and poles before becoming infected with beech bark 

disease again. Similar to the situation with oak, the result for the four-county area, is the loss of an 

important food source and loss of large den trees resulting in a decline in habitat quality across the 

landscape. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-263

Rivers, streams, impoundments 

Vegetation management

Logging on private land is expected to continue in the long-term. Private operations are 

encouraged to implement state Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize 

sediment to streams, such as establishing buffer strips along streams. Often, BMPs are used 

because the operator is responsible for not violating the PA Clean Streams Law. So long as 

private landowners and logging operators implement BMPs, there should not be any cumulative 

effects from vegetation management to aquatic species or their habitat. 

The possible infestation by the hemlock woolly adelgid to trees along streams has the potential in 

the short- and long-term to affect stream shading. With enough defoliation and where hemlocks 

are prevalent, stream sections have the potential to warm beyond the level suitable for the 

survival of brook trout and other cold-water species. This affect has the most potential where 

streamside vegetation is dominated by hemlock, both on private and ANF lands. In a lot of 

instances, streams are fed by springs or groundwater and can temper warming of water caused by 

lack of streamside shade. At this point, it is uncertain what the full effect of this would be to coldwater stream fish and other aquatic species. 

Road construction and management

Many of the roads within the proclamation boundary have been in place since the early logging 

era (late 1800s-early 1900s). Over the years, the number of roads have increased, some which are 

poorly located, have drainage problems, or lack properly sized culverts. As such, roads have 

contributed to changes in drainage patterns, increased sediment load, and fish passage problems. 

Many of these private dirt and gravel roads are used for oil and gas management activities. These 

roads receive a lot of daily use and thus tend to generate a large amount of fine sediment from the 

breakdown of sandstone surfacing. This can accelerate the amount of fine material deposited in 

streams and affect aquatic habitat. Under all alternatives, the projections are for additional dirt 

and gravel roads to be constructed to access new oil and gas wells being drilled. The location of 

these roads will determine what potential affects they would have on aquatics. Based on recent 

trends, there is a high potential for roads to be built near streams where they will eventually 

become hydrologically connected. This connection would provide a direct avenue for sediment to 

enter streams, thus becoming a long-term source. 

When taking Forest Service road activity into consideration, the cumulative effects would be 

highest in Alternative A, with the lowest potential effects for Alternative D. The potential for 

effects to occur will be highest where a higher density of roads are built to access privately owned 

wells and are close to streams. However, it is not known where this will specifically occur during 

the planning period. Where roads are located close enough to streams to potentially effect them, 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or site-specific mitigation measures are expected to be 

implemented by private oil and gas developers. As a result of implementing these protective 

measures, cumulative effects are expected to be minimized. However, where roads close to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-264 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

streams become numerous, the protective measures may not be able to prevent adverse effects to 

aquatic species from occurring. 

Motorized ATV/OHM Trails

In addition to roads, motorized trails have increased significantly in the past several years. Private 

lands throughout Pennsylvania, both within and outside the ANF proclamation boundary, have 

seen large increases in recreational off-highway vehicle use (Lord et al. 2004). These private 

trails, which are usually not maintained and sometimes located in sensitive areas, can impact 

aquatic systems on the ANF. 

Off-highway riding is expected to continue in the short- and long-term. As long as trails on 

private lands continue to be developed, there is a likely chance of sediment reaching streams on 

the ANF which can affect aquatic species and their habitat. The amount of private trails is 

unknown, but it would be the same under all Alternatives since this is an activity not controlled 

by the Forest Service. 

The potential cumulative effects, when Forest Service designated acres for trail development are 

taken into account, are highest for Alternative B (approx. 113,000 acres of Forest Service land). 

This is followed by Alternatives A and Cm that have approx. 99,000 and 83,000 acres 

respectively. Alternative D provides the least potential for cumulative effects based on the lowest 

amount of acreage available for trail development on Forest Service lands (approx. 40,500 acres). 

Oil and gas management (private)

The potential for cumulative effects to occur to fish and other aquatic species and their habitats 

are similar for all Alternatives. The current level of activity associated with development of new 

private wells is expected to continue, at least in the short-term. As prices for oil and gas rise or 

fall, so normally does new activity such as drilling and road building. The potential for spills to 

occur and reach streams becomes higher the more wells are drilled. Under the current level of 

activity, this potential is high. 

Invasive species

Several aquatic invasive species are present in waters within northwest Pennsylvania and 

southwestern New York in close proximity to the ANF. Some of these waters are connected to 

the Allegheny River which is occupied by a number of sensitive mussel and fish species, as well 

as the two federally endangered mussels and two federal candidate mussels. Currently, the 

biggest threat to species in the river is from zebra mussels. 

In 2005, zebra mussels were documented for the first time in the Upper Allegheny River, 

occurring at Warren and in New York upstream of the Allegheny Reservoir. This occurrence 

presents a high likelihood that habitat for these species will be affected. For the native mussels, 

it’s not only the habitat that would be affected, but zebra mussels can directly impact individuals 

to the point where they are killed. This is normally caused by zebra mussels that colonize on a 

mussel and literally smother it or cause it not to be able to feed. There is some uncertainty as to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-265

what level the affect would be to the native mussels, as it depends on how well the zebra mussels 

can adapt, survive, and proliferate in the river. 

For the sensitive fish species in the Allegheny River, it is the habitat that is most likely to be 

affected. Many of these fish species prefer the flowing water of riffles, but also inhabit slower, 

deeper water in the winter months. These slower, deeper areas are locations where the fish’s 

habitat could be most affected. However, like the mussels, there is some uncertainty on what the 

level of affect would be. 

Because the affect that is likely to occur is not under Forest Service control and is a result of 

zebra mussels coming from waters not on the ANF, the cumulative effects for each alternative 

would be the same. 

Acidic waters

The water resource section discusses the potential effects to waters on the ANF from acid 

deposition. The Soils section also discusses the loss of base cations from ANF soils as a result of 

acid deposition. These affects can impact fish and other aquatic species that inhabit headwater 

streams when pH levels become too low, or acidic. There are currently several streams on the 

ANF that either cannot support fish or in very limited numbers due to this condition. 

Under all alternatives, acid deposition is something not under the control of the ANF. Thus, the 

cumulative effects are the same for all alternatives. The short- and long-term cumulative effects 

are that acid deposition will continue to affect waters that are otherwise suitable for habitation of 

numerous aquatic species. 

Herbicide 

The cumulative effect of herbicide treatments would be enhancement of understory structure and 

composition. Very little herbicide treatment is likely to occur on private non-industrial lands so 

monocultures of fern and striped maple and beech understories would persist on private non-industrial 

lands. State Game lands, State Forest lands, and some industrial forest lands would continue to use 

herbicides. Forest cover would be sustained. 

In Alternatives B, Cm, and D, non native invasive species would be controlled in many areas of the ANF 

using herbicides. On private lands invasive species would likely continue to spread, possibly encroaching 

on National Forest lands. Without invasive plant control on private land using herbicides, cumulative 

impacts to habitat quality will increase in the long term. 

Habitat indicator 3 – Changes in habitat patterns on the landscape 

Cumulative effects to landscape patterns are assessed for the area within the National Forest proclamation 

boundary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-266 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Remote habitats 

Of the eight high quality remote habitats on the ANF, Morrison Run appears to have the highest 

likelihood of being extensively roaded by oil and gas development and thus diminishing the quality of 

remote habitat. Although there has been some interest expressed in mineral development in some of the 

other high quality remote habitat areas, most of these areas are outside of the currently known oil and gas 

fields and the likelihood of mineral development is uncertain. However, with an anticipated range of 

between 3,375 and 12,000 new wells and 850 to 3,000 miles of additional oil and gas roads on the ANF 

by the year 2020 some mineral development at least on the periphery of these remote habitat areas (except 

for Hickory Creek) is expected (Appendix F). 

Under Alternative A the percent of the high quality remote habitat (8 areas totaling 33,000 acres) that 

would remain unroaded (including oil and gas roads) would be about 63 percent. Morrison Run would 

remain in MA 6.2 and would become roaded when timber harvest begins, so mineral development would 

have little impact on its remote habitat quality. 

Under Alternative B the cumulative effect of oil and gas development in Morrison Run and the creation 

of an Intensive Use Area for ATV/OHMs in Chestnut Ridge (Indian Run) would reduce the percent of 

high quality habitat to about 70 percent of the current 33,000 acres. The cumulative effect of oil and gas 

development to high quality remote habitat under both alternatives Cm and D would be a reduction to 

about 88 percent of the current 33,000 acres. 

Large private lands or State Game Lands within the proclamation boundary are well roaded and although 

they may provide some remote habitat, it is not near the quality of the remote habitat in the eight areas 

described above (USDA FS 2003b). Therefore, other non-Forest Service lands within the proclamation 

boundary would not contribute high quality remote habitat, and activities on non-Forest Service lands 

would not create adverse cumulative impacts to high quality remote habitat. 

Only about 1 or 2 percent of the 29 areas (28,200 acres) of quality remote habitat are within known oil 

and gas fields. New roads and well pads are anticipated in about 5 to 20 percent of this quality remote 

habitat during the planning period. 

Core areas and habitat connectivity 

Roads and well pads are spread through the known existing oil and gas fields on the ANF. A large portion 

of the expected increase in wells and roads will occur within these known fields, but expansion beyond 

known fields is also expected. The quality of late structural habitat and the connectivity of the landscape 

decreases as the amount and density of roads and well pads increases. Impacts to wildlife depend largely 

on the vagility of the species and tolerance of human disturbance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-267

Table 3-67. Miles of new road and motorized (ATV/OHM) trail on Forest Service lands during the planning 

period by alternative. 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

New Forest Service Roads (miles) 116 103 85 69 

New motorized (ATV/OHM) trails (miles) 73 124 45 12 

New Oil and Gas roads (miles) 1,922 1,922 1,922 1,922 

Total miles of new road and motorized trail 2111 2149 2052 2003 

 

Table 3-68. Percent of connected and core habitat within known oil and gas fields 

(Percentages are percent of ANF connected habitat or percent of core habitat (from Table 3-55) that contain known oil and gas 

fields) 

Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

Cm 

Alternative 

D 

Percent of area managed for connectivity within 

known oil and gas fields (MA 2.2) 0* 30 36 37 

Percent of area managed as core areas within 

known oil and gas fields (MA. 5.0 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 

8.5)** 

5 8 6 9 

* 36,800 acres of MA 6.1 are within known oil and gas fields (29%) 

** Hickory Creek Wilderness and Tionesta RNA acreage is not included because the minerals have been withdrawn from leasing. 

The cumulative impact of new Forest Service roads, new motorized trails, and new oil and gas roads to 

the whole forest matrix underscores the need for core areas and habitat connectivity where road densities 

are lower and human activities are less disruptive to wildlife. These cumulative totals are displayed in 

Table 3-67. 

The acreage of connected habitat and the acreage of core areas by alternative was previously provided in 

Table 3-55. 

The acreage of connected habitats and core areas within known oil and gas fields under each alternative is 

provided in Table 3-68. These data indicate that oil and gas activity is likely to occur in less than 10 

percent of the core areas and about one third of the connected habitat. As the acreage of habitat managed 

for connectivity increases by alternative, the percent of that acreage in known oil and gas fields also 

increases. However, as the linkages between core areas become wider and more numerous, going from 

Alternative B to D, the risk that habitat connectivity will be compromised due to increased roads and oil 

and gas activity becomes less. 

Oil and gas development on National Forest lands is expected to reach about 16,000 wells, 3,100 miles of 

roads, with about 10,000 acres of disturbance by 2020 (Appendix F). The total miles of Forest Service 

road will vary between 1,630 and 1,880 miles by the sixth decade (Table 3-16). Total miles of motorized 

trails will vary between 80 and 230 miles. Under this intensity of disturbance, core areas that are linked 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-268 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

with relatively contiguous forest are essential for maintaining well distributed populations of less vagile 

species or species that are sensitive to human disturbances. The risk of isolating populations and reducing 

the resiliency of populations is reduced as the number of linkages and width of the linkages increases 

going from Alternative A to D. 

Habitat indicator 4 – Amount and trends in habitat for management indicator species 

Northern goshawk 

Cumulative effects will be evaluated by looking at activities that could result in habitat modification or 

disturbance that affects viability of the northern goshawk on the ANF. Effects evaluated include timber 

harvest, summer motorized trail construction and forest health concerns that could potentially result in 

unsuitable or marginally suitable goshawk habitat, as well as oil and gas development, which can create 

unsuitable nesting conditions. One of the primary reasons the ANF provides high quality goshawk habitat 

is its predominately mature forested character and the presence of large blocks of relatively undisturbed 

forest. Because adjacent watersheds within the four-county area that makes up ANF contain less mature 

forest and significantly greater levels of forest fragmentation and disturbance, they provide less desirable 

goshawk habitat. As a result lands within the proclamation boundary better reflect anticipated impacts to 

the high quality goshawk habitat that makes up the ANF and the cumulative effects analysis area includes 

all private and National Forest within the proclamation boundary. 

Because even-age partial harvest and uneven-aged management maintains or improves goshawk habitat, 

evaluation of timber harvest will focus on the amount of even-age final harvest that would be expected to 

occur during the analysis period. The starting point of the analysis period is 1975, as this is the year of 

origin of regenerated stands that presently do not provide suitable nest habitat. Whereas 2060 was chosen 

as the end of the analysis period, as this is the period of time when proposed final harvest activities have 

generally begun to level off. 

Effects common to all alternatives

The forest is being affected by a variety of insect and disease related impacts and changes 

currently taking place as a result of introduced insects and mortality/decline is expected to 

continue. The rate of change will be set by the interaction of natural forces such as additional 

drought, insect defoliations or windstorms, or human caused forces such as introduced insects and 

diseases or atmospheric deposition. Because of the goshawks preference for conifer, it is 

particularly susceptible to the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA). It is anticipated that the HWA 

will be on the ANF within 3-5 years and although the ANF will continue to work with Forest 

Health Protection (FS State and Private Forestry) to monitor the conditions on the ANF, it is 

anticipated that by 2060, up to 50 percent of the hemlock on the Forest could be lost due to the 

HWA. Because the goshawk prefers conifer at both the site and landscape scale, this reduction in 

conifer would be expected to have long-term ecological impacts to the northern goshawk. 

Oil and gas development is assumed to be constant across all alternatives. Approximately 93 

percent of minerals underneath the ANF are privately owned and development is expected to 

continue on private and National Forest. It is estimated that 10,400 wells have been developed to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-269

date within the analysis area. This development has resulted in the conversion of approximately 

13,500 acres of forest to non-forest and is a direct loss of suitable nesting habitat. In addition to 

the direct loss of habitat due to forest conversion, Forest monitoring shows that intense oil and 

gas development can result in unsuitable goshawk habitat and it is estimated that currently 

100,000 acres or 14 percent of the analysis area has been affected by this type of intense 

development (well spacing of 660 ft. or less). 

Based on future development, by 2060 it is anticipated that new well development could result in 

the conversion of approximately 38,000 acres of forest to non-forest within the proclamation 

boundary. Additionally, it is anticipated that almost 250,000 acres, or 33 percent, of the analysis 

area will have been made unsuitable for the northern goshawk due to intense oil and gas 

development. In addition to the total loss of habitat, potential effects to known nesting territories 

were evaluated and based on the location of known oil and gas pools, it is anticipated that 18 of 

the known goshawk territories (42%) and 3 (25%) of the currently active territories will be made 

unsuitable due to this increased level of development; whereas 10 known territories and 3 

currently active territories are considered to be at risk, depending on where the actual 

development occurs. While there may be some oil and gas development, because of the distance 

to known oil and gas pools, it is anticipated that 15 (35%) known territories and 6 (50%) currently 

active territories will maintain suitable habitat conditions. 

Even-age final harvest on private land is assumed to remain at current levels and for the purpose 

of this analysis it is estimated that this treatment will be completed on 8 percent of non-forest 

service land/decade. 

Effects by alternative

Effects that vary by alternative include even-age final harvest and motorized trail construction. 

Table 3-69 displays these effects and summarizes all anticipated cumulative effects by 

alternative. The area affected by motorized trail construction was calculated by multiplying the 

total miles of trail proposed by 660 feet. and assumes that habitat suitability will be reduced for 

330 feet. of both sides of the trail. In order to provide a point of reference, Table 3-69 also 

displays effects during the year 2005. 

Table 3-69 summarizes cumulative effects by alternative and displays anticipated impacts to 

goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. Because some of the final harvest activities will occur 

within areas of intense oil and gas development, the amount of land within each category cannot 

be used to calculate a cumulative total of the amount of habitat affected. However, the 

information presented in Table 3-69 provides a relative index as to the amount of land that will be 

affected under each of the activities. Due largely to the intense oil and gas development that is 

expected to occur, by the sixth decade it is estimated that between 40 and 50 percent of the 

analysis area could be made unsuitable for goshawk nesting under the proposed alternative, while 

foraging habitat would be reduced by 33 percent under all alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-270 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-69. Northern goshawk cumulative effect summary 

2060

Activity Resulting Habitat Condition 2005 A B Cm D 

Intense Oil and Gas Unsuitable Nest and Foraging Habitat 14% 33% 33% 33% 33% 

Motorized Trail Reduced Nest Suitability/ 

Productivity 1.2% 1.7% 2.8% 1.7% 1.3%

NF Final Harvest Unsuitable Nest, Suitable Foraging 8.9% 18.8% 17.5% 14.8% 4.9%

Pvt. Final Harvest Unsuitable Nest Habitat, Suitable Foraging 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 1

-It is estimated that approximately half of this disturbance will occur within areas of intense oil and gas development. 

Anticipated cumulative effects may create large blocks of unsuitable nesting and foraging habitat 

and reduce the viability outcome for the northern goshawk. However, based on the analysis 

presented and the following rationale, all alternatives are expected to provide adequate habitat to 

maintain viable populations of this species: 

 Implementation of ANF nest protection guidelines are expected to reduce potential 

effects on active nests from FS as well as private oil and gas activities 

 Between 50 and 60 percent of the ANF will continue to provide suitable habitat preferred 

by the northern goshawk 

 Large blocks of remote, relatively undisturbed forest will continue to be available across 

much of the ANF 

Cerulean warbler 

Cumulative effects will be evaluated by looking at activities such as even-age final harvest and oil and 

gas development, which can create unsuitable cerulean warbler habitat or result in a loss of forest cover. 

Because suitable riverine/riparian habitat will be protected under all alternatives, and since it is not 

possible to accurately separate out oak and oak transition forest on private and State lands, the cumulative 

effects analysis will evaluate the above effects on both primary (oak and oak transition forest) and 

secondary (hardwood stands with an oak component) habitat. In order to identify potential habitat, all 

seventh order watersheds that contain an oak component and riverine habitat were identified as the 

cumulative effects analysis area boundary. This area totals 332,429 acres, 65 percent of which consists of 

National Forest System land. Although there is a well established cerulean warbler population in 

Allegany State Park (ASP) immediately north of the ANF, the ASP was not included in the cumulative 

effects area because it receives little active management and including this acreage in the analysis would 

tend to “dilute” potential effects. The year 1956 was chosen as the starting point of the analysis period, as 

this would be the last year of origin for stands that are still considered unsuitable cerulean warbler nest 

habitat (i.e., forest < 50 yrs. of age). 2060 was chosen as the end of the analysis period, as levels of oak 

regeneration will stabilize by this time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-271

Effects common to all alternatives

Although it is difficult to predict the degree of impact from forest health and insect and disease, it 

is anticipated that existing forest health concerns that threaten oak and oak transition stands will 

continue. 

Oil and gas development is assumed to be constant across all alternatives. Approximately 93 

percent of minerals underneath the ANF are privately owned and development is expected to 

continue on private and National Forest. Assuming an oil well saturation rate similar to what is 

anticipated on NFS lands, it is expected that approximately 13,000 wells could be developed 

within the analysis area by 2060 and that this development will result in the conversion of 

approximately 17,000 acres of forest to non-forest. As a result it is anticipated that by 2060, oil 

and gas development will result in loss of approximately 5 percent of the suitable forest habitat 

within the analysis area under all alternatives. 

Even-aged final harvest within suitable habitat on private land will create unsuitable cerulean 

warbler nesting habitat for 50 years and it is estimated that this treatment will be completed on 5 

percent of State/private lands/decade within the analysis area. The even-age final harvest figure in 

Table 3-70 includes all even age final harvest activities on State/private as well as National 

Forest. 

Effects by alternative

Table 3-70 displays the amount of suitable habitat that will be expected to occur within the 

analysis area under each of the alternatives and it is anticipated that by 2060, suitable cerulean 

warbler habitat under Alternative B will be reduced on approximately 79,000 acres, or 24 percent 

of the analysis area. Suitable habitat will be reduced by approximately 21 percent, 22 percent and 

16 percent under Alternatives A, Cm and D respectively. 

Table 3-70. Cerulean warbler cumulative effects summary. 

20601

Activity A B Cm D 

Non-Forest (%) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 

Even age Final Harvest (%) 13.6 16.7 15.4 9.0 

Total Unsuitable Habitat (%) 20.6 23.7 22.4 16.0 

Total Available Habitat (%) 79.4 76.3 77.6 84.0 

1

 - Expressed as a percent of the analysis area 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-272 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary 

While suitable cerulean warbler habitat will be reduced by up to 24 percent of the analysis area, 

considering 1) that suitable habitat will continue to occur on 76 percent or more of the analysis 

area and that remaining habitat will be well distributed across the landscape, 2) that suitable core 

forest habitat and lands managed for connectivity within the analysis area will remain intact, 3) 

that little habitat modification will occur in preferred riverine habitat along the Allegheny and 

Clarion rivers, 4) that lands made unsuitable will be widely scattered and not create large blocks 

of unsuitable habitat and 5) that effects of fragmentation will be reduced somewhat due to the 

extensively forested nature of the area, there is not expected to be a reduction in viability for this 

species under any alternative. 

Timber rattlesnake 

Cumulative effects will be evaluated by looking at activities that could result in habitat modification or 

disturbance that affects viability of the northern timber rattlesnake on the ANF. Due to the relatively 

small home range required by this species, the cumulative effects analysis focuses on all lands within the 

proclamation boundary and includes actions of other agencies and private landowners. One of the primary 

reasons the ANF provides high quality rattlesnake habitat is its predominately mature forest, large blocks 

of relatively undisturbed forest and integrated resource management. Adjacent watersheds within the four 

county area that makes up the ANF contain less mature forest, more development and significantly 

greater levels of forest fragmentation and disturbance. 

The extensive logging and railroads that occurred in the early 1900s likely eliminated habitat for this 

species as well as individual populations. Individual accounts from people who witnessed and worked on 

the construction of the Kinzua Dam, state that hundreds of timber rattlesnakes were encountered during 

the construction of the dam and that workers would kill them or throw them into large steel tanks where 

they would die. Therefore the habitat as well as populations is considered reduced from historical levels. 

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has begun a study on the timber rattlesnake population 

through a State Wildlife Grant obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first aspect of the 

study concerns assessment and inventory of historic rattlesnake sites. In the spring of 2003, six teams of 

experienced rattlesnake surveyors started confirming and classifying historic rattlesnake sites as dens, 

rookeries or basking areas. The study will ultimately provide vital information on the relative population 

health and status of the timber rattlesnake in Pennsylvania (Urban 2005). In addition, a proposal has been 

made to increase the cost for a collection permit that allows hunters to collect one snake per season, to 

limit the collection to snakes over 42 inches long and to collect only males. These changes are expected to 

be in affect in 2007. 

Effects common to all alternatives

Oil and gas development is assumed to be constant across all alternatives and based on past, 

present, and anticipated future development, it is anticipated that five percent of the analysis area 

will be made unsuitable due to the conversion of forest to non-forest habitat. Similarly, even-age 

regeneration harvest on private and State lands is expected to remain constant and that by 2060, it 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-273

is expected that preferred early structural habitat will occur on approximately 8 percent of these 

lands under all alternatives. 

Development of private mineral rights in suitable timber rattlesnake habitat could adversely affect 

the timber rattlesnake populations by increasing the amount of human/snake encounters, therefore 

increasing the possibility of mortality from vehicles or poaching. In addition, the permanent loss 

of forest habitat and the increase of oil well complexes would cause fragmentation, possibly to 

the extent of creating barriers, reducing gene flow and eventually extirpating populations. 

Assuming 6,600 acres of land will be converted to oil and gas development per decade for the 

first four decades, 26,400 acres of forested land will be converted by 2046. This level of activity 

will have an adverse effect to species that are sensitive to disturbance and species that are less 

mobile and restricted by barriers such as roads and openings. This activity will have a substantial 

impact on the timber rattlesnake, specifically their ability to migrate and mate. 

The rate of change in vegetation will be set by the interaction of natural forces such as drought, 

insect defoliations, windstorms, or human-caused forces such as introduced insects and diseases 

or atmospheric deposition. As beech scale complex continues to spread within the ANF, 

individual beech and northern hardwood stands with concentrated pockets of beech will be 

affected by mortality of larger beech trees and subsequent root sprouting of beech. If the hemlock 

woolly adelgid impacts hemlock trees and mortality occurs on the ANF, hemlocks will be 

replaced with deciduous species such as red maple and birch if there is no intervention. A loss of 

these two tree species surrounding a rattlesnake den could be beneficial by creating more 

openings for basking, especially for gravid females. The mortality of these tree species across the 

landscape would provide more down woody debris thus providing more foraging areas for the 

timber rattlesnake by creating more horizontal structure to ambush its prey. Conversely, if there is 

a widespread loss of beech, there would be a decrease in mast crop, which could reduce the 

number of small mammals (prey) that an area could support. The timber rattlesnake is not 

specifically dependent on beech or hemlock forests to complete their life processes so it will not 

be adversely affected by any level of mortality. 

Effects by alternative 

While all alternatives maintain adequate amounts of forested habitat that could be utilized by 

timber rattlesnakes, they each vary in terms of the quality and quantity of this habitat. Over the 

long term, some habitat features that are utilized by the timber rattlesnake will be more abundant 

depending on the chosen alternative. Because Alternative D emphasizes forest conditions that are 

dominated by mid to late structural conditions and reduced levels of disturbance, approximately 

80 percent of the forested landscape will be maintained to provide conditions suitable to support 

timber rattlesnake. Alternative D will provide the overall highest quantity of preferred habitat for 

this species (Table 3-71). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-274 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-71. Habitat considerations for timber rattlesnake, by alternative. 

Habitat 

Considerations Current Alt. A 2020 2060 

Alt. B 

2020 2060 

Alt. Cm 

2020 2060 

Alt. D 

2020 2060 

Early structural habitat (percent 

of NF land) 7% 9% 14% 9% 12% 8% 10% 4% 3% 

Late structural habitat (percent 

of NF land) 4% 8% 24% 10% 25% 10% 28% 9% 39%

Connectivity (percent of NF land 

in MA 2.2) 0% 0% 19% 23% 25% 

Core areas (percent of NF lands 

in MA 5.1, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 

8.5) 

7% 7% 8% 11% 15% 

High quality remote habitat 

(percent of 33,000 acres with 

restricted roads and motorized 

trails) 

63% 63% 81% 88% 88% 

IUAs (thousands of acres) 98.9 98.9 113 83.2 40.5 

Horseback Riding (thousands of 

acres): 

• EUAs 

• open riding 

0 

506 

0 

506 

10.5 

470 

10.5 

457 

49.9 

0 

Roads (total miles of new FS 

roads) 1269 116 344 103 214 80 168 69 152 

Prescribed fire (acres – average 

annual amount) 3.6 280 650 564 358 

It is well-known that timber rattlesnakes use ancestral/communal den sites for hibernating. Dens 

are a central focus in the life history and ecology of timber rattlesnakes. Free-ranging and 

dispersing adult males can move several miles from a den. However, the majority of the 

individual timber rattlesnakes, including neonates, gravid females and subadults, which are found 

at a given den site, spend much of their time in these areas basking, feeding, mating and giving 

birth within several hundred yards of the den site. Therefore, protecting these dens and the 

surrounding habitat is crucial to rattlesnake conservation. All efforts should be made to protect 

this feature on the ANF lands. Known den sites are protected and monitored on State Game 

Lands. 

Determination of effects and rationale

The permanent loss of forest habitat occurring from projected timber harvest, recreation or 

wildlife habitat management would be minimal, and the majority would be short-term in nature. 

All Alternatives provide areas of mature and late structural forest, unroaded areas, core forested 

areas and connectivity. Alternative D would designate the most (25%) landscape linkage (MA 

2.2) with and additional 5 percent managed for late structural habitat (MA 6.1). In addition, 88 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-275

percent of interior and remote habitat will be retained under Alternatives Cm and D. A large 

threat to timber rattlesnake populations and viability is mortality from human/snake encounters 

and fragmentation. The ANF will continue to educate the public about the benefits of sustaining 

populations of rattlesnakes and to increase awareness of the laws protecting this species. 

Monitoring will continue on the ANF and a memorandum of understanding is being developed to 

assist the Fish and Boat Commission with their population study. 

The biggest cumulative adverse effect could occur from private oil and gas development which 

would lead to habitat destruction, fragmentation and the reduction of gene flow. 

Since dens are a central focus in the life history and ecology of timber rattlesnakes, all efforts 

made to document and avoid these sites will increase the probability of sustaining viable 

populations of timber rattlesnakes. Implementing the standards and guidelines in the LRMP will 

also protect potential habitat and help to protect this species. 

Impacts to timber rattlesnake habitat on other agency lands within the proclamation boundary are 

believed to be comparable to National Forest lands. Standards similar to those implemented on 

the National Forest lands are likely to be implemented on State Game Lands. Sightings of 

individuals have been documented within the cumulative effects analysis area and known and 

prospective dens have been monitored on National Forest Lands. Mitigation measures will 

continue to be used to minimize potential impacts to this species as a result of activities 

implemented by the National Forest. 

Management activities occur at varying levels on privately owned lands. Some areas are retained 

as mature forests while others have been and will be harvested. The level of conservation of this 

species on private lands is unknown as well as the number of viable den sites. The most common 

reaction to timber rattlesnakes by the public is to kill them which makes the National Forests 

conservation approach all the more imperative to protect and perpetuate this species. 

Aquatic invertebrates 

Effects by activity

Vegetation management

Two things outside the control of the Forest Service that have the potential to affect aquatic insect 

communities on the ANF are logging on private lands and the likely infestation by several 

invasive species. Invasive species that are likely to affect the forest are the hemlock woolly 

adelgid, emerald ash borer, and the current occurrence of beech bark disease. 

Logging will continue to occur on private lands in areas that drain to the ANF lands. There is a 

potential for the removal of shade trees along streams and runoff to occur. Loggers are however 

encouraged to implement BMPs to prevent or minimize sediment from reaching streams, to 

prevent the warming of cold-water streams, and maintain the integrity of streams. So long as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-276 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

private landowners and logging operators implement these BMPs and any site-specific mitigation 

measures, cumulative impacts to aquatic insects should not occur in any alternative. 

The likely infestation of the hemlock woolly adelgid has the potential to affect stream-side 

shading where hemlock is the dominant species. This could cause a shift in the aquatic insect 

community as the canopy opens up more. Openings created along streams can actually create a 

more productive stream environment, but having too much can create undesirable conditions for 

other aquatic species. A similar concern is with the emerald ash borer, but in both cases, it is 

uncertain what the full effect of these infestations will be on the aquatic insect communities. 

Road construction and management

The potential effects from non-ANF roads are the same in all alternatives since these actions are 

outside the control of the ANF. When ANF roads are taken into account, Alternative A has the 

highest potential for effects to occur, with the lowest being Alternative D. There are hundreds of 

miles of non-ANF roads within the proclamation boundary, many which are used in the oil and 

gas fields. Many of these roads are generally not constructed or maintained to the standard of the 

ANF, and some are located in close proximity to streams. 

Similar to the effects discussed for Rivers, Streams, and Impoundments, it is anticipated that 

additional dirt and gravel roads will be constructed to access new privately-owned oil and gas 

wells being drilled. The location of these roads will determine what potential effects they could 

have on aquatic insects. Many of the existing, and future roads, are used extensively, most 

receiving daily use which generates a large amount of fine sediment from the breakdown of 

sandstone surfacing and that is easily transportable to streams. Based on recent trends, there is a 

high potential for dirt and gravel roads to be built near streams where they are likely to become 

hydrologically connected and thus transport sediments directly to a stream. 

With an increase in sediment input, there is an expected decrease in the amount of available 

habitat. Aquatic invertebrate diversity and/or relative abundance could be reduced during the 

construction of a road, and for at least a short period thereafter where roads contribute runoff to a 

stream. Longer term effects will depend on the surfacing used, how much runoff is going to a 

stream, and how well private dirt and gravel roads are properly maintained. Typically, sandstone 

surfacing, which is more prone to breaking down and producing more fines that can more easily 

reach a stream, is used on private dirt and gravel roads, including roads for oil and gas. These 

same roads are generally not as well maintained based on past experience. Where rutting is 

allowed to occur, and fine sediment accumulates on a road, can result in longer-term reductions in 

aquatic invertebrate diversity and/or relative abundance. 

Where roads are located close enough to streams to potentially effect them, Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and/or site-specific mitigation measures are expected to be implemented by private oil and 

gas developers. As a result of implementing these protective measures, cumulative effects are 

expected to be minimized. However, where roads close to streams become numerous, the protective 

measures may not be able to prevent adverse effects to aquatic invertebrates from occurring. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-277

Motorized ATV/OHM Trails

Similar to the Rivers, Streams, and Impoundments effects discussion, the cumulative effects are 

highest for Alternative B when ANF proposed actions are taken into consideration. Alternative D 

would have the least potential effects. Coupled with the heavy use on private lands within the 

proclamation boundary, Alternative B provides the highest number of acreage available for the 

development and use of these trails. The amount of private trails is unknown, but it would be the 

same under all alternatives since this is an activity not controlled by the ANF. 

Sediment is the primary concern from these trails. Poor location and inadequate maintenance of 

private trails can lead to accelerated runoff into streams. Where existing and new trails will 

contribute runoff to a stream from private activities, aquatic invertebrate populations could have 

reduced diversity and/or relative abundance depending on site conditions, the amount of trail use, 

and the level of maintenance. 

Oil and gas management

The potential for cumulative effects to occur to aquatic insects and their habitats are the same for 

all Alternatives. The current level of activity associated with development of new private wells is 

expected to continue, at least in the short-term. As prices for oil and gas rise or fall, so normally 

does new activity such as drilling and road building. The potential for spills to occur and reach 

streams becomes higher the more wells are drilled. Under the current level of activity, this 

potential is high. If a spill were to occur, local populations could be immediately affected with a 

reduction in diversity and/or relative abundance. Typically, if this were to occur, the impacts are 

generally short-lived and depending on the severity of a spill, the population can generally recolonize within a few years. 

Mourning warbler 

Potential cumulative effects to the mourning warbler will be evaluated by looking at the amount 

of non-forest or unsuitable mourning warbler habitat, as well as by looking at the amount of 

suitable habitat that will be created under each of the alternatives. Effects evaluated include 

timber harvest treatments that create preferred early and multi-structural habitat conditions and by 

looking at activities that convert forest to non-forest and result in unsuitable mourning warbler 

habitat including opening and pit construction and oil and gas development. The analysis area 

includes all private and NFS lands within the proclamation boundary and because habitat for this 

species is temporary in nature, in order to identify present condition habitat, the start of the 

analysis period is 1986, whereas the 2060 is considered the end of the analysis period. 

Effects common to all alternatives

The forest is being affected by a variety of insect and disease related impacts and changes 

currently taking place as a result of introduced insects and mortality/decline are expected to 

continue. While the rate of change will be set by the interaction of natural forces such as drought, 

native and exotic insect defoliations, windstorms and atmospheric deposition, the overall effect of 

these forces are expected to result in an opening up of the forest canopy due to tree mortality and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-278 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

decline. Generally, this is expected to promote development of understory conditions that are 

preferred by the mourning warbler, although local deer populations and resultant deer browsing 

will determine whether or not desired understory conditions develop. 

Oil and gas development is assumed to be constant across all alternatives and based on past and 

anticipated future development, it is anticipated that approximately 5 percent of the analysis area 

will be made unsuitable due to the conversion of forest to non-forest habitat. 

Effects by alternative

Both even- and uneven-aged timber harvest create suitable mourning warbler habitat and Table 

3-62 displays the total amount of early structural (resulting from even-age management) and 

multi-structural (resulting from uneven-aged management) habitat on NFS and State/private lands 

within the proclamation boundary. 

In addition to timber harvest, each of the alternatives will result in some loss of forested habitat 

due to opening construction, pit development and new road construction and this, combined with 

the five percent loss of forest cover resulting from OGM development and existing openings 

would create unsuitable mourning warbler habitat on approximately 21 percent of the analysis 

area. Conversely, by the sixth decade, it is anticipated that approximately 79 percent of the 

analysis area will continue to occur as potentially suitable forested habitat, whereas preferred 

habitat created through management would occur on 22 percent, 20 percent, 18 percent and 13 

percent of Alternatives A, B, Cm, and D respectively (Table 3-72). 

While there will be a reduction in suitable habitat under all alternatives, considering that almost 

80 percent of the analysis area will continue to exist as potentially suitable habitat and that 

preferred habitat conditions will be created on at least 13 percent of the area, there is not expected 

to be a reduction in viability for this species under any alternative. 

Table 3-72. Cumulative effects mourning warbler habitat by alternative in the sixth decade (percent of the 

analysis area boundary) 

Alt. A Alt B Alt. Cm Alt D

High density habitat created 22 20 18 13 

Unsuitable lands (nonforest) 21 21 21 21 

Total suitable habitat1 79 79 79 79 

1

 includes NFS, state, and private lands
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-279

Habitat indicator 5 – Amount and trends in habitat for game species 

Introduction 

Cumulative effects to habitat for game species are influenced by changes in the amount of early structural 

habitat, changes in habitat composition (especially mast producing species such as oaks and beech), 

changes in winter ranges and brood rearing habitat including loss of hemlock thermal cover. Changes in 

water quality and invasion of zebra mussels can impact habitat for game fish. 

Effects by alternative 

Early structural habitat will increase by 2060 under Alternatives A, B, and Cm and decline under 

Alternative D. The increase will benefit deer, bears, grouse and woodcock, and to a lesser extent turkeys. 

Under Alternative D, the quality and quantity of terrestrial habitat for game species would generally 

decline from present conditions. 

Lack of investments in reforestation practices in oak habitats on private non-industrial lands will result in 

a cumulative decline in quality oak habitat in the four-county area by 2060. Red maple is likely to become 

more prominent in oak forests where concerted efforts are not made to establish oak seedlings. Coupled 

with a substantial loss of beech mast associated with beech bark disease, fall and winter food sources for 

game species will decline unless Federal, State, and industrial forest landowners place special emphasis 

on sustaining oak forests to provide acorn mast for wildlife. 

Habitat loss and disruption of deer and turkey winter ranges and turkey brood rearing habitat will increase 

over the long term on Federal and non-Federal lands due to continuing mineral development, road 

construction, trail construction and residential/industrial development. Hemlock woolly adelgid will 

impact as much as 50 percent of the hemlock, reducing the quality of winter thermal cover for deer and 

turkeys. 

The cumulative effects described for Rivers, Streams, and Impoundments are the same for game fish. Of 

most concern is the brook and brown trout, highly sought after game species that are affected by stream 

water with low pH, or acidic conditions. These species are most susceptible in headwater streams as a 

result of acidic runoff during rain or snowmelt events. Several streams on the ANF currently have pH 

levels too low to support trout or trout in any abundance. The continuation of acid deposition coming 

from outside the ANF will continue to affect streams and their ability to support trout. 

The occurrence of zebra mussels in the Allegheny River upstream of the Allegheny Reservoir (and 

outside of the ANF) are now a concern to the game fisheries in the reservoir. Over the next several years, 

it is likely they will migrate downstream and eventually populate the reservoir. It is not certain what the 

ultimate effects of this would be, but other lakes that have a population of zebra mussels have seen water 

clarity become clearer. Particulate matter, including phytoplankton and some small forms of zooplankton, 

are removed. These microscopic plants and animals are the base of the food chain. Small fish, such as 

young sport fish or forage fish depend on this food for survival and growth. The long-term consequences 

of removing so much food from the environment are still being studied. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-280 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Habitat indicator 6 - Species with viability concerns 

A viability outcome was determined for each of the 78 species identified during the species viability evaluation 

process. A range of five viability outcome levels was developed for use by Eastern Region National Forests to 

facilitate the comparison of species viability under each alternative in forest plan revision. The viability outcome 

should be thought of as an index of the capability of the environment to support population abundance and 

distribution, but not as an actual prediction of population occurrence, size, density or other demographic 

characteristics. A viability outcome is a judgment, based on scientific information found in the literature and from 

discussion with taxonomic experts and it does not make a yes-or-no determination of viability. It is important to 

note that the concept of ecological conditions, distribution and quality must be based on the knowledge of the 

species distributional range and life history. For example, some species may have received a viability outcome 

level of D or E. The reader must realize that many plants and animals occur in a localized or patchy distribution, 

and thus would never occur in the conditions described in outcome levels A, B, or C. The uncertainly associated 

with determining outcomes is acknowledged. 

Viability outcomes based on all lands within the ANF proclamation boundary 

These outcome descriptions were used for determining present condition and cumulative effects in the 

short term (2020) and long term (2060) by alternative for all lands (both NFS and non-NFS lands) within 

the proclamation boundary. Historical conditions are those that persisted prior to European settlement. 

Outcome A. The combination of environmental and population conditions provides opportunity for the 

species to be broadly distributed and of high abundance across its historical range within the cumulative 

effects analysis area. There is potential for continuous or nearly continuous intraspecific interactions at 

high population size. 

Outcome B. The combination of environmental and population conditions provide opportunity for the 

species to be broadly distributed and/or of high abundance across its historical range within the 

cumulative effects analysis area, but there are gaps where populations are potentially absent or present 

only in low density as a result of environmental or population conditions. However, the disjunct areas of 

higher potential population density are typically large enough and close enough to other subpopulations to 

permit dispersal among subpopulations and potentially to allow the species to interact as a metapopulation 

across its historical range within the cumulative effects analysis area. 

Outcome C. The combination of environmental and population conditions restrict the potential 

distribution of the species, which is characterized by patchiness and/or areas of low abundance. Gaps 

where the likelihood of population occurrence is low or zero is large enough that some subpopulations are 

isolated, limiting opportunity for species interactions. There is opportunity for subpopulations in most of 

the species range to interact as a metapopulation, but some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low 

density that they are essentially isolated from other populations. For species for which this is not the 

historical condition within the planning area, reduction in overall species range from historical condition 

may have resulted from this isolation. 

Outcome D. The combination of environmental and population conditions restrict the potential 

distribution of the species, which is characterized by areas with high potential for population isolation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-281

and/or very low potential abundance. While some of these subpopulations may be self-sustaining, gaps 

where the likelihood of population occurrence is low or zero are large enough that there is limited 

opportunity for interactions among them. For species for which this is not the historical condition within 

the planning area, reduction in overall species range from historical has likely resulted from this isolation. 

Outcome E. The combination of environmental and population conditions restricts the potential 

distribution of the species, which is characterized by high levels of isolation and very low potential 

abundance. Gaps where the likelihood of population occurrence is low or zero are large enough there is 

little or no possibility of interactions, strong potential for extirpations, and little likelihood of 

recolonization. There has likely been a reduction in overall species range from historical within the 

planning area, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition since the 

historical period. 

The short- and long-term cumulative outcomes for species with viability concerns grouped by broad 

primary habitat are displayed in Table 3-73. Detailed outcomes for each species are provided in Appendix 

E. A summary of the rationale for species whose cumulative outcomes change from the present condition 

is provided below. 

Mid to late structural habitat 

Northern flying squirrel – Habitat for this rare species is mature hemlock and mixed conifer/hardwood 

forests usually in association with a water source such as a stream. Suitable habitat is confined to the 

15,335 acres of “riparian conifer” on the ANF. Only one location of the northern flying squirrel is 

currently documented within the proclamation boundary, although much of the potential habitat has not 

been adequately surveyed. Nest box surveys are continuing. Suitable habitat is somewhat isolated with 

some large gaps. Although occurrence and distribution data is limited it appears that subpopulations are 

somewhat isolated with limited species interactions. Based on the historic distribution of hemlock on the 

ANF, it is likely that reduction from historic conditions may have isolated some subpopulations. The 

outcome for the present condition is C. 

The primary cumulative effect that would occur under all alternatives is the loss of hemlock due to the 

spread of the HWA. Estimates are that 10 percent of the hemlock will be impacted by 2020 and 50 

percent by 2060. A secondary impact would occur from land clearing associated with oil and gas 

development. In most cases, access to private minerals would occur without substantial impacts to 

riparian conifer habitat. It is difficult to quantify the amount of potential habitat that could be impacted by 

oil and gas development, but 38 percent of the total conifer on the ANF is in known oil and gas fields. 

Both HWA and oil and gas development would result in suitable habitat being frequently isolated with 

large gaps. Most subpopulations would be isolated with limited species interactions. The reduction in 

habitat from historic conditions may have isolated most subpopulations. The outcome for all alternatives 

for both 2020 and 2060 is D. 

Northern goshawk – The northern goshawk utilizes predominantly mature forest with conifer embedded 

within diverse landscapes. Suitable landscape, foraging, and nesting habitat occurs on approximately 87 

percent, 92 percent and 79 percent of the ANF respectively. Suitable habitat is presently fairly well 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-282 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

distributed with some gaps in nesting habitat due to high density roads and oil and gas activity. Although 

recent nesting success has dropped for unknown reasons, the ANF has supported a fairly stable population 

for the last 15 years and there have been 12 active territories documented within the last five years. 

Because suitable habitat is well distributed and goshawk populations appear to have been relatively 

stable, the current outcome for this species is B. 

The change in outcome for the northern goshawk results from anticipated future OGM development. It is 

anticipated that by 2020, between 25 and 30 percent of lands within the proclamation boundary will have 

levels of OGM activity that create unsuitable or marginally suitable goshawk habitat; whereas by 2060, 

unsuitable habitat could occur on up to 50 percent of lands within the proclamation boundary. These 

increased levels of fragmentation and disturbance will reduce nest habitat, as well as reduce landscape 

level habitat. Although there will continue to be large areas on the ANF where OGM activity is not 

expected to occur, there are expected to be some large gaps in remaining suitable habitat. Additionally, up 

to 50 percent of the forestwide hemlock could be lost due to the HWA and for these reasons, outcome C 

better reflects the viability of this species both in the short (2020) and long term (2060). 

Swainson’s thrush – Although the Swainson’s thrush utilizes second growth forest, it is considered an 

obligate of conifer and mixed hardwood/conifer forest and is strongly associated with riparian/wetland 

habitat. Although conifer and preferred habitat is well distributed, this species has only been documented 

on approximately 20 percent of the sites surveyed on the ANF and the current viability for this species is 

outcome B. 

The change in viability for this species is directly related to the potential loss of conifer that could occur 

as a result of the HWA. While it is estimated that only 10 percent of the conifer within the proclamation 

boundary could be lost by 2020, by 2060, mortality on up 50 percent of the forestwide conifer could 

occur. As a result, and considering this species requirement for conifer, it is anticipated that by 2060, 

outcome C will better reflect the viability of this species because suitable ecological conditions may be 

distributed frequently as patches and because large gaps in suitable habitat may occur, further reducing its 

range within the planning unit from historical conditions. 

Timber rattlesnake – The current status of this species is that it has declined from historic numbers and 

continues to decline across Pennsylvania. There is currently suitable denning, foraging and basking sites 

on the ANF but they are broadly distributed and the species is uncommon. The outcome for the present 

condition of the timber rattlesnake is C. By the year 2060, the magnitude of adverse impacts from oil and 

gas road construction activities increases to the point where the viability outcome changes (3,000 miles of 

new oil and gas roads estimated). The result is that suitable habitat is frequently isolated with large habitat 

gaps. Most subpopulations are isolated with limited opportunity for most subpopulations to interact. The 

result is a viability outcome of D. 

Aquatic 

Nine fish, eleven dragonflies, and twelve mussels are projected to have a decrease in the short- or longterm cumulative outcome from the present condition. This decrease is primarily a result of the projected 

influx of zebra mussels from Conewango Creek and the upper Allegheny River in New York into the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-283

ANF section of the Allegheny River where a large amount of suitable habitat exists for aquatic species 

with a viability concern. As zebra mussels become established, their colonization of suitable habitat and 

feeding habits will alter the conditions that these aquatic species prefer. Zebra mussels will colonize 

directly on native mussels leading to direct impacts. Zebra mussels can also alter habitat and food sources 

used by fish and aquatic insects. The projected level of privately-owned oil and gas developments that 

would occur on the Forest was not a primary reason for the outcomes because LRMP standards and 

guidelines and/or site-specific mitigation measures are expected to be implemented by the developers to 

protect aquatic species. 

Fish

Bluebreast darter and longhead darter - These two species have a similar distribution based on 

surveys conducted on the ANF, although the bluebreast appears to occur in greater numbers. 

They occur in the Allegheny River and Tionesta Creek, both providing an abundance of suitable 

habitat but which is not broadly distributed across the ANF. The present condition outcome for 

the bluebreast darter is B and for the longhead darter is C. Considering zebra mussels as the 

primary effect in the Allegheny River, the projected cumulative outcome for the bluebreast darter 

is C and for the longhead darter is D in 2020 and 2060. 

Channel darter - Suitable habitat for this species is abundant and occurs in the Allegheny River 

and Tionesta Creek; and recently, collections were made in several tributaries to the Allegheny 

Reservoir increasing the amount of known suitable habitat on the Forest. There are now three 

meta-populations on the Forest that includes Tionesta Creek, Allegheny River downstream of 

Kinzua Dam, and Allegheny Reservoir tributaries (possibly including the reservoir itself). The 

present condition outcome for the channel darter is C. Considering zebra mussels as the primary 

effect, the cumulative outcome for the channel darter is C in 2020 and as zebra mussels become 

more established, the cumulative outcome drops to a D in 2060. 

Gilt darter - The gilt darter has a patchy distribution across the ANF. Having been collected in 

several streams, it has never been found in any abundance; and actually only individual 

specimens have been documented at most sites. Suitable habitat for the gilt darter could be 

considered somewhat abundant, but not necessarily is it broadly distributed. By far, suitable 

habitat is most abundant in the Allegheny River. The outcome for the gilt darter for the present 

condition is C. As a result of a likely zebra mussel infestation that would impact suitable habitat 

in the Allegheny River, the outcome for the gilt darter is C in 2020 and as zebra mussels become 

more established in the river, the outcome drops to a D in 2060. 

Gravel chub, mountain madtom, northern madtom, spotted darter, tippecanoe darter - These five 

species are only known to occur in the Allegheny River within the ANF, with the exception of the 

Tippecanoe darter which was recently documented in Brokenstraw Creek near its mouth with the 

Allegheny River. Suitable habitat is abundant in the river, but it’s not broadly distributed across 

the ANF. The river has been surveyed for fish, but only sporadically and at sites many miles 

apart. These species are rarely collected, and as a result, it is difficult to state with any degree of 

certainty whether subpopulations exist within the river, and if so whether they are interacting. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-284 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

outcome for the present condition for these five species is C. Considering zebra mussels as the 

primary effect to populations and habitat in the river, and the apparent low numbers for each 

species, the cumulative outcome for the five species is D in 2020 and 2060. 

Mussels

Clubshell and northern riffleshell - Suitable habitat is limited to the Allegheny River which, 

because of its size, provides an abundance of habitat. As a result of being limited to the river, 

suitable habitat is not broadly distributed across the ANF. The outcome for the present condition 

for both species is B. Considering zebra mussels as the primary effect, the cumulative outcome is 

C for both species by 2020 and D by 2060. 

Longsolid and round pigtoe - These species’ have been documented in Tionesta Creek and the 

Allegheny River. Suitable habitat is abundant, but is not well distributed across the Forest. Their 

primary habitat is likely the Allegheny River which is more productive. The outcome for the 

present condition for the longsolid is C and for round pigtoe is B. Considering zebra mussels as 

the primary effect, the cumulative outcome for both species is C by 2020 and as zebra mussels 

become more established in the river, the outcome goes to D by 2060. 

Rabbitsfoot, rainbow, sheepnose, snuffbox, threeridge, wabash pigtoe, white heelsplitter - These 

seven species’ are rare, having only been documented in extremely low numbers in the Allegheny 

River. Like all the other mussel species, there is abundant suitable habitat in the river, although 

not well distributed across the ANF. Based on recent surveys, each species’ has only been 

documented from one, two, or three sites within the river and within either the proclamation 

boundary or wild and scenic river corridor. Because of the extremely limited occurrence for each 

species, it would appear that each species has a high probability to be isolated and have limited 

ability to interact. The outcome for these mussels is C for the present condition. Considering 

zebra mussels as the primary effect, the cumulative outcome for these mussels is D by 2020 and 

2060. 

Rayed-bean - The rayed-bean has been documented in the Upper Allegheny River in several 

locations, but never in any abundance. Suitable habitat is abundant in the river, but is not broadly 

distributed across the Forest. The outcome for the present condition for this species is B. 

Considering zebra mussels as the primary effect, the cumulative outcome for the rayed-bean is C 

by 2020 and as zebra mussels become more established in the river, the cumulative outcome goes 

to D in 2060. 

Aquatic invertebrates

Green-faced clubtail, mustached clubtail, rapids clubtail, resolute damsel - The Clarion River is 

the only location where these species were collected during a survey of several streams across the 

ANF. Because of its large size, the river provides an abundance of suitable habitat. The 

Allegheny River, although not part of the survey, also provides an abundance of suitable habitat. 

However, based on the data collected from the surveys, these species are presumed not to be 

broadly distributed. The outcome for the present condition is B for the four species. As a result of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-285

the likely zebra mussel occurrence in the Allegheny River, the cumulative outcome for the four 

species would stay at a B through 2020, but as zebra mussels become more established in the 

Allegheny River the cumulative outcome decreases to C by 2060. 

Harpoon clubtail, maine snaketail, ocellated darner, zebra clubtail - Suitable habitat for these 

species appears to be broadly-distributed and abundant based on surveys conducted on several 

streams across the ANF. While the Allegheny River was not a survey site, it does provide 

abundant suitable habitat. The outcome for the present condition is B for the four species. As a 

result of the likely zebra mussel occurrence in the Allegheny River, the cumulative outcome for 

the four species would stay at a B through 2020, but as zebra mussels become more established in 

the Allegheny River the cumulative outcome decreases to C by 2060. 

Midland clubtail, ski-tailed emerald, Uhlers sundragon - Based on surveys conducted across the 

ANF, it appears these species are not broadly distributed as documented in surveys of several 

moderate sized streams. It is not clear if it’s because habitat is only occasionally encountered or is 

rare and habitat is poorly distributed. While the Allegheny River was not a survey site, it does 

provide abundant suitable habitat. The outcome for the present condition is C for the three 

species. As a result of the likely zebra mussel occurrence in the Allegheny River, the cumulative 

outcome for the three species would stay at a C through 2020, but as zebra mussels become more 

established in the Allegheny River the cumulative outcome decreases to D by 2060. 

Riparian/wetland 

Eastern box turtle - Suitable ecological conditions, in the form of riparian corridors, streams and mature 

forest, are widely distributed across the forest. The current status of this species on the ANF is unknown 

and population centers are unknown, which makes it more difficult to protect this turtle. The outcome for 

the present condition of the eastern box turtle is B. Cumulative conditions under all alternatives would 

remain the same on ANF lands, but are uncertain for private and other agency lands. While riparian areas 

on private lands may not be directly affected, there may be more indirect effects as developments of oil 

and gas and structures increase. In addition, the home range of this species is relatively small so it is 

sensitive to habitat destruction. Because the eastern-box turtle has such a small home range and 

populations and nesting success is difficult to estimate, if one subpopulation is destroyed, interaction 

between subpopulations could be restricted. The cumulative outcome for this species declines to outcome 

C for all alternatives in both the short and long term. 

Wood turtle - Suitable ecological conditions, in the form of riparian corridors, streams and mature forest, 

are widely distributed across the forest. The current status of this species on the ANF is unknown and 

population centers are unknown, which makes it more difficult to protect this turtle. The outcome for the 

present condition of the wood turtle is B. Cumulative conditions under all alternatives would remain the 

same on ANF lands, but are uncertain for private and other agency lands. While riparian areas on private 

lands may not be directly affected, there may be more indirect effects as developments of oil and gas and 

structures increase. In addition, the home range of this species is relatively small so it is sensitive to 

habitat destruction. Because the wood turtle has such a small home range and populations and nesting 

success is difficult to estimate, if one subpopulation is destroyed, interaction between subpopulations 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-286 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

could be restricted. The cumulative outcome for this species declines to outcome C for all alternatives in 

both the short and long term. 

Plants - Of the 23 plant species evaluated with viability concerns, none change viability outcome by 

alternative or by length of effect for direct or indirect effects. However, one species, butternut (Juglans 

cinerea), changed from a present condition of D to E for all alternatives under the cumulative effects 

analysis for 2060. Suitable habitat (open, bottomland/floodplain forests) is frequently isolated and exists 

at very low abundance. Butternut is shade intolerant and must have open conditions to thrive and 

reproduce. Most bottomland/floodplain forest across the ANF is closed canopy or inundated with nonnative invasive herbaceous species. Large gaps are common and most subpopulations are considered 

isolated with limited opportunity for most subpopulations to interact. Reduction from historical conditions 

may have resulted in isolation of most subpopulations from the loss of Native American burning within 

river valleys and the reduction of floodplain scour in the Allegheny River. As a result of butternut canker 

(Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum), the species is susceptible to high mortality and high rates of 

infection. Between the years 1980 to 1994, there was a dramatic decrease in the number of live butternut 

trees throughout the United States. In many instances populations were down over 75 percent. There is no 

known cure for this fungal disease (canker) and it may eliminate the species (Ostry et al. 1994). The 

extent of infection on the ANF is currently unknown; however, work with the Forest Service Region 9 

Regional Geneticist is continuing to evaluate butternut status on the ANF. Present condition outcome is 

D. Suitable habitat continues to be frequently isolated and exists at very low abundance across the 

cumulative effects area. Large gaps are common and most subpopulations are considered isolated with 

limited opportunity for most subpopulations to interact. The outcome for all alternatives for 2020 remains 

D. However, in the long term (2060), the outcome drops to E as a result of canker mortality. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-287

Table 3-73. Species with viability concerns – outcomes by primary broad habitat by alternative for 

cumulative effects 

Existing Condition 

(number of 

species) 

Cumulative Effects – 2020 

(number of species by 

alternative) 

Cumulative Effects – 2060 

(number of species by 

alternative) 

A B Cm D A B Cm D 

Mid-Late Structural Forest 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 

Outcome 

C 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Outcome 

D 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 

Outcome E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mid-Late Structural Oak Forest 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome 

C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome 

D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Outcome E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Aquatic (rivers, streams and impoundments) 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 13 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 

Outcome 

C 23 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 

Outcome 

D 1 14 14 14 14 24 24 24 24 

Outcome E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Riparian/Wetlands 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome 

C 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Outcome 

D 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 

Outcome E 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 

Grassland/Seedling/Sapling 

Outcome A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome 

C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Outcome 

D 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Outcome E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-288 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species 

Cumulative effects to Federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species are addressed in detail in the 

Biological Evaluation. The following is a brief summary of the cumulative effects. 

Indiana bat 

Overstory stocking levels on non-Forest Service lands within the four-county area indicate that suitable 

and optimal foraging and roosting habitat is currently plentiful and well distributed (Vegetation 

cumulative effects Table 3-40). The amount and distribution of snags across all lands is likely sufficient 

to support the occasional use by Indiana bats that currently exists. Trends in overstocking stocking levels 

and the amount and distribution of snags are expected to continue over the long term. No cumulative 

impacts to Indiana bats are anticipated. 

Bald eagle 

Over 94 percent of National Forest System (NFS) lands within the analysis area are forested and because 

the majority of these lands are managed in a manner the maintains or enhances bald eagle habitat, the 

condition of these lands is not expected to change during the analysis period. Although some 

development of private lands within the analysis area is expected to occur, due to the high scenic and 

recreational values associated with lands near the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers, it anticipated that 

primary bald eagle habitat on non-NFS lands will remain for the most part in their existing condition. 

Although it is anticipated that some primary bald eagle habitat will be adversely affected by oil and gas 

development, compliance with State permitting and protection of known eagle nests, implementation of 

State BMPs related to water quality and erosion control, close coordination with resource specialists 

during all development that occurs on the ANF and operator compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act, are expected to reduce or minimize potential impacts. 

Recreational use

It is anticipated that there will continue to be heavy recreational use of rivers and other waterways 

within the cumulative effects analysis boundary and that this use would result in some adverse 

eagle/human interactions. However, recreational use along primary eagle nesting and foraging 

habitat has been taking place on the ANF for decades. Also ANF-monitoring indicates that eagles 

successfully nest and forage in areas that receive high levels of recreational use. As a result, and 

considering eagle nesting and use within the analysis area has been increasing the last 10-12 

years, anticipated impacts from recreational use is anticipated to be short term and temporary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-289

Activities proposed on ANF lands

Activities that may adversely affect the bald eagle or its habitat are discussed under direct and indirect 

effects. Any potential adverse cumulative effect that may occur as a result of implementation of these 

activities would be mitigated through implementation of Forest-wide standards and guidelines 

incorporated into each alternative. Additionally, with implementation of management direction 

described above under activities likely to benefit the bald eagle, and considering cumulative effects 

analysis related to water quality discussed under the clubshell and northern riffleshell mussels, there 

are no significant cumulative effects to the bald eagle or its habitat anticipated under any alternative. 

Clubshell and northern riffleshell 

The primary cumulative effect to these two mussels is the projected influx of zebra mussels from 

Conewango Creek and the upper Allegheny River in New York into the ANF section of the Allegheny 

River where a large amount of suitable habitat exists and populations occur. Zebra mussels are slowly 

making their way into the Allegheny River system approaching known locations of these two endangered 

species. The long-term cumulative effect could result in a substantial reduction in the population of these 

two species from the Allegheny River. 

The projected level of privately-owned oil and gas developments that would occur on the Forest could 

have cumulative effects on these mussels habitat. To minimize these effects, primarily from runoff, Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines and/or site-specific mitigation measures are expected to be implemented by 

the developers to protect aquatic species. 

Small whorled pogonia 

A decrease in the quality of oak habitats on private non-industrial lands could result in adverse cumulative 

effects to this orchid. Deer densities must be maintained at low levels across the landscape to reduce the 

potential for this species being consumed by deer. 

Northeastern bulrush 

The survival and sustainability of this wetland species depends on the effectiveness of wetland regulations 

to protect the quality of wetlands. Threatened by increases in sedimentation from road construction and 

oil and gas development over the long term, some cumulative effects are likely but difficult to quantify. 

Candidate species – sheepnose and rayed-bean 

Although no adverse impacts are anticipated from Forest Service activities, zebra mussel infestation of 

the Allegheny River is projected to result in long-term cumulative effects similar to those discussed for 

the clubshell and northern riffleshell. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-290 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.3.3 Non-native invasive plant species 

Introduction 

The ANF Botany Program encompasses an integrated ecosystem management approach to managing the 

botanical resources of the ANF. A major component of the program is invasive plant prevention, early detection 

of new species, treatment and monitoring. Treatment typically involves several methods either used alone or in 

combination to effectively treat unwanted vegetation. The ANF contains both native and non-native invasive plant 

species that pose significant threats to forest health and ecosystem sustainability. 

Non-native invasive species (NNIS) were identified as a component of the Habitat Diversity Need for Change 

issue. Executive Order 13112 (1999) defines alien (non-native) species as “with respect to a particular ecosystem, 

any species including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that 

is not native to that ecosystem.” Invasive species is defined as “an alien species whose introduction does or is 

likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” While many non-native species have 

proven to be beneficial, it has been clearly demonstrated (US Congress 1993, p. 3-5) that numerous other nonnative, invasive plant/pest species have caused billions of dollars of damage to the nation's agriculture, 

environment and economy. These species have radically interfered with the production of crops and timber and 

the interrelationships of other living organisms in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems; reducing biological 

diversity by eliminating some species and threatening and endangering others. 

Affected environment 

Many factors may influence the ability of a particular plant species to become established into new areas and the 

extent to which a particular species becomes established. Biological, physical, and environmental barriers effect 

plant invasions. Biological barriers may include low seed production, viability, or dispersal limitations. Physical 

barriers may include distance traveled, topography, or habitat type and structure. Environmental barriers may 

include available light conditions, soil and moisture regimes (Parendes and Jones 2000). 

Of the approximately 1,200 vascular plant species on the ANF, over 250 are non-native and a subset of those are 

considered invasive plant species of concern. Currently there are 30 species that occur within the ANF 

proclamation boundary that are identified as invasive plants of concern. These species are the focus of current 

inventory and control efforts. 

Of these species, 17 are considered highly invasive; with the potential to invade natural habitats and replace native 

species. These include species that are well-known for seriously disrupting the plant species composition of 

forested and/or riparian communities such as garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Japanese barberry (Berberis 

thunbergii), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), common 

buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). 

Thirteen species are considered less invasive than those, and include native and non-native plants. Many of these 

are found primarily in disturbed areas, openings, or along roadsides, in areas ranging from full sun to partial 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-291

shade. These include species such as, dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Bull 

thistle (Cirsium vulgaris), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). 

Six species are on the ANF’s Early Detection list. Other plants not known to occur on the ANF but are nearby, 

including leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), that occurs on private lands within the proclamation boundary. 

The majority of invasive plant species of concern on the ANF are shade intolerant species that occur along roads, 

right-of-ways and other open canopy areas. Most areas of infestation are small and scattered within these sites. A 

few shade tolerant species are considered significant threats due to their habitat preference for riparian, wetland 

and forested areas. These species often cause larger areas of infestation. 

A comprehensive survey of invasive plants has not yet been completed on the ANF. An estimate based on surveys 

of the most infested areas, roadsides and riparian areas, approximately 20,000 acres are infested. Based on project 

level NNIS surveys, most infestations are generally small (less than 2 acres) and scattered. 

The LRMP contains new guidelines for NNIS. Forestwide, activities that may contribute to the introduction, 

establishment or spread of invasive plant species should be designed to include measures to reduce impacts as 

well as treatment and/or monitoring requirements. To determine the appropriate measures, managers will consult 

resources such as the “Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices.” Special use permits and 

contracts for activities conducted on the ANF should include appropriate clauses for the prevention and/or 

treatment of invasive plant species. Under transportation systems, noxious week/invasive plant surveys and/or 

treatments should be conducted on roads prior to decommissioning. Under land acquisition and disposal, noxious 

week/invasive plant surveys and/or treatments should be conducted on lands considered for acquisition or 

disposal. As a condition of land adjustment decisions, the ANF may also require the proponent to treat noxious 

weeds/invasive plants on lands prior to acquisition. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of the analysis 

The scope of this analysis is primarily focused on the direct and indirect effects associated with the 506,000 acres 

of National Forest administered lands. It is assumed that ANF management activities will remain fairly constant 

over the first two decades. However, due to uncertainties in current amount of infested acres, new species 

introduction, species information (amount in a reproductive stage) and rates of spread which typically can be 

exponential as infestations increase, it is difficult to estimate the amount of NNIS in the future with any certainty. 

Introduction to effects 

All of the action alternatives are subject to plan direction that calls for reducing the risk of NNIS invasion and 

spread from Forest Service activities. Activities that cause ground disturbance and/or opening-up of the forest 

canopy have the potential to facilitate the introduction and spread of several NNIS of concern. The level of 

disturbance it takes to do so varies by plant species, habitat type disturbed, and current environmental conditions. 

The complexities and uncertainties with regard to predicting how each type of activity will directly and indirectly 

effect NNIS limit the ability to predict absolute outcomes by alternative. The majority of invasive plant species of 

concern are shade intolerant species occurring along roads, right-of-ways and other open canopy areas. Most areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-292 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

of infestation are small and scattered within these sites. A few shade tolerant species are considered significant 

threats due to their habitat preference for riparian, wetland and forested areas and are often larger areas of 

infestation. 

Direct and indirect effects will be evaluated by considering management activities that may cause ground 

disturbance and/or opening-up of the forest canopy have the potential to facilitate the introduction and spread of 

several NNIS of concern. Forest Service activities that pose the greatest risk of introduction and/or spread of 

NNIS include vegetation management, road management, gravel pits, burning, mechanical hazard fuel treatments, 

wildlife opening creation, trails, intensive use and equestrian use areas. 

Effects by alternative 

Effects of vegetation management 

Vegetation management proposed under all alternatives is expected to create conditions conducive to the 

spread of NNIS. As mentioned previously, the potential for introduction and spread depends on a number 

of factors, including the presence of a seed source and dispersal vectors. 

Treatments that involve removing varying amounts of overstory will improve growing conditions for 

shade intolerant NNIS, but because of the temporary nature of the openings this is expected to be a shortterm effect. Within 10 years after harvest, herbaceous and shrubby vegetation are overtopped and are 

starting to disappear from the stand and that by the time the stand is 10-15 years old, the canopy has 

closed and the site no longer provides desirable growing conditions for shade intolerant vegetation. 

Since many NNIS populations exist in roadways, it is possible that logging equipment used on these sites 

could facilitate the spread of existing NNIS by carrying seeds or reproductive fragments into other areas. 

In order to reduce the possibility of indirect spread off site, an equipment cleaning clause is included in 

timber sale contracts. 

The total amount of proposed vegetation management (even and uneven-aged harvest) under Alternatives 

A, B, and Cm reflects a 12 percent change in the first decade and a 15 percent change in the second 

decade across all alternatives in the number of acres treated annually. Under Alternative D, there is a 

large decrease in the number of acres of vegetation management compared to the other alternatives. The 

effects under all alternatives are considered similar and with implementation of LRMP direction and/or 

site specific mitigation measures there are no significant direct or indirect effects anticipated under any 

alternative. 

Effects of road management (construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, access) 

Building roads into a forest’s interior and subsequently maintaining them (including ditch clearing, road 

grading, and vegetation clearing) represent disturbances that create and maintain new edge habitat. These 

roadside habitats can be invaded by a suite of non-native plant species, which may be dispersed by 

“natural” agents such as wind and water as well as by vehicles and other agents related to human activity. 

Roads may be the first point of entry for exotic species into a new landscape, and the road can serve as a 

corridor along which the plants move farther into the landscape. Some exotic plants may then be able to 

move away from the roadside into adjacent patches of suitable habitat (Gucinski et al. 2000). Establishing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-293

desired vegetation quickly will aid in reducing the potential for NNIS establishment. Current NNIS 

infestations are most commonly found along roadsides. Road corridor width and disturbance regimes 

(brushing, mowing, clearing, etc.) and use influence the potential for infestation and spread of many 

NNIS plant species. 

The current number of Forest System roads is approximately 1,270 miles. Under Alternatives A, B, and 

Cm, by the end of the second decade, there is a projected increase in FS road miles of approximately 20-

30 percent and a 20 percent increase under Alternative D. The effects under all alternatives are considered 

similar and with implementation of LRMP direction and/or site specific mitigation measures there are no 

significant direct or indirect effects anticipated under any alternative. 

Gravel pits 

Direct effects from gravel pit creation and/or expansion include creating open areas of disturbed soil that 

may become infested with NNIS if changes to physical and environmental barriers are sufficient for a 

particular species, appropriate dispersal vectors are available, and there is an adequate seed source. 

Indirect effects of pit creation and/or expansion may include the introduction or spread of species from 

equipment containing viable seed or reproductive fragments. 

Under all alternatives there are an additional 50 acres of gravel pits by the end of the first and second 

decades (Table 2.2). The effects under all alternatives are considered similar and with implementation of 

LRMP direction and/or site specific mitigation measures there are no significant direct or indirect effects 

anticipated under any alternative. 

Motorized recreation - IUAs and trails 

Any existing NNIS populations along the existing or proposed trails have the potential to spread with any 

ground disturbance and/or opening of the canopy. Three main management concerns are associated with 

invasive species: (1) increased vehicle traffic and human activity may introduce new invasive species; (2) 

ground disturbance during trail construction creates favorable conditions for early structural, weedy 

species; and (3) existing weedy species may be spread along new trails. To avoid and minimize the 

introduction, propagation, and spread of invasive species, mitigation, monitoring, and treatment will be 

needed. 

Alternative B has the greatest number of acres in IUAs (Table 2-1) and the largest number of miles of 

motorized trails constructed by the end of the second decade (Table 2-2). Therefore, the risk of 

introduction and spread of NNIS due to motorized recreation is greatest under Alternative B. Alternative 

D is considered to result in the least risk of introduction and spread of NNIS. The amount of trails that 

these areas would support would be determined by a site specific project analysis. However, it is assumed 

that Alternative D would have less impact from NNIS than the other alternatives. 

Equestrian Use Areas 

Equestrian use areas proposed under Alternatives B, Cm, and D would aid in monitoring the potential 

impacts from NNIS introduction from forage, bedding and other materials associated with horses since 

areas with designated trails or open riding areas are delineated. This is compared to Alternative A, where 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-294 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

user-created trails and open riding can occur across the ANF. Under Alternative D, horse use is prohibited 

anywhere outside of EUAs, while Alternatives B and Cm allow some open riding. However, the potential 

impacts are considered similar across all alternatives, and with implementation of LRMP direction and/or 

site specific mitigation measures there are no significant direct or indirect effects anticipated under any 

alternative. 

Wildlife opening creation 

This treatment involves removing all existing trees and establishment of a grass/forb understory on the 

site. By completely opening up the canopy, this treatment is expected to create conditions conducive to 

the spread of NNIS. However, quick establishment of vegetation on the site following construction is 

expected to reduce the risk for spread. Considering the small amount of acreage proposed for openings, 

the effects under all alternatives are considered similar and with implementation of LRMP direction 

and/or site specific mitigation measures there are no significant direct or indirect effects anticipated under 

any alternative. 

Effects from NNIS treatment 

Effective treatment of invasive plant species often requires different techniques (manual, mechanical, 

chemical, biological, etc.) based on species, site conditions, extent of infestation and available resources. 

This can vary by site and season and is often a long-term commitment. 

Site conditions to be considered before any treatment is proposed include assessing the target species (its 

life stage, amount of infestation, specific threats, etc.), seasonal timing of treatment, the presence of 

desirable or rare species, accessibility, soil types, location of surface water, depth to groundwater, 

potential for off site drift, human safety and monitoring opportunities. In order to reduce the occurrence of 

these species within the ANF and minimize the risk of spread into other areas, manual and mechanical 

treatments are proposed on 500 acres per year under all alternatives, with a maximum of 110 acres per 

year being treated with herbicide to control NNIS under Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

Alternative A

Manual and mechanical NNIS treatment would continue under this alternative resulting in a 

reduction of existing NNIS within the treated area, as well as a reduction in available NNIS seed 

sources. These treatments may be repeated for several years if re-sprouting occurs. Existing 

populations may continue to spread and new species may be introduced. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D

Direct effects of herbicide treatments include direct mortality of any NNIS being treated. Indirect 

effects include the possible introduction or spread of NNIS by equipment containing viable seeds 

or reproductive fragments. Herbicides proposed for NNIS treatment are currently used for 

reforestation (glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl). The effects under all the action alternatives 

are considered similar and with implementation of LRMP direction and/or site specific mitigation 

measures there are no significant direct or indirect effects to other resources anticipated under any 

alternative. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-295

Activities with negligible effects to NNIS 

Because of the negligible amount of disturbance associated with the following actions, there are no significant 

direct or indirect effects to NNIS from these activities under any alternative: reforestation treatments (burning, 

scarification for oak, site preparation, release, fertilization, supplemental planting, tree shelters, fencing), 

mechanical hazardous fuel treatments, and wildlife habitat enhancements (apple tree prune and release, nest 

boxes, opening maintenance, shrub and tree planting, oak and white pine release, stream restoration, fish habitat 

structures). Most of these activities are accomplished by hand or small mechanized tools effects are small scale 

and short-term. Fertilization may have short-term effects NNIS species amenable to having increased levels of 

nitrogen and phosphorus. However, since herbicide is typically applied to these sites first to reduce herbaceous 

plant cover, the chance of any plants remaining to take advantage of any fertilizer is reduced. Dispersed site 

enhancements in CUAs (site hardening, kiosk construction, addition of fire rings or centralized vault toilets) are 

considered to have negligible effects to NNIS. Construction/reconstruction of developed facilities is the annual 

average of construction or reconstruction of developed facilities including day use areas, campgrounds, 

information sites, and trailheads for the first decade is one and two for the second decade. Amount of ground 

disturbance varies by facility type and extent of activities, however, effects to NNIS are considered negligible. If 

NNIS are identified as a concern, appropriate prevention/control practices should be implemented. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects to NNIS include effects from past, present, and future foreseeable actions from activities 

on Federal and non-Federal lands. The analysis area for cumulative effects is the four county area containing ANF 

lands. Timeframes for the cumulative effects analysis are short-term (first two decades) and long-term (six 

decades) and are discussed as general trends. 

Cumulative effects were evaluated by identifying and evaluating direct and indirect effects of management 

activities on National Forest administered land, that when considered cumulatively over time and in combination 

with effects of actions on private land, may result in significant effects to NNIS. Based on the analysis presented 

under direct and indirect effects, activities most likely to result in cumulative effects from Forest Service 

management activities include vegetation management, road management, gravel pit development/expansion, 

motorized recreation – intensive use areas and trails, equestrian use areas and wildlife opening creation. 

Cumulative effects analysis can be seen for these activities in other sections of Chapter 3. Generally, the overall 

trend in the amount of these activities is an increase under Alternatives A, B, and Cm and a level similar to the 

past 20 years of activity in Alternative D. The potential for NNIS introduction and/or spread is assumed also to 

increase. 

The primary non-federal activities that occur within the ANF proclamation boundary that can facilitate NNIS 

invasion and spread include agriculture, timber harvest, residential development, road construction and oil and gas 

development. Oil and gas development on both private and Forest Service administered land is predicted to have 

the greatest amount of ground disturbance and the greatest increase in activity in both the short and long term. 

The cumulative effect to NNIS from federal and non-federal activities is an increase in land disturbed, leading to 

increased NNIS infested area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-296 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4 Social Environment, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

3.4.1 Recreation Opportunities and Forest Settings 

There are various aspects of the ANF recreation program which include scenery, developed recreation, dispersed 

recreation, trails, interpretation and education, recreation special uses, heritage resources, national recreation 

areas, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and other special areas. This section discusses specific recreation 

opportunities and settings related to developed recreation, dispersed recreation, and trails. The other resources 

listed here are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 3. 

Affected environment 

Recreation-related land base 

Public lands make up about 14 percent of Pennsylvania’s 29-million-acre land base. There are 2 million acres of 

State Forests, 1.4 million acres of State Game Lands, 278,000 acres of State Parks, and the ANF which represents 

12 percent of the public land base. Every resident is within 25 miles of one of 116 State Parks within the State. 

This combination of public lands provides abundant recreational opportunities and settings for a wide variety of 

users. 

Recreation-related expenditures 

Recreation is a significant component of Pennsylvania’s tourism industry, accounting for one-fifth of all leisure 

travel in the state. Direct expenditure for outdoor recreation travel in 1997 totaled $4.03 billion or 33 percent of 

Pennsylvania’s leisure-travel spending (PA DCNR 2004). Lord, Powell, and Strauss (2003) estimated that a total 

of $151 million was spent by non-resident visitors in the 5-county region of Cameron, Elk, Forest, McKean, and 

Warren. The ANF contributes to and complements the State and private tourism markets. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring survey results 

Prior to the mid-1990s, the Forest Service used the Recreation Information Management (RIM) system to store 

and analyze recreation use information. Forest managers found they lacked the resources to simultaneously 

manage recreation facilities and monitor visitor use following established protocols. Both Congress and the 

General Accounting Office questioned the credibility of recreation visitation estimates reported by the Forest 

Service in RIM reports, and in 1996 RIM monitoring protocols were no longer required. The ANF used RIM from 

1986 to 1996 to estimate recreation use for the 1986 Forest Plan and for reporting visitor use in the ANF 

Monitoring and Evaluation Reports. Since the credibility of RIM reports has been questioned, the numbers used 

for estimating total recreation visits over the past decade may not provide an accurate picture of the ANF’s total 

recreation visits. 

This section has been updated to reflect modifications to the DEIS Alternative C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-297

In response to the need for accurate recreation use data, the Forest Service developed a permanent sampling 

system known as the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project which has been implemented nationwide. 

The NVUM provides statistical recreation use information at the forest, regional, and national level. A 4-year 

cycle has been established for data collection. The ANF participated in the NVUM project from October 2000 

through September 2001. NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all 

national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These measurements include: 

• National forest visit - The entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities 

for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits. 

• Site visit - The entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities 

for an unspecified period of time. 

• Recreation trip - The duration of time beginning when the visitor left their home and ending when they 

got back to their home. 

Some key survey findings include: 

• Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2001 was 1.41 million national forest visits compared to 

211,000,000 for all national forest visits across America. 

• There were 1.63 million site visits, an average of 1.1 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the 

site visit estimate are 36,815 wilderness visits. 

• The ANF contributes roughly 0.7 percent to the total visitation on national forests. 

• The average length of stay on the ANF for a national forest visit was 17.4 hours. 

• Roughly 15 percent of visitors stayed overnight on the forest. 

• The most used facilities and areas were: forest service roads, non-motorized trails, scenic byways, 

developed fishing sites, and designated wilderness. 

• In a typical year, visitors to the ANF spent an average of $1,180.70 on all outdoor recreation activities 

including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses. 

• The average recreation visitor went to 1.1 sites during their national forest visit. Forest visitors sometimes 

go to just one national forest site or area during their visit. For example, developed campers may just go 

the campground and nowhere else. About 74 percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were 

interviewed. 

• During their visit to the forest, the top five recreation activities were relaxing, hiking/walking, viewing 

natural features, viewing wildlife, and driving for pleasure. 

The results of the NVUM activity analysis do not identify the types of activities visitors would like to have 

offered nor does it tell about those who no longer visit the forest because the activities they desire are not offered. 

Market area 

Market area for the ANF can be defined on a local and regional scale. Locally, the market area primarily consists 

of users from a four-county area: Elk, Forest, McKean and Warren. Eighty percent of visitors to the ANF live 

within a 100-mile radius of the forest; i.e., the four-county area (USDA FS 2002-2001). To a lesser degree, 

visitors come from Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia (Shifflet et al. 1997). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-298 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-13. PA Wilds market area 

The secondary market area consists of a regional marketing area referred to as PA Wilds. In 2004-2005, a regional 

marketing partnership was formed between he Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

(PA DCNR), the U.S. Forest Service (ANF) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission to encourage the growth of 

tourism primarily by highlighting and marketing outdoor recreation related experiences and activities in PA 

Wilds. The PA Wilds area is a 12-county region that encompasses more than 1.6 million acres of state forest and 

game lands, 27 state parks, and the ANF. Figure 3-13 shows the PA Wilds market area. 

Recreation supply 

Recreation settings 

Some people desire an emphasis on undeveloped, remote recreation settings while others desire more 

development and easier access. The goal is to provide an appropriate mix of recreation settings for a 

variety of users. The FS uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a nationally recognized 

classification system that describes different recreation settings, opportunities, and experiences. A 

recreation opportunity setting includes features provided by nature or management. Nationally, recreation 

settings vary from primitive to rural and urban settings (see Glossary for definitions of ROS classes). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-299

ROS is used in two different ways. The first is an inventory tool used to describe current on-the-ground 

setting conditions that are available on a given area. An ROS inventory was never conducted for the 1986 

Forest Plan and consequently, existing conditions were never established. In 2004, an ROS inventory 

based on a national ROS mapping protocol was conducted for application in the LRMP. Factors that 

determine the ROS class for an area include: remoteness (including distance from roads and settlements), 

degree of naturalness (level of human modification to the landscape), social setting (number of encounters 

with other people within a typical day), and managerial setting (degree of visitor controls). Recreation 

facilities are constructed to an appropriate development level which is based on ROS. 

The second way that ROS is used sets management direction to reflect “desired” ROS conditions. ROS 

desired conditions are typically set for land and resource management plans with the understanding that 

management activities may result in a change to a current inventoried setting. Both the 1986 Forest Plan 

and the LRMP establish desired ROS conditions for each management area. The 1986 Forest Plan 

established desired goals for semi-primitive ROS settings that were not met during the planning cycle. 

Table 3-74 provides an ROS description of classes found on the ANF, development levels, 1986 Forest 

Plan desired conditions, and 2004 ROS inventory results. See the discussion of Direct and Indirect Effects 

in this Section for desired ROS by alternative. 

Remote, semi-primitive supply 

The 1986 Forest Plan identifies MA 6.2 for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation on a 30 year 

rotational basis. Included in MA 6.2 are four areas, each approximately 5,000 acres in size. One of the 

four areas was entered each decade for intensive timber harvest with the remaining three areas providing a 

semi-primitive non-motorized recreation experience. These four areas are represented in the Map section 

under Alternative A. They are generally referred to as Minister Valley, Morrison, Lamentation Run (or 

Stony Point) and the Mill Creek/Brush Hollow/Twin Lakes area just below Kane Experimental Forest. 

Once intensive management and road construction occurred, the semi-primitive setting was altered, 

changing it from semi-primitive to roaded natural. The Mill Creek area received scheduled timber harvest 

from 1986-1996 and consequently; it no longer provides a semi-primitive non-motorized setting. Minister 

Valley was scheduled for timber harvest from 1996-2006; however, Minister Valley received reduced 

timber harvest intensity as that outlined for MA 6.2 in the 1986 Forest Plan. Only about 25 percent of the 

Minister Valley area was harvested based on the 1997 Minister Watershed Environmental Analysis. Due 

to the reduced timber harvest intensity, Minister Valley retained a core area of semi-primitive nonmotorized ROS. Neither the Morrison nor the Lamentation Run area has received intensive timber 

management. Morrison no longer provides a semi-primitive setting due to extensive oil and gas 

development. Lamentation Run no longer provides a semi-primitive setting due to roads that dissect the 

area for access to adjacent private lands. In general, managing these 6.2 areas for intensive timber harvest 

made it difficult to achieve a semi-primitive setting once harvest activities and associated road 

construction occurred. 

Remote, semi-primitive non-motorized types of recreation are also provided in MA 5.0 in the Hickory 

Creek Wilderness and MA 6.4, the Allegheny National Recreation Area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-300 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-74. ROS classifications and acreage on the Allegheny National Forest 

Development Level ROS Class (Existing) 

1986 

Desired 

ROS 

(acres) 

2004 ROS 

Inventory 

(acres) 

Development Level 1 

No facilities for user comfort; rustic and 

rudimentary ones for site protection. 

Synthetic materials excluded. No site 

modifications. 

Primitive 

No areas are classified as primitive on the ANF 0 0 

Semi-primitive, non-motorized 

4 percent of the ANF, including Hickory Creek 

Wilderness, Minister Valley, and Tracy/Chestnut 

Ridge areas; Predominately natural environment 

that provide opportunities for non-motorized 

recreation; motorized trail uses not present; At least 

2,500 acres and located 1⁄2 to 3 miles from roads 

open to motorized use 

30,000 18,783 

Development Level 2 

Rustic and rudimentary facilities 

primarily for site protection. Avoid use of 

synthetic materials. Limited and subtle 

site modifications. Semi-primitive motorized 

No areas on the ANF. Generally areas of about 

2,500 acres within 1⁄2 mile of primitive roads and 2-

track vehicle trails; Mostly natural landscape with 

some evidence of others, but number and frequency 

of contacts remains low; Few management controls

133,000 0 

Roaded natural 

Majority of the ANF (63%); Areas appear natural, 

but timber harvest, road construction, and rural 

development are frequently evident; Recreational 

use primarily road-based with easy access to 

developed and dispersed opportunities; Majority of 

both motorized and non-motorized trails and 

trailheads located within this class 

342,000 325,679 

Development Level 3 

Rustic facilities providing some comfort 

for the user as well as site protection. 

Contemporary/rustic design based on 

native materials. Moderate site 

modifications. 

Roaded modified 

12 percent of the ANF. This is a subclass of the 

roaded natural setting, used to help identify areas 

that have been heavily modified by oil and gas 

activity and road development; Dominated by 

extensive landscape alterations where resource 

modifications and structures are more evident than 

in roaded natural settings; Generally have little or no 

recreation development, but trails may pass through 

these areas 

0 63,320 

Development Level 4 

Some facilities designed primarily for 

user comfort and convenience. Some 

synthetic but harmonious materials may 

be incorporated. Facility design may be 

more complex and refined. Moderate to 

heavy site modifications for facilities 

Rural 

21 percent of the ANF. Generally include pastoral 

scenes where agricultural development is evident; 

May also contain small towns and other rural 

housing developments and large highly-developed 

recreation areas and campgrounds; Access is 

primarily via conventional motorized use on roads 

1,000 106,388 

Development Level 5 

Facilities designed for user comfort and 

convenience. Synthetic materials are 

commonly used. Facility design may be 

highly complex and refined. Heavy site 

modifications for facilities. 

Urban 

No areas are classified as urban on the ANF 0 0 

For technical definitions of ROS and development levels, see Glossary. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-301

Developed recreation supply 

Developed recreation is defined as a concentration of improvements, facilities, and services which were 

built primarily to encourage participation in a recreation activity and enhance visitor experiences. It 

includes such activities as camping at developed campgrounds, picnicking at day use sites, visiting nature, 

heritage or information centers and museums, gathering and staging at boat landings or launches, and 

fishing off developed piers or other structures. 

There are 71 developed sites on the ANF with a total daily capacity of 15,138 persons-at-one-time 

(PAOT) days, and a season site capacity of 2,845,907 PAOT days. Table 3-75 displays developed 

recreation sites and capacities in greater detail. Of ANF developed recreation sites, there are 10 

campgrounds included in large recreation developments that contain a variety of campsites, group 

shelters, picnic areas, pavilions, boat launches, trails, and/or cabins. 

Approximately half of the developed recreation sites and facilities are located on the Allegheny Reservoir 

and were built in the 1960s. Many of the developed campgrounds feature showers, electric hookups, 

sewage treatment plants, and paved roads. The ANF has been involved in an extensive capital investment 

program over the past 12 years with major rehabilitation and expansion of most of the campgrounds and 

boat launches. With rehabilitation of these aging facilities, accessibility for people with disabilities has 

improved. However, many of the facilities on the ANF continue to have a backlog of maintenance needs. 

Table 3-75. Developed recreation sites and capacity, Allegheny National Forest 

Developed Site Type Total # of Sites Total PAOTS Seasonal Capacity* 

(PAOTS) 

Campgrounds 20 4,545 791,515 

Cabins 6 24 8,760 

Boating Sites 10 3,374 746,120 

Picnic Sites 8 2,770 382,326 

Swim Sites 1 1,659 169,167 

Interpretive Sites 1 150 37,050 

Information Sites 1 175 63,875 

Observation Sites 3 651 160,797 

Trailheads 21 1,790 486,297 

Total Sites 71 15,138 2,845,907 

*The primary season for developed sites is from Memorial Day to Labor Day (102 days) but may vary from 102 days to 365 days per year 

depending on the site). 

There is a higher rate of use of developed recreation facilities on the weekends than during the week with 

an approximate 3 to 1 ratio. On most summer weekends, campgrounds around the Allegheny Reservoir 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-302 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

are sometimes full and boating facilities are busy. Most campgrounds elsewhere on the Forest have fewer 

campers. The ANF has been requiring fees and permits since the late 1960s at the developed 

campgrounds. The fees and permits have been tallied to account for visitation and occupancy of the sites. 

Table 3-76 displays the occupancy rates for several developed campgrounds over the last eight years. 

The occupancy rates indicate there has been fairly static use since 1997 with an average occupancy rate of 

44 percent. Occupancy rates declined fairly sharply in 2003 to 31 percent with the sharpest declines in the 

boat-to campsites. The highest occupancy rate was in 1999 at 52 percent and the lowest was 31 percent in 

2003. Additional recreation opportunities in the area and on the reservoir are provided by private 

individuals, the Corps of Engineers, Seneca Nation of Indians, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (State 

Parks Division), the State of New York, and Cattaraugus County. 

Table 3-76. Occupancy rates, campgrounds on the Allegheny National Forest, 1997-2004 

Campground Overall Occupancy 

1997-2004 (%) 

Weekday Occupancy 

2003-2004 (%) 

Weekend1 Occupancy 

2003-2004 (%) 

Buckaloons 52 30 74 

Dewdrop 52 29 67 

Handsome Lake 47 N/A N/A 

Hearts Content 47 7 67 

Hooks Brook 40 N/A N/A 

Hopewell 58 N/A N/A 

Kiasutha 49 23 63 

Minister Creek 57 N/A N/A 

Morrison 49 N/A N/A 

Pine Grove 44 N/A N/A 

Red Bridge 50 25 61 

Tracy Ridge 19 N/A N/A 

Twin Lakes 51 19 65 

Willow Bay 35 N/A N/A 

Beaver Meadows 19 N/A N/A 

Loleta 30 N/A N/A 

Average 44 22 66 

Occupancy is only available for campgrounds which collect fees. 

Fee envelopes are counted to determine the # of sites occupied. Percent occupancy is calculated as follows: # of 

sites occupied ÷ # of sites available. 

1

 Friday and Saturday nights. Weekend vs. weekday data not available for all campgrounds. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-303

Dispersed recreation supply 

Dispersed recreation includes such activities as driving for pleasure, horseback riding, hiking, canoeing, 

camping, skiing, wildlife viewing, nature study, hunting, fishing, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and offhighway motorcycle (OHM) riding, snowmobiling and gathering forest products. The ANF dispersed 

recreation program includes an emphasis on dispersed camping, trails, both motorized and non-motorized, 

and activities that occur in the general forest area (GFA). Trails and trail use, including snowmobiling, 

horseback riding and ATV/OHM riding are discussed under a separate heading below. 

Dispersed recreation may include the use of the road system for access to the Forest. The extensive road 

system and easy access to the Forest provides abundant opportunities for motorized, road-based 

recreation. There are a number of popular dispersed recreation areas spread across the Forest where 

recreation users tend to congregate. These include Longhouse Scenic Byway, Tionesta Creek and 

Reservoir, the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers, Allegheny Reservoir, Twin Lakes, Minister Valley, Loleta, 

Sugar Bay and many more. Large lakes, streams and ponds are natural attractors for Forest visitors. There 

are many areas on the Forest that are inventoried as Concentrated Use Areas (CUAs). These are generally 

unmanaged areas where concentrated use often leads to crowding during peak seasons, health and safety 

concerns (i.e., littering and human waste) and resource degradation (i.e., vegetative removal and 

trampling, soil and stream bank erosion). 

Trails supply 

Trail types on the ANF are currently referred to as pedestrian summer, pedestrian winter, equestrian 

summer, motorized winter and motorized summer. Table 3-77 displays the current miles of trail 

constructed on the ANF. Prior to the 1986 Forest Plan, there were 558 miles of existing trail on the 

Forest. From 1986 to 2004, 187 miles of trail were constructed. Table 3-78 shows snowmobile trails and 

connectors by road or trail type. Table 3-79 shows the miles of existing trail by trail type. 

There are more motorized trails than non-motorized trails on the Forest. The total miles of non-motorized 

trails is 271 and the total for motorized is 474 miles. The largest trail system is the Allegheny 

Snowmobile Loop with 366 miles of trail. 

