Appendix a Analysis of Proposed Management Area Changes Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

Appendix A Analysis of Proposed Management Area Changes Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Warrants 5248, 5226, 5275, 5227, and 5228, in Watson Township, Warren County; Warrants 5276, 5225, 5224, 5277, 5205, 5206, 5222, 5278, 5279, 5204, 5207, 5208, 5280 and 5203 in Limestone Township, Warren County; and Warrants 5280, 5203, 5207, 5208, 5209, 1259, 5202, 5201 and 3693 in Hickory Township Forest County, Pennsylvania.

Prepared and signed by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Edited and Reviewed by:

Glenn Howard Allegheny National Forest NEPA Coordinator

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page i Table of Contents

Analysis Framework ...... 1 Affected Environment ...... 1 Environmental Consequences ...... 3 Effects Common to Both Alternatives ...... 3 No Action ...... 3 Proposed Action ...... 4

Tables

Table 1 Comparison of Management Area suitability for activities and uses ______4 Table 2 Change in percentage of MAs within the project area and within ANF ______6

Figures

Figure 1 Extent and arrangement of wildlife openings, red pine plantations and mowed corridors in the Economite area ______2 Figure 2 Aerial views of habitat in the area proposed for MA changes in the Economite area ______2 Figure 3 Examples of habitat conditions in the Izenbrown Corners project area ______3

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page ii Analysis Framework

Site-specific forest plan amendments may be proposed to allow projects or other activities to deviate from certain forest Plan direction. These amendments occur only for a specific area or a specific project. They do not lead to changes in forest plan language, and if changes are made to management area map layers, they are made only for the area affected. The most recent planning rule requires a plan amendment to add, modify, or remove one or more plan components, or to change how or where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the plan area (including management areas or geographic areas) (36 CFR. 219.13(a); 77 Federal Register 21268).

The proposed ANF Forest Plan amendment to adjust management areas is based on an evaluation of vegetation conditions, as well as historical and current Forest Service and public uses boundaries in an area known as Economite. Economite is a loosely-defined area of Forest Service land in Limestone Township, Warren County, historically owned and managed for timber production by a religious society known as the Harmony Society (Grishaver 2013). Because they named their main community along the Ohio River in Pennsylvania “Economy”, they were locally referred to as the “Economites”. This historical context for the name of the area has no relevance or relationship to any proposed management activities.

This analysis applies available geospatial information and field observations, including aerial photographs to conduct: • A qualitative analysis of proposed changes to the location and configuration of management area units based on specific management area objectives for the affected management areas, including suitable uses and activities and management emphasis and; • A quantitative analysis of changes to the overall amount (in acres) of affected management areas within the project area and the Allegheny National Forest as a whole.

Affected Environment

The proposed change to MA designation applies specifically and only to 761 acres, or 0.15% of Forest Service land within ANF (excludes area covered by water). It does not change any statement regarding contribution to desired condition, objectives, standards or guidelines as contained in ANF Forest Plan for any of the MAs affected. Proposed changes do not alter boundaries for MA 5.1 (Designated Wilderness), MA 8.1 (Wild and Scenic River), or MA 8.2 (National Recreation Area).

Within the portion of Economite currently designated as MA 2.2, but proposed for MA 1.0 (Figure 1 and Figure 2), 108 acres are composed of red pine stands between 71 and 83 years old, and 95 acres are composed of hardwood timber stands of varying species composition between 27 and 113 years old. Red Pine stands were established as plantations on the ANF, and the ranked rows of trees, many of which are in declining health, lack the natural complex structure, diversity, and appearance of a naturally established forest. Most of these stands have a vigorous understory composed of non-native invasive plant species. Although 34 acres are typed as “open” and currently managed as permanent grassy wildlife openings, these mapped boundaries do not accurately reflect portions of both red pine and mixed hardwood stands that are mowed and maintained as open corridors by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. These areas increase the total number of open acres. Within the portion of Economite currently designated as MA 3.0, but proposed for MA 1.0, approximately 14 acres are composed of red pine plantations, 56 acres of hardwood stands in a similar age-class range. Mowed corridors are also prevalent in this area. Maintenance of mowed corridors was initiated prior to the 2007 ANF Forest Plan revision.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page 1

Figure 1 Extent and arrangement of wildlife openings, red pine plantations and mowed corridors in the Economite area

Crosshatched areas represent managed wildlife openings and red pine plantations. Other lines represent open roads and corridors mowed and maintained by Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Figure 2 Aerial views of habitat in the area proposed for MA changes in the Economite area

Red pine plantations, permanent grassy openings and mowed corridors are clearly visible in the photo at left (Proposed MA 1.0). The broken line is the project area boundary adjacent to Hickory Creek Wilderness.

