APPENDIX B: ECOLOGICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION

Table of Contents Administrative Uses (AU) ...... B-1 Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ) ...... B-1 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR) ...... B-13 Commodity Production – Timber Management (TM)...... B-13 Cultural and Heritage (CH) ...... B-15 Economics (EC) ...... B-16 Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF) ...... B-22 General Public Transportation (GT) ...... B-27 Minerals Management (MM) ...... B-29 Protection (PT) ...... B-30 Range Management (RM) ...... B-30 Recreation– Road Related (RR)...... B-30 Recreation – Unroaded Recreation (UR) ...... B-32 Special Forest Products (SP) ...... B-33 Special – Use Permits (SU)...... B-33 Social Issues (SI)...... B-33 Terrestrial Wildlife (TW) ...... B-34 Water Production (WP)...... B-47

Table of Tables Table B- 1: National Forest Service Roads in the KEF TAP Area ...... B-2 Table B- 2: KEFTAP Area Streams – Protected Uses and Classifications ...... B-7 Table B- 3: 2011 Regional Forester Sensitive Species List for ANF ...... B-10 Table B- 7: NNIP Plants Found in the KEF TAP Area ...... B-27 Table B- 8: Road Corridors with NNIP Plants ...... B-27 Table B- 9: Roads Partially or Completely Grassed Over ...... B-37 Table B- 10: Roads Built and Maintained at a Higher Standard ...... B-37 Table B- 11: Roads Seasonally Closed to Protect Wild Turkey Brood Habitat ...... B-38 Table B- 12: Roads Closed or Restricted that Help Reduce Direct Impacts on Wildlife ...... B-40 Table B- 13: Roads Needed to Maintain Minimum Hunter Access ...... B-41 Table B- 14: KEF TAP Area – Forest Roads ...... B-43 Table B- 15: Gate and Hunter Access Recommendations – Regarding Wildlife ...... B-47

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B Administrative Uses (AU)

AU (1): How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring? The existing road system provides for cost and time efficient travel for research projects, and inventory and monitoring efforts in the KEFTAP Area. Kane Experimental Forest is the principal use in this project area. As such, most roads within this project area are used to access research projects. (Appendix A – Map 9).

AU (2): How does the road system affect investigative or enforcement activities? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 103).

Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ)

AQ (1): How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the area? Forest Roads modify surface and subsurface hydrology by intercepting and concentrating ground and surface water and diverting flows from their natural flow paths. Surface and subsurface water, which previously moved downhill as diffuse flow, is captured by road ditches and routed to culverts. This mechanism of erosion is exacerbated when road drainage is not properly designed and maintained. These changes in routing can result in increases in peak flows by both a volumetric increase and changes in the timing of storm runoff to streams. During large precipitation and snowmelt events, concentrated volumes of water may become routed to unstable fill slopes below the road and trigger landslides or gullies. The position of a road on a hillside can be an indicator of the potential impacts roads can have on surface and subsurface hydrology. In general, the lower on the valley slope a road is located, the greater the chance roads may negatively impact streams and floodplains. Some of these effects are discussed in the streamside roads section (AQ (9)). Roads located at the upper position of valley hillsides and ridge tops are often the most stable, since they are located the furthest from perennial streams, tend to have convex, well drained slopes, and have the lowest potential for direct impacts. Reducing the miles of road in a watershed will reduce the degree of connectivity because almost all roads have some features that increase connectivity. The extent of hydrologic connectivity is extremely important to roads analysis because it determines whether a geomorphic or hydrologic process will affect the aquatic environment. Connectivity may affect both biological and ecological processes in stream and riparian systems. At the landscape scale, certain definable geometric interactions involving peak flows (floods) and debris flows (rapid movements of soil, sediment, and large wood down steep stream channels) are influenced by the arrangement of the road network relative to the stream network. Although disturbance patches are created by peak-flow and debris-flow disturbances in higher gradient landscapes without roads, roads can alter the landscape distributions of the starting and stopping points of debris flows, and they can alter the balance between the intensity of flood peaks and the stream network's resistance to change. A hydrologically connected road can be defined as any road segment that has a continuous surface flow path to a stream channel. Inboard ditches that drain to road-stream crossings are the most obvious road segments that are connected. Other situations that connect roads to streams are cross drains that create overland flow to channels, roads with fill slopes that encroach on stream channels, and landslide scars that create a surface flow path to a channel.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-1 While almost all roads have some features that increase connectivity and therefore modifying surface and subsurface hydrology, the following are of greatest concern in the KEF TAP area. Based upon GIS analysis five road segments are located on steep hillslopes (SH) greater than 40% (Table B- 1) and are therefore the most likely to modifying surface and subsurface hydrology in their immediate areas. The following roads had the greatest portion of their roads on steep slopes: Forest Roads 123, 185, 185E, 191, 290, 334, and 458. In addition, the cross drains and ditch lines of 37 KEF Forest Roads are more than likely hydrologically connected (HC) and contributing overland flow directly to area streams (Table B- 1). As a result, each is modifying surface and subsurface hydrology to some degree. Best Management Practices implemented through road maintenance reduce the impacts at these locations. The following roads had the greatest portion of their roads on riparian corridors: Forest Roads 123, 185, 191, 290, 332, 334, and 458. Table B- 1: National Forest Service Roads in the KEF TAP Area

Occurrence Mass Hydrologic West Soils Forest Stream Stream Special Steep Wasting Connections Occurrence Road Crossing Name Code Uses Hillslopes Occurrence Occurrence (WS) >40% (SH) (MW) (HC) FR123 UNT Hoffman Run 50618 CWF 8 26 30 Hoffman Run 50618 CWF UNT Little Mill HQ- FR185 50527 11 11 3 Creek CWF FR185E 3 13

FR185F 1 7 FR185FA 1 1 FR185G 1 UNT Hoffman Run 50618 CWF FR191 Hoffman Run 50618 CWF 48 80 23 2 Hoffman Run 50618 CWF UNT Big Mill HQ- FR239 50422 3 9 Creek CWF UNT Big Mill HQ- FR239A 50422 1 1 Creek CWF HQ- FR285 UNT Wolf Run 55399 1 5 1 CWF FR289 7 2

FR289A 1

FR289B 2

FR290 UNT Hoffman Run 50618 CWF 28 14 10

Hoffman Run 50618 CWF

FR290A 5

FR290B 3 2

FR290C 5

FR290D 1

FR291 1

FR302 UNT Ellithorpe 50446 HQ- 4 3

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-2 Occurrence Mass Hydrologic West Soils Forest Stream Stream Special Steep Wasting Connections Occurrence Road Crossing Name Code Uses Hillslopes Occurrence Occurrence (WS) >40% (SH) (MW) (HC) Run CWF FR302A 2

FR304 2 6

FR330 4 2

FR331 4

FR331A 1

FR332 UNT Hoffman Run 50618 CWF 11 2 6

Hoffman Run 50618 CWF

FR332A 8

FR333 3 1

FR333A UNT Hoffman Run 50618 CWF 4

HQ- FR334 UNT Wolf Run 50598 26 11 1 CWF UNT Little Mill HQ- FR340 50527 4 1 1 Creek CWF FR340A Silver Creek 50574 CWF 2 2

FR340B 1

FR340C 1

FR340D UNT Silver Creek 50574 CWF 1 1

FR369 1

HQ- FR458 UNT Wolf Run 50598 14 27 1 CWF HQ- UNT Wolf Run 50598 CWF FR458A 1 2

FR497 3 5 FR497A 1 FR497B 3 FR499 1 FR499A 2 FR639 1 1 FR640 1 FR664 2 5 1 3 FR664A 4 2 FR817 1 FR851 3 1

AQ (2): How and where does the road system generate surface erosion? Surface erosion occurs on most Forest Roads because their surfaces, cut slopes, fill slopes and associated drainage structures are usually composed of erodible material and are exposed to rainfall and concentrated surface runoff. Surface erosion differs greatly depending on many factors, the most

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-3 influential of which are usually: the erodibility of the exposed surface; the slope of the exposed surface; and the area of exposed surface that generates and concentrates runoff. Surface erosion and associated sedimentation are highly sensitive to road maintenance practices. Small changes in road drainage configuration can result in large changes in erosion and the routing of eroded sediments. Driving on unsurfaced roads when wet also increases surface erosion. Road grades expressed in percent generally run from 1% to sometimes upward of 20% on native surfaced roads. The grade of the road affects the velocity of water flowing on or across it which in turn relates to the potential for surface erosion. The potential for adverse effects from steep road grades depends to a great extent on how long the grades are sustained. Road grades less than 8% are considered ideal and would not generally pose a significant threat by itself. Road grades in excess of 8% become more difficult to maintain control of water and grades above 15% are unique design challenges. The combination of steep grades with in slope design tends to exaggerate the effects concentration of water and water velocity. Native surfaced roads with grades above 15% are capable of producing a great deal of sediment. A typical failure mechanism is entrapment of water on the road prism due to wheel rutting, resulting in extensive rill and gully erosion. Whether the road is in sloped or out sloped the problem remains acute where the steepness of the road predominates the road slope. In sloped roads with ditches combined with steep grades add connectivity to the equation and considerable more opportunity for failure. Almost all roads have some features that increase connectivity and consequentially have the potential to modifying surface and subsurface hydrology. As a result, the road segments identified in section AQ (1) as most likely to be modifying the surface and subsurface hydrology are also the most likely to generate surface erosion.

AQ (3): How and where does the road system affect mass wasting?

When Forest Roads are constructed in steep environments, the frequency of mass-wasting commonly increases (Varnes 1978). However, in most settings the actual mass-wasting zone of disturbance associated with road construction is not well known. The principal causes of anthropogenically induced instability result from increased weight on the hillslope from fill, hillslope over steepening, removal of slope support in road cuts, alteration of surface runoff paths, and enhanced runoff rates (Sidle et al. 1985). Mass-wasting in these areas degrades fish habitat through the introduction of large amounts of sediment into rivers and streams. Wolfe and Williams (1986) determined that landslide frequency in areas impacted by logging and associated road building was increased by three to 26 times in comparison with nearby undisturbed forested areas. Based upon GIS analysis the five Forest Road segments identified in section (AQ (1) as located on steep hillslopes (SH) greater than 40% are the most likely to affect mass wasting. In addition, the following road segments traverse zones with the highest potential for mass wasting (MW): Forest Road 123 and 191 (Table B- 1).

AQ (4): How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water quality? Road-stream crossings are areas where direct interaction between the road and stream occurs. The proximity of the road fill to the stream channel means that essentially any sediment eroded off the road fill will be delivered directly to the stream. Culverts typically constrict the channel, concentrating high flows that can erode stream channels and cause gullying, down cutting, or create barriers to the passage

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-4 of fish and other aquatic life. Inadequate culvert size, improper construction, or inadequate maintenance can cause plugged culverts and dammed floodwaters that can result in road failures and stream diversions. Road blading and resurfacing can push sediment directly into streams, especially as the road approaches and crosses the stream. Sediment is also commonly produced when roads are poorly drained and rutted, when unrestricted travel occurs on saturated roadbeds, or when road drainage ditches flow directly into streams. Sediment can also be introduced to streams at fords by vehicles. The design and condition of a stream crossing determine whether a stream behaves naturally and whether animals can migrate along the stream corridor. Historically, stream continuity was not often considered in the design and construction of stream crossings (culverts and bridges) and as a result many existing crossings are barriers to fish and wildlife. Even crossings that were not barriers when originally constructed may now be barriers because of stream erosion, mechanical breakdown of the crossings, or changes in the upstream or downstream channel shape. There are 21 crossings (SC) located on 15 Forest Roads in the KEF TAP area (Table B- 1). By their very nature, each influences the local stream channel and water quality either directly or by modifying local surface and subsurface hydrology.

AQ (5): How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides to enter surface waters? Roads and stream crossings are a source of significant contributions of pollutants to our waters. Contaminants from vehicles and activities associated with road construction and maintenance are washed from roads and roadsides when it rains or snow melts. A large portion of this runoff pollution is carried directly to water bodies. Hydrologically connected roads as discussed in AQ (1) can be defined as any road segment that has a continuous surface flow path to a stream channel. Wherever there is connectivity there is the potential for pollutants to enter our surface waters. Common contaminants include: sediment, oils and grease, heavy metals, debris, road salts, and fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Sediment is produced when soil particles are eroded from the land and transported to surface waters. Natural erosion usually occurs gradually because vegetation protects the ground. When land is cleared or disturbed to build a road or bridge, however, the rate of erosion increases. The vegetation is removed and the soil is left exposed, to be quickly washed away in the next rain as sediment. Once in a lake, stream, or river the sediment will eventually settle out of the water onto aquatic plants, rocks, and the bottom where it prevents sunlight from reaching aquatic plants, clogs fish gills, chokes other organisms, and can smother spawning and nursery areas. Other pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, and herbicides adhere to sediment and are transported with it by wind and water. These pollutants degrade water quality and can harm aquatic life by interfering with photosynthesis, respiration, growth, and reproduction. They can also be a potential hazard for hunters, fisherman, and other Forest-users who come incompact with the contaminated fish, wildlife, or sediment. Heavy metals can come from "natural" sources such as minerals in rocks, vegetation, sand, and salt. But they also come from car and truck exhaust, worn tires and engine parts, brake linings, weathered paint, and rust. Heavy metals are toxic to aquatic life and can potentially contaminate ground water. Oils and grease are leaked onto road surfaces from car and truck engines, spilled while maintenance equipment, and discarded directly onto roadways or ditch lines instead of being taken to recycling stations. Rain and snowmelt transport these pollutants directly to surface waters.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-5 Animal waste, food containers, and other trash and litter can lead to unsightly and polluted waters. If enough nutrients accumulate in a stream or waterbody it will cause "eutrophication." Eutrophication is an excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen. Road Salts can be a major pollutant in both urban and rural areas. Snow runoff containing salt can produce high sodium and chloride concentrations in streams, rivers, and lakes. This can cause unnecessary fish kills and changes to water chemistry. While none of our Forest Roads are treated with salt, many of the vehicles traveling these roads are often covered with it. Fertilizers applied excessively or improperly can be carried by rain and snow into our surface waters. In rivers, streams, lakes, and bays, fertilizers contribute to algal blooms and excessive plant growth, and can lead to eutrophication. An example of this is the annual Harmful Algal Blooms that have been occurring each summer in the Allegheny Reservoir since 2011. Almost all roads have some features that increase connectivity and consequentially have the potential to introduce pollutants to our waterways. The extent of hydrologic connectivity is the major factor affecting the potential for pollutants to enter surface waters. As a result, the 37 road segments identified in AQ (1) as hydrologically connected (HC) and contributing overland flow directly to area streams and the 21 Forest Road stream crossings identified in section AQ (4) as most likely to influence local stream channels and water quality are also the most likely to contribute pollutants to our surface waters.