Table 3-77. Current miles of trail, Allegheny National Forest 

Type of Trail 

Existing 

before 1986 

Forest Plan 

Constructed 

(1986 to 2004) Total Current Miles 

Pedestrian 

(summer and winter) 170 101 271 

Equestrian 0 0 0 

Motorized/winter 328 38 366 

Motorized/summer 60 48 108 

Total 558 187 745 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-304 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-78. ANF snowmobile trails/connectors 

Use Miles 

Fulltime snowmobile use 

 Forest road < 1 

 Forest trail 57 

 Unknown 1 

 Subtotal 58 

Joint use snowmobile 

 Forest road 226 

 Forest trail 7 

 Municipal 59 

 National Scenic Trail < 1 

 Unknown 16 

 Total 366 

Table 3-79. Existing trail by trail type, Allegheny National Forest 

Trail Type FS Miles Non-FS Miles Total Miles 

Non-motorized 

Interpretive 16 2 18 

*Pedestrian Summer–NCT Only 96 1 97 

Pedestrian Summer 103 0 103 

Pedestrian Winter 50 3 53 

Total 265 6 271 

Motorized 

Motorized Summer-ATV and OHM 108 0 108 

**Motorized Winter-Snowmobile 298 68 366 

Total 406 68 474 

Source: Allegheny National Forest INFRA data. 

*NCT = North Country National Scenic Trail 

**Includes 58 miles of ATV trail open to ATV and snowmobile concurrently 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-305

Motorized trails

ATV/OHM trails

The 1977 ORV Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) was used to establish the 

policies and procedures to control 

and direct the use of off-road 

vehicles on the ANF and was 

incorporated in the management 

direction found in the 1986 Forest 

Plan. The policy provided for the 

establishment of five Intensive 

Use Areas (IUAs, see Figure 3-

17) where off highway motorcycle 

(OHM) and ATV trail riding 

could occur. These areas 

comprised approximately 99,000 

acres and include MarshburgStickney, Westline, HighlandOwls Nest-Twin Lakes, BluejayDuhring, and GrundervileChapman. The policy only applies 

to Allegheny National Forest 

system lands. 

1986 Forest Plan Amendment 6 (December 16, 1996) provides direction for fish habitat 

management and “incorporates language excluding 6,077 acres from development of motorized 

trails within the Westline IUA in order to meet the intent of the State Wilderness Trout Stream 

program for South Branch Kinzua Creek from it headwaters downstream to its confluence with 

Hubert Run.” This amendment provided additional Forestwide standards and guidelines as well 

as additional direction for MAs 3.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, and 8.0. 

There are currently 108 miles of ATV/OHM trails on the ANF located within four ATV trail 

systems, Marienville ATV/Bike Trail (37 Miles), Timberline ATV Trail (38 miles), Rocky Gap 

ATV Trail (20.8 miles), and Willow Creek ATV Trail (10.8 miles). The ATV summer season is 

from Friday before Memorial Day weekend through the last Sunday of September. A winter ATV 

season also occurs between the middle of December to April 1. ATV winter use is allowed on the 

following ATV Trails: Rocky Gap, Timberline and Marienville ATV Trail. Willow Creek and 

Marienville Bike Trail are closed for winter ATV use. With few exceptions ATV and 

snowmobile trails are separate however, some ATV trails overlap the snowmobile trail and 

concurrent use can be expected. 

	



	



	

	 !"	#!$

Figure 3-17. IUA location, ANF 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-306 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

ATV trails are open to pedestrians, mountain bikes, and horse riders. Portions of each of these 

trails are located on classified roads that are part of the ANF road system. In some cases, the 

classified road may be open for public vehicle traffic as well as ATV/OHM use. In others, the 

road may be closed to public travel but may be used for administrative purposes in addition to the 

ATV/OHM use. 

ATVs are not permitted in State Parks, but 229 miles of summer and 159 miles of winter ATV 

trails can be found on the Michaux, Buchanan, Bald Eagle, Sproul, Tiadaghton, Susquehannock, 

and Delaware State Forests (DCNR 2003). Within the ANF proclamation boundary, ATV/OHM 

trails are not generally available to the public on private or state game lands. 

Additional trail mileage is being proposed for the Willow Creek ATV Trail located within the 

Marshburg-Stickney IUA. Approximately 44 miles of additional trail could be constructed as part 

of this project. Once the Record of Decision for the Willow Creek ATV Trail Expansion Project 

EIS is made, no additional trail development will occur in this IUA. This project evaluated the 

entire Marshburg-Stickney IUA. 

The ANF began charging fees for permits 

(annual permit $35) to use the ATV trails in 

July, 2002 (partial year use data included in 

graph). In 2003, a daily permit ($10) was made 

available in addition to the annual permit. As 

Figure 3-14 demonstrates; use of the trail system 

has somewhat leveled off since the inception of 

permit sales. 

Figure 3-14. ATV permit sales, 2002-2005 

(Note: 2002 data is 6-month data) 

Snowmobile trails

Snowmobile trails are classified as motorized winter trails. The winter season generally runs from 

mid December through the beginning of April, depending on snow fall. For most winters, there 

are less than 28 days during the winter season when there is sufficient snow for winter recreation 

activities (USDA FS 2003b, p. 29). Snowmobile trails are open to use by snowshoers and skiers 

during the winter season and by hikers and equestrians in the summer. 

The snowmobile trail system provides 366 miles of trail for snowmobile riding including: 

• Allegheny Snowmobile Loop (159 miles) 

• Snowmobile connector trails (149 miles) 

• Rocky Gap and Timberline ATV Trails (58 miles)

(Note: snowmobiles, as well as ATVs, are allowed on the Rocky Gap and Timberline 

trails in the winter.) 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-307

The Allegheny Snowmobile Loop and connector trails are located across the ANF with portions 

being co-located on Chapman State Park, State Game Lands, other State lands located in 

townships and municipalities and private lands. The snowmobile trail system includes 287 miles 

of roads and 79 miles of trail (ANF INFRA database, Table 3-78). Approximately 245 miles 

located on roads are designated for joint use of motor vehicles and snowmobiles. “Snowmobile 

connector” trails adjoin the Allegheny Snowmobile Loop at various locations and provide 

connections to communities, to the Rocky Gap and Timberline ATV trails and to Allegany State 

Park in New York. The Marienville Bike Trail is closed in the winter with parts of it designated 

as a snowmobile connector. 

The ANF has developed and implemented a grooming and maintenance contract for snowmobile 

trails and connectors. The contract is reviewed by the contracting officer annually and re-issued 

for bid every four years. Funding for these activities are made possible through Pennsylvania 

snowmobile registration receipts, which are administered by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Large-scale trail improvement projects are funded 

through appropriated dollars and gas tax funding made available through the Transportation Bill. 

The Allegheny Trails Committee offers a volunteer trail host program in which snowmobile hosts 

offer trails information, maps, directions, and safety assistance. Volunteers maintain a trail host 

house in their home where snowmobilers will find trails information, maps and registration 

forms. There is currently one Trail Host House in the ANF proclamation boundary. 

Non-motorized trails

The ANF identifies non-motorized trails in three primary categories: pedestrian summer, 

pedestrian winter, and equestrian summer (Table 3-79). In addition to the North Country National 

Scenic Trail (NCNST), there are also two National Recreation Trails on the ANF, Tracy Ridge 

(4.0 miles) and the Black Cherry Trail (1.4 miles). The Tracy Ridge National Recreation Trail 

connects to the NCNST. Cross country skiers use hiking trails, including the NCNST, as well as 

50 miles of designated cross country ski trails. 

Equestrian trails

The Forest currently does not have any equestrian trails that have been marked, designated or 

constructed for horse use; however the ANF allows open riding anywhere except where Forest 

Supervisor closure orders have been issued on hiking and cross country ski trails, at developed 

campgrounds, the National Recreation Area (Tracy Ridge only), and in Hearts Content Scenic 

Area. There are hundreds of miles of primitive roads, pipelines and motorized trails on the ANF 

that are available for horse use. Guided as well as unguided horse riding occurs. Most guided 

equestrian use occurs in the Hickory Creek, Kelletville and Yellowhammer areas under special 

use permit administered by the Forest Service. Recently, the Spring Creek EIS approved the 

construction of 42 miles of dedicated horse trails in the Duhring area. Implementation of this 

project is expected to occur over the next several years in cooperation with local riders as part of 

an ongoing collaborative effort. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-308 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Historically, riders follow undeveloped trail systems created over the years by frequent use or 

engage in cross country riding across the forest without following a trail. Areas like Kelletville, 

Duhring, Hickory Creek, and Scandia receive constant use seasonally, due to commercial or 

organized group operations. Visible impacts from user created trails to riparian areas, water, soil 

and wildlife habitats have been observed. Similar impacts outside of these areas are not currently 

evident due primarily to the random nature of cross country riding. 

Bicycle trails

Bicycles can use most trails including some hiking trails, cross country ski trails, snowmobile and 

ATV trails as well as open and gated roads. The ANF has over 600 miles of trail where bikes are 

allowed, but many segments of ANF trail, even though open for bike use, do not provide a high 

quality experience for most bikers. True ‘single track’ trail for mountain biking is found on 

approximately 200 miles of pedestrian hiking trail. However, none of this trail was built for this 

purpose. 

No paved or gravel rail trails for biking or hiking currently exist on the ANF. Segments of 

recently constructed rail trail on private land abut NFS lands and could connect the Red Bridge 

Campground along old railroad grades to the town of Westline. Generally, the best family 

oriented biking opportunities are found on gated Forest Service roads. Biking on any of the four 

developed ATV trails can occur at any time of year. Biking is prohibited only in the Hickory 

Creek Wilderness, Hearts Content and Tionesta Scenic Areas, Tionesta Natural Area, the 

Allegheny National Recreation Area east of the Reservoir (Tracy Ridge), Laurel Mill Cross 

Country Ski Trail and the propagation area of the Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area. 

Recreation demand 

Recreation trends are developed primarily by examining participation and growth information. The first outdoor 

recreation participation surveys in the United States were conducted in 1960 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources 

Review Commission (ORRRC). Picnicking, driving for pleasure and swimming were the most popular activities 

with few others coming close (ORRRC, 1962). Since ORRRC, 6 additional national surveys were conducted in 

1965, 1972, 1977, 1982-1983, 1994-1995 and 2000-2001. The most recent of the United States’ national 

recreation survey (conducted in 1994-95 and in 2000-01) is the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment (NSRE). 

NSRE explores outdoor recreation participation and demographics across a broad spectrum of settings and 

provides participation comparisons by region and state. At the national level, the survey of persons 16 years or 

over is applied across all ethnic groups and throughout the urban and rural areas of the United States. Also at the 

national level, NSRE provides information on outdoor recreation participation in four primary settings and 

includes an assessment of recreation participation in forest settings. 

The United States has approximately 747 million acres of forest land or roughly 33 percent of the total land base. 

Of this, almost 640 million acres, or about 86 percent of the total forest land is available in some way for outdoor 

recreation. Of the public forest land, the USDA Forest Service administers the largest amount (191 million acres) 

or about 59 percent of the total federal forest. Consequently, America's national forests and grasslands offer the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-309

single largest source of outdoor recreation opportunities in the United States. Over the next 50 years, demand for 

outdoor recreation opportunities is expected to increase from 800 million to 1.2 billion visits to the national 

forests per year. In addition, people are asking for a broader spectrum of benefits and services to enrich their 

experiences (Natural Resource Agenda 1998). The Forest Service currently receives over one-third more visitors 

than any other federal agency. 

Outdoor recreation in forested settings is a fast-growing land use across the Unites States, continuing a steady 

trend since before the 1950s. Currently, well over 90 percent of Americans participate in at least 1 outdoor 

recreation activity in forest settings. Estimates of recreation days occurring in forest settings show walking for 

pleasure, viewing natural scenery, viewing birds, viewing flowers, viewing wildlife, day hiking, sightseeing, 

driving for pleasure, mountain biking and viewing a wilderness or primitive area as the most actively engaged 

forest-based activities in 2000-2001. On national forests alone, visitation estimates show that most use occurs in 

general, undeveloped forest areas (compared with use of developed sites). Generally, participation in outdoor 

activities continues to grow, with the greatest growth occurring among non-consumptive activities that have 

relatively low impact on forests. Rising demand and rising population, however, is leading to a decline in per 

capita acres of forest available for recreation; a trend likely to accelerate future conflicts over access and use by 

different interest groups (Cordell et al. 2004). 

Regional trends 

NSRE provides information on population-wide participation in forest recreation activities for different 

regions of the United States. The North Region ranges from Minnesota to Missouri to Delaware to Maine 

and includes 20 states: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, 

New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island. 

The trend in participation in activities from both the 1994-1995 and 2000 to 2001 national surveys shows 

that growth has occurred in all but 3 activities, sightseeing, caving and orienteering. For the same time 

periods, the top 10 activities by priority according to participation by activity days for the US and the 

North are the same and include: 

1. Walking for pleasure 

2. Viewing/photographing scenery 

3. Viewing/photographing birds 

4. Viewing/photographing flowers 

5. Viewing/photographing wildlife 

6. Day hiking 

7. Sightseeing 

8. Driving for pleasure 

9. Mountain biking 

10. Visiting wilderness 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-310 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The top 10 activities with the most growth in order of priority are: 

1. Walking for pleasure 

2. Family gathering 

3. Viewing/photographing wildlife 

4. Day hiking 

5. Picnicking 

6. Visit nature centers, museums 

7. Viewing/photographing birds 

8. Developed camping 

9. Visit historic sites 

10. Driving off-road 

Additional surveys conducted by the Forest Service show national forest use across the country by site 

type and site visit. A site visit is one occasion of any duration where 1 person enters into an area or site 

within a single national forest for recreation purposes. The data presented in Table 3-80 identifies 

estimated site visits at national forests by region. Because most of the land area in national forests is in the 

West, two thirds of all general forest use is in the two western regions. Likewise, for developed-site day 

use, two thirds of national use is in the western national forests. Forty percent of overnight developed site 

use, on the other hand, occurs in eastern national forests, while only 13.6 percent of use of national forest 

areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System is in eastern wilderness. 

Forest trends 

Using 2001 NVUM data for the ANF, Bowker (personal communication) predicted visitation to the 

Forest to 2025 (Figure 3-15). This analysis based visitation predictions on the current primary user base 

which is the 4-county area of the ANF and incorporated a number of demographic changes for 

Pennsylvania. Annual visits to the ANF are expected to increase from approximately 1.59 million in 2000 

to 1.61 million visits in 2020. This represents a slight to moderate increase or 1.2 percent in the next 25 

years. 

Table 3-80. Estimated site visits in millions at national forests by region, (2000 and 2001) 

Region Day Use 

Developed 

Overnight 

Developed 

Designated 

Wilderness 

General Forest 

Area 

North 12.6 4.5 1.6 27.1 

South 7.4 4.5 0.6 18.9 

Rocky Mountains 35.8 9.4 7.5 55.8 

Pacific 31.2 3.7 6.5 35.4 

U.S. Totals 87.0 22.2 16.2 137.2 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2000b). National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-311

These predictions were based on the 

current user base. A change could occur 

in the future in which more users come 

from outside the 4-county area to visit 

the ANF. Marketing strategies such as 

PA Wilds could attract more visitors 

from areas farther away. 

1,550,000

1,570,000

1,590,000

1,610,000

1,630,000

1,650,000

2000 2010 2020

Visits

 

Figure 3-15. Predicted future ANF visits 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The scope of the analysis for direct and indirect effects includes all federal land managed by the ANF. This area 

represents National Forest System lands where recreation resources exist, and the lands where those resources 

could receive impacts from management activities. The scope of the analysis for cumulative effects includes all 

lands within the ANF proclamation boundary including the lands administered on other ownership, both state and 

private, which provide recreation opportunities. 

Introduction to effects 

Public concern is focused on how much, what kind and where different recreation opportunities will occur on the 

ANF. There is division between those who desire more motorized recreational opportunities and those who desire 

more non-motorized opportunities. There is also concern over what kind, the amount and where trail opportunities 

will be provided, especially for ATV/OHM and equestrian use. To address these concerns, the ANF has provided 

a range of land allocations emphasizing different settings and types of recreational use among the alternatives. 

The following analysis will address the effects of the alternatives on the recreation resource. General effects that 

do not vary greatly by alternative (e.g. developed and dispersed recreation, and certain types of trail development) 

are discussed below, along with general effects of timber harvesting and wildlife management on recreation. A 

more detailed analysis, which focuses on the following four primary concerns, is described under direct and 

indirect effects, and cumulative effects below. 

1. Range of opportunities based on Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes 

2. Range of opportunities for non-motorized recreation 

3. Range of opportunities for ATV/OHM trail riding 

4. Range of opportunities for equestrian trail development and use 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-312 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects common across alternatives 

ROS classification 

The desired ROS classes are based on the existing inventoried ROS and whether or not there is a 

reasonable certainty that management actions could maintain or create a desired setting. For example, in 

order to create a primitive or semi-primitive ROS condition from a roaded natural or rural ROS, existing 

roads and/or other developments would need to be decommissioned. In many cases it would be infeasible 

to decommission much of the road system on the ANF as there are many State, county, and township 

roads which provide major public access across the ANF. Also, in order to create primitive or semiprimitive ROS classes, many oil and gas roads and well development areas would need to be removed. 

The greatest differences between the alternatives are reflected in desired amounts of roaded natural and 

semi-primitive non-motorized settings. 

Developed recreation 

Under all alternatives, a single goal statement for recreation is to: “Provide a diverse range of high 

quality, sustainable recreation opportunities consistent with public demand and resource capability 

emphasizing locally popular recreation places and those important to the tourism industry.” 

Range of opportunities for developed and dispersed recreation and trails, generally varies only as much as 

ROS class acreage varies by alternative. High quality developed and dispersed recreation opportunities 

will be offered according to the full range of ROS managed by the ANF. Under all alternatives, the ANF 

will use recreation facilities master planning to reduce backlog and deferred maintenance of existing 

facilities. Decisions about which areas will have reduced levels of service, which will be closed, and 

which will be scheduled for investment, will be made through facilities master planning. As demand for 

certain types of recreation opportunities shift, new facilities may be constructed and maintained, while 

others which are comparatively underused may be decommissioned or redesigned for other uses. 

Public interest in development of the Allegheny Reservoir has been high. Interest has focused on the 

development of a motel/restaurant complex as well other facility and trail developments. Some desire 

wide scale development on the Reservoir, while others prefer a more undeveloped character with limited 

facilities and access. To address this issue, the LRMP has established a forestwide objective to complete a 

Reservoir plan in which the potential for additional facilities will be analyzed with input from the public. 

Dispersed recreation 

Dispersed camping is one of the most popular activities on the ANF. Many areas have concentrated use 

and there is often competition for these areas. In some concentrated use areas, dispersed camping has 

caused environmental conditions to deteriorate to the point of impairing sustainability of the resource. In 

cases where resource conditions deteriorate, restoration and/or use restrictions may occur. In some 

situations, parking areas, toilets, picnic tables, and fire rings may be constructed in order to protect 

resources and reduce visitor impacts. Decisions on how to manage concentrated use areas would be made 

through project level analysis. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-313

Trails 

Trail opportunities for snowmobiling, hiking, cross country skiing and biking would be provided 

throughout the life of the LRMP and does not vary by alternative. Trails would be constructed and 

maintained according to the recreation opportunity spectrum and management area prescriptions (see 

suitable uses section of LRMP). 

Bicycle, snowmobile and ATV/OHM travel cross-country or on user developed trails would not be 

allowed except in an emergency that requires cross-country travel to protect public health or safety. 

Bicycles will be allowed, dependent on management area, on designated routes (trails/roads) not signed as 

closed to this use (see suitable uses section of LRMP). All trails may have single-use or multi-use 

designations. System trails may be restricted seasonally or under certain weather conditions as needed for 

safety or resource protection. Congressionally designated trails would be managed for their intended 

purpose; consequently the NCNST would be managed for foot travel only. 

Trails on the ANF, like developed recreation, have a considerable amount of backlog maintenance needs. 

Given limited funding, the maintenance and/or relocation of existing trails should take priority over new 

trail construction. Forestwide trail management planning would be used throughout the life of the LRMP 

to establish demand, trail classes, permitted uses and construction, reconstruction and maintenance 

priorities. Opportunities to convert rails-to-trails and/or roads-to-trails would be emphasized. 

For developed, dispersed, and trail recreation, the ANF will strive to maximize the impact of appropriated 

funds through the use of collaborative efforts and partnerships. For all recreation opportunities, tourism 

would be a key consideration in determining the appropriate balance of opportunities provided. 

Timber management 

Clearcutting and road building can create changes in the landscape, resulting in shifts from the less 

developed end of the ROS spectrum to a roaded modified setting. Studies have generally found that in terms 

of aesthetic preferences for forested landscapes, mature forest are preferred over young ones, “natural 

stands” over those with obvious human impact, and partial cutting techniques over clearcuts (RIBE 1989). 

Commercial timber management in the LRMP is allowed in MAs 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 6.1. All 

alternatives provide for varying amounts of land to be allocated to these management areas. Over-all, 

more land is allocated to these management areas in all alternatives than to other management areas 

which do not emphasize timber harvest. 

Effects of timber harvest activities on recreation resources typically impact access (i.e., road construction 

or reconstruction) and scenery of the harvested area. The effects can have both positive and negative 

effects on the recreation experience. Direct and indirect negative effects from timber harvesting may 

involve increased noise and dust levels, altered landscapes (i.e., the presence of slash piles, denuded 

ground and tree stumps), additional roads constructed or reconstructed for timber sales, temporary closure 

of recreation facilities or trails due to health and safety concerns, disrupted travel routes due to any 

necessary road closures and conflicts and potential safety hazards associated with logging truck on main 

roads. Additionally, timber harvest can negatively impact those seeking a more remote, challenging 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-314 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

experience due to additional access provided by roads. This would be more apparent in more undeveloped 

and unroaded areas. 

Direct and indirect positive effects can include improved access to an area for recreation activities such as 

pleasure driving, gathering forest products, hunting, fishing and roadside dispersed camping. Timber 

harvest can positively impact those seeking a more developed, roaded recreational experience associated 

with improved access. Additionally, timber harvest can improve habitat for some species and enhance 

wildlife-related recreation opportunities. 

In all alternatives, the desired ROS settings and existing recreation resources will be included in sitespecific analyses for timber harvest proposals. Interdisciplinary teams with public involvement will 

analyze proposals and the recreation related effects of timber harvest during project level planning. 

Wildlife management 

Wildlife management activities can have both positive and negative impacts to recreation resources. 

Direct and indirect negative effects of wildlife management activities may involve noise and disturbance 

from management activities and temporary or permanent closure of recreation facilities or trails due to 

wildlife concerns. Vegetative alterations such as created openings and regeneration cuts that create 

desired conditions for wildlife may not appear natural to some recreationists. Wildlife management also 

includes road closures which may negatively impact motorized recreational use and access. Conversely, 

road closures may benefit other recreationists by providing opportunities for hike or walk-in access to 

view or hunt wildlife free from the disturbance of motorized vehicles. 

Direct and indirect positive effects can include enhanced opportunities for wildlife-related recreation. The 

number of people involved in watchable wildlife activities like bird watching and wildlife photography 

has exploded. Bird watching is the fastest growing outdoor pastime in the country, growing 232 percent 

between 1983 and 2001 based on the most recent National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. 

This national trend is echoed in Pennsylvania which ranks first in the nation in time spent hunting and 

third in time spent wildlife watching. In 2001, about 1 million Pennsylvanians hunted, more than 1.2 

million fished and 3.7 million participated in non-consumptive wildlife recreation, such as viewing, 

feeding and photographing wildlife. In all alternatives, management for a variety of wildlife habits is 

emphasized, from early to late structural and within riparian corridors and watersheds across the Forest. 

Emphasizing a variety of habitats can improve the opportunity for a greater diversity of wildlife viewing 

opportunities and possibly, greater success in hunting and fishing activities. 

Effects from each alternative 

Range of opportunities based on (ROS) 

In all alternatives, a desired ROS class is identified in each management area’s desired future condition to 

emphasize different recreation settings and appropriate development levels associated with the assigned 

ROS. Even though all management areas have a desired ROS, recreation may not be the primary emphasis. 

For instance, Research Natural Areas and the Kane Experimental Forest have a desired ROS class of roaded 

natural; however, recreation use in these areas will not be emphasized in the desired future condition. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-315

Table 3-81 illustrates the mix of desired ROS classes (based on management activities prescribed for each 

management area) by alternative. The desired ROS class displays the maximum level of change that an 

area could experience in terms of ROS over the life of the plan. It is likely that the actual on-the-ground 

current ROS composition will not remain constant, given the amount and magnitude of annual 

management and oil and gas development that has historically occurred on the ANF, especially since oil 

and gas development is expected to continue in areas that are already developed and additional 

development areas will likely occur. 

Table 3-82 shows desired ROS class by management area under Alternatives B, Cm, and D. 

Table 3-81. ROS category by alternative 

Alternative (% Desired ROS) ROS Category 2004 Forest ROS Inventory A B Cm D 

Rural 21% < 1% 2% 2% 2% 

Roaded natural/Roaded Modified 75% 68% 91% 88% 83% 

Semi-primitive non-motorized 4% 6% 7% 10% 15% 

Semi-primitive motorized 0 26% 0 0 0 

Table 3-82. Desired ROS class by management area, Alternatives B, Cm, and D 

MA Emphasis Desired ROS 

1.0 Early Structural Habitat Roaded natural 

2.1 Uneven-aged Management Roaded natural 

2.2 Late Structural Linkages Roaded natural 

3.0 Even-aged Management Roaded natural 

5.1 Wilderness Semi-primitive non-motorized 

5.2 Wilderness Study Areas Semi-primitive non-motorized 

6.1 Late Structural Habitat Roaded natural 

6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area Roaded natural 

7.1 Developed Recreation Areas Rural 

7.2 Remote Recreation Areas Semi-primitive non-motorized 

7.3 Interpretive Recreation Area Roaded natural 

8.1 

Recreational and Scenic Rivers 

Recreational Segments 

Scenic Segments 

Rural 

Roaded natural 

8.2 National Recreation Area Semi-primitive non-motorized 

8.3 Scenic Area Roaded natural 

8.4 Historic Area Roaded natural 

8.5 Research Natural Area Roaded natural 

8.6 Kane Experimental Forest Roaded natural 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-316 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative A

The desired ROS classes are based on management area desired conditions and did not account 

for existing on-the-ground conditions as an ROS Inventory was not conducted. Under this 

alternative, 6 percent and 26 percent of the ANF was identified for semi-primitive non-motorized 

and semi-primitive motorized ROS respectively. According to the 2004 ROS Inventory, there are 

no semi-primitive motorized classes and the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class comprises 

4 percent of the ANF. Under Alternative A, the desired management area ROS classes will need 

to be amended to better reflect current on the ground conditions. 

Alternative B

Table 3-81 shows a marked change between the inventoried rural ROS (21%) and the desired 

rural ROS (2%). The desired rural ROS class emphasizes existing highly developed recreation 

facilities within MA 7.1 and within MA 8.1 (Wild and Scenic River Corridor) on recreation 

segments of the Clarion and Allegheny Rivers. New highly developed facilities could be built in 

the recreational river corridor. Establishing a rural ROS for recreational river segments is 

consistent with the inventoried ROS as well as Forest Service direction found in the USDA ROS 

Guide for River Management which provides guidelines for using ROS in the development of 

LRMP direction for river areas, including designated wild and scenic rivers. 

The remaining inventoried rural ROS does not contain existing highly developed recreation 

facilities and few new highly developed recreation facilities are anticipated during the LRMP 

period. In order to manage for more moderately developed facilities across the ANF, the 

remaining 19 percent of the inventoried rural ROS will be managed as roaded natural. 

Site-specific project level planning for new high density recreation developments, such as lodges, 

resorts, or other similar facilities, will be evaluated to their relative consistency with the 

management area desired ROS prescriptions which they are located. When a deciding official 

accepts a project that is not consistent with the management area prescription, a determination is 

made as to whether the effects of the project warrant a forest plan amendment to change the 

management area desired ROS objective from roaded natural to rural. 

Alternative B identifies the greatest amount (91%) of the ANF for a roaded natural setting and the 

least amount (7%) of semi-primitive non-motorized settings which are in MAs 5.1, 7.2 and 8.2. 

The roaded natural classification does not necessarily mean that motorized travel and access 

would occur. In some roaded natural areas, roads may be closed to public vehicular traffic. 

Although there is a roaded natural ROS in MA 8.3, 8.5, and 8.6 road-based recreation will not be 

emphasized. However, roaded natural settings provide opportunities primarily for dispersed 

motorized recreation throughout the general forest area. 

Alternative Cm

Rural ROS settings are the same in Alternative Cm as they are in Alternative B. This alternative 

provides less roaded natural ROS (88%) and more semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class 

settings (10%) than Alternative B. There is an increased amount of semi-primitive non-motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-317

opportunity in MA 7.2 and MA 5.2 (see congressionally designated areas section for further 

discussion of wilderness and national recreation area). 

Alternative D

Rural ROS settings are the same in Alternative D as they are in Alternatives Cm and B. This 

alternative provides less roaded natural ROS (83%) and more semi-primitive ROS class settings 

(15%) than Alternatives B and C. Like Alternative Cm, there is an increased amount of this 

opportunity in MA 7.2 and MA 5.2. 

Range of opportunities for non-motorized recreation 

In order to provide a sustained opportunity for non-motorized recreation, the LRMP includes a new 

management area (MA 7.2) dedicated to remote, backcountry types of recreation in desired semiprimitive non-motorized ROS settings. MA 7.2 is considered unsuitable for timber production, and new 

road construction. Timber salvage may occur for restoration purposes following catastrophic events, such 

as wind or ice storms, or wide-scale insect and disease infestations that threaten forest health. In general, 

management activities and modification of the environment is limited in order to provide a sense of 

remoteness, solitude and closeness to nature. 

These areas will also include decommissioning of roads that are not needed to provide access to private or 

other non-federal ownership such as State or county lands, or valid existing mineral rights. Recreation 

trails are emphasized and low-level recreation developments such as walk-in campsites are allowed in this 

management area. The use of horses and mountain bikes will be allowed on designated trails and trails 

may be designated as multi- or single-use. Decommissioned roads, where appropriate, will be converted 

or designated as trails. Existing recreation facilities such as Hearts Content Recreation Area will continue, 

and motorized access to existing recreation areas would be maintained. Table 3-83 displays the areas and 

acres of MA 7.2 by alternative. Figure 3-20 shows the location of each proposed remote recreation area. 

Non-motorized recreation is also provided in MAs 5.1, 5.2, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.5. See Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 

for further discussion of these areas. 

Table 3-83. Number of areas and acres of management area 7.2 by alternative 

Alt. # of 

Areas 

Acres of 

RRA Name of Area 

A 0 0 None 

B 1 4,668 Clarion River 

Cm 5 9,074 Clarion River, Hearts Content, East Hickory 

D 7 30,948 

Clarion River, Hearts Content, East Hickory, 

Morrison, Lamentation Run, Longhouse, South 

Cornplanter 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-318 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative A

This alternative does not include any remote recreation areas. Under this alternative, Minister 

Valley, Morrison, and Lamentation Run are included in MA 6.2 with intensive timber harvesting 

occurring in 10 out of every 40 years. Minister Valley’s intensive timber harvest period was 

scheduled from 1996-2006. The next harvest would occur in 2026-2036, which is beyond the 

time frame for the LRMP. Morrison’s intensive timber harvest period is scheduled for 2006-2016. 

Lamentation Run was scheduled for harvest from 2016-2026. 

In Alternative A, the Clarion River area is allocated as MA 6.1. Longhouse is allocated as MA 

6.1 and 3.0; and South Cornplanter, Hearts Content, and East Hickory are allocated as MA 6.1. 

In Alternative A, no roads are decommissioned to support remote recreation areas. 

Alternative B

This alternative provides the least amount of remote recreation areas other than Alternative A. 

Clarion River area is the only area included as MA 7.2. Under this alternative, Minister Valley is 

allocated as an interpretive recreation area (MA 7.3). Under MA 7.3, trails and facilities would be 

highly developed for interpretive purposes. Kiosks, other outdoor interpretive displays, and 

highly-developed interpretive trails will be emphasized. These types of developments are 

intended to concentrate use and attract high numbers of visitors. In semi-primitive areas, 

interpretive services are informal; almost subliminal. Consequently, the MA 7.3 allocation would 

not be compatible with a semi-primitive, remote recreation experience. 

Morrison and South Cornplanter are allocated as MA 2.2 in this alternative. Lamentation Run, 

Longhouse, Hearts Content, and East Hickory are allocated as MA 3.0. Longhouse is also 

managed as an IUA in this alternative. 

The 2 miles of existing roads in the Clarion River area will not be decommissioned under this 

alternative as they provide access to private lands. 

Alternative Cm

This Alternative provides more remote recreation areas than Alternative B but less than 

Alternative D. The Clarion River, Hearts Content and East Hickory areas are included. In 

Alternative Cm, Lamentation Run, Morrison and South Cornplanter are allocated to MA 2.2 and 

Longhouse is allocated to MA 3.0. 

Alternative Cm also includes 2 miles of roads that will be decommissioned to perpetuate and 

maintain remote recreation areas as shown in Table 3-84. No municipal or non-system roads used 

to access private lands would be decommissioned. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-319

Alternative D

This Alternative provides the most remote recreation areas. The Clarion River, Hearts Content, 

East Hickory, Morrison, Lamentation Run, Longhouse, and South Cornplanter areas will be 

included. Minister Valley is treated as a wilderness study area (MA 5.0) in this alternative. 

In addition to allocation as MA 7.2, South Cornplanter, Hearts Content, and East Hickory will be 

managed as EUAs in this alternative. Equestrian use is compatible with the non-motorized 

recreational use intended for MA 7.2. 

Alternative D includes 31 miles of roads that will be decommissioned to perpetuate and maintain 

remote recreation areas as shown in Table 3-84. No municipal or non-system roads used to access 

private lands would be decommissioned. 

Road decommissioning in the proposed remote recreation areas will change current use in some 

areas and in other areas there will be little change. Clarion River, Morrison, and the Hearts 

Content/East Hickory areas will remain largely unchanged as there is little to no 

decommissioning needed in these areas. In Hearts Content and Morrison, motorized access to the 

Hearts Content Recreation Area and Rimrock will continue. The greatest change will occur in the 

Lamentation Run and Longhouse Areas. Roads used to access these areas by motorized vehicles 

for hunting or other recreation purposes will no longer exist. Hunting may continue; however, 

hunters will no longer be able to drive into these areas. Those preferring this level of access will 

be displaced to other areas on the ANF where road access within 1⁄4 mile of most areas is 

available. Some hunters may prefer a more remote hunting experience in the remote recreation 

areas, free from the noise and disturbance of motorized vehicles. 

Table 3-84. Miles of road decommissioned to support remote recreation areas by alternative 

Alternative Miles of Road 

*(Existing) 

Miles of Road 

(Decommissioned) Roads Decommissioned by Area 

A 0 0 None 

B 2 0 None 

Cm 27 11 Hearts Content/East Hickory (2 miles)

FR 111, 411 

D 52 31 

Hearts Content/East Hickory (2 miles)

FR 111, 411 

Morrison (1 mile)

FR 510 

Lamentation Run (9 miles)

FR 210, 212, 212A, 212B, 212C, 484, 561, 561A, 579 

Longhouse (13 miles)

FR 140, 140A, 140B, 263, 263A, 263Aa, 500, 500A, 

500B, 501, 501A 

South Cornplanter (6 miles)

FR 298, 299 

Includes Forest Service, municipal and non-system roads 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-320 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-85. Acres and areas available for ATV/OHM trail development by alternative 

Alternatives 

IUA Name (Acres) 

A B Cm D 

Marshburg/Stickney 13,996 22,921 1,699 11,839 

Grunderville/Chapman 7,472 8,168 8,145 3,851 

Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes 17,611 19,347 12,810 0 

Bluejay/Duhring 39,153 45,252 45,250 24,829 

Westline 20,742 0 0 0 

Longhouse 0 17,331 0 0 

# of Existing IUAs 5 4 4 3 

# of New IUAs 0 1 1 0 

Total Acres 98,974 113,019 83,202 40,519 

Estimated Trail Miles 

Existing Trail 108 108 108 70 

Existing Trail Removed 0 0 0 38 

Potential New Trail Construction 73 124 45 12* 

Maximum Potential Trail 181 232 153 82 

*As a model, this result does not take into account the potential addition of approximately 30 miles of new trail that could be

constructed with the 2006 Willow Creek ATV Trail Expansion Project EIS. The difference between the model and the site 

specific project is that actual on-the-ground site conditions were evaluated. In this case the model estimate was less than 

what was actually achievable. 

Range of opportunities for ATV/OHM trail riding. 

New ATV/OHM trail development is provided within Intensive Use Areas (IUAs) under the LRMP. 

Table 3-85 displays the acres and areas that will be available for ATV/OHM trail development by 

alternative. The table also displays the maximum potential miles of new trail that could be constructed 

given optimum conditions. The maximum potential is based on resource constraints such as steepness of 

slope and soil type. The estimates were generated using GIS data and do not represent absolute values. 

On-the-ground, site-specific planning and analysis, as well as availability of funding, will determine 

actual miles of trail which may be constructed during the life of the plan. 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the existing five IUAs (Marshburg/Stickney, Grunderville/Chapman, 

Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes, Bluejay/Duhring, and Westline) will provide opportunities for 

ATV/OHM trail riding on 98,974 acres. All existing trail mileage (108 miles) will be retained. 

Approximately 73 new miles of trail will be constructed, primarily in the Marshburg/Stickney, 

Bluejay/Duhring, and Westline IUAs, for a total maximum potential of 181 trail miles. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-321

Alternative B

Alternative B provides more acres and more potential trail miles than all other alternatives, 

including Alternative A. Under this alternative, four existing IUAs (Marshburg/Stickney, 

Grunderville/Chapman, Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes, and Bluejay/Duhring) and one new 

IUA (Longhouse) will provide opportunities for ATV/OHM trail riding on 113,019 acres. In this 

alternative, Marshburg/Stickney is expanded to include Chestnut Ridge which is considered for 

wilderness study area in Alternatives Cm and D. The IUAs in this alternative will be expanded to 

include more acreage per IUA than Alternative A. The Westline IUA will be eliminated. All 

existing trail mileage (108 miles) would be retained. Approximately 124 new miles of trail could 

be constructed primarily in the Marshburg/Stickney, Bluejay/Duhring, and Longhouse IUAs for a 

total maximum potential of 232 trail miles. 

Alternative Cm

Alternative Cm provides less acres and potential trail miles than Alternative A, more than 

Alternative D, and less than Alternative B. Under this alternative, the same IUAs as Alternative B 

are included except Longhouse has been eliminated. The Marshburg/Stickney, 

Grunderville/Chapman, Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes, and Bluejay/Duhring will provide 

opportunities for ATV/OHM trail riding on 83,202 acres. There will be less acreage available in 

the Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes IUA than in Alternative A, but more acreage available in the 

Marshburg/Stickney, Grunderville/Chapman, and Bluejay/Duhring IUAs. The Westline IUA will 

be eliminated. All existing trail mileage (108 miles) will be maintained. Approximately 45 new 

miles of trail could be constructed primarily in the Marshburg/Stickney, Bluejay/Duhring, and 

Longhouse IUAs for a total maximum potential of 153 trail miles. 

Alternative D

Alternative D provides the least amount of acres and potential trail miles. Under this alternative, 

three IUAs, (Marshburg/Stickney, Grunderville/Chapman, and Bluejay/Duhring) will provide 

opportunities for ATV/OHM trail riding on 40,519 acres. There will be less acreage available in 

these IUAs than in the other alternatives. The Westline IUA will be eliminated. There will be a 

reduction of existing trail miles from 108 miles to 70 miles, as 38 miles of existing trail will be 

removed from the Highland/Owls Nest/Twin Lakes IUA. Approximately 12 new miles of trail 

could be constructed primarily in the Marshburg/Stickney IUA for a total maximum potential of 

82 trail miles. 

Under alternatives B, Cm and D, predictions for ATV trail development have been based on a 

resource capability model to determine the best estimate for future trail miles. Actual future trail 

miles may be higher or lower than the model, however substantial discrepancies are not 

anticipated. Future IUA-wide trail development analyses will be initiated for each of the 

remaining IUAs to evaluate capability based on site specific ground conditions. Based on the IUA 

specific analyses, trails could be constructed provided funding is available. User fees will 

continue into the future to help maintain the trail system. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-322 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

All alternatives maintain the current trail system of 108 miles except Alternative D which would 

remove 38 miles of this system. Under all alternatives, a high quality ATV/OHM trail riding 

experience would be provided. However, some people may not be satisfied with the amount of 

riding which would be offered under any alternative. Furthermore, it is unknown if trail riding 

opportunities will be developed on state or private lands within the proclamation boundary. 

Consequently, the ANF is uniquely positioned as a primary provider of ATV/OHM riding 

opportunities in the ANF 4-county area. Those seeking additional riding opportunities may be 

displaced to other riding areas outside the ANF. However, since there are limited opportunities on 

other public and private lands, overcrowding could occur as the ANF trail system will continue to 

be recognized as one of the premier trail riding opportunities in the Region and a primary 

destination for riders. 

Providing more motorized opportunities for ATV/OHMs may eliminate other opportunities for 

non-motorized use. This would primarily affect the Longhouse IUA which is considered for nonmotorized remote recreation in Alternative D (MA 7.2) and IUA designation in Alternative B and 

Chestnut Ridge which is considered for wilderness study in Alternatives Cm and D and IUA 

designation in Alternative B. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm, and D, IUAs are allocated to MAs 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, or 6.1. 

Management actions within these management areas focus primarily on timber harvest or wildlife 

management. Standards and guidelines in the LRMP are intended to mitigate the effects of 

ATV/OHM trail construction and maintenance on vegetation, soils, water quality, and wildlife 

resources. Trail construction and use would not impact timber harvest objectives. Some closures 

can be anticipated due to logging activities however these are temporary and relatively short in 

duration. Adjacent private lands could experience increased noise levels and increased traffic as 

IUAs are further developed. 

Based on the application of Best Management Practices as well as site specific project level 

planning and mitigations provided in the LRMP, direct/indirect effects from ATV/OHM trail 

construction activities should be minimal. 

Range of opportunities for equestrian trail development and use. 

Equestrian use is addressed by varying the alternatives as follows: 

• Allocation of Equestrian Use Areas (EUAs). EUAs are areas dedicated for future development of 

equestrian trails and are located primarily where commercial operations and heavy recreational 

use is occurring. Within EUAs, riding will be restricted to designated trails. Open, cross country 

riding would be prohibited. EUAs are an overlay and are not allocated to a specific management 

area. 

• Allocation of open (cross country), restricted or prohibited riding by management area. Outside 

of EUAs, open riding would be allowed cross country off of trails in some management areas, 

restricted to designated trails in other management areas and in some cases, all together 

prohibited. If prohibited, no cross country riding or riding on designated trails would be allowed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-323

Table 3-86 displays acres of EUA and acres for restricted, open and prohibited riding by alternative. 

The EUAs overlay portions of certain management areas. Error! Reference source not found. identifies 

which management areas are overlain by EUAs (9) and whether or not the management area is open (O), 

restricted (R) or prohibited (P). Not all management areas are overlain by the EUAs, nor is the entire 

management area allocated to an EUA. Consequently, in management areas that contain EUAs, the area 

outside the EUA would be managed as open, restricted, or prohibited. For example, MA 2.2 in 

Alternative B contains an EUA (9) and the remaining MA 2.2 is open (O). 

Alternative A

Alternative A made no clear distinction for where open riding opportunities would be allowed. In 

alternative A, appropriate trail construction types by management area were provided. Equestrian 

trail construction was appropriate in MAs 2.0, 3.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, and 7.0, however open riding has 

been allowed in these areas. Since alternative A only addressed the appropriateness of trail 

construction types, the assumption with Alternative A is that open riding was also allowed in all 

management areas regardless of emphasis placed on trail construction types. Therefore, this 

alternative allows open riding in all management areas. Subsequent Forest Supervisor closure 

orders issued during the life of the 1986 Forest Plan prohibits equestrian use on hiking and cross 

country ski trails, at developed campgrounds, the National Recreation Area (Tracy Ridge only), 

and in Hearts Content Scenic Area. This alternative does not provide EUAs. 

Alternative B

This alternative restricts riding to designated trails in EUAs (11,000 acres) and management areas 

(MAs 5.1, 5.2, 6.3, 7.2, and 7.3) and prohibits riding in MAs 8.3, 8.5 and 8.6. Over all, this 

alternative provides more opportunities for riding on designated trails than Alternative A and less 

open riding. 

Table 3-86. Allocation of EUAs by alternative 

Alternatives 

Allocation (*Acres) 

A B Cm D 

EUA (restricted to designated trails only) 0 11,000 11,000 50,000 

By Management Area Outside of EUAs 

Restricted Riding 0 18,000 31,000 0 

Open Riding 506,000 470,000 457,000 0 

Prohibited Riding 0 7,000 7,000 456,000 

*NFS land acres only. Numbers rounded to nearest 1,000. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-324 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-87. EUA overlay and riding restrictions by management area 

Open (O), Restricted (R), Prohibited (P) 

EUA also in MA (9) 

Alternatives 

MA Emphasis 

A B Cm D 

1.0 Early Structural Habitat O O O P 

2.0/2.1 Uneven-aged Management O O O P (9) 

2.2 Late Structural Linkages Ï O (9) O (9) P (9) 

3.0 Even-aged Management O O (9) O (9) P (9) 

5.1/5.2 Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas O R (9) R (9) P (9) 

6.1 Late Structural Habitat O O (9) O (9) P 

6.2 10/30 Management O Ï Ï Ï

6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area O R R P 

7.0/7.1 Developed Recreation Areas O O O P 

7.2 Remote Recreation Areas Ï R R P (9) 

7.3 Interpretive Recreation Area Ï R R P 

8.1 Recreational and Scenic Rivers Ï O O P (9) 

6.4/8.2 National Recreation Area O O O P (9) 

8.0/8.3 Scenic Area O P P P (9) 

8.4 Historic Area Ï O O P 

8.0/8.5 Research Natural Area (RNA) O P P P 

8.6 Kane Experimental Forest (KEF) O P P P 

Ï Management Area not present in Alternative A or in LRMP (Alternatives B, Cm and D). 

(9) EUA also in management area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-325

 In Alternative B, the EUA overlays the Bluejay-Duhring IUA. In the co-designated EUA/IUA 

areas, both equestrian trails and ATV/OHM trails will be constructed and maintained. 

ATV/OHMs will not be allowed on equestrian trails, however, equestrians may be allowed on 

ATV/OHM trails even though it is generally recognized that horses and ATVs are incompatible. 

Trails will be designed and constructed to intersect perpendicular to each other in order to 

separate these two primary uses. Equestrians and horses may be directly or indirectly affected by 

ATV/OHM use within the EUA/IUA areas. Direct and indirect negative effects may involve 

noise and disturbance to equestrians from ATV/OHM. 

Alternative Cm

Alternative Cm restricts and prohibits riding in the same management areas and provides the 

same EUAs as Alternative B. This Alternative provides more riding on designated trails and less 

open riding than alternatives A and B because of variations in management area allocations that 

occur between the alternatives. Alternative Cm also contains the same EUA/IUA overlay as 

discussed in Alternative B. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would eliminate all open riding on the Forest and restrict riding to designated trails 

within EUAs. All management areas except those portions of MA 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 7.2, 

8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 which contain the EUAs would be prohibited. This Alternative provides less 

riding on designated trails than Alternatives B and Cm. Alternative D provides more EUA/IUA 

overlap than Alternatives B and Cm, with roughly 43 percent EUA and 57 percent IUA. The 

same management approach as discussed in Alternatives B and Cm of the IUA/EUA apply to 

Alternative D. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm, and D, a transitional plan will be established to manage horse use until 

areas or trails can be made available. The transitional plan will have the greatest effect on EUAs 

where the network of existing user created trails will need to be evaluated and either accepted into 

the National Forest Trail System or abandoned and logical relocations established and 

constructed. A direct result of designating a trail system could lead to increased use once trails are 

established and advertisement of the ANF as an equestrian destination begins. Given an expected 

increase in use, cross country riding areas will be closely monitored to minimize long-term 

impacts that may develop once favorite areas are found and repeatedly ridden. 

In Alternatives B, Cm, and D some equestrian use is restricted to designated trails either through 

variation in management area or EUA allocation. Alternative D restricts the most followed by Cm 

and B respectively. However, there is currently no supply of designated equestrian trails on the 

ANF. Until trails are designated, the EUAs and management areas will be available for open 

riding unless specifically closed due to resource concerns. 

Management areas restrict riding to designated trails based on the desired condition and 

management area prescriptions (suitable uses). The EUAs in the alternatives restrict riding to 

designated trails primarily because these areas are currently receiving relatively high use from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-326 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

equestrians, and there are known resource impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife and/or 

soils. In the 2004 Spring Creek Environmental Impact Statement (Allegheny National Forest, 

Marienville Ranger District), unmanaged user-created equestrian trails in the Bluejay/Duhring 

EUA/IUA (part of the Spring Creek Project Area) were documented along with significant 

impacts to riparian areas, water, soil and wildlife habitats. To lessen the impacts of these user 

created trails, a decision was made to design, construct and designate 42 miles of equestrian trail 

(Spring Creek FEIS and ROD). Also in this decision, the remaining project area was to be closed 

to open riding. The Spring Creek FEIS and ROD is compatible with the EUA concept in the 

alternatives. Implementation of the Spring Creek trails will provide designated equestrian trails 

for the Bluejay/Duhring EUA area. 

Project level planning, along with availability of funds, will determine where and when site 

specific equestrian trails would be constructed in either management areas or EUAs. Where 

unacceptable resource damage occurs in open riding areas due to commercial or recreational use, 

the area may be closed, restricted to trail use only or designated as a future Equestrian Use Area 

(EUA). Project proposals for new EUAs or closure of open riding areas will be evaluated to their 

relative consistency with the LRMP. When a deciding official accepts a project that is not 

consistent with the plan, a determination is made as to whether the effects of the project warrant a 

forest plan amendment. The full effects of either of these outcomes will be analyzed. 

Existing trails (other than nationally designated trails) may be designated for equestrian use 

provided the trail is constructed or reconstructed to sustain equestrian trail use. Roads and trails 

may be open to horse use unless specifically signed closed. Many roads and trails are likely 

appropriate for this use however, site specific trail planning will establish trail classes, permitted 

uses, and construction, reconstruction and maintenance priorities. Trail planning is scheduled to 

occur throughout the life of the plan. 

Cumulative effects 

For the evaluation of cumulative effects, this analysis addresses how the alternatives and/or other management 

actions may impact recreation settings and experience in the future. Recreation settings were chosen because they 

provide the back drop for all recreation activities to occur. Since recreation settings occur across all lands within 

the ANF, the analysis area includes private, State, and Federal lands within the proclamation boundary 

The timeframe for past and present cumulative effects is from 1986 to the end of the revised planning cycle (15 

years or 2020). All recreation uses such as non-motorized, semi-primitive recreation opportunities, developed 

recreation, dispersed recreation and other general trail uses are addressed in the context of recreation settings. 

Past and present actions 

Environmental modification caused by oil and gas development is the primary factor, both presently and 

in the past, that influences all settings, especially semi-primitive recreation settings. Since 1986, 4,493 

new wells have been drilled on the ANF. To maximize production, close well spacings of 400 to 500 feet 

were frequently utilized. This equates to approximately one well drilled per every 5 acres. In addition to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-327

the well pads, land is also cleared for access roads to each well. For each new well drilled, approximately 

0.3 acres are cleared for each well pad and one acre is cleared for roads (0.25 mile x 35' clearing width). 

At present, an estimated 8,000 oil and gas wells are in production. Due to a progressive rate of oil and gas 

development, semi-primitive lands have become relatively scarce. The combined effects of oil and gas 

development, presence of roads and private land ownership patterns further reduce semi-primitive 

opportunities. In general, large contiguous blocks 2,500 acres or greater are needed to meet national semiprimitive criteria. The presence and distribution of private lands and permanent roads are indicative of 

rural settings which cover roughly 106,000 acres or 12 percent of the ANF. In rural settings, the sites and 

sounds of human activity are commonly present. 

Lands that have been heavily modified by oil and gas development have a somewhat “industrial” 

appearance which has been inventoried as roaded modified (63,320 acres). These settings would have 

been present in 1986 but to a lesser degree than in 2005. Again, as oil and gas development progressed 

across the landscape, these settings increased. Roaded modified settings are used in the LRMP to help 

describe these heavily modified areas to potential recreation users so that they know what kind of setting 

and experience to expect when making choices about where to recreate. 

There is a general lack of “remoteness” on the ANF due to land ownership patterns and permanent roads 

that fragment the ANF into discontinuous blocks throughout the proclamation boundary. Of the 740,643 

acres of land within the ANF proclamation boundary, approximately 234,000 acres, or 32 percent, is 

included in private lands. On private lands, inventoried recreation settings include primarily roaded 

natural (105,000 acres), followed by rural (100,000 acres) and roaded modified (29,000). 

Future actions 

Impacts to recreation settings from oil and gas development are potentially the greatest in areas where 

little to no evidence of such activities previously exists. Applied to any alternative, management areas 5.1, 

5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 currently have relatively limited oil and gas development especially when 

compared to the rest of the Forest. The future forecast of development activity could range from the 

historic trend of 225 wells drilled per year (low scenario) to 800 wells per year (high scenario). The most 

likely scenario is 512 wells per year. This scenario is a 50 percent increase from the current historic trend. 

A transformation of settings and opportunities will likely occur roughly proportional to oil and gas 

development. Consequently, more roaded modified settings and less roaded natural and semi-primitive 

settings could be expected in the future. High intensity oil and gas development in areas where little to no 

drilling has occurred will adversely affect recreation experiences, and in particular, remote, semiprimitive recreation experiences. As a result, those seeking a more remote and less developed recreation 

experience could be displaced to other State or National Forests where remote, semi-primitive settings 

and experiences are more readily available. One way the ANF could mitigate this effect is to acquire 

subsurface rights. The LRMP establishes a objective in 5400 Land Ownership to “Work with partners to 

acquire subsurface ownership of lands in MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 and withdraw these 

lands from future mineral development. 

Development activities on adjacent private, state and/or federal lands within the proclamation boundary 

may also affect recreation experiences; however the settings on the ANF are not anticipated to change. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-328 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The recreation settings on the Forest were mapped according to the ROS National Mapping protocol and 

included all lands within the proclamation boundary. A primary factor influencing settings is the amount 

and placement of private lands and permanent roads. This is especially true for semi-primitive settings 

which are located 1⁄2 to 3 miles from roads open to motorized use (ROS National Mapping Protocol). Over 

the life of the LRMP, no substantial increase or decrease in private, state or federal lands or the permanent 

state, county, township or federal road system is anticipated, therefore, the settings within the ANF are 

expected to remain relatively constant with a majority in the roaded natural ROS classification. However, 

development activities associated with farming, logging and residential development create noise and 

disturbance that can influence the quality of recreation experiences. The sights and sounds of human 

presence may diminish some users experience while others may not be affected at all. Impacts to 

recreationists occur when the sights and sounds of development interferes with the achievement of a 

desired recreation experience. Those seeking nature based experiences free from the influence of human 

sights and sounds may be most affected by activities on adjacent lands. 

Another problem facing recreation is the widespread distribution of insects and disease that have killed 

trees in large portions of the ANF. The settings and scenery which are so important to recreation are 

affected by the loss of vegetation. Where large killing fronts occur, it may be difficult to maintain or 

achieve desired conditions for recreation resources. 

Under all alternatives, management activities are designed to provide a range of recreation settings. 

Recreation facilities and trails would be designed and constructed based on ROS which determines the 

appropriate level of development, access, site modification, and other managerial controls. Based on the 

ROS desired conditions in the LRMP, the cumulative effects from federal actions to recreation settings 

could result in more roaded natural and less semi-primitive depending on which alternative is chosen. 

Management of Chestnut Ridge and Minister Valley under a MA 3.0 prescription in Alternative B is 

where the primary reduction in semi-primitive would occur. 

Under all alternatives, a range of recreation settings and experiences are provided that include motorized 

and non-motorized recreation opportunities, high density developed recreation opportunities at amenity 

based campgrounds, and a wide range of winter and summer trail and dispersed recreation opportunities. 

With additional marketing and an expanding national population, it is likely that recreation use on the 

ANF may increase. All the alternatives provide mostly roaded natural settings in which a range of 

developed, dispersed and trail opportunities will be provided. Additional opportunities will be expanded 

where feasible, dependent on budget, shifting demands and resource concerns. No negative impacts are 

expected to private or other government providers of recreation opportunities or services.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-329

3.4.2 Congressionally Designated Areas 

The ANF contains three types of congressionally designated areas which include Wilderness, National Recreation 

Area and National Wild and Scenic Rivers. The following sections describe the affected environment and direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects for these three areas. 

Wilderness/roadless 

Affected environment 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defined a wilderness as an area of undeveloped federal land designated by Congress 

that has the following characteristics: 

• It is affected primarily by the forces of nature, where people are visitors who do not remain 

• It may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value 

• It possesses outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation 

• It is an area large enough so that continued use will not change its unspoiled natural condition 

Wilderness is found in all but six states: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, and Rhode Island. 

Currently, the National Wilderness Preservation System contains 106,498,016 acres. This represents 4.7 percent 

of the entire United States, an area slightly larger than the state of California. Roughly 54 percent of America's 

Wilderness is found in Alaska. The remaining wilderness is found in a wide variety of ecosystems throughout the 

country including swamps in the Southeast, snowcapped peaks in the Rocky Mountains, hardwood forests in the 

Northeast, and deserts in the Southwest. More than half of these diverse Wilderness areas are within a day’s drive 

of America's largest cities. 

Since passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, the National Wilderness Preservation System has grown from about 

9 million acres to 106 million acres. In the U.S., the National Park Service manages 43 million acres (45%), the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 21 million acres (20%), the USDA FS 35 million acres (29%), and the Bureau of 

Land Management 5 million acres (5%). The FS manages an estimated 63 percent of the Wilderness in the lower 

48 states. One acre in six of the NFS is now in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness and the 

most remote recreational opportunities are heavily concentrated in the Western United States. Due to fewer people 

and more wild lands, the effective availability of Wilderness and the majority of remote recreational opportunities 

are about 15 times greater in the West than the East. 

The demand for wilderness, however, goes beyond recreation. Other values include long-term environmental 

monitoring, scenic backdrops for tourism, watershed protection, and maintenance of biological diversity. Many 

people who do not regularly visit primitive, roadless or designated Wilderness areas still value protection of such 

areas to maintain the opportunity for visits in the future (option value). People also gain benefits simply from 

knowing that natural areas exist (existence values) and that their protection today sustains them for future 

This section has been updated to reflect modifications to the DEIS Alternative C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-330 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

generations (bequest value). The option, existence, and bequest values, when combined are known as passive use 

values (Loomis 2000). 

Several studies have shown the importance and value people place on these passive use benefits of wilderness 

(Cordell et al. 1999). These values or needs are reflected in the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment (NSRE 2001) finding that 69.8 percent of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed to the question, 

“How do you feel about designating more federal lands in your state as wilderness?” Over 96 percent agreed or 

strongly agreed with the statement, “I enjoy knowing that future generations will be able to visit and experience 

wilderness areas.” 

Wilderness designation, with its associated benefits and limitations, engenders passionate debate in the American 

public. On the ANF, the pubic has been emphatically divided on this subject. While some desire more 

wildernesses, others do not want any additional wilderness designations. Various advocacy groups and members 

of the public as well as state and local government have developed positions on this issue. Due to the division of 

opinions on this subject, a thorough inventory and evaluation process for additional wilderness is critically 

important. 

Roadless area inventory and wilderness evaluation 

The evaluation of potential wilderness study areas consists of two steps. The first step is to identify and 

inventory all roadless, undeveloped areas and the second step is to evaluate the inventoried roadless areas 

from the first step for consideration as congressionally designated wilderness study areas. The evaluation 

considers, in detail, the potential addition of roadless areas to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System to determine the mix of land and resource uses that best meet public needs (see Appendix C). 

Roadless inventory 

In 1972 the FS initiated a review of NFS roadless areas known as the Roadless Area Review and 

Evaluation (RARE) to determine their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System (NWPS). No areas were identified on the ANF in this review. The second review process 

conducted in 1979 (RARE II), adjusted the criteria used in the first RARE and resulted in a nationwide 

inventory of roadless areas that included 34,358 acres of ANF land. Since that time, no other roadless 

areas have been identified in the 1986 Forest Plan or in any other unit plans. These RARE II areas 

included: 

Hickory Creek 9,337 acres 

Allegheny Islands 368 acres 

Tracy Ridge 9,188 acres 

Cornplanter 3,012 acres 

Clarion River 3,440 acres 

Allegheny Front 7,424 acres 

Minister Valley 1,375 acres 

Hearts Content 200 acres 

Verbeck Island 14 acres

 34,358 acres 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-331

In the years following the RARE II review, Congress designated some RARE II areas as wilderness, some 

as other special area designations and some areas did not receive any special designations. Congress, 

under the Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984 designated RARE II acres on the ANF as Wilderness and 

National Recreation Area. These areas include Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness and 

Tracy Ridge, Cornplanter, and Allegheny Front as National Recreation Area. 

The ANF completed the Roadless Area Inventory required for forest plan revision to determine if any 

roadless, non-wilderness lands on the ANF should be considered for recommendation as potential 

wilderness study areas. Direction for this inventory is found in the following: Regulatory (36 CFR 219.7); 

FS Handbook (FSH 1909.12); and Regional Guidance (1920/2320 August 13, 1997). 

The inventory results are provided in Table 3-88 in which three areas are identified. Further discussion of 

the roadless area inventory and evaluation of these areas can be found in Appendix C. 

Wilderness evaluation 

The second phase in assessing the potential wilderness resource is the roadless area evaluation. The Forest 

assessed each Forest Plan Revised Roadless Area according to the evaluation criteria found in FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 7, Section 7.2. The evaluation process addresses the capability, availability and need for 

wilderness. 

The Forest Supervisor in October of 2005 included Allegheny Front for further consideration as 

wilderness in the alternatives. It should be noted that Allegheny Front (6,742 acres) received further 

consideration as potential wilderness study even though it was not included in the Revised Roadless Area 

Inventory. This decision is documented in Appendix C. The roadless area evaluations for Tracy Ridge, 

Chestnut Ridge, Minister Valley and Allegheny Front can all be found in Appendix C of the EIS. 

Wilderness study area recommendation 

Wilderness Study Areas are those roadless areas the ANF is recommending to Congress as potential 

wilderness. The ANF included all three inventoried roadless areas as potential Wilderness Study Areas 

and the Allegheny Front RARE II area in various combinations in the alternatives. It is important to note, 

however, that a result of forest plan revision will not be the designation of wilderness. Congress has the 

only authority to create wilderness areas. A possible result of forest plan revision is to recommend as 

Wilderness Study Areas to Congress none, one or all of the areas being evaluated. Wilderness Study 

Areas will be managed to protect wilderness characteristics pending legislation as to their designation. 

Table 3-88. Forest plan revised roadless areas 

Area Name Acres 

Tracy Ridge 9,033 

Minister Valley 9,145 

Chestnut Ridge 5,063 

Total Acres 23,146 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-332 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Existing condition 

The existing condition of the resource involves the condition of designated ANF Wilderness, as well as 

the condition of the areas that recommended as Wilderness Study Areas in the alternatives. 

Wilderness areas

There are 9,031 acres of wilderness on the ANF contained within two congressionally designated 

areas, Hickory Creek Wilderness and the Allegheny Islands Wilderness. These wilderness areas 

comprise approximately 2 percent of the total ANF land base. These areas are within a day’s 

drive of several major metropolitan areas including Cleveland, Buffalo and Pittsburgh. The next 

closest location for wilderness opportunities is found on the Monongahela National Forest in 

West Virginia with 89,166 acres of wilderness and the Green Mountain National Forest in 

Vermont with 59,421 acres of wilderness. Although relatively small, the ANF wilderness areas 

are an important component of the Forest’s recreational appeal, especially for dispersed camping 

and trail based activities in backcountry and island settings. 

The best estimates of wilderness visitor use have been collected through the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Survey (NVUM). From October 2000 through September 2001, the ANF participated 

in its first NVUM survey. According to this report, there were 1,411,875 visits to the ANF and of 

this, 36,815 visits or 2.6 percent to Wilderness. The average length of stay in Wilderness on the 

ANF was 15.5 hours. 

Twenty-five percent of the exiting recreation visitors interviewed were asked about the types of 

constructed facilities and special designated areas they used during their visit. The most used 

facilities and areas were: forest roads, non-motorized trails, scenic byways, developed fishing 

sites, and designated Wilderness. 

Both the Hickory Creek Wilderness and Allegheny Islands Wilderness areas have been 

withdrawn of all leasing authority for federal minerals and private subsurface rights have been 

acquired. Use of these existing wilderness areas has focused on recreation activities. Primary 

recreational activities in Hickory Creek Wilderness include hiking the 12.1 mile Hickory Creek 

Trail, viewing wildlife and scenery, dispersed camping, backpacking, hunting and fishing the 

headwaters and tributaries of East and Middle Hickory Creek for brook trout. The headwaters and 

tributaries of East and Middle Hickory Creek are a prime scenic attraction of the Wilderness. 

Hickory Creek Trail is maintained to a primitive standard in order to protect the natural 

appearance and scenic integrity of the Wilderness. Hickory Creek Wilderness is surrounded by 

roads with primary access provided at the picnic area within Hearts Content Scenic Area. Other 

access points are along State Highway 3005 and Forest Route 119. There are no developed 

campgrounds or other facilities within the Wilderness. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-333

The Allegheny Islands Wilderness Area is composed of: 

Crull’s Island 96 acres 

Thompson’s Island 67 acres 

R. Thompson’s Island 30 acres 

Courson Island 62 acres 

King Island 36 acres 

Baker Island 67 acres 

No Name Island 10 acres 

The Islands are along the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River between Kinzua Dam and Tionesta. 

The Islands are popular for dispersed camping, exploration and viewing scenery and wildlife. 

Access is by canoe or motor boat. There are no developed trails or other facilities on the Islands. 

All recreational activities including maintenance of trails and dispersed campsites must be nonmotorized in wilderness. Activities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, camping and cross country 

skiing are allowed. Motorized and mechanized equipment and vehicles, and commercial 

enterprises except for outfitter and guides under permit are prohibited in wilderness areas. 

Management activities have focused primarily on trail construction and maintenance that meet 

wilderness standards, interpretation and education, law enforcement and boundary marking and 

maintenance. Allowed management activities include search and rescue, research (with 

restrictions), fire control, and access to existing in-holdings and private rights. Timber harvest, 

creation or maintenance of wildlife and viewpoint openings by motorized methods and maintenance 

of trails with motorized equipment such as chainsaws are examples of prohibited wilderness 

management activities. 

Issues currently facing the ANF wilderness areas include appropriate levels of trail maintenance 

for brushing, tread repair, blazing and signage, trespass, illegal motorized use, over crowding, 

outfitter/guides, invasive species, impacts of new technology such as cell phones, GPS, and geocaching, and the lack of quality baseline data and methods to monitor and measure changes to 

wilderness character. Impacts from user developed trails and dispersed camp sites are also a 

concern. In addition, limited funding for wilderness programs and staffing has affected 

management activities including monitoring and wilderness education programs. 

Inventoried roadless areas

The current condition of the proposed Wilderness Study Areas is derived from the roadless area 

evaluation process where these areas were assessed in detail by an interdisciplinary team of 

resource specialists. The roadless area inventory process and the full roadless evaluations are 

documented in Appendix C. 

The roadless area inventory produced three roadless areas for evaluation. These three areas are 

grouped in various combinations to become recommended Wilderness Study Areas in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-334 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

alternatives. A varying degree of management activity has taken place in these proposed 

Wilderness Study Areas. They include Tracy Ridge, Chestnut Ridge, and Minister Valley. 

Tracy Ridge (9,033 acres)

Tracy Ridge is characterized by steep rugged terrain leading to high plateau uplands set in a 

wooded landscape intermixed with streams and continuous forest cover. There are approximately 

31 miles of hiking trails which include the North Country National Scenic Trail (10.7 miles) and 

the Tracy Ridge/Johnny Cake loop trail system (20 miles). There are a number of abandoned 

roads and facilities from early oil and gas and logging production; i.e., old roads, railroad grades, 

pipelines, oil well sites, power houses, road lines and cleared rights-of-way, which have primarily 

reverted to natural forest conditions. Many of the abandoned roads were incorporated into the 

trail system. There are also two boat-to campgrounds within Tracy Ridge, Handsome Lake and 

Hopewell, which are located along the Allegheny Reservoir. 

Chestnut Ridge (5,063 acres)

Chestnut Ridge is located to the east of Tracy Ridge. They are separated from one another by 

State Route 321. Chestnut Ridge and Tracy Ridge are similar in character with steep rugged 

terrain and natural appearing, wooded landscapes. There are no improved roads within Chestnut 

Ridge or any trails or developed recreation facilities. 

Minister Valley (9,145 acres)

Minister Valley exhibits a wide range of topography, site conditions, soil types, drainage systems 

and vegetation. The primary use of the area has been for recreation, wildlife and timber 

management. It is a popular recreation destination, especially with local residents and draws high 

numbers of visitors on weekends throughout the spring, summer and fall seasons. There are 

approximately 13 miles of hiking trail in Minister Valley: 7.3 miles on the Minister Creek Loop 

Trail and 5.6 miles on the North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST). Day hiking is most 

popular with visitors along the Minister Creek Loop Trail. The NCNST and Minister Loop Trail 

are interconnected providing both day hiking and long distance hiking opportunities. Additional 

hiking occurs on several low level roads located within the area. Mountain biking and occasional 

equestrian use also occurs along the roads. There are approximately 4 miles of the 366 mile 

Allegheny Snowmobile Loop Trail located adjacent and/or within the area. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The scope of the analysis for direct and indirect effects includes all federal land managed by the ANF. This area 

represents NFS lands where potential wilderness designation areas exist, and the lands that could receive impacts 

from wilderness designation. 

The scope of the analysis for cumulative effects includes all lands administered within the ANF including private, 

state and federal lands. Because wilderness is a unique resource on a national and regional scale, cumulative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-335

effects will also include lands which provide wilderness opportunities within a regional proximity to the ANF. 

Proximity to the ANF is defined as the Mid-Atlantic Region and Ohio. The Mid-Atlantic Region as defined here 

includes Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This area represents 

both state and federal lands which provide wilderness opportunities. 

Introduction to effects 

Public concern is focused on how much designated wilderness the ANF needs to provide. The public is divided on 

the subject of wilderness; while some desire more wilderness, others do not want additional wilderness 

designated. To address this issue the ANF has four areas which are proposed as Wilderness Study Areas in the 

alternatives. There is concern over how these areas will be managed if they are not managed as wilderness. 

Another topic of public concern is over RARE II Inventoried Roadless Areas and how they will be managed 

under each alternative. 

The following analysis will address the effects of the alternatives on the wilderness resource. The analysis will 

focus on the following three primary concerns which help measure the consequences (effects) of the proposed 

actions of the alternatives. 

1. Number of areas and acres recommended for Wilderness Study Area. 

2. Management of potential Wilderness Study Areas if not recommended as wilderness. 

3. Management of RARE II areas. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

In all alternatives, proposed wilderness study areas will be managed to protect wilderness values pending 

legislation as to their classification. In all alternatives, Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands are included in MA 

5.1 while Wilderness Study Areas are included in MA 5.2. For the purposes of determining the effects of the 

alternatives on the wilderness resource in this analysis, the proposed Wilderness Study Areas are examined as if 

they are managed as wilderness areas. 

Effects from each alternative 

Number of areas and acres recommended for wilderness study area. 

Alternative A

Alternative A contains 9,031 acres of designated wilderness and no acres of proposed Wilderness 

Study Area. Alternative A represents the current management alternative for wilderness with no 

potential for additional Wilderness Study Areas. Under this alternative, 2 percent of the ANF is 

managed as wilderness. 

Alternative B

Same as Alternative A 

Alternative Cm

Alternative Cm contains 9,031 acres of designated wilderness and 12,379 acres of proposed 

Wilderness Study Area. Alternative Cm includes Minister Valley (7,316 acres) and Chestnut 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-336 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ridge (5,063 acres) as proposed wilderness study areas. Under this alternative, approximately 4 

percent of the ANF is managed as wilderness. 

Alternative D

Alternative D adds the most wildernesses to the ANF. It contains 9,031 acres of designated 

wilderness and 29,983 acres of proposed Wilderness Study Area. Alternative D includes Tracy 

Ridge (9,033 acres), Chestnut Ridge (5,063 acres), Minister Valley (9,145 acres) and Allegheny 

Front (6,742 acres) as proposed wilderness study areas. Under this alternative, 8 percent of the 

ANF is managed as wilderness. 

Management of potential wilderness study areas if not recommended as wilderness. 

The effects analysis will disclose how these areas will be managed if not chosen as wilderness. 

Table 3-90 displays the management area emphasis for each of the potential Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSA) by alternative and whether or not the areas are suitable for new road construction 

and timber production. Activities associated with road construction and timber harvest are the 

primary activities that will affect the roadless character of the areas. 

Table 3-89. Comparison of wilderness study areas by alternative 

Alternative 

Designated 

Wilderness 

(Acres) 

Wilderness Study Areas Acres % of ANF as 

Wilderness 

A 9,031 None 0 2% 

B 9,031 None 0 2% 

Cm 9,031 Minister Valley, Chestnut Ridge 12,379 4% 

D 9,031 Tracy Ridge, Chestnut Ridge, Allegheny 

Front, Minister Valley 29,981 8% 

Table 3-90. Management area allocation by alternative for potential WSA 

WSA Acres Management 

Area 

Suitable for Timber 

Production 

Suitable for New Road 

Construction 

Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives A B Cm D A B Cm D A B Cm D 

Tracy 

Ridge 9,033 6.4 8.2 5.2 5.2 No No No No No No No No 

Allegheny 

Front 6,742 6.4 8.2 8.2 5.2 No No No No No No No No 

Minister 

Valley 9,145 

6.2 

3.0 

6.1 

3.0 

7.3 

2.2 

3.0 

5.2 5.2

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No No 

Chestnut 

Ridge 5,063 6.1 3.0 5.2 5.2 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-337

Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front

Under all alternatives, Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front will not be suitable for timber 

production or new road construction. These areas will be managed as either Wilderness Study 

areas or National Recreation Area in the alternatives. 

Minister Valley

Alternative A

Minister Valley receives three management area prescriptions: MA 6.2 (70%), MA 3.0 (20%) and 

MA 6.1 (10%). Minister Valley is suitable for timber production and new road construction in all 

of these management areas. 

Alternative B

Minister Valley receives a MA 3.0 prescription (55%), MA 7.3 prescription (35%), and a MA 2.2 

prescription (10%). The majority of this area will be managed for timber production under the 

MA 3.0 prescription. Timber production is also allowed in MA 2.2 but not in MA 7.3. New road 

construction will be allowed in MA 3.0 but not in MA 7.3 and MA 2.2. 

Alternative Cm

Minister Valley receives a MA 3.0 prescription (20%) and a MA 5.2 Wilderness Study Area 

prescription (80%) in Alternative Cm. New road construction and timber production will be 

allowed in MA 3.0 but not in MA 5.2. 

Alternative D

Minister Valley receives a MA 5.2 Wilderness Study Area prescription. Neither timber 

production nor new road construction will be allowed. 

Chestnut Ridge

Alternative A

Chestnut Ridge receives a MA 6.1 prescription. Chestnut Ridge is suitable for timber production 

and road construction in MA 6.1. 

Alternative B

Chestnut Ridge receives a MA 3.0 prescription. The area will be managed for timber production 

under the MA 3.0 prescription. New road construction will also be allowed in MA 3.0. Chestnut 

Ridge is also included in the Intensive Use Area for ATV/OHM trail development in this 

alternative. 

Alternatives Cm and D

Chestnut Ridge receives a MA 5.2 Wilderness Study Area prescription. Neither timber production 

nor new road construction will be allowed. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-338 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Management of RARE II areas 

For all alternatives, the RARE II areas will be managed according to the Management Area in which they 

are located. Table 3-91 displays the management area emphasis for each of the RARE II areas by 

alternative and whether or not the areas are suitable for new road construction and timber production. 

Activities associated with road construction and timber harvest are the primary activities that will affect 

the roadless character of the areas. 

Under all alternatives, Tracy Ridge, Cornplanter, Allegheny Front and Hearts Content will not be suitable 

for timber production or new road construction. Under Alternatives A and B, Minister Valley is suitable 

for timber production but not in any other alternatives. A portion of Minister Valley is suitable for road 

construction in Alternative A, but not in any other alternatives. Clarion River is only suitable for timber 

production under Alternative A. Under all other alternatives, Clarion River will be unsuitable for both 

timber production and road construction. Verbeck Island is not suitable for timber production or new road 

construction in all alternatives as it lies within the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River corrid or. 

Table 3-91. Timber production and new road construction by alternative in RARE II areas 

RARE II Area Acres Management 

Area 

Suitable for Timber 

Production 

Suitable for New Road 

Construction 

Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives 

A B Cm D A B Cm D A B Cm D 

Tracy Ridge 9,188 6.4 8.2 8.2 5.2 No No No No No No No No 

Cornplanter 3,012 6.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 No No No No No No No No 

Clarion River 3,440 6.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 Yes No No No Yes No No No 

Allegheny 

Front 7,424 6.4 8.2 8.2 5.2 No No No No No No No No 

Minister 

Valley 1,375 6.1 6.2 2.2 5.2 5.2 Yes Yes No No Yes No No No 

Hearts 

Content 200 8.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 No No No No No No No No 

Verbeck 

Island 14 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 No No No No No No No No 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-339

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects discussion of potential Wilderness Study Areas occurs in two primary contexts. The first 

occurs in the context of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) and other designated wilderness 

areas in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and 

Ohio). 

The second context of the analysis addresses the degree to which the proposed Wilderness Study Areas will 

change over time under each alternative. The analysis establishes the magnitude and significance of cumulative 

impacts by comparing the environment in its present state with the expected impacts of the alternatives and/or 

other actions on private, state and federal lands within the ANF. In order to factor natural and human caused 

changes, the time span for the analysis includes past, present and future actions based on a 50 year time frame 

from 1980 to 2030. 

NWPS in the mid-atlantic region and Ohio 

Alternatives A and B 

Viewed in the context of a limited wilderness resource on the ANF, 9,031 acres or 2 percent of the Forest, 

no new wilderness could have a spatial displacement effect where people will seek other locations within 

the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Region for their wilderness experience. Within this area, Delaware and 

Maryland have no wilderness. Other existing wilderness can be found in New Jersey (10,341 acres), New 

York (1,363 acres) Ohio (77 acres), and West Virginia (89,166 acres). The Adirondack State Park in New 

York also provides a wilderness-quality resource with approximately one million acres managed for 

wilderness values however the Park is not included in the NWPS. This displacement could put pressure 

on the relatively small number of other wilderness resources in the Region resulting in over crowding, a 

diminished wilderness experience and resource damage in these areas. 

National Forest Wilderness recreation use is predicted to grow from about 9 million visits in 1990 to an 

estimated 25 million visits in 2030 (Cordell et al. 1999). Growth in recreation use of Wilderness is 

expected to be slow to moderate between 1990 and 2010, with an increase of 6 million visits over this 20-

year period. The National Forest Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Report indicates that there were 13 

million visits to NFS-administered Wildernesses in 2002. This number represents about 6 percent of the 

total FS recreation use. 

Visitor use of wilderness areas on national 

forests in the East (including the MidAtlantic Region and Ohio) is forecasted to 

grow 0.5 percent per year for the next 50 

years (Cordell 1999). Given a 0.5 percent 

projected growth per year (Table 3-92), 

wilderness visits for the ANF were projected 

to the year 2030 based on the visits recorded 

by NVUM. 

Table 3-92. Projected wilderness visits for the 

ANF 

Actual 

Use 

(Visits) 

Projected Use (0.5% growth per 

year) 

(Visits) 

2002 2010 2020 2030 

36,815 38,314 40,266 42,321 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-340 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Based on current use projected to the year 2030, visits will increase from 36,815 to 42,321. According to 

wilderness recreation demand pressures developed from the Recreation, Wilderness, Urban Forest and 

Demographic Trends Research group, Ken Cordell, Project Leader, the visitor demand on the current 

wilderness areas on the ANF are projected to be moderate for the next 10 to 15 years. 

Given these growth estimates, the current supply of wilderness in the Region and ANF will continue to 

see increased visitor use. However, it is uncertain if the current supply of wilderness is sufficient enough 

to serve this growing use. Under Alternatives A and B, small areas such as Hickory Creek and the 

Allegheny Islands Wilderness areas may not be able to serve an expanding user base without 

overcrowding and degradation to resources. 

Alternatives Cm and D 

Alternatives Cm and D provide opportunities for expanding the wilderness resource on the ANF by 

adding 12,379 and 29,981 acres respectively. Outside the ANF, there are 100,947 acres in the NWPS in 

the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio region. Primarily these acres are located on the Monongahela National Forest 

(MNF) in West Virginia, on US Fish and Wildlife Service land in New Jersey and on the ANF in 

Pennsylvania. Ohio, Delaware, Maryland, and New York, with their long settlement histories, are 

predominantly private, extensively developed and roaded. New Jersey is also heavily populated and 

extensively developed. ANF and MNF lands are thus uniquely able to provide wilderness opportunities in 

the region. The question remains, however, of whether the region needs more wilderness opportunities. 

On this topic, as previously discussed, the public is divided. While some will argue the current NWPS 

land base is sufficient and any additions will detract from other competing uses, others feel wilderness 

quality lands are disappearing to development in the region and adding potential wilderness now 

represents the only permanent option for preserving wilderness before future opportunities disappear. 

Alternatives Cm and D address this regional wilderness resource situation by offering potential 

wilderness additions. 

Actions within the ANF that may affect wilderness study areas 

Past and present actions 

A summary of past and present actions for each area follows. 

Tracy Ridge (9,033 acres) and Allegheny Front (6,742 acres)

Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front were harvested for hardwood timber between the late 1880s 

and 1940s and the entire area consists of mid-structural (<150 years) second growth. There has 

been no large scale timber harvest since that time except for some small scale non-commercial 

release of aspen that occurred in Tracy Ridge prior to 1980. The last commercial timber cutting 

occurred in 1966 and included primarily thinnings. No wildlife habitat or scenery improvement 

work has been conducted in the last 25 years other than bat box installation along the Allegheny 

Reservoir shoreline at the boat-to campgrounds. Vegetation management has been limited due to 

the National Recreation Area designation; however limited herbicide use has occurred to control 

gypsy moth through the use of Bt and Dimilin in the early 1990s. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-341

Recreation management activities within these areas have included construction and maintenance 

of trails and several campgrounds within Tracy Ridge. Primarily, construction and maintenance 

activities have been limited to the immediate vicinity of the campgrounds or within the trail 

corridors. 

Both Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front are encumbered by outstanding mineral rights with 

roughly 95 percent of the subsurface mineral rights owned by private parties. Drilling and 

associated mineral development has occurred in the past; however past well sites appear to be 

abandoned. There is currently a proposal to test drill in Tracy Ridge however no wells have been 

drilled to date. 

There is current mineral drilling and exploration along the eastern edge of Allegheny Front and 

there is widespread development on adjacent private and FS lands. Current development within 

the central east side of the Allegheny Front portion of the NRA on approximately 50 to 100 acres 

of FS lands is occurring. An environmental assessment completed in 1981 addressed mineral 

development within Allegheny Front. No other known development has occurred in Allegheny 

Front in recent years. 

Over-all, natural processes are operating within these areas and they have been minimally 

affected by outside forces except along the border where natural processes are affected by human 

influence, primarily road and oil and gas development. The area has regenerated from past 

harvest and other land uses, and now the forest appears mature to old aged. 

Minister Valley (9,145 acres)

Timber harvest activities have been occurring in the Minister area since the 1800s. By the early 

1940s, the entire Minister area was harvested. Vegetation management primarily focusing on 

reforestation treatments continued through the 1960s and 1970s. In 1985, the largest outbreak of 

tornadoes in Eastern Ohio and Northwest Pennsylvania resulted in large scale blow down on the 

Forest including the Minister area. What timber could be salvaged was and to aid in regeneration, 

large stands were fenced to exclude deer from browsing. By 1997, most of the devastated area 

had regenerated. Unlike other areas on the Forest, the Minister area has been spared severe 

mortality caused by the gypsy moth or cherry scallop shell moth (Minister Watershed, 

Environmental Analysis Appendix, 1997, page 3). 

In 1997, the ANF completed the Minister Watershed Environmental Assessment which guided 

management activities for intensive timber management scheduled for 1996-2006. This EA 

covered 7,658 acres of the 9,050 acre Minister Valley Inventoried Roadless Area. Harvest units 

were cut roughly 5 to 60 acres in size and occur primarily along the periphery of the area and to 

varying degrees along the following interior roads: FR 453, 251, 419, 250 and 420. Over the last 

10 years, approximately 10 percent of the area has been harvested. Fencing has occurred 

throughout the harvest areas to deter deer from browsing revegetated plots. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-342 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Minister Trail and North Country National Scenic Trail systems are prominent human-made 

features that cover much of the interior, especially on the west side of the area. Management 

activities for recreation have focused on the maintenance of these trail systems. 

There are approximately 20 miles of improved and unimproved roads within the area. 

Approximately 11 miles of old unimproved roads have regained or are regaining a mostly natural 

appearance. The primary impact to the natural integrity and appearance of the area has been from 

road construction and reconstruction on approximately 4 miles of roads found on FR 250/420. 

Other forest roads including FR 251, FR 419 and FR 453 are not maintained or constructed for 

standard passenger vehicle; however they have been reconstructed for logging traffic and 

administrative use. These roads also impact the natural integrity and appearance of the area. 

Minister Valley is encumbered by outstanding mineral rights with roughly 100 percent of the 

subsurface mineral rights owned by private individuals. There is currently no mineral drilling or 

exploration occurring in the RA; however drilling has occurred in the past. There are 11 inactive 

well sites located within the RA (source: GIS data, ANF). According to District personnel at the 

Bradford Ranger District, these wells have been abandoned and there has been no oil and gas 

development since the 1930s. There is a heightened interest in developing the area due to all time 

highs in the price of crude oil. 

Roughly 20 percent of the Minister roadless area was designated as MA 3.0 under the 1986 

Forest Plan. This area lies to the west of Forest Road 420. Within this MA 3.0 area is an oak 

research study in which the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station has conducted 

for over 20 years. This study has collected 15 years of data and is the only research on the ANF 

concerning uneven-aged silviculture in mixed oak stands (Susan Stout, pers. comm. 2006). 

Designation as wilderness would prohibit vegetation manipulation and other silvicultural 

treatments such as fencing. Past investments and research conclusions that may benefit oak 

regeneration may be lost under a wilderness designation. 

Although there has been extensive harvest, trail and road construction, the variety of landforms 

and dense, lush vegetation, including wetland scenery and large boulder fields, makes much of 

this area appear mostly natural and unmodified. 

Chestnut Ridge (5,063 acres)

Between the late 1880s and 1930s the entire Chestnut Ridge area was harvested and the area 

presently has second growth mid structural (21-150 yrs) forest. In the last 60 years, there has been 

relatively little management and only 97 acres or 2 percent of the area has been regenerated 

through timber harvest (1965-1980). Since 1980, the only timber harvest that has occurred is 8 

acres of salvage treatment associated with gypsy moth defoliation in the early 1990s. Recent 

management in the area has been almost exclusively associated with wildlife habitat improvement 

work and has included approximately 10 acres of annual opening maintenance, apple tree prune 

and release, native conifer and shrub planting and bluebird and wood duck nest box installation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-343

There are no designated trails or other developed facilities. Consequently, little to no recreation 

management activities has occurred. Primary activities include fishing, hunting, backpacking, 

hiking, dispersed camping and nature and wildlife viewing. 

Chestnut Ridge is encumbered by outstanding mineral rights with 100 percent of the subsurface 

owned by private parties. There is some drilling and exploration occurring within the area 

however it is limited to two wells along the periphery. There is no other known current drilling 

activity. Other drilling will have occurred more than 20 years ago and these past well sites appear 

abandoned. 

Over-all the affected environment within the interior has been minimally impacted by human 

disturbance and/or management activities. Natural processes are operating within most of the 

area. The area is minimally affected by outside forces except where oil and gas development is 

occurring. Forest Service management activities have not compromised the areas’ natural 

integrity and appearance. The area has regenerated from past harvest and other land uses and now 

the forest appears mature to old-aged. 

Future actions 

Private mineral development and associated land use activities pose the greatest threat to these areas into 

the future. There is current interest in both the Tracy Ridge and Chestnut Ridge areas. Allegheny Front is 

surrounded by highly productive oil fields with extensive development on adjacent lands to the north and 

east. Minister Valley is also near known oil and gas fields. Future projections for oil and gas wells on the 

ANF could climb from 225 wells per year (based on the historic trend) to over 800 wells per year (based 

on the high quarter scenario – See Appendix F). In regard to private oil and gas development, there may 

be moderate to heavy impacts to all of these areas. 

Regardless of designation as Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area, mineral exploration may occur. The 

Wilderness Act permits mining on valid claims and access to valid occupancies and private land. The 

number and intensity of oil and gas disturbance within Tracy Ridge, Allegheny Front, Minister Valley 

and Chestnut Ridge into the future may reduce or eliminate the present wilderness character and potential 

of these areas. In addition, management of these areas as wilderness may be difficult or impossible to 

achieve due to oil and gas development activities. One way the ANF could mitigate this effect is to 

acquire subsurface rights. The LRMP establishes a Plan Objective in 5400 Land Ownership to “Work 

with partners to acquire subsurface ownership of lands in MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 and 

withdraw these lands from future mineral development. 

Other activities on adjacent lands such as logging, road construction, motorized vehicle use and 

agricultural and residential development have the potential to affect wilderness values especially 

opportunities for solitude and natural sound experiences. Many people believe that “quietude” is an 

essential wilderness experience. The concept of quietude is tied to the wilderness definition as expressed 

in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577): "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his 

own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of 

life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Other parts of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-344 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

definition further define this as an area which retains "its primeval character...with the imprint of man's 

work substantially unnoticeable" and which has "outstanding opportunities for solitude...." Solitude in an 

area has often been interpreted only to include physical solitude, i.e., to be physically remote from works 

of man. Auditory solitude, i.e., quietude is also an important aspect of wilderness character and 

management. 

Consequently, the sights and sounds of human activity diminish wilderness values by reducing 

opportunities for solitude. Human disturbance may be the greatest in areas that are immediately adjacent 

to highly developed, frequently used travelways and roads, in areas that are adjacent to motorized trails 

and/or other motorized recreation use (such as motorized boats on the Reservoir), and in areas that are 

adjacent to private lands where heavy equipment may be used on a regular basis. All areas, Tracy Ridge, 

Chestnut Ridge, Minister Valley and Allegheny Front abut private lands and road corridors that receive 

fairly constant to heavy use, especially during the spring, summer and fall. Therefore, the opportunity for 

solitude may be diminished in all of these areas due to motorized use and human activities on adjacent 

private, state or other federal lands. 

Wild and scenic rivers 

Affected environment 

On October 2, 1968, Congress signed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, establishing the National Wild and Scenic 

River System. The Act states that the American rivers that possess “outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in a free-flowing 

condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of 

present and future generations.” 

In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, there are 6 nationally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers including the Upper 

Delaware, Middle Delaware, Lower Delaware, White Clay Creek and the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers. Of these, 

the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers are located on the ANF. 

Existing condition 

Federally designated wild and scenic rivers

The Clarion and Allegheny Rivers were included in the enabling legislation of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act as 5(a) study rivers. In 1969, the United States Department of Interior (USDI), 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, concluded that the Clarion did not meet minimum eligibility 

requirements due to poor water quality (i.e., excessive acid mine drainage, inadequately treated 

municipal sewage and industrial wastes) and the lack of any ORVs. 

In 1990, the ANF completed a WSR assessment of the Allegheny River and in 1992, Public Law 

(102-271), added 87 miles of the Allegheny River to the NWSRS and classified it is a 

Recreational River. Reacting to increased public interest in protecting the Clarion and 

improvement of the water quality problem, Congress authorized it for study for a second time 

under Public Law (102-271) and also designated Mill Creek in Jefferson and Clarion Counties as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-345

Table 3-93. Kinzua Creek nationwide rivers inventory summary 

River County Reach Length ORVs Description 

Kinzua 

Creek McKean 

Allegheny 

Reservoir to 

headwaters 

18 

miles Heritage

Historic-(Segment includes the Kinzua Viaduct, a 

National Historic Register Site, which is the 

second highest bridge of this type on the North 

American continent.) 

ORV = outstandingly remarkable value 

a study river. In 1996, Public Law (104-314) added 52 miles of the Clarion River to the NWSRS 

and classified 17 miles as Scenic and 34 miles as Recreational. The study of Mill Creek has not 

been done, however; Mill Creek maintains its status as a designated “study” river per Public Law 

102-271. None of the Mill Creek system is located on the ANF. 

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), first published by the National Park Service in 1982, is a 

listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to 

possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more 

than local or regional significance. Under a 1979 Presidential directive, and related Council on 

Environmental Quality procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that 

will adversely affect one or more NRI segments. The NRI included 18 miles of Kinzua Creek as 

eligible for further study and identified Kinzua Creek as shown in Table 3-93. 

Classification 

Designated rivers or river segments may be classified as Wild River, Scenic River, or 

Recreational River. River classifications as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are: 

Wild river: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watershed or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These 

represent vestiges of primitive America. 

Scenic river: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by 

roads. 

Recreational river: Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad that 

may have some development along their shorelines and that may have undergone some 

impoundments or diversions in the past. 

The Allegheny and Clarion include river segments that contain both scenic and recreational river 

but no wild river classifications. The FS has no authority over other federal, state, municipal or 

private lands within the river corridor. There are no eligible rivers located on federal lands within 

the ANF. Table 3-94 describes the river segments, classification and the outstandingly remarkable 

value for which they were designated. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-346 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-94. Outstandingly remarkable value classifications, Allegheny and Clarion Rivers 

Classification Segment 

Miles Segment Description Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV) 

Allegheny River 

Recreational 7.1 Kinzua Dam to Route 6 Bridge at 

Warren 

Scenic, ecological, recreational, 

cultural 

Recreational 47.8 Buckaloons Campground to Alcorn 

Island (by Oil City) 

Scenic, ecological, recreational, 

cultural 

Recreational 31.7 Franklin (south end) to Emlenton (at 

refinery) 

Scenic, ecological, recreational, 

cultural 

Total Miles 86.6 

Clarion River 

Scenic 8.0 Portland Mills to Irwin Run Scenic 

Scenic 9.1 Cooksburg to the Piney Dam backwater Scenic 

Recreational 34.7 Remaining segments from Ridgway to 

Allegheny River confluence Recreational 

Total Miles 51.7 

The Allegheny and Clarion Rivers are two of 96 designated national wild and scenic rivers in the 

United States. They are free flowing and contain outstandingly remarkable values that not only 

include highly valued recreation opportunities but they also contain important habitat for wildlife 

and fisheries, unique vegetative communities, rich cultural histories and scenic beauty. 

Allegheny River

A management plan accompanied by an EIS was developed for the Allegheny River and 

incorporated into the 1986 Forest Plan through Amendment 7 (September 4, 1997). This 

Amendment defined the corridor boundary for the Allegheny National Wild and Scenic River and 

provided additional forest plan standards and guidelines for managing federal lands within the 

designated corridor as identified in MAs 5.0, 6.1, 6.4, 7.0 and 8.0. 