Within the portion of Economite that is currently MA 3.0, but proposed for MA 2.2, 193 acres are composed of hardwood stands between 27 and 89 years old, 92 acres are composed of eastern white pine, eastern hemlock stands, or a mix of these species between 73 and 88 years old, and seven acres are open or are composed of an upland shrub community.

Recreational uses in the Economite area include equestrian trail riding, hunting, hiking, and birdwatching. All recreational trails, including those used by equestrian riders have been user created, and none have been designed or built to any standard. The designated EUA in the Economite area crosses MA

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page 2 boundaries now, and includes portions of MA 2.2 and MA 3.0. Cross-country and on-trail equestrian use is suitable in both MAs. Recreation trails and other developments would be constructed and maintained to the appropriate development level associated with a Roaded Natural Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class within both MAs (USDA – FS 2007a, pp. 110 and 114).

Figure 3 Examples of habitat conditions in the Izenbrown Corners project area

Structure of a typical Structure of a typical naturally- Structure of a typical mowed plantation red pine stand in generated hardwood stand in opening in the Izenbrown the Izenbrown Corners project the Izenbrown Corners project Corners project area. Mowed area. The shrub layer is area. The shrub layer is corridors may be wider or composed largely of non- composed largely of native narrower than this example native invasive plants and plants, and little or no Photo by S. Dowlan. little or no diversity of native occurrence of non-native plants is present within or invasive plants. Photo by S. immediately below the canopy. Dowlan.

Photo by A. Moore.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to Both Alternatives All components of the Izenbrown Corners Project Proposed Action could be implemented without any change to MA designation. All of the stands or permanent grassy openings could be treated as described under the Proposed Action without changes to MA designation. No specific proposed activity is inconsistent with any suitability factor, objective, or management standard for MA 2.2 or MA 3.0. Management objectives for MA 2.2 include providing early structural habitat (0 to 20 years old) on 4 to 6 percent of the MA in oak forest types, and on 2 to 4 percent in non-oak forest types (Forest Plan page 109).

No Action The area currently designated as MA 2.2 would continue to be managed as a late structural linkage between Hickory Creek Wilderness and the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River Corridor. Within forested stands, characteristics of late structural forests (Forest Plan page 109), including a continuous high forest canopy, large woody debris, snags, multi-layered forest canopy with gaps, large diameter trees, and a diverse understory would develop slowly over many decades because:

• Plantation red pine stands have not been actively managed for larger diameter stems, which would result in larger and longer-lived snags and larger and long-lasting coarse woody debris.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page 3

These stands are currently declining in health and would likely require even-aged management to be perpetuated; • Non-native invasive plants are common persistent in the understory now, and would require a sustained management effort to reduce and control so that understory diversity can be promoted; • Mowed corridors would have to be planted with trees to create the continuous high forest canopy.

For these reasons, this area would not function effectively as a late structural connectivity corridor between Hickory Creek Wilderness and the Allegheny River Wild and Scenic River Corridor until natural process occurring over many decades develops the desired conditions, or active management creates these conditions sooner, perhaps within 80 to 100 years.

Proposed Action

Suitable uses MA 1.0 has been designated as unsuitable for placement of new communication towers as an authorized special use, in contrast to MA 2.2 and MA 3.0 (USDA – FS 2007a, p. 103 and Table 2). All other uses and activities are considered to be suitable in all three affected management areas.

Construction of a sustainable equestrian trail within the designated EUA in the Economite would be consistent with ANF Forest Plan suitability for MA 1.0 and MA 2.2 (USDA – FS 2007a, p. 103).