AQ (6): How and where is the road system “hydrologically connected” to the stream system? How do the connections affect water quality and quantity (such as, the delivery of sediment and chemicals, thermal increases, and elevated peak flows)? Road surfaces and cut slopes intercept and concentrate surface and groundwater. A road is considered hydrologically connected to a stream where these surface flows are continuous between roads and streams, such as where inboard ditches, ditch relief culverts, or cross drains convey road runoff directly to stream channels. Wherever a hydrologic connection exists, rapid runoff, sediment, and road- associated chemicals (for example, spills, oils) generated on the road surface and cut slope are provided an efficient route into the natural channel network. How and where the KEF TAP road system is “hydrologically connected” to its stream system is discussed extensively in sections AQ (1), AQ (2), AQ (4), and AQ (5).

AQ (7): What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and demand are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road derived pollutants? Protected Uses All seven named streams and tributaries in the KEF TAP area have a minimum designated use of ‘Cold Water Fishery’ under Pennsylvania’s Chapter 93 regulations (Water Quality Standards). This is not surprising, given that the study area location is a largely forested region in northern Pennsylvania. None of the streams are designated as “Exceptional Value” by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, but four (57 percent) are classified ‘High Quality’ (tributaries of Wolf Run, tributaries Big Mill Creek, and tributaries Little Mill Creek) providing them with Special Protection (

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-6 Table B- 2). According to Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission designations all of the streams are Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters supporting the natural reproduction of trout. In addition, KEF is classified as a Class A Trout Stream. Table B- 2: KEFTAP Area Streams – Protected Uses and Classifications

PA DEP1 PA Fish & Boat Commission USFS Streams Stream Protected Class A PA Wild Wild Trout Code Uses Trout Trout Stream Documented Big Mill Creek 50422 HQ-CWF Y Y

UNT Brush Hollow 50445 HQ-CWF Y

UNT Ellithorpe Run 50446 HQ-CWF Y

Cherry Run 50449 HQ-CWF Y Y

Little Mill Creek 50527 HQ-CWF

West Branch Clarion River 50573 CWF Y Y

Silver Creek 50574 CWF UNT Bear Creek 50577 CWF Wolf Run 50598 HQ-CWF Y Y Little Wolf Run 50599 HQ-CWF Y Slide Run 50600 HQ-CWF Y Wilson Run 50615 CWF Y Y UNT Hoffman Run 50618 CWF Y UNT Dump Run 50639 CWF Y UNT E. Br. Tionesta Creek 55311 HQ-CWF Y Wolf Run 55399 HQ-CWF Y Y

‘High Quality’ or ‘Exceptional Value’ Waters (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection classification) These surface waters have been identified as supporting high quality aquatic communities based upon information gathered using peer-reviewed biological assessment procedures that consider physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fishes to determine the condition of the aquatic community.

Other designations (Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission classification) There are no Class A Trout Streams or Wilderness Trout Streams in this project area. There are also no USFS designated Remote Trout Streams.

Drinking Water The Allegheny and greater Ohio River Drainages provide drinking water to nearly 3 million people. They also serve as transportation routes, recreational water bodies, habitat for aquatic life, and water sources for manufacturing and power generation. More than 25 million people reside in the Ohio River basin and over time the use and demand for Allegheny River water is expected to grow and expand. Big Mill Creek is a municipal supply watershed that provides drinking water to Ridgway. Silver Creek is also a municipal supply watershed for Johnsonburg.

1 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-7 Hydrologically connected roads as discussed in AQ (1) can be defined as any road segment that has a continuous surface flow path to a stream channel. Wherever there is connectivity there is the potential for road derived pollutants to enter our surface waters. Common contaminants include: sediment, oils and grease, heavy metals, debris, road salts, and fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Reducing the miles of road in KEF TAP area will reduce the degree of connectivity because almost all roads have some features that increase connectivity.

AQ (8): How and where does the road system affect wetlands? Wetlands have been steadily and rapidly disappearing across the country since the beginning of European settlement. Road building has been a primary cause. Roads can affect wetlands by direct encroachment or through changes in hydrology. Roads can modify both surface and subsurface drainage in wetlands, causing changes in wetland moisture regimes. Where roads cross or are near wetlands, the effect on wetland form, process, and function is evaluated by examining the degree to which the local hydrology is modified, in terms of flow quantity, timing, routing, and water quality. An example of this occurs when a road blocks flow and causes a pond to develop where a wetland once was. Conversely, roads can also facilitate flows and dewater wetlands when cross drains and ditch lines are set too low and begin to function as conduits for gathering and eliminating water from the road edge. They can also limit the natural development of aquatic vegetation or serve as a barrier limiting the movement of aquatic-dependent species. Where Forest Roads run through valley bottoms they can squeeze streams by narrowing the floodplain. This destabilizes the stream which has less room to meander and therefore has an excess of energy. The roads also affect drainage from uplands onto the floodplains, and many are built on top of areas that once were wetlands. Such roads often create long, low-quality wetlands upslope of the road by interrupting surface and groundwater flows. These wetlands can attract wildlife dangerously close to roads. Wetland loss caused by roads should be mitigated through the restoration of other impacted wetlands although the replacement wetlands are not always of the same type and quality as those lost. In the KEF TAP area 11 road segments traverse wet soils (WS) or Wetlands (W) and may be impacting wetlands at those locations.

AQ (9): How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment? Stream channels are dynamic. They migrate within historic floodplains, eroding the bed and banks in one place while aggrading the bed and building new banks in other places. Streams also transport and deposit large pieces of woody debris and fine organic matter, providing physical structure and diverse aquatic habitat to the channel. When roads encroach directly on stream channels, these processes can be modified. Wood and sediment can be trapped behind stream crossings, reducing downstream transport and increasing the risk of crossing failure. Road alignment and road fills can isolate floodplains, constrict the channel, constrain channel migration, and simplify riparian and aquatic habitat. In some places, road encroachment can divert stream flows to the opposite bank, thereby destabilizing the hillslope and resulting in increased mass wasting and land sliding. Roads constructed along streams often directly change the way channels and floodplains function. During frequent to moderate flood events, roads can confine streams by restricting access to floodplains. Roads constructed near streams tend to straighten streams by limiting sinuosity and increasing channel steepness. Changes in the physical characteristics of a stream often lead to undesirable channel adjustments. Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-8 In the forested lands of the ANF, modification of surface flow results from roadbeds being constructed perpendicular to natural water flow patterns. This occurs on hillslopes or in valley bottoms when soils are saturated with water or frozen, or when soil structure inhibits water absorption. Road interception of subsurface flow occurs mainly on steep hillside where the roadbed is cut deep enough into the hillside to intercept some or all of the subsurface flow. Ditches associated with these roads become an extension of the natural channel system and transport water more efficiently, increasing the potential of storm runoff, the magnitude of peak flows, and sediment delivery to larger stream channels. Undersized culverts placed into stream channels cause the stream channel to become U-shaped immediately above and below the culvert. Historically, Forest Road culvert installations were done with little attention given to the size needed to accommodate all possible flows. During high flow events under sized culverts at stream crossings may produce large sediment inputs to the streams if the culvert becomes plugged, if flows exceed the culvert capacity, and/or if the stream overtops the road causing the road fill to erode and causing it to fail. The 21 stream crossings (SC) identified in Table B- 1 and section AQ (4) by their very nature influence the local stream channel and water quality either directly or by modifying local surface and subsurface hydrology, are also the most likely to alter the physical dynamics of its associated channel; including potential isolation of floodplains, constraints on channel migration, and the movement of large wood, fine organic matter, and sediment.

AQ (10): How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms (AOP)? What aquatic species are affected and to what extent? The ANF has become very good at designing and constructing stream crossings that allow aquatic organisms unrestricted access to a watershed, maintain natural stream conditions, and help protect roads and property from some of the damaging effects of floods. In this day and age, aquatic organism passage and ecological connectivity is the goal and first design priority for crossing streams that provide habitat for aquatic life. Historically, however, Forest Road culvert installations were done with little attention given to the size needed to accommodate all possible flows and these improperly designed, undersized culverts often became barriers to aquatic organism passage. This can occur in a number of different ways. If a culvert outlet is perched above the stream, various size classes of fish may not be able to make the jump into the culvert. The higher the jump to reach the culvert, the more difficult the passage is for fish. In addition, lack of an outlet pool prevents a “resting place” prior to the fish attempting to jump into the pipe. Inadequate outlet pool depth also limits the physical ability of the fish to leap. Velocity of the water moving through the culvert can also impede fish passage by creating water velocities that exceed the swimming capabilities of the fish. Velocity barriers are created by 1) too steep a slope, 2) roughness reduced through the culvert, 3) reduction of channel cross-sectional area, and 4) a combination of culvert length and velocity may exceed the fishes swimming capabilities. Swimming capabilities are determined by fish species and fish length. Juvenile fish are weaker swimmers than adults and culverts that allow adult passage may not provide it for juveniles. Low water depth through culverts may also prevent passage of fish through the pipes. Shallow water may result in the fish not being fully submerged, preventing adequate swimming power to pass through the structure. When a stream becomes disconnected or fragmented by a road barrier changes in its physical, geomorphological and chemical properties will occur. Natural processes are in turn altered by the physical and structural changes and consequently, aquatic organisms and their life cycles are impacted. Locations where roads cross waterways change the natural shape of the river and how it is allowed to flow through the barrier. This in turn can increase sediment transport, deposition, and erosion in riparian habitats (Warren and Pardew 1998, Forman and Alexander 1998). Increases in sedimentation lead to changes in flow regime and water stability, stream channel instability, and reduced water quality

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-9 (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). An increase in fine sediments, particularly in small spawning streams, can have negative impacts on fish egg survival and spawning success and may directly kill aquatic organisms (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). In addition, how and where the KEF TAP area roads and crossings alter physical channel dynamics and in turn restrict the migration and movement of aquatic organisms is also discussed at length in section AQ (4) and AQ (9).

AQ (11): How does the road system affect shading, litter fall, and riparian plant communities? Past primary considerations for road planning, construction, and maintenance were traffic levels and economics, with little concern for environmental effects (Gardner 1979, in Meehan 1991). This often resulted in construction of roads in valley bottoms, where the road system frequently infringes on the stream banks and floodplains. Vegetation, including riparian shrubs and trees, is removed during road construction and maintenance. Stream shade, potential nutrients to the stream system from litter fall, and the abundance and vigor of riparian vegetation are all reduced. The road system effects to shading, litter fall, and riparian plant communities in the project area occur primarily where the road system crosses or is directly adjacent to streams. Within the KEF TAP area the road segments identified and discussed in section AQ (4) and AQ (9) as adjacent and hydrologically connected to nearby streams and also affect shading, litter fall, and riparian.

AQ (12): How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic species? The ANF’s forested streams, rivers, and impoundments provide refuge for an abundance of fish species and outstanding opportunities for fishing and other water sports. While roads can increase the risk of overharvesting of certain game fish (e.g., brook trout); the likelihood of fishing or poaching affecting the ANF’s at-risk aquatic species (amphibians, fish, or mussels) is very low. Fortunately, none of these are recreationally or commercially desirable. Table B- 3: 2011 Regional Forester Sensitive Species List for ANF

AMPHIBIANS Cryptobranchus alleghaniensis Eastern Hellbender Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander FISH Etheostoma camurum Bluebreast Darter Etheostoma maculatum Spotted Darter Etheostoma tippecanoe Tippecanoe Darter Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio Lamprey Ichthyomyzon greeleyi Mountain Brook Lamprey Lota lota Burbot Noturus eleutherus Mountain Madtom Noturus stigmosus Northern Madtom Percina copelandi Channel Darter Percina evides Gilt Darter Percina macrocephala Longhead Darter INVERTEBRATES-BIVALVES

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-10 Amblema plicata Threeridge Fusconaia flava Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia subrotunda Longsolid Lasmigona complanata White Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter Pleurobema sintoxia Round Pigtoe Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rabbitsfoot Villosa iris Rainbow Direct habitat loss is always a potential concern whenever roads are constructed in close proximity to streams. Roads can affect at-risk aquatic species habitats by direct encroachment or through changes in hydrology. Roads often modify both surface and subsurface flows, causing potential changes in stream flows and wetland moisture regimes. Where roads cross or are near streams or wetlands, their form, process, and function are often modified by changes in flow quantity, timing, routing, and water quality. How and where the KEF TAP road system is potentially contributing to direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic species is discussed extensively in sections AQ (1), (2), (4), (5), (8), and (9).