The Allegheny River is classified as a recreational river totaling 86.6 miles. It begins at the 

Kinzua Dam and flows downstream to the U.S. Route 62 Bridge, from Buckaloons Recreation 

Area at Irvine downstream to the southern end of Alcorn Island at Oil City and from the sewage 

treatment plant at Franklin to the refinery at Emlenton. The stretch of River primarily located 

within the ANF proclamation boundary begins at Kinzua Dam and ends roughly at Tionesta. 

Within the proclamation boundary, the River flows through State Game Lands and extensive 

areas of privately owned land. There are many homes along the River as well as seasonal 

recreational residences. The ANF primarily promotes dispersed recreation on the River for 

dispersed camping, hiking, power boating, canoeing, fishing, swimming and sightseeing. 

Named "La Belle Riviere" by French explorers, the Allegheny River flows through the Allegheny 

Islands Wilderness Area and along broad rural landscapes. Good public access and few hazards 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-347

make this an ideal river for novice and family canoeing. Fishing for muskie, walleye, rainbow 

trout, and smallmouth bass is popular. Oil and gas exploration and production have occurred 

throughout the region since the 1860s. 

There are 43,568 acres within the corridor with approximately 83 percent in other ownership 

(private, state or federal). The corridor is located both within the ANF proclamation boundary and 

outside of the boundary. 

Clarion River

The Clarion River is classified as scenic for 17.1 miles and recreational for 34.6 miles for a total 

of 51.7 miles. Beginning just below Ridgway, this mostly undeveloped river meanders through 

narrow valleys of hardwood forests. Wildlife, intermittent riffles and rock outcrops provide 

constantly changing scenery. The Clarion is popular for family canoeing, as well as for trophy 

brown trout and smallmouth bass fishing. The River is considered a Class I River making it a 

desirable river for canoeists of all abilities. Outstanding features include a nationally recognized 

area of virgin white pine and hemlock in Cook Forest State Park. The River flows along private 

lands, state game lands, state park and forest lands and the ANF. Each entity provides an array of 

recreational opportunities from guided canoe trips to camping. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission establish boating regulations for watercraft on the River including powered and nonpowered boats such as canoes, rafts and kayaks. The ANF primarily promotes dispersed 

recreation along the river focusing on canoeing, fishing and dispersed camping. There are a 

number of boat launch sites along the river, located both on the ANF and off. The Clarion River 

Water Trail has been established along the River to promote stewardship of the river resources 

and to emphasize low-impact use. The best time to float the Clarion is early summer when flow is 

generally higher. Late summer flows become shallow at times and boat bottoms can drag on the 

streambed. No management plan has been written for the River. 

There are 2,356 acres within the scenic corridor section and 10,464 acres within the recreation 

section with approximately 72 percent in other ownership (private, state or federal). The corridor 

is located one-quarter mile on each side of the river, both within the ANF proclamation boundary 

and outside of the boundary. 

Pennsylvania state scenic rivers

The Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act (as amended 1982), allows the State, Pennsylvania 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA DCNR) to designate and manage a State 

Scenic Rivers System. The Secretary of Environmental Resources is directed to encourage and 

assist any federal studies for inclusion of Pennsylvania Rivers in a national scenic rivers system. 

The Secretary may enter into written cooperative agreements for joint federal-state administration 

of a Pennsylvania component of the NWSRS, provided such agreements for the administration of 

land and water uses are not less restrictive than those set forth in this Act. There are currently no 

designated State Scenic Rivers on the ANF nor has PA DCNR identified any potential scenic 

rivers for State study since 1986. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-348 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers system, PA DCNR listed Kinzua Creek, Clarion Creek, 

Bear Creek, Tionesta Creek and the East Branch of Tionesta as top priority waterways for 

potential State Scenic River designation. PA DCNR has revised their program since these rivers 

were listed in the 1986 Forest Plan. As per PA DCNR Bureau Chief Marian Hrubocvak (pers. 

comm. 2001), Greenways Conservation Partnerships Division, there is no longer any interest from 

the State for scenic designation of these rivers and they no longer use the “process” which 

identified these rivers as top priority waterways. PA DCNR’s primary emphasis is to provide 

study and/or conservation plans for rivers that have been identified by the state on state lands or 

by locals who are concerned about scenic designation for a river regardless of land ownership. 

The PA State Scenic Rivers program has not identified any new rivers of concern on the ANF and 

dropped the Kinzua Creek, Clarion Creek, Bear Creek, Tionesta Creek and the East Branch of 

Tionesta from consideration as State Scenic Rivers. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The scope of the analysis is the potential direct and indirect effects of management activities on federal 

land managed by the ANF. Potential direct and indirect effects will be discussed for activities on NFS 

lands within the Allegheny and Clarion Wild and Scenic River corridors. The potential cumulative effects 

area includes all private and state lands within the ANF Wild and Scenic River corridors. 

Introduction to effects 

Public concern is focused on the determination of eligibility of streams and rivers for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic River System. Public concern is also focused on protection of the Allegheny 

and Clarion Wild and Scenic Rivers and proposed Pennsylvania State Scenic Rivers. Another concern is 

for preparation of a site-specific river management plan for the Clarion River. 

The following analysis will address the effects of the alternatives on the Wild and Scenic River resource. 

The analysis will focus on the following two primary concerns which help measure the consequences 

(effects) of the proposed actions of the alternatives. 

1. The number of rivers or river segments determined eligible for study and subsequent inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and Pennsylvania State Scenic Rivers program. 

2. Protection of the outstandingly remarkable values of the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act directs federal agencies to identify and re-assess eligible WSRs 

in their planning processes. For the LRMP, a WSR assessment was conducted to determine the eligibility 

of rivers or river segments given changed conditions and new information that has occurred since the 

1986 Forest Plan was written. Appendix D of the FEIS documents the WSR eligibility process and 

outcomes of the eligibility determinations. The eligibility process also included a re-assessment of rivers 

listed as eligible in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-349

Under Alternative A, the current management alternative, Kinzua Creek was listed in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory as the only stream considered eligible for designation as a National Wild and Scenic 

River. The eligibility process included a re-assessment of Kinzua Creek which resulted in a non-eligibility 

determination. The eligibility process also found no new rivers or river segments eligible for further 

consideration and possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. As a consequence of 

the eligibility assessment, in all alternatives, including Alternative A, there will be no eligible rivers for 

subsequent study and possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Also, under Alternative A, the 1986 Forest Plan identified potential State Scenic Rivers in a state-wide 

rivers inventory completed in 1975 under the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 1277, as amended in 

1982. The State Scenic River study corridors listed in the current plan included Kinzua Creek (34 miles), 

Clarion Creek (87 miles), Bear Creek (12 miles), Tionesta Creek (52 miles) and the East Branch of 

Tionesta (10 miles) as top priority waterways for potential State Scenic River study (FEIS pg. 3-29). 

According to PA DCNR, the rivers and streams listed in the 1986 Forest Plan (Alternative A) are no 

longer being considered for State Scenic designation and there are no new rivers or river segments on the 

ANF currently being considered. Since there are currently no eligible State Scenic Rivers, none of the 

alternatives, including Alternative A, will address or include potential State Scenic Rivers. However, all 

streams on the Forest will maintain riparian values through the LRMP riparian corridor management 

strategy which provides a minimum buffer of 100 feet on either side of the stream or for the entire 

floodplain whichever is larger. See the Water Resources section of this Chapter for further analysis of 

watershed and riparian areas. 

Other regulations

Under all alternatives, water resource projects (as defined in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act (P.L. 90-542)) within the designated Allegheny and Clarion River Corridors are subject to 

analysis under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A Section 7 Analysis documents 

proposed activities on federal, state, municipal or private lands and the effects of the activity on 

the hydrologic function and free-flowing condition of the river. Consequently, a Section 7 

Analysis makes a determination if there will be a direct and adverse effect on a designated river 

or congressionally authorized Study River. The Section 7 Analysis also includes a standard that 

governs water resources projects below, above or on a stream or tributary to a designated river or 

congressionally authorized study river. Determinations under Section 7(a) or 7(b) are made by the 

river-administering agency. The clear intent is to protect river values from the harmful effects of 

water resources projects such as construction of dams, boat launch facilities, bridge construction 

or replacement or to place riprap on private lands. For the Allegheny and Clarion River, the FS is 

the river-administering agency. Under all alternatives, adherence to the Section 7 analysis will be 

observed. 

Under all alternatives, management activities are guided by the direction and provisions provided 

in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Clean Water Acts and the USDA-USDI Interagency 

Guidelines for managing Wild and Scenic Rivers (47 Federal Register 39454). Following the 

guidance provided in these directives will not vary by alternative. As such, protection of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-350 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

outstandingly remarkable values of the Clarion and Allegheny River will follow national 

direction for managing Wild and Scenic Rivers in all alternatives. 

Within the River corridors, recreation trails and other developments such as campgrounds, picnic 

areas, boat launches, day use sites, parking areas and toilets could occur as long as the river’s 

outstandingly remarkable values for which it was designated are protected. The Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act and FSH 1909.12, 8.2 provide the over riding management direction and standards for 

managing developments along river corridors according to the classification of the River. In 

general, Recreational River segments allow for more development than Scenic River segments in 

all alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, the ANF will foster and promote partnerships that help to manage and 

protect the outstandingly remarkable values of the Clarion and Allegheny Rivers. Primary 

partners include the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, 

and Allegheny College. 

Under all alternatives, no management plan has been developed for the Clarion River. Until a 

management Plan is developed, the corridor is afforded protection within a 1⁄4 mile boundary from 

the ordinary high water mark on both sides of the River. Under all alternatives, a future 

management plan for the Clarion will be developed and incorporated into the Plan as an 

amendment. The River Management Plan will further define the boundary for the Clarion and 

provide more detailed, site specific analysis of the river resources. 

Effects from each alternative 

Protection of the outstandingly remarkable values of the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers. 

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the Wild and Scenic river corridors are considered suitable for timber 

production, road construction, private mineral development, recreation development, and scenery 

and wildlife management. Alternative A provides standards and guidelines listed as mitigation 

measures on page 4-142 of the 1986 FEIS to protect the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers from 

developed recreation, even-aged silviculture, roads, energy minerals, and mineral materials 

activities and practices. Additional management direction for the Allegheny River was 

incorporated into Alternative A through Amendment 7 (September 4, 1997). This amendment 

was based on a River Management Plan developed for the Allegheny River in 1996. The 

Amendment included designation of a site specific corridor boundary for the Allegheny National 

Wild and Scenic River and additional standards and guidelines for managing federal lands within 

the designated corridor. Under Alternative A, the wild and scenic river corridors were managed as 

an over-lay covering several management areas that included 5.0, 6.1, 6.4, 7.0 and 8.0. Any 

conflicts that arise in management area direction are resolved in favor of preserving the river’s 

outstandingly remarkable values. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-351

Alternatives B, Cm, D

Under Alternatives B, Cm and D, the revised Plan continues the 1986 Forest Plan direction to 

protect the values of the Allegheny and Clarion WSR however; the rivers will be included in one 

management area (MA 8.1) which provides management direction for protecting the Allegheny 

and Clarion Rivers. This Management Area will contain standards and guidelines that are specific 

to the Recreational and Scenic classification of the River segments. The water, wetlands, riparian 

areas and recreational values for the river corridors are afforded protection by MA 8.1. MA 8.1 

direction follows national directives and authorities as well as agency policy to ensure protection 

of the river’s free-flow, outstandingly remarkable values and the protection and improvement of 

the aquatic resources and hydrologic function of the river. 

In contrast to Alternative A, Alternatives B, Cm and D no longer consider the corridors suitable 

for timber production. Alternatives B, Cm and D allow vegetation management activities to occur 

for recreation and scenery management activities, user safety, wildlife concerns, forest health or 

salvage of catastrophic events such as wind or ice storms. For further discussion of the suitability 

of timber harvest activities, see the Forest Vegetation Management section of this Chapter. 

Alternative A allowed for road construction in association with timber production activities, 

private mineral development, recreation development, and scenery and wildlife management. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm and D, road construction will be allowed only for recreation 

development, for designated special uses, or by law to provide access to private land or valid 

existing mineral rights. 

Cumulative effects 

Turn of the century logging had a substantial impact on both the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers, however there is 

no conclusive information on what the effect was or what remaining influence there is from these early logging 

practices. The vegetative composition of the river corridors are largely a result of these early logging practices and 

subsequent restoration activities. 

Past activities such as inadequately treated municipal sewage and industrial wastes provided the most substantial 

impact to the Rivers, primarily in terms of water quality. Since designation of the Rivers, regulations that control 

the influence of these practices were applied and the water quality of both Rivers has greatly improved. 

Outside influences on the Allegheny and Clarion River include activities on State and private land within the 

corridors, as well as activities on NFS lands within the corridor. There are 11,168 acres of NFS and 45,237 acres 

of other private, state or federal lands within the corridors. The Allegheny and Clarion are highly influenced by 

activities that occur on these other lands. On the Allegheny, approximately 83 percent of the land is contained 

primarily within private ownership and on the Clarion; it is 72 percent which is primarily located in the 

recreational segments and not the scenic segments. There is a higher percent of NFS system lands within the 

Clarion Scenic river segment, therefore the likelihood of maintaining the existing scenic corridor is high 

especially given LRMP standards and guidelines that restrict timber production and road construction parallel to 

the river. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-352 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Shoreline development has the potential to expand over time. This tendency exists where extensive land is 

available for development of summer homes and residences. Homeowners tend to clear the natural forest 

environment, replacing it with lawns and ornamental plantings, reducing the amount of undisturbed forest in these 

areas. They also tend lawns and gardens using pesticides and fertilizers which can move off site. These activities 

have the potential to introduce non-native invasive species through residential development. Other potential 

residential effects on the river corridors include a possible reduction in scenic integrity and effects to the 

recreational experience within the river corridors. Continued development of the river could affect the river’s 

over-all natural appearance. The noise and activity associated with land development activities could contribute to 

a diminished recreational experience. 

State Best Management Practices, the Clean Water Act, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provide 

protection of the ORVs, water quality, and free-flow of the river on private lands within the corridor. No federal 

authorization or permit will be issued for activities on private lands that will directly or adversely effect or invade 

and unreasonably diminish the free-flowing character or ORVs on the river. However, some activities that occur 

on private land, such as timber harvest, road construction and other shoreline development, do not require 

authorization or permit involving federal authorities. It is possible that timber management or shoreline 

development on private lands could result in localized effects to water quality within the WSR corridor. 

There are many other river protection programs in the region which also preserve water quality and river values. 

Currently there is a national focus on water quality issues. On the thirteenth anniversary of the Clean Water Act, 

in 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a nation-wide campaign to educate the public 

about watersheds, water conservation, and water pollution issues. River programs also include partnership 

models, such as the EPA’s American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). The AHRI is a federal program designed 

to foster community river conservation programs. The State of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental 

Protection also has several programs designed to protect rivers, river corridors, and water quality. Currently there 

are numerous other partners and funding sources including the Land and Water Conservation Fund for water 

conservation projects in the State. 

In all alternatives, the future management of the Allegheny and Clarion Rivers depends on management 

partnerships with both State and private landholders and application of federal and state water quality and river 

management practices, policies and regulations. Given the cooperative efforts and authorities to mitigate effects, 

and protect the wild and scenic river corridors, there are no known, foreseen, or planned private or State land 

developments that will significantly change or affect the Rivers’ outstandingly remarkable values. 

National recreation areas 

Affected environment 

National Recreation Areas (NRAs) are congressionally designated areas that have outstanding combinations of 

outdoor recreation opportunities, aesthetic attractions, and proximity to potential users. They may also have 

cultural, historical, archaeological, pastoral, wilderness, scientific, wildlife and other values contributing to public 

enjoyment (FSH 2371.05(1)). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-353

The Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984 established the Allegheny National Recreation Area and identified the 

purposes for which the NRA will be managed as follows: 

• Outdoor recreation including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, hiking, backpacking, camping, nature 

study, and the use of motorized and non-motorized boats on the Allegheny Reservoir 

• The conservation of fish and wildlife populations and habitat 

• The protection of watersheds and the maintenance of free flowing streams and the quality of ground and 

surface waters in accordance with applicable law 

• The conservation of scenic, cultural, and other natural values of the area 

• Allowing the development of privately owned oil, gas, and mineral resources subject to reasonable 

conditions prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (c) of this section for the protection of the area 

• Minimizing, to the extent practicable, environmental disturbances caused by resource development, 

consistent with the exercise of private property rights 

Existing condition 

The ANF contains one of four NRAs in Region 9. There are 23 NRAs in 19 states nation-wide. The 

Allegheny NRA is the only designated NRA on the ANF comprising 23,100 acres and divided into two 

primary land allocations; one north of Kinzua Dam along the Allegheny Reservoir and one south of 

Kinzua Dam along the Allegheny River. The NRA was established under the Pennsylvania Wilderness 

Act of 1984 which also established the Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness Areas. The 

NRA includes Tracy Ridge, Cornplanter and Allegheny Front RARE II areas as well as the area on the 

Allegheny Reservoir between Cornplanter and Tracy Ridge. 

The NRA contains a number of trails including portions of the North Country National Scenic Trail, the 

Tracy Ridge/Johnny Cake Loop trail system, and the Tanbark Trail. Several campgrounds are located in 

the NRA including the Hopewell, Handsome Lake and Hooks Brooks Boat-to Campgrounds located on 

the Allegheny Reservoir. The area is unique to the Forest primarily because of its natural integrity and 

scenic beauty. 

These areas have had little to no vegetative management other than for trail and campground 

development. There has been historic oil and gas development within the areas however; most activity 

and associated roads have generally regained a natural appearance. The mineral rights within these areas 

have not been purchased and the law which established these areas allows for the development of 

privately owned oil, gas, and mineral resources. 

Scope of analysis 

The scope of the analysis is the potential direct and indirect effects of management activities on federal land 

managed by the ANF. Potential direct and indirect effects will be discussed for activities on NFS lands within the 

Allegheny National Recreation Area (NRA). The potential cumulative effects area includes all private and state 

lands within the ANF proclamation boundary. This area represents lands administered by other owners, both 

public and private, which may affect the National Recreation Area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-354 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction to effects 

Public concern is focused on designation of additional NRAs. Public concern is also focused on the Allegheny 

NRA in regard to changes that will occur to recreation opportunities if some of the NRA were designated and 

managed as wilderness. 

The following analysis will address the effects of the alternatives on the Allegheny NRA. The analysis will focus 

on the following three primary concerns which help measure the consequences (effects) of the proposed actions of 

the alternatives. 

1. Number of areas recommended for NRA. 

2. Number of areas within designated Allegheny NRA that will include recommendations as wilderness 

study areas. 

3. Potential effects to recreation activities if the NRA is managed as wilderness. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

Number of areas recommended for national recreation area. 

There are no additional National Recreation Areas being considered in the alternatives. 

For the revision of the Forest Plan, consideration for adding additional National Recreation Areas to the 

alternatives was given. NRAs are areas that have outstanding combinations of outdoor recreation 

opportunities and aesthetic attractions on a national scale. Areas should exhibit “exemplary” or 

“showcase” recreational values to merit consideration for National Recreation Area designation. Each 

NRA is managed as a showcase to demonstrate NF management standards and programs, services and 

facilities (FSH 2371.03(3)). 

The ANF considered the current NRA on the Forest as meeting the need for NRA designation especially 

given that Pennsylvania is one of only 19 states that contribute to the system. The ANF also considered 

additional areas for NRA designation, however; no additional areas were identified as “outstanding” or 

“showcase” examples especially when compared to the Allegheny NRA or other NRAs in the Region. 

Additionally, areas that contain outstanding or showcase recreation opportunities are already included in 

other designations on the Forest such as Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Area, Hearts Content 

Scenic Area, Hickory Creek and the Allegheny Islands Wilderness Areas and the Allegheny and Clarion 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. These areas are available for recreation and provide similar benefits and 

opportunities that the NRA provides. 

Although not considered a National Recreation Area, the proposed Remote Recreation Areas in 

Management Area 7.2 include management strategies that emphasize recreation and promote 

conservation of these areas in a roadless or near roadless condition. Management Area 7.1, Developed 

Recreation Areas, also emphasize recreation opportunities in some of the most outstanding areas on the 

Forest such as Kiasutha, Twin Lakes, Red Bridge, Buckaloons, Kinzua Beach, Beaver Meadows, 

Dewdrop, Lolita and Willow Bay. Consideration as administratively designated Remote Recreation Areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-355

and/or Developed Recreation Areas is responsive to this issue by providing and preserving these areas for 

a combination of outdoor recreation opportunities that range from remote, non-motorized activities to 

highly developed areas designed for user comfort and convenience. 

Effects from each alternative 

Alternative A 

Rather than develop a specific management plan for the NRA, the ANF incorporated standards and 

guidelines in the current Plan in accordance with the purposes of the Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 

1984 which established the Allegheny National Recreation Area and the laws, rules, and regulations 

applicable to the NFS. No forestwide standards and guidelines were developed for the NRA, only 

management area standards and guidelines were developed. 

The entire NRA was assigned to Management Area 6.4 which emphasized enhancement of dispersed 

semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities and protection of the natural scenic, 

scientific, historic, archaeological, ecological, educational, watershed and wildlife values. Under 

Alternative A, Tracy Ridge Campground, Willow Bay Campground, Roper Hollow Boat Launch and 

Webbs Ferry Boat Launch are included in the NRA. 

Alternatives B, Cm, and D 

The revised Plan continues the 1986 Forest Plan direction to manage the NRA for the purposes 

established in the Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984. The Allegheny National Recreation Area will 

continue to be managed under specific Management Area direction. Under Alternatives B, Cm and D, 

Tracy Ridge Campground, Willow Bay Campground, Roper Hollow Boat Launch and Webbs Ferry Boat 

Launch have been assigned a MA 7.1 developed recreation area prescription which emphasizes high 

density recreation developments. 

Number of areas within designated Allegheny NRA that will include wilderness study designation. 

National Recreation Areas may have multiple designations that include Wilderness, Wild and Scenic 

River, Research Natural Area, etc. Alternative D considers portions of the NRA as wilderness study. 

Designation as wilderness study will not eliminate the NRA designation as there will be a duel 

designation of wilderness and NRA. However, management area allocations will change in order to 

emphasize more restrictive wilderness management standards and guidelines which supersede the less 

restrictive management direction established for the NRA. 

The Allegheny NRA contains three land units, Tracy Ridge, Allegheny Front and Cornplanter, and one 

water unit located on the Allegheny Reservoir between Cornplanter and Allegheny Front. Only Tracy 

Ridge and Allegheny Front are being considered for a Wilderness Study Area prescription (MA 5.2). 

Table 3-95 shows the areas of the NRA that will be managed as wilderness study. 

In all alternatives, Cornplanter and the Allegheny Reservoir units will be managed under the National 

Recreation Area prescription (MA 6.4 or MA 8.2). In alternatives A and B, no areas of the NRA will 

become wilderness study. The acreage change from 23,100 acres in Alternative A to 22,750 acres in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-356 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative B is due to the reassignment of Tracy Ridge Campground, Willow Bay Campground, Roper 

Hollow Boat Launch and Webbs Ferry Boat Launch from MA 8.2 to MA 7.1. Alternatives Cm and D also 

include this reassignment. This management area change allows management to emphasize these facilities 

under MA 7.1 while in concert with the enabling legislation which created the NRA. 

In all alternatives except Alternative D, the NRA will be managed as 6.4/8.2 (National Recreation Area). 

In Alternative D, Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front will receive a MA 5.2. 

Potential effects to recreation activities if the NRA is managed as wilderness 

There are a number of recreation activities that may be affected if the NRA is managed as wilderness. 

Table 3-96 provides a summary of several major recreation activities and indicates whether or not these 

activities will be allowed in either the NRA (MA 8.2) or wilderness (MA 5.0). 

Table 3-95. Management areas allocated in the NRA by alternative 

Areas MA Prescription 

A B Cm D 

Tracy Ridge 6.4 8.2 8.2 5.2 

Allegheny Front 6.4 8.2 8.2 5.2 

Cornplanter 6.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 

Allegheny Reservoir 6.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 

Total Acres Wilderness 0 0 0 15,775 

Table 3-96. Activities allowed in NRA vs. wilderness 

Activity NRA (MA 8.2) Wilderness (MA 5.1) 

Hiking Yes Yes 

Cross country skiing Yes Yes 

Mountain biking Yes No 

Equestrian Yes Yes 

Snowmobile No No 

ATV/OHM No No 

Primitive camping Yes Yes 

Developed camping Yes No 

Fishing Yes Yes 

Hunting Yes Yes 

Trapping Yes Yes 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-357

Effects common to all alternatives 

Under all alternatives, snowmobiling and ATV/OHM use will not be allowed in either NRA or wilderness. 

Mountain biking and developed camping will not be allowed in wilderness while it will be allowed in the NRA. 

Developed camping includes camping at any large or small scale developed campground or campsite such as 

Hopewell or Handsome Lake Boat-to sites. Hiking, cross country skiing, equestrian use, primitive camping, 

fishing, hunting and trapping are allowed in both areas. 

The NRA allows for greater recreation use than wilderness designation and provides greater alteration of the land 

to manage and maintain trails, scenery, wildlife, and forest health conditions. Future planning for the NRA could 

result in increased opportunities for development of overnight facilities such as Adirondack shelters and dispersed 

campsites for hikers as well as increased trail development opportunities for mountain biking and horse use. 

Designation as wilderness will eliminate or restrict future options for these types of recreation activities and 

improvements in the NRA. 

Wilderness designation will restrict trail maintenance on the North Country Trail and other existing trail systems 

to the use of non-motorized equipment and non-mechanical transport of supplies and personnel. Historically, 

chainsaws and mechanical transport have been used to maintain these trails. With the restriction on use of 

chainsaws and other mechanized equipment, maintenance of the trail system will be more challenging and time 

consuming. Trail directional signing and marking will conform to wilderness sign standards. Existing signs and 

trail markers will need to be replaced or removed in order to meet wilderness standards. 

Wilderness designation may also warrant future public use restrictions by limiting visitor use and distribution 

including establishment of group size limits to preserve the wilderness character of the area, whereas, the NRA 

allows for greater visitor use and group size limits. Currently, there are no restrictions on group size within the 

NRA under any alternatives. 

Recreation objectives for wilderness are to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation (FSM2323.11 (2). Campsites should not be designated and existing 

camps should be relocated or removed to allow maximum opportunity for solitude and to minimize the evidence 

of human use. The boat-to campgrounds in the NRA will not be compatible with wilderness designation. Removal 

of these areas will reduce benefits to other non-wilderness recreationists. Adjusting the boundary to eliminate 

these areas could occur; however, the campgrounds may impact some wilderness user’s experience. Likewise, the 

large, developed Willow Bay and Tracy Ridge campgrounds located on the periphery of Tracy Ridge may also 

impact wilderness experiences and values. 

The NRA allows for motorized use of boats on the Allegheny Reservoir, for landing and exploration of the 

shoreline and camping at the designated boat-to campgrounds. Wilderness designation excludes the use of 

motorized equipment or mechanical transport including the use of motorized boats landing on shore. Establishing 

the boundary above the high water mark will allow this use to continue however, use of boats on the Reservoir 

may still impact some wilderness users’ experience. 

Wilderness designation advertised and included in a broad tourism planning effort may draw visitors attracting 

recreationists seeking remote, primitive and unconfined types of recreation and solitude. However, the NRA 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-358 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

currently provides many wilderness values including the opportunity for solitude and serenity, self-reliance, 

adventure, challenging experiences, and semi-primitive recreation. For many recreationists, primeval wilderness 

character is less important than protection (Loomis, 1999). The NRA designation was considered an alternate to 

wilderness designation with the intended purpose of protecting the wild, undeveloped character of the area. This 

designation protects the area from timber harvest, road construction and most road based recreation. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects discussion addresses the degree to which the National Recreation Area will change over 

time under each alternative. The analysis establishes the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts by 

comparing the environment in its present state with the expected impacts of the alternatives and/or other actions 

on private, state and federal lands within the ANF. In order to factor natural and human caused changes, the time 

span for the analysis includes past, present and future actions based on the time frame of establishment of the 

NRA in 1984 to the end of the planning cycle in 2020. 

Past and present actions 

Since the establishment of the NRA under the Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984, past and present 

actions have primarily included recreation management activities associated with maintenance of the 

facilities and trails within the area. Activities associated with the construction and/or reconstruction of 

trails and facilities have included the removal of vegetation and subsequently altered the natural 

appearance of these areas. However, these impacts have been limited to the immediate vicinity of the 

facilities or trail corridor. Over-all, recreation management activities have not altered the purpose for 

which the area was designated. These recreation management activities have helped to direct and control 

visitor impacts while providing enjoyment and use of the area. 

Past and present oil and gas development has also occurred. Currently, oil and gas development activities 

have caused minimal disturbance to the environment. Timber harvest and new road construction has not 

occurred since the area was designated. There has been very limited to no wildlife management activities 

within the area. 

Recreation activities within the NRA have been limited to non-motorized uses within interior areas and 

motorized uses on the Reservoir and exterior campgrounds (Tracy Ridge and Willow Bay). ATVs and 

snowmobiles have not been allowed in the past. Hiking trails within the area have been managed for 

mostly single use and did not incorporate multi uses. Equestrians have been allowed to ride cross-country 

and are currently prohibited from using developed trails within the area. Likewise, mountain bikes are 

allowed off trail but not on-trail. By prohibiting equestrians and mountain bikers on hiking trails, potential 

conflicts between users are reduced and resource damage is limited to impacts caused from foot traffic 

rather than hooves and bicycle wheels. Conversely, equestrians and mountain bikers traveling cross 

country on undesignated routes is an unmanaged activity that results in unplanned travelways, erosion, 

watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts on cultural resources (USDA FS, Four Threats to the 

Management of National Forests and Grasslands, 2000). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-359

Future actions 

The LRMP considers two areas within the NRA, Tracy Ridge and Allegheny Front for Wilderness Study 

Areas in Alternatives Cm and D. Under all alternatives, the National Recreation Area designation will 

remain regardless if it is designated as wilderness. However, the wilderness designation will govern how 

they will be managed and more restrictive measures that protect wilderness values will apply. A detailed 

discussion on the effects of this designation has been discussed in the Wilderness cumulative effects 

section in this Chapter. 

Private mineral development and associated land use activities pose the greatest impact to the NRA into 

the future. As mentioned in the Wilderness section (Section 3.4.2.3), Tracy Ridge is currently being test 

drilled to determine the economic feasibility of additional development. Allegheny Front is surrounded by 

highly productive oil fields with extensive development on adjacent lands to the north and east. Future 

projections for oil and gas wells on the ANF could climb from 225 wells per year (based on the historic 

trend) to over 800 wells per year (based on the high quarter scenario – See Appendix F). In regard to 

private oil and gas development, there may be moderate to heavy impacts to the NRA, especially Tracy 

Ridge and Allegheny Front. One way the ANF could mitigate this effect is to acquire subsurface rights. 

The LRMP establishes a Plan Objective in 5400 Land Ownership to “Work with partners to acquire 

subsurface ownership of lands in MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 and withdraw these lands 

from future mineral development. 

Future recreation activities in the LRMP allow for construction of small Adirondack type huts along the 

trail system. Trails, except the North Country National Scenic Trail, will be reconstructed where feasible 

to allow for multi-use hike, cross-country ski, mountain bike and equestrians. Cumulative effects will be 

minor, short-term, localized adverse impacts due to construction/reconstruction projects occurring in the 

area. 

Increasing recreation opportunities may result in more use and enjoyment of the area by a wider range of people. 

However, increasing recreation opportunities may lead to conflicts between user groups on some trails and in 

some areas. Those seeking more quiet and solitude may be impacted by additional noise and activity. Cross 

country mountain bike use will be prohibited in Alternatives B, Cm, and D. This will lead to less resource damage 

as mountain biking will change from an unmanaged use to a managed use. For all activities, future management 

emphasizes the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the National Recreation Area consistent with the 

Pennsylvania Wilderness Act of 1984. Based on the protection and mitigation measures provided under 

legislation, policy and the proposed Forest Plan, the cumulative effects from federal actions on the NRA should 

be low. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-360 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.3 Administratively Designated Special Areas 

Certain limited areas of NFS lands not designated as wilderness and containing outstanding examples of plant and 

animal communities, geological features, scenic grandeur, or other special attributes merit special management. 

These areas are designated by law, or may be designated administratively, as special areas. Areas so designated 

are managed to emphasize specific values. Other uses are permitted in the areas to the extent that these uses are in 

harmony with the purpose for which the area was designated. 

The ANF currently contains the following administratively designated Special Areas 

• Research Natural Area 

• Scenic Area 

• Experimental Forest 

• Historic Area 

Affected environment 

Research natural areas 

The FS designates and manages research natural areas (RNAs) to permanently protect and maintain areas in 

natural conditions for the purposes of conserving biological diversity, conducting non-manipulative research and 

monitoring, and fostering education. Included in this network are: 

• High quality examples of widespread ecosystems 

• Unique ecosystems or ecological features 

• Rare or sensitive species of plants and animals and their habitat 

The ANF contains the Tionesta Research Natural Area (2,113 acres). The RNA helps protect biological diversity 

at the genetic, species, ecosystem and landscape scales. The Tionesta RNA is representative of the Allegheny 

High Plateau Subsection of the Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section within the Laurentian Mixed 

Forest Province ecological mapping unit. This area is a quality example of the broader ANF ecosystem. 

Tionesta RNA has been managed to maintain the natural features for which it was established and to maintain 

natural processes. Because of the emphasis on natural conditions, it is an excellent area for studying ecosystems 

or their component parts and for monitoring succession and other long-term ecological change. Non-manipulative 

research and monitoring activities are encouraged in the RNA and can be compared with manipulative studies 

conducted in other areas. The RNA serves low-impact educational activities without recreational development of 

facilities or trails. This area is available for educational use by university and school groups, native plant societies, 

and other organizations interested in pursuing natural history and educational field trips. 

This section has been updated to reflect modifications to the DEIS Alternative C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-361

Scenic areas 

A scenic area is a unit of land with outstanding natural beauty that requires special management to preserve this 

beauty. The ANF contains the following two administratively designated scenic areas: 

• Tionesta Scenic Area (2,018 acres) 

• Hearts Content Scenic Area (122 acres) 

Tionesta and Hearts Content are also included in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. The National 

Registry is administrated by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. The registry represents 

important examples of the Nation’s natural history. 

These Scenic Areas are used primarily for recreation and nature study. Bird watching is popular with numerous 

species that prefer old growth forests like barred owls, northern goshawks, pileated woodpeckers, flycatchers, 

thrushes, and warblers. 

A portion of the North Country National Scenic Trail passes through the Tionesta Scenic Area. This trail can be 

accessed along the entrance road and is marked with blue diamonds. The Twin Lakes Trail, marked with gray 

diamonds, traverses the southern part of the Scenic Area. This trail connects the North Country Trail with Twin 

Lakes Recreation Area and is 15.8 miles long. Other trails that take off from the entrance road are not maintained. 

Hearts Content is a small area of 300 year old white pine. There is a 1.3 mile interpretive trail that highlights the 

old growth forest. The Hearts Content Recreation Area and campground provides access to the area as well as to 

Hickory Creek Wilderness which is adjacent to Hearts Content. 

These areas contain exemplary characteristics that define high quality scenery. They contain old growth forests 

whose natural cycle of growth has not been disturbed by logging. Primarily, these areas contain outstanding 

aesthetic values related to old growth forests and associated big, beautiful trees. They serve as a primary scenic 

attraction and recreation destination for visitors to the Forest. The landscape provides high scenic integrity; 

however there is evidence of human disturbance. Oil and gas development within the Tionesta area has altered the 

natural condition and scenery. Wind damage and insects and disease have also altered the landscape. 

As mentioned, theses areas contain a predominance of old growth as well as mid- and late structural forests 

composed of hardwoods and conifers. The old growth provides aesthetic and spiritual values as well as habitat for 

a number of plants and animal species that tend not to occur in younger forests. These areas contain dense tree 

canopies as well as large natural openings that support the physical structure for nesting, hiding, and plant growth. 

This is provided by standing and down dead trees, thick bark, complex crown structures, heavy branches, and 

undisturbed duff and litter layers. These areas provide for stream protection and input of large down wood that 

creates more complex aquatic habitat, shading of stream waters to keep them cool, and filters for sediments. 

Recreation management has focused on maintaining the most natural recreation setting possible. Existing 

facilities and trails have been maintained and enhanced. Recreation impacts have been managed to protect scenery 

and to minimize visual disturbance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-362 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Historic areas 

A historical area is a unit of land possessing a significant site or a concentration of sites, buildings, structures, or 

objects united historically or prehistorically by plan or physical development. Memorial areas are included in this 

definition. The ANF administratively designated the Buckaloons Historic Site in an amendment to the current 

Forest Plan, Amendment No. 4, October 4, 1994, however no goals, objectives, standards or guidelines were 

defined. Buckaloons was also contained within Management Area 6.1. 

The Buckaloons Historic Site is a late woodland 300-acre Seneca-Iroquois settlement located on the Allegheny 

River near Irvine, Pennsylvania. Throughout the Holocene, the Allegheny River watershed served as a major 

transportation, trade, and communication artery for Archaic (8500-1000 BC) and Woodland (1000 BC-AD 1600) 

cultures. The Buckaloons site has the longest human occupational record in northwestern Pennsylvania with 

discontinuous occupation in both prehistoric cultural periods identified above (Lantz 1999). 

Prior to European settlement, several cultures occupied the Buckaloons site including the Late Woodland (AD 

1000-1600) Allegheny Valley Iroquois and the Historic (1600-1800) Seneca Iroquois. Settlement patterns of these 

groups are generally characterized by base camps on river terraces surrounded by large catchment areas from 

which raw materials were procured at ancillary sites (Ruffner and Abrams 1999). These native groups were semisedentary horticulturists practicing swidden agriculture whereby forests were cleared and burned to create open 

areas in which sunflower (Helianthus annuus), maize (Zeas mays), squash (Curcubita pepo), and beans 

(Phaseolus vulgaris) were cultivated (Snow 1994). By AD 1500, settlements were large, pallisaded villages with 

longhouses and garden plots capable of supporting up to 250-300 people (Snow 1994, Quinn and Adovasio 1996). 

Kane Experimental Forest 

The Kane Experimental Forest (KEF) is located on the ANF about 7 miles southeast of Kane, PA. The 1,737 

acres of forest land that comprises the experimental forest were formally dedicated to research for the Allegheny 

Forest Experiment Station (now the Northeastern Research Station) in 1932. KEF is currently managed by the 

staff of the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Warren, Pa where research is focused on understanding and managing 

forest ecosystems of the Allegheny Plateau Region. Since the establishment of KEF research has been conducted 

continuously on the forest. 

The Kane Experimental Forest ranges in elevation from about 1800 to 2100 feet above sea level, primarily on flat 

to gently sloping land. The Wolf Run and Ackerman Run drainages cross KEF, as do the Mill Creek and Twin 

Lakes trails. The forest stands on KEF are typical of the Allegheny Plateau. They resulted from a series of 

cuttings made in the original hemlock-beech-maple stands. The first cutting, made in the mid-to late 1800s 

removed the hemlock and the best hardwood trees to supply the local tanneries and sawmills. Most of the 

remaining hardwoods were cut between 1890 and 1925, but a few stands were clearcut as late as 1937. 

Today, KEF contains second growth stands ranging from 60 to about 100 years of age, a few third-growth stands 

20 or 40 years old, and one tract containing remnant old growth. Most stands are even-aged in character, although 

they may actually contain several age classes because of the previous sequence of cuttings. The most common 

tree species are black cherry, the maples and beech; but many other species are present: yellow and sweet birch, 

eastern hemlock, cucumber, yellow-popular, white ash and others. Beech and striped maple seedlings dominate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-363

the understory of many unmanaged stands, joined by black cherry and black birch in managed stands These forest 

stands represent the Allegheny hardwood, or black cherry-maple, northern hardwood, including hemlockhardwood and beech-birch-maple, and upland hardwood, or red maple-dominated, forest types. 

Most research on the Forest consists of relatively long-term studies. Long-term field experiments and 

measurement programs have focused on regeneration studies and the environmental factors affecting the natural 

regeneration of Allegheny hardwoods. Currently researchers are working to develop concepts and tools needed to 

predict ecosystem structure, function, and species composition in terms of regeneration and forest renewal, stand 

dynamics and silviculture, and sugar maple decline. Most of the research on the Kane Experimental Forest is 

focused on stand dynamics and silvicultural research. There are currently 17 active and 23 inactive studies, 

monitoring sites and demonstration areas. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The scope of the analysis for direct and indirect effects includes all federal land managed by the ANF. This area 

represents NFS lands where current or potential administratively designated areas may exist, and the lands that 

could receive impacts from the alternatives and associated administrative actions. 

The scope of the analysis for cumulative effects includes past, present and future actions that may potentially 

affect these special areas including actions administered on other ownership, both state and federal, within the 

ANF proclamation boundary. 

Introduction to effects 

Public concern is focused on designating additional special areas on the ANF other than wilderness, national 

recreation areas or wild and scenic rivers. These areas have been addressed in Section 3.4.2 of this Chapter. To 

address the administrative special areas issue, the ANF considered additional land allocations for research natural 

areas, scenic areas, historic areas and experimental forest. 

Effects from each alternative 

Research natural areas 

There are no additional research natural areas (RNAs) being considered at this time. The ANF currently 

contains the Tionesta Research Natural Area which is protected and maintained in a natural condition for 

the purpose of conducting non-manipulative research and for fostering education. The ANF also contains 

9,031 acres of wilderness and 23,100 acres of National Recreation Area that do not undergo silvicultural 

or other intensive land management prescriptions and can be used for non-manipulative research 

purposes. These areas are some of the best representative “natural condition” areas on the ANF. Also, the 

proposed remote recreation areas and wilderness study areas more closely resemble natural conditions 

than other areas on the ANF as these areas generally contain little timber harvest, roads or oil and gas 

development. These areas can also be used for non-manipulative research and low-impact educational 

activities in which natural processes and biological diversity at the genetic, species, ecosystem and 

landscape scales are maintained. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-364 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under Alternative A, management direction for the RNA is contained in MA 8.5 (MA 8.0 in the 1986 

Forest Plan). MA 8.5 also included management direction for scenic areas and experimental forest. 

Overnight camping, campfires, mountain biking off open roads, and vehicle use off open roads are not 

permitted in the RNA. Motorized vehicles, ATVs and snowmobiles, are not allowed on any of the trails. 

The Forest trails policy prohibits the use of a saddle, pack or draft animals on hiking or cross country ski 

trails. 

The primary emphasis for vegetative management is to protect and preserve to the extent possible the 

natural condition of this virgin forest. Timber is not managed for commercial purposes. No salvage will 

be done following significant insect or disease infestations or catastrophic events. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm and D the LRMP continues 1986 Forest Plan direction for the Tionesta 

Research Natural Area under a new Management Area dedicated to RNAs, MA 8.5. These lands are 

withdrawn from timber production. Unlike Alternative A, these lands are unsuitable for salvage harvest. 

Snowmobile and ATV/OHM is prohibited. Recreation and facility trail development is prohibited. 

Construction of new permanent roads will not be allowed. Like Alternative A, overnight camping, 

campfires, mountain biking off open roads, and vehicle use off open roads are not permitted in the RNA. 

Scenic areas 

There are no additional scenic areas being considered in the LRMP. A scenic area is a unit of land with 

outstanding natural beauty that requires special management to preserve this beauty. The ANF contains 

the Tionesta and Hearts Content Scenic Areas which were established because they contained remnant old 

growth forest which contributes to the outstanding natural beauty and scenic integrity of the areas. Other 

areas which contain high scenic quality are included in current designations such as the National 

Recreation Area, the Clarion Wild and Scenic River and the Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands 

Wildernesses. The FS is not considering the designation of additional Scenic Areas because many 

outstanding scenic areas on the Forest are already congressionally designated areas. 

Under Alternative A, there were no Forestwide goals or objectives for Scenic Areas in the 1986 Forest 

Plan. The Plan provided management direction and standards and guidelines in Management Area 8.0. 

The primary purpose for Hearts Content and Tionesta Scenic Areas is to protect the unique areas of 

national significance, provide dispersed recreation opportunities that emphasize the area’s uniqueness and 

preserve the unique ecosystems for scientific, educational and scenic purposes. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm and D, the revised Plan continues 1986 Forest Plan direction for 

administratively designated Scenic Areas. Scenic Areas will continue to be managed under a specific 

Management Area designed to protect the area’s unique attributes while providing dispersed recreation 

opportunities. There will be a new Management Area, MA 8.3, dedicated to Scenic Areas with updated 

goals and objectives and some revised standards and guidelines. These lands are withdrawn from timber 

production and salvage harvest. Snowmobile and ATV/OHM is prohibited. Recreation facility and nonmotorized trail development is allowed. Construction of new permanent roads will not be allowed. Like 

Alternative A, overnight camping and campfires will be prohibited in Hearts Content. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-365

Historic areas 

There are no additional historic areas being considered in the LRMP. Under Alternatives B, Cm and D the 

revised Plan will recommend national designation as a Special Interest Area (SIA) for the Buckaloons 

Hisoric Site. The USFS defines SIAs as areas managed to protect unusual characteristics. These areas are 

managed to maintain their special interest values. Typically, SIAs have been designated as botanical, 

geological, historical, cultural, paleontological, scenic, or zoological areas. SIAs may also be designated 

to protect and manage threatened, endangered and sensitive species, or other elements of biological 

diversity; or for their emotional significance, scenic values, or public popularity. SIAs vary in size from 

small to fairly large. The LRMP will provide management emphasis for Buckaloons within a dedicated 

Management Area (8.4) that will focus on protecting and enhancing the site, and where appropriate 

development and interpretation for public education and recreation. These lands are withdrawn from 

timber production, however salvage harvest may occur. Snowmobile and ATV/OHM is prohibited. 

Recreation facility and non-motorized trail development is allowed. Construction of new permanent roads 

is allowed. 

Experimental forest 

Under Alternative A, the 1986 Forest Plan provided management direction for KEF in MA 8.0 

(renumbered 8.5 in this analysis) along with the Tionesta and Hearts Content Scenic Areas and Tionesta 

Research Natural Area. The primary purpose of KEF is to provide an area where research will be 

conducted to improve benefits from forests. Standards and guidelines for KEF and Tionesta RNA were 

combined. In general, timber harvesting does not occur unless associated with a pre-approved research 

study or as a consequence of oil and gas development of private minerals. Also, the 1986 Plan called for 

no new recreation developments however existing hiking trails will be maintained. 

Under Alternatives B, Cm and D, KEF will be expanded to include an additional 1,700 acres. This 

additional acreage will provide a land base that is capable of meeting management direction to conduct 

research related to forest management problems and opportunities in the northeast. The LRMP will 

provide specific management direction for KEF including goals, objectives, standards and guidelines in a 

dedicated management area (MA 8.6). These lands are withdrawn from scheduled timber production. 

Snowmobile and ATV/OHM is prohibited. Recreation facility and trail development is not allowed; 

however, existing trails may be maintained. Construction of new permanent roads is allowed. 

Cumulative effects 

For the evaluation of cumulative effects, this analysis addresses the degree to which the existing special areas will 

change over time under each alternative. The analysis establishes the magnitude and significance of cumulative 

impacts by comparing the environment in its current naturally occurring state with the expected impacts of the 

alternatives when combined with the impacts of other actions. How actions have impacted resources in the past 

and present or how resources might respond to future impacts is addressed for each special area. In order to factor 

natural and human caused changes, the time span for the analysis includes 35 years ranging from 1980 to the end 

of the planning cycle (15 years or 2020). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-366 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Research natural area and scenic areas 

Past actions 

The existing condition of the Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Area and the Hearts Content Scenic 

Area has been modified from both natural conditions and human activities. The Tionesta Scenic and 

Research Natural Areas have been managed primarily as one special area rather than two separate and 

distinct areas. Past management has primarily included research and recreation activities. Research 

activities have been non-manipulative causing no change in the unaltered, natural condition of these areas. 

Recreation management has included trail maintenance within the Tionesta Scenic Area and trail and 

facility maintenance in Hearts Content. There have been no recreation management activities (trail or 

facility construction/maintenance) in the RNA. These past recreation management activities have 

included the removal of vegetation and subsequently altered the natural appearance of these areas. 

However, these impacts have been limited to the immediate vicinity of the facilities (Hearts Content) or 

trail corridor. Over-all, recreation management activities have not altered the natural condition or purpose 

for which these areas were designated. These recreation management activities have helped to direct and 

control visitor impacts while providing enjoyment and use of the area. 

These areas were designated in recognition of there unique values characterized as the “largest virgin 

forest in the hemlock-pine/northern hardwoods region of North America.” Although salvage harvest was 

allowed under the current Plan, no salvage or other timber harvest has occurred. Having never been 

logged, these areas represent some of the only remaining patches of the original six million acre forest 

that once covered the Allegheny Plateau. While past timber harvest has not altered these areas, oil and gas 

drilling has occurred since the 1860s. Within the Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas, there are 

approximately 1,900 acres of known oil and gas fields (Source GIS). Within the Tionesta area, oil and gas 

development has significantly altered the natural condition and scenic integrity of the area. Oil and gas 

operations have altered the preeminent natural condition for which Tionesta was designated. The 

expectation is that these unique areas will be preserved with little to no human alteration. Hearts Content 

has had little to no past oil and gas development activity. 

Natural events have also altered the unique values of these areas. Over the past 35 years approximately 

1,000 acres or 25 percent of the Tionesta area received wind damage caused by tornadoes in the 1980s. 

Wind events are an important natural disturbance which contributes to the natural cycle of growth. 

However, the resultant blow down decreases the aesthetic and historic value by reducing the amount of 

standing old growth and remnant pine and hemlock virgin forest. 

Present actions 

Ongoing non-manipulative research and recreation management continues within these areas. Current 

recreation management activities include maintenance of the existing recreation trails and facilities. There 

are no current plans for additional new trails or recreation facilities. However, the Martin Run EIS 2004 

will implement the relocation of the North Country Trail to a pre-tornado location and the parking area 

will be moved to the north edge of the area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-367

The affected environment continues to be modified primarily by oil and gas development and natural 

events such as wind throw and insects and diseases. Wells and associated access roads currently impact 

the aesthetic, recreational and research values. In July, 2003 another catastrophic wind event occurred 

causing scattered blowdown. Additionally, blow down of the area is increasing primarily along the edge 

or boundary of Tionesta. Timber harvest in adjacent areas exposes Tionesta to the full brunt of heavy 

winds and catastrophic storms. In some areas along the edge, blow down has increased. 

The revised Plan does not add any new Research Natural Areas or Scenic Areas. Under all alternatives, 

FS management activities are limited to non-manipulative research and non-consumptive recreational 

uses. Standards and guidelines are designed to preserve and protect the ecologically significant natural 

features of these areas. 

Pennsylvania's state forest system includes 61 special natural areas set aside to protect unique or unusual 

biologic, geologic, scenic and historic features, or to showcase outstanding examples of Pennsylvania's 

major forest communities. The State manages natural areas in a natural condition by allowing physical 

and biological processes to operate, usually without direct human intervention. These areas are set aside 

to provide locations for scientific observation of natural systems, to protect examples of typical and 

unique plant and animal communities and to protect outstanding examples of natural interest and beauty. 

There are 22 natural areas designated within Pennsylvania's state park system. There are two within the 

four county area of the ANF. 

1. Forest Cathedral (555 acres). Also a National Natural Landmark with old-growth stands of white pine 

and eastern hemlock. Many trees are over 300 years old. Cook Forest State Park (Clarion/Forest 

counties). 

2. Swamp Forest (246 acres). A wetland of old growth eastern hemlocks and white pines at the 

headwaters of Brown's Run. Cook Forest State Park (Clarion/Forest counties). 

These sites meet similar objectives as the Tionesta Research Natural Area and serve as RNA equivalents 

adding to the ANF reference site network. 

Future actions 

All minerals in the RNA are USA-owned and withdrawn from development. Thirteen existing wells that 

existed prior to RNA designation are allowed operations with no re-drilling. Once minerals are exhausted, 

sites in the RNA will be restored. TSA mineral rights, conversely, are all privately owned. The TSA 

contains a large underground field gas storage area, and has thus not had any oil and gas development in 

the past decade. This storage area is of fairly high quality, and will therefore likely continue to be used as 

an underground gas storage area. While it is reasonable to assume that some of oil and gas development 

may occur on lands in the Tionesta Scenic Area, considering that there has been no oil and gas 

development in Tionesta in the last decade, and the area is primarily used for underground gas storage, it 

is not expected that there will be any substantial new private oil and gas development within the TSA in 

the near future. 

The potential cumulative effects from natural events are of particular concern. These areas are prone to 

blow down and insect and disease infestations. Future naturally occurring processes, such as insect and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-368 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

disease infestations and catastrophic wind events may alter these areas and their environment into the 

future. These events create the potential for significant mortality of existing old growth trees and virgin 

forest for which the Tionesta and Hearts Content areas were established. Restrictions on salvage harvest 

and road construction will reduce human caused disturbance, however naturally occurring events could 

drastically effect the current condition of the area by changing the remnant patch of virgin forest from 

large, old growth trees to smaller vegetation. It is also possible that species composition will change and 

that more and more pine will be replaced with hardwoods. Management activities to control insect and 

disease infestations may occur including use of chemical application. This could affect other non-target 

species within the area. 

Additional RNA-equivalents may be added in the future as state, tribal, county, conservation and/or other 

entities create preserves. Ongoing oil and gas development is expected to continue on the ANF limiting 

potential sites for future RNAs and Scenic Areas. Future projections for oil and gas wells on the ANF could 

climb from 225 wells per year (based on the historic trend) to over 800 wells per year (based on the high 

quarter scenario – See Appendix F). Research demand for RNAs or RNA-equivalents may increase 

especially if oil and gas development within the Tionesta area alters the over all natural condition and value 

as a RNA. Research is conducted outside RNAs as well as within them, and this use is also expected to 

increase. Conducting non-manipulative research within designated wilderness and the Allegheny National 

Recreation Area may occur. These areas represent some of the best naturally occurring ecosystems on the 

ANF and can serve similar research needs as RNAs. However, they are not entirely off-limits to oil and gas 

development. Within the Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness areas, the oil and gas subsurface 

rights are owned by the federal government; however, the subsurface rights below the National Recreation 

Area have not been acquired. Consequently, drilling for wells within the NRA has occurred and may 

continue. RNA-equivalent non-manipulative research associated with the study of natural conditions within 

these areas may be limited depending on the extent and magnitude of oil and gas development within these 

areas. (See additional discussion of cumulative effects for wilderness and the National Recreation Area in 

Section 3.4.2). 

Some non-native invasive species may infest the RNA and/or Scenic Areas in the future. It is reasonable 

to assume these areas could be priorities for control of infestations so that the impact on RNA values will 

be limited. 

Based on the above analysis and information, neither the alternatives nor continued management by the 

FS of the Tionesta and Hearts Content areas is expected to have significant effects on the overall natural 

condition of these areas. Both the current Plan and the revised Plan emphasize limited human intervention 

and non-consumptive/non-manipulative uses. These areas are considered unsuitable for timber and 

salvage harvest and road construction. Since the management strategy emphasizes preservation and 

protection, no significant, adverse effects are expected. In regard to private oil and gas development and 

future natural disturbances, there may be moderate to heavy impacts to the areas, primarily Tionesta 

especially since it lies within a heavily modified area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-369

Heritage areas 

Past, present and future actions 

The significant heritage resources that make Buckaloons Heritage Area a special area of interest have not 

been lost or damaged through past or present activities, visitor use or natural events. Some changes have 

occurred to the natural environment from management activities however these activities have not altered 

the historic significance of the area. Primarily, management activities are focused on inventory, 

excavation, study and instituting measures to protect the unique historical values of the area. Wildlife 

management activities that create and maintain openings for certain species has and does occur. Design 

criteria for in-depth research of the Buckaloons site has protected the heritage values and enhanced the 

interpretive and educational values to the public. 

The revised Plan does not add any new Historic Areas. Buckaloons has been managed as an 

administrative special area under an amendment to the current Plan. The revised Plan will change the 

administrative designation to one of national recognition as an identified Special Interest Area. Under all 

alternatives, standards and guidelines are designed to preserve, maintain and protect the historic 

significance of the area and wildlife habitat. 

Future actions are likely to focus on continued research and protection of this heritage area. Additional 

interpretive and educational activities are likely to occur along with increased recreational and tourism 

opportunities. Salvage harvest as well as chemical treatment of non-native invasive species and insects 

and disease may occur. Future management emphasizes the protection, preservation, interpretation and 

enhancement of the historic properties of the area consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, as amended and subsequent legislation. Based on the protection and mitigation measures 

provided under legislation, policy and the proposed Forest Plan, the cumulative effects on heritage 

resources within Buckaloons should be low. 

Experimental forest 

Past, present and future actions 

Past and present management activities have focused on research and study of the Kane Experimental 

Forest using primarily manipulative research techniques such as timber harvesting and other silvicultural 

treatments that influence vegetation. Formally dedicated to research in 1932, KEF has and continues to 

provide research focusing on management of forest ecosystems of the Allegheny Plateau Region. 

Changes have occurred to the natural environment from research activities however these activities have 

not altered the research value of the area. Most research consists of relatively long-term studies that focus 

on regeneration and environmental factors affecting Allegheny hardwoods. While the area has 

emphasized research, management actions provide some production of wood products and dispersed 

recreation. This area also contains active oil and gas fields. There are approximately 600 acres or 35 

percent of the area affected with potential for private oil and gas development. The oil and gas 

development will reduce the amount of area available for certain studies and adds a layer of complexity to 

existing studies. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-370 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The revised Plan does not add any new Experimental Forest however it does expand the Kane 

Experimental Forest under Alternatives B, Cm and D. Under these alternatives, standards and guidelines 

are designed to emphasize research and experimentation. Expansion of the area will include an additional 

1,100 acres of known oil and gas fields. This could decrease the potential for some types of research 

proposals. Areas of expansion have had some salvage operations which are not complete. 

Future actions include new and continued research studies. Salvage harvest as well as chemical treatment 

of non-native invasive species and insects and disease may occur. Commercial sale of timber is permitted 

only in conjunction with an approved research study. Future management includes the maintenance of 

existing trails for recreational use. Based on the diversity of manipulative research techniques that may 

occur, a variety of landscape conditions and species composition may exist. The landscape may be 

heavily modified with complete removal of vegetation and it may also contain areas where only moderate 

manipulations occur. Ongoing oil and gas development is expected to continue on the ANF, limiting 

potential studies within KEF into the future. Other management actions are guided by standards and 

guidelines within the LRMP. These measures are expected to minimize the long-term cumulative effects 

to the area. 

3.4.4 Scenery Management 

Affected environment 

Visitors indicate the visual appeal of scenic driving is one of the greatest attractions to the Allegheny National 

Forest landscape. To maintain this visual appeal, the Forest Service established national guidelines for managing 

scenery with the Scenery Management System (SMS). These guidelines are used to inventory the landscape and 

classify the effects of management activities. SMS updates the Visual Management System following many of the 

same criteria to classify scenery and establish SILs; however, it differs in how the SILs are assigned to the 

landscape. 

Table 3-97 shows a crosswalk of VMS and SMS terms describing scenic integrity. Scenic Integrity Levels (SILs), 

under the SMS, define the different levels of acceptable alteration to scenic resources. These levels range from 

Very High (unaltered) to Very Low (heavily altered) and are based on views from the priority road or view 

facility. A detailed discussion of the SMS and the crosswalk between these two systems is available in 

Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics – A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA 1995e). 

The DEIS described the Scenic Integrity Levels (SIL) in the LRMP as Scenic Integrity Objectives 

(SIOs). Confusion on the language for measuring scenery resulted in dropping the term SIO and 

favoring the term SIL to describe the minimum level needed to achieve desired scenic integrity. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-371

Table 3-97. Crosswalk of VMS and SMS terms 

Visual Quality Objective (VMS) 

1986 Forest Plan 

Appearance to Casual 

Observer 

Scenic Integrity Level 

(SMS) – LRMP 

Preservation (P) Unaltered Very High (VH) 

Retention (R) Appears Unaltered High (H) 

Partial Retention (PR) Slightly Altered Moderate (M) 

Modification (M) Moderately Altered Low (L) 

Maximum Modification (MM) Heavily Altered Very Low (VL) 

Table 3-98. Scenic class allocation by acre and SIL 

Scenic Class Acre Allocation % of Forest Acres SIL 

1 182,939 25% High 

2 427,714 58% Moderate 

3 56,770 8% Low 

4 24,063 3% Low 

5 1,472 0% Low 

6 322 0% Low 

7 29 0% Low 

8 48,480 6% Low 

Scenic classes and scenic integrity levels 

Under the SMS, scenic classes are the unit of measure defining scenic integrity levels (SILs). The forest acreage is 

represented by scenic classes from 1 to 8, and each scenic class was assigned an SIL based on forest priorities for 

scenery (Table 3-98). An overlay consisting of these SILs is common to all alternatives and is shown on a map in 

the map set provided with this document. 

Scenic classes are the product of landscape visibility and scenic attractiveness. Landscape visibility represents the 

viewshed from points along concern level corridors and the topography without vegetation. On the ANF, all forest 

travelways (e.g. roads, trails, use areas, rivers, and streams) were evaluated and all major and secondary corridors 

were assigned one of three levels of concern as defined below. Appendix B contains a summary of the concern 

level inventory conducted for this forest plan revision. 

Concern Level 1 (CL1) travelways and use areas include nationally and regionally important locations including 

primary roads, scenic byways, trails, wild and scenic rivers and other special designation areas. These CL1 areas 

have the highest concern for scenery based on heavy recreation traffic and the perception that scenery is one of 

the primary objectives for traveling these corridors. Concern Level 2 (CL2) travelways and use areas include 

locally important locations including secondary roads, hiking trails, streams, and all motorized trails. These CL2 

areas may have high to low use, and may be traveled for dispersed recreation activities with a moderate interest in 

scenic viewing. Concern Level 3 (CL3) travelways and use areas include all other forest roads, trails, and streams 

with a low or seasonal use. The interest in viewing scenery is considered low for these CL3 corridors. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-372 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Foreground views are generally the most sensitive to viewers from Concern Level 1 and 2 roads/trails/streams. 

Foreground is described as 0-1/4 mile from the observer based on the standards for a flat landscape and limited 

distant views on the plateau; Middle ground is 1/4 - 3 miles and background is 3+ miles. These distance zones 

have been redefined for consistency with the national standard, resulting in a much larger middle ground and a 

smaller background than the 1986 Forest Plan 

High SILs assigned to the foreground of the travel corridors of most concern indicate those areas of scenic 

importance to the visitors’ experience. The North Country National Scenic Trail and Longhouse Scenic Byway 

are examples of scenic corridors of most concern. Management activities within High SIL areas will maintain the 

scenic integrity of these corridors and will not be apparent from the travelway. 

Existing scenic integrity 

For plan revision, the ANF completed an inventory of the current scenic condition of all forest lands in order to 

provide a baseline to measure change and monitor results of management. Individual timber compartments served 

as evaluation units to measure the existing condition. Areas with the greatest disturbance have a “very low” scenic 

integrity level (SIL). These areas are represented by the following three types of impacts: numerous timber stands 

in the 0-20 age class, extensive temporary or permanent openings, and the highest density oil and gas 

developments. Conversely, units with little to no disturbance have a “very high” SIL. The range of existing forest 

SILs includes very high, high, moderate, low, and unacceptably low (Figure 3-16). 

Landscapes that have an existing SIL inconsistent with the adopted SIL are areas of most concern for scenery. 

Landscapes that have an unacceptably low SIL may need rehabilitation to meet the minimum low SIL. Five 

landscapes of most concern include the following: Westline Area (14,500 Acres), Longhouse Scenic Byway 

(4,000 Acres), Salmon Creek (7,000 Acres), Sackett Oil Field (10,500 Acres), and Rocky Gap ATV Trail (6,000 

Acres) (a scenery impacts worksheet is in project file). The SMS recommends using “rehabilitation” as a shortterm objective to move highly impacted areas such as these to the desired condition over time. An 

interdisciplinary approach to this rehabilitation goal could be achieved during the planning cycle. Choosing one of 

these areas to plan project activities would provide the opportunity to achieve scenic integrity goals while meeting 

the goals of other resources as well. 

The LRMP sets SILs for the entire ANF. Projectlevel scenery analysis determines the visibility of 

specific stand impacts to scenery and verifies the 

need of mitigation to meet or exceed SILs from 

Concern Level 1 and 2 corridors. If mitigation is 

needed, “The ANF Scenery Implementation Guide” 

is a practical reference to assure SILs are met and 

mitigation is consistent across the forest. 

Figure 3-16. Existing scenic integrity levels, ANF 

Source: GIS Inventory 

Moderate

18%

High

35% Low

27%

Unacceptably 

Low

6%

Very High

14%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-373

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects to scenery includes the federal land administered by the ANF. 

Land management activities directed by the LRMP have the potential to create long- or short-term disturbances 

that impact the scenic condition. The analysis area for cumulative effects to scenery includes the national forest 

and adjacent private and state lands within the ANF proclamation boundary. Effects extend to all adjacent lands 

that form a viewshed or landscape context for viewing the landscape. Effects will be displayed over the timeframe 

between 1985 and 2020 to include the current planning cycle and the time covered by the plan that preceded it. 

The years capture the effects of past vegetation management, new trends in recreation, and the recent spike in oil 

and gas production. 

Introduction to effects 

Scenic resources are affected when management activities alter the natural appearance of the forest landscape. 

Effects of forest management are both short- and long-term. Short-term impacts are those impacts that may 

remain on the landscape for up to 10 years. These impacts include harvest methods such as thinning, selection 

cuts, and uneven aged treatments; they include the impacts of treatments that pull slash back from the road 

corridors and lob and scatter it to break down and decompose into the moist forest soils. Tools used to regenerate 

oak and other species such as prescribed fire and herbicide also have effects on the scenery. Impacts of herbicide 

treatment are most apparent in the foreground views adjacent to a road corridor. The understory vegetation turns 

brown and dies, contrasting with green vegetation in untreated areas during the late summer. This contrast 

diminishes during fall and winter and recovers in the following spring. These effects are considered temporary 

impacts that are reduced during the first year and are no longer evident within three years of implementation. 

Other temporary impacts, found to last no longer than one year following a management activity, include grading 

and seeding sites that have been disturbed. Compaction of soils from the overuse of popular recreation sites may 

be considered temporary or short-term impacts if mitigated by closure until grading and re-vegetation occurs. 

Temporary impacts also include the bright yellow treatment notification signs for herbicide that face the road and 

are posted for 30 days. 

Long-term impacts are those that remain on the landscape after 10 years. These impacts to the forest landscape 

may occur from activities such as even-aged harvests and wildlife openings, and the road building, and pit 

exploration associated with these activities. Utility corridor construction and activity associated with 

communication towers (cell phone towers) also have impacts. Some uses such as wind towers are considered 

unsuitable on the forest based on long-term effects on scenery and other resources. Enhancement to scenery 

including the creation and maintenance of vistas may also be considered to have a long-term impact. These 

impacts are generally welcomed as they enhance the scenic driving experience and benefit recreation and tourism. 

Impacts to the natural forest condition also occur from the rehab and construction of new recreation and 

administrative facilities. Building the required trails for equestrian and ATV access of remote areas of the forest 

will also have long-term impacts to forest settings, yet they provide recreation experiences desired by many 

visitors. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-374 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Disturbance from proposed management actions are acceptable within the range of SILs assigned to all ANF 

lands. Mitigation guidelines are designed to reduce the disturbance to the forest setting and the impact to priority 

areas for scenery while allowing management to occur. 

Effects based on SIL distribution 

Management of scenery in the LRMP provides constant SILs along travel routes. In all alternatives, SILs 

are assigned as described in the scenic class discussion in affected environment, except in four 

management areas. MAs 5.1, 5.2, 8.1 (scenic segment), and 8.5 are assigned a very high SIL to reflect the 

highest standard for scenery on the ANF and to provide a four-level range of very high to low (Table 

3-99). 

The very high SIL allocation is consistent with the goals of the four management areas. This acreage will 

vary to support the alternative themes as follows: acreage for the Research Natural Area (MA 8.5) 

remains constant in all alternatives; acreage for Wild and Scenic River (MA 8.1 - Scenic segment) is 

constant in Alternatives B, Cm, and D; and acreage for Wilderness and wilderness study areas (MAs 5.1 

and 5.2) is a range showing Alternative D has nearly four times the acreage of Alternatives A and B 

(Table 3-100). 

A “very low” SIL is not included as a scenery objective in the LRMP. Table 3-101 displays the ANF 

distribution of SILs for each alternative. All acreage is consistent with the SMS model of scenic classes. 

Differences occur based on the differing acres assigned to MA 5.1, 5.2, 8.1 (scenic segment) and 8.5. An 

SIL map for each of the alternatives represents the ANF allocation based on these objectives 

(see map of Alternative Cm). 

Table 3-99. Final scenic integrity level assignments 

Scenic 

Classes All MAs MAs with a single SIL MA 5.1, 5.2, 8.1 (scenic segment), 8.5 

1 High Very High 

2 Moderate Very High 

3 Low Very High 

4 Low Very High 

5 Low Very High 

6 Low Very High 

7 Low Very High 

8 Low Very High 

Table 3-100. Very high SIL acreage by alternative 

MA Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

5.1 and 5.2 8,979 8,979 21,358 38,912 

8.1 (Scenic ) 0 1,151 1,151 1,151 

8.5 2,111 2,111 2,111 2,111 

Totals 11,090 12,193 24,620 42,174 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-375

Table 3-101. Scenic integrity levels by alternative 

Scenic Integrity Level Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

Very High 2% 2% 3% 8% 

High 25% 25% 24% 22% 

Moderate 57% 57% 56% 55% 

Low 16% 16% 17% 15% 

Source: ANF Project File and Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management 

Effects by alternatives 

All alternatives manage for a range of diverse landscapes and natural appearing settings. The range of forest 

landscapes will include areas with high scenic integrity displaying little or no evidence of management activities 

to landscapes with a lower scenic integrity displaying dominant management activities. Standards and guidelines 

set forth a range of mitigation measures to minimize the effects of management activities on this range of 

landscapes; each alternative will follow scenery standards and guides regardless of the alternative selected (see 

LRMP). Management activities will not reduce the scenic integrity below the assigned SIL for a given area. All 

alternatives will strive to maintain the natural appearing forest landscape. 

A variety of management activities contribute to changes in the existing character of the landscape and to impacts 

on scenic quality. Those activities with the potential of impacting the scenic integrity of the forest include 

vegetative management and associated activities (including road building, pit excavation, and wildlife openings), 

and recreation management activities and construction (including new facilities and vistas). 

Vegetation management and associated activities 

Vegetation management 

The view from the foreground, middle ground, and background of priority travel corridors, are 

considered in layout and implementation of vegetative management activities. Even-aged timber 

harvests, dominant in MAs 1.0, 3.0, and 6.2, will have the greatest impact to scenery. Up to onequarter of the vegetation of these forested corridors may be opened up to views of understory 

vegetation that may be fenced or treated with herbicide to clear fern from the forest floor and 

facilitate seedling regeneration. Effects of fencing and herbicide on scenery are generally temporary; 

even-aged treatments require more time to regenerate and to achieve a canopy and height of 20 feet. 

Although forest openings will occur along travel corridors, forest edges will appear natural, nonlinear, and feathered to blend with the adjacent opening. The projected annual level of even-aged 

regeneration harvests in the first decade ranges from 699 acres in Alternative D to 2,423 acres in 

Alternative A. Alternatives A and B have very similar acreage projections, and Alternative Cm has 

approximately 670 acres of even-aged management less than Alternative A (See Table 2-2). This 

potential for the impact of even-aged treatment is also displayed as a percent of high impact in Table 

3-102. A greater percentage of acres in the high impact category are in A and B; the least is in D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-376 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-102. Potential impacts to scenery by alternative 

Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

High Impact 

MAs 1.0, 3.0, and 6.2 65% 66% 57% 25% 

Moderate Impact 

MA 2.1, 2.2, 6.1 and 8.6 26% 22% 28% 55% 

Low Impact 

MAs 5.1, 5.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 

MA 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1 and 8.4

9% 12% 15% 20% 

Total Forest Land Acres 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Source: SIL Alternative Map Data - GIS 

Scenic road corridors may transect MAs 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, and 8.6 with scattered trees of varied 

heights and less than a 3-acre opening size. Mitigation measures will be applied in a manner to 

mitigate the effects of harvest and forest regeneration activities. The estimated annual level of 

uneven-aged harvesting in the first decade is 6 acres in Alternative A, 403 acres in Alternative B, 

666 acres in Alternative Cm, and 300 acres in Alternative D (See Table 2-2). 

In further analysis of the uneven-aged theme, the potential of harvest techniques with less impact 

to scenery is displayed as a percent of moderate impact (Table 3-102). A greater percentage of 

acres in the moderate impact category are in D (55%); the least is in B (22%). 

Even-aged treatments have the most impact in high SIL areas and have the greatest need for 

mitigation to meet SILs; even-aged treatments in moderate SIL areas require less mitigation to 

meet scenery objectives. The percentage of the forest in a high SIL within even-aged harvest 

areas is a range from A and B at 10 percent to D at 3 percent (Table 3-103). The areas of a 

moderate SIL, represented as a range of 44 percent to 17 percent, have less need for mitigation to 

meet SILs. 

Associated actions

Vegetative management is a by product of actions associated with timber harvesting such as road 

building, pit excavation, and wildlife habitat construction activities (See Table 2-2). Road 

building in the corridor is expected to vary between 5 to 8 new road miles per year; alternatives A 

and B represent the greatest number of road miles constructed. Road building stone will be 

acquired from the excavation of 70 pits per year for all alternatives; these should be located away 

from concern levels 1 or 2 roads to minimize effects. Wildlife opening construction is estimated 

to range from 8 to 20 acres; Alternatives D and A have the lowest acreage and Alternative B has 

the highest. Wildlife enhancements affect a range of 1,200 acres in alternative D to 2,100 acres in 

Alternative A. Mitigation measures for all vegetative management and associated actions will 

follow the standards and guides for scenery and meet the desired objectives for scenery. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-377

Table 3-103. High impact harvesting in areas of scenic concern 

High SIL Moderate SIL 

Harvest Type Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D Alt A Alt B Alt Cm Alt D 

MAs 1.0, 3.0, and 6.2 10% 10% 8% 3% 44% 44% 40% 17% 

Source: SIL Alternative Map Data – GIS. Percentages based on total NF land. 

Recreation management activities and construction 

Construction

Most of the existing recreation and administrative facilities complement the forest landscape in 

form, line, color, and texture. New facilities are required to comply with the SILs and minimize 

impacts to scenery when viewed from priority travel ways and use areas. The Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) provide guidance 

on the appropriate use of color and materials for each ROS setting to blend with the natural 

landscape and minimize impacts to scenery. 

Recreation management activities

Impacts to scenery from recreation activities have both long-term and short-term effects on the 

landscape for developed and undeveloped sites alike. Short-term impacts include impacts from 

the equipment used in the construction or reconstruction of a campground; other impacts include 

the overuse of campsites resulting in trampled vegetation, soil compaction, rutting, and erosion. 

These impacts will remain short-term if actions are taken to remedy the disturbance. Other shortterm impacts include the unmanaged ATV/OHM and horse use on undesignated trails. Mileage 

for ATV/OHM trails is expected to increase in the planning decade and designated horse trails 

will hopefully reduce the pressure on this type of unmanaged recreation. 

Long-term impacts may result from the development and maintenance of vistas or openings to 

enhance scenic viewing at overlooks and along forest roads. A LRMP goal for scenery is to create 

five new vistas and to maintain existing vistas. The enclosed forest landscapes that are common 

to the ANF will benefit from the creation of this variety along scenic corridors including vistas 

and openings that highlight landscape features. Openings are created by the thinning and clearing 

of trees blocking scenic views while maintaining a tree canopy along the roadside to frame the 

scenery. They are maintained in Alternative B, Cm, and D with the use of selective treatments of 

herbicide including the cut surface method and the selective backpack foliar method. Some 

opportunities for vista management include the Allegheny and Clarion Wild and Scenic River 

Corridors, Longhouse Scenic Byway, and Concern Level 1 road and river corridors. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-378 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative effects 

The construction of the dam and the early harvest practices represent some of the cumulative effects that 

significantly impacted the landscape of the ANF in the past. These changes frame the story of the landscape and 

are helpful to predict future trends. The landscape character we expect to see in the next planning cycle is the 

result of the collection of actions that occurred in the past, today and into the future. Landscape character on the 

ANF is comprised of distinctive landforms and surface water, vegetation, and land use patterns and cultural 

features. This cumulative effects analysis will address past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities 

impacting these aspects of the landscape character from 1985 to 2020. Scenic integrity objectives will provide the 

guideline to maintain scenic values and direct the management of scenery into the year 2020. 

Landform and surface water 

Forty years ago a major landform transformation created a new reservoir 24 miles long, with 91 miles of shoreline 

from the meandering headwaters of the Allegheny River. The large concrete dam structure located near the town 

site of Kinzua and the fluctuating water levels of the reservoir have created major impacts to the scenic integrity 

of this segment of the Allegheny River Valley and the Kinzua Bay. Winter views of muddy shorelines and 

exposed tree stumps along this south arm of the reservoir sharply contrast with the scenic views of a filled 

reservoir during most of the summer. The lack of a constant water level at the reservoir and the erosion that 

results will continue to impact the scenery during the summer recreation season. The LRMP includes a goal to 

maintain and create vistas. Many of these vistas could feature unique land forms and water character along the 

reservoir and other travelways, enhancing recreation scenic driving during the summer months. Ownership of this 

shoreline is primarily FS land; a small tract is owned by Seneca Nation descendents. The shoreline remains 

undeveloped and there are no expectations of private developments along this shoreline. 

Vegetation 

In 1985 the ANF had two distinct types of vegetation; the forest was represented by second growth even-aged 

stands of shade intolerant hardwoods, and small tracts of northern hardwood remnants were represented by forests 

of shade tolerant, old growth stands of hemlock and beech. As the forest matures, this second growth stand will 

increase in diameter resulting in a “big tree” appearance. Today 3 percent of the forest is over 110 years old, and 

in 2020 that number will be 11 percent increasing to 50 percent in 2065. The composition of the understory will 

continue to have very few shrubs and native forbs, but fern will carpet the forest floor as a result of deer browsing 

preferences that reduced many of the native shrubs to near extinction. 

Wind was a major disturbance pattern in the past creating the mosaic of age classes we see today. Since 1985, a 

number of major wind and storm events have toppled 29,000 acres of both old and young stands. Salvage 

operations have been implemented to mitigate the effects of the uprooted trees and remaining slash and woody 

debris. Mitigation measures as applied to salvage treatment areas are now recognized as an important component 

for managing vegetation and achieving scenic integrity objectives. 

Other elements of the landscape character changing in the past 20 years include disturbance from insects and 

disease. Some of the greatest changes to forest scenery are related to forest health, affecting the regeneration of 

Northern Hardwood species such as beech and hemlock. These two major components of the late structural 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-379

forests have serious health issues that will likely cause a decline in these species from the current levels. The 

killing front is currently marching southwest across the forest in the form of beech bark disease. Greater 

uncertainty is found in the impacts to scenery from the hemlock woolly adelgid. The affects of declining beech 

and hemlock affects is most evident in the old growth stands of Tionesta and Hearts Content Scenic Areas. A 

significant loss in scenic value in recent years will continue in the future. 

The mosaic of ANF land and ownership patterns is complex and the areas of interspersed ownership within the 

ANF creates the potential of combined effects from activities on National Forests and on other land. Management 

activities on non-NFS land have the potential to stand out on the landscape and adversely affect the Forest’s 

scenic resources. A casual observer may be unable to distinguish whether scenery-altering activities have 

occurred on private land or NFS land. The Forest’s fragmented land base results in the effects of activities such as 

land clearing for agricultural, urban, and mineral development on private land to have made noticeable changes in 

the landscape. Most public land management agencies and commercial forest management corporations follow 

their own set of guidelines for managing scenic resources; however, no mandatory scenic quality guidelines apply 

to private lands. Recognizing that timber harvest impacts may be higher on non-NFS land, the potential of 

negative cumulative effects may be compounded when combined with the effects that will result from 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm that propose more vegetation management/timber harvests. (See Vegetative 

Cumulative Effects Discussion – Harvest Type Acres by Ownership and Harvest Projection 2006-2025, see table 

3-42). 

Land use and cultural features 

Land use is a dynamic component of the landscape subject to business and recreation trends of the public. Local 

populations were aging and experiencing declines in 1985 and this trend is expected to continue to 2020. This 

results in a slowing in the development of new homes and private camps. Recreation demand for hunting, fishing, 

and camping in 1985 has shifted to recreation with higher impacts to soils and scenery. The demand for 

ATV/OHM riding trails has increased while the supply has been limited during the last 20 years. Although the 

additional trail miles planned at Willow Creek may relieve some of the pressure on existing trails, the potential for 

impacts to scenery remains. 

OGM activity is another land use that has defined this landscape for over 100 years. Historical use is not 

necessarily without its impacts, for this land use currently represents one of the greatest impacts to the surface of 

ANF since 1985. Roads are concentrated in high density developments such as the Sackett Oil Field and are 

growing denser in others like Westline, and the Rocky Gap ATV area. Developments that access mineral rights 

are also found interspersed along the well traveled corridors of the Scenic Byway, or the North Country Trail near 

Salmon Creek. Access roads to above ground storage tanks frequently occur in full view from scenic roads. As a 

result of this activity, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) trends are moving from roaded natural to its 

sub class, Roaded Modified, indicating more impacts to the natural appearing forest landscape. 

The projected estimate of new OGM developments is at a rate of 512 new wells per year (See Vegetative 

Cumulative Effects Discussion - Past and Future Oil and Gas Development). If the trend continues as expected, 

maintaining SILs in certain areas of the forest is unlikely. Although a short-term objective of “rehabilitation” can 

be assigned to areas falling below SILs, some heavily impacted areas may never reach their desired SIL and may 

remain in “Rehabilitation” throughout the life of the plan. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-380 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Utility corridor and telecommunication tower development is another land use that alters the forest landscape. The 

major impacts of the easements and rights of way crossing the forest happened before 1985. Impacts from 

existing rights of way continue to disturb the forest setting and contribute to lower Scenic Integrity Levels. Utility 

corridors generally follow straight lines, cutting across side slopes at highly visible angles, creating linear 

openings with harsh edges. Impacts are especially noticeable when combined with OGM impacts. Guidelines can 

generally be implemented to reduce the impacts on scenery except in areas where the terrain and vegetative 

patterns make it difficult to meet adopted SILs. New utility corridors have not been proposed at this time; 

however, proposals could occur during this planning cycle. 

Telecommunication towers have been sited in highly visible and prominent locations on the landscape since 1985. 

Ridge lines are often favored for placement of these facilities. Scenery mitigation for these towers considers the 

location, placement, height, color, and type of antenna. Since the current ANF policy is to locate cell towers on 

private land when available, no cell phone towers are currently located on FS land. This policy could change 

based on current trends and the pressure from the public for telecommunications in remote areas. 

The desire for forest products has influenced the settlement patterns of the Allegheny region. Cultural features 

such as old town sites and historic railroad grades show evidence of past logging practices. Remnants of once 

vibrant industries of wood chemical manufacturing and tanning are found throughout the region. Native American 

influence is found at locations of prime attraction to recreationists. These historic features are important cultural 

landscapes that are valued in the context of the forest setting. The sense of place that these features offer is unique 

to the Allegheny and the scenic context of them will continue to be valued and protected. 

Summary 

Future proposals for vegetative management on the ANF, when combined with other ownership, are consistent 

with levels of past treatments for all alternatives except Alternative D; projected management in Alternative D is 

half the acres of Alternatives A, B, and Cm. Impacts from OGM activity could double across the forest landscape 

resulting in a roaded forest setting that is more modified than in the past. The historic high levels of activity on the 

landscape are likely to continue without significant change to the landscape character.

3.4.5 Heritage Resources 

Significant heritage resources include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the 

Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. 

The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe that meet the 

National Register criteria per the definition in 36CFR800.16(1). 

Public concern is focused on the need to protect and preserve significant Heritage Resources. 

This section has been updated to reflect modifications to the DEIS Alternative C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-381

Affected environment 

The ANF contains over 2,000 known sites representing a wide variety of heritage resources, both prehistoric and 

historic, representing over 12,000 years of human use of the forest. Prehistoric archaeological sites inventoried on 

the ANF include rock shelter sites, open air archaeological sites such as camp sites, village sites, lithic scatters 

(e.g. hunting stations, knapping stations, butchering sites, fishing areas, and specialized activity areas), and burial 

mounds. Historic archaeological sites inventoried on the ANF include logging camps, sawmill sites, logging 

railroads, oil wells, oil fields, central power systems, farmsteads, and town sites, as well as standing structures, 

buildings, dams and other built environment features that date from early historic times to the Great Depression 

and post-WWII. 

Only a small percentage of the inventoried sites have been evaluated for National Register significance. Among 

those which have been assessed, over two dozen have been determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register. 

Since 1990, efforts have been made to assess validity of previous assessments of cultural resources, to re-examine 

previously recorded heritage resources to determine adequacy of mitigation measures, and to monitor the 

condition and integrity of the resources. This monitoring has revealed that implemented projects were generally 

designed to avoid impacts to heritage resources. However, the monitoring also showed that some previous 

investigations missed or overlooked potentially significant heritage resources. 

Information collected as a result of monitoring was then used to refine management strategies to be more up-todate and current with State and Federal standards and guidelines and, in turn, to be more efficient and effective on 

the local level. Although problems still exist for heritage resources recorded before 1979, many of the other 

problems identified at the beginning of the last planning period have been effectively addressed at all levels of the 

ANF’s heritage resource management program. Most notably, the Programmatic Agreement, along with 

establishment of historic contexts, now provides the ANF with a solid foundation for making informed decisions 

about identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of significant heritage resources in order to minimize 

direct and indirect effects. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Unlike many resources, heritage resources are not renewable. Damage or disturbance is generally permanent. 

Although repairs may be possible in some cases, the historic nature and historic value of the resources is generally 

compromised once it has been disturbed. 

Scope of analysis 

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects includes all Federal land managed by the ANF. The analysis area 

for cumulative effects includes all ANF lands and the lands administered by all other owners, both public and 

private, within the proclamation boundary of the ANF. This is the area that most often is considered the 

background content or area for determining the relative significance of heritage resources. This analysis considers 

activities since the last Forest Plan (1986-2005) and activities through the midpoint of the second decade (2020). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-382 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction to effects 

Known historic and archaeological sites, and areas with high potential to contain prehistoric and historic 

archaeological sites, occur throughout the ANF. These sites occur in most management areas, although they are 

not distributed evenly. Much of the significance or value of these sites is imbedded in the spatial relationship 

between artifacts, features, and sites. Standards and guidelines are designed to prevent or minimize activities that 

can alter or destroy spatial relationships between artifacts, features, and sites. Occasional human error in 

implementation, however, can result in damage to heritage resource sites. 

A variety of ANF management activities have the potential to result in direct impacts to heritage resources, 

generally through ground-disturbing activities (and occasionally through maintenance or adaptive re-use of 

structures). These activities include the management of vegetation, recreation, minerals, special uses, fire, roads, 

and trails, and facilities. 

Vegetation management activities, including even-aged silvicultural regeneration harvests, even-aged silvicultural 

thinning harvests, two-aged harvests, and uneven-aged silvicultural harvests, pose moderate risks to heritage 

resources. Potential adverse effects will come primarily from the skid trails and landings associated with logging. 

These activities result in the greatest amount of ground-disturbance. Prescribed fire events have a relatively 

benign effect on subsurface heritage resources because of their short duration. However, fire management 

methods used to fight, control, or “mop-up” after a fire have the potential for direct effects, such as those resulting 

from constructed fire lines. 

Potential effects from travel way management come from construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads 

and trails. Travel way management has the potential to affect heritage resource sites to the extent that these 

activities disturb heritage resource areas in proximity to the travel way or make site locations more accessible to 

the greater number of people. This is particularly true for historic period sites that have a direct association with 

the historical transportation network. This is also true of “high visibility” heritage resource sites such as rock 

shelter sites, which it is noted on this Forest not only attracted prehistoric and historic human uses but also 

modern dispersed recreational activities that sometimes leads to vandalism or looting episodes. Widening travel 

ways or shoulders, or replacing bridges can have a direct adverse effect. Altering or replacing drainage structures, 

such as culverts or ditches, or tread/surface material can have the potential for other direct effects and indirect 

effects including erosion, undercutting sites, or sedimentation. Potential effects from special use management can 

result from maintenance activities within easements and utility corridors. There is also some potential that 

gathering special Forest products may affect certain archaeological sites on the Forest that have extremely shallow 

archaeological deposits. 

Recreation management activities, including construction and maintenance of facilities, for example, 

campgrounds, support buildings, and parking areas, also have potential for direct and indirect effects on heritage 

resources. 

Potential effects from facilities management result from the maintenance, reconstruction, remodeling, and/or 

removal of facilities considered to be historic (i.e., buildings and structures on or eligible for inclusion for the 

National Register of Historic Places). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-383

Although all of these ground-disturbing activities have the potential to adversely affect heritage resources, proper 

project planning and implementation, and compliance with Federal and State laws and regulations and LRMP 

standards and guidelines should avoid most effects. Under all alternatives, the Heritage Program will provide 

support to all of the resource projects, as required by Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). This includes the identification and evaluation of heritage resources for the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and compliance with the ANF’s Programmatic Agreement with the 

Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) to identify, evaluate, treat, enhance, protect, preserve, conserve, and consult about historic properties. 

Non-project related site inventory and site evaluations will occur under all alternatives, since this will provide the 

data base needed for land managers to develop good management approaches which adequately address heritage 

values. In addition, project-supportive site inventory, evaluations, and monitoring will occur under all 

alternatives. This information will be used to design each proposed project to avoid adversely affecting significant 

heritage resource sites. Site monitoring will occur for potential project impacts as well as for other occurrences 

such as assessing the nature and degree of damage to heritage resources caused by vandalism, visitor use, and 

natural deterioration and also involves identifying protective measures to employ. Opportunities for interpretation 

of heritage resources will be explored in all alternatives for both on-site and off-site interpretation of heritage 

resources taking into account significance, accessibility, and protection needs. 

All of the alternatives include 306 acres in MA 8.4 to recognize the Buckaloons Historic Area. 

Effects from each alternative 

In short, effects to heritage resources vary only slightly by alternative. 

Although all of the alternatives will provide protection for the Minister Creek area, Alternative B allocates 3,367 

acres in MA 7.3, the Minister Creek Interpretive Area. This management area emphasizes interpretive recreation 

opportunities in a predominantly natural setting. The primary purposes of the area are to: 

• Provide for heavier levels of dispersed recreation in an environment that features interpretation of heritage 

resources and other natural features. 

• Provide environment that emphasizes older forest conditions. 

Management activities are primarily directed towards creation, enhancement of recreation facilities and creative 

interpretive facilities. Management activities may increase vegetation to achieve vegetative diversity or older 

forest conditions, or to address forest health issues. All of these activities are designed, in large part, to protect, 

preserve, and interpret a unique type of heritage resources – rock shelters. 

There is some variation between alternatives in techniques available to help protect heritage resource sites from 

damage caused by woody vegetation root systems. Alternatives B, C, and D provide for selective use of 

herbicides to help limit this damage, whereas Alternative A provides primarily for mechanical treatment (cutting), 

a technique leading to very limited protection. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-384 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

The alternatives also vary by acres allocated to special management designations, which could have potential 

indirect effects on heritage resources. Special management designations (e.g. recommended wilderness study 

areas) could potentially lead to “lost” or reduced opportunities to do maintenance, research, and interpretation of 

heritage resources, especially in regard to clusters of related sites. Reductions in these opportunities will not occur 

because they are prohibited but because the kinds of activities desirable from a heritage resource point of view 

will be restricted or inhibited. For example, achieving site inventory, getting access for necessary supplies and 

equipment, and using certain tools will all be more difficult. Also because FS activities will be limited in such 

areas, sites in specially designated management areas (other than designated specially for heritage resources) 

decreases on-the-ground FS “presence” and increases the likelihood of looting and vandalism of sites in such 

management areas. Although this may be a legitimate concern at a general level, there was no basis for concern in 

the specific configuration of any of the Alternatives. 

Cumulative effects 

Site protection conditions on lands surrounding the ANF will be generally be similar to the previous planning 

period as the level of development pressure is expected to remain low. This will help to maintain the 

archaeological resource base on private land despite the low level of site protection and preservation, with the 

exception of State-owned lands and private sector. projects subject to Pennsylvania History Code. The trend of 

heritage resources at risk on private lands is not expected to accelerate because development rates are expected to 

remain static. 

When Heritage Resources are viewed as a population of sites cutting across ownerships and jurisdictions, 

implementation of any of the alternatives will achieve the goal of providing protection and stewardship for 

heritage resources on the ANF. The FS management approach will result in increased importance of Heritage 

resource sites on the ANF over time, and there should be few or no adverse cumulative effects. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-385

3.4.6 Forest Products 

Introduction 

This section on forest products begins with a discussion on the demand prices and species composition for the 

timber on the ANF. It then describes the nature of the growing stock of timber, the volume of timber that has been 

harvested on the forest and the types of harvest activities that have occurred. There is also a discussion of lands 

that are tentatively or technically suitable for timber production. The discussion on the affected environment 

concludes with a description of special forest products. 

The direct and indirect effects described focus primarily on suitability of lands for timber production and the 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ). There is also discussion on the mixes of product types, the ability to harvest on 

lands unsuitable for timber production, salvage harvest opportunities, and the effects on special forest products. 

There is also a brief discussion of cumulative effects related to timber products in the area surrounding the ANF. 

Affected environment 

Demand for ANF timber-related goods and services 

Per capita demand in the United States for wood products continues to increase in spite of increased recycling 

efforts and improved efficiency of wood production (Carpenter et al. 2003). The Northern United States (Central, 

Lake, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern States) has 15,500 wood products, paper, paperboard, and wood furniture 

manufacturing companies. Based on the 1997 value of shipments, Pennsylvania, along with five other states, 

manufactured 65 percent of the region’s wood products. The logging, wood products, paper and paperboard, and 

wood furniture industries in the Northern United States employed over 612,000 people in 1997 (Carpenter et al.

2003). 

Hardwoods such as black cherry, red oak, and sugar maple are in demand worldwide for furniture, cabinets, and 

hardwood flooring. In Pennsylvania, a $5.5-billion forest products industry supports nearly 100,000 jobs (USDA 

FS 2004e). Commercial hardwood trees from the Allegheny Plateau provide the raw materials for a variety of 

hardwood industries, and have timber values that rank them among the most valuable in the world. Examples 

include ash trees used to make baseball bats; maples used in furniture, bowling pins, bowling alleys, and maple 

Several changes were incorporated in the forest products portion of Chapter 3 between Draft and Final 

EIS. These changes primarily resulted in updates to forest land considered tentatively suitable in all 

alternatives (see Appendix B for further details), lands considered suitable for scheduled timber 

production in each alternative, and new outcomes and outputs based on new SPECTRUM model runs 

that incorporated technical changes to all alternatives and changes to land allocations that would result 

in Alternative Cm (described in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the FEIS). Lands considered developed 

(for other uses, such as roads, administrative sites, etc) were updated to correct the amount of cleared 

land associated with roads. This resulted in changes to the amount of forest land considered tentatively 

suitable in all alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-386 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

syrup; and oaks used in furniture manufacture, cabinets, and flooring. High quality black cherry is unique to this 

part of the world, and almost all of the high-quality commercial black cherry trees suited for furniture or veneer in 

the United States come from the Allegheny Plateau (Marquis 1975, 1990). 