Table 1 Comparison of Management Area suitability for activities and uses Use or Activity MA 1.0 MA 2.2 MA 3.0 TIMBER HARVEST Timber production S S S Harvest for other resource purposes S S S Salvage/Sanitation harvest S S S ROAD MANAGEMENT Existing Forest Service road Reconstruction or maintenance S S S New road construction S S* S Pit development S S* S GATHERING OF SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS Commercial S S S Personal S S S Firewood collection S S S SPECIAL USE PERMITS New communication towers U S S New road rights-of-way, pipelines, and utilities S S S FIRE ACTIVITIES Wildland fire use S S S Prescribed fire S S S TRAIL USE OR ACTIVITY Interpretive trails S S S Snowmobiling S S S ATV/OHM (in IUAs only) S S S Bicycling S S S EQUESTRIAN USE On trails/routes S S S Cross-country S S S OTHER RECREATIONAL USE OR ACTIVITY Dispersed camping S S S * Indicates situations where the use or activity is suitable only in very narrowly defined situations. Differences in suitability are in shaded cells.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page 4

Management emphasis The effects of the proposed management area change would include: 1. A change in management emphasis on 346 acres to MA 1.0, on which emphasis is on providing early structural habitat for a variety of game and non-game wildlife species, especially ruffed grouse; 2. A loss of 456 acres of land for which emphasis is on even-aged management to provide a forest that is a mix of predominantly shade intolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood stands of various ages and associated understories, and habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species, as well as provide for a sustained yield of high-value species and high-quality timber products that contribute to the local and regional economy. 3. An increase of 16 acres for MA 2.2 on which emphasis is to provide a late structural connectivity area between Hickory Creek Wilderness and the Allegheny National Wild and Scenic Reviver.

Management for early structural forest habitat Declining red pine stands in the current MA2.2 area would need to be regenerated within the next several decades before overstory trees decline severely and die, and mowed corridors and opening are already prevalent. For these reasons, the newly created unit of MA 1.0 would be well-suited for management that favors grasses, forbs, vines, and shrubs. Permanent openings and grasslands in upland forest areas are already well-represented, and maintenance of 10 to 20 % of the area in the zero to 10 year old age class would be easily achieved. Removal of overstory trees provides an opportunity to increase the presence hardwood tree species, including aspen and oak species, through release and planting.

As with MA 3.0, even-aged vegetation management would continue, except where it is desirable to maintain continuous high forest cover in riparian areas, on wet soils, to maintain scenic integrity levels, or to achieve specific plant and animal objectives. Even-aged timber stands would be managed to sustain a balance of ages (from zero to 50 years of age) and structural stages (early structural to mid structural stages), consistent with ANF Forest Plan objectives for MA 1.0.

Management for late structural connectivity Shifting the location of forest stands managed for late structural connectivity between Hickory Creek Wilderness and the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River Corridor approximately ½ mile south of its current configuration would improve the structure and function of the connectivity corridor because:

1. The portion of Economite that would change to MA 1.0 from MA 2.2 is largely composed of declining red pine plantations and permanent grassy openings (58 percent). This area would require regeneration and intensive activities to develop structural complexity and late structural habitat (Figure 3) over 80 to 100 years; 2. The portion of the Economite area that would change to from MA 3.0 to MA 2.2 is composed almost entirely naturally-regenerated hardwood forest types, with 4 percent in red pine stands and 2 percent in permanent grassy openings or upland shrub communities. The time required to develop and maintain late structural characteristics in the proposed MA 2.2 area would be decreased to one to three decades.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page 5

Table 2 Change in percentage of MAs within the project area and within ANF

Acres change % change1 % change1 Management Area Acres change within the project in the within Designation within ANF area project area the ANF

1.0 – Early Structural Habitat 0 → 346 7,937 → 8,283 + 100% +0.068% 2.2 – Late Structural Linkages 2,588 → 2603 121,176 → 121,191 + 0.58% +0.003% 3.0 – Even-aged 5,320 → 4,958 287,380 → 287,018 - 6.80% - 0.071% Management 1Calculations are based on 506,474 acres in all MAs – excludes open water.