AQ (13): How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non-native aquatic species? Road systems facilitate the potential introduction of non-native invasive species (NNIS) primarily where it crosses or is directly adjacent to streams. Where roads are open the public they provide easy access to a wide range of Forest users. The spread of aquatic NNIS (plants, animals, and other organisms) is a major threat to our aquatic ecosystems. NNIS can go unseen, hitching rides on clothing, boats, and other items used in the water. When those items are brought to another waterbody, the NNIS may become established and can potentially cause drastic changes to their new environment. Pathways are the means by which species are transported from one location to another include: 1) natural pathways like wind, currents, and other forms of dispersal in which a specific species has developed morphologically and behaviorally to employ, and 2) man-made pathways which are facilitated or enhanced by roads systems. Man-made pathways are characteristically of two types: • Intentional - the result of a deliberate action to translocate an organism • Unintentional - unintended or accidental moving of organisms Examples of unintentional pathways which may be facilitated by the KEF TAP road system include:

Fishing and Other Water Related Recreational Activities Once established in some U.S. waters, nuisance species can be easily spread to more streams, lakes, and rivers by those who use them. NNIS can hitch a ride on boats, trailers, fishing waders, scuba equipment or clothing, buckets used by children playing in the water or anglers who use them for a variety of reasons, and many other ways.

Sportfish Stocking Whirling disease, a potentially fatal condition that manifests itself in young salmon and trout, is caused by a non-native parasite that infects the fish cartilage and nervous system. Ultimately, the parasite causes these fish to swim in a circular pattern making them susceptible to predation. Transmitted by

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-11 infected stocked trout, whirling disease has damaged hatchery-reared fish stocks across the country as well as wild stocks in inland water of the United States.

Live Bait NNIS live bait species are routinely captured from the streams, lakes, and rivers waters of the ANF. Bait sellers are often reliant upon the importation and/or movement of live, non-native fish and aquatic plants for their bottom line. Aquarium raised and wild-caught bait fish are all transported using water as a medium. While the various live species are a concern, the water used to transport these shipments also can serve as a pathway for the spread of aquatic nuisance species.

Recreational Boating NNIS can hitch a ride on boats and trailers, in bilge systems, and live wells. Preventing the introduction of aquatic NNIS and specifically zebra mussels into the Allegheny River and Reservoir remains a priority for the ANF. Annual screenings of boats and trailers at Forest Service boat launches have shown a low risk for introduction of zebra mussels from watercraft, but we remain vigilant. Within the KEF TAP area the road segments identified and discussed in section AQ (4) and AQ (9) as adjacent and hydrologically connected to nearby streams also have the greatest potential for facilitating the introduction of non-native aquatic species.

AQ (14): To what extent does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity, or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of interest? These items are discussed at length in the section AQ (7) regarding “beneficial uses”. Additional recommendations for protecting aquatic resources throughout the KEF TAP area and the ANF as a whole include: • Streamside roads - should be relocated or reconfigured and maintained to minimize sediment- laden runoff and other impacts to streams. If the road is no longer needed, they should be decommissioned. • Undersized culverts - should be replaced with properly designed and constructed stream crossings, which allow aquatic organisms unrestricted access to a watershed, maintain natural stream conditions, and help protect roads and property from some of the damaging effects of floods • Aquatic habitat strongholds - streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands that are important for at-risk, threatened, or endangered aquatic and terrestrial species should be given greater weight to those watersheds when making road decommissioning and maintenance decisions.

AQ (15): Where do roads provide access to fishable waters? What are the benefits and risks associated with these roads? (Question added by ANF) Forest Roads 123 and 191 are the major roads that provid public motor vehicle access to fishable waters within the KEF TAP. Please refer to Appendix A - Map 5 (Roads Used for Fishing) for roads that provide access to fishable waters. Please refer to Appendix A - Map 21 (Risk/Benefit Analysis for Forest Service Roads) for benefits and risks associated with roads located near streams.

RECOMMENDATIONS: FR 332 appears to be a road that would have great benefit if it were decommissioned, because almost its entire length appears to be within riparian areas. In addition, it appears as if areas along this road can be accessed by the surrounding roads. FR 458 also is near streams, and may have a portion at the end of this road that could be decommissioned.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-12 CITATIONS: Varnes, D.J. 1978. Slope movement types and processes, in: R.L. Schuster, R.J. Krizek (Eds.), Landslide Analysis and Control, Special Report 176, Transportation Research Board, N.R.C., National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 11–33 Chapter 2 Sidle, R.C., Pearce, A.J., and O’Loughlin C.L. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. Water Resources Monograph 11, American Geophysical Union. Wolfe MD, Williams JW. 1986. Rate of Landsliding as impacted by timber management activities in northwestern California. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 23(1):53–60. Warren, M. L. Jr., and M. G. Pardew. 1998. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:637–644. Forman, T.T., and Alexander, L.E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231. Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-302. Gardner, R.B. 1979. Some environmental and economic effects of alternate forest road designs. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Transactions. 221(1): 63-68. Meehan, W.R. ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society 751 9.

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR)

CR (1): Is the road system used or valued differently by minority, low-income, or disabled populations than by the general population? Would potential changes to the road system or its management have disproportionate negative impacts on minority, low-income, or disabled populations? Please refer to the FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 120) to read Forest-wide information in response to this question. The Allegheny National Forest participates with the Pennsylvania Game Commission in opening certain roads for vehicle access ONLY for those possessing a Disabled Person Hunting Permit issued by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Persons without this permit are not allowed to drive these roads during the hunting season. Currently the following roads are in this program: • FR 332A, FR 458, FR 458A Possession of this permit allows the bearer to hunt from their vehicle on these roads during the hunting season. The bearer is allowed to have a helper to assist in retrieving any game.

Commodity Production – Timber Management (TM)

TM (1): How does road spacing and location affect logging system feasibility? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a p. 91).

TM (2): How does the road system affect managing the suitable timber and other lands? The present road system emphasizes access to the suitable timber, developed mineral rights, research areas and other areas appropriate for management activities such as recreation, wildlife and fisheries. Past timber management has provided for a network of NFS roads within the project area. The existing NFS roads meet the conditions outlined under the current Management Areas (2.2, 3.0, 6.1, 8.6). A small amount of additional access is needed:

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-13 • to the south of FR340B (New Construction, 0.6 miles) • to the south of FR239A using an OGM road (Add to System, NS030438, 0.5 miles) • to the north of FR333A (New Construction, 0.3 miles) • the development of four segments of OGM roads (Add to System NS003650, 0.2 miles; NS018686, 0.3 miles; NS030804, 0.4 miles; NS036012, 0.2; New Construction after NS036012, 0.2 miles) • the creation of a system road to allow access into an undeveloped parcel of land New Construction off EHI326 due West, 0.2 miles) All but one access point can use existing corridors to start and then may or may not need to have new corridor constructed. Current silvicultural practices employ multiple treatments and entries. Other access needs for forest inventory, regeneration and reforestation, fire, other management activities, and law enforcement are possibly needed. Road system design standards and surfacing needs must be specific toward more year- round use and multiple entries over several decades. This may require the use of gates in lieu of seedling and constructing berms to close a road system. Existing OGD roads will be utilized for access by improving them to the ANF’s Standards and Guidelines and then adding them to the NFS. In the future, proposed access routes should be located for flexibility of conventional and non- conventional harvesting systems. Any proposed new roads or reconstruction routes will utilize existing openings, skid roads, or other classified (or unauthorized) road segments whenever possible to minimize impacts and changes to the landscape.

TM (3): How does the road system affect access to timber stands needing silvicultural treatment? Without the existing and potential future additions to the road system, the ANF would not be able to manage the lands within the KEFTAP Area to meet the goals set forth by the Forest Plan. The Forest Service would not be able to salvage or reforest lands that have been impacted by natural disturbances with economic efficiency without a well thought out road system. Past road construction as part of management activities developed a road system that emphasized economic and efficient access to management units. To continue economic and efficient access to future management units requires the need to develop new roads or new systems of skidding and yarding. New road construction needs to consider the entire area the road is to service. Skidding distance requirements should be reviewed, and increased skidding distance should lessen the need for new road construction. Future road development may be needed in response to research activities on the Kane Experimental Forest. Given the legacy of browsing impacts by deer on understory vegetation, road management can influence hunter access and therefore indirectly help reduce the deer browsing impacts. Managing the road system in a manner that encourages hunter access can help ensure reforestation success and greater seedling and understory vegetation diversity. Hunter access needs to be considered in future development of the road system.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-14 Cultural and Heritage (CH)

CH (1): How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archeological, and historic sites and the values people hold for these sties? The decommissioning of roads and the limiting of public access to cultural sites may limit adverse effects upon sites such as vandalism, damage, or intentional looting. However, sites that cannot be monitored easily may also be more subject to damage. “The limiting motor vehicle access for management would increase the costs of future monitoring, documentation, investigation, evaluation, and interpretation of sites (USDA-FS 2003b pp. 86).” For additional general information, please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a p. 114).

CH (2): How does the road system management affect the exercise of American Indian treaty rights? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a p. 114) for general information.

CH (3): How does road use and road management affect roads that constitute historic sites? The FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 114) noted there are no roads in the ANF listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and there are no roads determined to be eligible for the NRHP; however, “there are numerous roads in the Forest that easily succeed the 50-year threshold for National Register consideration.” The majority of recorded archaeological/historic sites on the ANF have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. For additional general information, please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 114-115). Many of the oldest Forest Service roads were originally constructed as railroads for the logging industry and later converted to roads or they were constructed by the CCC’s in the early thirties. Many of these same roads on the ANF have been reconstructed over the years in order to maintain them in a safe usable condition for today’s current traffic. Typically, little is left to indicate the historic nature of the road. Occasionally, however, roads or sections of road are found with their original construction standards intact. These sections may be a random culvert that still has the stone headwalls constructed by the CCC’s to an entire road that the original logging grade has been preserved. In either case, the historic nature of the road will be evaluated before reconstruction/maintenance activities are undertaken that may impact the historic nature of the feature. Of equal importance and sometimes overlooked are historic features that are close to roads and may be impacted by typical reconstruction/maintenance activities. These may include old spring boxes constructed by either the railroad logging industry or the CCC’s. They may be old foundations from early settlers. In any situation where historical features are encountered coordination will occur between engineering personnel and archaeology personnel to avoid and or mitigate impacts of the road on the historic feature. As an example, FR 131, which is partially within the Millstek TAP area and partially within the Spring Creek TAP area, is currently being evaluated for its historic significance. FR 131 is an old railroad logging grade that has been converted to road use, but it still has much of the “feel” of the original railroad grade. See RR (4).

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-15 Economics (EC)

EC (1): What are the monetary costs associated with the current road system? How do these costs compare to the budgets for management and maintenance of the road system? The 2003 FWRAP documented the estimated funding needed to maintain the Forest Service Road system, FWRAP p82-91. At that time, it was estimated the needs and the available funding were approximately equal. Twelve years later, this analysis was updated for current costs and available funding. The following documents the process that was used to update this analysis and the results of the analysis.