Information concerning long-term supply and demand projections is included in the “Analysis of the Timber 

Situation in the United States 1952-2050” (Haynes 2003). Table 15 of the Haynes report shows historic and 

projected stumpage prices for various regions of the country. Constant price increases for hardwood and 

sawtimber products are predicted for the northern United States from 2000 to 2050. Pulpwood prices in the 

northern United States are expected to remain constant through 2020, then increase through 2050. Demand will 

likely increase for all species of ANF sawtimber, but most rapidly for high value hardwood sawtimber such as 

black cherry or red oak. Pulpwood demand is likely to remain fairly stable at the current level. 

Timber species harvest values 

Commercial hardwood trees from the Allegheny Plateau have timber values that rank them among the most 

valuable in the world. Timber product values are high on the ANF, primarily due to the high value of black 

cherry, and to a lesser extent red oak lumber. Black cherry is currently valued the highest of commonly 

traded and domestically produced hardwoods (Luppold unpublished 1997). In Fiscal Year 2003, the record 

high values for black cherry sawtimber ($4,898 per MBF) on the ANF were received for a 39-acre 

overstory removal. The total sale value was $1.5 million, with an average value per acre of $39,000. The 

overall value of black cherry on the ANF has increased since 1986, from an average of $203 per thousand 

board feet (1986 dollars) to an average of over $3,000 per thousand board feet in 2004. The value of black 

cherry from the ANF, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled in just the past 10 years. 

The next most valuable hardwood species from the ANF is northern red oak. It has a more variable market 

and has averaged between $400 and $1,000 per thousand board feet in the past decade. Sugar maple has 

also steadily increased in value from an average of $37 per thousand board feet (1986 dollars) to an average 

of over $380 per thousand board feet in 2004. Other hardwood species grown on the ANF such as red 

maple, ash, yellow poplar, white oak, scarlet oak, and chestnut oak are of moderate value (currently 

averaging $85 to $185 per thousand board feet). Conifers (red pine, white pine, and hemlock) currently 

have the lowest timber product values on the ANF, with values generally less than $50 per thousand board 

feet. 

Timber sales on the ANF are normally integrated product sales. High-quality, high-value sawtimber is the 

primary product of interest. Pulpwood is a secondary, lower value product generated as the result of 

varied silvicultural treatments to both hardwood and conifer stands on the ANF. Hardwood and softwood 

pulp from the ANF are similar in value, and have increased at a much slower rate in value than sawtimber 

values, and in 2004 averaged $1.50 to $2.00 per cord. Since the ANF is predominantly a hardwood forest, 

hardwood species dominate the pulpwood volume produced annually on the ANF. 

Currently, approximately half of the ANF’s pulpwood made available is marketed. Demand for ANF 

pulpwood is driven by factors such as regional pulp mills, paper mills, and particle board plants, and has 

fluctuated since 1986. With current energy-related prices such as natural gas, heating oil, and propane 

increasing, it is anticipated that demand for fuelwood from the ANF will increase in the next decade. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-387

There are no data that specifically address the current demand for timber originating from lands in 

Pennsylvania. Strauss et al (2000) completed an assessment of the economic impact of Pennsylvania’s 

hardwood industry, pointing out that the sawmill sector plays the pivotal role in the industry, and the key 

limiting factor on the sawmill sector is the availability of timber (pp 51 and 52). There is a strong demand 

for ANF timber stumpage based on recent price trends and the extremely low level of "no-bid" timber 

sales on the ANF. Since 1986 (using price as an indicator), demand for ANF timber has increased 

dramatically, with the average real price (i.e., inflation has been removed) for black cherry and total 

sawtimber increasing more than 400 percent (Figure 3-17). The increase in total sawtimber values is 

driven primarily by the high value assigned to quality black cherry from the ANF. In conclusion, there is 

no indication of any need to change the 1986 Forest Plan’s conclusion that the demand for ANF 

hardwood sawtimber exceeds supply. 

Figure 3-17. Average black cherry price ($/MBF) and average sawtimber price ($/MBF) adjusted for 

inflation, September 2005 

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Fiscal Year

Av g. Black Cherry

Av g. Sawtimber
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-388 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Available growing stock 

The ANF contains nearly 25 percent of the Nation’s total inventory of black cherry sawtimber and a higher 

relative proportion of grade 1 sawtimber than private lands (Luppold unpublished 1997). Between 1989 and 2002, 

the largest increases in Pennsylvania inventory volume were observed in the Allegheny inventory region, which 

includes the ANF (McWilliams et al. 2004). The Allegheny inventory region contains the largest volume of red 

maple, black cherry, and northern red oak statewide. 

Periodic inventories show that the ANF and surrounding forests have re-grown abundantly since the extensive 

clearcutting of the early 1900s. The following are highlights of 2004 FIA data for the ANF, surrounding four 

counties, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Alerich pers. comm. 2006): 

• Total volume of live trees on the ANF amounts to nearly 1.4 billion cubic feet, which is an average of 

2,762 cubic feet per acre. This is well above 1,910 cubic feet per acre, the average for Pennsylvania. This 

amounts to over 30 percent more cubic volume per acre on ANF lands compared to the rest of 

Pennsylvania. 

• Red maple and black cherry comprise 56 percent of the standing cubic volume on the ANF. Red maple 

and black cherry only comprise about 30 percent of the cubic volume in the rest of Pennsylvania. 

• With an estimated 760 cubic feet per acre of black cherry, the ANF contains nearly one third more black 

cherry volume per acre than the surrounding four counties, and more than three times the cubic black 

cherry volume per acre found in the rest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (200 cubic feet per acre). 

• Average net volume of growing stock on the ANF increased from 2,344 board feet per acre in 1989 

(USDA FS NFES unpublished) to 2,611 board feet per acre in 2004. The largest increase in per acre 

sawtimber volume occurred in the 15-16.9 inch diameter class. 

• Black cherry is the leading species in sawtimber volume on the ANF, and comprises over one third of all 

growing stock sawtimber on the ANF. Red maple comprises the second most amount of volume, with 29 

percent of the growing stock sawtimber volume. These two species comprise roughly 62 percent of all 

sawtimber volume on the ANF. Similarly, these two species comprise 52 percent of the sawtimber 

volume in the four counties surrounding the ANF. 

• Black cherry thrives on the ANF, which contains more than five times the per-acre black cherry 

sawtimber volume as the Commonwealth (3,218 board feet per acre on the ANF versus 626 board feet per 

acre in Pennsylvania), and nearly fifty percent more per acre than the surrounding four counties (2161 

board feet per acre). 

• The diameter class with the greatest proportion of sawtimber volume on the ANF is the 21-29” class, 

followed by the 15-16.9” diameter class. The greatest proportion of sawtimber volume in the 

surrounding four counties sawtimber volume falls within the 15-16.9” diameter class. Pennsylvania’s 

sawtimber is smaller yet, with 11-12.9” class containing the highest proportion of all the diameter classes. 

• Sixty-three percent of the hardwood sawtimber on the ANF is classed as Grade 1 or 2, as compared to 53 

percent of hardwood sawtimber in Pennsylvania classed as Grade 1 or 2. 

• The ANF contains more than 2.5 times the volume of Grade 1 sawtimber per acre than forests across the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

• The ANF (1,564 board feet per acre) contains nearly seven times the average of Grade 1 black cherry 

sawtimber per acre estimated for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (233 board feet per acre). The 

surrounding four counties contain approximately 50 percent less Grade 1 black cherry sawtimber per acre 

(1,019 board feet per acre) than the ANF. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-389

• Grade 1 Sawtimber volumes per acre for all species on the ANF increased from 1,331 board feet per acre 

in 1989 (USDA FS NFES unpublished) to 3,546 board feet of Grade 1 sawtimber per acre in 2004, or a 

nearly three-fold increase. 

A comparison of 1989 (USDA FS NFES unpublished) and 2004 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data 

(Alerich pers. comm. 2006) for the ANF revealed that total standing volume per acre on the ANF has increased 

from an estimated 2,412 cubic feet per acre in 1989 to 2,775 cubic feet per acre in 2004. 

Harvest volumes 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) is the maximum amount of timber that can be sold in each decade 

covered by the forest plan from lands suitable for timber production. ASQ may increase from decade to 

decade where forests experience improved age class distribution and stocking over time, but declining 

flow from decade to decade is not allowed. It is usually converted into an average annual quantity. This 

“quantity” is generally expressed in million cubic feet (MMCF) and converted into million board feet 

(MMBF) of timber volume. The timber volume available for harvest varies by alternative based primarily 

on the amount of suitable timber land, silvicultural systems, and management intensity. 

The 1986 Forest Plan identified a long-term sustained yield and an allowable sale quantity of 14.9 MMCF 

(94.5 MMBF/year). By 1991, ANF personnel recognized a need to re-evaluate the ability to achieve the 

1986 Forest Plan harvest potential through 2005. A team of resource specialists initiated an analysis to 

better understand the inter-relationships, and identified thirteen factors interrelated with timber harvest 

capability believed to be impacting annual timber harvest program capability on the ANF (USDA FS 

1995a). 

These factors were grouped into the following general categories: 

Unanticipated Natural Events and New Management Information 

1. Gypsy moth infestation 

2. Beech bark disease complex 

3. Tornado damage 

4. Landscape approach to old growth designation 

5. Riparian area management 

6. Tree mortality and decline detected in 1994 

Technical Corrections 

1. Errors in mapping management area acreages 

2. Problems related to establishing and growing tree seedlings 

3. Refining computer model (FORPLAN) projections 

4. Underestimated lands physically not suited for commercial timber production 

5. Underestimated timber harvest from pine stands and MA 1.0 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-390 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

6. Overestimated timber harvest from Management Area 6.2 

7. Overestimated thinning harvest volumes 

The result of this analysis (USDA FS 1995a), “Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability 1995 

through 2005” (The THPC) estimated a maximum annual harvest level from 1995-2005 of 53.2 MMBF, 

though the long-term annual harvest level could be up to 77.1 MMBF if adequate tree seedlings develop 

in shelterwood seed cuts slated for final harvests. 

Figure 3-23 shows the actual quantity of sawtimber and pulpwood sold during between 1986 and 2005 in 

MMBF. The 1986 Forest Plan estimated that during the first decade of the plan, the ASQ would consist of 

more pulpwood than sawtimber. In the second decade (beginning in 1995), the 1986 Forest Plan 

estimated a larger share of sawtimber in the ASQ. The THPC also estimated this capability for the 1995-

2005 period as shown in Figure 3-18. The figure also shows several events that affected the ANF, 

including the 1985 tornado, oak salvage, Threatened and Endangered species plan amendment, and the 

mortality and Eastside litigations. 

Figure 3-18. 1986 Forest Plan ASQ (1986-2005) and actual accomplishments (1986-2005) based on 

sales awarded 

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

MMBF per Year

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005

Pulpwood Sold

Sawtimber Sold

Forest Plan ASQ Pulpwood, Decade 1 (56.2)

Forest Plan ASQ Sawtimber, 

Decade 1 (38.3)

Forest Plan ASQ Pulpwood, Decade 2 (48.3)

Forest Plan ASQ Sawtimber, Decade 2 (46.2)

Timber Harv est Program Cabability 

Pulpwood Estimate (27.2)

Timber Harv est Program 

Cabability Sawtimber 

Estimate (26.0)

Mort II & East Side

T&E Species Amendment 1985 Tornado Oak Salv age
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-391

Table 3-104. Actual harvest activity accomplishments (1986 – 2005) compared to “1986 Forest Plan” and 

“Timber Harvest Program Capability Report” harvest volumes for 1986 – 2005 

1986 – 2005 Estimate 

(Acres) 

Actual 

1986 – 2005 Accomplishments 

Harvest 

Activity 1986 Forest Plan THPC Acres % of 1986 Forest Plan 

% of 

THPC

Final Harvest 67,000 33,043 28,487 43 86 

Thinning 172,000 63,916 51,877 30 81 

Selection 

(UEAM) 6,000 6,000 6,111 102 102 

Shelterwood 

Seed 60,300 30,239 19,385 32 64 

Total harvest activity accomplishments 

The THPC also identifies acres of each type of harvest activity that will be necessary to achieve the 

identified harvest level and the desired future forest condition (see Table 3-104 for estimated and 

accomplished harvest activities). While the total final harvest acreage for 1986-2005 is only 43 percent of 

the 1986 Forest Plan acres identified for 1986-2005, it is 86 percent of the revised harvest acreage 

estimated in the THPC. Actual thinning acreage accomplished is 30 percent of the 1986 Forest Plan level 

and 81 percent of the THPC level. Selection harvesting is 102 percent of 1986 Forest Plan or THPC level, 

while shelterwood seed harvests are 32 percent of the 1986 Forest Plan harvest acreage and 64 percent of 

the THPC estimate. 

Lands tentatively suitable for timber production 

One decision of the forest plan revision is the identification of land that is suitable for timber production. This 

identification consists of two steps. The first step, discussed in this section, is the identification of lands that are 

available and technically suitable for timber production. This is identified as the lands tentatively suitable for 

timber production. This is a starting point for the second step (discussed under effects of alternatives) in which the 

alternatives identify further reductions in lands suitable for timber production based on allocation of management 

areas. 

To determine the lands tentatively suitable for timber production, the following categories of lands are 

sequentially subtracted from the total forest acres: 

1. All lands that are not forested, such as water, grasslands, and lands developed for other uses 

2. Forested lands withdrawn from timber production by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief 

of the Forest Service 

3. Forest lands not capable of producing industrial wood 

4. Forest lands that cannot be regenerated with new trees within 5 years 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-392 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

5. Forest lands where technology is not available to ensure timber production without irreversible damage to 

soil productivity or watershed conditions 

6. Forest lands for which there is inadequate information to make a determination 

During the analysis for the 1986 Forest Plan, there were an estimated 510,530 acres on the ANF, of which 

463,143 acres were considered tentatively suitable for timber production (USDA-FS 1986a, FEIS. Appendix B, 

pp. 25-26). Table 3-105 displays a comparison between the estimation for the 1986 plan and the LRMP. 

Table 3-105. Lands tentatively suited for commercial timber harvest, 1986 and LRMP 

Description 1986 

Acres 

Revised 

Acres 

National Forest System Lands 510,530 516,843 

Water (8,305) (11,169) 

Non-forested Land (22,561) (42,191) 

Forest Land Withdrawn from Timber Production (15,621) (34,536) 

Forest Land Not Capable of Producing Crops of Industrial Wood 0 0 

Forest Land Physically Not Suited because restocking within 5 years 

cannot be assured (450) (20,520) 

Forest Land Physically due to irreversible damage that could occur from 

timber operations (450) 0 

Forest Land- Not Suited due to Inadequate Information 0 0 

Tentatively Suitable Forest Land 463,143 408,427 

The new analysis identified 408,427 acres as tentatively suitable for timber production. The differences between 

the estimates for the 1986 plan and the new plan are based on a number of factors. Improved mapping techniques 

(GIS) have resulted in more accurate identification, mapping, and calculation of tentatively unsuitable lands. 

Other major changes are an increase in non-forested acres, an increase in lands withdrawn from timber 

production, and identification of lands physically unsuited. 

The largest change is in the identification of non-forested lands based on better mapping of non-forested lands, 

forest roads, oil and gas well pads, roads and other facilities. This increase in the lands developed for non-forest 

use was anticipated in the 1986 plan. The increase in forestlands withdrawn from production is a change in the 

interpretation of the National Recreation Area (NRA). The 1986 plan did not assume that this area was 

congressionally withdrawn from timber production (although the ANF did identify it as inappropriate for timber 

production); the LRMP assumes that the NRA was congressionally withdrawn. 

Finally, additional field inventory and data analysis has identified an additional 20,000 acres where the 

technology and knowledge do not exist to restock lands within 5 years of final harvest. Further discussion about 

the identification of lands tentatively suitable for timber production can be found in Appendix B (pp. B1-B7). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-393

Special forest products 

Special Forest Products (SFPs) are defined as “products derived form biological resources collected in forests, 

grasslands, and prairies for personal, educational, commercial, and scientific use” (USDA FS 2001b). Special 

forest products exclude sawtimber, pulpwood, cull logs, small roundwood, house logs, utility poles, minerals, 

animals, animal parts, insects, worms, rocks, water, and soil. Use of these products is diverse, but generally falls 

under five broad areas: foods, herbs, medicinals, decoratives (including floral greenery and dyes), and specialty 

items (including aromatic oils and certain value-added wood products). The ANF seeks to provide a variety of 

special forest product collection opportunities and manage these opportunities based on the appropriate analyses 

and monitoring of species to ensure their sustainability. The current demand by type or amount of special forest 

products on the ANF is largely unknown. 

Introduction to effects 

Timber management, and associated forest products, on the ANF is primarily influenced by the allocation of lands 

to different management area prescriptions. Some areas on the ANF are assigned prescriptions that allow or 

emphasize timber harvest, and others are not. Some of the management areas are considered not suitable for 

managing timber, and some include lands that are both suitable and unsuitable. Prescriptions with suitable lands 

also have desired conditions for vegetation that may affect the harvest methods and silvicultural systems used to 

achieve them. The alternatives proposed in this FEIS have different allocations of management areas, and the 

range of alternatives can be used to show relative differences in timber production and harvest methods used 

based on those allocations. 

Since the vegetation condition (primarily from forest health impacts) on the ANF has changed in many areas since 

1986, benchmark analysis was used to define new maximum levels of capability. See Appendix B for a discussion 

of benchmarks. 

In this section, the effects of the alternatives on forest products are described for each of the following: 

• Acres of land suited for timber management by alternative 

• Annual ASQ (cubic and board feet) by alternative 

• Changes in other harvest opportunities 

Scope of analysis 

The affected areas for direct and indirect effects to forest products and special forest products are lands 

administered by the ANF. The affected areas for ASQ are the lands classified as suitable for timber management 

under each alternative. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

Special forest products 

The special forest products program will be implemented by project level decisions. Individual project 

level analysis will ensure special forest products collections remain at sustainable levels. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-394 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Effects by alternative 

Lands suitable for timber production 

The ability to provide timber products from the ANF is a function of the land base considered suitable for 

timber production. Lands considered unsuitable in Table 3-106 may still have unscheduled timber 

harvests that do not contribute towards ASQ. 

As described previously in the affected environment, 408,427 acres are identified as tentatively suitable 

for timber production. This part of the analysis presents the determination of lands suitable for scheduled 

timber production based on management area designations and land use allocations in each alternative, 

which further defines appropriateness for sustained, scheduled timber production. 

Table 3-106. Suitable land for timber production 

Category Acres 

Tentatively Suitable Forest Land 408,427 

Forest Land Not Appropriate for Timber Production by 

Alternative1 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

MA 5.2 Proposed Wilderness Study Areas 0 0 11,577 13,641 

MA 6.3 Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management 

Area 479 479 479 479 

MA 7.1 Developed Recreation Areas 300 280 280 31 

MA 7.2 Remote Recreation Areas 0 4,310 8,417 27,493 

MA 7.3 Interpretive Recreation Area 0 3,077 0 0 

MA 8.1 Wild and Scenic River Corridor 0 5,662 5,662 5,640 

MA 8.4 Historic Area 172 172 172 172 

MA 8.6 Kane Experimental Forest Expansion 0 1,530 1,530 1,530 

MA 9.1 Managed with Minimal Investment 871 0 0 0 

Forest Land 

Not 

Appropriate 

for Timber 

Production 

Corridor along Wilderness, Remote, and Class A 

Wild Trout Streams Streams2 0 1,255 1,255 1,255 

Total Forest Land Not Appropriate for Timber Production 1,822 16,765 29,372 50,241 

Unsuited Forest Land 110,238 125,181 137,788 158,657 

Total Suitable Forest Land (MA 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 6.1)3 406,605 391,662 379,055 358,186 1

 The acreages displayed do not include acreages previously removed as being non-forested, withdrawn, or physically not suited for timber 

management. These acreages are the net increase by acreage in areas considered inappropriate for timber management. 2

 Includes the area within 200 feet of Wilderness Trout Streams, Remote Trout Streams, and Class A Wild Trout Streams as defined in the 

forestwide Soil and Water standards and guidelines. 

3

 Suitable lands within these management areas are limited to those that have been identified as tentatively suitable for timber production 

(forest land that is not withdrawn, able to regenerate seedlings within 5 years of final harvest, will not result in irreversible resource damage to 

soil productivity or watershed conditions, and is cost efficient in meeting multiple use objectives). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-395

Suited lands consist of physically suited lands in MAs 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 6.1 in all alternatives. 

Alternative A also includes MA 6.2 as part of the suited land base. All other management areas are 

considered to be inappropriate for sustained, scheduled timber production, however most permit salvage 

of timber and reforestation activities in response to tree mortality. Alternative A results in the largest 

proportion (79%, or 406,603 acres) of the ANF (516,843 acres) being considered suitable for scheduled 

timber production, followed by Alternatives B and Cm. Alternative Cm results in 73 percent (379,053 

acres) of the ANF being considered for scheduled timber production. Alternative D results in the smallest 

proportion (67%, or 348,303 acres) of the ANF being considered suitable for sustained, scheduled timber 

production. 

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) 

Table 3-107 displays the ASQ associated with each alternative. These values are expressed in million 

cubic feet (MMCF) and millions of equivalent board feet (MMBF) of timber volume. Alternatives A and 

B have the highest ASQ, followed by Alternative Cm. Alternative D has the lowest ASQ, less than half 

that of any of the other alternatives. These values compare to the ASQ of 14.9 MMCF/year (94.5 

MMBF/year) in the 1986 Forest Plan, and the harvest capability of 53.2 MMBF identified in the THPC 

(USDA FS, 1995). 

The long-term sustained yield (LTSY) is defined as “the highest uniform wood yield from lands being 

managed for timber production that may be sustained under a specified management intensity consistent 

with multiple use objectives” (USDA FS 1982, CFR 219.3). All four of the alternatives provide for a nondeclining flow of timber harvest volumes at or less than the LTSY. All alternatives have an ASQ for 

decades 1 through 15 that equals the LTSY. 

Table 3-107. ASQ and LTSY by alternative 

Allowable Sale Quantity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D 

MMCF Decade 1 10.9 10.3 8.9 4.3 

 Decade 2 10.9 10.3 8.9 4.3 

MMBF Decade 1 66.5 63.1 54.1 26.3 

 Decade 2 66.5 63.1 54.1 26.3 

Long-Term Sustained Yield 

MMCF 10.9 10.3 8.9 4.3 

Product mixes 

It is anticipated that Allegheny and upland hardwoods, with lesser amounts of northern hardwoods and a 

small amount of oak forest types, will comprise most of the volume harvested in the first two decades of 

implementation in all alternatives. Actual project level decisions will determine what forest types will be 

harvested. Nonetheless, it is anticipated black cherry will comprise a substantial portion of harvest 

volumes in the next few decades in all of the alternatives. Some shift in forest types harvested, however, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-396 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

can be anticipated in future decades on the ANF to encompass more oak, upland, and northern hardwood 

types. Alternative A and B will result in similar harvest levels of Allegheny and upland hardwoods 

harvested, followed by Alternative Cm. Alternative D will harvest the least overall volume annually, and 

consequently harvest the least amount of Allegheny hardwoods. 

Harvest on lands unsuitable for timber production 

In addition to timber harvest from suitable lands that have scheduled timber harvests, it is anticipated that 

there will be some vegetative treatment, including harvest activities on lands that are not suitable for 

timber production. This activity will be limited to situations where removal of timber is needed to meet 

the objectives and desired conditions of management areas that do not have scheduled harvest or on 

technically unsuitable lands within management areas that do schedule timber harvest. Volume removed 

from lands unsuitable for timber production does not contribute to volume in the ASQ and may be 

removed in addition to the ASQ. 

Emergency cutting and removal of trees would be allowed in all alternatives and in all management areas 

to contain emergencies (e.g. fire, insect infestation, or other hazards) that are likely to spread to other 

ownerships. 

Beyond emergency situations, only four management areas (MAs 5.1, 5.2, 8.3 and 8.5) would not allow 

some vegetative treatments for other resource purposes. Of these management areas, only the acreage 

allocated to MA 5.2 changes by alternative, so that opportunities to advance other resource benefits 

through vegetative treatments would be more limited in Alternatives Cm and D as compared to A and B, 

as there are recommended wilderness study areas in these two alternatives. The difference is rather small. 

In the remaining management areas that are unsuitable for timber production (MAs 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 

8.2, 8.4, 8.6, and 9.1), vegetation activities that can include harvest for other resource purposes are 

allowed. Reasons for such harvest activities include wildlife habitat improvement, maintenance of 

facilities, administrative use, and addressing forest health concerns. These vary based on the direction for 

the individual management area contained in Part IV of the LRMP. The overall percent of land available 

for harvest for other resource purposes comprises 97 percent of the ANF in Alternatives A and B, 95 

percent in Alternative Cm, and 91 percent in Alternative D. 

Salvage timber harvest 

Salvage timber harvest that allows the removal of trees affected by wind events, fire, insects, diseases or 

other disturbances that kill or damage trees is generally allowed over most of the ANF in all alternatives. 

Based on past experience, there is a high likelihood of some salvage activities during the period affected 

by the plan. Salvage harvest volume may contribute to the ASQ if the volume removed is on lands 

suitable for timber production. 

Only management areas 5.1, 5.2, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 do not allow salvage harvest activity. Salvage harvest 

activity is a suitable management activity on 93 percent of the ANF in Alternatives A and B, 91 percent in 

Alternative Cm, and 90 percent in Alternative D. Direction associated with salvage harvest activities is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-397

identified on a forestwide basis in Part III of the LRMP and direction pertinent to individual management 

areas is identified in Part IV. 

Special forest products 

While known collection of items such as berries, leeks (Allium sp.), and ground-pine (Lycopodium sp.) 

occurs, little is known about potential harvest impacts. Depending on the species, FS management 

activities may have beneficial and/or detrimental effects to SFPs. For example, berry-producing shade 

intolerant species may be benefited by vegetation management activities. Reforestation activities such as 

fencing benefits species impacted from herbivory. Shade tolerant species may be impacted by vegetation 

management activities. These benefits and/or impacts may also vary in the short term versus the long 

term. Effects from management activities on SFPs would be similar to effects from earth disturbing 

activities discussed under the heritage and non-native invasive species (NNIS) sections. 

Alternative A does not have specific SFP prohibitions for SFP collection by management area, however, 

MA 5.1 Wilderness and MA 5.2 Wilderness Study Area would be excluded from areas that allow SFP 

collection. Alternatives B, Cm, and D would follow new direction contained in the LRMP that identifies 

specific management areas in which personal and/or commercial collection of SFPs may occur. 

Commercial collection of SFPs would be suitable in any management area except MAs 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 

7.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6. Personal collection of SFPs would be suitable in any management area 

except MAs 5.1, 5.2, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6. New direction for SFPs is as follows: 

• Collection of special forest products may be authorized provided it is consistent with 

management area emphasis and may not threaten or diminish the character or purpose for which 

the management area was designated. Requests shall be evaluated for compliance with applicable 

authorities and sustainability analyses. 

• Experimental propagation areas will be designed and implemented for high demand species in 

appropriate management areas. 

Cumulative effects 

The affected areas for cumulative effects on timber supply are forested lands in the counties (Elk, Forest, 

McKean, and Warren) surrounding the ANF. This area includes lands administered by both the Forest and other 

owners. Figures for the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are referenced for an expanded context, but 

activities on the ANF have little effect the statewide markets. The timeframe is the next 2 decades as it is a 

realistic time frame to predict reasonably foreseeable activities. 

Timber availability and harvest 

The 1989 inventory (Alerich 1993) of Pennsylvania’s forested ecosystem revealed the eight county Allegheny 

Region, which includes the ANF, contains one-fifth of the State’s timberland area, but more than one-fourth of 

the State’s sawtimber inventory volume. At that time, Pennsylvania had the largest inventory of cubic hardwood 

growing stock nationally, and it was expanding at twice the rate at which volume was being removed. About one-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-398 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

fourth of Pennsylvania’s forest land is publicly owned. National Forest land constitutes 3 percent of the forest 

land in the statewide (Pennsylvania Forestry Association, undated). 

In the northeastern United States, pulpwood production increased less than 1 percent between 1991 and 1996, 

however it accounted for 30 percent of the region’s total roundwood output (Wharton and Whidman 2001). 

Historical pulpwood markets in the ANF market area and the north-central region of Pennsylvania have been 

papermills. Those were located in Erie, Tyrone, Johnsonburg, and Lock Haven, PA. The mills in Johnsonburg and 

Tyrone are still in operation, while the other two are not. Two satellite chipping operations (one in the ANF 

market area, Kane, PA the other near Clearfield, PA) also began in the 90s that supported the Johnsonburg 

papermill facility. In the early 1990s, a particleboard factory and then a medium density fiberboard factory began 

operations within the immediate ANF market area. During the early 1990s, hardwood pulpwood from the ANF 

constituted between 30 and 40 percent of the raw material for the particleboard plant (Durner pers. comm. 2005). 

A small wood-pellet product plant exists in Youngsville, PA. Future growth and development of the wood-pellet 

industry in the Allegheny Market Area will likely hinge on heating fuel prices (oil and natural gas) and the pace 

of conversion to this heating technology. It may be more readily adaptable to rural areas rather than metropolitan 

areas. 

McWilliams et al. (2004) reported the total sound-wood volume on forestlands statewide increased from 27.5 to 

33.7 billion cubic feet, a 23 percent increase from 1989 to 2002. The total volume of sawtimber on timberland 

increased from 72.8 billion board feet in 1989 to 86.3 billion board feet in 2002, an increase of 18 percent. Except 

for sugar maple, Pennsylvania’s top 10 species increased significantly in sawtimber volume. This supports the 

conclusion that Pennsylvania’s forests are maturing and accumulating older, high value trees. It can be concluded 

that Pennsylvania contains more timber today than at any time since the late 1800s. 

Harvest rates on private lands, and associated wood products are anticipated to continue, particularly as forests on 

private lands achieve economic maturity and stumpage prices remain high (Jacobson pers. comm., 2005). Forest 

products from the ANF will contribute towards a sustainable supply of wood products in the immediate region. 

Alternative A will most contribute the most, followed by Alternatives B and Cm, and Alternative D contributing 

the least. Therefore, Alternative D would result in the potential for disproportionate harvest volumes for regional 

industries coming from private lands as noted by Strauss (2004). Along with wood products from private lands, 

wood products resulting from forest management activities on the ANF will contribute to regional wood product 

industries. See the cumulative effects section of forest vegetation (3.3.1) for additional cumulative effects 

discussion on forest management in the cumulative effects area.

Special forest products 

It is assumed that Forest Service management activities will remain fairly constant over the next two decades, 

though the types and amounts of various activities will vary by alternative. However, due to uncertainties in the 

current amount of SFPs that exist or are being collected it is difficult to estimate the impacts for future trends. As 

national interest in SFPs increases (Emery and McLain 2001), it is assumed that interest will also increase on the 

ANF. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-399

Activities most likely to result in cumulative effects from Forest Service management activities include vegetation 

management, road management, gravel pit development/expansion, motorized recreation – intensive use areas and 

trails, equestrian use areas and wildlife opening creation. Cumulative effects analysis can be seen for these 

activities in other sections of Chapter 3. Generally, the overall trend of these activities is an increase under 

Alternatives A, B, and Cm and a level similar to the past 20 years of activity in Alternative D. 

The primary non-federal activities that occur within the ANF proclamation boundary that may impact SFPs 

include timber harvest, residential development, road construction and oil and gas development. Oil and gas 

development on both private and Forest Service administered land is predicted to have the greatest amount of 

ground disturbance and the greatest increase in activity in both the short and long term. 

The cumulative effect to SFPs from federal and non-federal activities is an increase in land disturbed leading to 

potential decrease in SFPs not amenable from such disturbance. Project analyses will evaluate the effects of 

ground disturbing activities and collection for SFPs. Commercial permits to collect SFPs require a sustainability 

analysis and a project level decision.

3.4.7 Economics 

Affected environment 

The discussion in this section begins with a brief economic history of the ANF economic region. The ANF 

economic region is defined as the four counties in Pennsylvania where the ANF is located (Elk, Forest, McKean, 

and Warren Counties). This is followed by a summary of major trends in employment, income, and payments to 

local governments that have affected the ANF economic region, hereafter referred to as the ANF region (see 

Figure 3-24). A basic description of the economies of these four counties is given followed by a discussion on 

each county within the region that highlights that county’s important economic sectors, basic economic data and 

trends for employment and income, and payments to local governments. 

Brief economic history of the ANF economic region 

Although the portage route from Lake Erie to Conewango Creek to the Allegheny River was the initial route of 

European exploration of the Ohio River valley in 1749, it was quickly bypassed in favor a shorter connection 

through French Creek to what is now Franklin, PA. The bypass of this region from major transportation and 

trading routes is a primary reason why the ANF economic region never developed any major metropolitan areas. 

Instead, the story of this economic region is one primarily initiated and sustained by development of its natural 

Changes to this section since the DEIS are minor. All economic estimates for the alternatives have been 

adjusted based on technical changes made in the modeling and information for alternative Cm is presented. 

Some additional material describes Secure Rural Schools payments and recreational contributions, including 

the contributions of hunting and fishing. Most economic information is now presented for the midpoint of the 

first decade of the plan. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-400 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

resources. The region has struggled with the cyclical nature of this economic activity and experienced modest 

success in diversification. This challenge continues today. 

The initial economic development of the ANF economic region in the early 1800s was based on the harvest of 

timber (primarily white pine) along the major rivers of the region (Allegheny and Clarion). From small waterpowered sawmills and logging camps along these rivers, large timber rafts floated downriver to other sawmills or 

markets as distant as Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or New Orleans. This contributed to the establishment of initial 

settlements along these rivers such as Warren, Tidioute, Tionesta, and Ridgway. 

In 1859, the first commercial oil well was drilled at Drakes Well in Titusville to the west. Shortly thereafter, the 

second commercial oil well was drilled at Tidioute. During the initial boom of oil development that followed, the 

Cherry Grove, Balltown, Cooper, and Kane oilfields within the current ANF were the major centers for the 

world’s production of oil. Oil exploration, development, transportation, and refining had a huge impact on the 

development of the ANF economic region and contributed substantially to the wealth and importance of the 

region’s population centers such as Tidioute, Warren, Bradford, and Tionesta. However, this development had an 

inherent cyclical nature with periods of boom (high oil prices and economic prosperity) and bust (low prices and 

economic decline). 

In the late 1800s, railroad access expanded the opportunity to access the timber and oil wealth of the ANF 

economic region. Railroad connections contributed to the development of Sheffield and Kane. In addition to the 

harvest of timber for lumber products, the demand for the region’s timber was greatly accelerated by the tanning 

industry’s need for tannin from hemlock and later the wood chemical industry that converted timber into various 

industrial chemicals. The result was near complete removal of the existing forest on the Allegheny Plateau in the 

early twentieth century. 

With the creation of the ANF in 1923 and the emergence of automobile transportation, the ANF economic region 

began to further diversify in two major ways. The first was the creation of a broader range of manufacturing 

activities that began with processing of local natural resources, primarily lumber and oil, but also diversified into 

the manufacture of a variety of other products. The second was the emergence of the region as a summer tourism 

destination for families seeking escape from urban and small city environments to enjoy the forest river 

environment surrounding the ANF. To this day the number of “camps” and summer homes hosts a substantial 

influx of population during the warmer months. 

Much as the earlier economic cycles disrupted various industries in the ANF region, the region now struggles 

with the decline of manufacturing, part of a broader national economic transformation. Increasing tourism 

opportunities, particularly destination tourism fostered by efforts such as the Pennsylvania Wilds initiative, are 

widely seen as a potential economic opportunity to further diversify the region and offset some of the declines in 

manufacturing. It is also recognized that even today, as it was throughout the economic history of this region, the 

use of the region’s inherent natural resources, primarily oil, natural gas, and timber, continues to provide 

substantial basic economic activity for the region. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-401

Figure 3-19. ANF economic region 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-402 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Trends in employment 

Employment as used throughout this section is a measure of both full- and part-time jobs. As the section on the 

Social environment indicates, the ANF economic region has had stable or decreasing populations since about 

1970. Over this same time period, the ANF economic region has experienced periods of employment growth and 

decline similar to the national economy. However, periods of rapid growth in employment in the national or 

Pennsylvania economy such as the 1980s and 1990 brought only small increases in employment to the ANF 

economic region. Employment in Pennsylvania increased by nearly 24 percent from 1980 to 2000, while 

employment in the ANF economic region increased by only 8.3 percent. Periods of stagnation and decline in the 

national or Pennsylvania economy tend to produce more substantial employment declines in the ANF region. 

From 2000 to 2003, Pennsylvania experienced a slight decline in employment of 0.05 percent, but the ANF 

economic region experienced a decline of nearly 5 percent over the same period. 

Figure and Figure show the changing composition and level of employment from 1970 to 2000 for both the ANF 

region and Pennsylvania. In both the ANF region and Pennsylvania, the primary resource husbandry sectors of 

agriculture, forestry, and fishing have experienced some increases in both absolute employment and the share of 

total employment from 1970 to 2000. Mining has declined in both total numbers and share of total employment in 

both the Pennsylvania and the ANF region, although it remains a more important employment sector for the ANF 

region than for Pennsylvania. Manufacturing employment in both absolute numbers and share of total 

employment has declined in both Pennsylvania and the ANF region. From 1970 to 2000, manufacturing 

employment in Pennsylvania declined by 38 percent, while the ANF region experienced only a 14 percent 

decline. Thus in 2000, manufacturing continues to account for nearly 30 percent of the jobs in the ANF economic 

region, while it accounted for 14 percent of the jobs in Pennsylvania. Wholesale and retail trade has grown in both 

the ANF region and in Pennsylvania where it comprises between 18-20 percent of employment. Finance, 

Insurance, and Real Estate jobs have increased substantially in Pennsylvania from 1970 to 2000, but this sector 

has been almost stable as an employer in the ANF region. From 1970 to 2000, jobs in the Service sector have 

increased by almost 250 percent in Pennsylvania. While Services jobs have also increased by nearly 200 percent 

during the same period in the ANF region, Services comprise roughly a quarter of the jobs in the ANF region as 

compared to a third in Pennsylvania. Finally, government jobs have increased by roughly 10 percent in 

Pennsylvania, but by only 1 percent in the ANF region from 1970 to 2000. 

It is clear that the basic resource husbandry sectors of agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining remain important 

to both Pennsylvania and the ANF region even though they provided only about 1.1 to 2.5 percent of the total 

employment respectively. As the economic history of the ANF region suggests, increased demand and 

opportunity for growth in these basic sectors could lead to a modest increase in recent employment trends in these 

sectors, declines in demand would lead to contractions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-403

Figure 3-20. Employment by major sector, Pennsylvania 

0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Jobs

Farm, Forestry, Fishing

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and Public Utilities

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate

Services

Government

Figure 3-21. Employment by major sector, ANF Region 

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Jobs

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006

Farm, Forestry, Fishing

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and Public Utilities

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate

Services

Government
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-404 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

However, manufacturing employment and the ability of the ANF region to continue to retain this employment 

appears to remain the key for the near future. The region’s oil and gas and timber resources provide raw material 

supply for part of this industrial base. Manufacturing within the ANF region is far broader than just petroleum or 

timber based industries. Processing of a variety of different products, such as fabricated metals, are not directly 

dependent on the region’s natural resources. The ANF region has done better than Pennsylvania in retaining this 

manufacturing employment and this sector continues to provide one third of the ANF region’s employment. 

However, decline in this sector continues and the loss of jobs in this sector will pose a serious challenge for the 

region. 

The nature of the ANF region as a rural economy and the lack of major urban or suburban areas probably 

accounts for the lesser share of employment in Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate and Services. Relative to 

Pennsylvania, where Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate have experienced rapid growth in employment, the ANF 

region has lagged substantially. In the Services sector, the ANF region has had substantially increased 

employment, but not at a rate comparable to Pennsylvania. In the modern economy, with internet and phone 

access and driving times of three hours or less to the urban areas of Erie, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland, these 

services can be easily found outside of the ANF region. 

The ANF region has done better at building and retaining employment in wholesale and retail trade. However, 

nearly all of this employment is in retail trade. As the ANF region is distant from major transportation routes and 

markets, it lacks a comparative advantage for wholesale trade. Retail trade within the ANF region is generally 

characterized by small to moderate sized businesses. With the increase of online internet retailers and major large 

diversified retail establishments, the ANF region will face a further challenge to retain employment in this sector. 

Although federal and local government employment increased in the ANF region until 2000, government 

employment from 2001 to 2003 has declined at the state and local level with a modest increase in federal 

government employment. Federal and state government employment provides important stability to the ANF 

economic region. Local government employment is generally sustained by local taxes, and if employment and 

income prospects are not increasing, it is unlikely that local government employment can increase. 

Data for this section was derived from the regional economic information system (REIS) of the US Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, 2006. 

Trends in income 

In the growth of personal income, the ANF region has experienced a similar pattern to that of employment. 

During periods of personal income growth, the ANF region has been able to increase comparably, but in periods 

of decline personal income has declined more sharply. As shown in Figure, average per capita personal income in 

the region has generally been less than Pennsylvania. However, since 1970 this gap has increased. From 1970 to 

1980, the ratio of average per capita personal income in the ANF region to the Pennsylvania average was about 90 

percent. By 1990, this ratio had declined to 83 percent and in 2003 was slightly less than 80 percent. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-405

Figure 3-22. Per capita personal income 

1970

1980

1990

2000

2003

ANF Region

Penny slv ania

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

ANF Region

Penny slv ania

The composition of personal income has changed over the period from 1970 to 2003, with transfer payments, 

especially for retirement, providing an increasing percentage of the source of personal income. In the ANF 

economic region, these transfer payments comprise almost a quarter of sources of personal income in 2003. For 

Pennsylvania, transfer payments accounted for 17.4 percent of personal income in 2003. The share of personal 

income from rents, dividends, and interest has also risen from about 13 percent to 16 percent in both the ANF 

region and Pennsylvania. The remaining shares of personal income primarily wages and salaries and proprietors 

income have been correspondingly reduced over this same period and now comprise about 60 percent of the 

personal income sources for the ANF region and 66 percent for Pennsylvania. This is consistent with the overall 

trend of an aging population described in the social section of the FEIS. As the ANF region’s population ages, it 

becomes increasingly reliant upon transfer payments as a source of income. 

Among the various economic sectors, it is clear that certain sectors provide higher earnings per job than others. 

Average earnings in the ANF region were approximately $30,000 per job in 2003 (Center for Rural PA 2006) as 

compared to nearly $38,000 for Pennsylvania. Sectors with earnings above this average in all of the reportable 

four counties included Utilities, Manufacturing, Wholesale trade, Company management, and Government. 

Sectors with average earnings below this average included: Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing; Construction; 

Retail Trade; Transportation and Warehousing; Administrative and Waste Services; Educational Services; Health 

Care, and Social Assistance; Arts, Entertainment and Recreation; Accommodation and Food Services and Other 

Services. Jobs in Accommodations and Food Services; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; Administrative and 

Waste Services; Real Estate; and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing averaged less than $15,000 in earnings per 

job. These average earnings are based on industry earnings divided by the number of full- and part-time jobs, so 

economic sectors with large amounts of part-time workers will have a lower average. 

Data for this section was derived from the regional economic information system (REIS) of the US Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, 2006. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-406 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Trends in payments to local governments 

The Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act (P.L. 60-136), passed in 1908, provided that 25 percent of the receipts of each 

national forest would be returned to the states for the benefit of public schools and roads in the counties in which 

the national forest is located. For the ANF, the value of receipts is nearly completely correlated with the price of 

timber and the quantity of timber sold. Over the past twenty years, fluctuations in both these prices and the 

quantities of timber harvested made the 25 percent fund a source of local government instability rather than 

stability for many communities near National Forests. For that reason, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools 

Act in 2000 (P.L. 106-393). This Act provided that for each fiscal year up to 2006, each state could receive 

payments based upon the high three year average of payments that had previously been received under the 25 

percent fund. The Act also provided that between 80-85 percent of the payments would be distributed in a manner 

similar to the 25 percent fund distribution for public schools and roads and that the remaining amount would be 

available for use on Title II and Title III projects. Title II projects are special projects on federal lands and Title III 

projects are specific special projects under county jurisdiction. Counties have the option of choosing either the 25 

percent fund basis of payment or the payment under the Secure Rural Schools Act. 

In Pennsylvania, these funds have been distributed through the states to the counties, school districts, and 

townships for these functions. Townships receive funds and manage these funds for road projects, school districts 

for public education and counties for Title III projects of the Secure Rural Schools Act. 

Figure displays the trend of payments to local governments in nominal dollars for each county and the entire ANF 

region. The figure demonstrates the rapid rise in the 25 percent fund payments that began in the late 1980s with 

rising timber prices and harvests on the ANF. This pattern continued until the late 1990s when timber harvests on 

the ANF dropped 

substantially in 1999 and 

2000. In 2001, Forest County 

opted for the Secure Rural 

Schools payment rather than 

the 25 percent fund. In 2003, 

the other three counties also 

opted for the Secure Rural 

Schools payment. All counties 

remain under Secure Rural 

School payments at this time. 

For the future, there remains 

uncertainty as to whether or 

not the Secure Rural Schools 

Act will be renewed or 

whether the level of payments 

will continue. 

Figure 3-23. Payments to local governments 

* Forest County under Secure Rural Schools Act 

** All Counties under Secure Rural Schools Act 

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001*

2002*

2003**

2004**

2005**

Fiscal Year

Dollars

Elk

Forest

Mckean

Warren

ANF Counties
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-407

Economic characteristics of the four counties 

Table 3-108 displays several basic economic characteristics of the four counties that comprise the ANF economic 

region. The table presents basic information on land used, population, employment, income, and payments to 

local governments. It also compares the four-county ANF region as an entire region to Pennsylvania. 

As the information on land area and population makes clear, the ANF economic region is an area dominated by 

forests. All four counties have more than 80 percent of their land area in some form of forest management. Public 

forests that include state and county forests as well as the ANF comprise between 29-52 percent of the land area 

in each county. Farmland comprises between 2-14 percent of the land area in each county; very low when 

compared to the average for Pennsylvania of 27 percent. A region so dominated by forests, and a high proportion 

of public forests, has both limitations and opportunities as compared to other regions. 

The ANF economic region comprises nearly 1 percent of the total employment in Pennsylvania. Rural counties 

often have higher rates of unemployment than urban or broader areas, and the ANF region is no exception. 

However, with the exception of Forest County, unemployment rates are generally within 0-2 percent of the 

unemployment rate for Pennsylvania. Despite declines and stagnation in the area’s population since 2000, the 

labor force has continued to grow over the same period in all four counties. 

Similarly, rural counties often experience lower income levels than urban or broader averages, and the ANF 

region is no exception. Unlike the situation for employment, the ANF region has per capita incomes that are 20 

percent lower than that for Pennsylvania. In 2000, the ANF region had a higher share of households with incomes 

lower than $25,000 and a lower share of households with incomes above $75,000 than Pennsylvania. However, 

poverty rates of the ANF region are similar to those of Pennsylvania. This suggests that while the ANF region 

may have lower incomes than Pennsylvania, it is not a major area of poverty within Pennsylvania. The one factor 

that partially offsets the diminished income of the ANF region relative to Pennsylvania is that the ANF region has 

home values that are much lower than the Pennsylvania average, making housing more affordable in the ANF 

economic region. 

Elk County 

Although it has not always been the case, in recent years Elk County has experienced the highest income of 

the four counties. In addition, Elk County has also the lowest poverty rates and compares favorably to the 

other three counties in all of the income related statistics. Although in the past unemployment has been a 

greater problem in Elk County, in recent years the county has featured lower rates of unemployment. 

The primary reason for this trend is that Elk County is the only county of the four that was able to actually 

increase the amount of manufacturing employment from 1970 to 2000. Although there has been a decline 

in manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2004, the county still retains over 35 percent of its 

employment in the manufacturing sector. This sector also provides over half of the total employee 

compensation in the county. In particular, Elk County has a large industry in fabricated metal product 

manufacturing and manufacturing of electrical equipment and appliances. About 1 percent of employee 

compensation is related to processing of wood products. It also has nondurable goods manufacturing 

including paper. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-408 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-108. Economic characteristics summary, Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties and 

Pennsylvania 

Indicator Elk Forest McKean Warren 

ANF 

Counties 

Combined 

Pennsylvania

Land Characteristics 

Land Area (Sq Miles) 829 428 982 883 3122 44820 

Land share in Farmland (%) 4.2% 2.1% 6.6% 13.8% 7.4% 27% 

Land share in Forestland 

(%) /1 90.7% 95.1% 89.2% 81.7% 88.3% n.e. 

Land share in Public 

Forests (%)/1 52.2% 49.3% 30.1% 29.1% 38.3% n.e. 

Land share in ANF (%) /1 21.1% 41.8% 20% 24.8% 24.6% 1.7% 

Population 2004 (Estimate) 34064 4994 44708 42576 126342 12406292 

Population Density 

(Persons/Sq mi) 42 12 47 50 42 274 

Employment 

Employment2003 /2 19,349 2,379 23,049 20,447 65,224 6,969,379 

Unemployment Rate 2000 6.0% 8.5% 5.3% 4.1% 5.1% 4.0% 

Unemployment Rate 2001 9.0% 15.2% 5.9% 5.1% 7.1% 4.7% 

Unemployment Rate 2002 7.9% 15.8% 6.3% 6.8% 7.4% 5.7% 

Unemployment Rate 2003 7.2% 16.3% 6.3% 7.1% 7.0% 5.7% 

Unemployment Rate 2004 5.8% 10.3% 6.3% 5.9% 6.5% 5.8% 

Change in Labor Force 

2000-2004 1.7% 15.8% 2.8% 8.1% 4.7% 5.1% 

Income 

Per Capita Personal 

Income 2003/2 $27,492 $23,374 $25,516 $24,584 $25,651 $31,911 

Average Annual Wage 

2004 $30,548 $25,952 $29,415 $30,295 $29,812 $36,181 

Median Household Income 

2002 $38,787 $28,060 $33,529 $35,596 n.a. $42,043 

% greater than $75,000 

2000 12.8% 6.6% 10.2% 11.8% n.a. 19.9 

% less than $25,000 

2000 32.2% 45.7% 36.8% 32.6% n.a. 30.5 

Poverty Rate 1999 7.0% 16.4% 13.1% 9.9% 10.1% 10.0% 

Estimated Poverty Rate 

2002 7.6% 12.3% 12.0% 10.3% 10.2% 10.0% 

Median Own/Occ. Housing 

Values 2000 $78,000 $57,300 $53,500 $64,300 n.a. 97,000 

Payments to Local Governments/3 

1995 (25% Fund) $1,168,558 $1,243,358 1,414,350 $1,535,850 $5,362,116 n.e 

2000 (25% Fund) $649,605 $691,978 $786,262 $853,806 $2,981,651 n.e 

2005 (Secure Rural 

Schools) $1,401,551 $1,490,433 $1,696,789 $1,838,572 $6,427,344 n.e. 

 n.a. not available n.e not estimated All data from Center for Rural Pennsylvania except as noted: 

1/ Strauss, Lord and Powell, Economic Impact of the Wood Industry in the AHUG Region, 2004 

2/ Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2006 

3/ Payment records of Allegheny National Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-409

The other sectors that provide more than 10 percent of the county’s employment are Retail Trade, Health 

Care, and Human Assistance. The other major economic sectors are present but each contributes less than 

10 percent of the total share of county employment. Elk County is the only county with less than 10 

percent of its employment in the government sector. 

Forest County 

While the other three counties share some basic similarities in size and composition, Forest County is 

quite different. Forest County is roughly half the size of the other three counties with a population that is 

approximately 10 percent of the other three counties. It also has the largest share of its land (95 %) in 

forestland and the lowest population density (12 per square mile) justly earning its “Forest” name. As the 

county with the most rural character, it also exhibits the basic difficulties of rural economies. As 

compared to the other three counties, Forest County has much higher unemployment rates, lower per 

capita incomes, lower median household incomes, and the largest percentage of households with less than 

$25,000 in household income. However, this gap is much smaller with respect to poverty rates and home 

values. 

In several ways, Forest County resembles essentially a residential economy lacking any substantial 

industries. Only 57 percent of the county’s population works in the county; a substantial portion of its 

population works in adjacent Venango and Warren Counties. Forest County also has substantial summer 

homes and retired persons among its population. Transfer payments make up almost 40 percent of the 

personal income of Forest County residents. Earnings from rent, dividends, and interest make up another 

20 percent of personal income, leaving Forest County as the county least dependent upon wages and 

salaries as a source of personal income. 

The government sector is the most important economic sector in the county providing nearly 19 percent 

of all employment and over a third of employee compensation in the county. Other sectors of importance 

are retail trade, construction, and accommodations and food services. 

McKean County 

Of the four counties McKean County is the largest county in both area and population, and has the largest 

economy providing the most jobs and personal income. McKean County has experienced substantial 

declines in its manufacturing employment since 1970. Still, manufacturing remains the most important 

economic sector, providing 20 percent of the county’s employment and nearly one third of total employee 

compensation in the county. Prominent within the manufacturing sector are wood product manufacturing, 

nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing, and fabricated metal manufacturing that collectively account 

for approximately 16 percent of the total employee compensation in the county. The county also has firms 

engaged in manufacture of electrical equipment, furniture, and other durable goods. Nondurable goods 

manufacturing includes food products, textiles, paper, petroleum, and chemical products. 

Other sectors of importance in McKean County that provide more than 10 percent of the county’s 

employment are retail trade, Health care, and social assistance, and government. McKean County has 

firms in forestry, logging, and forestry support activities. Mining and mining support activities primarily 

for oil and gas extraction are also important sectors in the McKean County economy. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-410 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Warren County 

Warren County has many of the same features as McKean and Elk counties, but manufacturing 

employment has declined more rapidly in Warren County than in the other counties. In 2003, 

manufacturing provided only 15 percent of the county’s employment with a decline of approximately 900 

jobs from 2001 to 2003. Still, manufacturing provides nearly a quarter of total employee compensation in 

the county. Wood products, fabricated metal, machinery, petroleum, plastics, and rubber products 

manufacturing are among the more important industries in this sector. 

As compared to the other counties, Warren County has become a prominent area for wholesale and retail 

trade. This sector provides nearly 20 percent of the employment in the county and approximately one 

sixth of all employee compensation. The only other sectors providing more than 10 percent of the 

county’s employment are Health Care and Social assistance and government. Warren County has firms in 

forestry, logging, and forestry support activities. Mining and mining support activities primarily for oil 

and gas extraction are also important sectors in the Warren County economy. Farming is more prominent 

in Warren County than in any of the other counties. 

Data on unemployment and personal income identifies Warren County somewhere between McKean and 

Elk counties. Unemployment rates are in a similar range with these counties. Per capita income was lower 

than these counties in 2003, but average annual wages in 2004 were very close to Elk County. Warren has 

a slightly greater incidence of poverty, a higher percentage of its households earning less than $25,000 

and the lower home values than Elk County, but better data results for these same measures when 

compared to McKean County. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

The economic contribution of the ANF is broad, but its influence is greatest within the four-county area. 

Economic impacts of the proposed alternatives will be examined for this four-county area as an average annual 

impact during the plan period. 

Economic and financial efficiency analysis (present net value) and additional technical discussion related to the 

evaluation of the economic impacts of the alternatives are provided in Appendix B – Economic Analysis Section. 

Introduction to effects 

The ANF contributes to the local and regional economies primarily through recreation and timber production, 

revenues to local governments, and direct expenditures of the ANF itself. In a cumulative context, development of 

subsurface oil and gas resources on the ANF, which are owned almost entirely by private parties, provides a 

substantial contribution to local economies. Recreation users contribute directly to local economies through 

purchase of equipment and supplies, and also indirectly through services that support these activities (e.g. hotels, 

restaurants, etc.). By providing recreational opportunities, the ANF contributes to businesses offering goods and 

services. This is particularly important to the extent that recreationists from outside the ANF region come here to 

recreate. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-411

The ANF has the potential to supply a substantial mix of quality timber; approximately one third of ANF land 

produces valuable black cherry, and other valuable hardwood species on the forest include white and red oak, and 

sugar and red maple. These species are further processed through national and international markets to create 

quality furniture and a variety of other finished wood products. In addition, the ANF supplies pulpwood for paper 

and other wood pulp products, and fuelwood for use as a basic fuel source. By providing the initial supply of 

wood, the ANF contributes to a variety of businesses in the wood products and related industries. 

From the revenues earned by the ANF, a portion of forest revenues have been returned to local governments as 

part of the payments in lieu of taxes, 25 percent funds, or Secure Rural Schools Act. These revenues are important 

to local communities in supporting local schools and roads. 

The direct business activities of the ANF and the economic activities of its personnel who live and work in the 

communities neighboring the forest also contribute to a variety of local businesses ranging from electricians to 

local restaurants. 

Finally, a part of the nation’s energy needs are met through the production of oil and gas from resources under the 

ANF. This production is not a direct consequence of Forest Service activities on the ANF, but rather is a 

cumulative contribution made by the activities of other private parties who own the subsurface mineral rights of 

the ANF. 

The complete estimates associated with these contributions for the current situation and for each of the 

alternatives are presented in Table 3-109. The estimates that appear in this Table under the current column are 

used to calculate the ANF’s current economic contribution (shown in Table 3-110) and identify the current level 

in the subsequent tables (Table 3-111 through Table 3-114) that appear under direct and indirect effects. This 

current level is based upon the following assumptions: 

• Recreation visitation is based upon estimates developed from the National Visitor Use Monitoring Data 

projected for 2005. Only recreation visits deriving from outside the four county area are included. 

• Timber volumes and values used to estimate this contribution are an average of the harvest volumes from 

2001-2005, adjusted for inflation into 2005 dollars. 

• Payments to local governments reflect a 5-year average in 2005 dollars. This average includes payments 

based on the 25 percent fund and Secure Rural Schools payments. 

• Expenditures of the ANF are based upon a 5-year average of the ANF budget from 2001-2005 in 2005 

dollars. 

To identify the contribution of the ANF to the ANF economic region and the estimated impacts of the alternatives 

under consideration in this FEIS, the ANF used an input-output analysis model called IMPLAN that identifies the 

economic linkages among the sectors within the ANF region, and how the region responds to the resources made 

available by the ANF. For this analysis version 2 of IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0 with 2002 data was used 

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group 1999). The model considers the initial direct impacts of increased demand for goods 

and services contributed by the ANF (e.g. increased sale of wood products), indirect impacts of purchases of the 

directly impacted sectors (e.g. sale of machinery to sawmills), and induced impacts created by the wages and 

other income generated by the direct and indirect impacts (e.g. employees of local firms taking their families to 

local restaurants). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-412 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Using this model, an estimate can be developed of the contribution made to various sectors of the local economy 

in both employment and labor income. This serves as the baseline that is also used to compare the results of the 

alternatives under consideration in the FEIS. Table 3-109 displays the results of this analysis for the four county 

ANF economic region. 

Table 3-109 shows the model’s estimate of total employment and labor income within the ANF economic region 

and the share of these contributed as a result of the activities related to the ANF. In summary, the Table estimates 

that in the past 5 years the ANF has contributed to about 2.6 percent of the ANF region’s jobs and about 2.1 

percent of labor income. The sectors with employment most influenced by the ANF are Accommodations and 

Food Services, Government, Retail Trade, and Agriculture/Forestry. Of these, Accommodations and Food 

Services and Retail Trade are related to recreation activities. All of the other contributions of the ANF also create 

induced effects in these sectors. As the ANF is a significant source of government employment and income it 

directly generates impacts in the federal government sector. In addition, payments to local governments also 

create direct impacts on the local government sector. Agriculture/Forestry is also stimulated by activities of the 

ANF that includes logging and contract forestry services. The ANF also contributes to a variety of other sectors. 

Table 3-109. Current role of Forest Service-related contributions to the area economy 

Employment (jobs) Labor Income (Thousands of 

2006 dollars) 

Industry Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related 

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1,509 126 $23,335 $4,241 

Mining 1,370 2 $46,466 $75 

Utilities 290 3 $22,884 $264 

Construction 2,223 46 $94,138 $1,944 

Manufacturing 15,046 77 $791,365 $3,097 

Wholesale Trade 982 33 $44,606 $1,517 

Transportation and Warehousing 1,711 32 $68,449 $1,437 

Retail Trade 10,703 200 $200,220 $3,795 

Information 661 11 $24,844 $378 

Finance and Insurance 1,589 14 $60,838 $517 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 618 12 $18,397 $408 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services 1,710 56 $63,050 $1,476 

Management of Companies 112 1 $11,099 $90 

Administration, Waste Management and 

Removal Services 835 15 $18,247 $339 

Educational Services 976 7 $20,293 $157 

Health Care and Social Assistance 7,574 58 $238,669 $1,961 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 546 42 $7,955 $635 

Accommodation and Food Services 3,299 435 $36,345 $5,177 

Other Services 3,486 46 $71,704 $830 

Government 6,571 354 $314,163 $17,808 

Total Forest Contribution 61,811 1,572 $2,177,065 $46,143 

Percent of Total 100.0% 2.5% 100.0% 2.1% 

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-413

Table 3-110. Forest Service impacts upon ANF region economy 

Primary Impacts upon ANF Economy (Average Annual Effect) 

Item Measure Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. Cm Alt. D 

Recreation M Visits 608 632 634 622 604 

Wilderness M Visits 10 10 10 25 45 

Hardwood Sawtimber MCF 1822 6059 5750 4934 2395 

Hardwood Pulp MCF 1067 4043 3836 3292 1598 

Hardwood Fuelwood MCF 268 796 755 648 314 

ANF Expenditures M $ 16,814 27,054 27,001 24,533 15,386 

Payments to Local 

Governments M $ 5,619 17,267 16,139 13,353 6,946 

M= thousand: thousand visits, thousand cubic feet, thousand dollars 

It should be noted that from a labor income perspective the ANF’s greatest current contribution (at least one third 

of its income impact) is in the labor income of government employees. Following in importance is the income for 

Accommodation and Food Services, Agriculture/Forestry, Retail Trade, and Manufacturing. 

Effects from each alternative 

Table 3-110 displays the information associated with the plan alternatives that are expected to have some 

impact on the ANF economic region. All numbers are average annual estimates for the midpoint of the first 

decade. The table displays current values along with annual estimates of recreation visits and wildlife visits. The 

estimates of timber output (i.e., hardwood sawtimber, hardwood pulp, and hardwood fuelwood) are based upon 

full implementation of the alternatives and achievement of the ASQ. The estimate of ANF expenditures and 

payments to local governments are also based upon full implementation of the plan including harvest at the 

ASQ level and achievement of other plan objectives. More information on the derivation of these items is 

contained in Appendix B. 

Recreation and wilderness visits are not expected to increase substantially during the plan period. Recreation 

projections are based on projections for the North contained in Bowker et al, Projections of Outdoor Recreation 

Participation to 2050. Differences in the alternatives are not expected to have a large effect on the amount of 

recreation visitation. Stable or declining populations in the northern region of the United States along with a 

demographic shift from younger to older residents are the major reason for this relatively stable view. (See section 

on Social Conditions) 

As all recreation that occurs in wilderness is classified as wilderness recreation, wilderness visits increase and 

other recreation visits decrease as a function of the amount of recommended Wilderness Study Areas. 

Recreation and wilderness visits also include Hunting and Fishing visits. Hunting and Fishing accounts for 

approximately one third of all of the economic impacts described for the current situation and each alternative. 

The other items generating substantial impact all assume full implementation of the alternatives and achievement 

of the ASQ. All of the four alternatives would provide for higher levels of timber harvest than have occurred as an 

average over the last 2001-2005 period. Alternatives A and B would triple the harvest over these recent levels and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-414 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

alternative C would increase the harvest level by more than 2 1⁄2 times. Alternative D’s increase is limited to about 

a 30 percent increase. To deliver volumes at levels displayed, proportionately higher budget allocations will be 

needed by the ANF for Alternatives A, B, and Cm. However, since only a portion of the ANF’s budget is related 

to timber production, the entire ANF budget does not increase to the same proportion as the harvest level. Finally, 

the payments to local governments are estimated to increase based upon increased harvest and the 25 percent fund 

being used as the option for local government receipts, as this would clearly exceed the payment level under a 

continuation of the Secure Rural Schools Act. A continuation of Secure Rural Schools payments would maintain a 

level of payments to local governments of 6,383 thousand dollars annually. 

It should be noted that all alternatives assume the local economy will respond to the increased opportunities 

provided by the ANF. In particular, for manufacturing this assumes that the increased timber offered by ANF 

would be locally processed in the same proportions as the current levels. 

Employment 

Table 3-111 displays the resulting employment contributions that the alternatives could make to the ANF 

economic region based upon the particular contributing resource. The table shows contributions from 

recreation (including wilderness), timber, payments to local governments, and Forest Service 

expenditures. The table also shows in aggregate employment the change in each alternative from the 

current level. 

Recreation currently provides a substantial contribution to the area’s economy including more than half of 

the employment contributed by the ANF. However, recreation is not expected to appreciably increase in 

any of the alternatives, contributing between 935-950 jobs in all of the alternatives. With full plan 

implementation, the increase in timber with its increased effect on ANF expenditures and payments to 

local governments has the potential to contribute to an increase of roughly 1,000 jobs in Alternatives A 

and B, more than 750 jobs in Alternative Cm, and more than 150 jobs in Alternative D. 

Table 3-112 displays the same information but displays the relative contribution of each alternative to 

each major employment sector. Most of the increased jobs projected for all of the alternatives would 

occur in three major sectors: Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing (including Logging) with approximately 

27 percent of the increased jobs, Government with approximately 21 percent of the increased jobs and 

Manufacturing with about 14 percent of the increased jobs. The remaining 37 percent of the increased 

jobs could occur in a number of different sectors. 

Table 3-111. Employment by program by alternative (average annual, first two decades) 

 Total Number of Jobs Contributed 

Resource Current A B Cm D 

Recreation 898 935 936 943 950 

Timber 217 838 784 650 329 

Payments to States/Counties 95 291 272 225 117 

Forest Service Expenditures 362 581 579 527 330 

Total Forest Contribution 1,572 2,645 2,572 2,345 1,726 

Percent Change from Current --- 68.3% 63.6% 49.2% 9.8% 

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-415

Table 3-112. Employment by major industry by alternative (average annual, first two decades) 

Total Number of Jobs Contributed 

Industry Current A B Cm D 

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 126 418 393 330 181 

Mining 2 4 4 4 3 

Utilities 3 7 7 6 4 

Construction 46 99 95 83 48 

Manufacturing 77 230 217 184 104 

Wholesale Trade 33 46 45 43 37 

Transportation and Warehousing 32 52 51 47 37 

Retail Trade 200 279 274 259 216 

Information 11 17 16 15 12 

Finance and Insurance 14 29 28 25 16 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 12 19 19 17 13 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services 56 97 95 86 56 

Management of Companies 1 2 2 2 1 

Administration, Waste Management and 

Removal Services 15 23 23 21 16 

Educational Services 7 14 13 12 8 

Health Care and Social Assistance 58 112 108 97 64 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 42 50 49 49 46 

Accommodation and Food Services 435 489 487 477 452 

Other Services 46 82 80 72 51 

Government 354 578 567 518 363 

Total Forest Contribution 1,572 2,645 2,572 2,345 1,726 

Percent Change from Current --- 68.3% 63.6% 49.2% 9.8% 

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002) 

Income 

Table 3-113 displays the contributions to labor income that the alternatives could make to the ANF 

economic region based upon the particular contributing resources. The situation is similar to the likely 

impacts associated with employment. Currently, recreation contributes about 18.5 million dollars to labor 

income within the ANF economic region. However, this is not expected to appreciably rise with any of 

the alternatives under consideration. Increases in timber harvest, payments to local governments, and 

ANF expenditures could contribute to increases in labor income of roughly 40 million dollars in 

Alternatives A and B, 30 million dollars in Alternative Cm, and 5 million dollars in Alternative D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-416 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-113. Labor income by program by alternative (average annual, first two decades) 

 Thousands of 2006 dollars 

Resource Current Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

Cm Alternative D 

Recreation $18,411 $19,165 $19,207 $19,387 $19,620 

Timber $8,222 $31,549 $29,531 $24,517 $12,395 

Payments to 

States/Counties $3,898 $11,979 $11,197 $9,264 $4,819 

Forest Service 

Expenditures $15,611 $25,119 $25,070 $22,778 $14,286 

Total Forest Contribution $46,143 $87,812 $85,004 $75,947 $51,119 

Percent Change from 

Current --- 90.3% 84.2% 64.6% 10.8% 

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002) 

Table 3-114. Labor income by major industry by alternative (average annual, first two decades) 

 Thousands of 2006 dollars 

Industry Current A B Cm D 

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing $4,241 $16,262 $15,203 $12,587 $6,425 

Mining $75 $132 $128 $116 $85 

Utilities $264 $540 $519 $461 $306 

Construction $1,944 $4,198 $4,040 $3,504 $2,049 

Manufacturing $3,097 $9,196 $8,701 $7,425 $4,143 

Wholesale Trade $1,517 $2,070 $2,035 $1,937 $1,663 

Transportation and Warehousing $1,437 $2,235 $2,180 $2,030 $1,612 

Retail Trade $3,795 $5,429 $5,335 $5,018 $4,094 

Information $378 $626 $609 $557 $413 

Finance and Insurance $517 $1,027 $991 $881 $590 

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $408 $662 $644 $596 $458 

Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

Services $1,476 $2,675 $2,613 $2,339 $1,520 

Management of Companies $90 $176 $170 $152 $105 

Administration, Waste Management 

and Removal Services $339 $526 $514 $478 $375 

Educational Services $157 $302 $293 $261 $175 

Health Care and Social Assistance $1,961 $3,793 $3,669 $3,271 $2,181 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $635 $743 $738 $728 $688 

Accommodation and Food Services $5,177 $5,778 $5,757 $5,644 $5,352 

Other Services $830 $1,559 $1,508 $1,354 $933 

Government $17,808 $29,884 $29,358 $26,609 $17,954 

Total Forest Contribution $46,143 $87,813 $85,004 $75,947 $51,119 

Percent Change from Current --- 90.3% 84.2% 64.6% 10.8% 

(Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2002) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-417

Table 3-114 displays the contributions to labor income that the alternatives could make to the ANF 

economic region by major economic sectors. With the direct impacts of an expanded ANF budget and 

increased payments to local governments, the Government sector would have the largest increase of labor 

income of roughly 12 million dollars in Alternatives A and B, 10 million dollars in Alternative Cm and 5 

million in Alternative D. Other sectors with substantial increases in personal income include Agriculture, 

Forestry, and Fishing (including Logging) with increases of 11 million in Alternatives A and B, 7 million 

in Alternative Cm, and 2 million in Alternative D. Labor income in Manufacturing could increase by over 

5 million dollars in Alternatives A and B, 4 million dollars in Alternative Cm, and just below 1 million 

dollars in Alternative D. Other sectors that could be increased by over a million dollars in personal 

income in Alternatives A, B, and Cm include Construction, Retail Trade, and Health Care, and Social 

Assistance. These same sectors are also increased but to a lesser extent in Alternative D. Most other 

sectors also could experience increased potential labor income, but primarily as a result of indirect or 

induced effects of the sectors already identified. 

Payments to local governments 

Table 3-115 displays the estimated potential payments to local governments that could occur with full 

implementation of the alternatives in the plan period. Table 3-115 displays the total projected revenues of 

the ANF under the four alternatives, the estimated payment for all four counties under a continuation of 

Secure Rural Schools Act payments, the estimated payment total for all four counties and a breakdown of 

this last estimate for each of the four counties. 

With the possible exception of alternative D, the analysis assumes that local governments would opt for 

payment based upon the 25 percent fund rather than Secure Rural Schools, since in all four alternatives, 

full implementation would produce payments greater than the Secure Rural Schools Act level. The clear 

assumption is that full implementation would actually occur with harvests at the projected prices; if full 

implementation does not occur and harvest levels are equal or less than the 2001-2005 period, retaining 

payments based on Secure Rural Schools Act would be preferable. 

Table 3-115. Forest Service revenues/payments to sounties (average annual, first two decades) 

Thousands of 2005 dollars 

 Current A B Cm D 

All Program Revenues $18,164 $69,066 $64,554 $53,411 $27,792 

Estimated Secure Rural Schools $6,384 $6,384 $6,384 $6,384 $6,384 

Estimated Payment to Counties $5,619 $17,267 $16,139 $13,353 $6,946 

Elk County $1,224 $3,762 $3,517 $2,910 $1,514 

Forest County $1,304 $4,008 $3,746 $3,099 $1,612 

McKean County $1,481 $4,551 $4,254 $3,519 $1,831 

Warren County $1,609 $4,945 $4,622 $3,824 $1,989 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-418 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

In comparing the alternatives, clearly Alternatives A and B would provide the highest level of increase 

(roughly 11 million dollars, Cm would provide an increase of nearly 8 million dollars and D would 

provide a small increase. The breakdown by county is based on the distribution proportions previously in 

effect for the 25 percent funds. Of these payments, school districts would receive about 52 percent of the 

total payments and townships would receive 48 percent for roads. Counties would no longer receive a 

distribution as they do under Secure Rural Schools. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects boundary is the four-county area or ANF region. Past trends will be described for 2001 to 

2005 and future projections described for the first decade of the plan. The following three major economic effects 

upon the ANF region will be addressed: oil and gas production on the ANF and in the ANF region, the potential 

for sharply increased recreational visitation, and the continued challenge of a decline in manufacturing in the ANF 

region. 

Oil and gas 

Oil and Gas extraction from the ANF subsurface provides a very substantial economic contribution. Since the oil 

and gas production from the ANF is on privately held subsurface lands, the ANF does not collect production data. 

A very rough estimate of the production levels attributable to the ANF subsurface suggests that an annual 

production of 6.5 million barrels of oil and almost 20 billion cubic feet of natural gas are currently being produced 

from this mineral estate. Drilling for new oil wells, which has averaged 327 wells per year from 2001 to 2005, 

also provides substantial contribution to the local economy. At this current level, oil and gas development of the 

ANF subsurface is estimated to provide 1,321 jobs in the ANF region focusing primarily on nearly a thousand 

jobs in the Mining sector directly involved with the extraction of these petroleum resources. At this current level, 

Labor Income associated with oil and gas development of the ANF subsurface is estimated to contribute a total of 

42 million dollars of which nearly 32 million is in the Mining sector. The other economic sectors in the ANF 

region are affected primarily through indirect and induced effects from this mining activity. 

With the recent increases in oil and gas prices, ANF projections suggest that increased oil and gas development is 

likely over the plan period. Using the projections of oil and gas well development outlined in Chapter II and 

described in Appendix F, production approximately eight years from now suggests increased production to 8.7 

million barrels of oil and 28 billion cubic feet of gas each year along with the construction of 512 new wells each 

year on the ANF. This level of development is estimated to increase employment by about 500 jobs and labor 

income by 16 million dollars above the current level. Again the bulk of this increase would occur in the Mining 

sector with indirect and induced economic impacts on other sectors. 

However, there is concern that these cumulative effects of oil and gas development may limit or reduce the 

economic impacts that are associated with other parts of the ANF plan. Managing a land base for forest products 

is substantially more complicated if oil and gas development is actively occurring at the same time. Key forestry 

activities that are important to forestry on the ANF such as prescribed fire, fencing, and use of herbicides are more 

difficult to accomplish in areas that are also managed for oil and gas extraction. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-419

Similarly, there is concern that the attractiveness of the forest for recreation visitors and the experiences that they 

seek could be affected by substantial oil and gas activity. If this occurs and visitors choose to avoid the ANF 

rather than come in the same numbers as the recent past, a variety of businesses could suffer from this diminished 

visitation. All of the alternatives have objectives for acquisition of subsurface rights in the areas considered to be 

most desirable for their natural character. If these subsurface rights can be acquired, it may prevent or mitigate oil 

and gas development in these areas. 

Recreation 

Another potential cumulative impact is the Pennsylvania Wilds program. This program seeks to market the 

“Wilds” region and its natural and recreational opportunities. Part of this effort will include creating a greater 

number of tourist destinations within the ANF region and featuring the ANF as a destination. The ANF has a goal 

of cooperating with this effort to boost tourism and visitation in the five county area. If this effort is successful, 

there could be substantially more visitation to the ANF than has been estimated. Along with this would be greater 

economic impacts on the sectors most affected by recreational visitors. 

To explore potential consequences of an increase in visitation to the ANF well above the projected trends for the 

North region (Bowker et al.1999), an analysis was conducted on all of the alternatives to examine what potential 

economic impacts could occur with a full 20 percent increase in outside visitors to the ANF by 2010 over the 

NVUM estimates for 2002. Such a change would boost employment and labor income for all of the alternatives. 

Recreation activity could contribute in excess of 1,000 jobs for each alternative or an increase of roughly 130 jobs 

from those shown in Table 3-111. Half of the increase would be projected to occur in Accommodation and Food 

Services and Retail Trade sectors. Labor Income would also increase adding 2.5 million dollars. However, the 

proportional increase in labor income would be less than the proportional increase in jobs, since the sectors most 

affected by an increase in visitation provide earnings lower than the average for each job. 

Decline in manufacturing 

Finally, the net loss of manufacturing jobs throughout the ANF region is continuing as the region struggles to 

match the challenge of global competition. This section has highlighted the economic importance of this sector to 

the ANF region. Polices for more effective retention of manufacturing jobs within the ANF region is beyond the 

scope of the ANF forest plan. While the previously described potentials of the ANF under the described 

alternatives may be able to make a positive contribution to the ANF economic region, it will not fundamentally 

offset continued substantial decline in the manufacturing sector. 

3.4.8 Social Conditions 

Introduction 

The Allegheny Plateau has seen interaction between various peoples and the natural environment for perhaps 

11,000 years. Population levels have varied over time with the nature and intensity of resource use and the degree 

This section has been updated to reflect modifications to the DEIS Alternative C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-420 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

of success sustaining use of the resource base. What happens between people and their environment on the 

Allegheny Plateau is strongly affected by the environment and society beyond the Plateau. These larger 

environmental influences on the Allegheny Plateau have ranged widely. For example, the Plateau was not 

glaciated, and as a result the soils are highly weathered and lacking in key nutrients. Today winds carry acid rain 

onto the land from the Ohio Valley. The Plateau’s ample system of rivers and streams provided ready access and 

allowed early human penetration, along with the spread of plant and animal species from other areas. Human 

influences have also been varied: numerous in- and out-migrations of people, the application of new technologies 

(e.g. fire to promote growth of certain tree species and advanced recovery methods for oil and gas), 

implementation of local, state and national government policies, and global economic demand for oil, wood and 

outdoor recreation opportunities. The Allegheny Plateau and the Allegheny National Forest remain dynamic 

landscapes because of the interaction of people and the natural environment. The Allegheny also presents a 

unique management challenge for social, economic and environmental sustainability of a working forest and its 

nearby communities. 

A brief socio-ecological history 

Paleo-Indian occupation of what is today the Allegheny National Forest occurred during the late stages of the 

Wisconsin glaciation, probably about 9,000 B.C. The environment of this period was strongly influenced by the 

proximity of a retreating ice mass north of the St. Lawrence Valley. The valleys of Brokenstraw Creek and the 

upper Allegheny River provided a readily available route of transportation. 

Following the Paleo-Indian period, peoples of the Archaic period (ca. 8,000 B.C. – 1,000 B.C.) developed a 

culture based on hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild vegetable foods. The Late Archaic period in northwestern 

Pennsylvania is associated with the maximum spread of the Oak-Hickory forest association across much of the 

Allegheny Plateau, which allowed an increase in the human population along the Allegheny River and its major 

tributaries. The term Allegheny is probably a corruption of Alligewi-hanna, “stream of the Alligewi,” an earlier 

cultural group. 

During the Woodland period (ca. 500 B.C. - A.D. 1650), horticulture became increasingly prominent among the 

cultural groups in the Eastern Woodlands. The Iroquois cleared and burned the forests to create open spaces, 

allowing cultivation of sunflowers, maize (corn), squash, and beans in cleared fields extending out from a central 

village. After a decade or so villages were moved because of depletion of soil and wood. The landscape in the 

Allegheny River valley during the Late Woodland period resembled a mosaic of crop lands near settlements, 

abandoned open spaces with early structural growth, and open forest stands dominated by fire-adapted species, 

such as oak and hickory. 

Throughout prehistory the Allegheny River watershed served as a water travel route. The Allegheny watershed is 

within the Ohio and Mississippi drainages, which reach to the Rocky Mountains, nearly to the Great Lakes, east 

into Appalachia, and to the Gulf of Mexico. With known portages connecting the Allegheny River with the lower 

Great Lakes and the Susquehanna River, the area became an important travelway during the French Fur Trade of 

the 1600s and 1700s. 

The Early Logging period (ca. 1800 - 1860) saw the slow influx of American settlers, attracted by the stands of 

white pine along the major stream valleys. The area was at the head of the Ohio Valley, which was opening up to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-421

American settlers, making it economically feasible to transport lumber to markets on the Allegheny, Ohio, and 

Mississippi rivers. Water-powered sawmills were strung along streams, with larger mills spawning small 

communities. Swedes and Swedish-Americans, among the most skilled woodsmen in the world, were among the 

first ethnic groups. After the American Revolution and resolution of Indian claims, early settlers focused on 

harvesting white pine. 

The Oil Boom period, 1859-1930, brought significant population increase to the region, New Englanders, 

Germans, and other European immigrants to work in oil exploration, transportation, refining, and speculation. The 

discovery of oil had the greatest economic and environmental impact on the Allegheny Plateau. The demand for 

oil brought urbanization and industrialization to the region. Railroads were built in response to oil and then timber 

industry needs. Agriculture changed from subsistence to commercial farming. And for the first time, urbanization 

and industrialization brought structured leisure time, allowing many to hunt, fish, hike, and recreate in the region. 

Three industries dependent upon forest products flourished at the beginning of the 20th Century: wood products, 

tanning industry, and wood chemicals. Rapid industrialization created high demand for related forest products, 

with innovations in technology to increase the efficiency of exploitation. Railroad technology designed especially 

for logging ushered in the Railroad Logging Era, 1880-1940. Between 1890 and 1920, the forests in the region 

were almost completely clearcut. This profoundly influenced economic development and settlement patterns, as 

well as the ecological communities found on the Allegheny National Forest today. 

At this time, a national movement to restore and conserve over-exploited lands in the United States had as one of 

its centers the eastern forests, and two Pennsylvanians were key proponents, Gifford Pinchot and Joseph Trimbel 

Rothrock. On the Allegheny National Forest, the conservation period began with creation of the ANF and 

continues to the present. This is the public response to the timber and wildlife depletion and soil damage from 

heedless timber and oil and gas ventures. The Allegheny began in 1923 to purchase tracts of denuded land from 

willing sellers. 

Following the collapse of the stock market in 1929 and failure of banks into the 1930s, the Franklin D. Roosevelt 

administration mobilized millions of unemployed workers on conservation work throughout the country. The 

New Deal programs of the 1930s, especially the Works Progress Administration (WPA), brought new jobs into 

the Allegheny Plateau region and were the driving force behind the construction of many roads, bridges, 

courthouses, and schools. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) provided jobs to people, including 

reforestation of part of the Allegheny National Forest. 

On a national, regional, and local scale, the wood products industry is no longer the prominent force it was earlier. 

However, on the Allegheny Plateau, the practice of sound forest management has shown solid results on the 

Allegheny National Forest, on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lands, and land owned privately by corporations 

and individuals. The wood products industry has recovered to become an important part of the regional economy. 

The petroleum industry on the Allegheny Plateau also has changed dramatically during the Conservation period. 

In its heyday, over 90 percent of the world's oil supply came from the region, but is now down to a fraction of one 

percent. Many of those who migrated to the region to work stayed, settled in larger towns, and took jobs outside 

the industry. New technologies in the oil fields and in the increasingly important gas fields helped to maintain a 

core of the industry capable of responding to periodic price increases with production increases. With 93 percent 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-422 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

of the subsurface mineral rights privately owned, this clearly affects successful management of the Allegheny 

National Forest today. 

During the Conservation period the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built large dams for flood control, electrical 

power, and outdoor recreation. The damming of rivers produced a movement to conserve rivers in a more natural 

state. A stretch of nearly 87 miles of the Allegheny River was added to the National Wild and Scenic River system 

in 1992, and in 1996, 62 miles of the Clarion River was also designated. Increasing interest in outdoor recreation in 

the Allegheny National Forest region, particularly among Baby Boomers approaching retirement, is a natural 

outgrowth of the Conservation period. (For an alternative modern historical delineation, see Whitney (1990). 

Affected environment 

The ANF’s primary area of influence is the northern Pennsylvania counties of Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren. 

Some local influence also extends into various adjacent counties of Pennsylvania and New York State. These 

influences are due primarily to commerce (particularly timber, minerals, and construction), recreation, and 

relationships with the Seneca Nation of Indians, Allegany State Park in New York, and Cooks Forest State Park in 

Pennsylvania. Non-local influence extends to Pittsburgh, to the Youngstown-Cleveland area of Ohio, and to 

Buffalo, NY. Social environment information is summarized from the Social Assessment for the Allegheny 

National Forest, developed by Penn State University for the forest plan revision process. This document is 

available in the planning record. 

For the social assessment, and the summary below, the population was analyzed on five levels: 

1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 

2. ANF Core Counties (four Pennsylvania counties that contain the ANF – Elk, Forest, McKean and Warren 

Counties); 

3. Nearby Rural Counties (nine rural Pennsylvania counties - Cameron, Clarion, Crawford, Jefferson, 

Venango Counties plus the ANF Core Counties, and Cattaraugus County New York) within a 60-mile 

radius of the ANF; 

4. Nearby Urban Counties (Erie County, Pennsylvania, and Chautauqua County, New York) within a 60-

mile [approximate] radius of the ANF; and 

5. Extended Influence Counties (a large group of counties in western Pennsylvania, western New York, 

northeastern Ohio, and northern West Virginia that are within a 60-mile to 150-mile approximate radius 

of the ANF. The population of this area is largely urban-suburban residents and includes Pittsburgh, 

Cleveland, Akron, and Buffalo metropolitan areas). 

This breakout of counties provides comparisons of rural-urban differences, rural counties most directly affected 

versus those rural counties less directly affected, and nearby urban counties versus larger, more distant urban 

counties. The 150-mile radius arc represents the counties identified in earlier market research (Van Landingham et 

al. 1988) as having approximately 85 percent of the users of the Allegheny National Forest. They also represent 

the counties with the greatest social and economic interaction with the Forest, with the interaction generally 

becoming less marked and less direct with increased distance from the four ANF Core Counties. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-423

This analysis also uses data from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, for which a separate breakout of counties is 

used. These breakouts are: the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; all rural counties in Pennsylvania; the twelve 

counties of the newly designated PA Wilds program (Cameron, Clarion, Clearfield, Clinton, Elk, Forest, 

Jefferson, Lycoming, McKean, Potter, Tioga, and Warren); and the ANF Core Counties (Elk, Forest, McKean, 

and Warren). This allows for comparisons within the Commonwealth, capturing commonalities of policies and 

administrative structure. It also allows for comparison of counties in the northern tier of the Commonwealth (PA 

Wilds program) with similar resource endowments, transportation infrastructure, and population densities. 

Population trends 

Population 

Between 1960 and 2000, Pennsylvania as a whole and the two Nearby Urban Counties of Erie, PA and 

Chautauqua, NY experienced modest population growth (8.5% and 5.9%, respectively). In contrast, ANF 

Core Counties experienced modest population decline (8.5%). Nearby Rural Counties and Extended 

Influence Counties both experienced modest population growth between 1960 and 1980, followed by 

population decline between 1980 and 2000, with net changes for the entire period of less than 4.0 percent. 

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania released estimated population data for rural counties in the 

Commonwealth in December 2005. Table 3-116 shows changes in population for Pennsylvania, all Rural 

Counties, the twelve PA Wilds counties, and the ANF Core counties. Rural counties as a whole have 

shown steady population increase since 1950. The northern tier counties in the PA Wilds program may 

have hit a population peak at the end of the 20th Century, whereas the ANF Core counties population 

decline has been fairly consistent since 1950. Longer-term projections through 2020 from the 

Pennsylvania State Data Center anticipate an acceleration of population loss for the 2000 to 2020 period 

compared with the rate during the 1990 to 2000 decade (Table 3-117). The PA Wilds program counties 

also show continuation of their decline begun after 2000. 

A longer-term view of the four ANF Core Counties shows a considerable variation within this pattern ( 

Table 3-118). From 1900 to 2000, there was a slow decrease in population of the ANF Core counties, 

there was slightly declining population overall during the first two decades (1900 – 1920), then a modest 

increase from 1920 until 1970 with the exception of the World War II decade (1940 – 1950), and then a 

steady and increasing population decline from 1970 to 2000. But, only during two decades did all four 

counties populations move in the same direction: all gained population from 1930 to 1940 and all lost 

population from 1980 to 1990. 

Table 3-116. Change in population, 1960-2000 

1960 1980 2000 

Pennsylvania 11,319,000 11,865,000 12,281,000 

ANF Core Counties 142,000 141,000 130,000 

Nearby Rural Counties 457,000 479,000 455,000 

Nearby Urban Counties 396,000 427,000 421,000 

Extended Influence Counties 9,209,000 9,261,000 8,857,000 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-424 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-117. Population 1950 - 2020 by geographic region within Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

PA Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

Population, 1950 10,498,012 3,032,143 509,288 138,752 

Population, 1990 11,881,643 3,253,143 517,388 131,861 

Population, 2000 12,281,054 3,393,946 524,321 129,857 

Population, 2004 (Est.) 12,406,292 3,431,516 517,809 126,342 

% Change in Population, 1990-2000 3.4% 4.3% 1.3% -1.5% 

% Change in Population, 2000-04 1.0% 1.1% -1.2% -2.7% 

Projected Population, 2020 12,569,017 3,500,841 500,627 120,763 

Projected % Change, 2000-2020 2.3% 3.1% - 4.5% - 7.0% 

Table 3-118. Population 1990 - 2000 by national, state and ANF counties 

United 

States 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Elk 

County 

Forest 

County 

McKean 

County 

Warren 

County 

Four -

County 

Total 

2000 281,421,906 12,281,054 35,112 4,946 45,936 43,863 129,857 

1990 248,709,873 11,881,643 34,878 4,802 47,131 45,050 131,861 

1980 226,545,805 11,863,895 38,338 5,072 50,635 47,449 141,494 

1970 203,211,926 11,793,909 37,770 4,926 51,915 47,682 142,293 

1960 179,323,175 11,319,366 37,328 4,485 54,517 45,582 141,912 

1950 151,325,798 10,498,012 34,503 4,944 56,607 42,698 138,752 

1940 132,164,569 9,900,180 34,443 5,791 56,673 42,789 139,696 

1930 123,202,624 9,631,350 33,431 5,180 55,167 41,453 135,231 

1920 106,021,537 8,720,017 34,981 7,477 48,934 40,024 131,416 

1910 92,228,496 7,665,111 35,871 9,435 47,868 39,573 132,747 

1900 76,212,168 6,302,115 32,903 11,039 51,343 38,946 134,231 

Taken together these three sets of population data suggest several things about the ANF Core counties. 

The long-term relative stability in population suggests that these counties are well beyond the influence of 

large urban areas, which have shown significant population increases in their neighboring rural counties 

over the past half century or longer. The movement up and down in population appears to be 

characteristic of areas greatly influenced by cyclical natural resource industries, in this case timber and oil 

and gas. The pattern of all counties gaining population during the Depression decade of the 1930s is 

characteristic of rural areas in many industrialized countries during severe economic dislocations. And, 

this pattern was probably accentuated here because of the many rural public works programs of the 

Roosevelt administration. 

The generalized loss of population in the ANF Counties during the 1980s paralleled a national trend of 

those rural counties not influenced by urban growth and suburbanization into adjacent rural counties. The 

counties with greater economic diversity (Elk, McKean and Warren) have less fluctuation than Forest 

County, which had been much more dependent on cyclical natural resources, particularly timber. This 

may change now that construction by the Commonwealth of a prison in Marienville has added the 

stability and diversity of public sector employment to the county. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-425

Age 

Each of the five social assessment geographic areas experienced a steady decline in the percentage of 

children (age 17 or less) and steady increases in the percentage of adults (ages 18-64) and seniors (ages 65 

and older). In 2000, ANF Core Counties were broken down as follows: 23.9 percent children, 59.1 

percent adults, 17.0 percent seniors. 

Comparisons for the later 2000-to-2003 period (Table 3-119) across rural, PA Wilds program, and ANF 

counties show similar drops among those under 18 years old, but with more pronounced declines in the 

PA Wilds and ANF counties groupings. Seniors (over 65) continue to grow as a proportion of the 

population in the northern tier counties of Pennsylvania, particularly in the four ANF counties. 

Significantly, across these groupings only the ANF counties show a drop in the18-to-64 age group. This 

cohort is usually associated with child rearing, peak productivity at work, high levels of contribution to 

the economy and community involvement. 

Table 3-120 shows projections to 2020 across these same county breakouts as above for those under 20 

years of age and those over 65. Taken together, these two age cohorts are often considered as 

“dependent,” although those over 65 are much more independent than in previous generations. The 

projections for the ANF counties show a faster rate of decline of youth population numbers and faster rate 

of increase for seniors than do the Commonwealth as a whole, the rural counties grouping, and even the 

other PA Wilds counties. 

This combination demonstrates a need to attract and retain more people in the large middle group from 18 

or 20 to 64 years of age. When this “graying” trend is coupled with the projected decline in population 

discussed above, these structural changes in population may have effects on overall community vitality, 

delivery of essential services, and community character. Community leaders in the ANF Counties, like 

those at the state and regional levels, are very much aware of these trends and are either considering or 

have already begun to implement strategies to deal with this complex challenge. Among the areas most 

frequently discussed by leaders when considering strategies to attract and retain young adults and families 

is education (see below). 

Table 3-119. Age cohorts by Pennsylvania geographic region 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

# Persons Under 18 Years Old, 2003 (est.) 2,830,694 744,641 113,371 28,532 

% Population Under 18 Years Old, 2003 22.9% 21.8% 21.9% 22.4% 

% Change in Persons Under 18 Years Old, 2000-03 -3.1% -4.7% -7.0% -8.1% 

# Persons 18 to 64 Years Old, 2003 (est.) 7,633,001 2,119,228 318,062 76,619 

% Population 18 to 64 Years Old, 2003 61.7% 62.0% 61.3% 60.2% 

% Change in Persons Between 18-64 Years Old, 

2000-03 2.6% 3.1% 0.9% -0.2% 

# Persons 65 Years Old and Older, 2003 (est.) 1,901,764 556,774 87,297 22,204 

% Population 65 Years Old and Older, 2003 15.4% 16.3% 16.8% 17.4% 

% Change in Persons 65 Years Old and Older, 

2000-03 -0.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-426 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-120. Projected youth and senior populations by Pennsylvania region 

Marital status 

In all five social assessment geographic areas, married people became less common and divorced people 

became more common between 1960 and 2000, mirroring national trends and suggesting an increase in 

the number of non-traditional households. The smallest decrease in the percentage of married people 

during this period occurred in the ANF Core Counties (14.5% decrease, from 67.7% in 1960 to 57.9% in 

2000). At the same time, the largest increase in divorced people occurred in the ANF Core Counties 

(517.6% increase, from 1.7% in 1960 to 9.5% in 2000). 