Management for quality timber products The total area within ANF intended to provide a mix of vegetative conditions and quality timber products that contribute to the local and regional economy would be reduced by 362 acres, or 0.071% (Table 1). Within this area (changed from MA 3.0 to MA 2.2), forest plan management standards would limit new road construction to existing road corridors, when needed to access non-federal lands, or to access lands outside of this management area where no other road access is feasible.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix A - Analysis of Management Area Changes Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix B Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Edited and Reviewed by:

Brad Turberville Bradford Ranger District Silviculture Team Leader

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents Analysis Framework ...... 1 Cumulative effects ...... 1 Affected Environment ...... 1 Oak habitat and forest health ...... 1 Potential effects from climate change ...... 5 Environmental Consequences ...... 7 No Action ...... 7 Proposed Action ...... 7 Summary of effects from all treatments ...... 9 Cumulative effects ...... 10

Figures Figure 1 Cerulean Warblers in oak type habitat ______2 Figure 2: Distribution of oak habitat within the Izenbrown Corners Project Area ______4 Figure 3: Photos of typical flame lengths from prescribed fire in oak stands ______7

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Analysis Framework

The ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 19, A-13 to A-16) identifies oak management as a priority, and the large area of oak forests in the Izenbrown Corners Project (Figure 2.) provides an opportunity to actively manage the oak forest resource to ensure its continued presence on the ANF landscape. The ANF Forest Plan also includes a discussion of the composition , distribution, and likely origin and disposition of unmanaged oak-hickory forests on the ANF (USDA-FS 2007a, p. A-13 to A-14), specifically within the context of the occurrence and frequency of fire in perpetuating oak forest types. Other peer-reviewed research has complemented and supported the key points in the plan.

This analysis applies available geospatial information, field data collected and compiled from silvicultural stand examinations, and recent peer-reviews research to project the likely future condition of stands. The qualitative analysis compares the likely condition of stands with and without proposed treatments in the context of the Forest Plan desired future conditions for the affected management areas and stand types.

Cumulative effects The cumulative effects boundary is the entire Allegheny National Forest because other projects proposed since the Forest Plan was made effective, when considered together, contribute to achieving the desired future condition for oak restoration and age class distribution. Although oak type forest may be present on private land within the project area, no presumption has been made that these forests would be managed specifically to regenerate oak in the future. Other Forest Service projects with specific oak habitat management activities include (name and year of decision notice):

• Greater Stickney (2015) • Coalbed Run (2011) • Meads Mill (2008) • Millsteck (2012) • Morrison Run (2012) • Salmon West (2013) • Southwest Reservoir (2010)

All of these projects also contribute to achieving Forest Plan age class distribution objectives.

Affected Environment

Oak habitat and forest health Oak forests on the ANF contribute to regional biodiversity and are very important to many plant and animal species, especially because of the high amounts of hard mast the oaks produce for wildlife forage (USDA – FS 2007a, ROD-24). Oaks species are generally long lived, grow to large sizes, and are rot- resistant. Once established, oaks persist for decades to centuries, and readily withstand insect outbreaks, lightning strikes, wind events, and ice storms (Brose et al. 2008). Where injury to mature trees occurs, they often become cavities which provide den sites for many wildlife species. Also, mid to late structural oak forests on the ANF provide primary habitat for an ANF Management Indicator Species, the cerulean warbler. This migratory songbird species has only been documented on sites that contain an oak

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

component or in riverine habitat (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-200). See Appendix C-1 (Wildlife Report) for an analysis of effects to Cerulean Warbler.

Figure 1 Cerulean Warblers in oak type habitat

Cerulean Warbler, a Management Indicator Species on ANF closely associated with oak habitat types. Photos by S. Dowlan.

Citing numerous peer-reviewed sources, Brose et al. (2008) provides a brief summary of the climatic conditions and disturbance regimes that contributed to the origin and maintenance of oak forests in the mid-Atlantic region, as well as changes to disturbance regimes that have resulted in the decline of oak forests in the region. Key points from Brose et al. include:

• Oak forests of the mid-Atlantic region have been in place for the last 6,000 to 8,000 years. • Dominance of oak species was maintained by periodic surface fires coupled with occasional canopy-level disturbances to individual trees, stands, and at the landscape level from a variety of disturbance types. • Fires were primarily the product of American Indian cultural activities as they burned the forests for numerous reasons. Lightning also contributed to fires. • The fire regime fluctuated wildly from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s – first increasing in frequency and intensity as the eastern forests were cut heavily and repeatedly to meet the demand of a growing population amid the Industrial Revolution –after which a public forest policy of fire exclusion was applied throughout the mid-Atlantic region. • After Chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) killed the American chestnut (Castanea dentata) and removed a reliable mast producer from the forest, wildlife accustomed to feeding on chestnuts shifted to acorns, likely reducing the proportion of seed crops that germinated successfully.