Estimated Costs to Maintain the Forest Service Road System: The Forest Service road system can be characterized by many different methods: Traffic Service Level (TSL), road management, functional classification, surfacing type, number of lanes, maintenance level, etc. The classification system that will be used for the cost portion of this analysis is maintenance level. Maintenance level is used as it will allow several characteristics of the road system to be taken into consideration for cost factors. The Forest Service uses a 5 level road maintenance system. The five maintenance levels (ML) and a brief description of each as implemented on the ANF are: • ML 1: Basic Custodial Care. Road is in storage and is in a stable condition. Limited potential exists for resource damage as vehicular traffic is eliminated, both public and administrative. The road is physically closed to vehicular traffic, usually by an earthen barricade. The drainage culverts are usually removed and the road surface is usually seeded. To be used, the road would need complete reconstruction. Roads are usually put in this maintenance level when they are not needed for extended periods of time – usually greater than 10 years. Maintenance activities consist of maintaining the physical closure device, drainage and signs. Road Maintenance cycle for ML1 roads is 10 years. • ML 2: High clearance vehicle use. Passenger car traffic is discouraged, user comfort, and user convenience are not considered; low traffic volume and low speed; drainage structures are culverts; surface smoothness is not considered; and very few signs. Public use may be prohibited. Road is typically a single lane with turnouts, pit run surfacing and a ditch. These roads may be open for hunting on a periodic basis. These roads may be used for several years for a specific use (timber sale), or may be used on a continuous basis for OGM and intermittent timber sale use. During periods of use road will be maintained, during periods of non-use, the road will be monitored. Maintenance activities include: brush to maintain access and drainage, spot blade to maintain drainage during use; clean/repair structures (culverts, gates) and signs. Road Maintenance cycle for ML2 roads is 5 years. • ML 3: Passenger car use. Maintain surface to provide travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger car, road is typically single lane with turnouts and a pit run or aggregate surface. These roads are typically open to the public year round, but may be gated and only opened intermittently. Some surface roughness is tolerated. User comfort and convenience is a low priority, with low speeds with low to moderate traffic volume. Drainage structures include ditches, culverts and dips. Surface is compact, crowned or sloped to drain without segregation of

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-16 surface materials; few ruts or rills. Maintenance activities include: surface blade annually to maintain template and drainage; suitable material is recovered and incorporated back into the surface during maintenance activities; unsuitable material is removed; replace the base course and surfacing where needed, spot surface with aggregate; ditches and culverts function efficiently and are maintained; brushing is accomplished on a regular basis for safety; clean/repair structures (culverts, gates) and signs.. Road Maintenance cycle for ML3 roads is 3 years. • ML 4: Passenger car use. Provide moderate degree of user comfort and convenience; moderate speeds and traffic volume. Typically these are the collector roads on the ANF or lead to developed recreation areas and may be either single lane or double lane aggregate or asphalt surfaced. Drainage structures are culverts and ditches and function efficiently. Shoulders are shaped to provide a smooth transition to traveled way and drain efficiently. Maintenance activities include: clean/repair structures (culverts, gate) and signs; brush to maintain sight distance, if aggregate surface, road is usually bladed twice a year to keep surface free of washboard, potholes, or other irregularities, surface is smooth, compact, crowned or sloped to drain without segregation of surface materials; no ruts or rills; suitable material is recovered and incorporated; unsuitable material is removed; dust abatement may be used occasionally; spot surface with aggregate; patch and crack sealing on asphalt surfaced roads. Road Maintenance cycle for ML4 roads is primarily 2 years. • ML 5: Passenger car use. Provide high degree of user comfort and convenience; highest traffic volume and speeds; single lane within developed recreation areas or double lane in general forest areas; drainage structures are ditches and culverts and function efficiently; shoulders are shaped to provide a smooth transition to traveled way and drain efficiently. Surface is typically asphalt. Maintenance activities include: brush to maintain access and drainage; surface repairs include pothole patching, crack sealing, chip sealing and removal of unsuitable material; clean/repair structures (culverts, gates) and signs; Paint pavement markings. Road Maintenance cycle for ML5 roads is every year. Based on these general descriptions and ANF actual costs based on contract bids, average maintenance costs per mile can be developed. These costs are shown in Table B- 4. Discussion and notes: • Costs include only the cost of performing the work activity. Costs to plan, survey, design, contract preparation, contract administration, record keeping, monitoring, reporting, etc. are not included. • Costs are based on actual current bid prices for the activity. Some variations were made to account for variation in work activities due to maintenance levels. As an example, for brushing, the current contract price is $1,500 per mile for our typical ML 3 and 4 roads, with the brushing being done about every three years. For ML 5 roads, where the brushing is done more frequently, there will be less work needed since it is done on an annual basis. Hence the unit cost should be lower. Conversely, for ML 2 roads where the brushing is done less frequently, the work required and hence the cost will be higher.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-17 • Asphalt surfacing replacement – costs are averaged for the proportion of single and double lane roads. Approximately 1/3 of the ML 5 roads are double lane and 2/3 are single lane roads. The current costs for paving a single lane is $50,000 per mile. • Spot Surfacing – unit cost for DSA limestone was used - $35/ton. • The general calculation is the frequency x the cost for each item. Items for each maintenance level is summed and then divided by the maintenance cycle.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-18 Table B- 4: Estimated Maintenance Costs by Maintenance Level

Cost / Cost / Cost / Cost / Cost / Description of Work* ML 1 ML 2 ML 3 ML 4 ML 5 Mile Mile Mile Mile Mile

Every Twice / Blading $600 $750 $1,500 year year Brushing/Mowing $1,700 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 Clean/repair all drainage Every 3 $500 $500 $500 $500 structures years Clean/Repair other Every 3 $200 $200 $200 $200 Structures years Every 3 Paint pavement markings $1,000 years Resurface asphalt - asphalt Every $75,000 overlay or chip seal 10 years Replace Replace Sign Replace Replace Replace $150 1 every $150 $150 $300 2 every $300 Maintenance/Replacement 1 1 2 10 years 3 years 600 Spot Surfacing 150 tons $5250 $21,000 tons

Cost to Maintain/Mile $150 $3,075 $9,850 $22,013 $9,833 Maintenance Cycle 10 5 3 2 1 Annual Cost/Mile $15 $615 $3,283 $11,007 $9,833 * Unless noted, the maintenance frequency for each activity is the same as the maintenance cycle for that maintenance level

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-19 Based on the costs by maintenance level and the miles of Forest Service roads in each maintenance level, it can be calculated that the cost to maintain our system of roads is currently about $2,900,000 per year. This is shown in Table B- 5.

Table B- 5: Economic Analysis – Maintenance Work Task Costs

Estimated Cost Maintenance Level # of Miles Estimated Cost ($) ($) / Mile/year 1 – Closed To All Traffic $15 43.4 $651 2 – High Clearance Vehicles $615 739.3 $454,653

3 – Passenger Cars $3,283 361.5 $1,187,066 4 – Moderate degree of comfort $11,007 114.3 $1,258,145

5 – Paved Roads $9,833 29.1 $286,636 Total 1287.7 $2,900,515

Estimated Budget to Maintain the Forest Service Road System: The 2003 FWRAP documented the estimated budget available to maintain the Forest Service Road system. Table B- 6 shows the historic ANF road budgets for 2006 to 2015. The road budget can be divided into two general categories: Appropriated and Non-Appropriated. Appropriated funds are those that are directly appropriated from Congress. Non-Appropriated are funding sources such as cooperative work either paid for with deposits or actually completed by commercial users of the road system such as timber purchasers or OGM operators. When the price of natural gas and crude oil is down, as it is now, the funding from cooperative work usually decreases as that industry is not as active. Non-Appropriated also includes work included within timber sales or as stewardship projects. Stewardship funding is increasing in significance as a source of funding for roads on the ANF. It is estimated that this funding source will continue to expand in future years. It can be seen in Table B- 6 that approximately $3.69 million dollars is currently available annually to maintain the current Forest Service road system on the ANF. The numbers included in Table B- 6 include the cost for planning, surveying, design, contract preparation, contract administration, record keeping, monitoring, reporting, etc. that are spent each year. Currently, about $810,000 per year is spent on salary, fleet, equipment and other items to perform these tasks. Road funding for the ANF C&M crew is not included in this figure. Deducting this value from the available funding results in about $2,880,000 available for on the ground road maintenance, or about $20,000 less than the calculated road maintenance needed. For the level of accuracy of this analysis, these numbers are considered to be in balance with the road system being sustainable.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-20 Table B- 6: Historic Road Funding on ANF

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY AVERAGE Funding Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k Appropriated CMRD 1,688 1,051 1,180 1,297 1,356 1,029 987 1,038 976 1,177 1,178 TRTR/CMLG 155 129 209 146 905 75 100 225 194 NFVW/NFTM 110 45 16 Forest Highway Planning 13,500 12 8 7 10 10 13 8 6 10 10 ARRA/CRRD 2,957 2,097 505

Non-Appropriated Coop work-deposits 350 400 350 355 500 951 764 468 609 550 530 Coop – work in lieu 100 100 100 175 200 200 500 500 200 100 218 Stewardship 200 380 438 102 RAC 130 45 18 Timber Sales 330 1,103 741 625 1,196 1,643 556 573 1,113 1,319 920

Total 2,637 2,795 2,588 5,562 6,264 3,908 2,820 3,017 3,664 3,639 Average Annual Total 3,690

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Consideration (Sept 2015) B-21 EC (2): What are the indirect economic contributions of roads including market and non-market costs and benefits associated with road system design, management and operations? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a p. 90).

EC (3): What are the direct economic impacts of the current road system and its management upon communities around the forest? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a p. 90).

Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF)

EF (1): What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to the region, would be affected by roading of currently unroaded areas? Background and Present Condition Considering National Forest and private property, the KEF TAP area contains approximately 31 unroaded areas ranging from 1 to 422 acres in size that total 806 acres. Nearly half of the unroaded areas are located on private property and total 179 acres. The average unroaded area is less than 13 acres while the largest unroaded area on private land is 51 acres in size. Since these areas offer no substantial remote or interior habitat (of sufficient size) they have no bearing on this analysis. Seventeen of the 31 unroaded areas in the TAP area are located on federal land and total 627 acres. None of these areas are 500+ acres in size; one area is 300+ acres, while the remainders are less than 100 acres in size. One area in the Brush Hollow Run, Ellithorpe Run, Cherry Run and Big Mill Creek confluences totals 422 acres and supports some valuable wildlife habitat and unique features. Excluding this one area, the sixteen remaining unroaded areas on federal land average less than 13 acres with the largest area at 58 acres in size. Except for the 422-acre area, these areas offer no substantial remote or interior habitat (of sufficient size) they have no bearing on this analysis. Disagreement exists among biologists as to the size necessary for interior species success and smaller patches may support some species (Stoleson, personal communication). Roading a current unroaded area could result in diminished wildlife values such as habitat connectivity, area size and shape, create access to TES species and unique habitat features, and increase human intervention and development. However, roads provide benefits for some wildlife species and plants. Many ‘generalist’ wildlife species are very adaptable and quite successful using small or large blocks of unroaded habitat. In general, biologists agree that larger unroaded areas provide more habitat features that meet the needs of wildlife for food, water, shelter and space without experiencing disturbances from human activities. Core areas of 1,000+ acres fulfill the habitat needs of most wildlife and represents an ideal size for providing high quality habitat for species sensitive to human disturbance. Areas of 500+ acres also provide valuable components especially if they support unique habitats and features as well as a diversity of vegetation. None of the current unroaded areas found in the KEF TAP area meet the minimum size; consequently, none were evaluated for wildlife values or ecosystem functions in the 2003 Forest-wide RAP (USDA 2003, FWRAP). However, the unroaded area in the KEF TAP that came up 78 acres short of the 500 acre minimum deserves some discussion because of some of the sensitive or specialize habitat features that it supports.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-22 The 422-acre area under consideration consists of two relatively large blocks connected and extended by several narrow ‘fingers’ that provide habitat connectivity between four drainages, Brush Hollow Run, Ellithorpe Run, Cherry Run and Big Mill Creek. Because the area is positioned ¼ to 1-mile from State Route 948 and the Forest Service roads in the region are closed or restricted with gates, the 422-acre area provides a sense of remoteness and a forest- interior setting. The area encompasses riparian zones of four streams with their associated habitats, plant communities, and moist sensitive soils. Part of the area includes a large scrub- shrub swamp in the upper reaches of Brush Hollow Run. Except for a hiking/cross-country ski trail and a narrow completely-forested 20-foot wide pipeline corridor that traverses the northeast corner of the area, the region lacks human development. The area is occupied habitat of the federally threatened northern long-eared bat, little brown bat and northern goshawk (two RFSS for ANF), nesting habitat for large raptors including red-tailed hawk, and is suitable habitat of a wide variety of songbirds including neo-tropical migrants such as ovenbird, very and black- throated green warbler. Local ‘headwaters’ associations have made sizeable investments in treating chronic acidification in Big Mill Creek and its major tributaries upstream from the unroaded area. Part of the area serves as a deer and turkey wintering area. The rather irregular shape of the area is less than ideal for remoteness and the 422-acres are isolated from any other unroaded areas of 500+ acres.

Summary and Environmental Effects of Roading and Unroaded Area Although it fails to meet the minimum acreage condition, there is only one unroaded area in the KEF TAP area that has relatively high wildlife/ecological values but is isolated from other unroaded areas in the region. This 422-acre area represents less than one-tenth of one percent of the National Forest. If an unroaded area is subjected to road development, the following physical effects could occur to some degree at the expense of the ecological functions the area currently sustains; a) the total core area or present size of the unroaded patch would decrease, b) the number of patches of unroaded areas would increase (reflecting habitat fragmentation), c) the average size of all patches would decrease (reflecting an overall deduction), d) total length of ‘edge’ habitat would increase (decreasing interior habitat and probably increasing the likelihood of disturbances from human activity), and the total edge density would increase (length of edge per acre of unroaded habitat, that is, an increase in the proportion equates to a reduction in remoteness). Historically, the ANF supported a full complement of wildlife including large predators prior to massive human-induced changes (such as railroad logging) to the landscape. A severe reduction in the size of present unroaded block would likely preclude the landscape’s ability to provide sufficient habitat for interior forest species to be successful. Roading this area is likely to have adverse effects on the area’s visual character and level of noise. Primarily due to its effect on sunlight, interior forest can often provide buffers from invasive species. Roads into interior forestland have shown to be avenues for spreading invasive plants and insects. Headwaters of numerous unnamed tributaries originate in this unroaded area. Roads are likely to multiply negative impacts to soil, water and air quality through the introduction of contaminants. Collectively, these factors can decrease the quality of wildlife habitat and the naturalness of the area. Roading could result in positive and negative impacts to wildlife. While wildlife sensitive to human disturbance would experience degradation in environmental conditions, other species that

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-23 thrive in disturbed settings, edge habitat or early successional conditions would benefit from roads and more active forest management. Deer, coyote, ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare and common yellowthroat are just a few species that would do well.