Ethnicity 

Although Caucasians/whites remain the predominant ethnic group in all five social assessment geographic 

areas, each area experienced an increase in the percentage of African Americans and other ethnic minority 

groups. Although ethnic diversity increased in the ANF Core Counties and Nearby Rural Counties, both 

areas remained less diverse than the other three, more urban areas. The ANF Core Counties shifted from 

99.8 percent Caucasian in 1960 to 97.9 percent Caucasian in 2000, the smallest decrease of the areas 

considered. 

Gender 

In all five social assessment geographic areas, the ratio of males to females was consistent with larger 

population patterns, with females slightly more numerous than males. In 2000, the highest percentage of 

females (51.9%) was found in Extended Influence Counties, and the lowest percentage of females 

(50.3%) was found in ANF Core Counties. 

Education 

Education and income, and to some degree occupation, relate to stakeholders’ perceptions and uses of the 

ANF by influencing the amount of money that can be spent on recreation, the amount of time one has to 

enjoy the forest, and the nature of one’s relationship to the forest. As a result, these factors play a large 

role in helping identify stakeholders’ ANF-related beliefs, expectations, and behavior. Income and 

employment are addressed in the economics section. 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

% Population Under 20 Years Old, 2000 26.6 26.1 26.4 26.2 

% Projected Population Under 20 Years 

Old, 2020 24.7 24.1 23.7 22.3 

% Population 20 to 64 Years Old, 2000 57.8 57.5 57.0 56.8 

% Projected Population 20 to 64 Years Old, 

2020 56.9 56.6 55.7 56.0 

% Population 65 Years Old and Older, 2000 15.6 16.4 16.6 17.0 

% Projected Population 65 Years Old and 

Older, 2020 18.4 19.3 20.6 21.7 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-427

All five social assessment geographic areas showed a marked increase in educational attainment between 

1960 and 2000, and all five geographic areas showed an increase in attainment across all educational 

levels. In other words, the percentage of people who completed high school, the percentage of people who 

completed some post-high school study, and the percentage of people who completed four or more years 

of college all increased. In 2000, post-high school study remained somewhat less common in ANF Core 

Counties and Nearby Rural Counties than in the other three areas. In those two areas, fewer than 35 

percent attended school beyond high school, compared to more than 40 percent in the other geographic 

areas. 

From a comparative perspective within Pennsylvania (Table 3-121), the ANF counties’ educational 

attainment profile has less spread across the educational spectrum than PA rural counties, i.e., fewer 

people over 25 with no high school diploma (lower edge of the profile), but also fewer people over 25 

with a bachelor degree or higher (upper edge of the profile). This reflects the lower high school drop out 

rate in the ANF counties (not show). It may also reflect the lower demand for and opportunities for those 

with bachelor degree or higher education in the ANF counties. During the 1990s, the rate of growth in 

those over 25 with a bachelor or higher degree education was about 10 percent behind the PA Wilds 

counties as a whole and over 25 percent behind Pennsylvania rural counties generally. 

Table 3-121. Highest level of education by Pennsylvania geographic region 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

Persons Age 25 Years and Older, 2000 8,266,284 2,293,262 354,667 89,941 

% With No High School Diploma 18.1% 19.2% 18.9% 16.9% 

% With High School Diploma or Equivalent 38.1% 45.9% 47.5% 48.8% 

% With Some College or Associate Degree 21.4% 19.5% 20.1% 20.9% 

% With Bachelor Degree or Higher 22.4% 15.4% 13.4% 13.4% 

# Adults (25+) With Bachelor Degree or 

Higher, 2000 1,847,631 352,435 47,548 12,073 

Change in Adults With Bachelor or Higher 

Degree, 1990-2000 30.8% 36.7% 30.1% 27.3% 

Table 3-122. School expenditure statistics by Pennsylvania geographic region 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

Total Expenditures ($1,000), 2003-04 $19,394,989 $5,086,498 $826,890 $178,171 

Expenditures Per Student, 2003-04 $10,697 $9,956 $10,290 $9,532 

Change in Real Expenditure Per Student, 

1999-2000 to 2003-2004 19.6% 19.1% 24.7% 14.6% 

Average Salary for Full-Time Classroom 

Teacher, 2003-2004 $52,640 $48,108 $47,236 $45,967 

Change in Real Teacher Salary, 1999-

2000 to 2003-2004 3.8% 2.2% -0.6% -1.7% 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-428 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Educational expenditures are not necessarily a measure of effectiveness of educational systems. Still, it is 

worth noting that expenditures in the ANF counties per student are growing less quickly in the last 5 

years than in the state as a whole and than in rural counties as a group (Table 3-122). The rate of growth 

of per student expenditures lags the PA Wilds counties by more than half. This parallels the absolute 

decline in teachers’ salaries over the same period. The rate of decline of teachers’ salaries is about triple 

that of the PA Wilds counties. It is very possible some of this decline reflects retirement of older, more 

highly paid teachers, including early retirement of the faculty as teacher numbers are reduced to match 

reductions in student numbers. 

Among the four ANF Counties there are several locations to pursue coursework toward higher education. 

However, there is only one bachelor degree granting campus, the University of Pittsburgh-Bradford, and 

no institutions offering associate degrees or advanced technical training with degree credentials where the 

student can finish all his or her coursework. As mentioned above, community leaders, as well as elected 

officials at the local, state and even national level, recognize this as a need for the region, and various 

efforts to meet it are in process. 

Lifestyles and social organization 

Population movement and occupancy 

Population changes can greatly influence perceptions and expectations of the ANF and its four core 

counties. For example, new people moving into the region may hold values and beliefs that differ from 

long-time residents, leading to diverse opinions about the role of the forest within the community. 

Household composition, family composition, and family size are also factors that influence uses of the 

ANF and expectations about the Forest’s relationship with neighboring communities. 

Residential stability and migration 

In all five of the social assessment geographic areas, individuals living in the same house as the 

previous year were more common than individuals who had moved to a different house. Between 

1960 and 2000, the proportion of the population of the ANF core counties living in the same 

house as the previous year had increased from 65.1 percent to 68.3 percent, and was highest 

among the five geographic areas. Among those who moved to a different house within the ANF 

core counties, the proportion of those who moved within the same county decreased from 24.0 

percent to 20.9 percent, while the proportion who moved to a different county or different state 

did not show a consistent trend. 

Using the Center for Rural Pennsylvania data to compare the ANF counties with other groupings 

for 1995 to 2000 (Table 3-123), the ANF counties showed a less mobile (or more stable) 

population than the Commonwealth as a whole, all rural counties and the PA Wilds counties. This 

remains true if those who moved within the same county are included. Similarly, there is less inmigration to the ANF counties from elsewhere in Pennsylvania, and the entire PA Wilds counties, 

including the ANF counties, showed limited in-migration from outside the Commonwealth. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-429

Table 3-123. Migration by Pennsylvania geographic region 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

# Persons 5 Years Old and Older, 2000 11,555,538 3,205,486 495,498 122,615 

% Who Did Not Move Between 1995 and 

2000 63.5% 65.5% 65.7% 68.3% 

% Who Moved Within Same County 21.7% 19.4% 21.0% 20.9% 

% Who Moved From Another Pennsylvania 

County 7.6% 8.7% 8.6% 5.7% 

% Who Moved From Another State or 

Abroad 7.2% 6.4% 4.7% 5.1% 

Migration is generally regarded as being associated with change, which can be positive or 

negative or ambiguous. Migration is usually motivated by both “pull” factors in the receiving area 

and “push” factors in the sending area. When the migration data here is viewed in light of the 

other demographic data above, e.g. for age cohorts, it may be inferred that those staying or 

migrating to the ANF counties (and the rest of the PA Wilds counties) are largely content with the 

pace and direction of change and/or have strong economic opportunities and family ties to the 

region. The opposite may be said of those leaving the region, i.e., they are unhappy with either 

the rate or direction of change and/or do not have sufficiently strong family or economic ties to 

discourage their out-migration. The age data strongly supports this, as does much of the 

anecdotal, qualitative data from public meetings, media coverage, and citizen commentary in 

local newspapers. 

Family composition and size 

Family composition

All five social assessment geographical regions experienced an increase in the proportion of 

householders living alone, as well as an increase in the proportion of householders and nonrelatives living together. The proportion of householders with spouse, children, and/or other 

relatives living together declined. Married couples (with or without children under the age of 18) 

were the dominant family type in all five geographic areas, but there was an increase in the 

percentage of individuals living alone. The largest increase in individuals living alone occurred in 

the ANF Counties (39.2%). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-430 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-124. Households/families by Pennsylvania geographic region 

Pennsylvania 

(State Total) 

Rural 

Counties 

Counties in 

PA Wilds 

Program 

Counties in 

ANF 

# Households, 2000 4,777,003 1,316,901 206,227 51,844 

% Change in Households, 1990-2000 6.3% 8.1% 5.8% 3.4% 

# Families, 2000 3,208,388 910,031 141,269 35,296 

% Change in Families, 1990-2000 1.7% 3.0% 0.3% -2.3% 

Family size

Family size decreased slightly, and averaged about 3.0 people per family for all five social 

assessment geographic areas. Data from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania bring these trends into 

better focus with comparisons across Pennsylvania for 1990 to 2000, Table 3-124. While there is 

a modest increase in the number of households across the state, the rate of increase in ANF 

counties is about two-fifths the rate of increase of PA rural counties generally and about threefifths that of the PA Wilds counties. And while the number of families in the PA Wilds counties 

as a whole was flat from 1990 to 2000, the ANF counties actually lost more than 2 percent of 

their families. This information, when coupled with the loss between 2000 and 2003 of the 18 to 

64 year old age cohort, presents a challenge to the four ANF counties. Families of this age cohort 

generally are the most productive and dynamic, contribute the most to the local economy in terms 

of consumption and taxes, and provide for future generations with knowledge of the area and an 

attachment to its sense of place, and who regard the area as their home. 

Attitudes, beliefs, and values toward land use patterns 

According to Stakeholder’s Forest Value Orientations and Management Preferences for the Allegheny National 

Forest (Zinn et al. 2003), stakeholders rated environmental and amenity management requirements as extremely 

to very important on the ANF. In contrast, resource utilization management requirements were rated as somewhat 

important. It is important to note that respondents to the survey were primarily men (67.9%), Caucasian (93.6%), 

and averaged 54.0 years old. 

The report groups respondents by county of residence into three areas: those living in Erie County PA and 

Chautauqua County NY (inner urban strata); those living in Cameron, Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Forest, Jefferson, 

McKean, Venango, and Warren County PA, and Cattaraugus County NY (inner rural strata); and, those living in a 

broader geographic area that included 22 Pennsylvania counties, 3 New York counties, 16 Ohio counties, and 3 

West Virginia counties (outer strata). Previous market analysis showed that these counties together were the 

source of 85 percent of the users of the Allegheny National Forest. 

Respondents from the inner rural counties were most likely to report currently living in a rural area or small town 

(82.9%) and most likely to report growing up in a rural or small town (77.7%). In contrast, fewer than half of 

respondents from the inner urban counties and outer counties reported living in a rural area or small town (45.6% 

and 42.0%, respectively), and slightly less than half of these respondents reported growing up in a rural area or 

small town (48.7% inner urban and 49.6% outer). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-431

Summarizing this report, fewer than five percent of respondents reported feeling extremely well informed about 

activities on the ANF, and fewer than ten percent reported feeling well informed. Across all counties, respondents 

rated beauty and recreation, water quality, wild areas, and fish and wildlife habitat as very to extremely important, 

and wood products, oil, gas, and minerals as somewhat important. 

Personal importance of the ANF varied significantly across geographic space. Thirty-two percent of the inner 

rural, 23 percent of the inner urban, and 17 percent of the outer counties rated the ANF as extremely important to 

me. However, more than 80 percent in each grouping rated the ANF as extremely important or somewhat 

important to me. Eighty percent of the respondents rated manager’s performance managing the ANF in a longlasting, sustainable way as good or excellent. Differences across groupings were not significant. 

Another way to consider the value people place on the ANF is recreation use surveys conducted on parks, forests, 

and other federal lands as part of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM), discussed in more detail in the 

recreation section. The NVUM survey results indicate that 80 percent of the visitors to the ANF live within a 100-

mile radius of the forest, and most reside in the four-county area (Elk, Forest, McKean and Warren counties). 

NVUM surveys suggest visitors value the ANF for a variety of recreational opportunities, including fall foliage 

viewing, driving for pleasure, viewing wildlife, picnicking, visiting a wilderness, hiking, photography, camping, 

hunting and fishing, boating, and gathering forest products. 

As a third measure of the public’s attitudes, beliefs and values, the public’s comments received during the 

planning process provide insight into participants’ views of ANF resources and their management. (See Appendix 

A for more detailed treatment.) Individual recreational users, such as equestrians and ATV riders, initially formed 

groups as social networks, or communities of interest. In some cases, there developed a more formal structure, 

longstanding habits of working together, and a willingness to partner with the ANF in various on-Forest projects. 

These efforts can be very effective with a focused agenda, though they sometimes tend to represent members in a 

fairly one-dimensional way, as purely snowmobile enthusiasts, equestrians, birdwatchers, or logging interests. 

Key communities of interest have been very actively engaged in the planning process, but have taken distinct 

approaches to providing their ideas and comments. Some have engaged across all three major issue areas: 

vegetation management, habitat diversity, and recreation. Others have focused on very specific topics or locations, 

this is particularly true of motorized recreationists. Some of these have used formal organizations, such as 

industry associations or non-profit environmental advocacy groups, and have tended to submit more detailed, 

more formal proposals (see Chapter 2). And many have worked through loose networks of individuals, submitting 

individual comments, sets of similar or identical comments, or formal written comments supported by lists of 

individuals. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-432 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Key communities of interest include the following, divided by the major issue area: 

Vegetation management 

Advocates for increased timber harvest and more active management to promote forest health – the 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group (AHUG) has demonstrated leadership. 

Advocates for increased timber harvest for greater payments to school districts and townships – the 

Allegheny Forest Alliance (AFA) represents many local interests including some school districts, and 

several local elected officials have been very active. 

Advocates of no timber harvest or harvest focused on restoration to promote forest health – the Allegheny 

Defense Project (ADP) was the principal advocate for this position. 

Wilderness 

Advocates for considerable additional wilderness – both the Friends of Allegheny (FAW) Wilderness and 

the ADP pursue this interest. 

Opponents of additional wilderness designation – a number of groups have opposed additional wilderness 

as limiting forest management (AHUG), limiting multiple-use options (Allegheny Alive [AA]), and 

reducing timber and recreation revenues. 

Recreation 

Advocates for more motorized trails for ATVs – the Allegheny Trail Riders (ATR) have taken leadership 

among this community of interest. 

Advocates for improvements to snowmobile trails, including connectors, less dual-use, and more trails – 

an association emerged to represent this community during the plan revision process (Allegheny 

Federation of Snowmobile Clubs). 

Advocates for improved equestrian opportunities – the Pennsylvania Equine Council (PEC) has emerged 

as the leader of this community. 

Advocates for more and improved non-motorized trails – several groups represent elements of this 

community, and ADP presented the most detailed proposal. 

Habitat diversity 

Advocates for increased forest openings for game species – the Ruffed Grouse Society (RGA) and the 

National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) represent this community. 

Advocates for increased mature forest and connectivity for threatened and endangered species – The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Western PA Conservancy (WPC), and ADP all represent these interests. 

It is worth noting that one potential community of interest has not coalesced as a unified group, summer 

residents and those who own vacation homes, locally known as “camps.” Many of these properties have 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-433

been owned for decades by families, extended family groups, or in some cases groups of urban neighbors. 

Many of them are on a first name basis with Ranger District staff. They tend to express their property 

issues and other concerns directly, particularly during the season of highest use, mid-May to midSeptember and in deer season in November and December. It appears that these stakeholders have worked 

through recreation group networks of ATV riders, equestrians, and others. The deer hunting community is 

perhaps the most dispersed and tends to focus its attention on the Pennsylvania Game Commission, which 

manages the deer herd in cooperation with landowners statewide. The principal cross-cutting issue for 

“camp” owners and seasonal residents is access, which takes two forms, roads on the Forest and direct 

off-road access. Generally, road management and maintenance, the number of roads, and location of them 

has not emerged as a plan revision issue, except with wilderness advocates and others who want fewer of 

them. Unfettered, direct access from individual properties for motorized recreation and equestrians has 

been raised in the context of those specific uses. Access is likely to be a concern with greater management 

of recreation. 

In general, the public values the scenery, recreational opportunities, and natural setting of the ANF. Most 

value the multiple-use approach for forest management, and there is general agreement that forest health 

is supremely important to ecological sustainability of the ANF, although the meaning of forest health and 

how to achieve it remain topics of significant disagreement. Survey research data on attitudes, beliefs and 

values, supported by direct public comments during the plan revision process to date show a desire for: 

balanced management of resources to contribute to environmental, economic and social sustainability; a 

diversity of uses and opportunities for recreation; and increased opportunity for the public to understand 

the complexity of the Forest and its resources, and how the Forest is managed to contribute to 

environmental, economic and social sustainability of the region. 

Civil rights and environmental justice 

At present, the populations of the most directly affected areas, the Pennsylvania counties of Elk, Forest, McKean 

and Warren, are more than 95 percent white, non-Hispanics. Members of under-represented groups in more 

distant, largely indirectly affected areas may become more frequent users of the Allegheny’s recreational 

opportunities, as these are being marketed widely as part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s PA Wilds 

program to promote tourism based in outdoor recreation. Revision of the forest plan has engaged the Seneca 

Nation of Indians through government-to-government consultation, building on joint efforts relating to protecting 

their cultural resources. 

Potential human health risks from herbicide use 

The ANF is used by a variety of social groups engaged in activities ranging from recreation (e.g. hunters, 

campers, anglers) to income producing (e.g. timber industry, and oil and gas industry employees). Fuelwood 

gatherers, food gatherers (e.g. berries, mushrooms, leaks), and water users (e.g. of springs) also use the ANF. 

Private landowners who own lands within the proclamation boundary travel through, and quite frequently recreate 

on the ANF. 

Herbicide treatment is an important reforestation tool for both even-aged and uneven-aged management. It was 

first used operationally on the ANF in 1987. Only ground application techniques are used on the ANF. Herbicides 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-434 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

have been used safely and effectively since then on the ANF on nearly 20,000 acres. No documented herbicide 

spills have occurred during operational use of herbicides on the ANF since the program was initiated in 1987. 

Four years of water testing on the ANF found no detectable levels of herbicide downstream from areas treated to 

achieve reforestation objectives (USDA FS 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002). In 1998 and 1999, monitoring of herbicide 

treatments on powerline rights-of-way found the same results. Refer to the water resources section for additional 

information. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Scope of analysis 

Effects on social conditions were analyzed for the four-county area. The bulk of social effects in the four-county 

area will be indirect. These will result from direct and induced economic effects working through local 

community structure and processes. Economic effects (impacts) are covered in the section on Economic 

Conditions. 

Introduction to effects 

Social effects will be treated parallel to the three descriptive sections above, population trends, lifestyles and 

social organization, and attitudes, beliefs and values toward land use patterns. 

Population trends 

Regarding population trends, no effects are anticipated on marital status, ethnicity or gender from revision 

of the LRMP. Slight changes to population trends and age cohort structure may result indirectly through 

direct and induced economic impacts resulting in changes to employment opportunities. A more 

noteworthy effect is likely to be that on education. This social effect, too, would be through economic 

impacts, especially direct payments to local government entities (school districts and townships) from 

ANF receipts. 

Lifestyles and social organization 

Regarding lifestyles and social organization, little effect is anticipated on family size or composition, 

which reflect large trends in U.S. society as a whole. Migration may be affected through economic 

impacts, particularly through changes to employment opportunities, and to a lesser degree through 

educational and recreational opportunities. Effects would most likely be among the 18-to-64-year-old age 

cohort. With increased employment and possibly educational opportunities for children in kindergarten 

through high school and more diverse, more user-responsive recreational opportunities, there may be 

greater retention and perhaps recruitment of individuals and heads of households from this key age 

cohort. These effects may extend beyond the four-county ANF core. The largest impact would be among 

those with existing economic or family ties to the region, some of whom might be attracted to return to 

their home region if they can meet their employment, income and educational expectations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-435

Attitudes, beliefs and values 

Attitudes, beliefs, and values toward land use patterns may show effects from management choices made 

to determine the future direction of the ANF. Effects may extend beyond the four-county ANF region. 

Those most affected will be people with deep individual or group passions about and commitment to 

particular places on the ANF, to specific sets of values regarding various resources, and/or to specific uses 

of the Forest. It could be argued that these effects will diminish with distance from the Forest. 

Civil rights and environmental justice 

There is little to no evidence for differential impacts of changes associated with revision of the LRMP for 

the Allegheny National Forest that would affect racial or ethnic minorities, low-income groups, or others. 

Potential human health risks from herbicide use 

Potential herbicide effects on human health are reviewed and analyzed through a process called a human 

health risk assessment. The human health risk assessment for proposed herbicide use on the Allegheny 

National Forest is fully documented in Appendix G-1 of this FEIS. It includes a detailed description of 

the methods used on the ANF to apply herbicides, herbicide application rates, and a description of the 

ANF vegetation management programs that involve herbicide use (Section 2). The results of the risk 

assessment are summarized in the following discussion. 

Source of information for the ANF risk assessment

Earlier human health risk assessments for the ANF were prepared in 1991 (USDA FS 1991a) and 

1997 (USDA FS 1997c). They provide some information useful to this analysis, but since then 

more current national risk assessments have been completed independently for the Forest Service 

by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). These SERA assessments (SERA, 

1997; SERA, 2003; SERA, 2004) are more consistent with contemporary approaches used by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for this same purpose, and they cover the wide array of 

environmental conditions found on National Forests throughout the Nation. These risk 

assessments cover glyphosate, sulfometuron methyl, as well as several inert ingredients and 

surfactants. The ANF risk assessment relies heavily on the information presented in them and 

incorporates much of it by reference. 

ANF standards, guidelines, and monitoring results also provide an important basis for assessing 

potential risks from herbicide treatment. 

Description of the risk analysis technique. 

Three major elements of the risk assessment include the following: 

• The hazard analysis documents information about the basic toxic properties of the 

chemicals, and the levels of exposure (called the reference dose) that produce no 

observed adverse effect to humans (Sections 3 and 6, the “Dose Response Assessment” 

subsections). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-436 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

• The exposure analysis quantifies the level of human exposure (workers and the public) 

expected from the proposed program of ANF vegetation management (Sections 4 and 7) 

and documents potential exposure from several potential accident scenarios. 

• The risk analysis compares the reference doses with the ANF exposure to determine the 

level of human health risk (Section 5, Overview subsection). Risk is expressed as the 

hazard quotient, defined as the ratio of the exposure to the reference dose. If the exposure 

is less than the reference dose, then the hazard quotient is less than one and the risk falls 

within an acceptable range. 

Stated another way, the assessment consists of comparing doses that people may get (as 

determined by the exposure analysis) from applying the herbicides (doses to workers) or from 

being near an application site (doses to the public) with doses that have produced no observed 

adverse effects in test animals in controlled laboratory studies (as determined in the hazard 

analysis). Risk judgments are based on the size of the ratio between the no observed adverse 

effect level (from the hazard analysis) and the estimated human dose (from the exposure 

analysis). When this ratio exceeds 100, there generally is little reason to be concerned unless the 

hazard analysis points to specific concerns for sensitive sub-populations, such as infants and 

children. This risk assessment looks at the potential human health effects from the active 

ingredient of each herbicide, and it also presents some information about the inert ingredients, 

formulated products, and surfactants. 

Effects common to all alternatives 

Population trends 

The primary effect on population trends under all alternatives may be on education. Receipts to local 

governments under the 25 percent funds payments are expected to increase (see Economics above). 

Increased payments to school districts will allow them greater discretion in their budget processes, and 

this may in turn lead to greater emphasis on education generally, and higher expenditures per pupil and 

higher teacher salaries specifically. Three caveats are important here: higher expenditures do not 

necessarily mean more successful educational outcomes; payments projections assume that the ANF is 

sufficiently funded to achieve the timber outputs projected per alternative; and this will have no direct 

effect on education beyond the high school level. 

Lifestyles and social organization 

Recreation programming will be better prepared to offer over the course of the LRMP an array of 

opportunities more responsive to Forest user demand, which is likely to have a salutary effect on 

lifestyles. Once there are better data to assess trends specific to the Allegheny, the new methodology for 

monitoring visitor use will enable recreation planners and programmers to understand more fully current 

use patterns and to anticipate the public’s desires. Other new techniques to analyze recreation impacts on 

resources, to provide GIS mapping of current conditions and make projections of future conditions, and to 

categorize recreational options will provide more tangible and targeted planning options. When these are 

coupled with national level recreation use research and demographic data, comprehensive planning can 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-437

more efficiently employ the resources of the Allegheny to meet recreational user needs and desires. By 

employing a more collaborative approach to recreation development, including closer work with partner 

groups and volunteers, the ANF can be more responsive to recreational users. And, the ANF is 

cooperating closely with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s significant program in tourism 

development through outdoor recreation, known as PA Wilds (see Recreation Opportunities and Forest 

Settings above). 

Attitudes, beliefs and values 

Sample surveys of attitudes, beliefs and values indicate that the public, both within the ANF four-county 

area and outside it, both rural and urban, rank their most important management requirements as: a) 

beauty and recreation; b) water quality; and c) fish and wildlife habitat, in that order. At the same time, 

the public ranks timber production and oil, gas and mineral production as their least important 

management requirements for the ANF. This dichotomy between protectionist uses versus utilitarian uses 

is generally the norm in the United States and other advanced post-industrial societies, but varies locally, 

depending on habits and what people are accustomed to. Generally, the threshold of tolerance for 

disturbance of the landscape is quite high in Pennsylvania, whether it is for surface coal mining, industrial 

agriculture, timber management, or oil and gas extraction. 

Timber harvest to enhance forest health and to meet market demand for wood, and oil and gas drilling and 

production in response to market demand, are both anticipated to sustain increased activity under the 

revised plan. To the extent that trade-offs exist between the former set of protectionist management 

requirements and the latter set of utilitarian management requirements of the public, maintaining a 

socially optimal balance among these desires will be challenging. This delicate balance may be further 

exacerbated if tourist numbers increase from promotional programs such as PA Wilds. Expectation 

management may become difficult for ANF managers and their partners working in provision of 

recreational opportunities, as well as for their partners in local and state government and on-Forest 

operators in timber and oil and gas. 

Potential human health risks from using herbicides 

Glyphosate

The following discussion summarizes possible risks to the public and to workers from the 

proposed use of glyphosate for managing vegetation on the ANF. This includes scenarios 

covering application that occurs as planned, as well as scenarios that look at risks resulting from 

accidental exposure to the herbicides. 

Public risks

The term “public” includes hikers, campers, food gatherers, anglers, hunters, fuelwood gatherers, 

Native Americans, oil and gas producers, timber operators, berry pickers, and other ANF users. 

Basically it includes all people who use or work in the ANF except those who work with the 

herbicide contract (see also the Summary on pages G1-1 and G1-2). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-438 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G1, section 5 of the ANF Human Health Risk Assessment (Tables 49-57) shows that 

the planned use of glyphosate using mechanical ground broadcast foliar, backpack foliar, or cut 

surface treatments on the ANF, even at the maximum exposure scenarios, should not affect (the 

risk is negligible) any member of the public, including sensitive individuals. This holds true for 

both the acute and the longer-term scenarios considered (Appendix G1, p.G1-89). 

None of the acute accidental exposure scenarios evaluated exceed the level of concern, except for 

two of the maximum scenarios for cut surface treatment (see Tables 51, 54, and 57). These two 

are extraordinarily extreme and conservative scenarios that are used in all Forest Service risk 

assessments. The first scenario (hazard quotient equals 1.17 to 1.49) is for the consumption of 

contaminated water after an accidental spill of 5 gallons of undiluted solution into a small pond. 

This situation is extreme to the point of limited plausibility since a worker would use only .5 to 

3.5 gallons of product during the course of an entire day. Even more unlikely is the second 

scenario, the direct spray of an unclothed child during a cut surface application that involves 

using backpack or hand-held equipment to treat an individual stem (hazard quotient equals 1.99-

2.54). It is highly unlikely that all of the events necessary to produce either of these accidental 

doses would occur. The ANF has not experienced an accidental spill into a body of water nor an 

accidental spraying of any public user since the treatment program began in 1987 (Appendix G1, 

pp. G1-89 and G1-90). 

Worker risks

The term “worker” includes all personnel involved in applying herbicides. The risk characterization 

comparisons in Appendix G-1 Section 5 (Tables 40-48) show that worker exposures should not 

exceed a level of concern for either the mechanical ground, backpack foliar, or cut surface 

applications, even at the highest exposure scenarios evaluated (Appendix G1, p.G1-80). 

Sulfometuron methyl

Possible risks to the public and to workers from the proposed use of sulfometuron methyl for 

managing vegetation are summarized (see also the summary on pages G1-2 and G1-3). 

Public risks

The term “public” involves the same categories of individuals mentioned above in the glyphosate 

discussion. 

Section 8 of the ANF Human Health Risk Assessment (Tables 93-98) shows that the ANF 

planned use of sulfometuron methyl using mechanical ground broadcast foliar or backpack foliar 

treatments, even at the maximum exposure scenarios, does not exceed a level of concern for any 

member of the public, including sensitive individuals. This holds true for both the acute and the 

longer-term scenarios considered. The risks are negligible, just as they are for glyphosate 

(Appendix G1, pp. G1-140 and G1-141). 

Worker risks

The term “worker” includes all personnel involved in applying herbicides. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-439

The risk characterization comparisons in Appendix G1, Section 8 (Tables 87-92) show that 

worker exposures should not exceed a level of concern for either the mechanical ground or 

backpack foliar applications, even at the highest exposure scenarios evaluated. The simple 

interpretation of the quantitative characterization of risk to workers presented in Appendix G1 for 

sulfometuron methyl (as is also the case for glyphosate) is that even under the most extreme 

scenarios evaluated, workers would not be exposed to levels of sulfometuron methyl regarded as 

unacceptable, so long as reasonable and prudent handling and application practices are followed 

(Appendix G1, p.G1-134). 

General risks of skin or eye irritation

Glyphosate, sulfometuron methyl, and their formulated products are skin and eye irritants. These 

types of effects (such as skin irritation) may occur after short-term exposure to unusually high 

levels of herbicide. Studies have shown these herbicides do not penetrate the skin immediately, 

but over a considerable period of time. Workers would have to ignore their own safety and not 

wash the chemical off their skin in order to receive the predicted dose. All ANF work sites have 

wash water available onsite, and all workers are trained in safety procedures. As with the 

handling of any chemical, including a variety of common household products, workers need to 

take reasonable care to avoid contact with skin and eyes. 

Synergistic effects

Synergistic effects of chemicals are those that occur from exposure to two chemicals either 

simultaneously or within a relatively short period of time. Synergism occurs when the combined 

effects of two chemicals is greater than the sum of the effects of each agent alone. However, 

instances of chemical combinations that cause synergistic effects are relatively rare. Present 

scientific knowledge in toxicology indicates that an exposure to a mixture of pesticides is more 

likely to lead to additivity or antagonism, rather than synergism, when considering the 

toxicological effects of such a combination. EPA generally recommends using an additivity 

model when little information exists on the toxicity of the mixture and when components of the 

mixture appear to induce the same toxic effect by the same mode of action. Based on the limited 

amount of data available on pesticide combinations, it is possible, but unlikely that synergistic 

effects could occur as a result of exposure to a mixture of glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl 

(USDA FS 1991, Appendix A, Section 5-14 and 15, and FEIS Appendix G1, pp. G1-4 and G1-142). 

Inert ingredients

Inert ingredients are chemicals used with the active ingredient that serve as a carrier for the active 

ingredient and facilitate effective herbicide application. They are not intended to supplement the 

herbicide’s toxic properties. Data gaps exist regarding the toxic properties of inert ingredients 

and, therefore, formulated products. All of the inerts in the formulated products or surfactants 

considered for use on the ANF are on EPA inert List 3 or List 4b. EPA List 4b inerts are 

chemicals that the EPA concludes neither pose a toxicological concern nor are they reasonably 

considered to be toxic products (USDA FS, 1991, Appendix A, Section 3-13, and FEIS Appendix 

G1, pp. G1-36 and 37, and G1-101). List 3 indicates that there is unknown toxicity for inerts 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-440 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

where there was no basis for placing it on any of the other lists. For this analysis, we conclude 

data gaps regarding these inerts are not a primary concern because they are on EPA Lists 3 and 

4b. In addition, since the risk posed by the herbicides’ active ingredients are overstated, any risk 

posed by the herbicides as formulated products is considered to be characterized by the analysis 

of the active ingredients. The formulations proposed for use on the ANF are similar to or less 

acutely toxic than their active ingredients (Appendix G1, Tables 9 and 59). 

Effects from each alternative 

Effects to social conditions from each alternative are best considered comparatively, in concert with the changes 

across alternatives. It is not anticipated that population trends will be affected directly and differentially from one 

alternative to another. Indirect effects may operate in tandem with economic impacts discussed above. 

Lifestyles and social organization 

Effects to lifestyles are both direct and worth discussion. As examples, those who feel that riding ATVs is 

an emotionally satisfying form of recreation or a recreation opportunity that is important for their business 

catering to ATV riders, will generally prefer the greater opportunities presented in Alternative B. They 

also would derive more satisfaction from Alternative B, were it fully implemented. Similarly, equestrians 

who favor no restrictions on their riding would probably prefer Alternative A. Those who prefer 

designated and marked trail riding only would have their needs met better by Alternative D, while those 

wishing options, say for family versus solitary riding, might achieve greater satisfaction from the 

implementation of Alternative B or C. And for those for whom the critical lifestyle impact is the “bottom 

line,” be it employment or income impacts driven by outputs of timber and forest recreational users, 

comparison across alternatives can be made from the table in the Economic section. 

Table 3-125 suggests how some of the most active groups representing communities of interest may rank 

the four alternatives. Given the level of engagement in the plan revision process to date, we anticipate 

detailed comments from these communities of interest as individuals and through their organizations. 

Note that not all of the groups mentioned above are included here, as not all have interests that vary 

greatly across alternatives. 

There are many active citizens who have a great lifestyle passion in their lives, one that may be reflected 

in one and only one of the elements that varies across the array of Alternatives. Evidence from public 

involvement in plan revision, from comments submitted to date, and from user surveys indicates that 

many people with a strong interest in the Allegheny are multi-dimensional in their interest. 

Table 3-125. Possible rankings of alternatives by active interest groups 

Community of Interest Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Cm Alternative D 

AA and AFA highest high medium low 

ADP lowest low medium high 

AHUG high high medium low 

ATR high highest low lowest 

FAW lowest low medium high 

NWTF and RFG high highest medium low 

PEC high highest medium low 

TNC and WPAC lowest low medium high 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-441

When in open-ended formats on surveys, at collaborative public meetings, or in informal situations, they 

generally express several desirable outcomes in concert with the Forest Service’s multiple-use mandate. 

Many citizens, particularly those from the four-county ANF region, also often have practical 

considerations. These may include their occupations, a secondary source of income, or their hobbies. 

These make their lives more complex and more interesting, and they attenuate people’s passions when 

these various interests are considered simultaneously. For the many citizens like these, the assessment of 

effects across all alternatives and from individual alternatives is far from transparent and obvious. As they 

seek balanced management, increased diversity of recreational opportunities, and greater understanding of 

the complexity of the Forest, they are likely to highly value and favor elements from several of the 

Alternatives, and therefore provide favorable and unfavorable comments and suggestions across 

Alternatives. 

Effects to human health from herbicide use 

The main variation between the alternatives would be in the number of acres treated per year (Table 

3-31). During the next 20 years, Alternative D would involve treating 800 acres per year, slightly less 

than the average 1,000 acres/year that have been treated since 1987. Alternative A projects an average of 

1,700 acres per year, whereas Alternatives B and Cm project slightly more, an average of 1,900 and 2,000 

acres per year, respectively. 

Mitigation to help ensure negligible human health risk

Even though public health risks are minimal, a number of mitigation measures in each alternative 

will help limit public exposure to herbicides. Some examples include the following: 

• ANF personnel will alert people who are known to use specific forest areas where 

treatment is planned. Owners of nearby vacation dwellings or homes would be notified as 

well. 

• For sites that contain active oil and gas equipment, ANF personnel will contact the 

operators prior to spraying so they have an opportunity to limit their exposure to 

herbicides, if they prefer. 

• For sites with nearby trails or dispersed recreation use, posters at trailheads and along the 

trail will alert hikers when they are approaching the spray areas so they can avoid 

walking through them, if they choose to do so. In order to minimize contact with 

campers, areas in the vicinity of dispersed campsites or high recreation use areas would 

not be treated during holiday weekends. 

• Some areas may adjoin roads that are open to public use. Signs would be posted at 

intervisible locations along the road to alert people that spraying has occurred. These 

signs will remain in place for at least 30 days following treatment. 

• All herbicide label guidelines and safety precautions, including those related to worker 

safety, will be followed. 

• During herbicide application, Forest Service personnel will be present at each treatment 

site to caution visitors to stay away from equipment and the treated area and to respond to 

their questions and concerns. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-442 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

It is highly unlikely that the public would contact the spray mist or the sprayed vegetation, unless 

they choose to do so. Even if they do, the risk of it affecting them would be negligible. 

Cumulative effects 

The cumulative effects boundary will be the four-county ANF region. The time period will be 2006 to 2020. The 

cumulative effects of the group of alternatives taken together and of the individual alternatives singly on social 

sustainability are essentially indeterminate. The four-county region of the ANF is very much linked to the U.S. 

and, in many respects, to the global economy, as demonstrated by the increased demand and price for oil and gas. 

The most important cumulative effects will be those that work through the economy from timber management and 

the productive health of the Forest, outdoor recreation opportunities and the possible further development of the 

area for tourism, and the growth of oil and gas extraction, a very cyclical industry. Regional and national trends in 

demographics and migration have played out in the region over the past decades, and the four-county region 

resembles other relatively remote rural areas at the outer fringe of urban influences, but subject to strongly 

cyclical natural resource demands. In the recent past, neither of these strong macro-level influences has worked in 

favor of the four-county ANF region. 

It could be said that macro-level changes in attitudes, beliefs and values have also played out in the region. This 

has spawned considerable controversy regarding the management of the Forest for multiple uses, including timber 

production, the proper balance of these several uses, and the relationship of the Forest to the region and to the 

larger system of public lands. Changes in lifestyle preferences have also been evident in the shifting patterns of 

recreation uses, some of which are coupled with an aging population and some of which are purely tastes and 

preferences of people. The cumulative effects on social sustainability will be shaped largely by the interaction of 

these larger forces (economic, demographic, lifestyle choices, and attitudes, beliefs and values) and the response 

to them through the joint efforts of the Forest’s regional partners and the Forest’s management team. 

Likely areas of cumulative effects include the impact of tourism development activities based on promotion of 

outdoor recreation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the increased numbers of retired people and the 

amenities they seek for their retirement years, and the potential for expansion and intensification of oil and gas 

extraction. Each of these has the potential to bring about social or socio-cultural change in the four-county ANF 

region. 

Effects from PA Wilds program and people attracted to the area 

In the past 25 years there has not been a comparable tourism promotion program in this area. Promotion 

of tourism by the PA Wilds program is being avidly embraced by some communities and some business 

interests, even while being regarded with disdain and fear by others. This is not uncommon, nor is it 

irrational on the part of either group. Outdoor recreation is highly valued by many in the ANF region and 

sharing it with others who may value it in a different way, or who have different expectations about how 

to enjoy it, presents challenges. Major influxes of tourists, even high value-added, low-impact tourists 

who are the target of PA Wilds efforts, can require significant changes for businesses catering to them and 

to those sharing the resource, whether it is a favorite section of trout stream or a scenic overlook. 

Tensions between tourists (outsiders to residents) and residents (locals to tourists) can be very 

uncomfortable for both, for long periods of time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-443

Some very successful tourism development schemes, successful in terms of attracting large numbers of 

tourists and their spending, have seen long-term cultural changes in the area where they are focused and 

have produced an influx of new permanent residents. These in-migrants are often motivated by a scenic 

setting, a quieter lifestyle, outdoor recreational opportunities, a lower cost of living, or a business 

opportunity not realized by residents. These can be people of any age with skills or talents that permit 

them to be “footloose,” i.e., not tied to any particular place to carry out their employment, as well as 

retirees seeking the same setting to enjoy at their leisure. In the future, there is likely to be more of both of 

these migrant folks, as well as people living elsewhere who have ties to this area from having grown up 

here. Whether or not a promotional program such as the PA Wilds will be sufficient to attract them to 

visit to recreate, or if diversification of the region’s economic base can provide the amenities to attract 

them to stay longer, remains to be seen. It is important to consider that tourism can complement the 

present economic base by providing additional seasonal or niche market employment and markets for 

traditional small businesses, such as wood workers. 

Effects from private oil and gas development 

The last potential set of cumulative effects stems from the fact that the mineral rights under 93 percent for 

the Allegheny are owned by private individuals or companies and that we are in the midst of a very large 

upsurge in the cycle of oil and gas extraction (see Appendix F). Projected levels of new oil and gas wells 

are double that level the area has experienced since 1986. Such an upsurge produces an upsurge in 

activity in the field, re-opening capped wells, drilling new wells in or near already developed areas, and 

opening new areas to develop, with new road construction, site clearing, and drilling. There is evidence 

that many local residents and long-term Forest users are frustrated with this burst of activity. (It must be 

noted that this phenomenon is not limited to the Forest, but is also true of private landowners, including 

some large timber companies.) How long this will take to play out and what its final impacts will be on 

the resources and the population are yet to be seen. This does not appear to be auspicious for meeting the 

expectations of new outdoor recreationists attracted by PA Wilds promotion. Managing these new visitors 

and their expectations may prove very challenging for ANF management and their partners in this effort. 

Effects from herbicide use 

In any alternative evaluated here, cumulative effects are not likely because there is no indication that 

repeated exposures from planned use of herbicides will exceed the threshold for toxicity (Appendix G1, 

Sections 5 and 8, cumulative effects subsection). It is possible and even likely that some individuals 

will be exposed to multiple sources of herbicides (particularly glyphosate) as a result of ANF programs, 

other programs (treatment of private land, homeowner use, rights-of-way, etc.), and exposure to 

glyphosate in crop residues. However, the use of herbicides on the ANF is not likely to substantially 

increase an individual’s potential exposure to these herbicides from the other sources (Appendix G1, 

Sections 5 and 8). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-444 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5 Resource Commitments 

This section contains effects disclosures that are required by federal law, regulations, or policy, and that generally 

apply to all the preceding resource area effects sections in this chapter associated with the proposed federal 

actions. Forest Plan revision and Forest Plans do not directly implement any management activities; however, 

establishment of management emphasis and direction for implementation activities are made. 

3.5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Mitigation 

The application of forestwide standards and guidelines and resource protection measures would limit the extent 

and duration of any adverse environmental effects. Nevertheless, some adverse effects are unavoidable. For 

detailed disclosure of all effects, including unavoidable adverse effects, see the preceding Environmental 

Consequences discussions for each resource area in the physical, biological and social sections of Chapter 3. It is 

important to note actual effects do not occur until project-level decisions are implemented. 

This section describes those adverse effects that may not be avoided when project decisions are made to 

implement the LRMP. Implementation of any of the alternatives would generally move the landscape and 

ecosystem towards identified desired conditions, but adverse environmental effects may occur even with 

standards and guidelines to control the effects. The most notable unavoidable effects when project-level decisions 

are made are summarized below. 

Physical 

Increased erosion and sedimentation from soil disturbances associated with timber harvesting, road construction, 

recreation use and facilities construction (including trails). Effects from roads can be long-term, whereas effects 

from skid trails and landings are generally short-term. Loss of soil productivity occurs through loss of landform 

from road construction and mineral pit development. 

Biological 

Even-aged management on the Allegheny National Forest involves treatment of herbicides to control undesirable 

vegetation. Individual non-target plants or understory woody species within specific project sites would be killed. 

The degree to which herbicides affect non-target plants varies by herbicide, time of year applied, and method of 

application. Foliar spraying with glyphosate will kill most tree seedlings or herbaceous plants that have green 

leaves at the time of spraying. Sulfometuron methyl will not harm, or may cause only slight damage, to many tree 

seedlings present on the site when it is applied after September. Herbicide treatments will temporarily displace 

individual songbirds and small mammals to adjacent areas when target understory vegetation is killed. 

Road construction and stone pit development will alter natural landforms and result in loss of overstory vegetation 

and wildlife habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-445

Social 

Activities, such as timber harvest and road construction, may temporarily disrupt recreational uses. Other 

activities, such as road closures, may permanently reduce or change the opportunities available. Some kinds of 

developments (such as hiking trails) or activities (such as motorized recreation use) may displace other recreation 

uses that are incompatible and create user conflicts. 

Herbicide treatment temporarily affects visual quality by turning vegetation brown. This affect is short lived, 

since most herbicide treatment would occur close to the time when fall foliage color change occurs, and new 

vegetation rapidly begins to re-occupy treated areas the following year. 

3.5.2 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

Short-term uses are those expected to occur in the first decade, including recreation use and development, timber 

harvest and associated reforestation activities, and access development and management (FS roads). Although 

these uses are not directly implemented by the LRMP, the potential for these uses are described in LRMP goals 

and objectives, both at the forestwide and management area levels (see Chapters 2 and 3 in the LRMP). 

Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a period of time beyond 

the planning period. Minimum management requirements prescribed by the Forestwide standards and guidelines 

will be met under all alternatives. Minimum requirements assure that long-productivity of the land will not be 

impaired by short-term uses. 

Monitoring and evaluation, as described in the LRMP (Chapter 4), apply to all alternatives. A primary purpose of 

monitoring is to ensure that long-term productivity of the land is maintained or improved. If monitoring and 

evaluation show that LRMP standards and guidelines are inadequate to protect long-term productivity of the land, 

then the plan will be adjusted (through amendment or revision) to provide more protection or fewer impacts 

during project implementation. 

Although all alternatives are designed to maintain long-term productivity, there are differences among the 

alternatives in the long-term availability or condition of resources. There may also be differences among 

alternatives in long-term expenditures necessary to maintain or achieve desired conditions. The differences are 

discussed throughout the various sections of Chapter 3. 

3.5.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are defined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 

Environmental Policy and Procedures (7/06/2004). 

Irreversible is a term that describes the loss of future options. It applies primarily to the effects of use of 

nonrenewable resources, such as material minerals (stone pits) or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as 

soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-446 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Irretrievable is a term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. For example, 

some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as winter sports site. 

The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If use changes, it is possible to resume 

timber production. When one alternative produces less of a natural resource (such as timber volume) or offers 

fewer opportunities for use (such as motorized recreation) than another alternative, the difference represents an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. 

Decisions made in a forest plan do not represent actual irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. A 

forest plan determines what kind and levels of activities are appropriate on the Forest; it does not make sitespecific or project decisions. The decision to irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources occurs: 

• When the Forest Service makes a project or site-specific decision 

• At the time Congress acts on a recommendation to establish a new Wilderness or to include a river in the 

Wild and Scenic river system 

Examples of irretrievable resource commitments associated with project-level decisions that implement the 

LRMP are: 

• Opportunities for non-motorized recreation, solitude, and primitive or wilderness experiences would be 

foregone when projects are implemented for other purposes 

• Timber volume outputs would be foregone on land determined as not suitable for harvest. 

• Opportunities to maintain or produce a specific vegetation condition are foregone for some period of time 

so that another vegetation condition may be produced in its place, such as through silvicultural 

prescriptions and the use of herbicides 

• Commodity outputs would be reduced or foregone on areas where specific uses are implemented, such as 

developed recreation areas 

• Non-commodity values, including scenic resources, may be reduced or foregone in areas where 

commodity uses are implemented 

• To the degree that an action preserves or encourages the development of mature and old-growth habitat, 

opportunities to develop early structural habitat would be reduced (The reverse is also true, to the degree 

that an action preserves or encourages the development of early structural habitat, opportunities to 

develop mature and old-growth habitat would be reduced.) 

3.5.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 

Energy is consumed in the administration of natural resources on the Forest. The main activities that consume 

energy are timber harvest and associated reforestation activities (prescribed fire), recreation use, road construction 

and maintenance, and administrative activities of the Forest Service and other regulatory agencies. Energy 

consumption is expected to vary only slightly by alternative. Alternatives with higher potential for timber harvest 

and/or road construction, reconstruction, and obliteration are expected to have somewhat higher levels of energy 

use. Based on that assumption, Alternative A would likely have the highest energy use, followed by in descending 

order by Alternatives B, C, and D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-447

Several opportunities exist under all alternatives to provide for energy conservation or conversion from less 

plentiful fuels to more plentiful fuels. 

3.5.5 Conflicts with Other Agency or Government Goals or Objectives 

For the most part goals and objectives in the LRMP complement and support those of surrounding government 

entities and the County Comprehensive Plans referenced below. Most of the contents within the LRMP are 

refinements of the 1986 Forest Plan, which has been under implementation for over 20 years. 

Although the DEIS did not list any conflicts, the following limited conflicts with county goals and objectives are 

added in the FEIS. They are stated in the County comprehensive Plans as noted. These plans were written over 

different time periods so a brief overview on commonality within each county as it relates to the ANF is provided. 

Economic development is a high priority in each county. Job creation in forest products, tourism, and recreation 

are expectations of science based, multiple-use management on the ANF. The economic development zones 

identified are all in areas with existing or mixed private ownerships along major road corridors (with exception of 

the Kinzua Resort, identified by Warren County mentioned below). There is no identified conflict over any 

specific economic development proposal. In summary, they would like to see additional recreation opportunities, 

protection of forest amenity values, and Elk, Forest, and Warren County Plans advocate increasing ANF timber 

harvest levels (Zinn, 2006). 

Potentially conflicting goals, objectives, or concerns in county comprehensive plans 

1. Elk County 1999 Update of the 1968 Comprehensive Plan (Elk County Commissioners, 1999). The Rigdway 

Borough Water Works and Johnsonburg Municipal Authority list concerns for quality and quantity of future 

water supplies to service their needs from two watersheds located largely on the ANF. Nothing specific about 

ANF management is mentioned in these general statements. 

2. Forest County Comprehensive Plan 1998 (Forest County Conservation District and Planning Commission, 

1998). Concerns over the level of ANF land ownership and the trend of acquisitions since the first county 

plan in 1975 is expounded, as it relates to a reduced and unreliable tax base. A map featuring a “public land 

growth boundary” is contained. The following goals and objectives pose potential conflict with the LRMP: 

• Forest County should continue to seek ways to control and mitigate the effects which occur through the 

conversion of private lands to public. 

• Forest County should continue to explore, and adopt, appropriate policy measures which would result in a 

“No Loss of Private Property” standard within the County. 

• Use of National Forest land should be appropriate, and where needed, regulated to protect its value as a 

total community resource. Greater effort should be made to enter into cooperative management 

arrangements to offer local opinion and input regarding usage of National Forest lands within Forest 

County and to explore, in frank and realistic ways, the impacts endured and absorbed by Forest County 

citizens (p. 8). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

3-448 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

3. Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Plan for McKean County 1977 (McKean County Planning Commission, 

1977) and the Tuna Valley Council of Governments Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Plan 2001 (City of 

Bradford, and Bradford, Foster, Lafayette, and Lewis Run Townships,6/2001). Although some industrial and 

commercial development areas are listed adjacent to ANF lands no concerns or specific conflicts are listed. 

4. Warren County Comprehensive Plan Update 2005 (Warren County Planning and Zoning Commission, 

6/2005). The following statements are presented to point to areas of potential conflict as the LRMP is 

implemented: 

• “Although both the Kinzua Dam/Allegheny Reservoir complex and the ANF are located in Warren 

County, there is little local input into the development, or operation of these resources – resources 

important for local recreation opportunities and for economic development. This should, and must, 

change.” (p.87) 

• “ANF Management Plan – Special Note: Between the ANF, the State Game Lands, and Chapman Park, 

approximately 30 percent of all land in Warren County is under public ownership. A formal policy of 

County participation in further acquisition decision by these bodies is essential.” (p.107) 

• “One prime local deficiency is the lack of a lodge in the Kinzua Dam area. Currently, that key facility’s 

resources are aimed at the outdoor camper or day visitor. A lodge could attract the overnight traveler. 

Overnight travelers represent a key increase in tourist spending, important for local tourist-related 

businesses. Typically, lodges on Army Corps of Engineers facilities are based on a 25-year lease. The 

first step is a feasibility study for such a unit.” (p.97) 

These conflicts are not considered as barriers to further productive relationships with County planners or 

commissioners. The following Goals and Objectives responsive to these conflicts are listed below and contained 

in the LRMP: 

• Collaborate with county and local governments to ensure that land adjustments benefit both federal and 

local interests (Goal p.17). 

• Maintain or restore watersheds and their associated stream and groundwater processes, channel stability, 

riparian resources, and aquatic habitats to a functional condition. Provide quality, quantity, and duration 

of stream flow to maintain levels that support desired aquatic species or the most restrictive beneficial use 

(Goal p.16). 

• Complete a management plan for the area surrounding the Allegheny Reservoir including that portion of 

the National Recreation Area (Objective p.19). 

No other major conflicts between this Forest Plan revision effort and the stated goals and objectives of other 

governmental entities are known. Project level proposals during implementation of the LRMP will allow 

additional public involvement opportunities for decision makers to consider any specific associated controversy in 

these areas. 
Chapter 4 

List of Preparers 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-1

4 LIST OF PREPARERS

The preparation of the FEIS and the LRMP has been a major undertaking. A team of FS associates representing a 

broad spectrum of disciplines was responsible for writing and compiling the planning documents. The ideas and 

philosophy that guided the team came from the public and from other FS associates who worked with them. Their 

preparation could not have been completed without the support and assistance of our colleagues in the Regional 

Office and every employee of the ANF, particularly the program managers. We also recognize the Forest 

Leadership Team as providing instrumental guidance during this process. 

4.1 Interdisciplinary Core Team 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 William J Connelly 

Forest Planning Staff Officer 

B.A. Social Studies, Denison University, 1971; M.S. Economics, University of 

Oregon, 1981 

25 years with USFS primarily in planning, analysis and budgets; Economist, 

Program Analyst, Umqua National Forest; Operations Research Analyst, 

Program Analyst, Pacific Northwest Regional Office 

Leadership and economic analysis 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Mike Antalosky

Forest Fire Management Officer 

B.S.F. Forest Resources Management, West Virginia University 1975, M.S.F. 

Disturbed Land Reclamation/Silviculture, Stephen F. Austin State University 

1977 

27 years with USFS; Timber Sale Administration, NEPA Coordinator, District 

Recreation Manager, Soil & Water Program Manager, Dispersed Recreation 

Specialist, District Fire Management Officer, Forest Planner, Plan Revision 

Team Leader, Fire Management Officer 

Wildland fire suppression, fuels management, prescribed fire and mechanical 

fuels treatments, wildfire prevention 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Jim Apgar

Forest Environmental Coordinator 

B.S. in Forest Management, University of Massachusetts 

Silviculturist, Timber Management Assistant, Off Highway Vehicle Trail 

Planner, Planning and Design Leader 

NEPA Coordinator 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Mike Bowmaster 

Land Surveyor 

High School 

35 years surveying 

Information about lands and special uses as requested
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

4-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 David A Drake

Resource Information Specialist 

B.S. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, dual major Forest Biology/Resource Management 

17 years with Forest Service; 10 with FIA, 7 with the Allegheny National Forest 

Database/technical support 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Laura E. Drake

GIS Specialist 

BS in education, Edinboro University 

23 years working for the Forest Service; 19 as a computer specialist, 4 as a GIS 

specialist 

GIS support 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Lori Elmquist 

Planning Assistant 

BS Communications, Clarion University 

6 months with U.S. Forest Service 

Planning record/administrative support 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Cara Farr 

Soil Scientist and Air Quality Specialist 

B.S. in Environmental Protection (West Virginia Univ.) 

M.S. in Soil Science (West Virginia Univ.) 

Temporary Soil Scientist Monongahela National Forest 9 months; Soil Scientist 

and Air Quality Specialist Allegheny National Forest < 1 year. 

Soil and Air input 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Jack A Frank 

Forester 

B.S. with Honors, Forest management, 1977, Cook College/Rutgers University 

26 years as a forester for the USDA Forest Service 

Inventory data cleaning, update and selection for analysis; development of forest 

vegetation growth and yield tables 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Rick Fox

Forest Plan Analyst 

B.S., U.C. Berkeley, 1995; M.F.S., Yale University, 2001 

ANF employee (planning) since 2003; various non-profit and academic work 

experience in international forestry and resource management policy 1993-2003 

Responsible for analytical methodologies and overall technical quality of the 

revision process until August 2004 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Michael Hampton

Forest Ecosystem Management and Planning Staff Officer (former) 

B.S. Forestry, Southern Illinois University 

27 years with USFS 

Leadership and guidance through November 2004 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-3

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Jeanne Hickey

Resource Information Specialist (Geographic Information System-GIS) 

B.S. Environmental Science and Forest Biology, SUNY College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry; M.S. Wildlife Science, Cornell University 

15 years experience in natural resources field. Six years with various agencies 

including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New 

York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Cornell University, and 

Cornell University. Nine years with U.S. Forest Service in various positions 

including timber cruiser, biological science technician, wildlife biologist, NEPA 

writer, GIS specialist (present). 

GIS data development and summaries, GIS analysis and mapping 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Andrea Hille

Assistant Forest Silviculturist 

B.S. Natural Resources Management; Continuing Education in Hardwood 

Silviculture, Forest Health Topics, and Ecosystem Management; Recreation 

Planning Short Course, Clemson University; 

Completed USDA Forest Service Eastern Region Program for Advanced Studies 

in Silviculture 

18 years USDA Forest Service; Silviculture, reforestation, recreation and 

wilderness planning, special uses; Certified Silviculturist in USDA Forest 

Service Region 9 for 7 years; Certified Pesticide Applicator 

Participated in development of treatment prescriptions, associated reforestation 

cost data, and standards and guidelines relative to vegetation management and 

pesticide use; Assisted with Herbicide Risk Assessment; Prepared Rationale for 

Vegetation Management Appendix and Vegetation and Forest Products portions 

of FEIS. 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Linda Houston

Forest Geologist 

BA, University of Rochester 

23 years experience. Minerals and Geology Management, Forest Planning, 

Hazmat, Project Management 

Technical programmatic input 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Edward L Huffman

Soil Scientist and Air Quality Specialist 

M.S. in Watershed Science (Colorado State Univ.), B.S. in Forestry (Michigan 

Technological Univ.) 

USDA Forest Service Soil Scientist since 2001;University Soils Research 1999-

2001 

Provided Soil and Air input and analysis to the planning process 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

4-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Clare Hydock

Botanist 

Associate Degree in Wildlife and Recreation Management, 1989, Hocking 

College. Bachelor’s Degree in Range Management, 1992, University of 

Wyoming. 

16 years experience in working as a Park Ranger, Range Technician, Rangeland 

Management Specialist, and Botanist. Worked for the National Park Service, 

Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 

Species Viability Evaluations for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants. 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Arnie Irvine

Reality Specialist 

B.S. in Forest Science, some post graduate 

31 years USFS, primarily as a resource planner, special uses, retired 2005 

Telecommunications sites, special use input 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Rick Kandare

Forest Archaeologist/Heritage Resource Program Manager 

1974 A.A.S. in Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Niagara County Community 

College; 1976 B.A. Anthropology University at Buffalo; 1983 M.A. 

Anthropology University of Arkansas 

Member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) since 1983; over 

25 years of experience in archaeology including 16 years with the USFS 

Heritage resources 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Charles M Keeports 

Forest Hydrologist 

B.S. in Environmental Science with emphasis in water resources, Susquehanna 

University, PA 

Hydrologist with Bureau of Land Management in Elko, Nevada, 4 years; USFS, 

1 year 

Water Resources and Riparian Management 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Carol LoSapio 

Technical Publications Writer-Editor (USDA FS CAT Publishing Arts) 

Technical communications with a minor in information technology, Colorado 

State University 

14 years with the Forest Service, 10 years operating a writing, editing, and 

desktop publishing business, and 7 years with USDA APHIS Center for 

Epidemiology and Animal Health 

Document editing and layout/print preparation 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Dennis E Mattison

Planning Assistant 

IT Certificate – Pitt Bradford 

2 years with Forest Service as Planning Assistant 

Chapter 4 and 5 of DEIS; Appendix A of DEIS 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-5

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Barbara McGuinness

Forester 

B.S. Environmental Forest Biology/Resource Management, SUNY College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry; M.S. Ecology, Penn State University 

11 years technology transfer, communications, and writing/editing for 

Northeastern Research Station 

Document editing and layout 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Stephen K. Miller

Public Services Staff Officer 

B.A. Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State University, 1970; M.S. American Studies, 

Pennsylvania State University, 1979; M.P.S. International Agriculture and Rural 

Development, Cornell University, 1982; Ph.D. Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania 

State University, 1992 

Has over 15 years of senior management experience in Federal government and 

academia, and 20 years practice in economic and social development and natural 

resource management. His technical expertise and consulting experience include: 

community and economic development; sustainable and participatory natural 

resource management; and, design, implementation and evaluation of 

development projects and programs. 

Integral in the public involvement process; Social conditions analysis 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 April Moore

Ecologist 

BS Biology - MS Biology 

3 years as PFT 

Botany/Habitat Diversity/Species Viability Evaluation/Alternative Development 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution 

 Brad Nelson

Wildlife Biologist 

BS In Animal Science, University of Maryland; MS in Wildlife Management, 

Frostburg State University 

1986 to present, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Allegheny National Forest; 1981 – 

1986, District Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, 

Wyoming; 1979 – 1981, Endangered Species Biologist, Bureau of Land 

Management, Alexandria, Virginia 

Interdisciplinary Team Member – Habitat Diversity, Species Viability Analysis, 

Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Brent Pence

Fisheries Biologist 

A.A.S. Recreation and Wildlife Management; B.S. Fisheries Resource 

Management 

19 years fisheries and aquatic resource mgt., including hydrology duties; member 

of a helitack firefighting crew; member of a stand examination crew; member of 

a timber marking crew. 

Team member working on Species Viability Evaluation, with Aquatic Species; 

Assisted with development of Standards and Guidelines for fisheries, riparian, 

and other aquatic resources; Assisted with the development of desired condition, 

objective, and goal statements for aquatic resources; Contributed to the affected 

environment and effects analysis write-ups for aquatic resources 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

4-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Scott Reitz

Wildlife Biologist 

A.A.S: Natural Resource and Conservation, B.S.: Wildlife Science, Graduate and 

Undergraduate course work in Fisheries and Range Science, Continuing 

Education in Wildlife and Ecosystem Management 

27 years experience with USDA Forest Service in wildlife and range 

management 

Conducted Species Viability Evaluation; helped develop Standards and 

Guidelines 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Dan Salm

Forest Engineer 

MSCE - transportation systems, BSFE, AAS - Electronics Technology 

25 years - FS Transportation Planning 

Long term Transportation System Planning and Analysis 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Kate Salm 

Public Affairs SCEP Intern 

M.A. English/Technical Communication; B.A. English Literature 

6 months as SCEP; currently Public Affairs Specialist on the Huron-Manistee 

National Forest; Advertising Department-Special Promotions at Warren Times 

Observer 

Document design and minor edits of AMS; assisted with public meetings; 

assisted with planning of public meetings/workshops/tours

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 James Seyler

Planning and Design Team Leader (Bradford District) 

BS Environmental Forest Biology and Natural Resource Management, SUNY 

ESF 1995 

9.5 years as a Biologist/Environmental Planner 

Bradford District Liaison 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 William A Snyder 

Forest Plan Analyst 

M.S. – Biology 

Former College Instructor, Former Department of Environmental Protection Air 

and Water Quality Specialist 

Spectrum Model Designer, Analyst, and Coordinator for Appendix B of the EIS 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Janet Stubbe 

Forest Landscape Architect 

B.S. Natural Resources Department of Landscape Architecture, University of 

Wisconsin 

14 years Landscape Architect, USDA Forest Service, Warren, PA; 12 years 

Landscape Architect for Landscape Architect and Consulting Engineers, 

Wheaton, IL 

Scenery, including the inventory and analysis of scenery using the Scenic 

Management System (SMS) 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-7

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Peter Taylor 

Natural Resource Analyst 

B.S. Biology, College of William & Mary, 1999; M.F./M.E.M. Forestry and 

Environmental Management, Duke University, 2006 

4 months experience with USFS in document writing and preparation; 2 years 

experience in university biological research and document preparation 

Coordinate the preparation of Appendix A of the FEIS 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Pamela Thurston

District Wildlife Biologist 

B.S. in Wildlife ecology; 1 year graduate school in secondary education; PA and 

NY board certified for secondary education 

1 year high school teacher in NY school system, 17 years with the Forest Service 

Species viability evaluations for amphibians and reptiles, parts of corridor 

analysis, management area objectives, ecological context and misc. reviews 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Kevin Treese

District NEPA Coordinator 

B.S. in Forest Science with emphasis in Silviculture 

20+ years in timber and land management 

District NEPA Coordinator 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Karl Vester

NEPA Analyst 

B.A. Journalism and B.S. in Resource Conservation, The University of Montana 

2 years USDA Forest Service 

Writer/Editor on Forest Plan 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Wendell Wallace

GIS Program Leader 

Bachelor of Science, University of Minnesota - College of Forestry Associate in 

Arts, Vermilion Community College, Ely Minnesota 

Two years in Fire Management with Minnesota DNR and Superior National 

Forest USFS; Three years Forestry Management with Chequamegon National 

Forest USFS; Seven years Mineral Management with Allegheny National Forest 

USFS; and 17 years Geographic Information Specialist with Allegheny National 

Forest USFS. 

Assisted resource specialists in using the Allegheny's geographic information 

system to provide a spatial framework for analyzing resource information. 

Produced map products for internal and external use to display alternative, 

decisions and outcomes developed in the planning process 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Robert W Wetherell

Recreation and Special Areas Program Manager 

B.L.A. University of Georgia 

16 years practicing Landscape Architect/Recreation Planner 

Developed Recreation, Dispersed Recreation, and Trail Analysis 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

4-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Robert White

Forest Silviculturist and Pesticide Use Coordinator 

B.S. Forest Science; USDA Forest Service Program for Advanced Studies in 

Silviculture; Certified Silviculturist in USDA Forest Service Region 9 for 25 

years; Tech. training in pesticide use; Certified Pesticide Applicator 

32 years USDA Forest Service: timber, wildlife, policy analysis, program analyst 

in land management planning, oil and gas management; one of the principal 

authors of numerous documents (including the 1986 Forest Plan) 

ID Team Member; Participated in Analysis and Development of various topics 

related to Forest Vegetation Management including: Treatment prescriptions, 

growth and yield, standards and guidelines for management, rationale for 

vegetation management. Analysis of Management Situation, and the Human 

Health and Wildlife Risk Analyses for Herbicide Use 

Name 

Position 

Education 

Experience 

Contribution

 Cat Woods

Recreation Planner 

B.S. Natural Resources Management, Oregon State University 

Six years Research Technician, PNW Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, 

Oregon; 15 years Recreation Planner/Wilderness Manager/Cave Specialist, 

Thorne Bay, Alaska; two years Recreation and Wilderness Staff Officer, 

Hiawatha National Forest; three years Recreation Planner, Allegheny National 

Forest 

Analysis related to Recreation Resources and Congressionally designated 

areas(Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation Areas) 

4.2 Forest Leadership Team 

Name 

Position

Kathy Albaugh 

Administrative Officer 

Name 

Position

William Connelly 

Planning Staff Officer 

Name 

Position 

Lois Demarco

Ecosystem Management Staff Officer 

Name 

Position

 Rob Fallon 

Marienville District Ranger 

Name 

Position 

Kathe Frank 

Forest Budget Officer 

Name 

Position 

 Gary Giger 

C & M Work Supervisor 

Name 

Position 

 Dan Salm 

Engineering Staff Officer 

Name 

Position 

 Stephen K Miller 

Public Affairs Officer & Human Dimensions Officer 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-9

Name 

Position 

 Kathy Mohney 

Administrative Assistant 

Name 

Position 

 Kathleen Morse 

Forest Supervisor 

Name 

Position 

 James Seyler 

Acting Technical Services Staff Officer 

Name 

Position 

 Robert Stovall 

Acting Bradford District Ranger 

Name 

Position

 Jody Vanselow 

Acting Deputy District Ranger (Bradford) 

4.3 Other Major Contributors 

Name 

Position 

Location 

Contribution 

 Gary Dixon 

Vegetation Simulation Group Leader 

WO-Detached Units, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO 

Assisted by modifying the Northeastern TWIGS Variant of the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator program 

Name 

Position 

Location 

Contribution

 Rickard Hokans 

Regional Analyst 

RO, Milwaukee, WI 

Economic Analysis 

Name 

Position 

Location 

Contribution 

 Bruce Meneghin 

GIS Analyst 

WO-Detached Units, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO 

Assisted with the Spectrum model 

Name 

Position 

Location 

Contribution 

 Don Vandendriesche 

Growth and Yield Support Programmer 

WO-Detached Units, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO 

Assisted with the development of the Forest Vegetation Simulator growth and 

yield model 
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

4-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 5 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Recipients 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 

Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-1

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECIPIENTS

5.1 Agencies Consulted and Receiving Documents 

5.1.1 Federal Agencies 

Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Protection Agency 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDI: Office of Environmental Policy Compliance Director 

5.1.2 Native American Tribal Governments 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Cayuga Nation 

Delaware Nation of Oklahoma 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Oneida Indian Nation 

 Onondaga Nation 

Seneca Nation of Indians 

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma 

Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation of Wisconsin 

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 

Tonawanda Seneca Nation 

 Tuscarora Nation 

5.1.3 State Agencies 

PA Department of Environmental Protection 

PA Fish And Boat Commission 

PA Game Commission 

PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

NY Allegany State Park 
Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

5-2 Allegheny National Forest Environmental Impact Statement

5.1.4 Local Officials, Groups, Organizations, and Individuals 

County Officials 

Warren County Commissioners 

McKean County Commissioners 

Elk County Commissioners 

Forest County Commissioners 

Township Officials 

Barnett Township 

Benezette Township 

Bradford Township 

Brokenstraw Township 

Cherry Grove Township 

Clarion Township 

Clinton Township 

Columbus Township 

Conewango Township 

Cornplanter Township 

Corydon Township 

Cranberry Township 

Deerfield Township 

Elk Township 

Farmington Township 

Fox Township 

Freehold Township 

Glade Township 

Green Township 

Hamilton Township 

Hamlin Township 

Harmony Township 

Heath Township 

Hickory Township 

Highland Township 

Howe Township 

Jenks Township 

Jones Township 

Lafayette Township 

Licking Township 

Limestone Township 

Mead Township 

Millcreek Township 

Millstone Township 

Monroe Township 

Perry Township 

Piney Township 

Pleasant Township 

President Township 

Richland Township 

Ridgway Township 

Rockland Township 

Sandycreek Township 

Scrubgrass Township 

Sheffield Township 

Spring Creek Township 

Tionesta Township 

Triumph Township 

Victory Township 

Watson Township 

Wetmore Township
Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-3

5.2 List of Recipients 

These are the organizations and individuals that had requested a copy of Forest Plan Revision documents when 

this document went to print. Additional groups and individuals may have requested copies since that time and 

they also will receive the documents. Since our Forest Plan documents will also be available on the internet, this 

list includes only those who specifically requested that we send them a copy (either an electronic copy or a paper 

copy). 

US Representatives Receiving 

Documents 

Congressman Phil English 

Congressman John E. Peterson 

US Senators Receiving Documents 

US Senator Robert Casey 

US Senator Arlen Specter 

Pennsylvania State Governor’s Offices 

Receiving Documents 

Governor Edward G. Rendell 

Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll 

Pennsylvania State Senators Receiving 

Documents 

Joseph B. Scarnati 

Mary Jo White 

Pennsylvania House of Representatives 

Martin T. Causer 

Kathy L. Rapp 

Dan A. Surra 

Libraries 

Documents provided to local libraries for access by the public. 

 Bradford Area Public 

Library; Bradford, PA 

 Friends’ Memorial 

Public Library; Kane, 

PA 

 Hamlin Memorial 

Library; Smethport, PA 

 Johnsonburg Public 

Library; Johnsonburg, 

PA 

 Marienville Area Public 

Library; Marienville, 

PA 

 Mt Jewett Memorial 

Public Library; Mt 

Jewett, PA 

 Ridgway Public 

Library; Ridgway, PA 

 Samuel W Smith 

Memorial Library; Port 

Allegany, PA 

 Saint Marys Public 

Library; Saint Marys, 

PA 

 Sarah Steward Bovard 

Memorial Library; 

Tionesta, PA 

 Sheffield Township 

Library; Sheffield, PA 

 Sugar Grove Free 

Library; Sugar Grove, 

PA 

 Tidioute Free Library; 

Tidioute, PA 

 Warren Public Library; 

Warren, PA 

 Wilcox Public Library; 

Wilcox, PA 

 Youngsville Public 

Library; Youngsville, 

PA 
Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

5-4 Allegheny National Forest Environmental Impact Statement

Interested Groups, Businesses, and Organizations 

Allegheny Defense Project 

Allegheny Forest Alliance 

Allegheny Hardwood 

Utilization Group 

Allegheny National Forest 

Vacation Bureau 

BWP Hardwoods, Inc. 

Dandy Forestland Services 

Donver, Inc 

Edward Engineering 

Forest Co Conservation District 

Forest Co Planning Commission 

Hardwood Plywood & Veneer 

Assn 

Heartwood 

Highland Forest Resources 

Hill Engineering Inc. 

Kane Hardwood 

Keith Horn, Inc. 

Kinzua-Wolf Run Marina 

Marienville Rod & Gun Club 

O.F.H.L., Inc. 

Pa Biodervisity Partnership 

Rolfe Beagle Club 

Russell City Store 

Scott’s Helicopters 

Sierra Club, Allegheny Group 

Snyder Brothers Inc. 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

Transcontinental Construction 

Co 

Western Pa Conservency 

Warren Times Observer 

Interested Individuals 

These individuals were identified in the Forest’s database as having requested a copy of Forest Plan Revision 

documents: 

Mr. & Mrs. Wilbur Ahn, Sr 

George & Frances Alderson 

Dale E. Anderson 

Thomas Andreoli 

J. Angove 

Blair Anundn 

Matt Azeles 

Julia Badeno 

Alex Balboa 

John Noel Bartlett 

Ray & Jan Beichner 

Bill Belitskus 

Jim Bensman 

Robert Benson 

David Bernstein 

James M. Berry, Sr. 

Paul R. Bishop 

Marilyn Black 

Teresa & Norma Black 

Connie Boitano 

John Gerard Boroten 

Randy Botkin, MD 

Russel & Anita Boyce 

H. R. Bradley 

Bob & Lorrie Brinker 

Paul Brohn 

Rusty Brown 

Ged Bryant 

Tom Buchele 

Fred Buckholtz 

G Budenbender 

Dorothy Buquo 

Ray Burkhardt 

Christopher M. Byham 

Thomas Byrnes 

Clare Cain 
Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-5

Ginny Cain 

Doug Caldwell 

Doug Carlson 

Edward Castor 

Francis Chiappett 

Wilbur Christie 

Cheryl Chwastyk 

Arthur Clark 

J. Collins 

Bryan Conle 

Richard A Conrad 

Neal Constable 

Ron Cook 

Scott J. Cope 

John S. Cubbon 

Curt Alt 

Richard E. Curtain 

Stephen D’Angelo 

Dr. Peter Dalby 

Jim Danner 

Joe & Jean Davis 

Jim Decker 

Michael W. Deighan 

Diane Delarme 

Linda Devlin 

Dean Diehl 

Mike Dockry 

John Doyal 

Calvin E. Dufour 

Ned B. Ellenberger 

Michael J. Elonich 

Lynne Elwinger, Sr. 

K Elwyn 

Michael W. Evans 

Troy Firth 

Mark Fleischman 

Dorothy & Sherwood Fleming 

Chauncey Forbush 

Ernest Fuller 

Johana Furman 

Ray Gerst, Jr. 

Robert M. Gianniny 

Ron Gilius 

Daniel Glotz 

Merrill Gonzales 

Christopher Guth 

Jennifer Guyton 

Louis & Lynda Hahn 

William D. Harasym 

John Harman 

Mary T. Harrison 

Jack Hedlund 

Carl Heinrich 

Pamela Hepple 

Thomas Himpsl 

Connie Holden 

Robert Hoskin 

Mary Hosmer 

Ken Howell 

Steve Hummel 

Delores M. Huth 

Lorraine Jacobs 

Richard A. Jakubowski 

Chet James 

Robert V James 

Tom & Shirley Jeffries 

Dylan H Jenkins 

Kirk Johnson 

Terry Floyd Johnson 

Jerry Jordon 

Kenneth C. Kane 

Jon A Kapecki 

Thomas C. Kase 

Cherie Keith 

Shawn C. Kelly 

Bill & Darlene Kersey 

John A. Keslick, Jr. 

Linda Kittner 

Dave Kleber 

Jim Kleissler 

Suzanne Klinger 

Keith W. Klos 

Louis & Delores Knapp 

Bill Knight 

Edward S. Kocjancic 

John L Kolodziejski 

Marcia Kreider 

Karl Kridler 

Denise Kroth 

Elizabeth O. Krug 
Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

5-6 Allegheny National Forest Environmental Impact Statement

Dick Kubiak 

Paul & Marcia Kuhn 

Marion M. Kyde, PhD 

Larry Lambeth 

Jennifer Lantz 

Richard M. Legar 

Brandon Leja 

Lionel A. Lemery 

Dan Leonard 

Dick Lepley 

Robert E Leslie 

Nate Lewis 

Paul Lilja 

Christopher Little 

Michael P. Lovich 

Deborah L. Lunden 

Ted Lutz 

Paul Lyskava 

John Mangus 

John Manning 

Donna Martin 

Joseph V. Martin 

Joe & Diane Martin 

Iran Martinez 

Peter Massetto 

Robert R. Masters 

Barbara Matthes 

Denny Mattison 

Richard J. Mauk 

Craig L. Mayer 

Larry McGeehan 

Timothy McGinnis 

Richard F McKinney II 

John McKown 

Martin Melville 

Eugene Merritt 

Kenneth & Judith Miller 

Brian Mills 

Terry L. Moore 

Billy Moriarity 

Terry Mort 

John & Shirley Neff 

Jim Nelles 

Homer G. Nevel 

Charles Nilsson 

Dave O’Hara 

Nelson Ochs 

Richard Ordonez 

Paul Pascuzzi 

Bill Paxon 

Judith Payne 

PL Piccirillo 

Darryl Pierce 

Gene Polaski 

Janet Putnam 

Charity L. Ratliff 

James Rauch 

Jo Ellen Reikowski 

Timothy P. Reim 

Stephen W. Rhoads 

Howard J Rife 

Melinda Ritter 

James R Rowe 

Megan Rulli 

Donald B. Ruppen 

B. Sachau 

Jim Salvamoser 

Gib and Sara Sanford 

Rob Santangelo 

Dickinson R. Sarah 

Lenore K. Sauer 

Victor Savitz 

Titus Schleyer 

Bill Schneider 

Daniel Scott 

Joann Seltzer 

Ken Shannon 

Tom Sherman 

Jason Shuey 

John Simon 

Jeanne Skirboll 

David L Smerkar 

Paul A & Cynthia L Smith 

Julie Smithson 

Barbara Songer 

Mark Spiers 

John & Linda Sproat 

Michael Stalter 

Paul Steva 

Todd Stitt 
Chapter 5. Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-7

Robert Stoudt 

Susan L. Stout 

David T. Swanson 

Ryan Talbott 

Robert H. Teeple 

Scott H Tepke 

David P Thomas 

Laura Lee Thomas 

Sue Thompson, PhD 

Gary Thornbloom 

Dr. Robert B. Towsey 

Gary Uber 

Linda Underhill 

Todd Vanerstrom 

Donna J. Veatch 

Donald Vershay 

Jerry P. Waite 

Rodger Waldman 

J. G. Walter 

Tim Walter 

Dave Weihrauch 

William Wekselman 

C. Robert Wells 

David J. Wess 

John Weyant 

Robert White 

Ray Williams 

Terry Williams 

Dan Winkelbauer 

Danielle M. Wirth 

Jonathan Wirth 

Mark D. Wolfe 

Matt Wolford 

Peter J. Wray 

Howard Wurzbacher 

David G. Zavetsky 

Eric Zenne

Chapter 6 

Glossary 

Photo courtesy of B McGuinness, US Forest Service 

Chapter 6. Glossary

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-1

6 GLOSSARY

6.1 Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AA Analysis Area 

AASHTO American Association of State 

 Highway and Transportation Officials 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation 

ANF Allegheny National Forest 

APE Area of Potential Effects 

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle 

BA Biological Assessment 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BEIG Built Environment Image Guide 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CE Cumulative Effects 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

CAP Cherry, Ash and Poplar 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAI Culmination Mean Annual Increment 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DC Desired Condition 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ELT Ecological Land Type 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FPR Forest Plan Revision 

FR Forest Road 

FS Forest Service 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Geographic Positioning System 

I&E Information and Education 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

IOC Issues, Opportunities and Concerns 

LAC Limits of Acceptable Change 

LNT Leave No Trace 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

 (“Forest Plan”) 

PLRMP Proposed LRMP 

LTA Land Type Association 

MA Management Area 

MBF One Thousand Board Feet 

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 

MMBF One Million Board Feet 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MUSY Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act 

NCT North Country Trail 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF National Forest 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NNIS Non-native Invasive Species 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OGM Oil, Gas and Minerals 

OHM Off-Highway Motorcycle 

PAOT People At One Time 

PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes 

PNV Present Net Value 

RAP Roads Analysis Process 

RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation 

RD Ranger District 

RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species 

PPM Parts Per Million 

RM Roaded Modified 

RN Roaded Natural 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROD Record of Decision 

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIA Special Interest Area 

SIL Scenic Integrity Level 

SMS Scenery Management System 

SPM Semi-primitive Motorized 

SPNM Semi-primitive Non-motorized 

SUP Special Use Permit 

SVE Species Viability Evaluation 

TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

TEPS Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive 

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 

TDD Telecommunication Device for the Deaf 

TTY Teletype 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

USNPS USDI National Park Service 

VIS Visitor Information Services 

VMS Visual Management System 

VQO Visual Quality Objective 

WFU Wildland Fire Use 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 

ZOI Zone of Influence
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

6.2 Terms 

The following definitions and/or descriptions clarify 

terminology used in the Land and Resource Management 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

[A] 

ABIOTIC – Non-living. Climate is an abiotic component 

of ecosystems.

ACTIVITY FUELS – Fuels resulting from, or altered by, 

forestry practices such as timber harvest or thinning, as 

opposed to naturally created fuels. 

ACQUISITION – Obtaining land or land interest through 

purchase, exchange, and donation. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT – A type of natural 

resource management that implies decisions are made as 

part of an on-going process. Monitoring the results of 

actions will provide a flow of information that may 

indicate the need to change a course of action. Scientific 

findings and the needs of society may also indicate the 

need to adapt resource management to new information. 

ADMINISTRATIVE USE – Use of National Forest land, 

interests in land, or other resources, by the Forest Service, 

or an individual or entity authorized by the Forest Service, 

for the protection, administration, or management of the 

National Forest. 

ADVANCE REGENERATION – Seedlings or sapling 

that develop or are present in the understory. 

AERIAL DETECTION – A system for, or the act of 

discovering, locating, and reporting insect and/or disease 

damage, overall forest conditions and/or fires from 

aircraft. 

AERIAL LOGGING – Removing logs from a timber 

harvest area by helicopter. Fewer roads are required, so 

the impact to an area is minimized. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – The current state of the 

environment that may be affected by the plan or project. 

AGE CLASS – One of the intervals into which the age 

range of trees is divided for classification or use. A 

distinct aggregation of trees originating from a single 

natural event or regeneration activity, or a grouping of 

trees, such as a 10-year age class, as used in inventory or 

management. 

AIRSHED – A geographic area that shares the same air. 

ALLEGHENY HARDWOODS – Forest type containing 

Black Cherry, Yellow Poplar, White Ash, red maple and 

other species. 

 ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) – Any motorized, offhighway vehicle 50 inches or less in width, having a dry 

weight of 600 pounds or less that travels on three or more 

low-pressure tires with a seat designed to be straddled by 

the operator. Low-pressure tires are 6 inches or more in 

width and designed for use on wheel rim diameters of 12 

inches or less, utilizing an operating pressure of 10 

pounds per square inch (psi) or less as recommended by 

the vehicle manufacturer. 

ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY (ASQ) – The amount 

of timber that may be sold within a certain time period 

from an area of suitable land. See discussion in LRMP for 

more detail. 

ALTERNATIVE – Alternatives provide options for 

meeting the purpose and need of a Plan revision process 

by emphasizing reasonable ways to resolve management 

issues as though each alternative were a separate Forest 

Plan. While all alternatives provide a wide range of 

multiple uses, goods and services, they respond to the 

issues needing change in different ways and describe a 

different desired future condition. 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) – 

Law requiring that persons with disabilities not be denied 

access to the programs provided to all other people by 

state and local governments, public accommodations, 

public transportation, and commercial establishments, 

solely because of their disability. 

 ANALYSIS AREA – The smallest unit of land 

recognized in the analysis process or in the spectrum 

model. Each acre of a given analysis area has similar 

productivity, response to treatment, and cost of treatment. 

Analysis areas divide the Forest into units which help us 

analyze the planning problems. 

ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION 

(AMS) – Using Resource Assessments and the 

existing Forest Plan as background, the AMS 

determines the ability of the area covered by the 

Forest Plan to supply goods and services in 

response to societal demands. The AMS evaluates the 

need to change the current plan. 

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE – Work performed to 

maintain serviceability or repair failures during the 

year in which they occur. Includes preventive 

and/or cyclic maintenance performed in the year 

in which it is scheduled to occur. Unscheduled or 

catastrophic failures of components or assets 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-3

may also need to be repaired as a part of annual 

maintenance. 

APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE – 

Specific actions taken in response to a wildland 

fire to implement protection and fire use 

objectives. 

AQUATIC – Pertaining to standing and running water in 

streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. 

ARTIFACT – An object made or modified by humans 

having cultural or historic value. 

ARTIFICIAL REGENERATION – A group or stand 

of young trees created by direct seeding or by planting 

seedlings or cuttings. 

ASPECT – The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing 

east has an eastern aspect. 

ASSESSMENT (Resource Assessment) – A compilation 

of background material on the status of a particular 

resource area, on a local, regional, or national scale. A 

Resource Assessment describes the present condition of a 

particular resource and speculates on the future condition 

of the resource based on current and expected trends. 

Assessments address management problems, new 

policy and direction, monitoring results, and the existing 

condition of the resource on the forest. 

[B] 

BACKGROUND – A term used in the management of 

visual resources or scenery. It refers to the visible terrain 

located 3 miles to infinity from the viewer (4 miles to the 

viewer in flat landscapes). 

BASAL AREA – The cross-section area of a tree stem 

including bark, in square feet, and commonly measured at 

breast height (4.5 feet above ground). This parameter is 

often used in silvicultural equations and/or models 

for determining growth and yield of forest stands. 

BASE SALE SCHEDULE – A schedule in which the 

planned sale and harvest for any future decade is equal to 

or greater that the planned sale and harvest for the 

preceding decade of the planning period and this planned 

sale and harvest for any decade is not larger than the longterm sustained-yield capacity. (This definition expresses 

the principle of non-declining flow.) 

BASKING AREAS – Exposed areas, i.e. sunny areas 

where cold-blooded amphibians can warm themselves. 

BENCHMARKS – (benefits, costs, and values) 

Benchmarks define the maximum and minimum levels of 

output. These limits take into account land capability, 

projected resource demands, and cost efficiency. 

BENEFIT – Inclusive term used to quantify the results of 

a proposed activity, project, or program; expressed in 

monetary or non-monetary terms. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) – A 

practice or combination of practices that is determined by 

a State (or designated areawide planning agency) to be the 

most effective, practicable (including technological, 

economical and institutional considerations) means of 

preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated 

by non-point sources to a level compatible with water 

quality goals. 

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL – The use of natural means to 

control unwanted pests. Examples include introduced or 

naturally occurring predators such as wasps or hormones 

that inhibit the reproduction of pests. Biological controls 

can sometimes be alternatives to mechanical or chemical 

means. 

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (biodiversity) – The variety 

of life forms and processes within an area. Included in the 

consideration of diversity are genetic variation, number 

and distribution of species, and the ways in which the 

variety of biologic communities interact and function. 

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT - 

(Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive 

Species) – A technical report prepared by the Forest 

Service that uses a variety of tools, including review 

of existing literature and data, field survey, and 

data gathering and analysis, to determine the presence of, 

and effects of activities on, threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and sensitive species (FSM 2670). 

BIOLOGICAL POTENTIAL – The maximum production 

of a selected organism that can be obtained under 

optimum management. 

BIOMASS – The total weight of all living organisms in a 

biological community. 

BIOME – The complex of living communities maintained 

by the climate of a region and characterized by a 

distinctive type of vegetation. Examples of biomes in 

North America include the tundra, desert, prairie, and the 

eastern hardwood forest. 

BIOTIC – Living; for example, green plants and soil 

microorganisms are biotic components of ecosystems. 

BOARD FOOT – A measurement term for lumber or 

timber. It is the amount of wood contained in an 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 

inches wide. Often used variations are MBF (thousand 

board feet) and MMBF (million board feet). 

BROADCAST BURN – A prescribed fire that burns a 

designated area. These controlled fires can reduce wildfire 

hazards, improve forage for wildlife and livestock, or 

encourage successful regeneration of trees. 

BROWSE – Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and 

shrubs that animals eat. 

BUFFER – A land area that is designated to block or 

absorb unwanted impacts to the area beyond the buffer. 

For example buffers may be set aside next to 

wildlife habitat to reduce abrupt change to the habitat and 

along aquatic areas to minimize impacts. 

BUILT ENVIRONMENT IMAGE GUIDE (BEIG)– The 

built environment, as used in this guide, refers to the 

administrative and recreation buildings, landscape 

structures, site furnishings, structures on roads and trails, 

and signs installed or operated by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, its cooperators, and 

permittees. The guide incorporates design standards 

focusing on sustainability within the natural and cultural 

landscape while providing optimal service to customers 

and cooperators. 

[C] 

CABLE LOGGING – Logging that involves the transport 

of logs from stump to collection points by means of 

suspended steel cables. 

CANOPY – The part of any stand of trees represented by 

the tree crowns. It usually refers to the uppermost layer of 

foliage, but it can be use to describe lower layers in a 

multistoried forest. 

CAPABILITY – The potential of an area of land to 

produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management 

practices and at a given level of management intensity. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT – The construction, 

installation, or assembly of a new fixed asset, or the 

significant alteration, expansion, or extension of an 

existing fixed asset, to accommodate a change of 

purpose. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT – An input that increases the 

stock of natural or manmade resources (assets) needed to 

maintain or increase the flow of outputs in the 

future. Benefits resulting from capital investments 

are normally recouped in excess of one year. 

CARRYING CAPACITY – the maximum number of 

animals or people that a habitat can sustain while 

maintaining the ecosystem in a healthy, vigorous 

condition. 

CAVITY – A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, 

usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and reproduction. 

CHEMICAL CONTROL – The use of pesticides and 

herbicides to control pests and undesirable plant species. 

CLEANING – 1) An intermediate, release treatment made 

in an age class not past the sapling stage to free the 

favored trees from less desirable individuals of the same 

age class that overtop them or are likely to do so. 2) A 

release treatment designed to eradicate individual trees 

infected with diseases, such as dwarf mistletoe. 

CLEARCUT – 1) A stand in which essentially all trees 

have been removed in one operation to produce an evenaged stand. Depending on management objectives, a 

clearcut may or may not have reserve trees left to attain 

goals other than regeneration. 2) A regeneration or 

harvest method that removes essentially all trees in a 

stand. 

CLEARCUTTING REGENERATION METHOD – The 

cutting of essentially all trees, producing a fully exposed 

microclimate for the development of a new age class. 

Regeneration can be from natural seeding, direct seeding, 

planted seedlings, coppice, or advance reproduction. The 

management unit or stand in which regeneration, growth, 

and yield are regulated consists of the individual clearcut 

stand. 

CLEARCUTTING REGENERATION METHOD WITH 

RESERVES – A clearcutting regeneration method in 

which varying numbers of reserve trees are retained to 

achieve goals other than regeneration. This harvest 

produces a two-aged stand in which varying numbers of 

reserve trees are not harvested. 

COARSE FILTER MANAGEMENT – 

Land management that attempts to address the needs of a 

majority of native species through management of natural 

landscapes and ecological communities (see fine filter 

management). 

COHORT – A population of plants or animals having 

approximately the same age. 

COLLECTOR ROADS – These roads serve small land 

areas and are usually connected to a Forest System Road, 

a county road, or a state highway. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-5

COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND – Forest land that has 

not been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service, and is 

producing, or is capable of producing, crops of industrial 

wood without irreversible damage to soils, productivity, 

or watershed conditions, and with reasonable assurance 

that adequate restocking can be attained within five years 

after final harvesting. These lands are also appropriate for 

timber production. 

COMMERCIAL THINNING – Thinning operation where 

the material cut can be sold on the market as opposed to a 

precommercial thinning. 

COMMERCIAL USE (SPECIAL USES) – Any use or 

activity on National Forest System land where (a) an 

entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) the primary 

purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either 

case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended 

to produce a profit (36 CFR 251.51). 

COMMON VARIETY MINERALS – See Mineral 

Material, Common Variety. 

COMMUNITY (Natural Community) – An interacting 

assemblage of organisms, their physical environment, and 

the natural processes that affect them. 

COMMUNICATION SITE – A developed area with a 

structure sufficient for placement of antennas for 

the transmission or reception of electronic information at 

the proper height. 

COMPOSITION – The types of organisms and 

environmental features present in a particular area. 

CONCERN LEVEL – A measure of the degree of public 

importance placed on landscapes viewed from travelways 

and use areas. Concern levels are divided into three 

categories: 1, 2, and 3. 

CONCESSION PERMIT – A permit which authorizes 

private individuals or corporations to operate FS-owned 

facilities as a commercial business. 

CONCOMITANT – Events that are coincident in time 

and so clearly related that one probably is a direct result 

of the other. 

CONFINEMENT – The strategy employed in appropriate 

management responses where a fire perimeter is managed 

by a combination of direct and indirect actions and use of 

natural topographic features, fuel, and weather factors. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED WILDERNESS 

– see Wilderness 

CONIFER – A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, 

spruce, or fir tree. 

CONNECTIVITY (of habitats) – A condition in which the 

spatial arrangement of land cover types allows organisms 

and ecological processes (such as disturbance) to move 

across the landscape. Connectivity is the opposite of 

fragmentation. 

CONNECTOR TRAILS – Trails that provide linkages 

between other trails designated for the same use or to 

communities that may provide services. 

CONSTRAINT – A limit placed on levels of management 

activities that could be produced or incurred in a given 

time period. 

CONSUMPTIVE USE – Resource use that reduces the 

supply, such as logging and mining. 

CONTOUR – A line drawn on a map connecting points of 

the same elevation. 

CONTROLLED - The completion of control line around 

a fire, any spot fires therefrom, and any interior islands to 

be saved; burned out any unburned area adjacent to the 

fire side of the control lines; and cool down all hot spots 

that are immediate threats to the control line, until the 

lines can reasonably be expected to hold under the 

foreseeable conditions. 

CONVERTIBLE PRODUCTS – Timber products that 

can be measured in cubic feet of solid wood (FSH 

2409.18, sec. 87). 