Periodic surface fires and other disturbances appear to be critical to the success of oak seedlings in competition with other hardwood tree species. Under a mature forest canopy, thin-barked shade-tolerant hardwood species such as American beech and red maple form dense midstory canopies in the absence of fire. These shade tolerant and mid-tolerant species reduce understory light, under which oak regeneration either die, or be unable to develop roots to reach a competitive size. Additionally, oak seedlings expend most of their energy immediately after germination developing their root systems, remaining small in stature and shadowed beneath other tree seedlings until the roots become large enough for seedlings to compete successfully with shade-tolerant species.

Seedlings of other hardwood species expend their energy rapidly, growing in height and canopy dominance, developing a less robust root system. Fast-growing, shade-intolerant hardwood species such as black cherry (Prunus serotina), black birch (Betula lenta), and yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) become established in canopy openings along with oak species. In the absence of fire, these species can grow faster and create too much shade for oaks to thrive, eventually causing oak seedlings die. Recent

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

forest health monitoring in oak types on the ANF found red maple to be the most abundant seedling species, followed closely by American beech (Morin et al. 2006), which indicates a shift in the trajectory of these forests away from oaks and towards upland hardwood forest types.

Although a clear relationship between fire and the presence of oak forests has been well established (Brose et al. 2008, Abrams and Nowacki 2008), the extent and degree of Native American influence, including use of fire on pre-European settlement forest remains a controversial subject among forest historians, cultural ecologists, and anthropologists (Black et al. 2006). Recent research indicates the occurrence of oak forests in the major drainages (Allegheny River, Clarion River, Tionesta Creek and others) is related to Native Americans use of fire for hundreds and thousands of years, but was broken during the early 20th century (Abrams 2005, Black et al. 2006, Ruffner et al. 1997). Black et al. (2006) examined archaeological data from the Allegheny plateau of northwest Pennsylvania to demonstrate that “Native American occupation appears to be the best predictor of oak, hickory, and chestnut in comparison with a number of topographic and edaphic variables,” and concluded that “Native Americans played at least some role in altering forest composition.”

Regardless of the influence of Native American cultural practices on past fire frequency, the frequent low-intensity fire regime along major oak-dominated drainages on the ANF changed to one of fire exclusion after the public forest policy of fire exclusion was applied throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Although fast-growing red oak and chestnut oak expanded at the expense of white oak for a time due to canopy disturbances after European settlement, virtually no white oak recruitment has occurred over the last 100 years, and little recruitment has occurred for at least 50 years for most other major upland oak species (Ruffner and Abrams 2002). Many oak stands on the ANF have had little if any fire disturbances in nearly 100 years (USDA-FS 2007a , ROD-24).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Figure 2: Distribution of oak habitat within the Izenbrown Corners Project Area

In addition to the absence of fire on the landscape and other factors described in Brose et al. 2008, the regeneration process for oak-hickory forest types is complicated by several other factors. Acorn production differs greatly from year to year, species to species, and tree to tree within the same species and forest stand (Walters and Auchmoody 1993). Bumper seed crops occur irregularly, and may occur as far as 10 years apart. Periodic outbreaks of gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), a pest species that preferentially defoliates oak species, can further reduce the frequency and size of acorn crops. Also, white-tailed deer consume acorns and browse oak seedlings preferentially over other vegetation (Brose et al. 2008).

If an acorn crop occurs and seedlings germinate, oak seedlings can take up to 20 years to become established and competitive with other species. Oak species are much less shade tolerant than many of

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

their competitors. The minimum amount of light required for oak to survive in the understory is two to five % of full sunlight and typically, positive shoot growth of oak can be expected above 20 % of full sunlight (Gottschalk 1987).