Unique Ecological Attributes Affected by Roading The following bullets are a list of unique ecological attributes and how they could be affected by roading the 422-acre unroaded area: • Occupied habitat of the northern long-eared bat would experience a reduction in potential day-roost and maternity roost trees (lost during construction of road corridor(s)), optimum or suitable foraging and/or maternity roost habitat would be altered but is not likely to become unsuitable habitat, new roads are likely usher in additional vegetation management that is apt to alter habitat, trees now exposed to additional sunlight may improve their thermal dynamics as roost trees, new road corridors could be used as travel and foraging corridors • Occupied habitat of the little brown bat, a RFSS on the ANF, could experience similar effects as the northern long-eared bat • Nesting habitat of the northern goshawk, a RFSS on the ANF, would experience a reduction in potential nest and roost trees (lost during construction of road corridor(s)), suitable nesting and foraging habitat may be affected to a degree to create unsuitable habitat possibly causing the species to avoid or leave the area, additional noise and disturbance from human activity could cause the species to abandon or leave the area • Nesting habitat of large raptors could experience similar effects to the northern goshawk • Even with the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, waterways, wetlands and riparian habitat could be subjected increased risk of degrading these sensitive habitats from runoff, erosion and sedimentation especially during heavy precipitation events • Local songbird populations are likely to experience a shift in species from interior- associated species to more generalist, edge habitat associated, and disturbance tolerant species • Deer and turkey wintering area would experience an alteration in habitat and would be likely to be subjected to additional human disturbance

Landscape Assessment An assessment of the ecological attributes/values of an area often includes an examination of a broader landscape to evaluate any cumulative effects. The 422-acre unroaded area positions on the landscape reveals that the area is not particularly close to any other unroaded areas (on or off the Forest). The closest unroaded area over 500 acres in size is approximately 2.5 miles away with no apparent connectivity between them. The likelihood that the 422-acre unroaded area will remain unroaded depends on several factors. Sub-surface oil and gas rights are outstanding or reserved and privately owned. These rights are explored with road development of all intensities. Seneca Resources has conducted some very limited exploration in this region over the last 20 years. However, in the last 4 years, the company has invested in seismic testing for deep wells which may or not prove profitable.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-24 This unroaded area is found exclusively on National Forest. Land management guidelines (2007 Forest Plan) either facilitate or restrict road building. This 422-acre area is positioned in Management Area (MA) 2.2 where road building guidelines are more restrictive. New road construction is required to use existing corridors.

Aquatic Unroaded Area Evaluation In the 2003 FWRAP, unroaded areas greater than 500 acres were ranked against eight criteria to illustrate their aquatic values. The higher the score, the higher the overall aquatic value of the area. Being less than 500 acres in size, the 422-acre unroaded area in the KEF TAP was not included in the evaluation. Reviewing the same criteria, this unroaded area has: • an average to above average density of streams, • the streams are classified as high-quality cold-water fisheries, • there are no aquatic TES species present, • the area is not within the 13% area of the Forest, • no stream is classified as a state wilderness trout stream, • the streams are the source of a municipal watershed (Ridgway, PA) • the streams are not found in the research natural area, but Ellithorpe Run, Cherry Run and Big Mill Creek originate in the Kane Experimental Forest, and • no streams are classified as Forest Service remote trout streams. It is believed this area would score quite well in the aquatic index. Over the past 5 to 7 years, a local ‘Headwaters Association’ recognized the ecological and recreational values of this watershed and invested heavily in designing and constructing passive acid remediation treatment systems on Ellithorpe Run (2 stations), Cherry Run and Big Mill Creek to correct the chronic acidification occurring in these streams. Two years after completion of the project, water quality, fish, and macro-invertebrate monitoring indicates that treatments are successful and the aquatic life in the streams are responding positively to the improved water quality.

EF (2): To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? Presence of Road Widely cited, generalizations about a biological invasion such as plants is that it is promoted by disturbance. Road building into interior forest and subsequent maintenance represent disturbances that create and maintain new edge habitat. Roadsides can be invaded by a suite of exotic (non-native) species, which may be dispersed by wind and water, as well as by vehicles and other agents. Roads may be the first point of entry for exotic species into a new landscape. A road can serve as a corridor which an invasive can move farther into a landscape. Some exotics may then be able to move away from the roadside into adjacent patches of suitable habitat (Gucinski et al. 2000).

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-25 Type of Road The degree that a road type increases the introduction and spread of exotic species depends on the road’s original design and construction, its historic and current level of use, and the ecology of the exotic species. A road corridor consists of two zones, roadside (area directly adjacent to road) and ecotone (area of transition between the roadside and natural vegetation). The interface between the two zones may be sharp or gradual depending on zone size (Gucinski et al. 2000). A road that has a high traffic volume and wide clearing-limits may provide a large, open, dry and disturbed early-seral stage area with a higher risk of infestation because of the road’s high traffic volume use verses a road with less traffic volume and smaller clearing limits.

Location of Road The degree in which the location of a road increases the introduction and spread of exotics varies with the habitats involved and the road position on the landscape (ridges vs. valley bottoms), which may vary regionally. For example, some weed species may use roadside ditches to spread across the landscape and invade wetlands.

General Effects Potential effects from non-native species can include: altered soil properties, increased erosion, a transformed composition of plant and animal communities, displacement of native plant and animal species, change in fire regime, changes in animal use patterns, wildlife reproduction being compromised or animals avoiding or just leaving an area, loss of pollinators, and possible increases to the number of threatened or endangered species from loss of habitat or pollinators. Up to 46% of the plants and animals federally listed as endangered species have been negatively impacted by invasive species (Wilcove et al. 1998). There is a significant economic cost associated with exotic species as well. One report indicates that the economic cost of invasive species to the United States is an estimated $137 billion every year (Pimentel et al. 2000). As stated in the Forest-wide analysis, exotic species may have significant biological and ecological effects on native plant and animal species and ecosystem function depending on native species vulnerability, ecosystem vulnerability and the ecology of the exotic species (Gucinski et al. 2000). Healthy riparian and wetland ecosystems tend to offer the greatest plant diversity on the ANF. These ecosystems are greatly affected by exotics such as garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and common reed (Phragmites australis). For a description of the general effects of forest roads regarding invasive plants, diseases, insects, birds and mammals, please refer to the FWRAP pp. 56 – 58.

Project Effects - NNIP (non-native invasive plant species) within the KEF TAP area Plant surveys within the analysis area have focused on former timber sale projects and a small number of oil and gas lease developments over the last three decades. The plant surveys conducted for timber sales focused on proposed treatment units and some roadsides. The following timber sale projects were examined for NNIP data: Seven Mile, South KEF Salvage, KEF Windthrow, Regen 06, Forest Renewal, and Regen 07 Project. Although oil and gas leases are privately owned, their developments result in soil disturbance and changes in vegetation affecting National Forest land. As a result, ground searches were conducted for rare plants as well as invasive species to reduce the risk of adverse effects on unique plant communities. At least seven oil and gas lease developments have occurred in the analysis area since 1989 where

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-26 vegetation was examined prior to the new construction. Seven NNIP have been documented within the analysis area. From the available data, infestations are small and often scattered along road corridors and openings. Since data has come from multiple sources, was collected at different time periods, and recorded by a variety of ground searchers, no estimate of the total infested acreage is possible. Only a handful of NNIP infestations have been mapped (associated with different projects) only down to the affected timber sale (scale). One might suspect there are additional NNIP in this TAP area since plant inventories have not been updated since the last timber sale project in 2007 and the latest private lease development in 2011. Table B- 7: NNIP Plants Found in the KEF TAP Area

NRCS Habit Common Name Genus Species Code2 Grass PHAR3 Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Herb CIAR4 Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Herb CIVU Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Herb SEVA4 Crown Vetch Securigera varia Herb TUFA Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara Shrub BETH Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii Shrub FRAL Glossy buckthorn Frangula alnus Table B- 8: Road Corridors with NNIP Plants

Road Number FR 185 FR 239 FR 340 FR 191 FR 138 (T- 359) FR 123 FR 458

EF (3): To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and parasites? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003 pp. 58).

EF (4): How does the road system affect ecological disturbance regimes in the area? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003 pp. 59).

EF (5): What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003 pp. 59 – 61).

General Public Transportation (GT)

GT (1): How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primary access to communities? Please refer to Step 2 - Existing Road and Access System Description and the FWRAP (USDA- FS 2003a pp. 96-100).

2 Natural Resource Conservation Service Plant Code - http://plants.usda.gov/index.html

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-27 GT (2): How does the road system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, inholdings, and so on)? The majority of private surface ownership in the KEFTAP Area borders state and township roads. Appendix A – Map 8 illustrates the roads that are used to access private surface lands.

GT (3): How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction? (RS 2477, cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA easements, DOT easements) The ANF, especially the KEFTAP Area, has many OGM, non-system roads. These roads were built and are maintained by mineral owners to access their privately held oil and gas rights (see MM (2)). The majority of the roads needed for access to private oil and gas rights are shown in Appendix A – Map 7. This map includes roads that were constructed by the OGM operators to access their mineral estate as well as state, township, and Forest Roads. To reduce the road usage impacts between OGM operators and Forest Service resource management, a long standing policy and objective in route planning is to share road use by the Forest Service and other ownership whenever feasible. Roads that require improvement prior to use for timber haul or other resource management activities are added to the NFS as OGM jurisdiction after consultation with OGM operators. OGM operators maintain as much right to use their road as before the Forest Service placed their road onto its system. Potential non-system roads that may be added to the system are shown in Appendix A – Map 11. The Office of General Council (OGC) has advised that OGM roads in their existing condition, without reconstruction or improvement, can be used for resource management activities after obtaining agreement from the OGM operator.

GT (4): How does the road system address the safety of road users? Safety of the road users is one of the primary considerations of roads. The Highway Safety Act established a national highway safety program to improve safety for road users. In 1975, the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Highway Administration requiring the Forest Service to apply the requirements of the national highway safety program to all roads open to public travel. In 1982, this agreement was modified to define “open to public travel” as “those roads passable by four-wheeled standard passenger cars and open to general public use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs...” Most roads maintained at levels of 3, 4 or 5 meet this definition. Most maintenance level (ML) 3 are typically low speed, single lane and their appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accepted”. The most appropriate management strategy for ML 4 and 5 is to “encourage” (USDA-FS 2007b p. 3-67). Traffic control signage on these roads follows standards used on state and township roads. This provides consistency in signing for the road users; thus, providing increased safety to road users. When accidents occur on roads on the ANF, often the Forest Service is not immediately informed unless an employee is involved. Accidents involving public motorists are reported to the local or state police, if at all. When the ANF does become aware of an accident on a NFS road, an investigation is initiated to attempt to identify the cause. The ANF maintains an accident investigation team to investigate accidents that occur on NFS roads. The Highway Safety Act requires that procedures are implemented to identify and monitor locations having high accident rates.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-28 The roads in the KEFTAP Area are maintained and signed in accordance with their maintenance and TSL and are considered adequate for use under normal operating conditions. Any management activity that increases use or considerably alters normal traffic patterns should be mitigated with appropriate warning and precautionary signing. Additional road maintenance or reconstruction may be required to safely accommodate heavier volumes. The KEFTAP area does not include any designated snowmobile or ATV trails. There are no roads with mixed use in this project area. Please see GT(5) for additional information on mixed use roads. Several non-system roads were identified to have safety concerns.

GT (5): How does the road system address the safety of road users on mixed use roads (e.g., snowmobile trails on roads)? (Question added by ANF) Mixed use roads (previously referred to as “joint use”) are roads that are designated for use by both wheeled vehicles (registered highway vehicles) and snowmobiles or ATVs which create safety hazards (see USDA-FS 2003a p. 102 for a detailed description of hazards associated with mixed use roads). Mixed use can also refer to hiking, equestrian and ski trails on roads, or where pedestrian trails and snowmobile or ATV trails overlap. Anytime different modes of travel – pedestrian, equestrian, ATV, snowmobile, wheeled vehicles, etc. – occur on the same corridor at the same time, raises a safety concern. The Forest Service has the obligation to accommodate mixed use as efficiently and safely as possible. The KEFTAP area does not include any designated snowmobile or ATV trails. There are no roads with mixed use in this project area.

Minerals Management (MM) Assessing the impacts from privately owned mineral development is an important part of transportation analyses. The fact that private mineral developers have the right to build and maintain roads on approximately 93 percent of the ANF creates a unique situation. For background information on the OGM on the ANF, please refer to the FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 37-39, Section 3, issue 6).

MM (1): How does the road system affect access to locatable, leasable, and salable minerals? Locatable minerals, generally referred to as “hard rock” minerals, are intrinsically valuable deposits, such as an ore deposit or precious mineral resource. No locatable minerals underlie the KEFTAP Area. A leasable mineral is one that is owned by the Federal government and leased by a private individual or organization through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lease process. The ANF does not have any leasable minerals underlying the KEFTAP Area. A salable or “common variety” mineral is one with no intrinsic material value, such as sand, stone, or gravel. A recent court case in Pennsylvania determined that the common variety minerals underlying certain tracts were the property of the mineral estate. Pending future litigation, the ANF has determined that it will not access common variety material at this time on FS administered land with a severed mineral estate. The Forest Service can purchase common variety minerals from private sources on private land.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-29 MM (2): How does the road system affect access to private minerals? OGM is present in the project area. According to GIS data on July 2015, approximately 30 wells in the KEFTAP Area were field validated using GPS equipment or thru remote sensing processes. This includes wells on both Forest Service administered land and private/other public ownership. OGM continues to be the major source of new road construction on the ANF. It is estimated that for each new well drilled, approximately 0.3 acre are cleared for each well pad, one acre is cleared for roads (0.25 mile x 35 foot clearing width) (USDA-FS 2007b. p3-5) Appendix A – Map 7 illustrates the roads being used by OGM companies. Table 3 indicates the miles of roads used/not used for OGM activities. Most of the recent OGM development has occurred in the northeast corner and southern portion of the project area since data was collected for this analysis.