CORD – A unit of gross volume measurement for 

stacking round or split wood. A standard cord is 4’ by 4’ 

by 8’ or 128 cubic feet. A standard cord may contain 60-

100 cubic feet of solid wood depending on the size of the 

pieces and the compactness of the stacks. 

CORRIDOR (Ecological Landscape) – A landscape 

feature that allows animal movement between two 

patches of habitat or between habitat and geographically 

discrete resources. 

COST COEFFICIENTS – Values which relate a 

management activity to a particular dollar cost in a 

specified period of time. 

COST EFFICIENCY – The usefulness of specified inputs 

(cost) to produce specified outputs (benefits). In 

measuring cost efficiency, some outputs (such as 

environmental, economic or social impacts) are not 

assigned monetary values but are achieved at specified 

levels in a least cost manner. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

COVER – Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. 

Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or 

undercut streambanks. Animals use cover to escape from 

predators, rest, and/or feed. 

COVER TYPE (forest cover type) – A 

descriptive classification of forestland based on existing 

tree species in a given land area. 

CREATED OPENING – An opening in the forest cover 

created by the application of even-aged silvicultural 

practices. 

CRITICAL HABITAT – Areas designated for 

the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or 

endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

CROWN HEIGHT – The distance from the ground to the 

base of the crown of a tree. 

CULMINATION MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT 

(CMAI) – The point in the growth of a tree where mean 

annual increment (total tree volume at any point in time 

divided by total age) is at a maximum. This “culmination 

point” for mean annual growth is regarded as the ideal 

harvesting or rotation age in terms of most efficient 

volume production. 

CULTURAL RESOURCE – see Heritage Resource 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – Effects on the environment 

that result from separate, individual actions and that, 

collectively, become significant over time. 

[D] 

DECISION CRITERIA – The information used to 

evaluate alternatives to a proposed action on National 

Forest land. Decision criteria are designed to help 

a decision maker identify a preferred choice from the 

array of alternatives. 

DECOMMISSION – Demolition, dismantling, removal, 

obliteration and/or disposal of a deteriorated or otherwise 

unneeded asset or component, including necessary 

cleanup work. This action eliminates the 

deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions 

of an asset or component may remain if they do not cause 

problems or require maintenance. 

DEER WINTERING AREAS (deer yards) – Land parcels 

that include two basic habitat components required by 

white–tailed deer during winter: shelter and browse. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE – Maintenance that was 

not performed when it should have been or when it was 

scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for 

a future period. When allowed to accumulate without 

limits or consideration of useful life, deferred 

maintenance leads to deterioration of performance, 

increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. 

DEME – A locally interbreeding population 

of organisms. 

DEN TREE – A live or dead tree, at least 10” dbh, 

containing a natural cavity in the main stem or with 

exfoliating bark used by wildlife for nesting, brood 

rearing, hibernating, roosting, daily or seasonal shelter 

and escape. 

DEPARTURE – A schedule which deviates from the 

principle of non-declining flow by exhibiting a planned 

decrease in the timber sale and harvest schedule at any 

time in the future. 

DESIGN CRITERIA – The standards and guidelines of 

the Land and Resource Management Plan. 

DESIGNATED ROAD, TRAIL OR AREA – A National 

Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an 

area on national forest system that is designated for motor 

vehicle use .. on a motor vehicle use map. 

DESIRED CONDITION – This describes a future 

condition that is the long term goal of the Plan. It is not 

identified for any specific time period, but for some future 

period. The description identifies desired ANF uses, 

ecological conditions and ANF infrastructure. Activities 

conducted during plan implementation contribute to the 

achievement of this desired condition. 

DESIRED LANDSCAPE CHARACTER - Appearance of 

the landscape to be retained or created over time. This 

desired character recognizes that the landscape is a 

dynamic, constantly changing community of plants and 

animals. 

DEVELOPED RECREATION – Recreation activities 

that are dependent on the presence of constructed features 

or facilities. Examples include camping in a campground 

or using a picnic area. 

DEVELOPED RECREATION SITE - An area with a 

concentration of constructed features or facilities 

managed primarily for the enhancement of recreation 

activities. Examples include campgrounds, picnic 

areas, interpretive sites, and trailheads. 

DEVELOPMENT SCALE – The various levels of site 

modification or kinds of facilities permitted at a recreation 

site. The five levels are described in more detail in 

appendix B of the LRMP. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-7

DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (dbh) – The 

diameter of a tree 4 and 1/2 feet above the ground on the 

uphill side of the tree. 

DISPERSED RECREATION – Recreation that does not 

occur in a developed recreation site, such as hunting, 

backpacking, and scenic driving. 

DISTANCE ZONES - Areas of landscapes denoted by 

specified distances from the observer. Used as a frame of 

reference in which to describe landscape characteristics or 

human activities and described as foreground (fg), 

middleground (mg) or background (bg). 

DISTINCTIVE – Refers to extraordinary and special 

landscapes. These unusual landscapes stand out from 

landscapes that are typical or common. 

DISTURBANCE – A discrete event, either natural or 

human induced, that causes a change in the existing 

condition of an ecological system. 

DIVERSITY – The distribution and abundance 

of different plant and animal communities and species 

within the area covered by a land and resource 

management plan. 

DOWN WOODY DEBRIS – Trees or portions of trees 

that have died and fallen to the forest floor that will be at 

various stages of decomposition. 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

(DEIS) – The draft version of the Environmental Impact 

Statement that is released to the public and other agencies 

for review and comment. 

[E] 

EARLY STRUCTURAL HABITAT – See Structural 

stages. 

EARLY SUCCESSIONAL SPECIES – The 

biotic (living) community that develops 

immediately following the removal or destruction of 

forest vegetation in an area. For instance, grasses may be 

the first plants to grow in an area that was burned. 

EASEMENT – The right of use over the property of 

another owner. 

ECOLOGICAL LAND TYPE (ELT) – An area of land 

hundreds to thousands of acres in size, with a well-known 

succession of forest species on unique soil materials. 

Ecological Land Type classification is based on 

geomorphic history, nature of soil substrata, and potential 

natural vegetation. 

ECOLOGY – The interrelationships of living things to 

one another and to their environment, or the study of 

these interrelationships. 

ECOREGION – An area over which the climate is 

sufficiently uniform to permit development of similar 

ecosystems on sites that have similar properties. 

Ecoregions contain many landscapes with different 

spatial patterns of ecosystems. 

ECOSYSTEM – A dynamic arrangement of living 

organisms interacting with each other and their non-living 

environment. Living organisms include plants and 

animals. The non-living environment includes 

soils, landforms, weather, and disturbances. 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – An approach to the 

management of natural resources that strives to maintain 

or restore the sustainability of ecosystems and to provide 

present and future generations a continuous flow of 

multiple benefits in a manner that is harmonious with 

ecosystem sustainability. 

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION – The process of 

reestablishing, to the extent possible, the structure, 

function, and composition of ecosystems. 

EDGE – The margin where two or more vegetation 

patches meet, such as a grassy opening next to a mature 

forest stand, or a young stand next to a mature stand. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES – A plant or animal that is in 

danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant 

portion, of its range. Endangered species are identified by 

the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

ENDEMIC PLANT/ORGANISM – A plant or animal 

that occurs naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited geographically. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS – An analysis 

of alternative actions and their predictable long and shortterm environmental effects. Environmental analyses include 

physical, biological, social, and economic factors. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – A concise public 

document that briefly provides sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement or to return a finding of no 

significant impact, aids an agency’s compliance with NEPA 

when no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary, or 

facilitates preparation of a statement when one is necessary. 

An EA normally includes an analysis of alternative actions 

and their predictable long and short-term environmental 

effects. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) – A 

formal document required by the National Environmental 

Protection Act, as detailed in section 102(2)c (40 CFR 

1508.11), and filed with the Environmental Protection 

Agency that considers significant environmental impacts 

expected from implementation of a proposed major 

Federal action and alternatives to it. The EIS is released 

as a draft to other agencies and the public for comment 

and review. 

EQUESTRIAN USE – Pertaining to horseback riding for 

recreational purposes. 

EROSION – The wearing away of the land surface by 

wind, water, ice, or other geological agents. 

EVEN-AGED STAND – A stand of trees composed of 

predominately one or two age classes. 

EVEN-AGED SYSTEM – Silvicultural system that 

produces even aged stands. 

EXCEPTIONAL VALUE WATERS – Surface waters of 

high quality which satisfy biological and chemical criteria 

as set forth by Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

EXISTING SCENIC INTEGRITY – Current state of the 

landscape, considering previous human alterations. State 

of the landscape includes naturalness or disturbance 

created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is 

stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape 

character. 

EXPLORATION (MINERALS) – Establishing the 

location, size, grade, or reserves of a mineral or energy 

resource by gathering direct evidence of the resource. 

Direct data gathering techniques may include 

drilling holes or digging pits to sample or test a known 

suspected zone of interest. 

EXTANT – Still in existence; not extinct, destroyed, or 

lost. 

EXTIRPATE – Eradicate, or cause the extinction of, a 

plant or animal species on a local or regional scale. 

EXTIRPATION – Eradication or extinction of a plant or 

animal species on a local or regional scale. 

EXTRACTION – The process of mining or removing 

mineral deposits, oil, or gas from the earth. 

[F] 

FAUNA –The animal life of an area. 

FEATHERING – Partial cutting of trees along an edge to 

create a transition in heights between areas and/or a 

transition in stand density between stands of different 

densities (FSH 559). 

FELLING – Cutting down trees. 

FILTER STRIP – A portion of land that provides largely 

undisturbed soil to separate soil-disturbing activities from 

streams, ponds, wetlands, and seasonal pools. The 

purpose of the protective strip is to protect the 

soil’s infiltration capacity and to filter out sediment. 

FINAL CUT – The removal of the last seed bearers or 

shelter trees after regeneration of new trees has been 

established in a stand being managed under the 

shelterwood system of silviculture. 

FINE FILTER MANAGEMENT – Management that 

focuses on the welfare of a single species, or only a few 

species, rather than the broader habitat or ecosystem (see 

Coarse Filter Management). 

FIRE CYCLE – The average time between fires in a 

given area. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN – 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. 

FIRE REGIME – The characteristics of fire in a given 

ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability, intensity, 

and seasonality. 

FIRE USE – The combination of wildland fire 

and prescribed fire application used to meet 

resource objectives. 

FISHERIES HABITAT – Streams, lakes, impoundments, 

and reservoirs that support, or have the potential 

to support, fish. 

FLOOD PLAIN – A flat lowland area adjoining 

a watercourse that is made up of unconsolidated river 

borne sediments and is periodically flooded. 

FLORA – The plant life of an area. 

FORAGE – All browse and non-woody plants that are 

eaten by wildlife. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-9

FORB – A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody 

material in it. 

FOREGROUND – A term used in the management of 

visual resources or scenery. The part of a scene or 

landscape that is nearest to the viewer, generally found 

from the observer up to one-half mile away or one-quarter 

mile away in flat landscapes.. 

FOREST COVER TYPE – see cover type 

FOREST HEALTH – A condition wherein a forest has 

the capacity across the landscape for renewal, for 

recovery from a wide range of disturbances, and for 

retention of its ecological resiliency while meeting current 

and future needs of people for desired levels of values, 

uses, products, and services. 

FOREST LAND – Land at least ten percent occupied by 

forest trees of any size or formerly having had such tree 

cover and not currently developed for nonforest use. 

FOREST LAND, NOT APPROPRIATE – Lands not 

selected for timber production in the Forest plan. 

FOREST LAND, NOT SUITED – Forest land that is not 

managed for timber production. 

FOREST LAND, SUITED – Land that is to be managed 

for timber production on a regulated basis. 

FOREST LAND, TENTATIVELY SUITED – Forest 

land that has not been withdrawn by Congress, 

the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the 

Forest Service, and is producing, or is capable 

of producing, crops of industrial wood 

without irreversible damage to soils, productivity, 

or watershed conditions, and with reasonable assurance 

that adequate restocking can be attained within five years 

after final harvesting. 

FOREST MATRIX – The least fragmented, most 

continuous pattern element of a landscape; the vegetation 

type that is most continuous over a landscape. 

FOREST PLAN – see Land and Resource Management 

Plan 

FOREST PLAN REVISION – A formal modification of 

an existing Forest Plan. 

FOREST ROADS AND TRAILS – Roads and trails 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

FOREST SUPERVISOR – The official responsible for 

administering National Forest lands on an administrative 

unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest 

Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester. 

FOREST TYPE – A descriptive term used to group stands 

of similar character, species composition and other 

ecological factors. 

FOREST VEGETATION SIMULATON (FVS) – 

A national computer model used for growth and yield 

projections of forest stands. 

FOREST-WIDE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES – 

Standards and guidelines that may apply (based on the 

nature of the direction) to the entire forest. For example, 

forestwide riparian standards apply to all riparian areas in 

the ANF. 

FRAGMENTATION – The physical division 

of contiguous areas into progressively smaller patches of 

increasing degrees of isolation from each other. 

FROST HEAVE – A land surface that is pushed up by the 

accumulation of ice in the underlying soil. 

FUELS – Plants and woody vegetation, both living and 

dead, that are capable of burning. 

FUELS MANAGEMENT – The treatment of fuels that 

would otherwise interfere with effective fire management 

or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the 

amount of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor before 

the fuels become so heavy that a natural wildfire in 

the area would be explosive and impossible to control. 

FUELWOOD – Wood cut into short lengths for burning. 

FUNCTION – All the processes within an ecosystem 

through which the elements interact, such as succession, 

the food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle. 

[G] 

GAME SPECIES – Any species of wildlife or fish that is 

harvested according to prescribed limits and seasons. 

GEOCACHING – A sport where individuals 

or organizations set up caches, using Global Positioning 

System (GPS) coordinates, and share the locations of 

these caches on the Internet. GPS users can then use the 

location coordinates to find the caches. 

GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES – Processes that change 

the form of the earth, such as volcanic activity, running 

water, and glacial action. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

GEOMORPHOLOGY – The science that deals with the 

relief features of the earth's surface. 

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) – 

GIS is both a database designed to handle geographic data 

as well as a set of computer operations that can be used 

to analyze data. 

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) – 

a navigational system using satellite signals to fix the 

location of a receiver on or above the earth's surface. 

GOAL – A concise statement that describes a desired 

condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It is 

normally expressed in broad terms and is timeless in that 

it has no specific date by which it is to be completed. 

GOODS AND SERVICES – The various outputs, 

including on-site uses, produced by forest and rangeland 

resources (36 CFR 219.3). 

GROUND FIRE – A fire burning along the forest floor. 

GROUND WATER – The supply of fresh water under the 

earth's surface in aquifers and soils. 

GROUP SELECTION REGERATION METHOD – A 

method of regenerating uneven-aged stands in which trees 

are cut, in small groups, and new age classes are 

established. The groups are one-half to three acres in size, 

with small openings providing microenvironments 

suitable for shade tolerant regeneration, and the larger 

openings providing conditions suitable for more shade 

intolerant regeneration. In the group selection 

regeneration method, the management unit or stand in 

which regeneration growth and yield are regulated 

consists of a landscape containing an aggregation of 

groups. 

GUIDELINE – A guideline is an expected course of 

action that promotes the achievement of Forest Plan 

desired condition, goals and objectives. A project-level 

analysis and a signed decision (by the responsible 

official) are required in order to deviate from 

an established guideline. 

GUIDING – Providing services or assistance (such as 

supervision, protection, education, training, packing, 

touring, subsistence, interpretation, or other assistance) to 

individuals or groups, in their pursuit of a 

natural resource-based outdoor activity, for 

pecuniary remuneration or other gain. The term 

"guide" includes the holder's employees, agents, 

and instructors. 

[H] 

HABITAT – The natural environment of a plant or 

animal. An animal’s habitat includes the total 

environmental conditions for food, cover and water within 

its home range. 

HABITAT CAPABILITY – The ability of a land area or 

plant community to support a given plant or animal 

species. 

HABITAT DIVERSITY – The number of different types 

of plant or animal species habitat within a given area. 

HARD SNAG – Snags composed essentially of sound 

wood on the outside. 

HARDWOOD – A broad-leaved flowering tree, as 

distinguished from a conifer. Trees belonging to the 

botanical group of angiospermae. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS – Naturally occurring vegetation, 

both live and dead, that given a wildfire occurrence would 

present a higher than normal resistance to control. 

Hazardous fuels may be measured by tons per acre, 

fuel arrangement, and/or continuity or 

burning characteristics. 

HEALTHY FOREST- A condition wherein a forest has 

the capacity, across the landscape, for renewal, for 

recovery from a wide range of disturbances, and for 

retention of ecological resiliency, while meeting current 

and future needs of people for desired levels of values, 

uses, products and services. 

HERBICIDE – A chemical used to control, suppress or 

kill plants, or to severely interrupt their normal growth 

processes. 

HERITAGE RESOURCE – Historic landscapes, 

archaeological sites, buildings, structures, features, 

artifacts, Native American Traditional Cultural 

properties, and/or related clusters of these (referred to 

as “districts”). 

HIBERNACULA – Plural form of hibernaculum. 

HIBERNACULUM – A shelter, such as a cave or 

abandoned mine, occupied during the winter by a 

hibernating animal, such as an Indiana bat. 

HORIZONTAL DIVERSITY – The distribution and 

abundance of different plant and animal communities, or 

plant conditions, across an area of land; the greater the 

numbers of communities or condition stages in a given 

area, the higher the degree of horizontal diversity. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-11

HYDROLOGY – The study of water on the surface of the 

land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the 

atmosphere. 

[I] 

IGNEOUS ROCK – Rocks formed when 

high temperature, molten mineral matter cools 

and solidifies. 

IMMEDIATE FOREGROUND – The detailed feature 

landscape found within the first 300 hundred feet of the 

observer. This distance zone is normally more useful to 

project level planning than to broad scale planning. 

IMPLAN® – An economic impact assessment modeling 

system. IMPLAN allows the user to easily build 

economic models to estimate the impacts of economic 

changes in their states, counties, or communities. 

IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS – Regulations 

generated by an agency to implement an Act of Congress; 

i.e., 36 CFR 219 contains implementing regulations for 

RPA and NFMA. 

IMPOUNDMENTS – Structures used to collect and 

confine water, as in a reservoir. 

IMPROVED ROAD – An improved road is 

any constructed or existing feature or facility created on 

the land for the purpose of travel by passenger vehicles 

(four wheeled, two wheel drive) which are legally owned 

and operated on Forest roads and highways, and vehicles 

that are greater than 50 inches in width. Said facility will 

have an area for vehicles to travel on and will incorporate 

some manner for disposal of surface runoff. 

IMPROVEMENT CUTTING – An intermediate 

treatment made in a stand, pole-sized or larger, primarily 

to improve composition and quality by removing less 

desirable trees of any species. 

INDICATOR SPECIES – A plant or animal species 

related to a particular kind of environment. Its presence 

indicates that specific habitat conditions are also present. 

INDIGENOUS (species) – Any plant or animal species 

native to a given land or water area by natural 

occurrence. 

INDIVIDUAL TREE SELECTION – Unevenaged cutting method in which selected trees 

from specified size or age classes are removed over the 

entire stand area to meet a predetermined goal of size or 

age distribution and species composition in the remaining 

stand (FSM 2470). 

INFRA – An integrated data management tool where 

Forest managers enter, manage and report information 

and associated financial data in an inventory of 

constructed features on the land (such as buildings, 

dams, bridges, water systems, roads, trails, developed 

recreation sites, range improvements, administrative sites, 

heritage sites, general forest areas and wilderness). The 

database also includes information on permits and 

contracts that alter Forest land. 

INSECTICIDE – An agent used to control insect 

populations. 

INTANGIBLE VALUES (INTANGIBLE OUTPUTS) – 

Goods, services, uses and conditions which are believed 

to have values to the society but which have neither 

market values nor assigned values. 

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) – A 

process for selecting strategies to regulate forest pests in 

which all aspects of a pest-host system are studied and 

weighed. The information considered in 

selecting appropriate strategies includes the impact of the 

unregulated pest population on various resources values, 

alternative regulatory tactics and strategies, and 

benefit/cost estimates for these alternative 

strategies. Regulatory strategies are based on 

sound silvicultural practices and ecology of the pesthost system and may consist of a combination of tactics 

such as timber stand improvement plus selective use of 

pesticides. A basic principle in the choice of strategy is 

that it be ecologically compatible or acceptable. 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM – A team of individuals 

with skills from different disciplines that focuses on the 

same task or project. 

INTERIOR FOREST – An area of late structural or old 

forest that is large enough, and of an appropriate shape, 

to provide conditions that minimize predation, parasitism, 

and microclimate fluctuations associated with forest 

edges. These interior forest conditions provide habitat for 

a diversity of wildlife and plant species. 

INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT – A collective term for 

any treatment or tending designed to enhance growth, 

quality, vigor, and composition of the stand after 

establishment or regeneration and prior to final harvest 

INTERMITTENT STREAM – A stream which flows 

during wet portions of the year and has a defined channel 

and banks that transport water, sediment and organics. 

They dry up when the water tables drops below the stream 

bed. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-12 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

INTERPRETATION – Communication and education 

that forges emotional and intellectual connections 

between the interests of the audience and the inherent 

resource meanings. 

INTOLERANT SPECIES – Those plant species that do 

not grow well in shade. 

INVASIVE SPECIES – A species that is 1) nonnative (or 

alien) to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) whose 

introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. 

INVASIVE SPECIES, APPROACHES: 

Contain – Prevent the spread of the invasive species 

beyond the perimeter of patches or infested areas. 

Tolerate invasive species within established infestation 

areas, but suppress or eradicate outside those areas. 

Eradicate – Totally eliminate an invasive species from the 

Forest or location. Eradication methods may include 

the following, either individually or in combination: 

Suppress – Prevent reproduction throughout the target 

area and reduce the area coverage of the invasive 

species. Prevent the invasive species from dominating the 

area, but accept low levels. 

Tolerate – Accept the continued presence of established 

infestations and the probable spread to ecological limits 

for certain invasive species. Use preventive practices to 

preclude new infestations. 

INVASIVE SPECIES, METHODS OF CONTROL: 

Biological – The deliberate introduction and 

establishment of natural enemies to reduce the 

target species' competitive or reproductive capacities. 

Includes, but is not limited to, insects and pathogens such 

as fungi. The purpose is not eradication, but to reduce 

densities and rate of spread to an acceptable level. 

Chemical – Direct and broadcast application of approved 

herbicides, following EPA label requirements, USDA 

policy, and Forest Service policy and direction (FSM 

2150, FSH 2109.11, FSH 2109.12, and FSH 2109.13). 

Cultural/Land Use – Practices that discourage initial 

infestation of invasive species. Includes, but is not limited 

to, seeding, planting and retaining brush and tree canopy 

cover, and minimizing the extent and duration of exposed 

soil during management actions. 

Physical/Mechanical – Hand or mechanical labor to 

physically remove all or any part of the plant. 

Includes, but is not limited to, hand digging, mowing, 

tilling, and burning. 

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA – (1) Areas 

identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, 

contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area 

Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Volume 2, dated November 2000 or (2) roadless areas to 

be evaluated and considered for wilderness in the forest 

planning process. 

IRRETRIEVABLE – One of the categories of impacts 

mentioned in the National Environmental Policy Act to be 

included in Environmental Impact Statements. 

An irretrievable effect applies to losses of production or 

commitment of renewable natural resources. For example, 

while an area is used as a ski area, some or all of the 

timber production there is irretrievably lost. The loss of 

timber production during that time, however, is not 

irreversible, because it is possible for timber production to 

resume if the area is no longer used as a ski area. 

IRREVERSIBLE – A category of impacts mentioned in 

statements of environmental impacts that applies to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and archaeological 

sites. Irreversible effects can also refer to effects 

of actions that can be renewed only after a very 

long period of time, such as the loss of soil productivity. 

ISSUE – A subject or question of wide-spread public 

discussion or interest regarding management of National 

Forest System land. 

[K] 

K-V FUNDS – In 1930 Congress passed the KnutsonVandenberg Act (K-V Act) to authorize collection of 

funds for reforestation and timber stand improvement 

work on areas cut over by a timber sale. 

[L] 

LADDER FUELS – Vegetation located below the crown 

level of forest trees that can carry fire from the forest 

floor to tree crowns. Ladder fuels may be low-growing 

tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees. 

LAND ADJUSTMENT – Changing National Forest 

System land ownership through acquisition, exchange, or 

disposal of land or interest in land. 

LAND ALLOCATION – The commitment of a given 

area and its resources to a particular management area. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-13

LANDFORM – A natural feature of the surface of the 

land; includes such features as slopes, valleys, plateaus, 

and ridges. 

LANDING – Any place where cut timber is assembled 

for further transport from the timber sale area. 

LANDLINE – National Forest System boundary lines. 

LANDSCAPE – An area composed of interacting 

ecosystems that are repeated due to factors such as 

geology, soils, climate, and human influences. 

Landscapes are variable in size, shape, and pattern and are 

often used for coarse filter analysis. 

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER – Particular attributes, 

qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image 

and make it identifiable or unique. This includes the 

visual image created by the physical, biological and 

cultural factors of the past, present and future. 

LANDSCAPE SETTING – The context and environment 

in which a landscape is set; a landscape backdrop. 

LANDSCAPE VISIBILITY – Accessibility of the 

landscape to viewers, referring to one’s ability to see and 

perceive landscapes. 

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

(LRMP) – Formal name for the Forest Plan, the LRMP is 

a document that guides all long-range natural resource 

management activities for a National Forest. For more 

discussion on LRMP, see introduction to the LRMP. 

LAND TYPE ASSOCIATION (LTA) – Areas 

of common ecosystem characteristics that generally 

number in the thousands of acres. LTAs are defined by 

similarities in general topography, geomorphic processes, 

geology, soil and potential plant community patterns. 

LATE STRUCTURAL HABITAT – See Structural 

Stages. 

LEASABLE MINERALS – These include coal, oil, gas, 

phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, and geothermal 

steam that are leased for development (FSM 2811.2). 

LEAVE NO TRACE – A program supported by the nonprofit Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics, in 

partnership with public and private land managers, to 

promote and inspire responsible outdoor recreation 

through education and research. Four federal land 

management agencies, including the USDA Forest 

Service, actively promote the Leave No Trace principles 

of responsible, low-impact use to build 

awareness, appreciation, and respect for our wildlands. 

LIFE HISTORY – The sequence of changes making up 

the span of an organism's life. 

LINEAR PROGRAMMING – A mathematical technique 

for determining the effects of alternative resource 

allocations. 

LITTER (forest litter) – The freshly fallen, or 

only slightly decomposed, plant material on the 

forest floor. This layer includes foliage, bark 

fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruit. 

LOCAL ROAD – Serves smaller land areas than collector 

roads. Connects to other roads or terminal facilities. 

LOGGING RESIDUE (slash) – The residue left on the 

ground after timber cutting. It includes unutilized logs, 

uprooted stumps, broken branches, bark, and leaves. 

Certain amounts of slash provide important ecosystem 

roles, such as soil protection, nutrient cycling, and 

wildlife habitat. 

LONG-TERM SUSTAINED YIELD – The 

highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed 

for timber production that may be sustained under 

a specified management intensity consistent 

with multiple-use objectives. 

[M] 

M – Thousand. Five thousand board feet of timber can be 

expressed as 5M board feet. 

MACRO-CLIMATE – The general, large scale climate of 

a large area, as distinguished from the smaller scale micro 

climates within it. 

MAINTENANCE – The act of keeping fixed assets in 

acceptable condition. It includes preventive maintenance, 

normal repairs, replacement of parts and 

structural components, and other activities needed 

to preserve a fixed asset, so that it continues to provide 

acceptable service and achieves its expected life. 

Maintenance excludes activities aimed at expanding the 

capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to 

serve needs different from, or significantly greater than, 

those originally intended. 

MAINTENANCE LEVEL - Defines the level of service 

provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific 

road, consistent with road management objectives and 

maintenance criteria. For more information, see 

discussion in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-14 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

MANAGEMENT AREAS (MA’s) – Areas of 

the National Forest designated in the Forest Plan as 

having similar desired conditions, standards and 

guidelines. Similar to city planning zones. 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) – A 

wildlife species whose population will indicate the health 

of the ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the 

effects of forest management activities to that ecosystem. 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICE – A specific activity, 

measure, course of action, or treatment. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTION – See Prescription. 

MARKET VALUE ( MARKET OUTPUT) – Goods, 

services and uses which are commonly bought and sold 

and which are priced or valued directly from existing 

markets. 

MASS MOVEMENT/WASTING – The downslope movement of large masses of earth material by the 

force of gravity. Also called a landslide. 

MAST TREES – Species that provide nuts and fruits. 

These include the oak group, American beech, hop 

hornbeam and black cherry. 

MATURE TIMBER – Trees that have attained 

full development, especially height, and are in full seed 

production. 

MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT OF GROWTH – The 

increase in size and volume of a stand of trees at a 

particular age divided by that age in years. 

MECHANIZED VEHICLES – Any contrivance which 

travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, 

skids or by floatation, and is propelled by a living power 

source contained, or carried on or within, the device. 

METAPOPULATION – A group of locally interbreeding 

populations, or demes, each isolated in a patch of habitat. 

The persistence of the metapopulation is dependent on 

the persistence of the demes and movement of animals 

among demes to exchange genes. 

MICRO-CLIMATE – The climate of a small site. It may 

differ from the macro-climate of the area due to aspect, 

tree cover (or the absence of tree cover), or exposure to 

winds. 

MID STRUCTURAL HABITAT – See Structural stages. 

MIDDLEGROUND – The zone between the foreground 

and background in a landscape. The area is located from 

1/2 to 4 miles from the observer. (1/4 mile to 3 miles, in 

flat landscapes) 

MINERAL – Inorganic material that includes sand, 

gravel, and stone. 

MINERAL MATERIALS, COMMON VARIETY – Also 

referred to as Salable Minerals or Mineral Materials, 

include construction and landscaping materials (cinders, 

sand, gravel, boulders, loose rock and common clay) 

and minerals of similar occurrence commonly used as 

aggregate, rip-rap, ballast, borrow or fill. 

MINERAL RIGHTS – Owning minerals beneath the 

surface of the ground; often it is someone other than the 

owner of the surface. 

MINERAL SOIL – Soil that consists mainly of inorganic 

material, such as weathered rock, rather than organic 

matter. 

MISSION (of the USDA Forest Service) – "To Care for 

the Land and Serve the People." As set forth in law, the 

Forest Service mission is to achieve quality land 

management under the sustainable multiple-use 

management concept to meet the diverse needs of people. 

MITIGATION – Actions taken to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, maintain or monitor the impact of a 

land management practice. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION – The periodic 

evaluation of forest management activities to determine 

how well objectives are met and how management 

practices should be adjusted. (see Adaptive Management) 

MORTALITY – Trees that have died within a specified 

period of time. The term mortality can also refer to 

the rate of death of a species in a given population or 

community. 

MOSAIC – Areas with a variety of plant communities 

over a landscape, such as areas with trees and areas 

without trees occurring over a landscape. 

MOTORIZED VEHICLES – Any contrivance which 

travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, 

skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a non-living 

power source contained or carried on or within the 

device. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-15

MULTIPLE USE – Managing National Forest resources 

in a manner to best meet the needs of the American 

people, recognizing that not all uses can occur on all acres 

and that changing needs and conditions over time will 

change the combination and intensity of use. Productivity 

of the land and sustainability of ecosystems is maintained, 

and the interrelationships among resources and the effects 

of use are monitored and evaluated. Multiple-use 

management does not necessarily prescribe the 

combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar 

return or the greatest unit output. 

[N] 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (NR) 

– Listings of historic properties (or heritage resources) 

that meet the criteria of significance established by the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

OF 1969 (NEPA) – NEPA establishes a national policy to 

encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

humankind and the environment, to promote efforts that 

will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and 

stimulate the health and welfare of humans, to enrich the 

understanding of the ecological systems and natural 

resources important to the nation, and to establish a 

Council on Environmental Quality. One of the major 

tenets of NEPA is its emphasis on public disclosure of 

possible environmental effects of any major action on 

public lands. 

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 

(NFMA) – NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture 

to assess forest lands, develop management programs 

based on multiple-use and sustained yield principles, and 

implement a Land and Resource Management Plan for 

each National Forest. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS – Those roads 

wholly or partly within, or adjacent to and serving, the 

National Forests, and other areas administered by the 

Forest Service that have been included in the 

Forest Transportation Atlas (36 CFR 212.1 and 261.2). 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TRAILS – Those trails 

wholly or partly within, or adjacent to and serving, the 

National Forests, and other areas administered by the 

Forest Service that have been included in the 

Forest Transportation Atlas (36 CFR 212.1 and 261.2). 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) – The agency of 

the US Department of the Interior responsible for the 

administration of National Parks, Monuments, and 

Historic Sites. The NPS is distinct from the USDA Forest 

Service both administratively and by mission. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA –Congressionallydesignated areas that have outstanding combinations of 

outdoor recreation, aesthetic attractions, and proximity to 

potential users. They may also have cultural, historical, 

archaeological, pastoral, wilderness, scientific, wildlife, 

and other values contributing to public enjoyment. 

NATURAL-APPEARING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 

– Landscape character that has resulted from human 

activities, yet appears natural. Examples include the 

historic converting of native forests into farmlands and 

pastures and reverting back to forests through 

reforestation activities or natural regeneration. 

NATURAL BARRIER – A natural feature, such as a 

dense stand of trees or downfall, that will restrict animal 

travel. 

NATURAL DISTURBANCE – see Disturbance 

NATURAL INTEGRITY (a.k.a. ecosystem integrity) – 

The capability of an ecosystem to support and maintain 

the structure and function characteristic of its particular 

location. 

NATURAL RANGE OF VARIATION – see Range of 

variability 

NEST TREE – Tree containing large nests, built by 

crows, herons, or hawks, that from the ground resemble a 

platform of sticks and are two to three feet in diameter. 

These may be used by owls, which do not build nests, or 

they may be re-used by crows, herons, and hawks, among 

other species. 

NET PUBLIC BENEFITS – An expression used to 

signify the overall long-term value to the nation of all 

outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all associated 

inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be 

quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are 

measured by both quantitative and qualitative criteria 

rather than a single measure or index. The maximization 

of net public benefits to be derived from management 

of the National Forest units is consistent with 

the principles of multiple-use and sustainedyield management. 

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE – The most 

likely condition expected to exist in the future 

if management practices continue unchanged. 

NON-COMMERCIAL VEGETATIVE TREATMENT – 

The removal or felling of trees for reasons other than 

timber production. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-16 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

NON-CONVERTIBLE PRODUCTS – Timber products 

that do not have a common standard conversion to cubic 

feet of solid wood (FSH 2409.18). 

NONDECLINING YIELD – A level of timber production 

planned so that the planned sale and harvest for any future 

decade is equal to or greater than the planned sale and 

harvest for the preceding decade. 

NON-FOREST LAND – Lands never having or incapable 

of having 10 percent or more of the area occupied by 

forest trees or lands previously having such cover and 

currently developed for non-forest use. 

NON-GAME – Wildlife species that are not hunted for 

sport. 

NON-MARKET VALUE (NON-MARKET OUTPUT) – 

Goods, services and uses which are not commonly bought 

or sold in existing markets. For use in comparing 

alternatives they are assigned dollar values derived from 

willingness-to-pay analysis. See also “Intangible Values.” 

NON-MOTORIZED USE – Land uses requiring or 

largely dependent on isolation from motor vehicles and/or 

roads. 

NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES (NNIS) – An 

organism that has been purposefully or accidentally 

introduced outside its original geographic range, and that 

is able to proliferate and aggressively alter its 

new environment, causing harm to the 

economy, environment, or human health (Executive Order 

13112) 

NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION – Pollution whose 

source is not specific in location. The sources of the 

discharge are dispersed, not well defined, or constant. 

Rain storms and snowmelt often make this type 

of pollution worse. Examples include sediments from 

earth disturbing activities and runoff from agricultural 

chemicals. 

NON-RECREATION SPECIAL USE PERMITS – A 

general definition of permitted uses of ANF land. 

These include agriculture, community and 

public information, energy generation and transmission, 

communications, feasibility, research, training, cultural 

resources, and historical classes, among other uses. By 

definition, recreation is excluded. 

NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE – A resource whose 

total quantity does not increase measurably over time, so 

that each use of the resource diminishes the supply. 

NORTHERN HARDWOODS – Primarily sugar maple, 

yellow birch, and beech. May include red maple, white 

ash, black cherry, red spruce, and hemlock. 

NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) – A notice in the federal 

register of intent to prepare an environmental impact 

statement on a proposed action. 

NOXIOUS WEED – Those plant species designated as 

noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by a 

responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally 

possess one or more of the following characteristics: 

Aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, 

parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, 

and being native or new to or not common to the United 

States or parts thereof. (FSM 2080) 

NUTRIENT CYCLE – The circulation of 

chemical elements and compounds, such as carbon 

and nitrogen, in specific pathways from the nonliving parts of ecosystems into the organic substances of 

the living parts of ecosystems, and then back again to the 

non-living parts of the ecosystem. For instance, nitrogen 

in wood is returned to the soil as the dead tree decays. 

The nitrogen again becomes available to living organisms 

in the soil and, upon their death, the nitrogen is available 

to plants growing in that soil. 

[O] 

OBJECTIVE – A concise, time-specific statement of 

measurable and planned results that respond to preestablished goals. 

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (ORV) – Any motorized 

vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on, 

or immediately over, land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, 

swampland, or other natural terrain; except that such term 

excludes (A) any registered motorboat, (B) any fire, 

military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle when 

used for emergency purposes, and any combat or 

combat support vehicle when used for national 

defense purposes, and (C) any vehicle whose use 

is expressly authorized by the respective agency head 

under a permit, lease, license, or contract. 

OFF SITE VIEWS – A term used in management of 

visual resources. The view beyond foreground, includes 

middleground and background views. 

ON-SITE VIEW – A term used in management of visual 

resources. see Foreground 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-17

OPERATIONS – Activities related to the normal 

performance of the functions for which a fixed asset or 

component is intended to be used. Includes tasks such as 

janitorial services, vault toilet pumping, grounds upkeep, 

and law enforcement patrols. 

ORGANIC SOIL – Soil at least partly derived from living 

matter, such as decayed plant material. 

OUTFITTING – Providing, through rental or livery, any 

saddle or pack animal, vehicle or boat, tents or camp gear, 

or similar supplies or equipment, for pecuniary 

remuneration or other gain. The term "outfitter" includes 

the holder's employees, agents, and instructors. 

OUTSTANDING MINERAL RIGHTS – Rights owned 

by a party other than the surface owner at the time the 

surface was conveyed to the United States. 

OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUE – A 

river-related value that is a unique, rare or exemplary 

feature that is significant at a comparative regional or 

national scale. This is associated with evaluation of wild 

and scenic rivers. 

OVERMATURE TIMBER – Trees that have attained full 

development, particularly in height, and are declining in 

vigor, health, and soundness. 

OVERSTORY – The upper canopy layer; the plants 

below comprise the understory. 

OVERSTORY REMOVAL – The cutting of trees 

comprising an upper canopy layer in order to release 

advance regeneration in an understory. This is the final 

harvest of a shelterwood regeneration sequence. 

[P] 

PARENT MATERIAL – The mineral or organic matter 

from which the upper layers of soil are formed. 

PASSERINE – A bird of the very large and diverse 

taxonomic order Passeriformes, sometimes referred to as 

perching birds or, less accurately, as songbirds. More than 

half of all living species of birds are passerines, 

including species as varied as chickadees, crows, 

jays, wrens, thrushes, swallows, warblers, and sparrows. 

PATCH – An area of vegetation that is similar in structure 

and composition. 

PEOPLE AT ONE TIME (PAOT) – A recreation capacity 

determination expressed in the number of people a 

recreation site, facility or area can accommodate at one 

time. 

PERCOLATION – Downward flow or infiltration 

of water through the pores or spaces of rock or soil. 

PERENNIAL STREAM – A stream which flows year 

round except during drought years and is typically 

maintained by groundwater flow during the dry season. 

PERMANENT OPENING – An opening dominated by 

perennial grasses, forbs, sedges and shrubs, that has less 

than 16 percent stocking of trees and less that 10 percent 

tree cover. Vegetation in permanent openings may be 

periodically cut or burned to prevent vegetative 

succession and tree growth. Optimal size of permanent 

openings is one-half to ten acres. 

PERSONAL USE – The use of a forest product, such as 

firewood, for home use and not for commercial use. 

PERSONAL USE OF MINERALS – Recreational 

mineral activities which contribute to the personal 

enjoyment of mineral collecting as a leisure activity and 

not for the purpose of realizing personal financial gain 

either through the sale of the material or through an 

exchange for other goods or services. The exchange of 

mineral specimens, and/or the fabrication by the collector 

of functional or decorative items from the collected 

material, and the disposal of same, are not considered to 

constitute a commercial activity as long as the motive 

for doing so is the further enjoyment of a leisure activity 

and not for profit. 

PEST – A plant, animal, or environmental stress which 

the land manager determines to be detrimental to 

achieving resource management objectives. 

PESTICIDE – A chemical used to control pests such as 

insects, fungi or rodents. 

PIT – An open surface excavation for extracting stone. 

PLAN AMENDMENT – Changes to the text of the Forest 

Plan decisions contained in the forest plan. 

PLAN CORRECTION – Minor changes to the plan that 

do not substantively affect the management direction or 

create additional environmental consequences. These 

include elements of the plan that are not identified as plan 

decisions, corrections and updates to data or maps, 

changes in projections of activities, and minor text 

changes. 

PLANNING AREA – The area of National Forest land 

covered by a Regional Guide or Forest Plan. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-18 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

PLANNING PERIOD – The time frame for which goods, 

services, and effects were projected in the development of 

the Forest Plan. 

PLANTATION – A forest crop or stand raised artificially, 

either by seeding or planting of young trees. 

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION – Pollution traceable to a 

discharge of pollutants from a discernable, confined, and 

discrete conveyance, such as a discharge from a sewage 

treatment plant. 

POLE TIMBER – Trees at least 5 inches in diameter, but 

smaller than the minimum size for sawtimber. 

PRE-COMMERCIAL THINNING – Removing or felling 

some of the trees from a stand that are too small to be sold 

for lumber or house logs, so the remaining trees will grow 

faster. 

PREDATOR – An animal that lives by preying on other 

animals. Predators are at or near the tops of food chains. 

PRE-EXISTING USE – Land use that may not conform 

to current direction but existed prior to the establishment 

of that direction. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – Chosen from among 

the alternatives developed in the DEIS to address 

the range of solutions to the Forest’s 

management problems. 

PREPARATORY CUT – An optional type of cut that 

enhances conditions for seed production and 

establishment applied under the shelterwood regeneration 

method. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING – Application of prescribed 

fire. 

PRESCRIBED FIRE – Any fire ignited by management 

actions to meet specific objectives. 

PRESCRIPTION – Management practices selected to 

accomplish specific land and resource management 

objectives. 

PRESENT NET VALUE (PNV) [a.k.a Net Present Value 

(NPV) or present net worth] – The difference between the 

discounted value (benefits) of all outputs to which 

monetary values or established market prices are assigned 

and the total discounted costs of managing the planning 

area. 

PROCLAMATION BOUNDARY – National Forest 

boundary as proclaimed by the President of the United 

States. 

PROTECTED WATER USE – Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (DEP) defines which water 

uses shall be protected and the level of water quality 

criteria for the identified body of water based on their 

potential and existing use. Protected water uses on the 

ANF include cold water fisheries (CWF), high qualitycold water fisheries (HQ-CWF), exceptional value waters 

(EV) and warm water fisheries (WWF). 

PUBLIC LAND – Land for which title and control rests 

with a federal, state, regional, county, or municipal 

government. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT – The use of appropriate 

procedures to inform the public, obtain early and 

continuing public participation, and consider the views 

of interested parties in planning and decision making. 

PULPWOOD – Wood suitable for manufacturing into 

wood pulp for composite and/or paper products. 

[R] 

RANGE OF VARIABILITY (a.k.a. natural range 

of variation or historic range of variability) – 

The variability in composition, structure, and dynamics of 

ecosystems before EuroAmerican influence, including the 

variation of physical and biological conditions within an 

area due to climatic fluctuations and disturbances of wind, 

fire and flooding. 

RANGER DISTRICT – The administrative subunit of a 

National Forest that is supervised by a District Ranger 

who reports directly to the Forest Supervisor. 

RAPTOR – A bird of prey, such as an eagle or hawk. 

RECHARGE – The addition of water to ground water by 

natural or artificial processes. 

RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) – An official document 

in which a deciding official states the alternative that will 

be implemented from a prepared Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

RECREATION EVENTS SPECIAL USE PERMITS – A 

special use designation within the Recreation Special Use 

category. Recreation events include organized events of a 

temporary nature, such as animal, vehicle, or boat races; 

fishing contests; rodeos; adventure games; and fairs. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-19

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) – 

A formal Forest Service classification system designed to 

delineate, define, and integrate outdoor recreation 

opportunities in land and resource management 

planning. ROS classes are used to describe all recreation 

opportunity settings, from natural, undisturbed, and 

undeveloped to heavily used, modified and developed. 

ROS designations attempt to describe the kind 

of recreation experience one may expect to have in a 

given part of the National Forest. The ROS classes are 

discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

RECREATION RIVER – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

Usage: Classification applied to rivers or sections of 

rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that 

may have some development along their shorelines, and 

that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion 

in the past. 

RECREATION SPECIAL USE PERMITS – A class of 

special use permits for recreation uses that serve the 

public, protect public health and safety, and protect the 

resource. These include such categories as outfitting and 

guiding, group use, facility related activities, and winter 

recreation. Within each of these categories there could be 

several “designations” of special use permits 

(FSM 2720). 

RECREATION VISITOR DAY (RVD) – Recreational 

use of National Forest System land which aggregates 

twelve hours. It may consist of one person for twelve 

hours, two people for six hours or any equal combination. 

REFORESTATION TREATMENT – A reference to a 

specific reforestation activity used to establish tree 

seedling reproduction in a stand. Examples on the ANF 

include planting, direct seeding, coppice or root suckers, 

site preparation for natural reproduction (regeneration), 

herbicide application, fencing and fertilization. 

REGENERATION – The renewal of a forest by either 

natural or artificial means. The term is also used to refer 

to the young trees. 

REGENERATION METHOD – A cutting procedure by 

which a new age class is created. The major methods are 

clearcutting, seed-tree, shelterwood, selection, and 

coppice. Regeneration methods are grouped into four 

categories: coppice, even-aged, two-aged, and unevenaged. 

REGIONAL FORESTER – The official of the USDA 

Forest Service responsible for administering an entire 

region of the Forest Service. 

REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE SPECIES – 

Those plant and animal species identified by a Regional 

Forester for which population viability is a concern, as 

evidenced by: (1) Significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density Or (2) 

Significant current or predicted downward trends in 

habitat capability that would reduce a species existing 

distribution (FSM 2670.5). 

REHABILITATION – A short-term management goal 

used to return a landscape with existing visual impacts 

and deviations to a desired level of scenic quality 

formerly found in the landscape. 

REHABILITATION (OF ASSETS) – Renovation or 

restoration of an existing fixed asset or any of its 

components in order to restore the functionality or life of 

the asset. Because there is no significant expansion or 

change of purpose for the fixed asset, the work primarily 

addresses deferred maintenance. 

RELATIVE DENSITY – Measurement of stand density 

in stands which accounts for variation in tree growing 

space requirements for variable tree sizes and species 

composition. It compares the crowding in a forest stand to 

the crowding in a stand at the average maximum density 

observed in undisturbed stands of similar average tree size 

and species composition. 

RELEASE – An intermediate treatment designed to free 

young trees from undesirable, usually overtopping, 

competing vegetation. 

REMOVAL CUT – The removal of most of the last 

seed bearers or shelter trees after regeneration 

is established. 

REPAIR (OF ASSETS) – Work to restore a damaged, 

broken, or worn-out fixed asset, component, or item of 

equipment to normal operating condition. Repairs may be 

done as annual maintenance or deferred 

maintenance activities. 

 

REPLACEMENT (OF ASSETS) – Substitution 

or exchange of an existing fixed asset or component with 

one having essentially the same capacity and purpose. 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA (RNA) – A physical or 

biological unit in which current natural conditions are 

maintained insofar as possible. These conditions are 

ordinarily achieved by allowing natural physical 

and biological processes to prevail without 

human intervention. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-20 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

RESERVE TREES – Live trees, pole-sized or larger, 

retained in either a dispersed or aggregated manner after 

the regeneration period under the clearcutting with 

reserves, seed-tree with reserves, shelterwood removal 

with reserves, group selection with reserves, or coppice 

with reserves regeneration methods. Trees are retained for 

resource purposes other than regeneration. 

RESERVED MINERAL RIGHTS (mineral reservations) 

– Mineral rights retained by a grantor in a deed conveying 

land to the United States. 

RESIDUAL STAND – The trees remaining standing after 

an event such as selection cutting or thinning. 

RESILIENCE – The degree, manner, and pace of 

restoration of the structure and function of the original 

ecosystem after disturbance. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL – The Forest Service 

employee who has been delegated the authority to carry 

out a specific planning action. 

RESTORATION (of ecosystems) – see ecosystem 

restoration. 

REVEGETATION – The re-establishment 

and development of a plant cover by either natural or 

artificial means, such as re-seeding. 

RIPARIAN AREAS – Geographically delineable area 

with distinctive resource values and characteristics that 

are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 

RIPARIAN CORRIDOR – This area encompasses the 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Prescriptions and 

treatments which occur in the riparian corridor would 

protect, manage and improve riparian resources. 

RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS – A transition area between 

the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial 

ecosystem; identified by soil characteristics or distinctive 

vegetation communities that require free or unbound 

water. 

ROAD DECOMMISSIONING – Activities that result in 

the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a 

more natural state. 

ROAD DENSITY - Quantity of road mileage per unit 

area, commonly measured as miles of road per square 

mile of land area. 

ROAD IMPROVEMENT – Activity that results in an 

increase of an existing road's traffic service level, 

expansion of its capacity, or change in its original design 

function. 

ROAD MAINTENANCE – The ongoing upkeep of a 

road necessary to regain or restore the road to the 

approved road management objective (FSM 7712.3). 

ROAD OBLITERATION - Process of removing a road 

from the landscape. Obliterations are used on system 

and temporary roads, which are to be removed from 

service (decommissioned). Obliteration can include 

removing evidence of any access points; removing any 

structures from the roadbed (such as culverts, bridges, 

signs, guide rails, etc.); and restoring wetlands 

and riparian areas. 

ROAD, PRIVATE – A road under private ownership 

authorized by a Special-Use Authorization, or a road that 

provides access pursuant to a reserved or private right. 

ROAD, PUBLIC – Any road or street under 

the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority 

and open to public travel (23 U.S.C. 101(a)). 

ROAD, TEMPORARY – Road authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency 

operation, not intended to be part of the forest 

transportation system and not necessary for long-term 

resource management. 

ROAD UNCLASSIFIED – Roads on National Forest 

System lands that are not managed as part of the forest 

transportation system, such as unplanned roads, 

abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that 

have not been designated and managed as a trail. 

Includes those roads that were once under permit or other 

authorization and were not decommissioned upon the 

termination of the authorization (36 CFR 212.1). This 

term has been replaced with unauthorized road. 

ROADLESS AREA - A National Forest-system area that 

has been inventoried by the Forest Service for possible 

inclusion in the wilderness preservation system. 

ROADLESS AREA REVIEW AND EVALUATION II 

(RARE II) - A national inventory of roadless 

and undeveloped areas within the National Forests and 

Grasslands that was completed in 1979. 

ROTATION – The number of years required to establish 

and grow timber crops to a specified condition of 

maturity. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-21

ROUNDWOOD – Pulpwood and fuelwood prepared in 

the round state. 

RUN-OFF – That part of precipitation, as well as any 

other flow contributions, that appears in surface water, 

either perennially or intermittently. 

[S] 

SALVAGE CUTTING – The removal of trees to salvage 

economic value and/or improve stand health by stopping 

or reducing actual or anticipated spread of insects, disease 

and/or decline/mortality due to other factors (e.g. site 

nutrients, natural disturbances) 

SANITATION CUTTING – Intermediate cutting made to 

remove dead, damaged, or susceptible trees to prevent the 

spread of pests or pathogens (FSM 2470). 

SAPLING – As used in vegetation surveys, a size class 

definition: trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches at DBH. 

SAWTIMBER – Trees that are 11 inches in diameter at 

breast height or larger that can be made into lumber. 

SCALE – In ecosystem management, it refers to the 

degree of resolution at which ecosystems are observed 

and measured. 

SCENERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS) – SMS is 

a tool for integrating the benefits, values, desires, and 

preferences regarding aesthetics and scenery for all levels 

of management planning. 

SCENIC ATTRACTIVENESS – The scenic importance 

of a landscape based on perceptions of the intrinsic beauty 

of landform, rockform, and vegetative pattern. This 

inventory is based on the premise that landscapes with 

the greatest variety or diversity have the greatest potential 

for scenic value. Scenery is classified as the following: 

 A - Distinctive 

 B - Typical or Common 

 C - Undistinguished 

SCENIC CLASS – A measurement of the relative 

importance or value of areas having similar inventoried 

characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape 

visibility. Scenic classes are mapped by combining the 

three classes of scenic attractiveness with the distance 

zones, and concern levels of landscape visibility. 

SCENIC INTEGRITY LEVEL (SIL) – The state of 

naturalness or disturbance created by human activities or 

alteration. SIL is used to inventory the existing condition 

and to describe objectives during alternative development. 

See Chapter 3 in the FEIS for details. 

SCENIC RIVER – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Usage: 

Classification applied to rivers, or sections of rivers, that 

are free of impoundments; where shorelines or watersheds 

are still largely primitive and shorelines are largely 

undeveloped, but accessible at places by a road. 

SCOPING – The ongoing process to determine public 

opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and 

determine issues during the environmental analysis 

process. It may involve public meetings, telephone 

conversations, or letters. 

SECOND-GROWTH FOREST – An area of forest that 

has established after some kind of human intervention that 

has removed some or all of the previous forested area. 

SEED CUT – A type of cut that removes trees except 

those needed for regeneration and reserve trees. Prepares 

the seed bed and creates a new age class in an even-aged 

or two-aged stand under the seed-tree or shelterwood 

regeneration method. If reserve trees are retained, it is 

under a two-aged method of seed tree or shelterwood 

regeneration methods. 

SEED-TREE REGENERATION METHOD WITH 

RESERVES – A seed-tree regeneration method in which 

some or all of the seed trees are retained after 

regeneration has become established to attain goals other 

then regeneration. This method creates an even-aged 

stand or a two-aged stand depending on management 

goals. Reserve trees may also include those trees that are 

not expected to provide seed for desirable regeneration. 

SEED-TREE REMOVAL CUT – A final removal cut that 

releases established regeneration from competition with 

seed trees after they are no longer needed for seed under 

the seed-tree regeneration method. Reserve trees are 

retained during the removal cut if it is a sequence of the 

seed-tree with reserves regeneration method. 

SEED TREE REMOVAL CUT WITH RESERVES – 

Under the two-aged method, seed tree regeneration 

method, the final removal of some of the remaining crop 

trees (seed trees) after regeneration is established. Some 

seed trees are retained to attain goals other than 

regeneration. 

SEEDLING – As used in vegetation surveys, a size class 

definition: trees less than one inch at DBH. 

SEEP – broad, shallow, slow-moving flow that occurs 

where groundwater emerges on strongly sloping to steep 

side slopes and low slope colluvial landforms. Seeps 

provide year round habitat for a variety of wildlife 

species, including amphibians and invertebrates. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-22 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

SENSITIVE SPECIES – See Regional Forester Sensitive 

Species 

SERAL – Any stage of the sequence of changes in plant 

and animal communities on a site over time (see 

Succession). 

SETTING – (See Landscape Setting) 

SHADE TOLERANT SPECIES – Term used to describe 

plants that grow and develop in the shade (ex. sugar 

maple or hemlock). 

SHADE INTOLERANT SPECIES – Term used to 

describe plants that can develop only in relatively open 

conditions (ex. aspen or birch). 

SHELTERWOOD REGENERATION METHOD – A 

method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which the 

new age class develops beneath the moderated microenvironment provided by the residual trees. When the 

shelterwood regeneration method is employed, the 

sequence of treatments can include three distinct types of 

cuttings: 1) an optional preparatory cut to enhance 

conditions for seed production; 2) a shelterwood seed cut 

(establishment cut) to establish a moderated microenvironment, prepare the seed bed, and create a new age 

class, and 3) a shelterwood removal cut to release 

established regeneration from competition with the 

overwood. Cutting may be done uniformly throughout the 

stand (uniform shelterwood), in groups or patches (group 

shelterwood), or in strips (strip shelterwood). 

SHELTERWOOD REMOVAL CUT – A final removal 

cut that releases established regeneration from 

competition with shelter trees after they are no longer 

needed for shelter under the shelterwood regeneration 

method. 

SHELTERWOOD WITH RESERVES 

REGENERATION METHOD – A regeneration method 

in which some or all of the shelter trees are retained to 

attain goals other than regeneration, This method creates 

an even-aged stand or a two-aged stand if sufficient trees 

are reserved. 

SHELTERWOOD REMOVAL CUT WITH RESERVES 

– A final removal cut that releases established 

regeneration from competition with shelter trees after they 

are no longer needed for shelter under the shelterwood 

with reserves regeneration method. Reserve trees are 

retained during the final removal cut if it is a sequence of 

the shelterwood with reserves regeneration method. 

SHRUB OPENING – An area managed for wildlife that 

is dominated by short, woody vegetation and may include 

small patches of grassy openings and clumps of trees. 

SILVICULTURAL SYSTEM – Entire process by which 

forest stands are tended, harvested, and replaced. It 

includes all cultural practices performed during the life of 

the stand, such as regeneration cutting, fertilization and 

thinning. 

SILVICULTURE – The art and science of controlling the 

establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of 

forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and 

values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis. 

SILVICULTURE PRESCRIPTION – A document 

written or approved by a certified silviculturist that 

describes management activities needed to implement 

silvicultural treatment or treatment sequence. It also 

describes the desired future vegetation conditions in 

measurable terms (FSM 2478.03). 

SINGLE TREE SELECTION – See Individual Tree 

Selection. 

SITE PREPARATION – The removal of competition 

(including woody slash) and conditioning of the soil to 

enhance the survival and growth of seedlings or to 

enhance the germination of seed. 

SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – Plan 

amendments that allow a specific project or activity to 

deviate from plan direction. These amendments do not 

change plan language or plan decisions, except in the 

application to the specific project or activity. 

SKID ROADS (a.k.a. tractor roads) – Skid 

trails constructed for the purpose of transporting cut trees 

to a landing. They are ordinarily constructed by ground 

clearing and/or excavation (FSH 2409.15). 

SKID TRAILS – Trails used for the purpose of 

transporting cut trees to a road or landing. Skid trail use 

normally does not include ground excavation or clearing 

(FSH 2409). 

SKIDDING – Hauling logs by sliding with a cable, not on 

wheels, from stump to a collection point. 

SLASH – The residue left on the ground after timber 

cutting or left after a storm, fire, or other event. Slash 

includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or 

uprooted stems, branches, bark, among others. 

SLUMP – A landslide where the underlying rock masses 

tilt back as they slide from a cliff or escarpment. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-23

SMALL GAME – Birds and small animals normally 

hunted or trapped. 

SNAG – Includes standing dead or partially dead trees 

that are at least six inches in diameter at breast height 

(dbh) and 20 feet tall. (see Hard Snag and Soft Snag) 

SNOWMOBILE –A motor vehicle that is designed 

exclusively for use over snow and that runs on a track or 

tracks and/or a ski or skis. 

SOFT SNAG – Snags with wood, especially sapwood, in 

an advanced stage of decay. 

SOFTWOOD – A coniferous tree. Trees belonging to the 

botanical group gymnosperme. 

SOIL COMPACTION – The reduction of soil volume. 

For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on soils can 

compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, 

such as in its ability to absorb water. 

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY – The capacity of a soil to 

produce vegetation. Productivity depends on adequate 

moisture and soil nutrients, as well as favorable climate. 

SOIL QUALITY – The capacity of the soil to function 

within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological 

productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, 

and support human health and habitation. 

SOUND WOOD – Timber that is in solid, whole, good 

condition. Sound wood is free from damage, decay, or 

defects. 

SPECIAL AREA (SA) – National Forest System lands 

that contain outstanding examples of plant and 

animal communities, geological features, scenic grandeur, 

or other special attributes. SAs are nationally designated 

by the Forest Service or by legislation. SAs are managed 

to emphasize recreational and other specific related 

values. 

SPECIAL PLACES – Those specific locations in outdoor 

settings that have attractions and features that are 

identified as unique, different, distinctive, and 

extraordinary to people. 

SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS – Products or natural 

resources that are not the traditional timber and fiber 

products. Examples include such products as floral 

greenery, Christmas trees and boughs, mushrooms, 

transplants (trees, shrubs or herbaceous plants), cones, 

medicinal plants, cuttings, herbs, fuelwood, tree sap, 

nuts, berries, lichen, fungi, decorative wood, and pitch. 

SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION– An authorization 

issued to an individual or group by the USDA Forest 

Service for use of National Forest land for a special 

purpose. Examples might be a Boy Scout Jamboree, a 

water system serving private land, or a mountain bike 

race. Authorizations can be in the form of 

permits, easements, or leases. 

SPECIES VIABILITY EVALUATION (SVE) – 

A qualitative process for gathering information on species 

for which viability may be a concern now or during the 

planning period. The process includes identifying at-risk 

species, compiling literature and unpublished information 

on those species, and using that information to 

develop and analyze Forest Plan revision alternatives. 

SPECTRUM – A specific linear program model designed 

for Forest Service planning. 

SPRING – Small to large defined flow from a clearly 

defined opening in the ground where the water table 

intercepts the ground surface. 

STAND – A contiguous group of trees sufficiently 

uniform in age class distribution, composition, and 

structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform 

quality, to be a distinguishable unit, such as mixed, pure, 

even-aged, and uneven-aged stands. A stand is the 

fundamental unit of silviculture reporting and recordkeeping. 

STAND COMPOSITION – The proportion of each tree 

species in a stand expressed as a percentage of the total 

number, basal area, or volume of all tree species in the 

stand. 

STANDARD – A required course of action, or level of 

attainment, that promotes the achievement of forest plan 

desired condition, goals or objectives. Standards found in 

a forest plan impose limits on natural 

resource management activities, generally 

for environmental protection. Deviation from a standard 

requires a plan amendment. 

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE(R) 

(SHPO) – The National Historic Preservation Act 

establishes an oversight role for this office/position vis a 

vis federal agencies operating within the states. Thus, the 

SHPO must concur with federal agency decisions which 

have the potential to affect NR-eligible properties (a.k.a. 

“significant Heritage Resources”). 

STEWARDSHIP – Caring for the land and its resources 

to pass healthy ecosystems to future generations. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-24 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

STOCKING LEVEL – The number of trees in an area as 

compared to the desirable number of trees for best results, 

such as maximum wood production. 

STREAM - A body of water that flows within a defined 

channel and transports water, sediment and organics. 

Includes intermittent and perennial streams. 

STRUCTURAL STAGES – Describe the forest 

vegetation conditions, primarily diameter and canopy 

closure of forest, of importance to wildlife. The term 

“structural” rather than “successional” is used to describe 

the vegetation conditions rather than the species 

composition. These stages include: 

EARLY STRUCTURAL HABITAT – Seedling 

and sapling communities or forested stands 

normally less than 20 years old where the 

dominant canopy layer is less than 5 inches in 

diameter(dbh). Savannahs or open areas with 

encroaching woody vegetation where tree cover 

or canopy closure is less than 40% are also 

considered to be early structural habitat. 

MID STRUCTURAL HABITAT – Pole stands 

of trees where the dominant canopy layer is 

greater than 5 inches in diameter (dbh) and less 

than 20 inches in diameter (dbh) and tree cover 

or canopy closure is greater than 40%. 

LATE STRUCTURAL HABITAT – Old forest 

stands where the dominant canopy layer is 

greater than 20 inches in diameter (dbh) and tree 

cover or canopy closure is greater than 40%. 

These also include standing dead and down tree 

and canopy gaps with understory and midstory 

development. 

SUBSURFACE RIGHTS (MINERAL RIGHTS) – 

Ownership of or right to develop or recover the oil, gas or 

mineral resources under the land surface. 

SUCCESSION – The sequence of changes in plant and 

animal communities on a site over time. 

SUCCESSIONAL STAGE – see Seral 

SUITABILITY – The appropriateness of certain resource 

uses or management activities to an area of land. 

SUITABLE FOREST LAND – Forest land 

that constitutes the land base for determining 

the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) and is managed 

for timber production on a regulated basis. 

SUMMER OFF-ROAD VEHICLE – All offroad vehicles except snowmobiles. (see OffRoad Vehicle) 

SURFACE RESOURCES – Renewable resources that are 

on the surface of the earth, such as timber and forage, in 

contrast to ground water and minerals which are located 

beneath the surface. 

SURFACE RIGHTS – Ownership of the surface of the 

land only; right to use the surface of the land. 

SUSTAINABILITY (general) – The ability of 

an ecological, economic, and/or social system to maintain 

structure and function, and to remain resilient, in order to 

continue to support biological diversity (including 

humans and their social and economic organization) and 

system productivity over time. 

SUSTAINABLE – The yield of a natural resource that 

can be produced continually at a given intensity of 

management is said to be sustainable. 

SUSTAINED YIELD – The yield that a 

renewable resource can produce continuously at a 

given intensity of management. 

[T] 

TAXON (TAXA) – A group of organisms at any level of 

the taxonomic hierarchy. The major taxa are the species 

and genus and the higher taxa, including the family, order, 

class, phylum, and kingdom. Minor taxa 

include subspecies and varieties. 

TEMPORARY OPENING – An opening created by 

silvicultural treatment (e.g., clearcut or shelterwood cut), 

or natural event (e.g., wind throw, ice damage, pest 

outbreak), that is intended and allowed to be 

reoccupied by young trees. Temporary openings 

are dominated by tree seedlings and saplings less than 15 

feet tall and, with time, will grow into a wooded stand. 

TEMPORARY ROAD – See Road, Temporary. 

THERMAL COVER – Cover used by animals against 

weather. 

THINNING – An intermediate treatment made to reduce 

stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, 

enhance forest health, or to recover potential mortality. 

Includes crown thinning (thinning from above, high 

thinning), free thinning, low thinning (thinning from 

below), mechanical thinning (geometric thinning), and 

selection thinning (dominant thinning). 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-25

THIRTEEN PERCENT AREA – A term used to describe 

Forest Service land that drains directly into the 

unimpounded section of the Allegheny River between 

Kinzua Dam and Tionesta Dam. The area makes up 13% 

of the total land base managed by the ANF, and is 

important to aquatic species in the Allegheny River. 

THREATENED SPECIES – Those plant or animal 

species likely to become endangered throughout all or a 

specific portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

TIMBER CLASSIFICATION – The classification of 

forested lands into land management alternatives 

according to how the land relates to management of the 

timber resource there. 

TIMBER STAND IMPROVEMENT (TSI) – Actions to 

improve growing conditions for trees in a stand, such as 

thinning, pruning, prescribed fire, or release cutting. 

TRACTOR LOGGING – A logging method that uses 

tractors to carry or drag logs from the stump to a 

collection point. 

TRAFFIC SERVICE LEVEL (TSL) - Describes the 

significant characteristics and operating conditions of a 

road (FSH 7709.56, Ch 4 - Road Preconstruction 

Handbook, FSM 7705 - Transportation System). 

TSL A: Free flowing, mixed traffic; stable, smooth 

surface; provides safe service to all traffic. 

TSL B: Congested during heavy traffic, slower 

speeds and periodic dust; accommodates any legalsize load or vehicle. 

TSL C: Interrupted traffic flow, limited passing 

facilities, may not accommodate some vehicles. Low 

design speeds. Unstable surface under certain traffic 

or weather. 

TSL D: Traffic flow is slow and may be blocked by 

management activities. Two-way traffic is difficult, 

backing may be required. Rough and irregular 

surface. Accommodates high clearance vehicles. 

Single purpose facility. 

TRAIL – A designated path or travelway of varying width 

which is maintained for varied recreational uses. 

TREATMENT AREA – The site specific location of a 

resource improvement activity. 

TREE IMPROVEMENT – The science of dealing with 

the causes of resemblances and differences among trees 

related by descent. It considers the effects of genes and 

the response to environmental factors. 

TROUT STREAMS 

Class A Trout Stream – A Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission designation based on biomass criteria. 

Class A is the highest level given for a trout stream. 

Remote Trout Stream – An Allegheny National Forest 

designation of a stream that provides an experience in a 

remote, natural and unspoiled environment with 

minimal human activities. 

Wilderness Trout Stream - A Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission designation of a stream that provides 

an experience in a remote, natural and unspoiled 

environment with minimal human activities. 

TWO-AGED METHOD – Regeneration and maintenance 

of stands with two age classes. The resulting stand may be 

two-aged or tend towards an uneven-aged condition as a 

consequence of both an extended period of regeneration 

establishment and the retention of reserve trees (green 

trees) that may represent one or more age classes. 

TWO-AGED STAND – A growing area with trees of two 

distinct age classes. 

TWO-AGED SILVICULTURE SYSTEM – A planned 

sequence of treatments designed to regenerate or maintain 

a stand with two age classes. 

TYPE CONVERSION – The conversion of the dominant 

vegetation in an area from forested to non-forested or 

from one forest type to another. 

[U] 

UNAUTHORIZED ROAD OR TRAIL – A road or trail 

that is not a forest road or trail or temporary road or trail 

and that is not included in the forest transportation atlas. 

UNDERBURN – A burn by a surface fire that 

can consume ground vegetation and "ladder" fuels. 

UNDERSTORY – The trees and woody shrubs growing 

beneath the overstory in a stand of trees. 

UNEVEN-AGED METHOD – Regeneration and 

maintenance of stands with a multiaged structure by 

removing some trees in all size classes either singly or in 

groups or in strips. 

UNEVEN-AGED STAND- A stand of trees of three or 

more distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in 

groups. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-26 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement

UNEVEN-AGED SILVICULTURAL SYSTEM – A 

planned sequence of treatments designed to regenerate or 

maintain a stand with three or more age classes. Includes 

single-tree selection, and group selection regeneration 

methods. 

UNREGULATED HARVEST – Tree harvest that is not 

part of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ). 

UNSUITABLE LANDS – Forest land that is not managed 

for timber production. 

UTILITY CORRIDOR – A linear tract of land of varying 

width forming a passageway through which various 

commodities such as oil, gas and electricity may be 

transported. 

[V] 

VARIETY CLASS – (See new term, “Scenic 

Attractiveness”) 

 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT – Activities affecting 

vegetation designed primarily to promote the health of 

forest vegetation for multiple-use purposes. 

VEGETATION TYPE – A plant community 

with distinguishable characteristics. 

VERNAL POOL – Naturally occurring or constructed 

small pools or depressions that are inundated for a period 

of time each year, primarily late fall through spring, as a 

result of a combination of snowmelt, precipitation and 

high water tables. These pools dry up for a period of time, 

generally during the summer and early fall. Vernal pools 

are free of fish and the pool basin is utilized as breeding 

habitat for pool-dependent amphibians and invertebrates. 

Vernal pools are not puddles or pools formed from ruts in 

roads or skid trails. Indicators during the summer or fall 

when they are dry include blackened on compressed leaf 

litter, buttressed tree trunks, and water marked tree trunks. 

VERTICAL DIVERSITY – The diversity in an area that 

results from the complexity of the above-ground structure 

of the vegetation; the more tiers of vegetation and/or the 

more diverse the species composition, the higher the 

degree of vertical diversity. 

VIABLE POPULATION – A population that has the 

estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive 

individuals to ensure the continued existence of the 

species throughout its existing range within the planning 

area (FSM 2670.5). 

VIEW – A broad landscape or panorama that is kept in 

sight. The act of looking toward an object or a scene. 

VISTA – A confined view that often focuses on a specific 

feature in the landscape. Unlike a view, a vista is often 

created and is subject to design. 

VISUAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (VMS) – System 

for managing the scenic resources for forest landscapes 

developed in 1974 and updated to the Scenery 

Management System in 1995. 

VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVE (VQO) – (See new 

term, “Scenic Integrity Level” and Chapter 3 of the FEIS 

for crosswalk of terms). A management goal for the visual 

resource that is based on physical and sociological 

characteristics of an area and on the degree of acceptable 

alteration of the natural appearing landscape. 

[W] 

WATERSHED – A geographic area in which water, 

sediments and dissolved materials drain to a common 

outlet such as a point on a larger stream or river. 

WATER TABLE – The upper surface of groundwater. 

Below it, the soil is saturated with water. 

WATER YIELD – The runoff from a watershed, 

including groundwater outflow. 

WEEDING – A release treatment in stands not past the 

sapling stage that eliminates or suppresses undesirable 

vegetation regardless of crown position. 

WETLAND – Those areas that under 

normal circumstances are inundated by surface or ground 

water with a frequency sufficient to support a prevalence 

of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or 

seasonally- saturated soil conditions for growth 

and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, 

marshes, bogs, and similar area such as sloughs, potholes, 

wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, natural ponds, 

springs, seeps and vernal ponds (FSM 2527.05). 

WHOLE TREE REMOVAL – Felling and transporting 

the whole tree with its crown and sometimes even its 

roots for trimming and cross-cutting at a landing or mill. 

WILD RIVER – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Usage: 

Congressionally-designated rivers, or sections of rivers, 

that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or 

shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-27

WILDERNESS - The Wilderness Act of 1964 defined a 

wilderness as an area of undeveloped federal land 

designated by Congress that has the 

following characteristics: (1) It generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with 

the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) 

It has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfirmed type of recreation; (3) It has at least five 

thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) It may also 

contain ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value 

(Wilderness Act, Sec. 2(c)). 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA – An area designated for 

study to determine suitability or non-suitability for 

preservation as wilderness. 

WILDLAND FIRE – Any non-structure fire that occurs in 

the wildland . Three distinct types of wildland fire have 

been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use, and 

prescribed fire. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION – An appropriate 

management response to wildland fire that results in 

curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified 

threats from the particular fire. 

WILDLAND FIRE USE –The application of the 

appropriate management response to naturally-ignited 

wildland fires to accomplish specific resource 

management objectives in pre-defined designated areas 

outlined in Fire Management Plans. 

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE (WUI) – The line, 

area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped 

wildland or vegetative fuels. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT DIVERSITY – The distribution 

and abundance of different plant and animal communities 

and species within a specific area. 

WILDLIFE OPENING – Terrestrial opening dominated 

by native grasses, forbs (e.g. goldenrod, ferns, 

meadowsweet), and/or shrubs (e.g. blackberries, 

raspberries, blueberries, alder) that is maintained in a nonforested condition. Only areas that are maintained 

primarily for wildlife benefits are considered wildlife 

openings. 

 

WINDTHROW – Trees uprooted by wind. 

WIND TOWERS – Includes individual wind towers for 

wind energy testing and monitoring facilities (small 

individual site-specific meteorological towers and 

instrumentation facilities) as well as wind energy 

development projects (includes wind turbine facilities, 

as well as access roads, electrical and transmission 

facilities, and other support facilities). 

WOOD FIBER PRODUCTION – The growing, tending, 

harvesting, and regeneration of harvestable trees. 

[Z] 

ZONE OF INFLUENCE (ZOI) – The area influenced by 

Forest Service management activities.

 
Chapter 6. Glossary 

6-28 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement
 

Chapter 7 

Reference List 

Photo courtesy of US Forest Service 

Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-1 

7 REFERENCE LIST

Abrams MD, D.A. Orwig. 1996. A 300-year history of 

disturbance and canopy recruitment for co-occurring 

white pine and hemlock on the Allegheny Plateau. 

Journal of Ecology (84):353-63. 

Abrams MD. 1992. Fire and the Development of Oak 

Forests. Bioscience 42(5):346-53. 

Abrams MD. 2003. Where Has All the White Oak Gone? 

Bioscience 53(10):927-39. 

Abrams MD. 2005. Prescribing Fire in Eastern Oak 

Forests: Is Time Running Out? Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 22(3):190-6. 

Acciavatti B. 2005. Personal Communication, regarding 

Peach Bark Beetle, other insects. 

Adams MB, Kochenderfer JN. 1998. The Fernow Whole 

Watershed Acidification Study: Soil Chemistry. In: 

The effects of Acidic Deposition on Pennsylvania's 

Forests, Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic 

Deposition Conference, Vol. 1. University Park, PA: 

Environmental Resources Research Institute. 

Adams SA, Monsanto Company. 2000. Correspondence 

from Stephen A. Adams to Robert L. White, 

Allegheny National Forest regarding Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation Study of Glyphosate. St. Louis, Missouri, 

USA. 

Adams-Weyant B, Andrea Hille. 1996. Horse Use and 

Associated Impacts on the Allegheny National 

Forest, November 18, 1996. unpublished. 

Adovasia JM, J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R Stuckenrath. 

1977. Meadowcroft Rockshelter 1973-74: A progress 

Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist (45):1-93. 

Adovasio JM, R. Fryman, A. G. Quinn, D. R. Pedler. 

1997. The appearance of cultigens and the early and 

middle woodland periods in Southwestern 

Pennsylvania. Presented at the annual Meeting of the 

Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Inc. WilkesBarre, PA. 

Aldenderfer MS, R. Dean. 1981. Cultural Resources 

Investigations of Compartments 45, 47, 72, 75, 137, 

138, and 147, Allegheny National Forest Warren and 

Forest Counties, Pennsylvania Contract NO. 53-

56A1-0-00402. 

Alerich CL. 2006. Personal communication consisting of 

2004 FIA data summaries for (1) the Allegheny 

National Forest (2) Elk, Forest, McKean and Warren 

counties and (3) state of Pennsylvania. 

Alerich CL. 1993. Forest statistics for Pennsylvania--1978 

and 1989. Resource Bulletin NE-126. USDA For. 

Serv. Radnor, PA. 

Alexander EB, R. Poff. 1985. Soil Disturbance and 

Compaction in Wildland Management. Earth 

Resources Monograph 8. 

Allegheny Defense Project. 2003. Allegheny Defense 

Project, Allegheny Wild! [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://alleghenydefense.org/alleghenywild/#report. 

Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 

Allen DC. 1999. Peach Bark Beetle and Black Cherry. 

The New York Forest Owner. 

Allen DC. 2005. Personal Communication regarding 

Peach Bark Beetle on the ANF . 

Allen TFH, T. W. Hoekstra. 1982. Hierarchy: 

perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Allen TFH, T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified 

ecology. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Allendorf FW. 2003. Introduction: Population Biology, 

Evolution, and Control of Invasive Species. 

Conservation Biology 17(1):24-30. 

Amato CA, Rosenthal R. 2002. Endangered species 

protection in New York after STATE V. SOUR 

MOUNTAIN REALTY, INC. N.Y.U. Environmental 

Law Journal 10:117-45. 

Anderson J, T. Kurvits, E. Wiken. 1992. A national 

ecological monitoring and assessment network: the 

concept. Proceedings of the National Ecological 

Monitoring and Research Workshop. Toronto, 

Ontario. State of the Environment Reporting, 

Occasional Paper Series No. 1. 

Anderson RM, K.M. Beer, T.F. Buckwalter, M.E. Clark, 

S.D. McAuley, J.I. Sams III, D.R. Williams. 2000. 

Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela 

River Basins. US Geological Survey, Circular 1202. 

Reston, VA. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Arney, J. D. 1985. A modeling strategy for the growth 

projection of managed stands. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research 15(3):511-518. 

Arocena JM, C. Opio. 2003. Prescribed fires - induced 

changes in properties of sub-boreal forest soils. 

Geoderma (113):1-16. 

Askins RA. 2001. Sustaining biological diversity in early 

successional communities: the challenge of managing 

unpopular habitats. Conservation of Woody, Early 

Successional Habitats and Wildlife in the Eastern 

United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin (29):407-94. 

Auchmoody LR. 1982. Response of young black cherry 

stands to fertilization. Can. J. For. Res. 12:319-25. 

Bailey RG. 1980. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the 

United States; Miscellaneous Publication 1391. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 

Bailey SW, S. B. Horsley, R.P. Long. 2005. Thirty Years 

of Change in Forest Soils of the Allegheny Plateau, 

Pennsylvania. Soil Science Society of America 

Journal (69):681-90. 

Bailey SW, S.B. Horsley, R.P. Long, R.A. Hallett. 2004. 

Influence of edaphic factors on sugar maple nutrition 

and health on the Allegheny Plateau. Soil Science 

Society of America Journal 68:243-52. 

Baird TH. 1990. Changes in Breeding Bird Populations: 

between 1930 and 1985 in the Quaker Run Valley of 

Allegheny State Park, New York; New York State 

Museum Bulletin No. 477. New York State Museum. 

Baker JP, J. Van Sickle, C.J. Gagen, D.R. DeWalle, W.E. 

Sharpe, R.F. Carline, B.P. Baldigo, P.S. Murdoch, 

D.W. Bath, W.A. Kretser and others. 1996. Episodic 

Acidification of Small Streams in the Northeastern 

United States: Effects on Fish Populations. 

Ecological Applications 6(2):422-37. 

Baldigo BP, Peter S. Murdoch, Douglas A. Burns. 2005. 

Stream acidification and mortality of brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis) in response to timber harvest 

in Catskill Mountain watersheds, New York, USA. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

(62):1168-83. 

Balos-Miller L. 1983. Cultural Resource Evaluation of 

Seven sites in the Allegheny National Forest for the 

Collins Pine Land Exchange Volume CrRR 09-19-

01-94A. Warren, Pennsylvania. 

Barclay RM, A. Kurta. 2004. Day roosting ecology of 

bark and cavity roosting forest bats: a synthesis. 2nd 

Bats and Forests Symposium and Workshop. Hot 

Springs, Arkansas (Abstract). 

Barrett JW, editor. 1995. Regional Silviculture of the 

United States. third ed. New York, New York, USA: 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Bartram J. 1751. Observations In his Travels from 

Pennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego and Lake 

Ontario. London: J. Whiston and B. White. 

Beers, J. H. & Co. 1890. A History of Potter, McKean, 

Elk and Cameron Counties. Chicago, IL. 

Bellocq MI, Jones C, Dey DC, Turgeon JJ. 2005. Does 

the shelterwood method to regenerate oak forests 

affect acorn production and predation? Forest 

Ecology and Management 205:311-23. 

Bendell JF. 1974. Effects of Fire on Birds and Mammals. 

Quoted In: USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in 

Nongame Wildlife Management and Community 

Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions, 

Proceedings of a Special Workshop. Nashville, TN. 

General Technical Report NE-288. 147 pp. 

Bent AC. 1963. Life Histories of North American Marsh 

Birds. New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc. 

Benzie JW. 1977. Managers Handbook for Red Pine in 

the North Central States; Technical Report NC-33. 

Benzie JW, McCumber JE. 1983. Red Pine. pp 89-91. In: 

Burns, R.M., 1983 Silvicultural Systems for the 

major Forest Types of the United States; Agriculture 

Handbook No. 445. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Berg TM, A. R. Geyer, W. E. Edmunds and others, 

Compilers. 1980. Geologic map of Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 1. 

Scale 1:250,000. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-3 

Berger AL, Puettmann KJ, Host GE. 2004. Harvesting 

impacts on soil and understory vegetation: the 

influence of season of harvest and within-site 

disturbance patterns on clear-cut aspen stands in 

Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

34:2159-68. 

Bird Conservation. Western Great Lakes Basin. Mourning 

Warbler [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.uwgb.edu/birds/greatlakes/species/mowa.

htm. Accessed 2006 Dec. 

Birdsey RA. 1996. Carbon storage for major forest types 

and regions in the conterminous United States. In: 

Sampson, R. N. and D. Hair, editors. Forests and 

Global Change: Forest Management Opportunities 

for Mitigating Carbon Emissions (Vol. 2). 

Washington, DC: American Forests: 1-26. 

Bishop, Miller. 2004. Important Mammal Areas GIS 

Report. IMA Site Notes, GIS Data Layers and 

Definitions. August 1, 2004. Supplemental Report to 

the State Wildlife Grant Report, Important Mammal 

Areas Project prepared by A. V. Linzey. 

Bjorkbom JC, R.C. Larson. 1977. The Tionesta Scenic 

and Research Natural Areas. USDA. Forest Service 

General Technical Report NE-31 . Upper Darby, PA: 

Northeast Forest Experiment Station. 

Bjorkbom JC, Walters RS. 1986. Allegheny Hardwood 

Regeneration Response to Even-age Harvesting 

methods. Research paper NE-581. USDA Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Black BA, Ruffner CM, Abrams MD. 2006. Native 

American influences on the forest composition of the 

Allegheny Plateau, northwest Pennsylvania. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research (36):1266-75. 

Blye R, L. Forshey, S. Hoffman, J. Bishop. 2004. 

Appendix II – WCRA Final Report. IBA site notes, 

GIS data layers and Definitions. 

Boldurian AT, J.M. Adovasio. 1986. Who are Those 

Guys? An Examination of the Pre-Clovis 

Flintworking Complex From Meadowcroft 

Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage. FiftyFirst Annual Meeting of the Society for American 

Archaeology. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 

Bowker JM, D. B. K. English, K. H. Cordell. 1999. 

Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National 

Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. 

Champaign, Illinois, USA: Sagamore. 

Bowker JM, Donald B. K. English, H. Ken Cordell. 

1999. Projections of outdoor recreation population to 

2050. In: Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, 

J.M.; and others. Outdoor recreation in American 

life: a national assessment of demand and supply 

trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. p 323-

51. 

Bowker M. unpublished. Personal communication 

regarding Tier23 results. Athens, GA: USDA Forest 

Service Southern Research Station . 

Brady NC, R. R. Weil. 2002. The Nature and Properties 

of Soils. Thirteenth ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Braun EL. 2001. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North 

America. Caldwell, New Jersey: The Blackburn 

Press. 

Brauning DW. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in 

Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA: 

University of Pittsburgh. 

Briggs DEG, W.D.I. Rolfe. 1983. A Giant Arthropod 

Trackway from the Lower Mississippian of 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Paleontology (57 ):377-90. 

Brinker D. 2006. personal communication. Memo related 

to northern goshawk territories and decline in active 

nests. 

Brooks RT. 2003. Abundance, distribution, trends, and 

ownership patterns of early-successional forests in 

the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management (185):65-74. 

Brose P, D. Van Lear. 2004. Survival of Hardwood 

Regeneration During Prescribed Fires: The 

Importance of Root Development and Root Collar 

Location. In: Upland oak ecology symposium: 

history, current conditions, and sustainability. Edited 

by M.A. Spetich. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. pp 123-

127. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

Brose PH, D.H. Van Lear. 1998. Responses of hardwood 

advance regeneration to seasonal prescribed fires in 

oak-dominated shelterwood stands. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research 28(3):331-9. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Brose PH, D.H. Van Lear, R. Cooper. 1999a. Using 

shelterwood harvests and prescribed fire to 

regenerate oak stands on productive upland sites. 

Forest Ecology and Management (113):125-41. 

Brose PH, D.H. Van Lear, Keyser PD. 1999b. A 

Shelterwood-Burn Technique for Regenerating 

Productive Upland Oak Sites in the Piedmont 

Region. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 

16(3):158-63. 

Brose PH, Schuler TM, Van Lear DH, Berst J. 2001. 

Bringing fire back: The changing regimes of the 

Appalachian mixed-oak forests. Journal of Forestry 

99(11):30-5. 

Brose PH, Miller GW, Gottschalk KW. in press. ReIntroducing Fire to the Oak Forest of Pennsylvania: 

Response of Striped Maple, In Proceedings 2005 

National Silviculture Workshop. USDA Forest 

Service. 

Brose PH, Schuler TM, Ward JS. 2006. Responses of Oak 

and Other Hardwood Regeneration to Prescribed 

Fire: What We Know as of 2005 : In: Fire in eastern 

oak forests: delivering science to land managers, 

proceedings of a conference. GTR-NRS-P-1. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Partners Against 

Weeds – An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. 2000. Map 

7 DCNR. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Burford LS, M.J. Lacki, C.V. Covell J. 1999. Occurrence 

of moths among habitats in a mixed mesophytic 

forest: Implications for management of forest bats. 

Forest Science (45):323-32. 

Burns BS, D.R. Houston. 1987. Managing beech bark 

disease: evaluating defects and reducing losses. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry (4):28-33. 

Burns RM. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the Major 

Forest Types of the United States; Agriculture 

Handbook No. 445. 191 pp. USDA Forest Service. 

Burns RM, Honkala BH. 1990. Silvics of North America, 

Volume 1, Conifers, Agriculture Handbook 654. 

Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service. 

Burns RM, Honkala BH. 1990. Silvics of North America, 

Volume 2, Hardwoods, Agriculture Handbook 654. 

Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service. 

Burns RM, Technical Compiler. 1983. Silvicultural 

Systems for the Major Types of the United States. 

Agriculture Handbook No. 445 . Washington, D.C.: 

USDA, Forest Service. 

Bush, Renate R. 1995. Northeastern TWIGS Variant of 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Forest Management 

Service Center. 

Calhoun AJK, P. deMaynadier P. 2004. Forestry habitat 

management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife. 

MCA Technical Paper No. 6. Bronx, New York: 

Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife 

Conservation Society. 

Cappaert D, D.G. McCullough, T.M. Poland, N. W. 

Siegert. 2005. Emerald Ash Borer in North America: 

A Research and Regulatory Challenge. American 

Entomologist 51(3):153-65. 

Carmean, Willard H.; Hahn, Jerold T.; Jacobs, Rodney D. 

1989. Site index curves for forest tree species in the 

eastern United States. General Technical Report NC128. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 

Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 1989. Bulletins of 

Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 

Carpenter CA, Catherine Giffen, Margaret Miller-Weeks. 

2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for the 

Northern United States: NA-TP-05-03. Newtown 

Square, PA: USDA Forest Service. 

Carter J, President. 1977. Protection of Wetlands. 

Executive Order 11990. May 24, 1977. 

Casler WC. 1973. Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in 

Pennsylvania, Vol. 8. Tionesta Valley. Williamsport, 

Pennsylvania, USA: Lycoming Printing Company. 

Casler WC. 1975. Tionesta Valley. Book No. 8 in the 

series Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in 

Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, USA : Lycoming 

Printing Company. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-5 

Casler WC. 1978. Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in 

Pennsylvania, Vol. 11. Allegheny Valley Logging 

Railroads. Williamsport, Pennsylvania, USA: 

Lycoming Printing Company. 

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, A Legislative Agency 

of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. unpublished. 

Comparative aggregations of county-level 

demographic profiles for the Allegheny National 

Forest four county region, the twelve county PA 

Wilds Region, PA Rural Counties and all 

Pennsylvania. 

Chameides WL, Ellis B. Cowling. 1995. The State of the 

Southern Oxidants Study: Policy-Relevant Findings 

in Ozone Pollution Research 1988 – 1994. Prepared 

on behalf of the SOS Science Team and SOS 

Coordinating Council. 

Chapman JP, A. Delcourt, P. A. Cridlebaugh, A. B. Shea, 

H. H. Delcourt. 1982. Man-Land Interaction: 10,000 

Years of American Indian Impact on Native 

Ecosystems in the Lower Little Tennessee River 

Valley, Eastern Tennessee. Southeastern 

Archaeology 1(2):115-21. 

Chin A, Deven M. Rohrer, Daniel A. Marion, J. Alan 

Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on 

Stream Dynamics. Pp. 292-296. Within: Guldin, 

James M., tech.comp.2004. Ouachita and Ozark 

Mountains Symposium: ecosystem management 

research. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-74. Asheville, NC: 

USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

Christy BH. 1939. In Brauning, D.W. 1992. Atlas of 

Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pittsburgh. 

Clark JS, P. D. Royall. 1995. Transformation of the 

Northern Hardwood Forest by Aboriginal (Iroquois) 

fire: Charcoal Evidence from Crawford Lake, 

Ontario, Canada. The Holocene (5):1-99. 

Cleland DT, Avers PE, McNab WH, Jensen ME, Bailey 

RG, King T, Russell WE. 1997. National 

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. 

Published in, Boyce, M. S.; Haney, A., ed. 1997. 

Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable 

Forest and Wildlife Resources. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press. 

Clinton W, President. 1999. Invasive Species, Executive 

Order 13112, 1999. 4 pp. 

Collins BS, S.T.A. Pickett. 1982. Vegetation Composition 

and Relation to Environment in an Allegheny 

Hardwood Forest. American Midland Naturalist 

108(1):117-23. 

Committee of Scientists. 2000. Sustaining the People’s 

Land. Recommendations for Stewardship of the 

National Forests and Grasslands into the Next 

Century. Washington, DC, USA: USDA. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1972. Historical and 

Museum Commission, 1972. (Leaflet) Deardorff, 

Merle H. and Harold L. Myers, Chief Cornplanter. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Congdon CE. 1967. Allegheny Oxbow: A History of 

Allegany State Park and the Allegany Reserve of the 

Seneca Nation. Buffalo, New York, USA. 

Cooperative Emerald Ash Borer Project. 2006 Nov 6. 

EAB locations in Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Ohio 

and southwest Ontario, Canada [Web Page]. Located 

at: 

http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/tristate_eabpo

s.pdf. Accessed 2006 Dec 6. 

Cooperrider AY, Boyd HR, Stuart HR, editors. 1986. 

Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat. 

Denver, CO: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Cope TM. 1936. Observations on the vertebrate ecology 

of some Pennsylvania virgin forests. PhD thesis. 

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 

Cordell HK, Betz C, Bowker JM, et al. 1999. Outdoor 

recreation in American life: a national assessment of 

demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore 

Publishing. 

Cordell HK, Betz CJ, Green G, Owens M. 2005. OffHighway Vehicle Recreation in the United States, 

Regions and States: A National Report from the 

National Survey on recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE). 

Cordell HK, et al. 2001. American’s participation in 

outdoor recreation: Results from the national survey 

on recreation and the environment 2000. Athens, GA: 

Southern Research Station USDA Forest Service. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Cordell HK, et al. 2004. Outdoor Recreation for the 21st 

Century. A report to the Nation: The National Survey 

on Recreation and the environment. State College, 

PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. 

Costa SD, B.L. Parker, V. Gouli, M. Brownbridge, M. 

Skinner, S. Gouli. 2005. Insect-Killing Fungi as a 

Component of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Integrated 

Pest Management. Proceedings of the 3 rd 

Symposium on Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the 

Eastern United States. Asheville, NC. p pp 155-60. 

Cowin VL. 1985. Western Pennsylvania: Appalachian 

Plateau and Lake Erie Shore The Woodland Periods 

pp 185-193, in: A Comprehensive State Plan for the 

Conservation of Archaeological Resources Volume I. 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 

Historic Preservation Planning Series, Number 1. 

Cowin VL. 1985. The Woodland Period, in A 

Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of 

Archaeological Resources, Vol. II. Pennsylvania 

Historical & Museum Commission. Harrisburg, PA. 

Cox C. 1995. Herbicide Factsheet. Glyphosate, Part 1: 

Toxicology. Journal of Pesticide Reform 15(3). 

Cox C. 1995a. Herbicide Factsheet. Glyphosate, Part 2: 

Human Exposure and Ecological Effects. Journal of 

Pesticide Reform (15):14-20. 

Cox C. 1998. Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate 

(Roundup). Journal of Pesticide Reform (18):3-16. 

Cox GW. 1960. A Life History of the Mourning Warbler. 

Wislon Bulletin 72(1): 5-28. Quoted In: Brauning, 

D.W. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Pennsylvania. 

University of Pittsburgh Press. 483 pp. 

Crookston, Nicholas L.; Stage, Albert R. 1999. Percent 

canopy cover and stand structure statistics from the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-24. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 11 p. 

Crookston, Nicholas L.; Moeur, Melinda; Renner, David 

2002. Users guide to the Most Similar Neighbor 

Imputation Program Version 2 Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-96. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 35 p. 

Crossley GJ. 1999. A Guide to Critical Bird Habitat in 

Pennsylvania. PA Important Bird Areas Program. 

Harrisburg, PA: PA Audubon Society. 

Crow TR, Buckley DS, Nauertz EA, Zasada JC. 2002. 

Effects of Management on the Composition and 

Structure of Northern Hardwood Forests in Upper 

Michigan. Forest Science 48(1):129-45. 

Cuff DJ, W.J. Young, E.K. Muller, W. Zelinsky. 1989. 

Atlas of Pennsylvania Temple Univ. Press. 

Curry, S., J. Kleissler, A. Clark, and Heartwood, Inc. v. 

U.S. Forest Service, M. P. Dombeck, R. T. Jacobs, 

and J. Palmer. 1997. Civil Action No. 97-1081. 

Memorandum and Order; October 15, 1997. Filed in 

the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania. 

Curtis, Robert O. 1967. Height-diameter and heightdiameter-age equations for second-growth Douglasfir. Forest Science 13(4):365-375. 

Curtis, Robert O.; DeMars, Donald J.; Herman, Francis R. 

1974. Which dependent variable in site index-heightage regressions? Forest Science 20(1):74-87. 

Dahl TE. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the 

conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C., USA. 

Dale ME, H.C. Smith, J.N. Pearcy. 1995. Size of clearcut 

opening affects species composition, growth rate, and 

stand characteristics. USDA Forest Service. Research 

Paper NE-698. Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA : 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Davidson C. 1998. Issues in measuring landscape 

fragmentation. Wildlife Society Bulletin (26):32-7. 

Davis MB. 1993. Old growth in the east: A Survey. 

Richmond, VT: Cenozoic Society Inc. 

Davis MB,J. Davis. 1996. Eastern Old-Growth Forests, 

Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery. 

Washington D.C.: Island Press. 

de la Crétaz A, Kelty MJ. 1999. Establishment and 

control of hay-scented fern: a native invasive species. 

Biological Invasions (1):223-36. 

de la Crétaz A, Kelty MJ. 2006. Control of Hay-Scented 

Fern by Mowing. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry 23(3):149-54. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-7 

Deardorff MH. 1999. Henry Obail -1774-1832 – “The 

Young Cornplanter”. Stepping Stones, a Warren 

County Historical Society publication(43):1756-61. 

deCalesta DS. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on 

songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. 

Journal of Wildlife Management (58):711-8. 

deCalesta DS. 1998. Affidavit of David S. deCalesta 

Regarding Civil Action No. 97-2187 . 

deCalesta DS, L.D. Ordiway. 1999. Relative density and 

basal area: 3-dimensional estimators of forest canopy 

cover. Unpublished paper, 3/5/99. Irvine, 

Pennsylvania, USA : Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest 

Service. 

deCalesta D. 1997. Personal communication regarding 

forest regeneration and deer densities. 

deCalesta DS. 2005. Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative 

Report 2004, Deer Density and Impact Estimates, 

Roadside Counts, and Check Station Operation. 

deCalesta DS, Stout SL. 1997. Relative deer density and 

sustainability: a conceptual framework for integrating 

deer management with ecosystem management. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(2):252-8. 

DeGraaf RM. 1987. Managing northern hardwoods for 

breeding birds. In: Nyland, Ralph D., editor. 

Managing northern hardwoods: Proceedings of a 

silviculture symposium: Misc. Pub. No. 13: 

Syracuse, NY. 1986 June 23-25: 348-362. Syracuse, 

NY: State University of New York. 

DeGraaf RM. 1991. Breeding bird assemblages in 

managed northern hardwood forests in New England. 

Quoted In: DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. 

New England Wildlife Habitat, Natural History and 

Distribution. University Press of New England, 482 

pp. 

DeGraaf RM, D. D. Rudis. 1986. New England Wildlife: 

Habitat, Natural History and Distribution. Northeast 

Forest Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report NE-108. Broomall, 

Pennsylvania. 

DeGraaf RM, M.Y. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, J.W. Lanier. 

1992. New England Wildlife: Management of 

Forested Habitats. Northeast Forest Experiment 

Station. General Technical Report. NE-144. Radnor, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

DeGraaf RM, M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England 

Wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. 

Hanover, New Hampshire, USA: University Press of 

New England. 

DeGraaf RM, M. Yamasaki. 2003. Options for managing 

early-successional forest and shrubland bird habitat 

in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management (185):179-91. 

Delcourt HR. 1987. The impact of prehistoric agriculture 

and land occupation on natural vegetation. TREE 

(2):39-44. 

Delcourt PA, H.R. Delcourt. 1997. Report of 

Paleoecological Investigations Cliff Palace Pond, 

Jackson County, Kentucky, in the Daniel Boone 

National Forest. 47 p. Winchester, Kentucky, USA: 

USDA Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest. 

DeMarco LM, S. L. Stout. 1997. Communicating the 

story of silviculture on the Allegheny National 

Forest. In: Communicating the role of silviculture in 

managing the National Forests: Proceedings of the 

National Silviculture Workshop. Warren, PA. Gen 

Tech Rpt. NE-238. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest 

Service, NE Forest Experiment Station. 

Demchick MC, Sharpe WE. 1999. The effect of 

calcium/aluminum ratio on root elongation of twentysix Pennsylvania plants. William E. Sharpe, Joy R. 

Drohan, Editors. Proceedings of the 1998 Acidic 

Deposition Conference on the Effects of Acidic 

Deposition on Pennsylvania Forests, Vol 1, 

University Park, PA: Environmental Resources 

Research Institute. 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – 

Bureau of Forestry. 1993. Penn’s Woods Sustaining 

Our Forests. Harrisburg, PA. 

DeVivo MS. 1990. Indian use of fire and land clearance 

in the southern Appalachians. In: Fire and the 

Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives, 

306-309. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

GTR-SE-69. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Diamond GL, Durkin PR. 1997. Effects of Surfactants on 

the Toxicity of Glyphosate, with Specific Reference 

to RODEO. SERA TR-206-1b. 

Dickson JG. 1981. Effects of forest burning on songbirds. 

Quoted In: USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in 

Nongame Wildlife Management and Community 

Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions, 

Proceedings of a Special Workshop. Nashville, TN. 

General Technical Report NE-288. 147 pp. 

Dionis K. 2000. Can Trees Afford to Stay Outside? Penn 

State Agriculture (Summer/Fall):16-27. 

Dissmeyer GE. 2000. Drinking water from forests and 

grasslands – A synthesis of the scientific literature. 

USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 

GTR-SRS-39:85-100. 

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s 

guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal 

Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management 

Service Center. 204p. (Last Revised: January 2006). 

Dolloff CA, Jackson R. Webster. 2000. Particulate 

organic contributions from forests to streams: debris 

isn’t so bad. Ch. 7: 131-132 in Elon S. Verry, James 

W. Hornbeck, and C. Andrew Dolloff, editors. 

Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental 

Eastern United States. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Lewis 

Publishers. 

Dost FN. 1997. Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

Correspondence to John Palmer, Forest Supervisor, 

Allegheny National Forest. Stoughton, Wisconsin, 

USA. 

Dost FN. 1999. January 12. Draft Evaluation of Herbicide 

Factsheet, Glyphosate (Roundup). Journal of 

Pesticide Reform 18(3):3-15, 1998. Freeland, 

Washington, USA. 

Driscoll CT, G. B. Lawrence, A. J. Bulger, T. J. Butler, 

C.S. Cronan, C. Eager, K. F. Lambert, G. E. Likens, 

J. L. Stoddard, K. C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic 

deposition in the northeastern United States: sources 

and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management 

strategies. Bioscience (51):180-98. 

Driscoll CT, Kimberly M. Driscoll, Myron J. Mitchell, 

Dudley J. Raynal. 2003. Effects of acidic deposition 

on forest and aquatic ecosystems in New York State. 

Environmental Pollution 123:327-36 

Dunne T, L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental 

Planning. New York, New York, USA: W. H. 

Freeman and Company. 

Durkin PR. 2003. Glyphosate - Human Health and 

Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. SERA 

TR-43-09-04a. 

Durner R. 2005. Personal communication regarding 

pulpwood. 

Dyer AF, Lindsay S. 1992. Soil Spore Banks of 

Temperate Ferns. American Fern Journal 92(3):89-

122. 

Eastern Wilderness Areas Act. 1975. P.L.93-622. 

Edwards PJ, Kochenderfer JN, Seegrist DW. 1991. 

Effects of Forest Fertilization of Stream Water 

Chemistry in the Appalachians. Water Resource 

Bulletin 27(2):265-74. 

Ek, Alan R.; Birdsall, Earl T.; Spears, Rebecca J. 1984. A 

Simple Model for Estimating Total and Merchantable 

Tree Heights Research Note NC-309. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station. 

The Elk County Commissioners, The Elk County 

Planning Commission. 1999. The Final Elk County 

1999 Update of the 1968 Comprehensive Plan. 

Elliott KJ, J.D. Knoepp. 2005. The effects of three 

regeneration harvest methods on plant diversity and 

soil characteristics in the southern Appalachians. 

Forest Ecology and Management 211:296-317. 

Ellsworth JW, B. C. McComb. 2003. Potential Effects of 

Passenger Pigeon Flocks on the Structure and 

Composition of Presettlement Forests of Eastern 

North America. Conservation Biology (17):1548-58. 

Emery MR, R.J. McLain, editors. 2001. Non-timber forest 

products: medicinal herbs, fungi, edible fruits and 

nuts, and other natural products from the forest. 

Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press, an imprint of 

the Haworth press, Inc. 

Encyclopaedia Britannica; volume 9 micropaedia, p263-

264. 1987. Chicago, Illinois. 

Engelman HM, Nowak CA, Stout SL. unpublished. 

Survival and quality of mature and overmature black 

cherry (Prunus serotina) trees. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-9 

Engelman HM, Nyland RD. 2006. Interference to 

Hardwood Regeneration in Northeastern North 

America: Assessing and Countering Ferns in 

Northern Hardwood Forests. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 23(3):166-75. 

English DBK, Susan M. Kocis, Stanley J. Zarnoch, J. 

Ross Arnold. 2002. Forest Service National Visitor 

Use Monitoring Process: Research Method 

Documentation. General Technical Report SRS–54. 

Athens, GA: USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 

Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1997. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Vegetation 

Management on Electric Utility Rights-of-Way. 

USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 

Eschner AR, J. H. Patric. 1982. Debris avalanches in 

eastern upland forests. Journal of Forestry (80):343-

7. 

Eyre FH, editor. 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United 

States and Canada; pp 1-4. Washington DC: Society 

of American Foresters . 

Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of 

Noxious and Exotic Weeds, editors. 1998. Pulling 

Together: A National Strategy for Management of 

Invasive Plants. Second ed. U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Federal Register. 2001. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, 36 CFR Part 212, et. al. Administration of 

the Forest Development Transportation System; 

Prohibitions; Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest 

Service Roads; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol 66, 

No. 9, January 12, 2001, pp. 3206-3218. 

Federal Register. 2001a. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Transportation System. Notice 

of final administrative policy. Federal Register, Vol 

66, No. 9, January 12, 2001, pp. 3219-3241. 

Ferriss AL, Betty C Churchill, Charles H Proctor , Lois E. 

H. Zazove. 1962. ORRRC Study Report 19. 

Fettke CR. 1938. Bradford oil field, Pennsylvania and 

New York. Plate B. Bureau of Publications. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA : Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. 

Fike J. 1999. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant 

Communities of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: PA 

DCNR, Bureau of Forestry. 

Filip SM. 1978. Impact of Beech Bark Disease on 

Uneven-Age Management of a Northern hardwood 

Forest (1952-1976). General Technical Report NE45. Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Fischer RA, O'Neil J, editors. 1997. Proceedings of 

session 37: Symposium. Corridors: Are they 

Effective in Conserving Biodiversity- Abstracts. pp 

114, 172, 173. The Wildlife Society, National 

Conference, Snowmass CO. 

Fisher RF, D. Binkley. 2000. Ecology and Management 

of Forest Soils. John Wiley and Sons. 

Flaspohler DJ, S.A.Temple, R.N. Rosenfield. 2001. 

Effects of Forest Edges on Ovenbird Demography in 

a Managed Forest Landscape. Conservation Biology 

15(1):173-83. 

Flerchinger GN, F. J. Watts. 1987. Predicting infiltration 

parameters for a road sediment model. Transactions 

of the ASAE (30):1700-5. 

Foltz RB, M. A. Truebe. 1995. Effect of aggregate quality 

on sediment production from a forest road. In 

Conference proceedings of the sixth international 

conference on low-volume roads. 1:57. Washington, 

DC, USA: Transportation Research Board, National 

Research Council. 

Forest County Conservation District and Planning 

Commission. 1998. Forest County Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Forest Stewardship Council – US. 2005. Final Appalachia 

(USA) Regional Forest Stewardship Standard 

Version 4.0. 

Forrester JA, McGee GG, Mitchell MJ. 2003. Effects of 

beech bark disease on aboveground biomass and 

species composition in a mature northern hardwood 

forest, 1985 to 2000. Journal of the Torrey Botanical 

Society 130:70-8. 

Frank RM, Borkbem JC. 1973. A Silvicultural Guide for 

Spruce-Fir in the Northeast. USDA Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Research Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Franklin JF, R.T.T. Forman. 1987. Creating landscape 

patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequences 

and principles. Landscape Ecology (1):5-18. 

Franklin JF, R. VanPelt. 2004. Spatial aspects of 

structural complexity. Journal of Forestry (102):22-8. 

Franklin JF. 2001. Keynote Comments. Managing Young 

Stands to Meet LSR and Riparian Objectives 

Workshop. Portland, OR. 

Franz JE, M. K. Mao, J. A. Sikorski. 1997. Glyphosate: a 

unique herbicide. American Chemical Society, 

Washington, D.C., ACS monograph, ISSN 0065-

7719; 189. 

Friends of Allegheny Wilderness. 2003. A Citizens’ 

Wilderness Proposal for Pennsylvania’s Allegheny 

National Forest. Friends of Allegheny Wilderness. 

Funk DT, compiler. 1986. Eastern White Pine: Today and 

Tomorrow Symposium Proceedings; June 12-14, 

1985: Durham, NH. General Technical Report WO51. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 

Gannon MR, T.E. Blackburn. 2002a. Survey of bats at 

Allegheny National Forest with emphasis on the 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Fourth Year Report – 

Final Report to USDA, Forest Service, Warren, PA. 

Pennsylvania State University, Altoona, PA. 

Unpublished. 87 pp. 

Gannon MR, T.E. Blackburn. 2002b. Telemetry study of 

bats in Pennsylvania with emphasis on the Indiana 

bat (Myotis sodalis). Final Report to USDA, Forest 

Service, Warren, PA. Pennsylvania State University, 

Altoona, PA. Unpublished. 38 pp. 

Garber SD, J. Burger. 1995. A 20 yr. study documenting 

the relationship between turtle decline and human 

recreation. Ecological Applications 5(4):1151-62. 

Gbondo-Tugbawa SS, Driscoll CT. 2003. Factors 

controlling long-term changes in soil pools of 

exchangeable basic cations and stream acid 

neutralizing capacity in a northern hardwood forest 

ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 63:161-85. 

Godman RM, Lancaster K. 1990. Tsuga canadensis (L.) 

carr., Eastern Hemlock. In: R.M. Burns, B.H. 

Honkala, technical coordinators. Silvics of North 

America, Volume 1, Conifers, Agriculture Handbook 

654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Goerlich DL, R.D. Nyland. 2000. Natural Regeneration of 

Eastern Hemlock: A Review. In: McManus, K.A., 

K.S. Sheilds, and D.R. Souto (eds.). 1999. 

Proceedings: Symposium on Sustainable 

Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in Eastern 

North America, June 22-24, 1999. Durham, NH. 

General Technician Report NE-267, Newtown 

Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station: 1-4. 

Goodrich LJ, M. Brittingham, J.A. Bishop, P. Barber. 

2003. Wildlife Habitat in Pennsylvania: Past, Present, 

and Future. Harrisburg, PA: PA-DCNR. 

Gould PJ, Steiner KC, Finley JC, McDill ME. 2005. 

Developmental Pathways following the Harvest of 

Oak-Dominated Stands. Forest Science 51(1):76-90. 

Gribko LS, T. M. Schuler, W. M. Ford. 2002. Biotic and 

abiotic mechanisms in the establishment of northern 

red oak seedlings: a review. Gen Tech. Rep. NE-295. 

Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, NE 

Research Station. 

Grief GE, O.W. Archibold. 2000. Standing-dead 

component of the boreal forest in central 

Saskatchewan. For. Ecol. Mngt. 131:37-46. 

Griffiths FR. 1983. Baseline Data Surveys: Fish and 

Invertebrate Diversity and Abundance and Water 

Quality Analysis in the Chappel Fork Drainage, 

ANFUS Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Grigal DF. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management 

on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 

138:167-85. 

Grisez T, Peace R. 1973. Requirements for advance 

regeneration in Allegheny hardwoods – an interim 

guide. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note NE-180. 

Groves CR. 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint. A 

Practitioner’s Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. 

Washington D.C., USA: Island Press. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-11 

Grund, Steve. 2006. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 

botanist. Personal communication regarding smallwhorled pogonia and northeastern bulrush. 

Gucinski H, M.J. Furnisss, F.F. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 

2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific 

Information. USDA Forest Service. 

Gucinski H, Neilson R, McNulty S. 2004. Implications of 

Global Climate Change for Southern Forests: Can 

We Separate Fact from Fiction? In: Rauscher, H.M. 

and K. Johnson (eds.), Southern forest science: past, 

present, and future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-75. Chapter 

31. pp 365-371. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 

Gullion SW. 1972. Improving Your Forest Land for 

Ruffed Grouse; Paper No. 1439. Minnesota Ag. 

Exper. Station. 

Guynn DCJr, S.T. Guynn, T.B. Wigley, D.A. Miller. 

2004. Herbicides and forest biodiversity, what do we 

know and where do we go from here?. Quoted In: 

Wildlife Society. 2004. The role of herbicides for 

enhancing forest productivity and conserving land for 

biodiversity in North America. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 32:1049-1060. 

Hall D. 2004. Forest Service Disturbed WEPP Interface. 

Version 2004.02.18. 

Hallett RA, S. W. Bailey, S. B. Horsley, R. P. Long, T.J. 

Hall. 1999. Foliar chemistry of sugar maple: A 

regional view in sugar maple ecology and health: 

Proceedings of an International Symposium, June 2-

4, 1998, Warren, Pennsylvania. Edited by S. B. 

Horsley and R. P. Long. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report NE-261. 

Hamel PB. 2000. Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulean. 

In: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North 

America series, No. 511. Philadelphia, PA. 20 pp. 

Hamel PB. 2006. Adaptive Forest Management for 

Cerulean Warbler. Proceedings of Society of 

American Foresters National Convention. In press. 

Hamel PB, K.V. Rosenberg. 2006. Developing 

management guidelines for cerulean warbler breeding 

habitat. Proceedings of the 15th Central Hardwoods 

Forest Conference, Knoxville TN. 12pp . In press. 

Hamid A, ODell TM, Katovich S. 1995. White Pine 

Weevil, Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 21. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Hane EN. 2003. Indirect effects of beech bark disease on 

sugar maple seedling survival . Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research (33):807-13. 

Haney JC. 1996. Policy aspects of old-growth forest 

reserves in the eastern U.S. In Mafumdar, S.K. 

Forests – A Global Perspective. 

Haney JC, C.P. Schaadt. 1996. Functional roles of 

eastern old growth in promoting forest bird diversity. 

In Eastern Old Growth Forests edited by M. B. 

Davis. Washington D.C., USA: Island Press. 

Haney, J. C.; Wilbert, M.; De Grood, C.; Lee, D. S.; 

Thomson, J. 2000. Gauging the Ecological Capacity 

of Southern Appalachian Reserves: Does Wilderness 

Matter? In: Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Harmon ME, W.K. Ferrell, J. F. Franklin. 1990. Effects 

on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests 

to young forests. Science (247):699-702. 

Harvey H. 1995. Pennsylvania Biodiversity Model (draft). 

Penn State University. 89pp. 

Hassinger J. 2000. Rights-of-Way as of Y2K: An 

Inventory of Access Corridors – The Pennsylvania 

Story. Presentation given at the Pennsylvania 

Wildlife Society Meeting, April 2, 2000, Titusville, 

PA, that included research results from Findlay, S. 

and J. Bourdages. 2000. Response Time of Wetland 

Biodiversity to Road Construction on Adjacent 

Lands. Conservation Biology. 14: 86-94 and Haskel, 

D. 2000. Effects of Forest Roads on 

Microinvertebrate Soil Fauna of the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Conservation Biology 14: 

57-63. 

Haufler JB. 1999. Strategies for conserving terrestrial 

biological diversity. In: Baydack, R. K., H.Campa III, 

and J. B. Haufler, editors. Practical approaches to the 

conservation of biological diversity. Washington, D. 

C.: Island Press. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-12 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Haynes RW, Technical Coordinator. 2003. An Analysis 

of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1952 to 

2050. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-560. 

Portland, Oregon: United Stated Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Hays M. 2001. Community Study Comparing the Flora of 

a Managed Oak Stand to an Adjacent Unmanaged 

Oak Stand. Unpublished. 

Hays M. 2001a. Wetland Surveys on the ANF 2000-2001. 

ANF unpublished report. 7pp. 

Hays M. 2002. Bradford District Botanist. Personal 

communication. 

Healy WM. 1997. Thinning New England oak stands to 

enhance acorn production. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry (14):152-6. 

Healy WM. 2002. Managing Eastern Oak Forests for 

Wildlife. In; W.J. McShea and W.M. Healy editors, 

2002, Oak Forest Ecosystems, Ecology and 

Management for Wildlife. pp 317-332. Baltimore, 

MD: The John Hopkins University Press. 

Heard WH. 1979. Hermaphroditism in Elliptio 

(Pelecypoda: Unionidae). Malacological Review 

(12):21-8. 

Henretta JE. 1929. Kane and the Upper Allegheny. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John C. Winston Co. 

Hilt, Donald, E.; Teck, R. M. 1989. NE-TWIGS: An 

individual-tree growth and yield projection system 

for the Northeastern United States. Compiler. 7(2): 

10-16. 

Hoffman R, J.F. Palmer. 1996. Silviculture and forest 

aesthetics within stands. New York Center for 

Forestry Research and Development, Publication #2. 

Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of 

Environmental Science and Forestry. 

Hoover CM, R. A. Birdsey, L. S. Heath, S. L. Stout. 2000. 

How to estimate carbon sequestration on small forest 

tracts. Journal of Forestry (98):13-9. 

Hornbeck JW, 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. Chapter 5, pg 91. 

Hornbeck JW, M. B. Adams, E. S. Corbett, E. S. Verry, J. 

A. Lynch. 1993. Long-term impacts of forest 

treatments on water yield: a summary for northeast 

USA. Journal of Hydrology (150):323-44. 

Hornbeck JW, W.T. Swank. 1992. Watershed ecosystem 

analysis as a basis for multiple-use management of 

eastern forests. Ecological Applications (2):238-47. 

Hornbeck JW, Leak WB. 1992. Ecology and management 

of Northern hardwood Forests in New England. 

General technical Report NE-159 . Radnor, PA: 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Horsley SB. 1981. Control of Herbaceous Weeds in 

Allegheny Hardwood Forests with Herbicides. Weed 

Science 29:655-62. 

Horsley SB. 1982. Development of Reproduction in 

Allegheny Hardwood Stands after HerbicideClearcuts and Herbicide-Shelterwood Cuts. USDA 

Forest Service, Research Note NE-308. 

Horsley SB. 1988. Site Preparation for Regeneration of 

Allegheny Hardwoods. Forestry Herbicides in the 

Northeast. 

Horsley SB. 1988a. Control of Understory Vegetation in 

Allegheny Hardwood Stands with Oust. Northern 

Journal of Applied Forestry 5(4):261-2. 

Horsley SB. 1990a. Memorandum containing Guidelines 

for Use of More than One Herbicide. 

Horsley SB. 1990b. Control of Grass and Sedge in 

Allegheny Hardwood Stands with Roundup-Residual 

Herbicide Tank Mixes. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry 7(3):124-9. 

Horsley SB. 1990c. Tank Mixing Roundup with 

Adjuvants and Other Herbicides for Striped Maple 

Control. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 

7(1):19-22. 

Horsley SB. 1991. Using Roundup and Oust to control 

interfering understories in Allegheny hardwood 

stands. McCormick LH, Gottschalk KW. Central 

Hardwood For. Conf., General Technical Report NE148. University Park, PA. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest 

Service. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-13 

Horsley SB. 1994. Regeneration success and plant species 

diversity of Allegheny hardwood stands after 

Roundup application and shelterwood cutting. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 11(4):109-16. 

Horsley SB. 1995. Facilitation of plant-plant interference 

by herbivory in the Allegheny hardwood forest, 

Pennsylvania, USA: a vegetation management 

problem. In: Gaskin, E.R.; Zabkiewicz, J.A., comps. 

Popular summaries from 2nd international conference 

on forest vegetation management; 1995 March 20-24; 

Rotrua, NZ. FRI Bull. 192. Rotorua, NZ: New 

Zealand Forest Research Institute: 224-226. 

Horsley SB, D.A. Marquis. 1983. Interference by weeds 

and deer with Allegheny hardwood reproduction. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research (13):61-9. 

Horsley SB, J.C. Bjorkbom. 1983. Herbicide Treatment of 

Striped Maple and Beech in Allegheny Hardwood 

Stands. Forest Science 29(1):103-12. 

Horsley SB. 1993. Mechanisms of interference between 

hay-scented fern and black cherry . Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research 23(10):2059-69. 

Horsley SB, L.R. Auchmoody, R.S. Walters. 1994. 

Regeneration principles and practices. Pages 205-246 

in Marquis, David A., editor. Quantitative 

silviculture for hardwood forests of the Alleghenies. 

General Technical Report NE-183. Radnor, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station . 

Horsley SB, R. P. Long, S. W. Bailey, R. A. Hallett, P.M. 

Wargo. 2002. Health of eastern North American 

sugar maple forests and factors affecting decline. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry (19):33-3 4. 

Horsley SB, R. P. Long, S. W. Bailey, R. A. Hallett, T. J. 

Hall. 1999. Factors contributing to sugar maple 

decline along topographic gradients on the glaciated 

and unglaciated Allegheny Plateau. In: Sugar Maple 

Ecology and Health: Proceedings of an International 

Symposium. Edited by S.B. Horsley and R.P. Long. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE261. 

Horsley SB, R.P Long, S.W. Bailey, R.A. Hallett, T.J. 

Hall. 2000. Factors associated with the decline 

disease of sugar maple on the Allegheny Plateau. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Resources (30):1365-78. 

Horsley SB, Stout SL, DeCalesta DS. 2003. White-tailed 

deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a northern 

hardwood forest. Ecological Applications, Ecological 

Society of America 13(1):98-118. 

Horsley S, et al. 1998. Lecture notes for Allegheny 

Hardwood Training regarding regeneration principles 

and practices. unpublished. 

Horsley SB. 2005. Personal communication regarding 

atmospheric deposition on Allegheny Plateau. 

Horsley SB. 2005b. Lecture notes from 2005 Allegheny 

Hardwood Training titled "Practices for Obtaining 

Allegheny and Northern Hardwood Regeneration". 

unpublished. 

Horsley SB, McCormick LH, Groninger JW. 1992. 

Effects of Timing of Oust Application on Survival of 

Hardwood Seedlings. Northern Journal Applied 

Forestry 9( 1):22-7. 

Horsley S, Hallett R, Bailey S, Long B. 2005a. Lecture 

notes from 2005 Allegheny Hardwood Training titled 

"Sugar Maple Decline in Northeastern Forests". 

unpublished. 

Hough, A. F. 1935. Technical Note No. 6. Relative 

Height Growth of Allegheny Hardwoods. Allegheny 

Forest Experiment Station. 

Hough AF. 1936. A climax forest community on East 

Tionesta creek in Northwest Pennsylvania. Ecology 

17(1). 

Hough AF. 1963. What a glaze storm brings. PA Forestry 

(53):4-5. 

Hough AF. 1965. A twenty-year record of understory 

vegetational change in a virgin Pennsylvania forest. 

Ecology (46):370-3. 

Hough AF, R.D. Forbes. 1943. The Ecology and Silvics 

of Forests in the High Plateaus of Pennsylvania. 

Ecological Monographs 13(3):300-20. 

Houston DR. 2005. Beech Bark Disease: 1934 to 2004: 

What's New Since Ehrlich? Keynote Address. In: 

Evans, Celia A.,Lucas, Jennifer A. and Twery, Mark 

J., eds. Beech Bark Disease: Proceedings of the 

Beech Bark Disease Symposium. Saranac Lake, NY. 

June 16-18, 2004. General Technical Report NE-331. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-14 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Hoyt SF. 1992. in Brauning, D.W. 1992. Atlas of 

Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pittsburgh. 

Hrubocvak M. 2001. Personal communication. Status of 

State Scenic Rivers on the Allegheny National 

Forest. 

Hughes L. 2000. Biological consequences of global 

warming: is the signal already apparent? TREE 

15(2):56-61. 

Hunter JrML. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry. 

Principles of Managing Forests for Biodiversity. 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: 

Regents/Prentice Hall. 

Hunter ML. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation 

Biology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell 

Science. 

Hunter WC, D.A. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L. Confer, 

P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of Disturbance 

Dependent Birds in Eastern North America. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin (29):440-55. 

Husch B. 1954. The Regeneration of Prunus serotina in 

Northwestern Pennsylvania Following Cutting. 

Ecology 35(1):11-7. 

Hutchinson TC, Watmough SA, Sager EPS, Karagatzides 

JD. 1998. Effects of excess nitrogen deposition and 

soil acidification on sugar maple (Acer saccharum) in 

Ontario, Canada: an experimental study. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 28:299-310. 

Ilhardt B, Verry ES, Palik BJ. 2000. Defining Riparian 

Areas. Ch 2: 24 in Elon S. Verry, James W. 

Hornbeck and C. Andrew Dolloff editors. Riparian 

Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern 

United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 

Iverson LR, Prasad AM. 2002. Potential redistribution of 

tree species habitat under five climate change 

scenarios in the eastern US. Forest Ecology and 

Management (155):205-22. 

Iverson LR, Schwartz MW, Prasad AM. 2004. Potential 

colonization of newly available tree-species habitat 

under climate change: an analysis for five eastern US 

species. Landscape Ecology (19):787-99. 

Jacobson M. 2005. Personal communication regarding 

harvest trends, values and demand. 

Jenkins DH, D.A. Devlin, N.C. Johnson, S.P. Orndorff. 

2004. System design and management for restoring 

Penn’s woods. Journal of Forestry (102):30-6. 

Jenny H. 1994. Factors of Soil Formation: A System of 

Quantitative Pedology. New York, New York, USA: 

Dover Publications. 

Johnson CE, R. B. Romanowicz, T. G. Siccama. 1997. 

Conservation of exchangeable cations after clearcutting of a northern hardwood forest. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Resources (27):859-68. 

Johnson DW, D. E. Todd. 1998. Harvesting effects on 

long-term changes in nutrient pools of mixed oak 

forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal 

(62):1725-35. 

Johnson PS. 1993. Perspectives on the Ecology and 

Silviculture of Oak-Dominated Forests in the Central 

and Eastern States; General Technical Report NC153. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station. 

Johnson PS, S.R. Shifley, R.Rogers. 2002. The Ecology 

and Silviculture of Oaks. New York, New York, 

USA: CABI Publishing. 

Johnson PS. 1997. The Silviculture of Upland Central 

Hardwoods: 25 Years of Change. In: Proceedings of 

the Twenty-Fifth Annual Hardwood Symposium, 25 

Years of Hardwood Silviculture: A Look Back and a 

Look Ahead. Edited by Dan A. Meyer. Cashiers, 

North Carolina, May 7-10 1997. 

Johnson RL, Krinard RM. 1983. Development of Seven 

hardwood Species in Small Forest Openings, 22-Year 

Results. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 

7(3):153-6. 

Johnson WC, J. B. Richardson, A. S. Bohnert. 1979. 

Archaeological site Survey in Northwest 

Pennsylvania, Region IV. Report submitted to the PA 

Historical and Museum Commission. Harrisburg, PA. 

Jones KB, K. H. Ritters, J. D. Wickham, R. D. Tankersley 

Jr., R. V. O’Neill, D. J. Chaloud , E. R. Smith, A. C. 

Neale. 1997. An Ecological Assessment of the United 

States Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas; 

EPA/600/R-97/130. Washington, DC: EPA Office of 

Research & Development. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-15 

Jones SB, D. S. deCalesta, S. E. Chunko. 1993. Whitetails 

are changing our woodlands. American Forests 

(Nov/Dec: 20-25):53-4. 

Jones SB, James C. Finley. 1993. Public Forest 

Stewardship Ethic. [Web Page]. Located at 

http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/a1.html. Accessed 

2007 Jan 25. Journal of Extension. Volume 31, 

Number 3. 

Jones J. 2000. Assessing conservation utility: a case study 

of the cerulean warbler in eastern Ontario. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario. 

Quoted In: P.B. Hamel. 2006. Adaptive Forest 

Management for Cerulean Warbler. Proceedings of 

Society of American Foresters National Convention. 

In press. 

Joyce L, John Aber, Steve McNulty, Virginia Dale, 

Andrew Hansen, Lloyd Irland, Ron Neilson, Kenneth 

Skog, advisory committee. 2001. Climate Change 

Impacts on the United States, Report for the US 

Global Change Research Program. pages 489-521. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Kassar C. 2005. Motorized Recreation at a Crossroads: 

Lessons from the Past Converge with Management 

Practices of the Future. Off-Road Vehicle Use on 

Public Lands. 

Keller JK, Richmond ME, Smith CR. 2003. An 

explanation of patterns of breeding bird species 

richness and density following clearcutting in 

northeastern USA forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management 174:541-64. 

Kelty MJ, Kittredge DB, Kyker-Snowman T, Leighton 

AD. 2003. The Conversion of Even-Aged Stands to 

Uneven-Aged Structure in Southern New England. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 20(3):109-16. 

Keystone Wild Notes. 2005. PA Rattlesnakes victims of 

hatred, habitat destruction. Wild Resource 

Conservation Program. 

Kimmel JT, R.H. Yahner. 1994. The Northern Goshawk 

in Pennsylvania. Habitat Use, Survey Protocols and 

Status. Final Report. State College, PA: School of 

Forestry Resources. Penn State University. 

Kimmins JP. 1997. Forest Ecology: A Foundation for 

Sustainable Management. Second ed. New Jersey, 

USA: Prentice Hall. 

King DI, C.R. Griffin, R.M. DeGraaf. 1999. Nest predator 

distribution among clearcut forest, forest edge and 

forest interior in an extensively forested landscape. 

Forest Ecology and Management 104(1-3):151-6. 

King DI, R.M. DeGraaf, C.R. Griffen. 1998. Edge-related 

nest predation in clearcut and groupcut stands. 

Conservation Biology. 10:1380-1386. Quoted in: J.C. 

Manolis, D.E. Anderson and F.J. Cuthbert. 2002. 

Edge Effect on Nesting Success of Ground Nesting 

Birds Near Regenerating Clearcuts in a ForestDominated Landscapes. The Auk. 119(4): 955-970. 

King JG. 1979. Fillslope erosion from forest roads. In: 

Proceedings, 34th meeting, 1979 October 3-5; Boise, 

Idaho. Pap. 79-404. St. Joseph, MI. American Society 

of Agricultural Engineers. 

Klotzbach J, Durkin P. 2004. Sulfometuron Methyl - 

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - 

Final Report. SERA TR 03-43-17-02c. 

Knauer K, J. Linnane, K. Shields, R. Bridges. 2002. An 

Initiative for Management of Hemlock Woolly 

Adelgid. In Onken, B., R. Reardon and J. Lashomb 

(eds.), Proceedings, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in 

Eastern North America Symposium. Feb. 5-7, 2002. 

East Brunswick, NJ, USA. N.J. Agriculture 

Experiment Station, Rutgers State University of New 

Jersey, and USDA: pp 9-11. 

Knoepp JD, W. T. Swank. 1997. Long-term effects of 

commercial sawlog harvest soil cation 

concentrations. Forest Ecological Management 

(93):1-7. 

Kochender JN, Kochenderfer JD. 2005. Using Manual 

Herbicide Application Methods to Manage 

Vegetation: Personal Communication. 

Kochenderfer J. 2006. Personal communication regarding 

cut surface herbicide application, beech sprouts and 

translocation of herbicides. 

Kochenderfer JD, Kochenderfer JN, Miller GW. 2006. 

Controlling Beech Root and Stump Sprouts Using the 

Cut-Stump Treatment. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry 23(3):155-165. 

Kochenderfer JD, Kochenderfer JN, Warner DA, Miller 

GW. 2004. Preharvest Manual Herbicide Treatments 

for Controlling American Beech in Central West 

Virginia. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 

21(1):40-9. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-16 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Kochenderfer JD, Zedaker SM, Johnson JE, Smith DWm, 

Miller GW. 2001. Herbicide Hardwood Crop Tree 

Release in Central West Virginia. Northern Journal 

of Applied Forestry 18(2):46-54. 

Kohm KA, J.F. Franklin. 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 

21st Century. The Science of Ecosystem 

Management. Washington, DC and Covelo, 

California, USA: Island Press. 

Kuhlman EG. 1978. The Devastation of American 

Chestnut by Blight. In: Proceedings of the American 

Chestnut Symposium, January 4-5, 1978, 

Morgantown, WV. 

Lancaster K. 1985. Managing Eastern Hemlock- A 

Preliminary Guide. NA-FR-30. 

Landers JL. 1987. Prescribed Burning for Managing 

Wildlife in Southeastern Pine Forests. Quoted In: 

USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in Nongame 

Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: 

Traditional Uses and New Directions. Proceedings of 

a Special Workshop. Nashville, TN. General 

Technical Report NE-288. 147 pp. 

Lantz SW. 1969. Rockshelters (Trail Shelters) of the 

Upper Allegheny. The Society for Pennsylvania 

Archaeology, Kinzua Chapter No. 18. 

Lantz SW. 1982. A Cultural Resource Survey of L.R. 93 

(T.R. 62), Irvine Bridge, located near the town of 

Irvine, Warren County, Pennsylvania. Report 

submitted to Kozel Engineering Co., Inc. by the 

Division of Anthropology. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 

The Carnegie Museum of Natural History. 

Lantz SW. 1984. The Distribution of Paleo-Indian 

Projectile Points and Tools from Western 

Pennsylvania: Implications for Regional 

Distributions. Pages 210-230 in Archaeology of 

Eastern North America Vol. 12. 

Lantz SW. 1985. Western Pennsylvania: Appalachian 

Plateau and Lake Erie Shore Paleo-Indian Period 

Pages 164-181 in: A Comprehensive State Plan for 

the Conservation of Archaeological Resources 

Volume I. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission. Historic Preservation Planning Series, 

Number 1. 

Lantz SW. 1989. Age, distribution and cultural affiliation 

of raccoon notched point varieties in western 

Pennsylvania and western New York. Bulletin of 

Carnegie Museum of Natural History No. 28. 

Lassiter RR, Box EO, Wiegert RG, Johnston JM, 

Bergengren J, Suarez LA. 2000. Vulnerability of 

Ecosystems of the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA, to 

Climate Change. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 19(4(2)):1153-60. 

Latham RE, Beyea J, Benner M, Dunn CA, Fajvan MA, 

Freed RR, Grund M, Horsley SB, Rhoads AF, 

Shissler BP. 2005. Executive Summary: Managing 

white-tailed deer in forest habitat from an ecosystem 

perspective: Pennsylvania Case Study. Report by the 

Deer Management Forum for Audubon Pennsylvania 

and Pennsylvania Habitat Alliance. Harrisburg, PA. 

Latty EF, C.D. Canham, P.L. Marks. 2003. Beech bark 

disease in northern hardwood forests: the importance 

of nitrogen dynamics and forest history for disease 

severity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

(33):257-68. 

Laurance WF, Yensen. 1991. In Davidson, Carlos. 1998. 

Issues in Measuring Landscape Fragmentation. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin (26):32-7. 

Leak WB, Filip SM. 1977. Thirty-eight Years of Group 

Selection in New England Northern hardwoods. 

Journal of Forestry 75(10):641-3. 

Leak, William B.; Solomon, Dale S.; DeBald, Paul S. 

1987. Silvicultural guide for northern hardwood types 

in the Northeast (revised). Res. Pap. NE-603. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 

Leak WB. 1996. Long-term structural change in unevenaged northern hardwoods. Forest Science (42):160-5. 

Leak WB. 1999. Species composition and structure of a 

northern hardwood stand after 61 Years of 

group/patch selection. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry 16(3):151-3. 

Leak WB. 2006. Fifty-Year Impacts of the Beech Bark 

Disease in the Bartlett Experimental Forest, New 

Hampshire. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 

23(2):141-3. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-17 

Lehmkuhl JF, L.F. Ruggiero. 1991. In: Davidson, Carlos. 

1998. Issues in Measuring Landscape Fragmentation. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin (26):32-7. 

Lhotka JM, Zaczek JJ. 2003. Effects of Scarification 

Disturbance on the Seedling and Midstory Layer in a 

Successional Mixed-Oak Forest. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 20(2):85-91. 

Liechty HO, M. G. Shelton, K. R. Luckow, D. J. Turton. 

2002. Impacts of shortleaf pine-hardwood forest 

management on soils in the Ouachita highlands: A 

review. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 

(26):43-51. 

Likens GE, C.T. Driscoll, D.C. Buso, T.G. Siccama, C.E. 

Johnson, G.M. Lovett, T.J. Fahey, W.A. Reiners, 

D.F. Ryan, C.W. Martin and others. 1998. The 

biogeochemistry of calcium at Hubbard Brook. 

Biogeochemistry (41):89-173. 

Lindenmayer DB, Jerry F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving 

Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled 

Approach. Washington D.C., USA: Island Press. 

Litvaitis JA. 2003. Are pre-Columbian conditions relevant 

baselines for managed forests in the northeastern 

United States? Forest Ecology and Management 

(185):113-26. 

Litvaitis JA. 2003a. Shrublands and early-successional 

forest: critical habitats dependent on disturbance in 

the northeastern United States. Preface In Forest 

Ecology and Management (185):1-4. 

Loewenstein EF, H.E. Garrett, P.S. Johnson, J. P. Dwyer. 

1995. Changes in a Missouri Ozark Oak-Hickory 

Forest during 40 Years of Uneven-Aged 

Management. Tenth Central Hardwood Forest 

Conference. 

Loftis DL. 2004. Upland Oak Regeneration and 

Management. In: Upland oak ecology symposium: 

History, current conditions, and sustainability. Edited 

by M.A. Spetich. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. pp 163-

167. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

Long RP, S.B. Horsley, P.R. Lilja. 1997. Impact of forest 

liming on growth and crown vigor of sugar maple 

and associated hardwoods. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research (27):1560-73. 

Long RP, S.B. Horsley, P.R. Lilja. 1999. Impact of forest 

liming on growth, vigor, and reproduction on sugar 

maple and associated hardwoods. Pages 55-62 in: 

Sugar maple ecology and health- Proceedings of an 

International Symposium; General Technical Report 

NE-261. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station. 

Loomis JB. 2000. Economic values of wilderness 

recreation and passive use: what we think we know at 

the beginning of the 21st century. In: McCool, 

Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie, Willliam T.; 

O'Loughlin, Jennifer, compiler. 2000. Wilderness 

science in a time of change conference - Volume 2: 

Wilderness within the context of larger systems; 1999 

May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-

VOL-2. pp 5-13. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 

Lord BE, Elmendorf WF, Strauss CH. 2004. 

Pennsylvania's ATV riders and their needs. Report to 

Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. Harrisburg, 

PA: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources. 

Lord BE, M. J. Powell, C.H. Strauss. 2003. Tourism in 

Northcentral Pennsylvania: Visitor Characteristics 

and Economic Impacts. University Park, PA: School 

of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University. 

Lorimer CG, A.S. White. 2003. Scale and frequency of 

natural disturbances in the northeastern US: 

implications for early successional forest habitats and 

regional age distributions. Forest Ecology and 

Management (185):41-64. 

Lowenstein, EF. 1998. Personal communication regarding 

site selection for uneven-aged management in oak 

forest types. 

Lorimer CG, L.E. Frelich. 1994. Natural disturbance 

regimes in old-growth northern hardwoods. Journal 

of Forestry (92):33-8. 

Lovett GM, Mitchell MJ. 2004. Sugar maple and nitrogen 

cycling in the forests of eastern North America. 

Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(2):81-8. 

Lugo AE, H. Gucinski. 1999. Function, effects, and 

management of forest roads. Forest Ecology and 

Management (133):249-62. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-18 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Luppold WG, J.E. Baumgras, R.M. Sheffield. 

Unpublished. 1997. A Comparative Analysis of 

Hardwood Sawtimber Quality on National Forests 

Versus Adjacent Lands for submission to Forest 

Products Journal. Asheville, NC: Southern Research 

Station. 

Lutz HJ. 1930. The vegetation of Heart’s Content, a 

virgin forest in northwestern Pennsylvania. Ecology 

11(1):1-29. 

Lynch JA, K.S. Horner, J.W. Grimm. 2002. Atmospheric 

Deposition: Spatial and Temporal Variations in 

Pennsylvania . University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn 

State Institutes of the Environment. The Pennsylvania 

State University. 

Lynch JA, Edward S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of Best 

Management Practices for Controlling Nonpoint 

Pollution From Silvicultural Operations. Water 

Resources Bulletin 26(1):41-52. 

Lyon LJ, H.S. Crawford, E. Czuhai, R.L. Fredriksen, F. 

Harlow, L.J. Metz, H.A. Pearson. 1978. Effects of 

fire on fauna: a state-of-the-knowledge review. 

General Technical Report WO-6. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

MacFaden SW, D.E. Capen. 2002. Avian Habitat 

Relationships at Multiple Scales in a New England 

Forest. 

MacKenzie M. 2004. Personal communication regarding 

Beech Bark Disease killing front. 

MacKenzie M. 2005a. Beech Bark Disease Aftermath 

Forest on the Allegheny National Forest. 

unpublished. Morgantown, WV: USDA-FS, Forest 

Health Protection. 

MacKenzie M. 2005b. The rate of spread of BBD over the 

ANF. unpublished. Morgantown, WV: USDA-FS, 

Forest Health Protection. 

Mackenzie M, R. Acciavatti. 1995. Another perspective 

towards understanding the forest health issue of 

maple decline and mortality in the Allegheny 

National Forest. 

Malm WC. 1999. Section 6 In: Introduction to Visibility. 

Under Cooperative Agreement CA2350-97-001: 

T097-04, T098-06. CIRA. Fort Collins, CO. 

Manion PD. 1991. Tree Disease Concepts. Second ed. 

New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall Career & 

Technology. 

Manolis JC, D.E. Andersen, F.J. Cuthbert. 2002. Edge 

Effect on Nesting Success of Ground Nesting Birds 

Near Regenerating Clearcuts in a Forest-Dominated 

Landscape. The Auk 119(4):955-70. 

Marks PL. 1974. The role of pin cherry (Prunus 

pensylvanica L.) in the maintenance of stability in 

northern hardwood ecosystems. Ecological 

Monographs (Winter 1974) 44(1):73-88. 

Marquis DA. 1975. The Allegheny hardwood forests of 

Pennsylvania: Their Bounty of Timber and Deer are 

the Results of Events that Occurred Many Years Ago. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE15. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. 

Marquis DA. 1990. Prunus serotina Ehrh. Black Cherry 

In: Silvics of North America, Volume 2, Hardwoods; 

Agriculture Handbook 654. R.M. Burns and B.H. 

Honkala, editors. pp 594-604. Washington, DC, 

USA: USDA Forest Service. 

Marquis DA, editor. 1994. History and origin of 

Allegheny forests. In Quantitative silviculture for 

hardwood forests of the Alleghenies; General 

Technical Report NE-183. USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Forest Experiment Station. 

Marquis DA, editor. 1994a. Quantitative Silviculture for 

Hardwood Forests of the Alleghenies; General 

Technical Report NE-183. USDA Forest Service. 

Marquis DA. 1994b. Thinning Principles and Practices: 

Control of Stand Density, Structure, and Species 

Composition During Thinning in Hardwood Stands 

in the Alleghenies. Pages 247-287 In: Quantitative 

silviculture for hardwood forests of the Alleghenies. 

Marquis, David A., editor. USDA Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station General 

Technical Report NE-183. 

Marquis DA, J.C. Bjorkbom. 1982. Guidelines for 

Evaluating Regeneration Before and After 

Clearcutting Allegheny Hardwoods; Research Note 

NE-307. USDA FS Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-19 

Marquis DA, R. Brenneman. 1981. The Impact of Deer 

on Forest Vegetation in Pennsylvania; General 

Technical Report NE-65. Broomall, Pennsylvania, 

USA: Northeast Forest Experiment Station. 

Marquis DA, R.L. Ernst, S.L. Stout. 1992. Prescribing 

silvicultural treatments in hardwood stands of the 

Allegheny (Revised). General Technical Report NE96. Radnor, PA: USDA-Forest Service. Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 

Marquis DA, R.L. Johnson. 1989. Silviculture of eastern 

hardwoods. In The Scientific Basis for Silviculture 

and Management Decisions in the National Forest 

System. pp 9-17, Edited by Russel M. Burns. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report WO-55. 

Marquis DA, T. J. Grisez. 1978. The effect of deer 

exclosures on the recovery of vegetation in failed 

clearcuts on the Allegheny Plateau; FS Research 

Note NE-270. USDA Forest Service. 

Marquis DA, Porter Gearhart. 1983. Cherry-Maple, pp 

137-140. In: Burns, R.M. 1983. Silvicultural Systems 

for the Major Forest Types of the United States; 

Agriculture Handbook No. 445. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Martin AC, H. S. Zim, A. L. Nelson. 1961. American 

Wildlife and Plants A guide to Wildlife Food Habits. 

New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. 

Martin CW, J.W. Hornbeck, G.E. Likens, D.C. Buso. 

2000. Impacts of intensive harvesting on hydrology 

and nutrient dynamics of northern hardwood forests. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

(57):19-29. 

Maser C, J. M. Trappe. 1984. The seen and unseen world 

of the fallen tree; General Technical Report PNW164. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experimental Station. 

Mathews D. 1942. Cost Control in the Logging Industry. 

New York, New York, USA: McGraw Hill. 

Mayer M, Chianese R, Scudder T, White J, Vongpaseuth 

K, Ward R. 2002. Thirteen Years of Monitoring the 

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid In New Jersey Forests: In 

Symposium on the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in 

Eastern North America. pp 50-60. Onken B, R. 

Reardon, J. Lashomb, Editors. Proceedings, Hemlock 

Woolly Adelgid in Eastern North America 

Symposium. East Brunswick, NJ, USA. N.J. 

Agriculture Experiment Station, Rutgers State 

University of New Jersey and USDA. 

McClure MS, Cheah CAS-J. 2002. Important Mortality 

Factors in the Life Cycle of Hemlock Woolly 

Adelgid, Adelges tsugae Annand (Homoptera: 

Adegidae) in the Northeastern united States. Pages 

13-22 In: Symposium on the Hemlock Woolly 

Adelgid in Eastern North America. Feb.5-7, 2002. 

McComb WC, G.A. Hurst. 1987. Herbicides and wildlife 

in southern forest. pp 28-36 in J.G. Dickson and O.E. 

Maughan, editors. Managing southern forests for 

wildlife and fish. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, General Technical Report SO-65, 

Washington DC. Quoted In: Wildlife Society. 2004. 

The role of herbicides for enhancing forest 

productivity and conserving land for biodiversity in 

North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1049-

1060. 

McGarigal K. 1998. In Davidson, Carlos. 1998. Issues in 

measuring landscape fragmentation. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin (26):32-7. 

McKean County Planning Commission, The Tuna Valley 

Council of Governments, The EADS Group, Inc. 

(Clarion). 2001. Multi-Municipal Comprehensive 

Plan, McKean County . 

McKenzia E. 1995. Important Criteria and Parameters of 

Wildlife Movement Corridors - A Partial Literature 

Review. Southern Columbia Mountains 

Environmental Sector of the West Kootenay CORE 

Table. 

McLaughlin JS, M.S. Caldwell, M.P. Brooks. 2002. A 

cultural resource reconnaissance report for the Lewis 

Run EIS Project. CRR #9-19-01-516. Reports of the 

Allegheny National Forest, Bradford District. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-20 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

McManus KA, K.S. Shields, D.R. Souto, editors. 2000. 

Proceedings: Symposium on Sustainable 

Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in Eastern 

North America; 1999 June 22-24; Durham NH. GTR 

NE-267. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest 

Service, Northeastern Research Station. 

McManus M, Schneeburger N, Reardon R, Mason G. 

1989. Gypsy Moth; Forest Insect and Disease leaflet 

162. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

McNab WH, H. A. Froehlich. 1984. Conceptual Model 

for Predicting Forest Productivity Losses From Soil 

Compaction. In New forests for a changing world, 

Proc. Society of American Foresters National 

Convention, October 16-20, 1983. Portland, Oregon, 

USA . 

McNab WH, P. E. Avers, editors. 1994. Ecological 

subregions of the United States: Section descriptions. 

Publication WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC, USA: 

USDA Forest Service. 

McShea WJ, H.B. Underwood, J.H. Rappole. 1997. The 

science of overabundance: Deer ecology and 

population management. Washington: The 

Smithsonian Institution. 

McShea WJ, W.M. Healy, editors. 2002. Oak Forest 

Ecosystems: Ecology and Management for Wildlife. 

Baltimore, Maryland, USA: The Johns Hopkins 

University Press. 

McShea WJ, W.M. Healy. 2002. Oaks and Acorns as a 

Foundation for Ecosystem Management. In: Oak 

Forest Ecosystems Ecology and Management for 

Wildlife edited by W.J. McShea and W.M. Healy. 

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

McWilliams W, T. Bowersox, P. Brose, D. Devlin, J. 

Finley, K. Gottschalk, S. Horsley, S. King, B. 

LaPoint, T. Lister and others. 2005. Measuring Tree 

Seedlings and Associated Understory Vegetation in 

Pennsylvania’s Forests. Ronald E. McRoberts, 

Gregory A. Reams, Paul C. Van Deusen, William H. 

McWilliams, Chris J. Cieszewski, Editors. 

Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Symposium: GTR-NC-252. New 

Orleans, LA. 

McWilliams WH, C.A. Alerich, D.A. Devlin, A.J. Lister, 

T.W. Lister, S.L. Sterner, J.A. Westfall. 2004. 

Annual Inventory Report for Pennsylvania’s Forests: 

Results from the First Three Years: Resource Bulletin 

NE-159. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest 

Service. 

McWilliams WH, R.L. White, S.L. Arner, C.A. Nowak, 

S.L. Stout. 1996. Characteristics of Declining Forest 

Stands on the Allegheny National Forest. Research 

Note NE-360. Radnor, PA: USDA-Forest Service. 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

McWilliams WH, Stout SL, Bowersox TW, McCormick 

Larry H. 1995. Adequacy of Advance Tree-Seedling 

Regeneration in Pennsylvania's Forests. Northern 

Journal of Applied Forestry 12(4):187-91. 

Means DB, H.W. Campbell. 1981. Effects of prescribed 

burning on amphibians and reptiles. Quoted In: 

USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in Nongame 

Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: 

Traditional Uses and New Directions, Proceedings of 

a Special Workshop. Nashville TN. General 

Technical Report NE-288 147 pp. 

Megahan WF, J. Hornbeck. 2000. Lessons learned in 

watershed management: a retrospective view. USDA 

Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P-13. 

Mehrhoff LA. 1989. Reproductive vigor and 

environmental factors in populations of an 

endangered North American orchid, Isotria 

medeoloides (Pursh) Rafinesque. Biological 

Conservation 47(4):281-96. 

Meyer JL, Beilfuss R, Kaplan L, et al. 2003. Where 

Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for 

Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. 

Mielke EM, D.R Houston, A. T. Bullard. 1986. Beech 

Bark Disease Management Alternatives. Pages 272-

279 in Proceedings- Integrated Pest Management 

Symposium for Northern Forests. University of 

Wisconsin. 

Miller KV, J.S.Witt. 1990.Impacts of forestry herbicides 

on wildlife. pp 795-800. In: Quoted In: Wildlife 

Society. 2004. The role of herbicides for enhancing 

forest productivity and conserving land for 

biodiversity in North America. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 32:1049-1060. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-21 

Miller GW, J.E. Johnson, J.E. Baumgras, R.G. 

Bustamente. 1997. Two-age silviculture on the 

Monongahela National Forest - Managers and 

scientists assess 17 years of communication. Pages 

123-133 in Proceedings of the National Silviculture 

Workshop: Communicating the role of silviculture in 

managing National Forests, Warren, PA. May 19-22, 

1997; General Technical Report NE-238. USDA 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 

Miller GW, J. N. Kochenderfer. 1998. Maintaining 

species diversity in the central Appalachians. Journal 

of Forestry 98:28-33. 

Miller GW, P.B. Wood, J.V. Nichols. 1995a. Two-Age 

Silviculture - An innovative tool for enhancing 

species diversity and vertical structure in 

Appalachian hardwoods. Fort Collins, Colorado. In: 

Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture 

Workshop. Mescalero, NM. 6 p. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-267 . 

Miller GW, T.M. Schuler. 1995. Method for Applying 

Group Selection in Central Appalachian Hardwoods. 

Tenth Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 

Miller GW. 2000. Effect of Crown Growing Space on the 

Development of Young Hardwood Crop Trees. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 17(1):25-35. 

Miller GW, Kochenderfer JN, Gottschalk KW. 2002. 

Effect of Pre-Harvest Shade Control and Fencing on 

Northern Red Oak Seedling Development in the 

Central Appalachians. In: Spetich MA. Upland Oak 

Ecology, Symposium: History, Current Conditions 

and Sustainability. General Technical Report SRS73. 

Miller GW, Kochenderfer JN, Kekedulegn D. 2004. 

Composition and Development of Reproduction in 

Two-Age Appalachian Hardwood Stands: 20-Year 

Results. Shepperd WD, Eskew LG, compiler. 

Silviculture in Special Places: Proceedings of the 

2003 National Silviculture Workshop. RMRS-P-34. 

Granby, CO. 

Miller GW, Schuler TM, Smith HC. 1995. Method for 

Applying Group Selection in Central Appalachian 

Hardwoods. Research Paper NE-696. Radnor, PA: 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Miller GW, Smith HC. 1993. A Practical Alternative to 

Single-Tree Selection. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry 10(1):32-8. 

Miller JH. 2002. Exotic Pest Plants and Their Control. 

Auburn, AL: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 

Miller KV, Miller JH. 2004. Forestry herbicide influences 

on biodiversity and wildlife habitat in southern 

forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1049-60. 

Miller N. 1973. Late-glacial and Postglacial Vegetation 

Change in Southwestern New York State. New York 

State Museum Bulletin 420. 

Minckler LS. 1995. Forest Values and How to Sustain 

Them. Tenth Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 

Minckler LS, Woerheide JD, Schlesinger RC. 1973. 

Light, Soil Moisture, and Tree Reproduction in 

Hardwood Forest Openings. Research Paper NC-89. 

St. Paul Minnesota: USDA Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station. 

Mladenoff DJ, M.A. White, T.R. Crow, J.P. Pastor. 1994. 

Applying principles of landscape design and 

management to integrate old-growth forest 

enhancement and commodity use. Conservation 

Biology (8):752-62. 

Monsanto Company. 1997. Backgrounder Sheet: 

Roundup and Earthworms. 

Moriarity WJ, L.M. DeMarco, B. Nelson, T. Steffan, B. 

Pence. 1996. "Draft Discussion Guide" - Riparian 

Ecosystem Management. USDA Forest Service 

Allegheny National Forest. 

Morin RS, A.M. Liebhold, K.W. Gottschalk, D.B. 

Twardus, R.E. Acciavatti, R.L. White, S.B. Horsley, 

W.D. Smith, E.R. Luzader. 2001. Forest Health 

Conditions on the Allegheny National forest (1989-

1999): Analysis of Forest Health Monitoring 

Surveys. USDA Forest Service NA-TP-04-01. 

Newtown Square, PA. 

Morin RS. 2005. Personal communication regarding 

Black Cherry forest type for the ANF, the ANF four 

county area and the state of PA. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-22 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Morin RS, Liebhold AM, Gottschalk KW, Woodall CW, 

Twardus DB, White RL, Horsley SB, Ristau TE. 

2006. Analysis of Forest Health Monitoring Surveys 

on the Allegheny National Forest (1998-2001). 

General Technical Report NE-339. Newtown Square, 

PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 

Morrison ML, B. G. Marcot, R. W. Mannan. 1992. 

Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and 

Applications. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: University 

of Wisconsin. 

Munson PJ. 1986. Hickory Silviculture: A Subsistence 

Revolution in the Prehistory of Eastern North 

America in Emergent Horticultural Economies of the 

Eastern Woodlands. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois 

University. 

Myers WL, J. A. Bishop. 1999. Eco-region Map for 

Pennsylvania. In: Goodrich, L. J., M. Brittingham, J. 

A. Bishop, and P. Barber. 2003. Wildlife Habitat in 

Pennsylvania: Past, Present, and Future. Harrisburg, 

PA: PA-DCNR. 

National Invasive Species Council (NISPC). 2001. 

Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: National 

Invasive Species Management Plan. 

Nature Serve. 2004. Nature Serve Explorer: an online 

encyclopedia of life. Version 1.8 [Web Page]. 

Located at: Http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Accessed 2004 Mar 19. 

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online 

encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0 

[Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explore. Accessed 2007 

Jan 11. 

Neary DG, Klopatek CC, DeBano LF, Pfolliott. 1999. 

Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review 

and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management 

(122):51-71. 

Neary DG, Ryan KC, DeBano LF, Editors. 2005. 

Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil 

and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42 vol 4. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Nelson BB, K. Titus. 1989. Silviculture Practices and 

Raptor Habitat Associations in the Northeast. In: 

Proceedings of the Northeast Raptor Management 

Symposium and Workshop. National Wildlife 

Federation Scientific and Technical Series No 13. 

Washington, DC. 

Nicholson CP. 2004. Ecology of the Cerulean Warbler in 

the Cumberland Mountains of East Tennessee. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 

TN. 93 pp. Quoted In: P.B. Hamel. 2006. Adaptive 

Forest management for Cerulean Warbler. 

Proceedings of Society of American Forester national 

Convention. In press. 

Nicholson DS, J. S. Ward. 1995. Fifty-Year Response of a 

135-Year-Old White Pine Stand to Partial Thinning 

in Connecticut. Tenth Central Hardwood Forest 

Conference. 

Niemi E, E. Whitelaw. 1997. Assessing economic 

tradeoffs in forest management Page 78 in USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-403. 

Niese JN, T. F. Strong, G.G. Erdmann. 1995. Forty years 

of alternative management practices in secondgrowth, pole-size northern hardwoods. II. Economic 

evaluation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

(25):1180-8. 

NOAA. 1995. Climatological data. Asheville, North 

Carolina, USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Environmental Data and Information 

Service, National Climatic Center. 

Norris L. 1998. Water quality monitoring for herbicides in 

connection with vegetation management on electric 

utility rights-of-way on the Allegheny National 

Forest. Stoughton, Wisconsin, USA: Environmental 

Consultants. 

Noss R. 1984. The Ecological Effects of Roads. [Web 

Page]. Located at: http://www.ecoaction.org/dt/roads.html. Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 

Noss RF. 1987. In Hunter, Malcolm, L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, 

Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing 

Forests for Biological Diversity. Englewood Cliffs, 

New Jersey: Regents Prentice Hall. 

Novotny V, H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality: Prevention, 

Identification, and Management of Diffuse Pollution. 

New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-23 

Nowak CA. 1997. Long-Term Sustainability: The Next 

Forest. In: Proceedings of Forest Sustainability: 

What's It All About? Penn State School of Resources 

Issues Conference. University Park, PA. 

Nyland R. 1996. Silviculture Concepts and Applications. 

New York, New York, USA: McGraw Hill. 

Nyland R. 1998. Personal communication regarding 

accelerating stands into an old-growth condition. 

Nyland R. 2004. Personal communication regarding 

silviculture and old-growth characteristics. 

Nyland RD. 1998. Selection system in northern 

hardwoods. Journal of Forestry 96(7):18-21. 

Nyland RD. 2003. Even- to uneven-aged: the challenges 

of conversion. Forest Ecology and Management 

(172):291-300. 

Nyland RD, Bashant AL, Bohn KK, Verostek JM. 2006. 

Interference to Hardwood Regeneration in 

Northeastern North America: Controlling Effects of 

American Beech, Striped Maple, and Hobblebush. 

Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2):122-32. 

Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies to 

Maintain Biological Diversity . Washington, DC, 

USA: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Oliver CD, B. C. Larson. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. 

New York, New York, USA: McGraw Hill. 

Oliver CD, B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics 

Update Edition. New York, USA: John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc. 

Ordiway LD. 1998. A comprehensive listing and 

explanation of amphibians, reptiles, birds and 

mammals found in the Allegheny National Forest and 

the physical attributes of a stand associated with their 

presence and usage. Unpublished. 

Orwig DA. 2002. Stand dynamics associated with chronic 

hemlock woolly adelgid infestations in southern New 

England. In Onken, B., R. Reardon and J. Lashomb 

(eds.), Proceedings, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in 

Eastern North America Symposium. Feb. 5-7, 2002. 

pp 36-46. East Brunswick, NJ, USA: N.J. Agriculture 

Experiment Station, Rutgers State University of New 

Jersey, and USDA. 

Ostlie WR. 1990. Stewardship Abstracts for Wiegand's 

Sedge and Darlington's Spruge. Unpublished. 

Ostrofsky WD, D.R. Houston. 1989. Harvesting 

Alternatives for Stands Damaged by the Beech Bark 

Disease. Pages 173-177 in Proceedings of the 1988 

SAF National Convention. No. 88-01. Rochester, 

New York, USA. 

Ostrofsky WD, Maxwell L. McCormack Jr. 1986. 

Silvicultural Management of Beech and the Beech 

Bark Disease. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 

(3):89-91. 

Ostry ME, M.E. Mielke, D.D. Skilling. 1994. ButternutStrategies for Managing a Threatened Tree. St. Paul, 

NM: USDA. Forest Service North Central 

Experiment Station General Technical Report NC165. 

Page LM. 1983. Handbook of Darters. Neptune City, New 

Jersey, USA: Tropical Fish Hobbyist Publications. 

Parendes LA, Jones JA. 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 14(1):64-75. 

Parker AC. 1968. Parker on the Iroquois. W.N. Fenton, 

editor. Syracuse, New York, USA: Syracuse 

University Press. 

Parker GR, C. Merritt. 1995. The Central Region. In 

Regional Silviculture of the United States. Edited by 

John W. Barrett. p 147 . 3rd ed. New York, NY: John 

Wiley & sons. 

Partners In Flight. 2001. Landbird Conservation Plan. 

Physiographic area 24. Allegheny plateau. Ithaca, 

New York: Cornell lab of ornithology. 

Paton PW. 1993. The effect of edge on avian nest success. 

How strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 

(8):17-26. 

Penn State, Pennsylvania State Data Center. Pennsylvania 

State and County Demographic Profiles [Web Page]. 

Located at: http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/. Accessed 2003. 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. 2003. 

Pennsylvania’s Equine Industry Inventory, Basic 

Economic and Demographic Characteristics. 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. Data and 

Statistics, PA’s Forest Products Industry [Web Page]. 

Located at: 

http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp/vi

ew.asp?a=3&q=128901. Accessed 2005 Nov 17. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-24 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. 2003. State Forest Resource Management 

Plan. Water Resources. [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.dcnr.state. 

pa.us/forestry/sfrmp/water.htm. Accessed 2007 Jan 

11. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. 2003a. State Forest Resource 

management Plan, Silviculture/Timber Management 

[Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/sfrmp/silvicultur

e.htm. Accessed 2006 Feb 16. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. 2004. Pennsylvania’s Outdoor Recreation 

Plan 2004-2008. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. Forest Health fact Sheet. Peach Bark 

Beetle [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/leaflets/peachbar

k.htm. Accessed 2005 Oct 13. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. 'Old Growth' Forest [Web Page]. Located 

at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wlhabitat/forest/oldgrowt

h.htm. Accessed 2006 Apr 2. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Bureau of Forestry, Division of Forest 

Pest Management. 2005. Pennsylvania Annual Pest 

Conditions Report - 2005. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources (PA-DCNR), Bureau of Forestry. 2005a. 

GIS coverage received from G. McPherson. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

1985. Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act. Act 223, Title 

58 Oil and Gas, Chapter 11 Oil and Gas Act. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

1989. Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, USA . 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

2000. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control 

Program Manual. Technical Guidance 363-2134-008. 

Bureau of Watershed Management. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

2001. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection. Title 25. Environmental Protection. 

Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater 

Management. 2001a. Stream Redesignation 

Evaluation Report Water Quality Standards Review; 

Browns Run Warren County [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/vie

w.asp?a=1261&q=450873. Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

2002. Expert report - stream survey: Salmon Creek 

(55045); Little Salmon Creek (55092); Guiton Run 

(55093); Forest County, Meadville, PA. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

2003. Water Quality Antidegradation Implementation 

Guidance. 391-0300-002. pp 1-17, 37-43, 68-70, 79-

82, 109-121. Harrisburg, PA. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

2004. 2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report. Harrisburg, PA. pp 20-24,31-38 

[Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/vie

w.asp?a=1261&q=480056. Accessed 2005 Oct 27. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

2005. Timber Harvest Operations Field Guide For 

Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control. Technical 

Guidance No. 3930-BK-DEP4016. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater 

Management. 2006. 2006 Pennsylvania Integrated 

Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report - 

Streams, Category 5 Water Bodies, Pollutants 

Requiring a TMDL. pp 471-473, 527, 566-567. 

Harrisburg, PA. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater 

Management. 2006a. Statewide Existing Use 

Classifications; Warren County. Harrisburg, PA. 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penndot). 

2001. Highway Statistics 2001, webbased. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-25 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 1987. 

Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law of 1937, as 

amended. P.L. 1987, Act 394, as amended (35 P.S. 

691.1 et. seq.). 

Pennsylvania Forestry Association, in cooperation with 

the USDA Forest Service, Pennsylvania Hardwoods 

Development Council, PA DER Bureau of Forestry. 

undated. Penn's Woods Today. Mechanicsburg, PA . 

Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat Commission. 2005. Pennsylvania 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

Harrisburg, PA. 

Pennsylvania Game Commission. 1998. Considerations 

for Managing Old Growth Habitat for Wildlife 

Conservation (Draft). Harrisburg, PA. 

Pennsylvania Game Commission. 1999. Bald Eagle and 

Osprey Report, Northwest Region. Unpublished. 

Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2000. Bald Eagle and 

Osprey Report, Northwest Region. Unpublished 

report. 

Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2004. Bald Eagle and 

Osprey Report, Northwest Region. 

Pennsylvania State Data Center. Misc. web statistics 

including: 1. 1990 Census Profiles for Elk and Forest 

counties. 2. Municipal Socio-Economic Profiles for a. 

Elk County – Highland township, b. Elk County – 

Spring Creek township, c. Forest County – Jenks 

township, and d. Forest County – Howe township. 3. 

Municipal Demographic Profiles for a. Elk County – 

Highland township, b. Elk County – Spring Creek 

township, c. Forest County – Jenks township, and d. 

Forest County – Howe township [Web Page]. 

Located at: http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/index.html. 

Pennsylvania State Data Center. Census of Population and 

Housing, 1990,1980: Summary Tape File 1 and 3. 

Institute of State and Regional Affairs, Penn State 

Harrisburg, Middletown, PA [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/pasdc/Data_&_Information/

County_Profiles.html. Accessed 2001 Dec. 

Perala DA. 1977. Manager’s Handbook for Aspen in the 

North Central Sates; Technical Report NE-36. USDA 

Forest Service. 

Perala DA. 1990. Silvics of North America Volume 2. 

Hardwoods-Quaking Aspen; Agriculture Handbook 

654. USDA Forest Service. 

Perala DA, Russell J. 1983. Aspen. pp 113-115. In: 

Burns, R.M. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the 

Major Forest Types of the United States; Agricultural 

Handbook No. 445. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Peterjohn WT, Mary Beth Adams, Frank S. Gilliam. 

1996. Symptoms of nitrogen saturation in two central 

Appalachian hardwood forest ecosystems. 

Biogeochemistry (35):507-22. 

Peters P. 1978. Spacing of Roads and Landings to 

Minimize Timber Harvest Cost. Forest Science 

24(2):209-17. 

Peterson CJ, S.T.A. Pickett. 1991. Treefall and 

Resprouting Following Catastrophic Windthrow in an 

Old-Growth Hemlock-Hardwood Forest. Forest 

Ecology Management (42):205-17. 

Phillips MJ, Lloyd W. Swift Jr, Charles R. Blinn . 2000. 

Best Management Practices for Riparian Areas. Ch. 

16: 274-275 In: Elon S. Verry, James W. Hornbeck, 

and C. Andrew Dolloff, editors. Riparian 

Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern 

United States. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Lewis 

Publishers. 

Phippen SJ, E. Wohl. 2002. An assessment of land use 

and other factors affecting sediment loads in the Rio 

Puerco watershed, New Mexico. Geomorphology 

(52):269-87. 

Pimentel D, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, D. Morrison. 2000. 

Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous 

species in the United States. Bioscience (50):53-65. 

Pitocchelli J. 1993. Mourning Warbler (Oporornis 

philadelphia). A. Poole and G. Gill editors. The Birds 

of North America. No 72. Philadelphia: Academy of 

Natural Sciences. Washington DC. American 

Ornithologists. Quoted In: R.M. DeGraaf and M. 

Yamasaki.2001. New England Wildlife, Habitat, 

Natural History and Distribution. University Press of 

New England. 482 pp. 

Pomeroy JS. 1981. Landslides and related features 

Pennsylvania – Warren 1o x 2o sheet: U. S. 

Geological Survey Open-file Report 81-238, 112 

plates, scale 1:24,000. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-26 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Pomeroy JS. 1986. Slope Movements in the WarrenAllegheny Reservoir Area, Northwestern 

Pennsylvania. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1650. 

Pough RH. 1949. Audubon bird guide: Eastern Land 

Birds. New York. Doubleday. 312 pp. Quoted In: 

R.M. DeGraaf and M. Yamasaki.2001. New England 

Wildlife. Habitat, Natural History and Distribution. 

University Press of New England. 

Powers RF, D.H. Alban, R.E. Miller, A.E. Tiarks, C.G. 

Wells, P.E. Avers, R.G. Cline, R.O. Fitzgerald, N.S. 

Loftus Jr. 1990. Sustaining site productivity in North 

American Forests: Problems and Prospects. 

Proceedings of 7th North American Forest Soils 

Conference. 

Quinn AG, J.M. Adovasio. Unpublished. Test excavations 

at 36WA132, Allegheny National Forest. Erie, PA: 

Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute. 

Rawlins JE, C. W. Bier, C. W. Young, R. L. Davidson, S. 

A. Thompson, R. A. Androw. 1997. Study of 

Nocturnal Macrolepidoptera in Forest Ecosystems 

Associated with Population Outbreaks of the Elm 

Spanworm on the Allegheny National Forest, 

Pennsylvania. Carnegie Museum of Natural History 

and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Final 

Report. 

Rawlins JE, C. W. Bier, C. W. Young, R. L. Davidson, S. 

A. Thompson, R. A. Androw. 1998. Study of 

Nocturnal Macrolepidoptera, Sarcophagid Flies, and 

Carabid Beetles in Oak Habitats Historically Exposed 

to Pesticide Applications Targeted on the Gypsy 

Moth on the Allegheny National Forest, 

Pennsylvania. Carnegie Museum of Natural History 

and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Final 

Report. 

Reardon R, Hajek A. 1993. Entomophaga maimaiga in 

North America: A Review. NA-TP-15-93. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Area, Forest Health Protection. 

Redding J. 1995. History of deer population trends and 

forest cutting on the Allegheny National Forest. 

Pages 214-224 in Proceedings of the Tenth Central 

Hardwood Conference. Edited by K.W. Gottschalk 

and S.L.C. Fosbroke. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report NE-197. 

Reineke, L. H. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for 

even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 

46(7):627-638 

Rhoads AF, W.M. Klein. 1993. The Vascular Flora of 

Pennsylvania: Annotated Checklist and Atlas. 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: American 

Philosophical Society. 

Ribe RG. 1989. The Aesthetics of Forestry: What has 

Empirical Preference Taught Us? Environ Manage 

13(1):55-74. 

Richards C, Bob Hollingsworth. 2000. Managing 

Riparian Areas for Fish. Ch. 9: pp 162-163, 165-166 

in Elon S. Verry, James W. Hornbeck, and C. 

Andrew Dolloff, editors. Riparian Management in 

Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. 

Boca Raton, FL, USA : Lewis Publishers. 

Riesenman JJr. 1943. History of Northwestern 

Pennsylvania, Volume II. NY,NY: Lewis Historical 

Publishing Company. 

Rink G. 1990. In Ostrey, M.E., Mielke, M.E., Skilling, 

D.D. 1994. Butternut-Strategies for Managing A 

Threatened Tree. St. Paul, MN: USDA. Forest 

Service, North Central Experiment Station. General 

Technical Report NC-165. 

Ristau TE, Horsley SB, Stout SL. 2005. Personal 

communication regarding "Impact of glyphosate and 

sulfometuron methyl on diversity of plants and 

wildlife in Allegheny hardwoods. Part I: Assessing 

impacts on understory plant communities." study. 

Ritchie WA, R.E. Funk. 1973. Aboriginal Settlement 

Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum 

Memoir 20. 

Ritchie WA. 1980. The Archaeology of New York State. 

Fleishmanns, New York, USA: Purple Mountain 

Press. 

Roach BA, Gingrich SF. 1968. Even-Aged Silviculture 

for Upland Central Hardwoods. Agriculture 

Handbook 355. Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Roach BA. 1972. Clearcutting in Hardwoods. Hotel John 

Marshall, Richmond, Virginia, January 25, 1972: 

Presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of Virginia 

Forests. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-27 

Roach, BA. 1977. A stocking guide for Allegheny 

hardwoods and its use in controlling intermediate 

cuttings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. NE-373, 30 p. 

Northeast. For. Exp. Stn., Broomall, Pa. 

Robbins CS, D. K. Dawson, B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat 

area requirements of breeding birds of the Middle 

Atlantic States. Wildlife Society Monograph. No. 

103. 

Robbins CS, D. K. Dawson, B. A. Dowell. 1995. Habitat 

Area Requirements of Breeding Forest Birds of the 

Middle Atlantic States. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 103:1-34. 

Robbins MB, B.R. Barber, K. Zyskowski. 1998. Census 

of Cerulean Warblers along the upper Current River, 

with comments on the status of other riparian species. 

Bluebird. 65:10-16. Quoted In: P.B. Hamel. 2006. 

Adaptive Forest Management for Cerulean Warbler. 

Proceedings of Society of American Foresters 

National Convention. In press. 

Roberson, A.M., D.E. Anderson, and P.L. Kennedy. 2003. 

The northern goshawk, (Accipiter gentiles 

atricapillus) in the Western Great Lakes Region: a 

technical conservation assessment. Report for the 

Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 91 pp. 

Unpublished report. 

Robertson B, K.V. Rosenberg. 2001. Partner in flight 

(PIF) Landbird Conservation Plan. 2001. 

Physiographic Area 24: Allegheny Plateau. Version 

1.0. 

Robinson CS, F. T. Lee, R. W. Moore, R. D. Carroll, H. 

Scott, J. D. Post, R. A. Bohman. 1972. Geological, 

geophysical and engineering investigations of the 

Loveland Basin landslide, Clear Creek County, 

Colorado; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

673. 

Robinson SK. 1997. Effects of Different Kinds of Edges 

on Forest-Nesting Birds [abstract]. Session 19. 

Wildlife Society Annual Conference, September 

1997. Where Do We Stand On Edges? Snowmass, 

Colorado, USA. 

Rodewald AD. 2004. Landscape and Local Influences of 

Forest Management on Cerulean Warblers in 

Pennsylvania. Quoted In: D.A. Yaussy, D.M. Long, 

R.P. Goebel. editors. Proceedings of the 14th Central 

Hardwoods Forest Conference. 2004 march 16-19. 

Wooster, OH. General Technical Report NE-316. 

Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 535 pp. 

Rodewald AD. 2006. Landscape and local influences of 

forest management on Cerulean Warbler in 

Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the 14th Annual 

Central Hardwood Forest Conference. March 16, 

2004. GTR-NE-316. Newtown Square, PA. 

Rodewald RD, R.H. Yahner. 2001. Influence of landscape 

composition on avian community structure and 

associated mechanisms. Ecology 82(12):3493-504. 

Romme R, K. Tyrell, V. Brack Jr. 1995. Literature 

summary and habitat suitability Index Model: 

Components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis). Cincinnati, Ohio, USA: 

3D/Environmental. 

Rosenberg, et al. 2000. In Partner In Flight. 2001. 

Landbird Conservation Plan. Physiographic area 24. 

Allegheny plate a. Ithaca, New York: Cornell lab of 

ornithology. 

Rosenberg KV, S.E. Barker, R.W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An 

Atlas of cerulean warbler populations: Final report to 

USFWS, 1997-2000 Breeding Seasons. Ithaca, NY: 

Cornell University. 

Rosenberg KV, S.E. Barker, R.W. Rohrbaugh. 2000a. An 

atlas of cerulean warbler populations: Final Report to 

USFWS, 1997-2000 Breeding Seasons. Ithaca, NY. 

Cornell University. Quoted In: Partners in Flight 

Landbird Conservation Plan for Physiographic Area 

21: Allegheny Plateau. 2001. B. Robertson and K.V. 

Rosenberg editors. 

Ross P. 1996. Allegheny Oil: The Historic Petroleum 

Industry on the Allegheny National Forest. USDA 

Forest Service Eastern Region, Allegheny National 

Forest Heritage Publication No. 1. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-28 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Ruffner CM, A. Sluyter, M.D. Abrams, C. Crothers, J. 

McLaughlin, R. Kandare. 1997. Assessing Native 

American disturbances in mixed-oak Forests of the 

Allegheny Plateau. Pages 96-103 in Proceedings, 

National Silviculture Workshop; General Technical 

Report NE-238. USDA Forest Service, Northeast 

Forest Experiment Station. 

Ruffner CM, Abrams M. unpublished. Historical Ecology 

of Allegheny Plateau Forests. 2000. 25 pp. Warren, 

PA: Submitted to Allegheny National Forest as part 

of Forest Plan Revision. 

Ruffner CM, Abrams MD. 2002. Dendrochronological 

investigation of disturbance history for a Native 

American site in northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal 

of the Torrey Botanical Society 129(3):251-60. 

Ruffner CM, Abrams MD. 2003. Disturbance History and 

Stand Dynamics along a Topographic Gradient in 

Old-Growth Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest of 

the Allegheny Plateau, USA. Natural Areas Journal 

23(2):98-113. 

Runkle JR. 1982. Patterns of disturbance in some oldgrowth mesic forests of eastern North America. 

Ecology (63):1533-46. 

Runkle JR. 1985. Disturbance regimes in temperate 

forests. In: The ecology of natural disturbance and 

patch dynamics. New York: Academic Press. 

Runkle JR. 1991. Gap dynamics of old-growth eastern 

forests: Management implications. Natural Areas 

Journal (11):19-25. 

Sander ID, McGee CE, Day KG, Willard RE. 1983. Oak -

Hickory. pp 116-120. In: Burns, R.M. 1983. 

Silvicultural System for the Major Forest Types of 

the United States; Agricultural Handbook No. 445. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 

Santillo DJ, D.M. Leslie Jr, P.W. Brown. 1988. 

Responses of small mammals and habitat to 

Glyphosate application on clearcuts. Journal of 

Wildlife Management (53):164-72. 

Sauer JR, J.E. Hines, J. Fallon. 2005. The North 

American breeding bird survey. Results and Analysis 

1966-2005. Versions 2005.2. Laurel, MD: USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

Schenk JS. 1887. History of Warren County, 

Pennsylvania. Syracuse, New York, USA: D. Mason 

& Company. 

Schreffler AM, W. E. Sharpe. 2003. Effects of lime, 

fertilizer, and herbicide on forest soil and soil 

solution chemistry, hardwood regeneration, and 

hardwood growth following shelterwood harvest. 

Forest Ecology and Management (177):471-84. 

Schuler TM. 2006. Crop Tree Release Improves 

Competitiveness of Northern Red Oak Growing in 

Association with Black Cherry. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 23(2):77-82. 

Schultz M. 1999. One Terrible Week Three Fearsome 

Fires. Wildland Firefighter 2(9):30-5. 

Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR. 2003. Biological Criteria for 

Buffer Zones around Wetlands and Riparian Habitats 

for Amphibians and Reptiles. Conservation Biology 

17(5):1219. 

SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 

1996. Selected Commercial Formulations of 

Glyphosate - Accord, Rodeo, Roundup, and Roundup 

Pro – Risk Assessment Final Report. 

SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 

1998. Sulfometuron methyl (Oust) Final Draft 

Report. 

Sevon WD, D. D. Braun. 2000. Glacial Deposits of 

Pennsylvania. Map 59. Harrisburg, PA: DCNR. 

Sevon WD, G. M. Fleeger. 1999. Pennsylvania and the 

Ice Age. 4th series. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania 

Geological Survey, DCNR. 

Shaffer LL. 1991. Pennsylvania Amphibians and Reptiles. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat Commission. 

Sharpe WE, Drohan JR. 1999. Acidification status 

assessment of sensitive Pennsylvania forest soil. In: 

Sharpe, W.E. and J.R. Drohan, eds. The Effects of 

Acidic Deposition on Pennsylvania's Forest. 

Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic Deposition 

Conference. Vol. 1. pp 73-86. University Park, PA: 

Environmental Resources Research Institute. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-29 

Sharpe WE, J.R.Drohan, editors. 1999. The Effects of 

Acidic Deposition on Pennsylvania's Forest. 

Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic Deposition 

Conference. Vol. 1. University Park, PA: 

Environmental Resources Research Institute. 

Sharpe WE, Halofsky JE. 2004. Hay-Scented Fern 

(Dennstaedtia punctilobula) and Sugar Maple (Acer 

saccharum) Seedling Occurrence with Varying Soil 

Acidity in Pennsylvania. In: Proceedings of the 14th 

Central Hardwood Forest Conference. March 16-19, 

2004. GTR-NE-316. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeast Research Station. 

Shifflet, D.K. & Associates Ltd. 1997. DCNR Outdoor 

Traveler Study. McLean, VA. 

Shine R, Lemaster M, Wall M, Langkilde R, Mason R. 

2004. Why did the snake cross the road? Effects of 

roads on movement and location of mates by garter 

snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis). Ecology and 

Society 9(1):9. 

Shultz CH, editor. 1999. The Geology of Pennsylvania. 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania 

Geological Survey and Pittsburgh Geological 

Society. 

Simberloff D, J.A. Farr, J. Cox, D.W. Mehlman. 1992. 

Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor 

Investments? Conservation Biology 6(4):493-504. 

Singer MT, C.G. Lorimer. 1997. Crown release as a 

potential old-growth restoration approach in northern 

hardwoods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

(27):1222-32. 

Siwicki RW. 2005. Water Resources Data for 

Pennsylvania, Water Year 2004, Volume 3, Ohio and 

St. Lawrence River Basins; USGS-WDR-PA-04-3. 

pp 54-55, 66-67, 94-95. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Resources Discipline. 

Smith DM. 1986. The Practice of Silviculture. Eighth ed. 

New York, New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons. 

Smith HC, Della-Bianca L, Fleming H. 1983. 

Appalachian Mixed Hardwoods. pp 141-144. In: 

Burns, R.M. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the 

Major Forest Types of the United States; Agricultural 

Handbook No. 445. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Snow D. 1994. The Iroquois. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

USA: Blackwell. 

Society of American Foresters, Silviculture Working 

Group. 1994. Silviculture terminology with appendix 

of draft ecosystem management terms. Bethesda, 

MD: Society of American Foresters. 

Solomon DS, W.B. Leak. 2000. Growth and Stocking of 

Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) in New 

England. in McManus, K.A., and K.S. Shields, and 

D.R. Souto (eds.), Proceedings: Sympoisium on 

Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in 

Eastern North America, June 22-24, 1999, Durham, 

New Hampshire. General Technician Report NE-267. 

Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: USDA, Forest 

Service Northeastern Research Station. 

Spies TA. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of oldgrowth forests. Journal of Forestry (102):14-20. 

Stage, A. R. 1968. A tree-by-tree measure of site 

utilization for grand fir related to stand density index. 

Res. Note INT-77. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 7p. 

Stein B, L. Kutner, J. Adams. 2000. Precious heritage: the 

status of biodiversity in the United States. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press. 

Stewart M, J. Kratzer. 1989. Prehistoric site locations on 

the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau. Pennsylvania 

Archaeologist (59):19-36. 

Stoleson SH, L. Ordiway. 2003. Surveys for Yellowbellied Flycatchers (Empidonax flaviventris) on the 

Allegheny National Forest, 2003. Irvine, PA: 

Northeastern Research Station. 

Stoleson SH. 2004. Cerulean Warbler Habitat Use in an 

Oak-Northern Hardwood Transition Zone: 

Implications for Management. Proceedings of the 

14th Central Hardwoods Forest Conference. 

Stoleson SH. 2004. Cerulean Warbler habitat use in an 

oak-northern hardwoods transition zone: implications 

for management. Quoted In: Daniel A. Yaussy, D.M. 

Hix, R.P. Long and P.C. Goebbel editors. 

Proceedings of the 14th Central hardwoods Forest 

Conference. March 16-19, 2004. Wooster, OH. 

General Technical Report NE-316. Newtown Square, 

PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Northeastern 

Research Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-30 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Stoleson S. 2004. personal communication. Progress 

report for impact of glyphosate and sulfometuron 

methyl on diversity of plants and wildlife in 

allegheny hardwoods. 

Stoleson SH. 2005. Personal communication regarding 

Impact of Glyphosate and Sulfometuron on Diversity 

of Plants and Wildlife in Allegheny Hardwoods: 

Responses of Wildlife Communities to Herbicide 

Application. 

Stoleson S. 2005a. personal communication. Memo 

pertaining to Forest Cerulean Warbler surveys and 

canopy closure. 

Stoleson S. 2006. personal communication. Memo 

pertaining to mourning warbler densities in 

shelterwoods. 

Stone RB. 1926. McKean: The Governor’s County. New 

York, New York, USA: Lewis Historical Publishing 

Company. 

Stout SL. 1994. Principles and practices of uneven-age 

management. Pages 329-366 in Quantitative 

silviculture for hardwood forests of the Alleghenies. 

Marquis, David A., editor; General Technical Report 

NE-183USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Stout S. 2006. Electronic communication. Background 

concerning studies east of forest road 116. 

Stransky JJ, J.H. Rose. 1984. Promoting Soft Mast for 

Wildlife in Intensively Managed Forests. Quoted In: 

USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in Nongame 

Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: 

Traditional uses and New Directions, Proceedings of 

a Special Workshop. Nashville TN. General 

Technical Report NE-288. 

Strauss CH, B.E. Lord, M.J. Powell, M. Shields, T.W. 

Kelsey. 2000. Economic Impact of Pennsylvania’s 

Hardwood Industry: Current Status and Proposed 

Growth. Unpublished report. University Park, 

Pennsylvania, USA: College of Agricultural 

Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University. 

Strauss CH, Lord BE, Powell MJ. 2004. Economic Impact 

of the Wood Industry in the AHUG Region. 

University Park, PA: School of Forest Resources, 

The Pennsylvania State University. 

Stuart GW, Edwards PJ. 2006. Concepts about Forests 

and Water. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 

23(1):11-9. 

Stuart WB, J. L. Carr. 1991. Harvesting Impacts on Steep 

Slopes in Virginia. Pages 67-81 in Proceedings of the 

8th Central Hardwood Conference; 1991 March 4-6; 

PA; General Technical Report NE-148. USDA Forest 

Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

Stynes DJ, White EM. 2005. Spending Profiles of 

National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four Year Report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and 

Michigan State University. 

Sutherland S. 2004. First Order Fire Effects Model 

(FOFEM) . Version 5.0. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Missoula Fire Laboratory. 

Swift LWJr. 1984. Gravel and grass surfacing reduces soil 

loss from mountain roads. Forest Science 30(3):657-

70. 

Swift LWJr. 1988. Forest access roads: design, 

maintenance, and soil loss. Pages 313-324 in Swank, 

W. T., and D. A. Crossley, Jr. editors. Forest 

hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. Ecological 

Studies, Volume 66. New York, New York, USA: 

Springer-Verlag. 

Swistock BR, D.R. DeWalle, S.B. Horsley, R.P. Long, 

T.J. Hall, S. Bailey. 1999. Soil water chemistry in 

declining and non-declining sugar maple stands. In: 

The Effects of Acidic Deposition on Pennsylvania's 

Forests. Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic 

Deposition Conference, Vol 1. University Park, PA: 

Environmental Resources Research Institute. 

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 

(SERA). 1997. Effects of Surfactants on the Toxicity 

of Glyphosate, With Specific Reference to RODEO 

[Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk_asses

sments/Surfactants.pdf. Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 

(SERA). 2003. Glyphosate - Human Health and 

Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report [Web 

Page]. Located at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk_asses

sments/04a03_glyphosate.pdf. Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-31 

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 

(SERA). 2004. Sulfometuron Methyl - Human Health 

and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report [Web 

Page]. Located at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk_asses

sments/121404_Sulfometuron.pdf. Accessed 2007 

Jan 11. 

Taber TTI. 1974. Logging Railroad Era of Lumbering in 

Pennsylvania, Vol. 10. Tanbark, Alcohol, and 

Lumber. Williamsport, Pennsylvania, USA: 

Lycoming Printing Company. 

Taber TTI. 1975. Logging Era of Lumbering in 

Pennsylvania, Vol. 7. Sawmills Among the Derricks. 

Williamsport, Pennsylvania, USA: Lycoming 

Printing Company. 

Tamm CO. 1991. Nitrogen in Terrestrial Ecosystems: 

Questions of productivity, vegetational changes, and 

ecosystem stability. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Tatum VI. 2004. Toxicity transport and fate of forest 

herbicides. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32:1042-1048. 

Quoted In: Wildlife Society. 2004. The role of 

herbicides for enhancing forest productivity and 

conserving land for biodiversity in North America. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32:1049-1060. 

Taylor DL. 1981. Wildlife considerations in prescribed 

fire in national parks. Quoted In: USDA-FS. 2000. 

The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management 

and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and 

New Directions, Proceedings of a Special Workshop. 

Nashville, TN. General Technical Report NE-288. 

Teck, Richard M.; Hilt, Donald E. 1990. Individual-tree 

probability of survival model for the Northeastern 

United States Res. Rep. NE-642. Radnor, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 10 pp. 

Teck, Richard M.; Hilt, Donald E. 1991. Individual treediameter growth model for the Northeastern United 

States Res. Pap. NE-649. Radnor, PA: US. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 11 pp. 