Protection (PT)

PT (1): How does the road system affect fuels management? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 103).

PT (2): How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 103).

PT (3): How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 103-104).

PT (4): How does the road system contribute to airborne dust emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human health concerns? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 104-105).

Range Management (RM)

RM (1): How does the road system affect access to range allotments? No range allotments are on the ANF.

Recreation– Road Related (RR)

RR (1): Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded recreation opportunities? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, p. 109) for general information.

RR (2): Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning existing roads, or changing maintenance of existing roads causing significant changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? Specialists have recommended road development changes. The road development changes are in response to correct and/or improve the condition of roads for the prevention of soil erosion, enhance wildlife habitiat and the protection of aquatic resources, as well as to provide access for timber harvest. These road development changes will create changes in the quantity, quality or type of roaded and non-roaded recreation opportunities in the project area.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-30 New road construction – would provide roads that may in the future be used by the public to access the forest for dispersed recreation activities, such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing and dispersed camping. There is potential to decommission (work with OGM companies to close and/or mitigate) several roads. Decommissioning these non-system roads would provide small-segmented unroaded areas for dispersed recreation activities, such as wildlife viewing and/or hunting. Culvert replacement and limestone surfacing are recommended on several segments of roads near streams and waterways (road maintenance). The majority of these roads will be closed to public use due to resource activity (timber and/or OGM extraction). However, some of these roads may be classified as restricted roads to permit public access for hunting.

RR (3): What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by constructing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, p. 110) for general information.

RR (4): Who participates in roaded recreation in the areas affected by road constructing, maintaining, or decommissioning? Mostly local residents and many regional recreationists participate in roaded recreation in the KEF TAP Area. Many local hunters use the area in the fall/winter during small and big game hunting seasons. Some native trout fishing occurs along streams within the project area, other streams are annually stocked with trout and receive heavy fishing pressure the first few weeks of spring trout season. Hoffman Run, near the northeast boundary of the project area also receives heavy fishing pressure throughout the spring and summer months. Dispersed camping and driving for pleasure are popular activities throughout the project area. FR 191, FR 123 and FR 185 attract many visitors to this area. FR 191 is liked for its steep road grades, switchbacks and being the “backdoor” to Twin Lakes Campground. FR 123 is noted for providing access to KEF. The Twin Lakes Trail also traverses through the project area. Twin Lakes Campground is the main trailhead. Twin Lakes Campground is located within this project area. Currently Twin Lakes is being utilized as a campground and day use area with fishing and recreational hiking trails open to the public. KEF TAP gets it’s name from Kane Experimental Forest, the predominant land management feature in the area. The headquarters for KEF are located within the project area.

RR (5): What are these participants' attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available? Local user attachment to this area is strong due to the many years of historical family land use (logging and/or OGM) and/or recreating (hunting/fishing). Local users’ attachment to the area revolves primarily around dispersed camping, fishing and hunting access. The project area is an easy and quick drive for local residents from Tionesta, Tidioute, Sheffield, Marienville, Kane and Warren to access National Forest System land.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-31 Alternative opportunities are available for local hunters to hunt elsewhere on both private and NFS land. In addition, alternative opportunities are also available for dispersed recreationists to camp and drive elsewhere on the forest. Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 110-111) for more information on user attachment.

RR (6): How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive recreation Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 111–113) for general information. There are no wilderness or wilderness study areas within the project area.

RR (7): How does the road system affect the visual management system? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a p. 113) for general information. The existing road system in the project area meets the scenic integrity levels of all management areas.

Recreation Recommendations Recreation’s recommendations are listed below. • FR123 – Recommend this road be maintained for public use. • FR185 – Recommend this road be maintained for public use. • FR191 - Recommend this road be maintained for public use.

Recreation – Unroaded Recreation (UR)

UR (1): Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS2003a, p27 for summary information on unroaded areas. Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, p. 105) for general information related to unroaded recreation. Please refer to Step 2 – Management Areas of this document or 2007 ANF Forest Plan – Part 4 – Management Area Direction for a more detailed discussion of road management direction by management area. The FWRAP did not identify any unroaded areas within the KEF TAP area.

UR (2): Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, pp. 106-108) for general information. The FWRAP did not identify any unroaded areas within the KEF TAP area.

UR (3): What are the effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, and type of unroaded recreation opportunities? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, p. 108) for general information.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-32 The FWRAP did not identify any unroaded areas within the KEF TAP area.

UR (4): Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, maintaining, and decommissioning roads? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, p. 108) for general information. The FWRAP did not identify any unroaded areas within the KEF TAP area.

UR (5): What are these participants' attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities and locations available? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, pp. 108-109) for general information. The FWRAP did not identify any unroaded areas within the KEF TAP area.

UR (6): How are developing new roads into unroaded areas affecting the visual management system? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a, p. 109) for general information. The FWRAP did not identify any unroaded areas within the KEF TAP area.

Special Forest Products (SP)

SP (1): How does the road system affect access for collecting special forest products? The management areas within the KEFTAP Area have been deemed suitable for collection of special forest products (USDA-FS. 2007a. p. 37) in incidental amounts. Current management of the road system allows ample opportunity for collection of special forest products, such as, ground-pine (Lycopodium species) and leeks (Allium tnicoccum).

Special – Use Permits (SU)

SU (1): How does the road system affect managing special-use permit sites (concessionaires, communications sites, utility corridors, and so on)? Several special-use permit sites are located in the KEFTAP Area including gas pipelines, telephone and electrical transmission right-of-ways, etc. Appendix A – Map 10 illustrates some of the roads that are used to access special-use sites without the actual special use sites mapped. The existing road system provides access for operating/maintaining these sites.

Social Issues (SI)

SI (1): Who are the direct users of the road system and of the surrounding areas? In which activities are they directly participating on the forest? Where are these activities taking place on the forest? A person’s perceived needs and values for roads are both personal and socio-economic: access for recreation, fishing, hunting, driving for pleasure, berry picking, mushroom gathering, etc.), and access for local economic purposes (firewood cutting, timber harvesting, oil drilling, etc.). Table 3: Existing Road Summary by Activity / Resource Use –in the main document– highlights these road uses. As stated previously, many people have the desire to have more open roads, which is evident by cut locks on gates and illegal OHV activity. Many people, however, would prefer less roads open or less roads altogether to promote more primitive settings than what

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-33 currently exist. The Forest Service takes these factors into consideration when making road management decisions, such as whether to have a road open, restricted, or closed. Please see Table 4: Road Management Classification Summary –in the main document– for a summary of the road management classifications in the KEFTAP Area.

SI (2): Why do people value their specific access to national forest and grasslands – what opportunities does access provide? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 116-117).

SI (3): What are the broader social and economic benefits and costs of the current forest road system and its management? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 117-118).

SI (4): How does the road system and road management contribute to or affect people’s sense of place? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 118).

SI (5): What are the current conflicts between users, uses, and values (if any) associated with the road system and road management? Are these conflicts likely to change in the future with changes in local population, community growth, recreational use, resource developments, etc.? Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 119).

Terrestrial Wildlife (TW)

TW (1): What are the direct effects of the road system on terrestrial species habitat? Roads directly affect terrestrial species habitat by altering physical (habitat conditions), chemical (increasing contamination by pollutants such as sediment, salt etc.), and biological (facilitating the spread of exotic species) factors. These potential effects can vary greatly. This is dependent on the size of the road and right-of-way (ROW), the level and season of use and the amount or density of existing roads within an area. For a general description of the physical effects of roads on wildlife habitat and songbirds, road-associated chemical contamination(s) of habitat, physical alterations of habitat, effects of roads on wildlife movements, wildlife use of roads and road surfaces, wildlife food sources and structures provided by forest roads, please refer to the FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003 pp. 76 – 79). Effects from the spread of introduced species are discussed under EF(2). The following discussion describes some of the possible effects of road-associated pollutants and the direct effects of roads on wildlife habitat in the KEF TAP area. Due to the volume of year-round traffic and use of de-icing material in the winter, State Route (SR) 66, 948, 24006 (Highland-Lamont Road), 4003 (Tambine Road), and Township Roads T- 359 (Seven Mile or Locks Hill Road) and T-317 (Old Lamont Road) have the greatest potential of contributing chemical pollutants such as heavy metals from gasoline additives, de-icing salts, ozone, or excess nutrients from salts and sediments. Of these, SR 66 and 948 have the highest volume of traffic (including heavy trucks) and experience the most frequent and intensive levels of de-icing treatment. SR 24006 and 4003 and T-359 and 317 have much less traffic consisting of local residences, recreationists and an occasional delivery truck. Contaminants can become

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-34 concentrated in the soil and vegetation along the road ROW and may affect wildlife attracted to the ROW vegetation. While some level of chemical pollution is occurring along these paved routes, effects to wildlife are expected to be localized and limited to the immediate ROW. Township roads T-359 and 317 are dirt/chipped roads that receive substantial amount snow- clearing but de-icing treatments are limited and consist mostly of sand and/or cinders. Chemical pollution on Forest Service system roads and most non-system roads are expected to be reduced due to the low level of use, restricted public access and general lack of winter maintenance. Sediment deposition in plateau areas is generally not an issue relative to most upland wildlife habitats. However, when roadside ditches become sediment filled, runoff speed can increase and be mis-directed into undesirable places. This may increase the potential for ground scouring and wash soil directly into stream channels and spring seeps. Sediment is one of the most prevalent pollutants affecting water quality and benthos composition in Pennsylvania. Evidence of this type of sediment deposition is most likely to occur where roads parallel streams such as FR 334, 191, 458, and 291. Legal and illegal OHV use on the forest can occur on both authorized trails and sometimes cross country. This use can mobilize fine soil particulate that eventually ends up in nearby streams and spring seeps. This mobilization can occur because of rain runoff or through wind deposition. Sediments are detrimental because they buildup and fill in the interstitial space that gill breathing invertebrates depend upon as well as use up dissolved oxygen in the water column. The eventual changes in aquatic species composition and prey species can also effect predator fish species composition over time. The KEF TAP area does not contain a legal motorized trail system. However, the abundance of (low standard) local roads primarily to the east, north and west of the KEF TAP area makes one suspicious that an elevated degree of illegal ATV riding occurs near and within the borders of the National Forest. Many streams and their tributaries may be carrying an accumulation of runoff and sediments from illegal motorized trail use especially during high precipitation events. New road construction can directly affect wildlife by converting forested habitat to non-forest conditions or through the establishment of herbaceous ROW, which can fragment a forested environment and alter wildlife use or diversity. The effects of habitat fragmentation depends on the size and type of road and ROW, the distribution of forested habitat, the sensitivity of a particular species to roads, and the ease with which a species can cross the road. Interior wildlife species and less mobile species with small home ranges that are bisected by roads are most affected by new road construction. Road density varies somewhat across the analysis area due to past forest management practices (timber sales) and privately owned oil and gas developments. Because much of the National Forest in the analysis area has been managed for timber resources over the last three decades and over multiple entry periods, road density appears moderate to high and fairly consistent across the landscape. It appears very few new roads would need to be built to further access timber resources. Private oil and gas developments are very widely distributed and at a relatively light density across the analysis area. Short spur roads, built to a minimum standard are all that has been necessary to access sub-surface minerals. Road density appears to decrease in Compartments 838, the southern half of Compartment 857, the eastern half of the Kane Experimental Forest, and western half of Compartment 867.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-35 The least roaded portions of the KEF TAP area are likely to provide the most desirable habitat for wildlife species sensitive to human-associated disturbance. Generalists and wildlife utilizing edge habitat are most likely to thrive in those areas with moderate to high road densities. There is a strong correlation between the quality of wildlife habitat and road density throughout the area. Two somewhat unique road conditions occur within the KEF TAP area. FR 291 is a paved road that parallels Hoffman Run and provides vehicle access to a federally developed recreation site, Twin Lakes Campground. The road is only opened on a seasonal basis. Having a paved surface reduces the risk of erosion and sedimentation reaching Hoffman Run, a stocked trout stream. Roads necessary to conduct wildlife management activities on the KEF TAP area consist of only two roads that are necessary to perform monitoring and maintenance of three acid remediation treatment sites on Big Mill Creek, Cherry Run, and Ellithorpe Run. Like most of the headwater streams on the Forest, these waterways suffer from chronic and episodic acidification and have very little buffering capacity. Each of these passive treatment systems consisting of two ponds are effectively raising the pH of these streams, improving water quality, and providing a suitable aquatic environment for the entire Big Mill Creek watershed. Forest Road 302 and a non-system road (NS003657 and NS016291) that leads south off FR 138 in the Kane Experimental Forest provide access to the treatment sites. Landscape Level Effects – Declining interior songbirds are one species group considered most at risk from the landscape scale fragmentation directly associated with roads. Based on ANF breeding bird monitoring transects (1993), a comparison of species diversity between areas of varying road density indicates that while the abundance of early successional versus interior species may change, breeding bird diversity, including that of interior songbirds, is not significantly reduced and breeding bird diversity in intensively roaded areas is comparable to other areas of the Forest with fewer roads. This is due primarily to the predominantly forested nature of these regions, which helps reduce edge related effects and allows for the continued availability of interior bird habitat. Ocular estimates indicate the KEF TAP area is close to 93 percent forested, except for the private property in the northwest quadrant and the southeast corner of the analysis area. Considering less than 7 percent of the area is in agriculture and these parcels are distributed across more than a dozen separate areas, the existing road system is not expected to result in increased numbers of cowbirds and nest parasitism. With the exception of SR 66, 948, 24006, and 4003, all of the remaining roads in the analysis area have relatively narrow corridors (0-30 feet break in the canopy), which are less likely to adversely affect forest-interior songbird habitat. Adverse effects such as increased nest predation and nest site competition may still occur around large open areas or along linear openings such as roads with wide breaks in the forest canopy. Overall, the analysis area is well-populated with forest and local roads which tend not to have the same risk of adverse effects as wide open highways. This analysis area has one unroaded area of interior habitat of slightly less than 500 acres in size. For details see section EF(1). Site Specific Effects - In addition to landscape scale fragmentation and associated edge effects, the roadbed itself and its associated ROW can also directly alter wildlife habitat. Effects can be both positive and negative. Positive effects can occur for species that utilize the herbaceous vegetation established along the ROW, on low-standard re-vegetated roads, or on the roadbed itself. For example, ruffed grouse have been observed using forest roads to establish territorial boundaries. Porcupine and red fox use roads to escape danger or provide easy movement through

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-36 their home range. The ditches and catch basins of roads provide reproductive habitat for amphibians such as the green frog, wood frog and red-spotted newt. A large percentage of the roads in the KEF TAP are low standard roads that are either closed and receive little use and are frequently used as brood habitat by wild turkey and ruffed grouse, as well as other wildlife that require or prefer a small non-forested habitat component. The following roads are either partially or completely grassed over and provide brood habitat and/or general habitat for other wildlife that utilize a small non-forest herbaceous component for feeding or cover: Table B- 9: Roads Partially or Completely Grassed Over

Road Number FR 449 FR 449A FR 449B FR 239 FR 239A FR 340A FR 340C FR 340D FR 185E FR 185F FR 185FA FR 185G FR 185B FR 369 FR 185A FR 334 FR 459 FR 458A FR 330A FR 330 FR 332B FR 332A FR 333 FR 333A FR 285 FR 817 FR 640 FR 640A FR 302 FR 302A FR 302B FR 304 FR 497 FR 497A FR 497B FR 497C FR 368 FR 581A FR 581B While some changes in vegetation associated with roads can have a positive effect on wildlife habitat, removal of vegetation from the roadbed, or replacing forest vegetation with dense herbaceous vegetation, can serve as a physical barrier to less mobile species, particularly amphibians and certain turtle species, whose movements are restricted by the roadbed itself or the change in vegetation associated with the road. The level of use, season of use, and the width of the ROW influence the extent of this effect. Generally, effects to amphibians will be greater from roads built to a higher standard, due to the wider running surface, which can act as a physical barrier. Traffic Service Level I with Objective Maintenance Level of 3 or 4 roads such as: Table B- 10: Roads Built and Maintained at a Higher Standard

Road Number FR 123 FR 185 FR 191 FR 289, A and B FR 290 FR 290A, B,C and D FR 291 FR 294 FR 332 FR 285

would fall into this category. While movements of some wildlife in the analysis area are restricted by roads, most Forest Service system roads are relatively narrow and do not isolate any critical or unique wildlife habitat within the analysis area. Many Forest Service system roads with larger ROW and running surfaces generally occur on the plateau tops, away from amphibian breeding areas such as riparian zones and streams. As a result, the vast majority of system roads are not expected to substantially affect localized populations of less mobile species. This is supported by forest-wide monitoring, that indicate that amphibian species diversity is not reduced in areas with road densities comparable to the analysis area (Dave DeCalesta, personal communication). Although the road system is not expected to alter amphibian, small mammal or songbird diversity, direct effects to wildlife movements can be reduced by seasonally restricting road use and/or by allowing vegetation to become established on the roadbed in select areas. The recommendations regarding conditions habitat (Table B- 14) are expected to reduce many of potential road related impacts to wildlife.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-37 Habitat for some terrestrial wildlife species can be adversely affected by activities that increase sedimentation such as dispersed recreation (sites), road construction, restoration and maintenance. The dispersed recreation in isolated areas along FR 123 and 191 may increase the risk of additional sedimentation where undeveloped camping is away from the road and close to water sources. Some dispersed sites have a long history of use while new ones may become established at any time. As a result, system roads and dispersed recreation may combine adversely affect localized populations of less mobile species. These situations may be improved when vegetation projects are implemented, sites are monitored and evaluated, and barricades (if necessary) are installed to prevent unsuitable unauthorized access. Dispersed camping is not authorized along FR 291, the paved road that parallels Hoffman Run and leads to Twin Lakes Campground. Road maintenance activities such as culvert replacement and ditch line cleaning result in short- term effects. Whereas long-term sedimentation effects are more likely to result from lower standard roads, roads that cross or drain directly into streams, roads that occur within a floodplain or riparian area and from roads within 300 feet of waterways and on steep slopes. The current Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007 pp. 74-79) and the Fisheries Amendment provides direction on surfacing materials, and buffer distances from streams and wetlands and includes recommendations that are expected to reduce the risk of sedimentation.

Road Management Many of the potential wildlife related impacts discussed above, are eliminated or greatly reduced by closing or restricting public access during critical periods of the year. As a result, many of the recommendations identified in Table B- 14 include road management objectives to control public access. Disturbance of wildlife from road use is of particular concern during the hard winter months when energy reserves are reduced and food supplies scarce. Recommendations in Table B- 14 also restrict or close roads during sensitive nesting or brood-rearing periods or when sensitive species that are slow-moving are dispersing from critical den sites. Road management is an important factor when considering benefits of roads to game species such as wild turkey. For example, turkey hens in North Carolina nested near closed and gated logging roads and used them extensively in all stages of brood development (Davis 1992 in Roads: Science Synthesis 2000). It has been noted in Pennsylvania that use of an area by wild turkey broods has been enhanced by eliminating road traffic during the brood rearing season (Jerry Wuntz, personal communication). Considering this, the following roads presently provide access to wild turkey brood habitat and are closed annually to public access during the spring and summer months: Table B- 11: Roads Seasonally Closed to Protect Wild Turkey Brood Habitat

Road Number FR497, A, B FR302, A FR581, A FR499, A FR340, A, B, C FR304 FR285 and C and B and B and B and D FR385F FR385G FR334 FR458 FR331 FR333 FR385FA Many of these roads have lettered subsystem roads which are blocked or closed by the main numbered road.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-38 TW (2): How does the road system facilitate human activities that affect habitat? For a general discussion regarding this question, see the FWRAP (USDA-2003 pp. 79 and 80) Within the KEF TAP area, the primary activities facilitated by the existing road system include tourism, local daily driving use, oil and gas development and maintenance, developed and dispersed recreation in the form of fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, the collection of firewood, hiking/cross-country skiing/mountain biking trail use, illegal ATV/OHV activity and vegetation management. Effects on wildlife habitat that occur as a result of these activities include but are not limited to; changes in wildlife habitat conditions facilitated by vegetation treatments, habitat loss from oil and gas development, loss of standing and downed woody material due to firewood collection, and increased sedimentation due to road and motorized trail use and maintenance. Sedimentation resulting from human activities as well as effects to upland and aquatic habitat from illegal ATV/OHV use, dispersed (off-road) camping and non-system and private (lease) roads is discussed under TW (1). While the present road system facilitates collection of firewood and the loss of wildlife habitat in the form of coarse woody material (CWM), the effects to wildlife are considered minor for the following reasons: (1) firewood collection within the analysis area is limited and CWM is generally only removed within 150 feet of designated system roads; (2) many of the Forest Service system roads in the analysis area are closed to firewood collection (as well as other motorized activities); and (3) there appears to be an adequate distribution of dead and downed woody material across the analysis area to meet the needs of wildlife especially where vegetation management or hardwood decline or mortality has occurred due to wind damage or insect/disease infestations. Since the late 1970s, timber resources have been commercially managed throughout the analysis area. Five thousand acres of forestland (designed MA 6.2 under the 1986 Forest Plan) received various treatments involving nine timber sales encompassing the upper Big Mill Creek watershed. Hardwood decline and mortality due to insect infestations, tree diseases and periodic droughts across much of the southern half of the analysis area fostered other timber salvage sales. Tree damage from catastrophic wind events such as the 1985 tornado (FR 333 region) and the July 2003 blowdown that impacted the Kane Experimental Forest and surrounding areas expedited timber sales. Timber harvests have the greatest potential to alter wildlife habitat, both positively and negatively. Since 2007, timber harvests within the analysis area have been driven by Forest Plan direction. Objectives and desired future conditions of designated MA identified in the Forest Plan include providing a mix of habitat conditions designed to meet wildlife needs, as well as standards and guidelines to protect or enhance unique and sensitive wildlife habitat. As a result, past or anticipated future timber harvests in the analysis area are fully compatible with wildlife- related needs and objectives. Vegetation management is used to meet broad-scale Forest Plan directives as well as site specific wildlife objectives that otherwise would be unrecognized, unavailable or scarce. Activities that facilitate or improve wildlife habitat and use the current road system include managed opening maintenance and rehabilitation, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and wildlife and vegetation monitoring. Forest Road 302 and one non- system road that access camps located on private property and oil and gas lease developments are presently used and needed in the future to meet wildlife objectives.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-39 TW (3): How does the road system affect legal and illegal human activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? What are the effects on wildlife species? For a forest-wide perspective responding to these questions, please see the FWRAP (USDA- 2003 pp. 80 and 81) Many road-related human-associated activities have direct effects on wildlife. Direct mortality from collisions with vehicles is well documented (e.g. Bangs et al 1989 in Trombulak and Frissell, 2000 p. 20-21). Mortality generally increases with traffic volume and allowable speed where the risk of impacts will be greatest from paved roads such as SR 66, 948, 24006, and 4003. All species are at risk and some wildlife may be attracted to lower standard roads, due to the desirable vegetative cover established, to bask and/or collect gravel or seeds. Amphibians may be especially vulnerable to road kill, because their life histories often involve migration between wetland and upland habitats and because individuals are often inconspicuous and slow moving. There is some mortality associated with both non-system and open system roads, but these impacts are generally reduced due to the low level of daily use. All or part of the following Forest Service system roads are closed to public access during critical periods of the year (January 15-October 1) in order to reduce road related direct wildlife impacts: Table B- 12: Roads Closed or Restricted that Help Reduce Direct Impacts on Wildlife

Road Number FR 581 FR 285 FR 664 FR 302 FR 302A FR 304 FR 499 FR 499A FR 499B FR 185E FR 334 FR 458 FR 191

The presence of a road may also modify an animal’s behavior either positively or negatively. This can occur through shifts in home range, altered movement patterns and altered reproductive success. The effects will vary depending on road density, location, the level and season of use, types of habitats traversed, the species involved and the status of populations in the surrounding area. Effects are likely to be greatest from roads that traverse or isolate critical or specialized habitats, where the level of activity is high enough to displace species sensitive to disturbance, and from roads that alter an animal’s behavior to the extent that reproductive success is affected. Roads can contribute toward fragmentation of populations where modification of behavior makes the animals less likely to cross roads (See TW1). State Route 66, 948, 24006, 4003 and Township Roads T-358 and 317 along with Forest Roads 185 and 291 (seasonally) are the most heavily used roads within the analysis area. Although these roads may serve as a deterrent for some species (or individuals of some species) and occasional mortality from collisions occurs, most wildlife in the area are commonly seen crossing these two-lane roads. These roads are not expected to significantly alter behavior of large predators or other landscape level species. Effects to wildlife behavior from most Forest Service system roads in the analysis area are minimized due to their narrow profiles and infrequent daily use. Forest Road 185 is open to continuous, year-round use but receives substantially less traffic than the above mentioned paved roads. Species such as black bear, coyote, raptors, wild turkey, ruffed grouse and a variety of small mammals are regularly observed crossing Forest and non-system roads within the analysis area. In addition, large raptors such as red-tailed hawk and northern goshawk often nest near restricted or closed roads,