Ternet MA. 2003. Biology, Status and Management of 

Black Bear in Pennsylvania. Stakeholder advisory 

committee meeting. Pennsylvania Game 

Commission. 

Thompson FR, R.M. DeGraaf, M.K. Trani. 2001. 

Conservation of Woody, Early Successional Habitats 

and Wildlife in the Eastern United States. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 29(2):407-94. 

Thompson MA, J. A. Mattson, J. B. Sturos. 1997. 

Methods Used to Evaluate the Effects of Forest 

Operations on the Remaining Vegetation and Soil: 

Review and Recommendations. Pages 62-75. In: 

Proceedings: Forest Operations for Sustainable 

Forests and Healthy Economics. USDA Forest 

Service- South Dakota State University. 

Tilghman NG. 1989. Impacts of the white-tailed deer on 

forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. 

Journal of Wildlife Management (53):524-32. 

Trieu P. 1999. Assessment of physiochemical and 

biological effects of two types of road surface on 

adjacent roads. Thesis. State College, Pennsylvania, 

USA: Pennsylvania State University. 

Trimble GR. 1970. 20 Years of Intensive Uneven-Aged 

management: Effect on Growth, Yield, and Species 

Composition in Two Hardwood Stands in West 

Virginia. Research Paper NE-154. Upper Darby, PA: 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Trombulak SC, C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological 

Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation Biology (8):18-30. 

Trombulak SK. 1996. The Restoration of Old Growth: 

Why and How. pp. 305-320. In Davis, M.B. (ed.), 

Eastern Old Growth Forests, Prospects for 

Rediscovery and Recovery. Washington D.C.: Island 

Press. 

Tu M, Hurd C, Randall JM. 2001. Weed Control Methods 

Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural 

Areas The Nature Conservancy. 

Tubbs CH. 1977. Natural Regeneration of Northern 

Hardwoods in the Northern Great Lakes Region. 

Research Paper NC-150. St. Paul, Minnesota: USDA 

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-32 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Tubbs CH, Jacobs RD, Cutler D. 1983. Northern 

Hardwoods. pp 121-127. In: Burns, R.M. 1983. 

Silvicultural System for the Major Forest Types of 

the United States; Agriculture Handbook No. 445. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 

Tucker J. 1992. Managing natural rather than artificially 

increased diversity: early successional birds of the 

White Mountain National Forest. Thesis. Durham, 

New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire. 

Turner G. 2005. Ecology of the flying squirrel in 

Pennsylvania. Presentation at the Pennsylvania 

Chapter of the Wildlife Society 2005 Annual 

Conference and Workshop: Conservation Planning 

for Wildlife in Pennsylvania. 

Twedt DJ, C.R. Loesch. 1999. Forest Area and 

Distribution in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: 

Implications for Breeding Bird Conservation. Journal 

of Biogeography 20:100-10. 

Twedt DJ, W.B. Uihlein III, A.B. Elliott. 2006. Habitat 

restoration for forest bird conservation: A spatially 

explicit decision support model. Conservation 

Biology. 20:100-110. Quoted In: P.B. Hamel. 2006. 

Adaptive Forest Management for Cerulean Warbler, 

Proceedings of Society of American Forester national 

Convention. in press. 

Tyrrell LE. 1996. National Forests in the Eastern Region: 

Land Allocation and Planning for Old Growth. pp. 

245-273. In Davis, M.B. (ed.), Eastern Old Growth 

Forests, Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery. 

Washington D.C.: Island Press. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. 

Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United 

States, OTA-F-565. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS. Asian 

Longhorned Beetle - Chronology [Web Page]. 

Located at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/alb/chron-2000-

pres.html. Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS. Asian 

Longhorned Beetle - Chronology 1996-1999 [Web 

Page]. Located at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/alb/chron-96-

99.html. Accessed 2007 Jan 11. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. 

Agriculture Handbook 462. National Forest 

Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The 

Visual Management System. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1977. 

Timber Management Plan, Region 9, Allegheny 

National Forest, October 1977 to September 1984. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1983. 

Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the 

United States. Agricultural Handbook No. 445. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985a. A 

Twenty-year History of Forest Insect and Disease 

Management on the Allegheny National Forest, 

Pennsylvania, 1965-1985. Morgantown, WV: Forest 

Pest Mgmt., USDA-FS. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986a. 

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Land and Resource Management 

Plan (FEIS). Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986b. 

Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986c. 

Allegheny National Forest Record of Decision Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986d. 

Integrating Recreation with other Resource (Bev 

Driver script). 1986 ROS Book. pp IV 27-35. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986f. 

Allegheny National Forest Appendix B Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1987. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1988. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-33 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989a. 

Environmental Analysis for the Use of Herbicides to 

Control Undesirable Vegetation in Forested Stands. 

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989b. 

Final EIS, Appalachian Integrated Pest Management 

(AIPM), Gypsy Moth Demonstration Project; Mgmt. 

Bull. R8-MB 33. Morgantown, WV. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989c. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation 

Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, Volume 

I. January 1989. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: Southern 

Region. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989d. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation 

Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, 

Appendices, Volume II. January 1989. Atlanta, 

Georgia, USA: Southern Region. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989e. 

Fragmentation Model, Mount Hood National Forest, 

December 1989. Fragmentation Task Force: T. 

Hussey, B. Knott, D. Zalundardo, R. McNair. Sandy, 

Oregon. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1989. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990a. 

Economic Considerations of Surfacing Materials on 

the ANF. Unpublished report. Warren, Pennsylvania, 

USA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990b. 

Road and Landing Spacing on the Allegheny 

National Forest, unpublished report. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1990. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991a. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision for Understory Vegetation Management on 

the Allegheny National Forest. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991b. 

Decision memo for aerial fertilization on the 

Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1991. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992a. 

Summary of Responses to Project or IPS Appeal 

Points Relating to Herbicide Use - for Environmental 

Assessments completed August through November 

1992. Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992b. 

Prescribing Silvicultural Treatments in Hardwood 

Stands of the Alleghenies (Revised); General 

Technical Report NE-96. Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992c. 

Letter from Allegheny National Forest supervisor to 

appellants RE: Appeal #92-09-19-025 (1992 

Herbicide Project, Bradford Ranger District), signed 

by T.E. Beauvais, 8/19/92. On File at the Bradford 

Ranger District Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992d. 

Deer Management on the Allegheny National Forest. 

Unpublished report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1992. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1993. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994a. 

Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section 

Descriptions. Washington DC. W. H. McNab and P. 

E. Avers; ECOMAP. July 1994. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994b. 

Quantitative Silviculture for Hardwood Forests of the 

Alleghenies; General Technical Report NE-183. 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-34 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994c. 

Forest Service Handbook. FSH 7709.56b – 

Transportation Structures Handbook. Amendment 

No. 7709.56b-94-1, July 27, 1994. Washington, D.C., 

USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1994. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995a. 

Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability. 

Warren, Pennsylvania, USA: Allegheny National 

Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995b. 

Shifts in Stocking Reveal Forest Health Problems; 

NA-TP-07-95. Radnor, PA: The Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995c. 

Map Unit Tables Subsections Ecological Units of the 

Eastern United States First Approximation 1995. 83p 

plus map. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995d. A 

Landscape Corridor Approach to Providing LateSuccessional Forests and Associated Functions and 

Values on the Allegheny National Forest. 

Unpublished. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995e. 

Landscape Aesthetics: a Handbook for Scenery 

Management, WO, FS Handbook HB701. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995f. 

The Forest Service Program for Forest and 

Rangeland Resources: A Long-Term Plan. Draft RPA 

Program. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995g. 

Forest Health through Silviculture. Proceedings of 

the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop. General 

Technical Report RM-GTR-267. Mescalero, New 

Mexico, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995h. 

Environmental Assessment of Tree Mortality and 

Ecosystem Sustainability on the Allegheny National 

Forest. Warren Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995i. 

Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 

Misc. Publication Number 1391. 108 pp plus map. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. 

Allegheny National Forest Annual Monitoring Report 

for Fiscal Year 1995. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996a. 

Draft uneven-aged management guidelines for the 

ANF. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996b. 

Riparian Ecosystem Guide for the Allegheny 

National Forest. Draft, Unpublished. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996c. 

Horse Use and Associated Impacts on the Allegheny 

National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996d. 

Fish and Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

1996. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. 

Allegheny National Forest Annual Monitoring Report 

for Fiscal Year 1996. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997b. 

Fisheries Amendment to the Allegheny National 

Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997c. 

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, Forest Service. 1997d. 

Allegheny National Forest Compartment Prescription 

Handbook, draft. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1997. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998a. 

Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System, 

Fiscal Year 1997. Warren, PA: Allegheny National 

Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998b. 

Stemming the Invasive Tide: Forest Service Strategy 

for Noxious and Nonnative Plant Management. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-35 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998c. 

Region 9-Riparian Area Definition and Management. 

FSM 2500 - Watershed Protection And Management 

R9 Supplement 2500-98-1; Chapter 20 - Watershed 

Protection And Management; Effective 10/21/1998. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998d. 

Recreation Use Report. Unpublished report 

(spreadsheet). Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998e. 

Methods for Inventory and Environmental Risk 

Assessment of Road Drainage Crossings. San Dimas, 

California, USA: San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998f. 

Charting Our Future...A Nation’s Natural Resource 

Legacy. FS-630. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998g. 

Biological Assessment For Threatened and 

Endangered Species on the Allegheny National 

Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998h. 

The Natural Resource Agenda. Washington DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. 

Correspondence from Janice H. McDougle, Acting 

Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, to 

Regional Forester, Region 3, regarding public 

comments providing additional information on 

pesticides. Washington, DC, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999a. 

Sustaining Recruitment of Oak Reproduction in 

Uneven-aged Stands in the Ozark Highlands; General 

Technical Report NC-203. North Central Research 

Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999b. 

Road Analysis: Informing decisions about managing 

the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. 

Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest 

Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999c. 

Public Comments Providing Additional Information 

on Pesticides. USDA Forest Service Washington 

Office Memo. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999d. 

Early Successional Habitat and Open Lands 

Assessment. The Eastern and Southern Regions. 

Report 1. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. 

Allegheny National Forest Fish and Wildlife 

Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report. 

Report for Fiscal Years 1986-2000. March, 2000. 

Warren, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. 

Roads, Self Study Training Course, Construction 

Certification Program. July, 2000. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000b. 

Roads Analysis, Lower Steamboat Watershed, North 

Umpqua Ranger District, October, 2000. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000c. 

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 – Maps 

of Inventoried Roadless Areas; Washington Office, 

November 2000. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000e. 

Fish and Wildlife Management Indicator Species 

Monitoring Report for Fiscal Years 1986 - 1999. 

Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania, 

USA . 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000f. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Threatened and Endangered Species on the 

Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania, 

USA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000g. 

East Side Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania, 

USA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000h. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1998. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000i. 

The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management 

and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and 

New Direction, Proceedings of a Special Workshop. 

Nashville, TN. General Technical Report NE-288. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-36 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2001, 

"The Built Environment Image Guide" FS-710. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001a. 

Re-evaluation of ANF Soils Monitoring Data for FY 

1990-FY 2000. August 7. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001b. 

National Strategy for Special Forest Products, FS713. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001c. 

Duck Creek/Swains Roads Analysis. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001d. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 1999. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001e. 

Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District, 

Roads Analysis Report, Lewis Run Project – 2001, 

Version 1.0. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001f. 

Draft Watershed Integrity Ranking for the Allegheny 

National Forest. Warren, PA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and The 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. 2001g. 

1999-2000 National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report-Fiscal Year 2000. Warren, 

Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002a. 

Spring Creek Roads Analysis Report. Version 1.0. 

Allegheny National Forest, Marienville Ranger 

District. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002b. 

National Visitor use Monitoring Results, unpublished 

data. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002c. 

Managing Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in 

Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive Environments. 

Missoula, Montana, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002d. 

Forest Service Handbook, Soil Management, Chapter 

2 – Soil Quality Monitoring; Region 9 interim 

directive. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002e. 

County Line – Fourmile Roads Analysis Report. 

Warren, Pennsylvania, USA: Bradford District, 

Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002f. 

Conservation Assessment for Cerulean Warbler. 

Compiled by D.E. Burhans for USDA Forest Service 

Eastern Region. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002g. 

Pest Alert, Sudden Oak Death. NA-PR-02-02. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and 

Private Forestry, Northeastern Area. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002h. 

Buffer strip effectiveness monitoring for water 

quality during and after herbicide application. 

Warren, PA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. 

2003 Storm Assessment, Addendum B. Warren, PA: 

Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003a. 

Sugar Run Project, Appendix D, Biological 

Assessment. Warren, PA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003b. 

Allegheny National Forest Forest-wide Roads 

Analysis: Version 1.0. Warren Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003c. 

Sugar Run Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

Warren, Pennsylvania, USA: Allegheny National 

Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003d. 

Spring Creek Project Roads Analysis Report. Version 

1.0. Allegheny National Forest, Marienville Ranger 

District. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003e. 

Spring Creek Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed 

Scale (EAWS). Allegheny National Forest, 

Marienville Ranger District. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003f. 

Prescribed Burn Project Environmental Assessment. 

Bradford, Pennsylvania, USA: Bradford Ranger 

District, Allegheny National Forest. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-37 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003g. 

Endangered and Threatened Species Monitoring on 

the Allegheny National Forest. FY 2002. Compliance 

with the Terms and Conditions in the Biological 

Opinion. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004a. 

Allegheny National Forest. 2003 Storm Assessment 

Addendum. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004b. 

2004 Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Survey Results. 

Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004c. 

Allegheny National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report – Fiscal Year 2001. Warren, PA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004d. 

Martin Run Roads Analysis: Version 1.0. page 16. 

Marienville PA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004e. 

The State of the Forest: A Snapshot of Pennsylvania's 

Updated Forest Inventory 2004: NA-FR-03-04. 

USDA Forest Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004f. 

Sudden Oak Death, Protecting America’s Woodlands 

from Phytopthora ramorum. FS-794. USDA Forest 

Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004g. 

FR 127 Implementation Monitoring Review - 

8/24/2004 . Warren, PA: Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004h. 

Pest Alert, Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora 

glabripennis): A New Introduction. NA-PR-01-

99GEN. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. A 

compilation of Species Viability Evaluation Data 

Collection Forms for the Allegheny National Forest. 

Warren, PA: Allegheny National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005a. 

Forest Service Handbook, Soil Management, 

Chapter 2 – Soil Quality Monitoring; Region 9 

supplement. Supplement Number R9RO 2509.18-

2005-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005b. 

Forest Inventory and Analysis National Core Field 

Guide. Volume 1: Field Data Collection Procedures 

for Phase 2 plots. Version 3.0. Northeast Edition. pp 

119-126. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. 

Ecological Context for the Allegheny National 

Forest. 162 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

unpublished. Allegheny National Forest NVUM 

Survey Data 2000-2001. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

unpublished. Strategic Plan. Four Threats to the 

Health of the Nation's Forests and Grasslands. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Allegheny National Forest. 1991. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Understory 

Vegetation Management. Warren, PA: USDA Forest 

Service, Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Allegheny National Forest. 2000. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the East Side 

Project, Appendix F. Warren, PA: USDA Forest 

Service, Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Allegheny 

National Forest. unpublished. Draft Document. 

Results of 1996 Uneven-aged Management Survey. 

November 1997. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Allegheny National Forest, The Pennsylvania State 

Historic Preservation Officer, The Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation. 2005. Programmatic 

Agreement regarding the process for compliance with 

section 106 of the national historic preservation act 

for undertakings on the Allegheny National Forest of 

the eastern region of the USDA forest service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

unpublished. 1999-2000 National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-38 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station . 

unpublished. Forest Statistics for the Allegheny 

National Forest - 1989. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. Various data tables profiling economic and 

demographic summaries at varying levels of intensity 

[Web Page]. Located at: http://bea.gov. Accessed 

2006 Feb. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1977. National Wetlands Inventory prepared by 

Office of Biological Services for the National 

Wetlands Inventory. Newton Corner, MA 01258. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1992. Revised Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria 

medeoloides) Recovery Plan. Concord, New 

Hampshire. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

1999. Biological Opinion on the Impacts of Forest 

Management and Other Activities to the Bald Eagle, 

Indiana Bat, Clubshell and Northern Riffleshell on 

the Allegheny National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2000. Correspondence from David Densmore, 

Supervisor, to John Palmer, Forest Supervisor, 

Allegheny National Forest amending Biological 

Opinion on the Impacts of Forest Management and 

Other Activities to the Bald Eagle, Indiana Bat, 

Clubshell and Northern Riffleshell on the ANF. State 

College, Pennsylvania, USA. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2002. Letter from Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 

to Regional Directors, Subject: Alternative 

Approaches for Streamlining Section 7 Consultation 

on Hazardous Fuels Treatment Projects. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2005a. Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. A joint 

document prepared by The Edison Electric Institute’s 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 83 pp. 

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 1982. 

North Country National Scenic Trail Comprehensive 

Plan for Management and Use. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. A survey of freshwater 

mussel populations at West Hickory Bridge 

Alternative 2 and 3 on the Allegheny River, MP 

158.9, State Rt. 0127, Section B00, Forest Co., PA. A 

report submitted to PennDOT, District 1-0 Oil City, 

PA. Kearneysville, WV: Leetown Science Center. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. 

Emission Standards Reference Guide for Heavy-Duty 

and Nonroad Engines. EPA420-F-97-014. Air and 

radiation. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. 

Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated 

Database. eGRID Version 2.01 [electronic database]. 

2003. 2002 Emissions Data. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. 

Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for 

Nonroad Engine Modeling - Compression Ignition. 

EPA420-P-04-009. Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. 

Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine 

Modeling - Spark Ignition. EPA420-P-04-010. 

Assessment and Standards Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. 

Green Book [Web Page]. Located at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk. Accessed 

2005 Sep 29. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Assessment and Standards Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality. 2002. Frequently 

Asked Questions from ATV Riders. EPA420-F-02-

038. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of 

Air and Radiation Clean Air Markets Division. 2003. 

Acid Rain Program 2002 Progress Report.” EPA 

Publication EPA-430-R-03-001. Washington DC. 

Urban C. 2005. The Timber Rattlesnake: Pennsylvania’s 

Uncanny Mountain Denizen. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-39 

Urban DL, et al. 1987. In Chambers, Carol L. et. al. 1995. 

Linking Reserve Areas: Using Animal Responses to 

Silvicultural Systems as Models for Management for 

Management. Corvallis, Oregon. Pages 9-17. In: 

Sustainable Society and Protected Areas in 

Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Research and 

Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. 

April 17-21, 1995. 

Van Breemen N, P.A. Burrough, E.J. Velthorst, H.F. van 

Dobben, Toke de Wit, T.B. Ridder, H.F.R. Rijinders. 

1982. Soil acidification from atmospheric ammonium 

sulphate in forest canopy throughfall. Nature 

(299):548-50. 

Van Dorp D, P.F.M. Opdam. 1987. In Davidson, C. 1998. 

Issues in Measuring Landscape Fragmentation. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin (26):32-7. 

Vannote RL, G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, 

C.E. Cushing. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science 

(37):130-6. 

Vaughan DM. 2002. Potential Impact of Road-Stream 

Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream Passage of 

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Portland, Oregon: The 

Xerces Society; Report submitted to the U.S. Forest 

Service, San Dimas Technology and Development 

Center. 

Verry ES, J. W. Hornbeck, C. A. Dollof. 2000. Riparian 

Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern 

United States. Boca Raton: Lewis Publisher. 

Villella RF, Smith DR. 2002. A survey of the freshwater 

mussel populations at Hunter Station on the 

Allegheny River. USGS, Biological Resource 

Division, Leetown Science Center/Aquatic Ecology 

Laboratory. 

von Oettigen SL. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia Recovery 

Plan First Revision. Newton Corner, Mass: USFWS. 

Vora RS. 1994. Integrating old-growth forest into 

managed landscapes: A northern Great Lakes 

perspective. Natural Areas Journal (14):113-23. 

Wall MA, Timmerman-Erskine M, Boyd RS. 2003. 

Conservation Impact of Climatic Variability on 

Pollination of the Federally Endangered Plant, 

Clematis socialis (Ranunculaceae). Southeastern 

Naturalist 2(2):11-24. 

Wallace AFC. 1969. The Death and Rebirth of the 

Seneca. New York, New York, USA: Random 

House. 

Wallace PAW. 1981. Indians in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, USA: Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission. 

Walters RS, Auchmoody LR. 1993. Factors Limiting 

Northern Red Oak Reproduction in Pennsylvania. In: 

Gillespie AR, Parker GR, Pope PE, Rink G. 9th 

Central Hardwood Forest Conference, General 

Technical Report NC-161Purdue University, West 

Lafayette, IN. USDA North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Ward JS, Montgomery ME, Cheah CASJ, Onken BP, 

Cowles RS. 2004. Eastern Hemlock Forest: 

Guidelines to Minimize the Impacts of Hemlock 

Woolly Adelgid. NA-TP-03-04. Morgantown, WV: 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State & 

Private Forestry. 

Waring KM, O'Hara KL. 2005. Silvicultural strategies in 

forest ecosystems affected by introduced pests. Forest 

Ecology and Management 209:27-41. 

Warren BH. 1890. Birds of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA. 

Warren County Planning and Zoning Commission . 2005. 

Warren County Comprehensive Plan Update, August 

2005. 

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Version 

2000.05.24. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA: 

Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion 

Research Laboratory. 

Weakland CA, P.B. Wood. 2005. Cerulean Warbler 

(Dendroica cerulean) microhabitat and landscapelevel habitat characteristics in southern West 

Virginia. The Auk. 122(2):497-508. Quoted In: P.B. 

Hamel and K.V. Rosenberg. 2006. Developing 

management guidelines for cerulean warbler breeding 

habitat. Proceedings of the 15th Central Hardwoods 

Forest Conference. Knoxville, TN. in press. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-40 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Weaver WE, D. K. Hagans, J. H. Popenoe. 1995. 

Magnitude and causes of gully erosion in the lower 

Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. In: 

Nolan, K. M., H. M. Kelsey, and D. C. Marron (eds.). 

Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the 

Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. 

Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Webb WL, D. F. Behrend, B. Saisorn. 1977. Effect of 

Logging on Songbird Populations in a Northern 

Hardwood Forest. Wildlife Monographs. No. 55. 

Weigel DR, G. R. Parker. 1995. Tree Regeneration 

Following Group Selection Harvesting in Southern 

Indiana. Tenth Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 

Weigel DR. 1994. The Regeneration of Group Selection 

Openings in Southern Indiana, Technical Brief TBNC-3. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 

Welsch DJ, D. L. Smart, J. N. Boyer, P. Minken, H. C. 

Smith, T. L. McCandless. 1995. Forested Wetlands: 

Functions, Benefits, and the use of Best Management 

Practices; NA-PR-01-95. Radnor, Pennsylvania, 

USA: USDA Forest Service, Northern Area State and 

Private Forestry. 

Wemple BC, J. A. Jones, G. E. Grant. 1996. Channel 

network extension by logging roads in two basins, 

western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 

32(6):1195-207. 

Wendell GW, Della-Bianca L, Russell J., and KF 

Lancaster. 1983. Eastern White Pine Including 

Eastern Hemlock. pp. 131-134. In: Burns, R.M. 1983. 

Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of 

the United States; Agriculture Handbook No. 445. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 

Werner SM, Raffa KF. 2000. Effects of forest 

management practices on the diversity of groundoccurring beetles in mixed northern hardwood forests 

of the Great Lakes Region. Forest Ecology and 

Management (139):135-55. 

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 1989. Allegheny 

National Forest Wetland Rare plant survey. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA : Western 

Pennsylvania Conservancy. 

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 2001. Survey 

Strategy for Small Whorled-Pogonia (Isotria 

medeoloides) in the Allegheny National Forest. 

Pittsburgh, PA. 

Wharton EH, R.H. Widman. 2001. The Northeast Region. 

In United States Timber Industry - An Assessment of 

Timber Product Output and Use, 1996. Edited by 

Tony G. Johnson. Ashville, NC: USDA Forest 

Service. Southern Research Station. 

White DH, B.R. Chapman, J.H. Brunjes IV, R.V. 

Raftovich Jr., J.T. Seginak. 1999. Abundance and 

Reproduction of Songbirds in Burned and Unburned 

Pine Forests of the Georgia Piedmont. Quoted In: 

USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in Nongame 

Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: 

Traditional Uses and New Directions, Proceedings of 

a Special Workshop. Nashville TN. General 

Technical report NE-288. 

Whitney G. 1984. Fifty years of change in the arboreal 

vegetation of Heart’s Content, an old-growth 

hemlock-white pine-northern hardwood stand. 

Ecology (65):403-8. 

Whitney GG. 1994. From coastal wilderness to fruited 

plain; a history of environmental change in temperate 

North America, 1500-present. Cambridge, U.K.: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Wilderness Act. 1964. P.L. 88-577, 1964. RR6 p129. 

Wildlife Society. 2004. Special Coverage: Forest 

Herbicides and Biodiversity. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 32(4):1016-77. 

Williams CE. 1994. Inventory of special concern plants 

and unique natural communities: Clarion River and 

Mill Creek corridors, northwestern Pennsylvania. 

Clarion, Pennsylvania, USA: Clarion University. 

Williams CE. 1996. Variation in Herbaceous Layer 

Species Richness, Biomass and Cover in Allegheny 

Plateau Riparian Forests. Report No. 96-1. Clarion, 

Pennsylvania, USA: Program in Applied Ecology, 

Clarion University. 

Williams CE, G. E. Baumer, W. J. Moriarity. 2005. 

Ecological Landtype Mapping Unit Legend for the 

Allegheny National Forest. April 6, 2005. Warren, 

PA: Allegheny National Forest. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-41 

Williams CE, William J. Moriarity. 1999. Composition 

and Structure of Hemlock-Dominated Riparian 

Forests of the Northern Allegheny Plateau: A 

Baseline Assessment. Proceedings: Symposium on 

Sustainable Management of Hemlock Ecosystems in 

Eastern North America. GTR-NE-267. 

Williams W. 2004. When blade meets bat. Scientific 

American. 

Witmer GW, D.S. deCalesta. 1992. The need and 

difficulty of bringing the Pennsylvania deer herd 

under control. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control 

Conf. (5):130-7. 

Woldendorp G, R.J. Keenan, S. Barry, R.D. Spencer. 

2004. Analysis of sampling methods for coarse 

woody debris. Forest Ecology and Management 

(198):133-48. 

Wood GW. 1981. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in 

Southern Forests. Quoted In: USDA FS 2000. The 

Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management and 

Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New 

Directions, Proceedings of a Special Workshop. 

Nashville, TN. General Technical Report NE-288. 

Wood GW, S.K. Cox, S.E. Perry. 2000. A collaborative 

adaptive management plan for Clemson University 

Experimental Forest Trail System. Clemson, South 

Carolina, USA: Clemson University, School of 

Natural Resources. 

Wood PB, J.P. Duguay, J.V. Nichols. 2005. Cerulean 

Warbler use of regenerated clearcut and two-age 

harvests. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33:851-858. 

Quoted In: P.B. Hamel. 2006. Adaptive Forest 

Management for Cerulean Warbler. Proceedings of 

Society of American Foresters National Convention. 

in press. 

Woodrey MS. 1986. In Brauning, D.W. 1992. Atlas of 

Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, USA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 

Wunz GA. 1987. Wildlife Habitat Management in 

Overbrowsed Forests. In: Proceedings of Deer, 

Forestry, and Agriculture: Interactions and Strategies 

for Management. Warren, PA. 

Wykoff, William R. 1986. Supplement to The User's 

Guide for The Stand Prognosis Model-version 

5.0 General Technical Report INT-208. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station; 1986. 36 pp. 

Yedlowski JL, J.M. Adovasio, M.R. Buyce, A.G. Quinn. 

1998. Habitations or Way Stations? Rockshelter 

utilization in the Minister Creek drainage, Allegheny 

National Forest, Pennsylvania. Seattle, Washington. 

Zaczek JJ, Joseph Harding, James Welfey. 1997. Impact 

of Soil Scarification on the Composition of 

Regeneration and Species Diversity in an Oak 

Shelterwood. In: Proceedings, 11th Central hardwood 

Forest Conference. Columbia, Missouri. March 23-

26, 1997. General Technical Report NC-188. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experimental Station. 

Zaremba RE, et al. 2002. High Allegheny Plateau (HAL) 

Ecoregional Plan. Final Draft Report. Boston, MA: 

Eastern Conservation Science, The Nature 

Conservancy. 

Zimmerman GL. 1984. Analysis of arboreal vegetation 

and a test of species alternation between hemlock and 

beech at the Tionesta Research Natural Area in 

northwestern Pennsylvania. PhD Dissertation. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 

Zinn HC, Voorhees SS, Shen SX. 2006. Social 

Assessment for the Allegheny National Forest. 

University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism 

Management. Unpublished. 

Zinn HC, Wang GA, Tung YF, Kerstetter DL, Graefe 

AR. 2003. Stakeholder characteristics, forest value 

orientations and management preferences for the 

Allegheny National Forest: Report on a 2002 Survey. 

University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 

Recreation and Park Management Program. 

Zinn HC, Yi-Fan Tung, Grace Wang. 2002. Stakeholders’ 

Forest Value Orientations and Management 

Preferences for the Allegheny National Forest. The 

Pennsylvania State University Recreation and Park 

Management Program and Western Washington 

University. 
Chapter 7. Reference List

7-42 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 
 

Chapter 8 

Index 

Photo courtesy of R Hokans, US Forest Service 

Chapter 8. Index

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-1 

8 INDEX

3

303(d) list, 3-28, 3-50, 3-51 

A

Accessibility, 3-294, 3-301, 3-383 

Age class, 1-1, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 2-33, 2-36, 2-39, 2-50, 2-54, 3-39, 

3-44, 3-77, 3-84, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-93, 3-105, 3-106, 3-108, 

3-109, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-117, 3-118, 3-126, 3-127, 3-

131, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-141, 3-142, 3-144, 

3-147, 3-149, 3-150, 3-157, 3-159, 3-170, 3-182, 3-183, 3-

184, 3-196, 3-220, 3-362, 3-372, 3-378, 3-389 

air quality, 6-23

Air quality, 2-16, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 

3-63, 4-2, 4-3 

Carbon monoxide, 3-55, 3-58, 3-61 

NAAQS standards, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-57, 3-59, 3-63 

Nitrogen oxide, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58 

Ozone, 2-16, 2-23, 3-54, 3-57, 3-59, 3-100, 3-182 

Particulate matter, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-279 

Sulfur dioxide, 3-27, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58 

All terrain vehicles, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 

2-17, 2-24, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-35, 2-36, 2-38, 2-41, 2-46, 2-

48, 2-52, 2-58, 3-10, 3-13, 3-14, 3-19, 3-21, 3-37, 3-38, 3-50, 

3-51, 3-57, 3-61, 3-62, 3-65, 3-224, 3-225, 3-227, 3-243, 3-

246, 3-247, 3-249, 3-251, 3-264, 3-266, 3-267, 3-277, 3-303, 

3-304, 3-305, 3-306, 3-308, 3-311, 3-313, 3-320, 3-321, 3-

322, 3-325, 3-337, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 3-364, 3-365, 3-372, 

3-373, 3-377, 3-379, 3-431, 3-432, 3-433, 3-440 

Allegany State Park, 3-1, 3-182, 3-198, 3-200, 3-270, 3-307, 3-

422 

Allegheny Front, 1-20, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-33, 3-22, 3-23, 

3-25, 3-44, 3-50, 3-194, 3-225, 3-226, 3-228, 3-252, 3-330, 

3-331, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-340, 3-341, 3-343, 3-344, 3-

353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-359 

Allegheny hardwood, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-

16, 2-23, 2-55, 3-84, 3-86, 3-87, 3-90, 3-102, 3-117, 3-118, 

3-123, 3-132, 3-133, 3-135, 3-138, 3-141, 3-148, 3-149, 3-

152, 3-155, 3-159, 3-160, 3-164, 3-165, 3-169, 3-182, 3-183, 

3-216, 3-227, 3-363, 3-369, 3-395 

Allegheny Reservoir, 1-17, 2-5, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-31, 2-37, 

3-4, 3-6, 3-21, 3-26, 3-28, 3-180, 3-183, 3-191, 3-205, 3-209, 

3-210, 3-223, 3-258, 3-264, 3-279, 3-283, 3-301, 3-303, 3-

312, 3-334, 3-340, 3-345, 3-353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-357, 3-448 

Allegheny River, 2-3, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-18, 3-2, 3-4, 3-22, 3-23, 

3-28, 3-30, 3-80, 3-130, 3-165, 3-180, 3-181, 3-190, 3-200, 

3-209, 3-210, 3-211, 3-224, 3-252, 3-258, 3-259, 3-261, 3-

264, 3-265, 3-279, 3-282, 3-283, 3-284, 3-285, 3-286, 3-289, 

3-316, 3-344, 3-346, 3-350, 3-353, 3-362, 3-378, 3-399, 3-

420, 3-422 

Allegheny Snowmobile Loop, 3-303, 3-306, 3-307, 3-334 

Allowable sale quantity, 1-1, 1-5, 1-6, 1-12, 1-13, 1-21, 2-4, 2-

18, 2-25, 2-30, 2-32, 2-56, 3-155, 3-385, 3-389, 3-390, 3-393, 

3-394, 3-395, 3-396, 3-413 

Analysis of Timber Harvest Program Capability Report, 1-1, 1-

13, 2-56, 3-155, 3-390 

Aquatic invertebrates, 2-15, 2-22, 2-25, 3-181, 3-184, 3-203, 3-

204, 3-223, 3-224, 3-246, 3-247, 3-275, 3-276, 3-284 

Asian longhorned beetle, 3-104 

ASQ, 1, 6-2, 6-24, 6-26

Atmospheric deposition, 1-11, 1-21, 2-16, 2-23, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 

3-19, 3-27, 3-28, 3-49, 3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 3-58, 3-83, 3-88, 3-

101, 3-102, 3-123, 3-126, 3-131, 3-162, 3-174, 3-175, 3-183, 

3-213, 3-265, 3-268, 3-273, 3-277, 3-279, 3-420 

ATV, 1, 6-2

B

Bald eagle, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 2-42, 3-180, 3-185, 3-206, 3-209, 

3-210, 3-258, 3-288, 3-289, 3-306 

Bear Creek, 2-18, 2-20, 3-348, 3-349 

Beech bark disease, 1-11, 2-55, 3-82, 3-87, 3-91, 3-93, 3-94, 3-

97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-101, 3-103, 3-109, 3-116, 3-120, 3-121, 3-

127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-131, 3-132, 3-135, 3-142, 3-143, 3-148, 

3-150, 3-152, 3-162, 3-164, 3-174, 3-176, 3-179, 3-183, 3-

246, 3-262, 3-263, 3-275, 3-279, 3-322, 3-352, 3-379, 3-389 

Best management practices, 3-20, 3-32, 3-33, 3-36, 3-43, 3-48, 

3-50, 3-51, 3-263, 3-275, 3-288 

Best Management Practices, 1 

Bicycle, 2-5, 2-25, 3-14, 3-15, 3-308, 3-313, 3-358 

Bluejay/Duhring, 3-250, 3-251, 3-305, 3-320, 3-321, 3-325, 3-

326 

BMPs, 6-3

Browse, 1-11, 1-14, 3-26, 3-78, 3-87, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-95, 3-

106, 3-111, 3-117, 3-119, 3-121, 3-123, 3-127, 3-129, 3-138, 

3-139, 3-142, 3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-150, 3-152, 3-

154, 3-156, 3-158, 3-165, 3-167, 3-169, 3-172, 3-173, 3-204, 

3-214, 3-218, 3-341 

Buzzard Swamp Wildlife Management Area, 2-41, 2-46, 2-55, 

3-106, 3-126, 3-191, 3-209, 3-248, 3-308, 3-315, 3-324, 3-

376, 3-395 

C

campground, 6-6

Campground, 1-17, 2-25, 2-29, 2-41, 2-42, 2-53, 3-29, 3-295, 3-

297, 3-300, 3-301, 3-302, 3-307, 3-308, 3-323, 3-328, 3-332, 
Chapter 8. Index

8-2 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

3-334, 3-340, 3-341, 3-346, 3-350, 3-353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-

357, 3-358, 3-361, 3-377, 3-382 

campgrounds, 3-302, 6-6

Carbon monoxide, 3-55, 3-58, 3-61 

Cerulean warbler, 2-16, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 3-184, 3-187, 3-188, 

3-195, 3-198, 3-199, 3-200, 3-201, 3-206, 3-208, 3-213, 3-

233, 3-234, 3-235, 3-236, 3-237, 3-238, 3-239, 3-260, 3-270, 

3-271, 3-272 

Chapman, 3-80, 3-250, 3-305, 3-307, 3-320, 3-321, 3-448 

Cherry scallop shell moth, 3-93, 3-102, 3-174, 3-341 

Chestnut blight, 3-82, 3-97, 3-100 

Chestnut Ridge, 1-20, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 3-194, 3-

225, 3-227, 3-229, 3-266, 3-300, 3-321, 3-322, 3-328, 3-331, 

3-334, 3-336, 3-337, 3-342, 3-343, 3-344 

Civil rights, 3-433, 3-435 

Clarion Creek, 3-348, 3-349 

Clarion River, 1-3, 1-17, 1-20, 2-6, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-18, 2-19, 

2-25, 2-27, 2-28, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-44, 3-85, 3-130, 3-

183, 3-190, 3-194, 3-209, 3-228, 3-284, 3-288, 3-303, 3-317, 

3-318, 3-319, 3-330, 3-338, 3-344, 3-345, 3-346, 3-347, 3-

348, 3-349, 3-350, 3-351, 3-352, 3-422 

Clean Air Act, 3-52, 3-62 

Coal, 3-3, 3-5, 3-7, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-63, 3-75, 3-208, 3-

437 

Congressionally designated areas, 1-2, 1-5, 1-12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-

20, 2-3, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-18, 2-20, 2-

25, 2-27, 2-28, 2-36, 2-37, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-46, 3-4, 3-126, 

3-130, 3-152, 3-192, 3-211, 3-225, 3-252, 3-299, 3-307, 3-

308, 3-315, 3-316, 3-317, 3-323, 3-324, 3-329, 3-331, 3-332, 

3-333, 3-337, 3-338, 3-340, 3-341, 3-344, 3-345, 3-348, 3-

349, 3-350, 3-352, 3-353, 3-354, 3-355, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 

3-359, 3-363, 3-364, 3-368, 3-374, 3-377, 3-392, 3-395, 3-

422, 3-448, 4-8 

Allegheny Islands Wilderness, 2-5, 3-4, 3-330, 3-331, 3-332, 

3-333, 3-335, 3-340, 3-346, 3-353, 3-354, 3-364, 3-368 

Hearts Content, 1-20, 2-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-27, 2-28, 2-43, 

2-54, 3-4, 3-91, 3-186, 3-212, 3-302, 3-307, 3-308, 3-317, 

3-318, 3-319, 3-323, 3-330, 3-332, 3-338, 3-354, 3-361, 3-

364, 3-365, 3-366, 3-368, 3-379 

Hickory Creek Wilderness, 2-5, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 

3-4, 3-27, 3-181, 3-182, 3-192, 3-194, 3-226, 3-228, 3-

266, 3-267, 3-299, 3-300, 3-307, 3-308, 3-330, 3-331, 3-

332, 3-335, 3-340, 3-353, 3-354, 3-361, 3-364, 3-368 

National Recreation Area, 1-2, 1-5, 1-18, 1-20, 2-3, 2-6, 2-9, 

2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-20, 2-27, 2-28, 2-36, 2-37, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-46, 3-4, 3-126, 3-130, 3-152, 3-192, 3-225, 3-252, 3-

299, 3-307, 3-308, 3-315, 3-323, 3-324, 3-329, 3-331, 3-

337, 3-340, 3-341, 3-352, 3-353, 3-354, 3-355, 3-356, 3-

357, 3-358, 3-359, 3-363, 3-364, 3-368, 3-392, 3-448, 4-8 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-8, 2-9, 2-18, 2-25, 

2-44, 3-329, 3-344, 3-345, 3-346, 3-348, 3-349, 3-350, 3-

352, 3-354, 4-8 

Wilderness study areas, 1-20, 2-3, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-

27, 2-28, 2-33, 3-22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-44, 3-50, 3-194, 3-225, 

3-226, 3-227, 3-228, 3-229, 3-252, 3-266, 3-299, 3-300, 3-

303, 3-318, 3-319, 3-321, 3-322, 3-328, 3-330, 3-331, 3-

334, 3-335, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-340, 3-341, 3-342, 3-

343, 3-344, 3-353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-359 

Conifer forest type, 1-7, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-38, 3-33, 3-39, 

3-85, 3-89, 3-90, 3-98, 3-113, 3-124, 3-133, 3-134, 3-140, 3-

141, 3-142, 3-144, 3-175, 3-182, 3-183, 3-184, 3-188, 3-195, 

3-196, 3-197, 3-202, 3-213, 3-221, 3-248, 3-260, 3-262, 3-

268, 3-281, 3-282, 3-342, 3-361, 3-386 

Connectivity, 1-2, 1-13, 1-16, 2-21, 2-34, 3-36, 3-39, 3-105, 3-

138, 3-140, 3-191, 3-192, 3-213, 3-228, 3-229, 3-241, 3-255, 

3-260, 3-266, 3-267, 3-272, 3-274, 3-432 

Cook Forest, 3-1, 3-171, 3-347, 3-367, 3-422 

Core areas, 1-16, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-39, 2-44, 3-140, 3-182, 

3-191, 3-192, 3-193, 3-213, 3-228, 3-229, 3-230, 3-241, 3-

266, 3-267, 3-274, 3-299, 3-422, 3-423, 3-424, 3-425, 3-426, 

3-427, 4-1 

D

Deer herbivory, 1-9, 2-34, 3-78, 3-82, 3-87, 3-88, 3-92, 3-93, 3-

94, 3-95, 3-106, 3-108, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-114, 3-116, 3-

119, 3-121, 3-123, 3-124, 3-127, 3-129, 3-138, 3-139, 3-141, 

3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-150, 3-154, 3-156, 3-158, 3-162, 3-

164, 3-166, 3-167, 3-169, 3-172, 3-173, 3-175, 3-184, 3-245, 

3-278, 3-378 

Deer Management Assistance Program, 1-15, 2-5, 3-95, 3-156 

Defoliation, 2-5, 2-43, 3-78, 3-80, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-

101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-109, 3-126, 3-131, 3-145, 3-174, 3-203, 

3-263, 3-268, 3-273, 3-277, 3-342 

design speed, 6-25

developed recreation, 6-7, 6-11

Developed recreation, 1-17, 1-18, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-20, 2-

36, 2-41, 2-45, 3-31, 3-104, 3-183, 3-296, 3-300, 3-301, 3-

312, 3-313, 3-316, 3-326, 3-327, 3-328, 3-334, 3-350, 3-355, 

3-446 

Dispersed recreation, 1-2, 1-17, 1-18, 1-21, 2-9, 2-20, 2-39, 2-

40, 2-41, 2-43, 3-31, 3-66, 3-130, 3-296, 3-303, 3-311, 3-312, 

3-326, 3-328, 3-346, 3-347, 3-364, 3-369, 3-371, 3-382, 3-

383, 3-441 

disturbance, 6-5, 6-8, 6-20, 6-21

Disturbance, 1-8, 1-9, 1-16, 1-18, 1-21, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 2-

19, 2-25, 2-33, 2-34, 2-39, 2-51, 2-59, 3-2, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-

11, 3-15, 3-31, 3-32, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 3-75, 3-78, 

3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-83, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-95, 3-

108, 3-114, 3-127, 3-128, 3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-138, 

3-141, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-149, 3-150, 3-152, 3-162, 3-

163, 3-166, 3-170, 3-180, 3-181, 3-182, 3-183, 3-184, 3-191, 

3-193, 3-194, 3-195, 3-197, 3-199, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-

209, 3-214, 3-215, 3-221, 3-226, 3-227, 3-231, 3-232, 3-234, 
Chapter 8. Index

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-3 

3-241, 3-243, 3-244, 3-245, 3-247, 3-249, 3-258, 3-266, 3-

267, 3-268, 3-270, 3-272, 3-273, 3-282, 3-291, 3-292, 3-293, 

3-295, 3-314, 3-319, 3-325, 3-328, 3-343, 3-344, 3-353, 3-

358, 3-361, 3-366, 3-368, 3-372, 3-373, 3-374, 3-377, 3-378, 

3-381, 3-382, 3-396, 3-399, 3-437, 3-444 

Climate change, 3-83 

Defoliation, 2-5, 2-43, 3-78, 3-80, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-

101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-109, 3-126, 3-131, 3-145, 3-174, 3-

203, 3-263, 3-268, 3-273, 3-277, 3-342 

Disease, 1-1, 1-7, 1-8, 1-11, 2-5, 2-23, 2-33, 2-43, 2-55, 3-11, 

3-31, 3-39, 3-41, 3-78, 3-80, 3-82, 3-90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-96, 

3-97, 3-98, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-110, 3-

111, 3-120, 3-126, 3-128, 3-132, 3-136, 3-141, 3-143, 3-

145, 3-147, 3-148, 3-152, 3-164, 3-174, 3-181, 3-183, 3-

268, 3-271, 3-273, 3-277, 3-286, 3-317, 3-328, 3-361, 3-

364, 3-367, 3-369, 3-370, 3-378, 3-396 

Drought, Drought, 3-78, 3-96, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-104, 3-

126, 3-130, 3-174, 3-181, 3-268, 3-273, 3-277 

Fire, 1-8, 1-9, 1-18, 2-53, 3-13, 3-14, 3-41, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 

3-60, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80, 3-90, 3-96, 3-125, 3-130, 3-155, 3-

165, 3-166, 3-181, 3-217, 3-218, 3-234, 3-242, 3-295, 3-

312, 3-333, 3-382, 3-396, 3-420, 4-1, 4-7 

Historical harvesting, 3-81, 3-184 

Ice storms, 3-80, 3-229, 3-317, 3-351 

White-tailed deer, 1-11, 1-14, 2-34, 3-26, 3-78, 3-82, 3-87, 3-

91, 3-93, 3-95, 3-106, 3-111, 3-114, 3-117, 3-119, 3-121, 

3-123, 3-127, 3-129, 3-142, 3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-

150, 3-154, 3-156, 3-158, 3-167, 3-169, 3-172, 3-173, 3-

218, 3-341 

Wind events, 1-8, 1-9, 3-31, 3-35, 3-39, 3-75, 3-78, 3-79, 3-

90, 3-91, 3-129, 3-141, 3-145, 3-181, 3-229, 3-292, 3-317, 

3-351, 3-361, 3-366, 3-367, 3-368, 3-373, 3-378, 3-389, 3-

390, 3-396 

Down woody debris, 2-15, 2-22, 3-11, 3-15, 3-90, 3-273 

Drought, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-100, 3-101, 3-109, 3-174, 3-183, 3-

239 

Duhring, 3-229, 3-250, 3-251, 3-305, 3-307, 3-308, 3-320, 3-

321, 3-325, 3-326 

E

Early structural forest, 1-14, 1-15, 2-3, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-

13, 2-19, 2-30, 2-32, 2-35, 2-36, 2-38, 2-39, 3-80, 3-109, 3-

131, 3-132, 3-135, 3-140, 3-141, 3-142, 3-144, 3-150, 3-152, 

3-156, 3-170, 3-182, 3-183, 3-184, 3-186, 3-195, 3-200, 3-

202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-213, 3-214, 3-215, 3-219, 3-221, 3-222, 

3-230, 3-237, 3-240, 3-241, 3-244, 3-245, 3-246, 3-247, 3-

248, 3-251, 3-260, 3-261, 3-262, 3-273, 3-274, 3-278, 3-279, 

3-293, 3-420, 3-446 

East Branch of Tionesta, 3-348, 3-349 

East Hickory, 3-27, 3-181, 3-182, 3-208, 3-317, 3-318, 3-319 

economic, 6-5, 6-7, 6-11, 6-12, 6-24

Economic, 1-3, 1-12, 1-20, 1-22, 2-26, 2-29, 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 3-

1, 3-68, 3-111, 3-118, 3-290, 3-359, 3-385, 3-387, 3-398, 3-

399, 3-400, 3-401, 3-402, 3-403, 3-404, 3-405, 3-407, 3-408, 

3-409, 3-410, 3-411, 3-412, 3-413, 3-414, 3-415, 3-416, 3-

417, 3-418, 3-419, 3-420, 3-421, 3-422, 3-424, 3-426, 3-429, 

3-433, 3-434, 3-435, 3-440, 3-441, 3-442, 3-443, 3-447, 3-

448, 4-1, 4-9 

Elm spanworm, 3-80, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-174, 3-216 

Endangered Species Act, 2-16, 3-198, 3-288 

Equestrian use, 1-2, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-5, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 

2-25, 2-36, 2-38, 2-41, 2-46, 2-52, 2-58, 3-10, 3-14, 3-15, 3-

17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-37, 3-42, 3-47, 3-64, 3-65, 3-213, 3-

243, 3-255, 3-274, 3-292, 3-293, 3-295, 3-303, 3-306, 3-307, 

3-311, 3-317, 3-319, 3-322, 3-323, 3-324, 3-325, 3-326, 3-

334, 3-356, 3-357, 3-373, 3-377, 3-398, 3-432 

Erosion, 1-18, 1-19, 1-21, 2-23, 2-26, 3-3, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-13, 

3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 3-

41, 3-49, 3-50, 3-68, 3-72, 3-182, 3-288, 3-303, 3-358, 3-377, 

3-378, 3-382, 3-444 

Even-aged management, 1-9, 1-10, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-30, 2-

32, 2-39, 2-49, 2-57, 3-11, 3-12, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-21, 3-87, 

3-109, 3-112, 3-116, 3-117, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-135, 3-

136, 3-139, 3-141, 3-145, 3-151, 3-152, 3-155, 3-159, 3-165, 

3-172, 3-176, 3-221, 3-375 

F

Fall cankerworm, 3-93, 3-174 

Fencing, 1-9, 1-15, 2-47, 2-51, 3-14, 3-48, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-

106, 3-108, 3-117, 3-120, 3-121, 3-123, 3-124, 3-143, 3-145, 

3-146, 3-147, 3-154, 3-156, 3-158, 3-168, 3-169, 3-172, 3-

173, 3-217, 3-218, 3-261, 3-262, 3-295, 3-341, 3-342, 3-375, 

3-397, 3-418 

fertilization, 6-22

Fertilization, 1-9, 2-47, 2-51, 3-12, 3-15, 3-16, 3-35, 3-106, 3-

123, 3-156, 3-158, 3-295 

Forest health, 1-1, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 2-4, 2-5, 2-19, 

2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-49, 2-55, 3-30, 3-39, 3-41, 3-51, 3-77, 3-

78, 3-82, 3-87, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-100, 3-103, 3-107, 3-109, 

3-110, 3-115, 3-116, 3-119, 3-126, 3-128, 3-130, 3-131, 3-

132, 3-133, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-144, 3-147, 3-148, 3-150, 

3-154, 3-162, 3-166, 3-174, 3-175, 3-183, 3-229, 3-239, 3-

268, 3-271, 3-290, 3-317, 3-351, 3-357, 3-378, 3-383, 3-393, 

3-396, 3-432, 3-433, 3-437 

Asian longhorned beetle, 3-104 

Beech bark disease, 1-11, 2-55, 3-82, 3-87, 3-91, 3-93, 3-94, 

3-97, 3-98, 3-101, 3-103, 3-109, 3-116, 3-120, 3-121, 3-

127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-131, 3-132, 3-135, 3-142, 3-143, 3-

148, 3-150, 3-152, 3-162, 3-164, 3-174, 3-176, 3-179, 3-

183, 3-262, 3-275, 3-279, 3-379 

Cherry scallop shell moth, 3-93, 3-102, 3-174, 3-341 

Chestnut blight, 3-82, 3-97, 3-100 
Chapter 8. Index

8-4 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Deer herbivory, 1-9, 2-34, 3-78, 3-82, 3-87, 3-88, 3-92, 3-93, 

3-94, 3-95, 3-106, 3-108, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-114, 3-

116, 3-119, 3-121, 3-123, 3-124, 3-127, 3-129, 3-138, 3-

139, 3-141, 3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-150, 3-154, 3-156, 3-

158, 3-162, 3-164, 3-166, 3-167, 3-169, 3-172, 3-173, 3-

175, 3-184, 3-245, 3-278, 3-378 

Defoliation, 2-5, 2-43, 3-78, 3-80, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-

101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-109, 3-126, 3-131, 3-145, 3-174, 3-

203, 3-263, 3-268, 3-273, 3-277, 3-342 

Elm spanworm, 3-80, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-174, 3-216 

Emerald ash borer, 3-82, 3-103, 3-104, 3-275, 3-276 

Fall cankerworm, 3-93, 3-174 

Forest health monitoring, 3-87, 3-94, 3-100, 3-103, 3-128, 3-

130, 3-166 

Forest tent caterpillar, 3-80, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-174 

Gypsy moth, 3-82, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-102, 3-109, 3-

174, 3-340, 3-341, 3-342, 3-389 

Hemlock woolly adelgid, 1-7, 1-11, 2-55, 3-33, 3-82, 3-91, 3-

93, 3-103, 3-104, 3-109, 3-116, 3-135, 3-142, 3-148, 3-

164, 3-174, 3-175, 3-188, 3-195, 3-198, 3-212, 3-261, 3-

262, 3-263, 3-268, 3-273, 3-275, 3-276, 3-279, 3-281, 3-

282, 3-379 

Insects and disease, Disturbance 

Insects and disease, 1-1, 1-8, 1-13, 2-5, 3-11, 3-78, 3-80, 

3-82, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-98, 3-103, 3-109, 3-110, 3-

111, 3-126, 3-141, 3-147, 3-148, 3-152, 3-174, 3-181, 

3-183, 3-203, 3-204, 3-221, 3-239, 3-246, 3-268, 3-

273, 3-276, 3-277, 3-283, 3-328, 3-361, 3-367, 3-369, 

3-370, 3-378, 3-393, 3-396 

Interfering plants, 1-9, 1-11, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 3-26, 3-30, 

3-45, 3-78, 3-82, 3-88, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-111, 3-114, 3-

119, 3-122, 3-123, 3-127, 3-129, 3-139, 3-143, 3-145, 3-

146, 3-150, 3-157, 3-173, 3-189, 3-208, 3-210, 3-211, 3-

214, 3-225, 3-265, 3-375, 3-378 

Ozone injury, 2-23, 3-54, 3-100 

Pear thrips, 3-82, 3-93, 3-96, 3-97, 3-174 

Soil nutrient limitations, 1-11, 3-93 

Sudden oak death, 3-82, 3-103, 3-105 

Sugar maple decline, 2-55, 3-101, 3-102, 3-109, 3-174, 3-363 

Tree mortality, 1-11, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-102, 3-110, 3-111, 

3-145, 3-146, 3-148, 3-171, 3-173, 3-277, 3-389, 3-394 

Windstorms, 3-78, 3-93, 3-126, 3-174, 3-183, 3-268, 3-273, 

3-277 

Forest health monitoring, 3-87, 3-94, 3-100, 3-103, 3-128, 3-

130, 3-166 

Forest products, 1-6, 1-7, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-56, 3-77, 3-81, 3-

110, 3-150, 3-152, 3-167, 3-173, 3-179, 3-303, 3-314, 3-380, 

3-382, 3-385, 3-393, 3-398, 3-418, 3-421, 3-431, 3-447, 4-3 

Forest tent caterpillar, 3-80, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-174 

G

Game species, 1-13, 1-15, 2-7, 2-15, 2-39, 2-40, 3-26, 3-82, 3-

180, 3-184, 3-188, 3-194, 3-195, 3-204, 3-205, 3-212, 3-217, 

3-221, 3-228, 3-230, 3-246, 3-247, 3-248, 3-249, 3-250, 3-

251, 3-260, 3-262, 3-279, 3-432 

Grunderville, 3-250, 3-320, 3-321 

Gypsy moth, 3-82, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-102, 3-109, 3-174, 

3-340, 3-341, 3-342, 3-389 

H

Habitat composition, 3-184, 3-188, 3-212, 3-213, 3-221, 3-225, 

3-260, 3-262, 3-279 

Habitat patterns, 1-13, 3-184, 3-191, 3-212, 3-213, 3-226, 3-260, 

3-265 

Habitat structure, 2-48, 2-52, 3-213, 3-260 

Hearts Content, 1-20, 2-5, 2-6, 2-11, 2-13, 2-27, 2-28, 2-43, 2-

54, 3-4, 3-91, 3-186, 3-212, 3-302, 3-307, 3-308, 3-317, 3-

318, 3-319, 3-323, 3-330, 3-332, 3-338, 3-354, 3-361, 3-364, 

3-365, 3-366, 3-368, 3-379 

herbicide, 6-4, 6-12

Herbicide, 1-1, 1-9, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-17, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 

2-47, 2-51, 3-12, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-41, 3-45, 3-46, 3-

58, 3-86, 3-88, 3-106, 3-114, 3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-

122, 3-126, 3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-157, 3-158, 3-168, 

3-172, 3-173, 3-212, 3-213, 3-215, 3-216, 3-217, 3-224, 3-

225, 3-226, 3-240, 3-244, 3-246, 3-247, 3-259, 3-265, 3-294, 

3-295, 3-340, 3-373, 3-375, 3-377, 3-433, 3-434, 3-435, 3-

436, 3-437, 3-438, 3-439, 3-441, 3-443, 3-444, 3-445, 4-3, 4-

8 

Herbicides, 1-9, 2-17, 2-24, 2-51, 3-14, 3-35, 3-36, 3-41, 3-42, 

3-45, 3-58, 3-119, 3-121, 3-122, 3-156, 3-215, 3-216, 3-224, 

3-225, 3-226, 3-246, 3-247, 3-258, 3-265, 3-294, 3-383, 3-

418, 3-433, 3-435, 3-436, 3-437, 3-438, 3-439, 3-440, 3-441, 

3-443, 3-444, 3-446 

heritage resources, 6-15

Heritage resources, 1-2, 2-43, 3-45, 3-206, 3-296, 3-345, 3-352, 

3-369, 3-380, 3-381, 3-382, 3-383, 3-384, 4-4 

Heritage Resources, 6-23

Highland, 3-250, 3-251, 3-305, 3-320, 3-321, 5-2, 5-4 

Hiking, 1-17, 1-18, 2-5, 2-18, 2-20, 2-30, 2-41, 2-52, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-38, 3-65, 3-297, 3-303, 3-307, 3-308, 3-309, 3-310, 3-313, 

3-323, 3-332, 3-333, 3-334, 3-343, 3-346, 3-353, 3-356, 3-

357, 3-358, 3-364, 3-365, 3-371, 3-431, 3-445 

Historic area, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-6, 2-10, 2-12, 2-14, 2-20, 2-43, 

2-46, 3-302, 3-315, 3-324, 3-346, 3-354, 3-360, 3-362, 3-365, 

3-369, 3-383, 3-395 

Human health, 1-1, 1-9, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-24, 3-34, 3-36, 3-

46, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 3-60, 3-122, 3-290, 3-433, 3-435, 3-436, 

3-437, 3-441 
Chapter 8. Index

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-5 

Hunting, 1-13, 1-15, 1-21, 2-7, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 3-73, 3-80, 3-

167, 3-180, 3-184, 3-188, 3-195, 3-204, 3-205, 3-212, 3-246, 

3-247, 3-248, 3-251, 3-262, 3-279, 3-303, 3-314, 3-319, 3-

332, 3-333, 3-343, 3-353, 3-356, 3-357, 3-379, 3-381, 3-413, 

3-420, 3-431, 3-432, 3-433 

I

Important Bird Areas, 3-182, 3-208 

Important Mammal Areas, 3-182 

Impoundments, 2-52, 3-26, 3-45, 3-183, 3-189, 3-190, 3-191, 3-

205, 3-209, 3-221, 3-223, 3-247, 3-253, 3-256, 3-263, 3-276, 

3-277, 3-279, 3-287, 3-345 

Indiana bat, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 3-209, 3-257, 3-258, 3-288, 6-10

Intensive Use Areas, 1-2, 1-19, 2-3, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-29, 

2-38, 2-46, 2-58, 3-17, 3-18, 3-38, 3-42, 3-48, 3-213, 3-224, 

3-227, 3-228, 3-229, 3-232, 3-233, 3-243, 3-249, 3-250, 3-

251, 3-252, 3-255, 3-266, 3-274, 3-293, 3-295, 3-305, 3-306, 

3-318, 3-320, 3-321, 3-322, 3-325, 3-326, 3-337, 3-398 

Interfering plants, 1-9, 1-11, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 3-26, 3-30, 3-

45, 3-78, 3-82, 3-87, 3-88, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-111, 3-114, 3-

119, 3-122, 3-123, 3-124, 3-125, 3-127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-139, 

3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-150, 3-157, 3-169, 3-173, 3-189, 3-

208, 3-210, 3-211, 3-214, 3-225, 3-265, 3-362, 3-375, 3-378 

K

Kane Experimental Forest, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-6, 2-10, 2-12, 2-

14, 2-43, 2-44, 2-46, 3-11, 3-36, 3-58, 3-62, 3-128, 3-299, 3-

314, 3-315, 3-324, 3-360, 3-362, 3-363, 3-364, 3-365, 3-369, 

3-370, 3-395 

Kinzua Creek, 1-20, 2-18, 3-23, 3-44, 3-189, 3-209, 3-305, 3-

345, 3-348, 3-349 

L

Lamentation Run, 2-20, 3-299, 3-317, 3-318, 3-319 

Late structural forest, 1-8, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 2-3, 2-7, 2-8, 

2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-21, 2-22, 2-28, 2-

39, 2-40, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-54, 2-57, 3-39, 3-41, 3-79, 

3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-112, 3-114, 3-117, 3-131, 3-132, 3-135, 

3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-

144, 3-147, 3-152, 3-159, 3-160, 3-171, 3-183, 3-184, 3-185, 

3-186, 3-187, 3-191, 3-192, 3-193, 3-195, 3-197, 3-204, 3-

212, 3-213, 3-219, 3-220, 3-221, 3-222, 3-227, 3-228, 3-229, 

3-230, 3-231, 3-233, 3-238, 3-241, 3-245, 3-248, 3-254, 3-

255, 3-256, 3-257, 3-260, 3-261, 3-262, 3-266, 3-273, 3-274, 

3-281, 3-287, 3-314, 3-315, 3-324, 3-361, 3-362, 3-364, 3-

366, 3-367, 3-368, 3-378, 3-389 

Longhouse, 1-20, 2-3, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 3-228, 3-250, 3-251, 3-

252, 3-303, 3-317, 3-318, 3-319, 3-320, 3-321, 3-322, 3-372, 

3-377 

M

maintenance level, 6-13

Management indicator species, 1-14, 2-3, 2-15, 2-22, 2-25, 3-

184, 3-194, 3-212, 3-213, 3-246, 3-260 

Aquatic invertebrates, 2-15, 2-22, 2-25, 3-181, 3-184, 3-203, 

3-204, 3-223, 3-224, 3-246, 3-247, 3-275, 3-276, 3-284 

Cerulean warbler, 2-16, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 3-184, 3-187, 3-

188, 3-198, 3-199, 3-200, 3-201, 3-208, 3-213, 3-233, 3-

234, 3-235, 3-236, 3-237, 3-238, 3-239, 3-270, 3-271, 3-

272 

Mourning warbler, 2-3, 2-22, 2-25, 3-184, 3-185, 3-195, 3-

202, 3-203, 3-213, 3-244, 3-245, 3-277, 3-278 

Northern goshawk, 2-22, 2-25, 3-194, 3-195, 3-196, 3-206, 3-

213, 3-230, 3-260, 3-268, 3-270, 3-281 

Timber rattlesnake, 2-3, 2-25, 3-180, 3-184, 3-201, 3-202, 3-

228, 3-230, 3-239, 3-240, 3-241, 3-242, 3-254, 3-255, 3-

272, 3-273, 3-274, 3-275, 3-282 

Management Indicator Species, 1, 6-14

Marienville ATV Trail, 3-305 

Marshburg, 3-250, 3-305, 3-306, 3-320, 3-321 

Migratory birds, 3-208, 3-257 

Minister Valley, 1-20, 2-3, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 3-

299, 3-300, 3-303, 3-318, 3-319, 3-328, 3-330, 3-331, 3-334, 

3-335, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-341, 3-342, 3-343, 3-344 

Morrison, 2-3, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 3-191, 3-192, 3-194, 3-227, 3-

228, 3-266, 3-299, 3-302, 3-317, 3-318, 3-319 

Mourning warbler, 2-3, 2-22, 2-25, 3-184, 3-185, 3-195, 3-202, 

3-203, 3-213, 3-244, 3-245, 3-277, 3-278 

N

National Environmental Policy Act, 3-36, 3-71, 4-1, 4-3, 4-7 

National Forest Management Act, 1-1, 1-4, 2-19, 3-179, 3-205 

National Visitor Use Monitoring, 3-297, 3-310, 3-332, 3-339, 3-

419, 3-431 

nitrogen, 6-16

Nitrogen, 2-16, 2-23, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-16, 3-33, 3-36, 3-53, 3-

54, 3-57, 3-58, 3-61, 3-98, 3-123, 3-295 

Nitrogen oxide, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58 

NNIS, 1, 6-16

Non-motorized recreation, 1-2, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 

2-11, 2-13, 2-18, 2-20, 2-30, 2-36, 2-38, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-

48, 2-52, 2-53, 2-58, 3-10, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-37, 3-38, 

3-47, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-72, 3-243, 3-255, 3-292, 

3-295, 3-297, 3-299, 3-300, 3-303, 3-304, 3-307, 3-308, 3-

309, 3-310, 3-311, 3-313, 3-316, 3-317, 3-319, 3-322, 3-323, 

3-325, 3-326, 3-328, 3-332, 3-333, 3-334, 3-343, 3-346, 3-

353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 3-359, 3-364, 3-365, 3-371, 

3-373, 3-398, 3-431, 3-432, 3-445, 3-446 

Non-native invasive species, 1-13, 1-15, 2-47, 2-51, 3-41, 3-82, 

3-132, 3-290, 3-291, 3-292, 3-293, 3-294, 3-295, 3-397 
Chapter 8. Index

8-6 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

North Country National Scenic Trail, 1-20, 2-6, 3-304, 3-307, 3-

313, 3-334, 3-342, 3-353, 3-359, 3-361, 3-372 

Northeastern bulrush, 1-14, 3-208, 3-209, 3-211, 3-259, 3-289 

Northern goshawk, 2-22, 2-25, 3-184, 3-185, 3-187, 3-193, 3-

194, 3-195, 3-196, 3-197, 3-206, 3-213, 3-228, 3-229, 3-230, 

3-231, 3-232, 3-233, 3-260, 3-268, 3-269, 3-270, 3-281, 3-

282, 3-361 

northern hardwood, 6-7

Northern hardwood, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-21, 2-23, 

2-43, 2-55, 3-80, 3-84, 3-86, 3-87, 3-90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-96, 3-

98, 3-102, 3-118, 3-126, 3-128, 3-129, 3-132, 3-133, 3-135, 

3-141, 3-144, 3-148, 3-149, 3-152, 3-155, 3-159, 3-160, 3-

164, 3-168, 3-174, 3-181, 3-182, 3-197, 3-202, 3-236, 3-273, 

3-363, 3-366, 3-378, 3-394 

Northern Research Station, 2-44, 3-240 

Northern riffleshell, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 3-180, 3-207, 3-209, 3-

210, 3-211, 3-258, 3-259, 3-284, 3-289 

O

oak, 6-14

Oak, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-15, 1-16, 2-2, 2-3, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-

12, 2-35, 2-36, 2-39, 2-48, 2-51, 2-54, 2-57, 3-14, 3-80, 3-83, 

3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 3-96, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-

105, 3-115, 3-117, 3-121, 3-122, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 

3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-140, 3-141, 3-

142, 3-144, 3-151, 3-152, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-159, 

3-160, 3-161, 3-165, 3-166, 3-168, 3-169, 3-181, 3-182, 3-

183, 3-184, 3-188, 3-195, 3-197, 3-199, 3-200, 3-201, 3-204, 

3-210, 3-211, 3-213, 3-217, 3-218, 3-221, 3-222, 3-227, 3-

233, 3-234, 3-235, 3-239, 3-247, 3-248, 3-254, 3-256, 3-260, 

3-261, 3-262, 3-270, 3-271, 3-279, 3-287, 3-289, 3-295, 3-

342, 3-373, 3-385, 3-386, 3-388, 3-390, 3-394, 3-411, 3-420 

Oak forest type, 1-15, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-36, 2-39, 2-57, 3-80, 3-85, 

3-96, 3-130, 3-151, 3-159, 3-165, 3-166, 3-181, 3-188, 3-195, 

3-200, 3-201, 3-213, 3-221, 3-227, 3-233, 3-248, 3-256, 3-

262, 3-279, 3-287, 3-394 

OHM, 1 

Oil and gas development, 1-4, 1-12, 1-18, 1-21, 1-22, 2-3, 2-4, 

2-5, 2-14, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-25, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-50, 2-

59, 2-60, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-20, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-48, 3-

49, 3-50, 3-57, 3-62, 3-73, 3-84, 3-108, 3-131, 3-132, 3-134, 

3-163, 3-164, 3-167, 3-168, 3-181, 3-183, 3-190, 3-192, 3-

193, 3-194, 3-212, 3-219, 3-227, 3-228, 3-230, 3-235, 3-250, 

3-252, 3-261, 3-263, 3-264, 3-266, 3-267, 3-268, 3-269, 3-

270, 3-271, 3-272, 3-273, 3-275, 3-276, 3-277, 3-278, 3-281, 

3-282, 3-283, 3-285, 3-288, 3-289, 3-295, 3-299, 3-300, 3-

312, 3-315, 3-326, 3-327, 3-334, 3-341, 3-342, 3-343, 3-347, 

3-353, 3-358, 3-359, 3-361, 3-363, 3-365, 3-366, 3-367, 3-

368, 3-369, 3-370, 3-372, 3-373, 3-379, 3-392, 3-399, 3-404, 

3-409, 3-410, 3-411, 3-418, 3-419, 3-420, 3-421, 3-424, 3-

433, 3-437, 3-441, 3-442, 3-443, 4-8 

Open riding, 1-19, 2-58, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-37, 3-47, 3-243, 3-

274, 3-293, 3-307, 3-322, 3-323, 3-325, 3-326 

Owls Nest, 2-3, 3-250, 3-251, 3-305, 3-320, 3-321 

Ozone, 2-16, 2-23, 3-54, 3-57, 3-59, 3-100, 3-182 

Ozone injury, 2-23, 3-54, 3-100 

P

Particulate matter, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-279 

Pear thrips, 3-82, 3-93, 3-96, 3-97, 3-174 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, 3-48, 3-104, 3-176, 3-296, 3-298, 3-302, 3-306, 3-

307, 3-347, 3-348, 3-349, 5-1 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1-22, 3-

27, 3-28, 3-43, 3-48, 3-50, 3-204, 3-253, 3-352, 4-6, 5-1 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 3-49, 3-189, 3-190, 3-

191, 3-252, 3-272, 3-275, 3-347 

Pennsylvania Game Commission, 1-15, 2-5, 2-22, 2-41, 3-48, 3-

82, 3-127, 3-154, 3-173, 3-176, 3-186, 3-248, 3-261, 3-265, 

3-266, 3-274, 3-275, 3-296, 3-298, 3-307, 3-346, 3-433, 3-

448, 5-1 

Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers, 3-347, 3-349 

Pennsylvania Wilds, 3-298, 3-311, 3-400, 3-419, 3-423, 3-424, 

3-425, 3-426, 3-427, 3-428, 3-429, 3-430, 3-433, 3-437, 3-

442, 3-443 

Population trends, 3-308, 3-442 

Age, 3-425 

Education, 3-426 

Ethnicity, 3-426, 3-434 

Gender, 3-426, 3-434 

Marital status, 3-426, 3-434 

Population movement, 3-428 

prescribed fire, 6-4, 6-8, 6-9, 6-18, 6-25, 6-27

Prescribed fire, 1-9, 1-11, 1-15, 2-51, 3-13, 3-14, 3-41, 3-53, 3-

57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-63, 3-125, 3-132, 3-157, 3-159, 3-212, 

3-213, 3-217, 3-218, 3-221, 3-233, 3-242, 3-244, 3-262, 3-

274, 3-373, 3-382, 3-418, 3-446, 4-1 

Present net value, 3-410 

Prohibited riding, 3-322, 3-323 

Protected water uses, 3-27 

Public involvement, 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-13, 1-

14, 1-16, 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 2-2, 2-3, 2-14, 2-18, 2-

21, 2-26, 2-29, 2-39, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 3-1, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-29, 3-31, 3-34, 3-36, 3-48, 3-49, 3-51, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 3-

68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-73, 3-104, 3-122, 3-152, 3-162, 3-163, 3-

166, 3-167, 3-168, 3-170, 3-171, 3-173, 3-174, 3-177, 3-179, 

3-181, 3-183, 3-184, 3-196, 3-231, 3-239, 3-242, 3-253, 3-

258, 3-261, 3-262, 3-275, 3-296, 3-306, 3-308, 3-311, 3-312, 

3-313, 3-314, 3-316, 3-322, 3-330, 3-335, 3-340, 3-344, 3-

345, 3-346, 3-348, 3-352, 3-353, 3-354, 3-357, 3-363, 3-365, 

3-369, 3-379, 3-380, 3-381, 3-406, 3-407, 3-408, 3-421, 3-
Chapter 8. Index

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-7 

424, 3-429, 3-431, 3-433, 3-436, 3-437, 3-438, 3-440, 3-441, 

3-442, 3-447, 3-448, 4-1, 4-6, 4-8, 5-3 

Purpose and need, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-19, 2-21, 2-25, 2-37, 3-110 

R

RARE II, 3-330, 3-331, 3-335, 3-338, 3-353, 6-20

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, 2-40, 2-41, 3-298, 3-299, 3-

300, 3-311, 3-312, 3-313, 3-314, 3-315, 3-316, 3-317, 3-328, 

3-377, 3-379, 1 

Roaded modified, 3-300, 3-313, 3-315, 3-327, 3-379 

Roaded natural, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 3-299, 3-

300, 3-312, 3-314, 3-315, 3-316, 3-317, 3-327, 3-328, 3-

379 

Rural, 3-312, 3-316, 3-317 

Semi-primitive motorized, 3-316, 3-355 

Semi-primitive non-motorized, 1-18, 2-41, 2-42, 3-299, 3-

312, 3-315, 3-316, 3-317 

reforestation, 6-12, 6-15

Reforestation, 1-1, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-16, 2-5, 2-38, 2-40, 2-

41, 2-47, 2-51, 2-52, 3-26, 3-33, 3-35, 3-40, 3-41, 3-45, 3-87, 

3-88, 3-93, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 

3-112, 3-116, 3-119, 3-120, 3-124, 3-126, 3-127, 3-131, 3-

133, 3-136, 3-141, 3-145, 3-150, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-158, 

3-162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-169, 3-172, 3-173, 3-178, 3-179, 3-

213, 3-224, 3-234, 3-240, 3-245, 3-246, 3-261, 3-262, 3-279, 

3-294, 3-295, 3-341, 3-342, 3-394, 3-397, 3-421, 3-433, 3-

434, 3-445, 3-446, 4-3 

Regional Forester Sensitive Species, 1, 6-22

Regional Forester Sensitive Species List, 2-21, 3-181, 3-206, 3-

223, 3-230, 3-252 

Remote habitat, 1-16, 1-17, 2-58, 3-184, 3-191, 3-194, 3-213, 3-

226, 3-227, 3-228, 3-243, 3-255, 3-260, 3-266, 3-274, 3-275 

research, 6-13, 6-16

Research, 1-5, 1-9, 1-17, 1-20, 2-5, 2-6, 2-10, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 

2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 2-25, 2-27, 2-28, 2-43, 2-44, 2-46, 2-

54, 3-4, 3-11, 3-20, 3-27, 3-32, 3-34, 3-38, 3-45, 3-58, 3-88, 

3-98, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-112, 3-113, 3-116, 3-119, 3-120, 

3-121, 3-123, 3-126, 3-146, 3-149, 3-152, 3-196, 3-198, 3-

199, 3-200, 3-212, 3-216, 3-221, 3-226, 3-231, 3-234, 3-236, 

3-237, 3-242, 3-314, 3-315, 3-324, 3-333, 3-340, 3-342, 3-

355, 3-360, 3-362, 3-363, 3-364, 3-365, 3-366, 3-367, 3-368, 

3-369, 3-370, 3-374, 3-384, 3-422, 3-433, 3-435, 3-436, 4-1, 

4-3, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8 

Research Natural Area, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-5, 2-6, 2-14, 2-18, 2-

19, 2-20, 2-27, 2-28, 2-43, 2-46, 2-54, 3-4, 3-126, 3-212, 3-

267, 3-314, 3-315, 3-324, 3-355, 3-360, 3-363, 3-364, 3-365, 

3-366, 3-367, 3-368, 3-374, 1 

Restricted riding, 3-47, 3-323 

Rimrock, 3-319 

riparian, 6-20

Riparian areas, 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 1-15, 1-21, 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 

2-13, 2-17, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-36, 2-47, 2-48, 2-

50, 3-23, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 

3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-

50, 3-51, 3-68, 3-70, 3-77, 3-79, 3-85, 3-94, 3-104, 3-110, 3-

113, 3-115, 3-117, 3-135, 3-144, 3-147, 3-151, 3-155, 3-156, 

3-184, 3-186, 3-188, 3-192, 3-200, 3-205, 3-213, 3-221, 3-

223, 3-224, 3-248, 3-254, 3-256, 3-260, 3-270, 3-281, 3-282, 

3-285, 3-287, 3-290, 3-291, 3-292, 3-308, 3-314, 3-326, 3-

349, 3-351, 3-389, 3-448, 4-4, 4-5 

Riparian corridor, 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 1-15, 1-21, 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 2-9, 2-

11, 2-13, 2-17, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-36, 2-47, 2-48, 

2-50, 3-23, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-37, 3-

38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 

3-50, 3-51, 3-68, 3-70, 3-77, 3-79, 3-85, 3-94, 3-104, 3-110, 

3-113, 3-115, 3-117, 3-135, 3-144, 3-147, 3-151, 3-155, 3-

156, 3-184, 3-186, 3-188, 3-192, 3-200, 3-205, 3-213, 3-221, 

3-223, 3-224, 3-248, 3-254, 3-256, 3-260, 3-270, 3-281, 3-

282, 3-285, 3-287, 3-290, 3-291, 3-292, 3-308, 3-314, 3-326, 

3-349, 3-351, 3-389, 3-448, 4-4, 4-5 

Road decommissioning, 1-16, 2-16, 2-21, 2-41, 2-47, 2-50, 2-51, 

3-13, 3-15, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-46, 3-66, 3-69, 3-70, 3-

71, 3-72, 3-167, 3-224, 3-229, 3-291, 3-292, 3-312, 3-317, 3-

318, 3-319 

Road maintenance levels, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68 

road management, 6-13

Road surfacing, 2-17, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69 

Roadless, 1, 6-20

roads, 6-2, 6-4, 6-11, 6-13, 6-15, 6-16, 6-20, 6-22, 6-27

Roads, 1-12, 1-16, 1-19, 1-21, 2-2, 2-7, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 

2-21, 2-24, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-

44, 2-50, 2-51, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 3-1, 3-5, 3-9, 3-13, 3-15, 3-

16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-25, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-64, 3-

65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-84, 

3-124, 3-132, 3-163, 3-164, 3-167, 3-168, 3-182, 3-183, 3-

190, 3-191, 3-192, 3-193, 3-194, 3-195, 3-196, 3-203, 3-210, 

3-224, 3-225, 3-226, 3-227, 3-228, 3-229, 3-231, 3-237, 3-

241, 3-242, 3-243, 3-245, 3-247, 3-249, 3-255, 3-260, 3-261, 

3-263, 3-264, 3-266, 3-267, 3-273, 3-274, 3-276, 3-282, 3-

291, 3-292, 3-293, 3-297, 3-299, 3-300, 3-301, 3-306, 3-307, 

3-308, 3-312, 3-313, 3-316, 3-317, 3-318, 3-319, 3-326, 3-

327, 3-328, 3-332, 3-334, 3-341, 3-342, 3-344, 3-345, 3-350, 

3-353, 3-363, 3-364, 3-365, 3-367, 3-371, 3-372, 3-376, 3-

377, 3-379, 3-382, 3-392, 3-406, 3-411, 3-418, 3-421, 3-433, 

3-441, 3-444, 3-445 

Rocky Gap ATV Trail, 3-305, 3-306, 3-307, 3-372, 3-379 

ROS. See Recreation, See Recreation, See Recreation, See 

Recreation, See Recreation 
Chapter 8. Index

8-8 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

S

Scenery, 1-2, 1-21, 2-20, 2-26, 3-29, 3-45, 3-111, 3-229, 3-296, 

3-309, 3-313, 3-328, 3-332, 3-333, 3-340, 3-342, 3-347, 3-

350, 3-351, 3-357, 3-361, 3-370, 3-371, 3-372, 3-373, 3-374, 

3-375, 3-376, 3-377, 3-378, 3-379, 3-380, 3-433, 4-6, 1, 6-

21, 6-26

Scenery Management System, 3-370, 3-371, 3-372, 3-374, 4-

6 

Scenic Integrity Levels, 1-21, 3-370, 3-371, 3-372, 3-374, 3-

375, 3-376, 3-377, 3-379, 3-380 

Visual Management System, 3-370 

Scenery Management System, 3-370, 1, 6-21, 6-26

Scenic area, 1-2, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-5, 2-6, 2-14, 2-18, 2-25, 2-

27, 2-43, 2-46, 2-54, 3-4, 3-91, 3-126, 3-186, 3-212, 3-307, 

3-308, 3-315, 3-323, 3-324, 3-332, 3-354, 3-360, 3-361, 3-

364, 3-365, 3-366, 3-367, 3-368, 3-379 

School expenditures, 3-427 

See 

All terrain vehicles, 1-18, 1-19, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-

24, 2-28, 2-29, 2-36, 2-38, 2-46, 2-48, 2-52, 2-58, 3-13, 3-

14, 3-38, 3-50, 3-51, 3-57, 3-61, 3-65, 3-243, 3-303, 3-

304, 3-305, 3-306, 3-320, 3-322, 3-325, 3-377 

silviculture, 6-8

Small whorled pogonia, 1-14, 2-16, 3-209, 3-210, 3-258, 3-289 

Snowmobile, 1-17, 1-19, 2-24, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-48, 2-52, 3-

58, 3-65, 3-249, 3-303, 3-304, 3-305, 3-306, 3-307, 3-308, 3-

313, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 3-364, 3-365, 3-431, 3-432 

Soil compaction, 1-18, 1-21, 2-23, 3-8, 3-10, 3-14, 3-15, 3-18, 

3-19, 3-21, 3-38, 3-72, 3-115, 3-189, 3-222, 3-242, 3-373, 3-

377 

Soil nutrient, 1-11, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-16, 

3-17, 3-19, 3-20, 3-36, 3-51, 3-53, 3-88, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 

3-123, 3-128, 3-175 

Soil nutrient limitations, 1-11, 3-93 

Special forest product, 1-13, 3-180, 3-385, 3-393, 3-397, 3-398 

special uses, 6-16

Species Viability Evaluation, 1-14, 1-16, 2-22, 2-37, 2-57, 3-75, 

3-180, 3-181, 3-186, 3-192, 3-205, 3-206, 3-208, 3-254, 3-

257, 3-281, 4-5, 4-6, 1 

Species with viability concerns, 3-205, 3-213, 3-253, 3-256, 3-

260, 3-280, 3-287 

Stickney, 3-250, 3-305, 3-306, 3-320, 3-321 

Streamflow, 3-23, 3-25, 3-31, 3-33, 3-39, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-51, 

3-72 

Sudden oak death, 3-82, 3-103, 3-105 

suitable land, 6-2

Suitable land, 2-33, 2-35, 2-56, 3-43, 3-47, 3-200, 3-281, 3-393, 

3-395, 3-396 

Sulfur dioxide, 3-27, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-57, 3-58 

T

Threatened and endangered species 

Bald eagle, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 2-42, 3-180, 3-185, 3-206, 3-

209, 3-210, 3-258, 3-288, 3-289, 3-306 

Clubshell, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 3-180, 3-207, 3-209, 3-210, 3-

211, 3-258, 3-259, 3-284, 3-289 

Indiana bat, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 3-209, 3-257, 3-258, 3-288 

Northern bulrush, 1-14, 3-208, 3-209, 3-211, 3-259, 3-289 

Northern riffleshell, 1-14, 2-16, 2-24, 3-180, 3-207, 3-209, 3-

210, 3-211, 3-258, 3-259, 3-284, 3-289 

Small whorled pogonia, 1-14, 2-16, 3-209, 3-210, 3-258, 3-

289 

Timber rattlesnake, 2-3, 2-25, 3-180, 3-184, 3-194, 3-201, 3-

202, 3-208, 3-213, 3-228, 3-230, 3-239, 3-240, 3-241, 3-242, 

3-254, 3-255, 3-272, 3-273, 3-274, 3-275, 3-282 

Timberline ATV Trail, 3-305, 3-306, 3-307 

Tionesta Creek, 2-16, 2-18, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-44, 3-50, 

3-85, 3-130, 3-182, 3-183, 3-189, 3-209, 3-210, 3-283, 3-284, 

3-303, 3-348, 3-349 

Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Area, 2-20, 2-28, 2-54, 3-

79, 3-91, 3-181, 3-182, 3-186, 3-188, 3-192, 3-208, 3-212, 3-

228, 3-354, 3-366 

Tourism, 1-22, 2-18, 2-30, 2-31, 2-43, 3-296, 3-298, 3-312, 3-

313, 3-329, 3-357, 3-369, 3-373, 3-400, 3-419, 3-433, 3-437, 

3-442, 3-443, 3-447 

Tracy Ridge, 1-20, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-33, 2-37, 2-42, 3-

194, 3-225, 3-226, 3-302, 3-307, 3-308, 3-323, 3-330, 3-331, 

3-334, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-340, 3-341, 3-343, 3-344, 3-

353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 3-359 

traffic service level, 6-25

trails, 6-4, 6-9, 6-11, 6-15

Trails, 1-2, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 

2-14, 2-17, 2-18, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-

31, 2-35, 2-36, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-48, 

2-52, 2-53, 2-58, 3-9, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-

19, 3-31, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 

3-51, 3-61, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-72, 3-190, 3-192, 

3-193, 3-195, 3-196, 3-213, 3-224, 3-225, 3-227, 3-228, 3-

229, 3-232, 3-233, 3-242, 3-243, 3-246, 3-247, 3-249, 3-250, 

3-251, 3-252, 3-255, 3-257, 3-260, 3-264, 3-267, 3-268, 3-

269, 3-270, 3-274, 3-277, 3-279, 3-292, 3-293, 3-295, 3-296, 

3-297, 3-300, 3-301, 3-303, 3-304, 3-305, 3-306, 3-307, 3-

308, 3-311, 3-312, 3-313, 3-314, 3-317, 3-318, 3-320, 3-321, 

3-322, 3-323, 3-325, 3-326, 3-328, 3-332, 3-333, 3-334, 3-

337, 3-341, 3-342, 3-343, 3-344, 3-345, 3-347, 3-350, 3-353, 

3-357, 3-358, 3-359, 3-360, 3-361, 3-362, 3-364, 3-365, 3-

366, 3-370, 3-371, 3-372, 3-373, 3-377, 3-379, 3-382, 3-398, 

3-432, 3-440, 3-441, 3-444, 3-445, 4-1, 4-7 

Travel management rule, 3-64, 3-65 

Tree mortality, 1-11, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-102, 3-110, 3-111, 3-

145, 3-146, 3-148, 3-171, 3-173, 3-277, 3-389, 3-394 
Chapter 8. Index

Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-9 

Trout streams, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-17, 2-24, 3-30, 3-42, 3-

43, 3-189, 3-190, 3-193, 3-228, 3-251, 3-252, 3-305, 3-395, 

3-442 

Twin Lakes, 2-20, 3-190, 3-209, 3-250, 3-251, 3-299, 3-302, 3-

303, 3-320, 3-321, 3-354, 3-361, 3-362 

U

Uneven-aged management, 1-1, 1-9, 1-10, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 

2-39, 2-54, 2-56, 3-11, 3-21, 3-105, 3-111, 3-114, 3-115, 3-

116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-124, 3-132, 3-133, 3-135, 3-136, 

3-138, 3-141, 3-144, 3-145, 3-149, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 3-

153, 3-154, 3-155, 3-158, 3-159, 3-160, 3-172, 3-214, 3-215, 

3-219, 3-220, 3-224, 3-240, 3-244, 3-245, 3-268, 3-278, 3-

433 

Upland hardwood, 1-7, 1-9, 2-7, 2-8, 2-45, 3-84, 3-86, 3-90, 3-

102, 3-117, 3-118, 3-129, 3-132, 3-133, 3-135, 3-144, 3-149, 

3-151, 3-152, 3-155, 3-159, 3-160, 3-161, 3-164, 3-165, 3-

166, 3-169, 3-179, 3-182, 3-200, 3-363, 3-394 

V

Verbeck Island, 3-330, 3-338 

W

water quality, 6-3, 6-18

Water quality, 1-19, 1-21, 2-17, 2-24, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-

29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 

3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 3-68, 3-72, 3-96, 3-

144, 3-181, 3-189, 3-190, 3-191, 3-195, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 

3-213, 3-221, 3-226, 3-251, 3-252, 3-253, 3-279, 3-288, 3-

289, 3-322, 3-326, 3-344, 3-351, 3-352, 3-431, 3-437 

Water resources, 2-24, 3-10, 3-25, 3-31, 3-32, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 

3-41, 3-46, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-72, 3-75, 3-223, 3-349, 3-434, 

4-4 

Watershed, 2-14, 2-15, 2-17, 2-24, 3-11, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 

3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-36, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-

42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-69, 3-

115, 3-181, 3-182, 3-193, 3-200, 3-208, 3-222, 3-239, 3-252, 

3-268, 3-270, 3-272, 3-299, 3-314, 3-329, 3-341, 3-345, 3-

349, 3-352, 3-353, 3-355, 3-358, 3-362, 3-392, 3-395, 3-420, 

3-447, 3-448, 4-3 

watersheds, 6-21, 6-26

Westline, 2-9, 3-305, 3-308, 3-320, 3-321, 3-372, 3-379 

wetland, 6-7

Wetland, 2-4, 3-23, 3-26, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-

36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 

3-184, 3-188, 3-189, 3-192, 3-211, 3-213, 3-221, 3-222, 3-

254, 3-256, 3-260, 3-282, 3-285, 3-287, 3-289, 3-291, 3-292, 

3-342, 3-351, 3-367 

White-tailed deer, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 1-14, 1-15, 2-5, 2-15, 2-22, 2-

32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-39, 3-26, 3-73, 3-78, 3-82, 3-87, 3-88, 3-91, 

3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-106, 3-108, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-

114, 3-116, 3-117, 3-119, 3-121, 3-123, 3-124, 3-127, 3-129, 

3-138, 3-139, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-

150, 3-152, 3-154, 3-156, 3-158, 3-162, 3-164, 3-165, 3-166, 

3-167, 3-169, 3-172, 3-173, 3-175, 3-180, 3-182, 3-184, 3-

188, 3-189, 3-204, 3-217, 3-218, 3-244, 3-245, 3-248, 3-249, 

3-250, 3-262, 3-278, 3-279, 3-289, 3-341, 3-378, 3-433 

Wild and Scenic River, 1-2, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 2-12, 

2-13, 2-14, 2-18, 2-25, 2-36, 2-42, 2-44, 2-46, 3-130, 3-152, 

3-211, 3-316, 3-329, 3-333, 3-338, 3-344, 3-345, 3-348, 3-

349, 3-350, 3-352, 3-354, 3-355, 3-364, 3-374, 3-377, 3-395, 

3-422, 4-8, 1 

wilderness, 6-11, 6-15, 6-27

Wilderness, 1-2, 1-5, 1-12, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-20, 1-22, 2-3, 2-

5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-24, 2-

27, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 2-40, 2-42, 2-44, 

2-46, 2-48, 2-53, 2-58, 3-4, 3-30, 3-42, 3-43, 3-52, 3-126, 3-

130, 3-181, 3-192, 3-193, 3-194, 3-200, 3-213, 3-225, 3-226, 

3-228, 3-229, 3-251, 3-252, 3-253, 3-267, 3-296, 3-297, 3-

299, 3-300, 3-305, 3-308, 3-309, 3-310, 3-315, 3-317, 3-319, 

3-321, 3-322, 3-324, 3-329, 3-330, 3-331, 3-332, 3-333, 3-

334, 3-335, 3-336, 3-337, 3-339, 3-340, 3-342, 3-343, 3-344, 

3-346, 3-352, 3-353, 3-354, 3-355, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 3-

359, 3-360, 3-361, 3-363, 3-368, 3-374, 3-384, 3-395, 3-396, 

3-397, 3-413, 3-414, 3-431, 3-432, 3-433, 3-446, 4-3, 4-8, 5-

4 

Wilderness Study Area, 1-2, 1-5, 1-17, 1-20, 2-3, 2-6, 2-11, 2-

13, 2-14, 2-28, 2-40, 2-44, 2-46, 2-53, 3-126, 3-130, 3-213, 

3-225, 3-229, 3-252, 3-315, 3-319, 3-321, 3-324, 3-330, 3-

331, 3-332, 3-333, 3-335, 3-336, 3-337, 3-339, 3-340, 3-343, 

3-354, 3-355, 3-359, 3-363, 3-374, 3-384, 3-395, 3-396, 3-

397, 3-413 

Wilderness study areas 

Allegheny Front, 1-20, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-33, 3-22, 3-

23, 3-25, 3-44, 3-50, 3-194, 3-225, 3-226, 3-228, 3-252, 3-

330, 3-331, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-340, 3-341, 3-343, 3-

344, 3-353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-359 

Chestnut Ridge, 1-20, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 3-194, 3-

225, 3-227, 3-229, 3-266, 3-300, 3-321, 3-322, 3-328, 3-

331, 3-334, 3-336, 3-337, 3-342, 3-343, 3-344 

Minister Valley, 1-20, 2-3, 2-9, 2-11, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 

3-299, 3-300, 3-303, 3-318, 3-319, 3-328, 3-330, 3-331, 3-

334, 3-335, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-341, 3-342, 3-343, 3-

344 

Tracy Ridge, 1-20, 2-13, 2-19, 2-27, 2-28, 2-33, 2-37, 2-42, 

3-194, 3-225, 3-226, 3-302, 3-307, 3-308, 3-323, 3-330, 3-

331, 3-334, 3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-340, 3-341, 3-343, 3-

344, 3-353, 3-355, 3-356, 3-357, 3-358, 3-359 

wildlife habitat, 6-4, 6-13
Chapter 8. Index

8-10 Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Wildlife habitat, 1-9, 2-20, 2-32, 2-38, 2-40, 2-41, 3-42, 3-45, 3-

84, 3-107, 3-109, 3-110, 3-112, 3-120, 3-125, 3-144, 3-150, 

3-151, 3-162, 3-182, 3-183, 3-187, 3-194, 3-212, 3-214, 3-

216, 3-224, 3-225, 3-227, 3-250, 3-274, 3-295, 3-308, 3-326, 

3-340, 3-342, 3-369, 3-376, 3-396, 3-431, 3-437, 3-444 

Willow Creek ATV Trail, 3-305, 3-306, 3-320 

Windstorms, 3-78, 3-93, 3-126, 3-174, 3-183, 3-268, 3-273, 3-

277 
This page intentionally left blank. 
This page intentionally left blank. 

Please recycle this document when it is ready to be discarded.