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-40 indicating that road management has been somewhat effective at reducing disturbance related effects. The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines to reduce road related effects on species most at risk including ANF species with viability concerns such as northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, great blue heron, eastern box turtle, wood turtle, timber rattlesnakes, Jefferson and four- toed salamanders and coal skink. Populations and habitat for these species, as well as the effectiveness of standards and guidelines is monitored periodically and the results are found in the latest ANF FY2008 -2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA – FS 2014). For the majority of these species (as well as others), based on monitoring data, Forest Plan standards and guidelines have been effective at reducing road-associated effects. The road system in the analysis area facilitates activities such as poaching, trapping and hunting, which result in direct mortality to wildlife. However, based on similar roaded areas adjacent to the analysis area, populations of game animals and furbearers such as beaver, fox, coyote and bobcat appear to be stable or increasing. As a result, direct mortality to wildlife resulting from poaching, hunting and trapping within the analysis area is presently not a concern. At some road crossings such as FR191 and 332 at Hoffman Run, beaver continue to be increasing and active periodically flooding the road. In spite of year-round hunting, coyote populations throughout the analysis area appear to be thriving. State-wide monitoring indicates bobcat numbers have now reached levels to withstand some limited population controls (trapping under special permit). Over-hunting can have impacts on game populations within the KEF TAP area and across the ANF. However, hunting is considered the most important management tool available for matching deer populations to the land’s carrying capacity. Deer are a keystone species in that their actions can have adverse effects on the habitat of other wildlife. Decades of over-browsing by deer have greatly impacted vegetation and associated wildlife communities within the analysis area. Even deer populations below the desirable 10 to 20 deer per square mile can have negative effects on already depleted vegetation. One survey 10+ years ago indicated that deer density in the vicinity of the largest unroaded area once reached over-wintering deer populations of two and three times desired levels. Management efforts (additional doe permits) have since reduced these local populations. Maintaining a road system that maximizes deer hunter access is essential to reducing and maintaining deer populations at a level that will allow the establishment of understory vegetation and minimize short and long-term adverse effects on other wildlife. The following TSL I (and a few J) and OML 2 (condition dependent), 3 and 4 roads are needed to provide the minimum hunter access necessary to control the deer herd in the analysis area: Table B- 13: Roads Needed to Maintain Minimum Hunter Access

Road Number FR 581 FR 185 FR 185E FR 185F FR 185G FR 340, A and B FR 458 FR 458A FR 123 FR 291 FR 330 FR 331 FR 191 FR 332 FR 332A FR 499

Although these roads will be open during fall hunting season (October through early January), many of these roads are or will be closed to public access during the remainder of the year. Other roads may be needed for hunter access depending on specific resource objectives and management that are occurring within the analysis area during a planning decade.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-41 The above recommendations incorporate some traditional access trends taking into consideration current physical condition of a specific road and are designed to optimize hunter access and attempt to keep deer-related impacts on habitat at a minimum. Harvest levels of other high interest game species such as wild turkey and black bear fluctuate from year to year; populations of these species within the analysis area have remained relatively stable. Unlike deer, these species are not able to change the vegetative structure of large portions of the forest and do not alter habitats of other wildlife. As more private land is posted (state-wide for various reasons), over-harvest of high interest game species on public land could occur in localized areas on the ANF. However, across the analysis area, the risk of over-harvests is expected to remain low since most system roads are either closed or restrict public access.

TW (4): How does the road system directly affect unique communities or special features in the area? For a forest-wide perspective of how roads could directly affect unique communities and special wildlife features see the FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003 pp. 81 and 82). Unique or highly valued habitats and their associated populations could include; rare plant communities, unroaded areas, wetlands, riparian communities, key wildlife winter range, and breeding or brood-rearing habitat. Special features could include threatened or endangered species maternity roosts, northern flying squirrel dens, rock outcroppings, boulders, rubble fields or caves, rattlesnake dens and basking sites, turtle nests, impoundments and ponds, waterfalls, vernal pools, streams, spring seeps, and heron or raptor nest sites. Historically, one unique botanical area is recognized in the analysis. This area is not directly or indirectly affected by the current road system. Species occurrence records indicate there are no unique plant communities directly affected by roads in the KEF TAP area. Unique plant communities are identified prior to project implementation and protected by Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Currently, there is a small risk from indirect impacts involving the infestation of a non-native plant, glossy buckthorn, which is just beginning to appear in small numbers in the southern half of the analysis area. Open road corridors, ditches and turn-outs, and even the road profile (if the road is infrequently used) will facilitate the spread of this invader primarily through songbirds using these corridors, some mammals, and waterways intercepted by roads where infestations exist. Vehicle use will also likely transport fruit and plant parts to other regions of the analysis area. Increases in non-native plants could have an adverse effect on unknown unique plant communities. Thirteen ‘named’ perennial streams (8 waterways on federal land and 5 primarily on private property) along with their numerous tributaries and associated riparian areas and a variety of wetlands are found within the analysis area. Each of these streams and related habitat has unique characteristics and wildlife values that are ultimately connected with the forest ecosystem. Supporting some of the most abundant and species rich environments (for plants), streamside and wetland habitats support the greatest wildlife diversity found on the ANF. Waterways of all sizes, riparian and wetland habitat are particularly important because they often provide specialized components or niches required by many species to complete their life cycles. Adhering to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, current Forest Service system roads are designed to avoid and buffer waterways, riparian areas and wetlands protecting unique communities and special features. Historically however, some portions of roads that are now system roads were developed on existing corridors such as narrow gauge railroad grades or old

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-42 logging corridors that closely followed streams or impacted wetlands. When land management projects are planned these road sections are often prime candidates for road re-locations or obliteration. The KEF TAP area contains two impoundments, one on National Forest at the Twin Lakes Campground and another on private property on Little Mill Creek. To correct chronic and episodic stream acidification in the Big Mill Creek watershed, four treatment sites consisting of two ponds per site are positioned on the Ellithorpe Run, Cherry Run and Big Mill Creek drainages. Several small farm ponds are located in the Lamont area and south of Kane, PA. Beaver-associated wetlands are common in the upper reaches of Hoffman Run, Big Mill Creek, and Wolf Run (2 streams). Small rocky outcrops, boulders and rubble areas are not uncommon in several parts of the Wolf Run and Big Mill Creek watersheds. A variety of raptor nesting sites are among the many special features found in the region. Although lands with special features or unique communities only make up a small portion of the analysis area, these features or habitats often receive a disproportionate amount of wildlife use and help to meet the needs of many species. As a result, buffering and protecting of these areas from the adverse effects of roading is important in order to maintain species with viability concerns in the analysis area. The Forest Plan recognizes the importance of unique wildlife communities and special features such as wetlands, riparian zones and floodplains. These areas are given preferential consideration to other resources and activities (USDA-FS 2007, pp. 74-79). The Forest Plan includes standards and guidelines that allow for the protection of special features such as rock ledges, den sites, and rock outcroppings for bats and reptiles. In addition, ANF system roads are managed to provide protection for federally threatened and endangered species as well as species with viability concerns including unique plant communities (Forest Plan, USDA-FS 2007 pp. 80-89). Management Area guidelines in the Forest Plan require additional measures protecting wild turkey brood habitat and wintering areas for turkey and deer (Forest Plan, USDA-FS 2007 p. 80). Road management recommendations identified under TW (1) and implementation of the above standards and guidelines are expected to keep potential impacts to unique communities and special wildlife features from new road construction to a minimum.

Wildlife Recommendations Wildlife Biologist recommendations regarding road management are listed in Table B- 14. Table B- 14: KEF TAP Area – Forest Roads

Existing Road No. Recommendation Status FR123 Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting and fishing) Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting) FR185 Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting) Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting) FR185A Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) FR185B Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) FR185C Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife)

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-43 Existing Road No. Recommendation Status FR185D Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) FR185E Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) FR185F Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife, and do not open for FR185FA Restricted hunting) FR185G Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting) FR191 Restricted Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting) FR239 Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR239A Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) Category 2 (change status closed, move gate close to township road, Open protect sensitive wildlife habitat, do not open for hunting) FR285 Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife, and do not open for Closed hunting) FR289 Open Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR289A Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR289B Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR290 Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR290A Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR290B Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR290C Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR290D Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) FR291 Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting and fishing) FR294 Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting and fishing) FR296 Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, campground road) Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting to the first gate Open and parking area) FR302 Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, Closed needed for wildlife objectives) Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, FR302A Closed needed for wildlife objectives) Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, FR302B Closed needed for wildlife objectives) Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR304 Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat)

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-44 Existing Road No. Recommendation Status FR330 Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife, and do not open for FR330A Restricted hunting) FR331 Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting to the second gate) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife, and do not open for FR331 Closed hunting) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife and do not open for Closed hunting) FR331A Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife and do not open for Closed hunting) FR332 Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting) Category 3 (keep existing status, but signed open for handicap hunting FR332A Restricted only), reconsider finding a more suitable location for handicap experience FR332B Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife and do not open for FR333 Restricted hunting) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife and do not open for FR333A Restricted hunting) FR334 Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) FR340 Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting to the back gate) FR340A Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) FR340B Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife and do not open for FR340C Closed hunting) Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, do FR340D Closed not open for hunting) FR368 Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) FR369 Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) FR458 Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for handicap hunting only) FR458A Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for handicap hunting only) FR459 Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, to help wildlife) Category 4 (keep existing status, open to gate and parking area, needed Open for hunting) FR497 Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR497A Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat)

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-45 Existing Road No. Recommendation Status FR497B Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR497C Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR499 Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) Category 2 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, do FR499A Closed not open for hunting) Category 3 (keep existing status, help wildlife, do not open for FR499B Closed hunting) FR581 Restricted Category 3 (keep existing status, open for hunting) FR639 Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, help wildlife) FR640 Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, help wildlife) FR640A Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, help wildlife) Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR664 Open Category 2 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR664A Closed Category 2 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat) FR817 Closed Category 3 (keep existing status, help wildlife) FR851 Open Category 4 (keep existing status, needed for hunting and fishing) FR851A Closed Category 1 (keep existing status, protect sensitive wildlife habitat)

Recommendation Definitions Closed – means the road is not open to the public. The FWRAP lists them as Closed Roads – A road closed to motorized public traffic. The Wildlife code can be Category 1 – Closed to protect sensitive wildlife habitats and may mean preventing all access by locking a gate or barricade. Restricted – means the road is gated and entry can be seasonal for the public. The FWRAP states these roads may be open or closed to public traffic or types of traffic depending on the time of year and resource needs. The Wildlife code can be Category 2 – Restricted to help wildlife (protect a hawk nest, rattlesnake dispersal, turkey brood-rearing, deer or turkey winter range) or Category 3 – Restricted but allows hunting access for certain periods. Open - means the road is open all year round. These roads are often main travel routes. The FWRAP defines a road “Open for Public Travel” is a … road section that is available and passable by four-wheeled standard passenger cars and open to the public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather or emergency conditions (23 CFR 460.2(c)). Wildlife code is Category 4 - Open. Closed – means the road is not open to the public. The FWRAP lists them as Closed Roads – A road closed to motorized public traffic. Closed to protect sensitive wildlife habitats may mean preventing all access by decommissioning, or abandonment and removal from the FS road system, Wildlife code is Category 5 – Closed because there is no need to have or maintain this road for any purpose. Category 5 roads are recommended to be decommissioned. Wildlife Biologist recommendations regarding gate management and hunting access are listed in Table B- 15. If a gate is not listed below, there is no specific recommendation made.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-46 Table B- 15: Gate and Hunter Access Recommendations – Regarding Wildlife

Forest Road Gate Recommendations Number This road is restricted by a gate at FR 185F near FR 185. The ‘FA’ road is a FR 185FA short, low standard road not designed for public access – recommend not allowing hunting access. Recommend changing the open road status to closed. Current gate position allows public travel into a riparian area and stream crossing. Road provides no parking when reaching the gate. Recommend moving the gate near FR 285 Township Road T-317 providing off-road parking to avoid the riparian zone and stream. Do not allow hunting on this low standard somewhat over-grown road. This road is restricted by a gate on FR 330. The ‘A’ road is a short, low FR 330A standard road not designed for public access – recommend not allowing hunting access. FR 331 closed These roads are closed/restricted by a gate on FR 331. The ‘closed’ section section and and ‘A’ road sections are built to a low standard not designed for public 331A closed access – recommend not allowing hunting access. sections This road is restricted by a sign allowing only handicap hunting access. The road provides little opportunity to park or view the landscape. Recommend FR 332A reconsidering a more suitable location to provide a handicap hunting experience. These short, narrow roads were partially built on a utility line to salvage the FR 333 and 1985 tornado and attempt to control deer browsing to help generate the area. 333A These low standard roads have out lived their purpose and were not designed for public access – recommend not allowing hunting access. This is a short spur road off the end of FR 340 leading to a previous final FR 340C harvest unit. Built to ‘skid trail’ standards - recommend not allowing hunting access past the second gate on FR 340. This is a spur road off the end of FR 340 leading to a previous harvest units. Built to a little higher than ‘skid trail’ standards, the ‘D’ leads to poorly- FR 340D drained areas, has no turn-outs, and leads down to a main tributary to Silver Creek. Recommend not allowing hunting access past the second gate on FR 340.

Water Production (WP)

WP (1): How does the road system affect access, constructing, maintaining, monitoring, and operating water diversions, impoundments, and distribution canals or pipes? Two municipal watersheds are located in the KEFTAP Area. These are the headwaters of the Big Mill Creek watershed – the water supply for Ridgway. The second is Silver Creek Watershed. This is the water supply for Johnsonburg. For general ANF information on issues dealing with WP (1), please see FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 93-95).

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-47 WP (2): How does road development and use affect the water quality in municipal watersheds? The portion of the Big Mill Creek watershed within the KEFTAP area was assigned to MA 2.2 – Late Structural Linkages or MA 8.6 – Kane Experimental Forest. In both management areas, road activities are limited (USDA-FS 2007a p.109 and p. 165.

WP (3): How does the road system affect access to hydroelectric power generation? No roads within the KEFTAP Area are used to access hydroelectric power generation.

WP (4): How does road development and use affect the water quality of domestic watersheds? (Question added by ANF) Please refer to FWRAP (USDA-FS 2003a pp. 95). There are no known domestic water supplies within the KEFTAP area.

Appendix B: Ecological, Social And Economic Considerations (September 2015) B-48