Potential effects from climate change Baseline assumptions for conducting an analysis of potential effects of climate change to the project area take the form of a range of possible outcomes based on climate “general circulation models” (GCMs) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions path scenarios The Forest Service’s “Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options” (TACCIMO), web-based tool (http://www.sgcp.ncsu.edu:8090/about.aspx), applies three widely accepted GCMs and three GHG emissions path scenarios to create nine average projections for moisture and temperature for the period spanning 2009 to 2099. TACCIMO produces maps to represent these projections for the eastern region and northeastern area of the United States, and specifically for ANF. All three models project generally warmer average monthly temperatures under all nine scenarios for the northeastern area. However, four of the models project decreasing average annual precipitation, four project increasing precipitation, and one projects no change. Future climate projections were formulated for the northeast region of the Forest Service in a report entitled “The Vulnerabilities of Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the Northeast to Climate Change” (2012). This document was produced by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and the National Wildlife Federation for the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. This report projects: • the region will be hotter by several degrees C;

• precipitation will increase by up to about 15 percent;

• less precipitation will fall as snow and more as rain;

• extreme climatic events (droughts, storms) will increase in frequency, intensity, and duration;

• plant growing seasons will lengthen by up to about 50 days, and; sea levels will rise by up to a meter or more.

These factors may also affect the growth and productivity of forests due to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, and indirectly through complex interactions in forest ecosystems such as changes to the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of many forest disturbances, such as fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, ice storms or landslides (Dale et al. 2001)(Horton et al. 2014; Joyce et al. 2014) . Aber et al. (1995), for instance, applied a forest carbon and water balance model for the entire New England/New York region to predict stand- and regional-level effects of changes in temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The model predicted that a combination of increased temperature (+6°C), decreased precipitation (-15%) and increased water use efficiency (2X, due to doubling of CO,) resulted generally in increases in net primary productivity and decreases in water yield over the region.

Iverson et al. (2008) evaluated 134 tree species from the eastern United States for potential response to several scenarios of climate change by the year 2100. The study suggests that forests of the northeastern United States are likely to undergo radical changes as climate changes. Although the authors could not apply an exact timeline to the potential changes, suitable habitat was projected to diminish for most of the currently important tree species in the region by the end of the century, including sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and white ash (Fraxinus americana). Concurrently, the authors projected that habitat suitability for some species will likely increase substantially, including red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), sweet birch (Betula lenta), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum). Habitat suitability in the northeast may increase for other species from the south, including fairly common species such as longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), as well as uncommon species such as sand and pond pine (Pinus clausa and Pinus serotina) and cherrybark, turkey, laurel, overcup, and Shumard’s oak (Quercus pagoda, Quercus hemisphaerica, Quercus lyrata, and Quercus shumardii).

Iverson et al.’s models indicate that species with the potential for increasing suitable habitat outnumber those with decreasing habitat. Based on a study of biotic responses to global changes during the last three million years, Webb and Bartlein (1992) determined changes in plant distribution occur independently, resulting in different combinations of taxa forming communities and later dissociating as climate changes again. This suggests that plant communities as a whole may change as a result of shifts in temperature and moisture, and may not remain the same as currently identified communities.

Climate change tends to produce a mismatch between mature trees and the habitat upon which they are living, which may result in increased vulnerability to pests and pathogens (Ayers and Lombardero 2000). Because warming tends to accelerate the rate of insect development and facilitate range expansions of pests and diseases, compositional changes on ANF could be accelerated by hemlock wooly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and beech bark disease (Iverson et al. 2008, Manomet Center 2012).

Habitats that are most vulnerable are those that are adapted to more northern or higher elevation areas where temperatures are typically low, the climatic conditions may be extreme and growing seasons short (Manoment Center 2012)(Butler et al. 2015). Of the five most vulnerable habitats occurring in the northeastern U.S. and the ANF, only one occurs within the project area: northern hardwood forest. This habitat type includes many of the tree species projected by Iverson et al. to diminish and is most vulnerable in the southern reaches of its current range. Since northern Pennsylvania is in a more northerly portion of the range of the habitat, vulnerability is somewhat reduced. The Manomet assessment projects the possibility of the reduction of the current distribution of the northern hardwood forest habitat type by at least 50 percent in at least one of the four zones considered.

Conversely, central oak-pine forest was determined assessment to be among the least vulnerable habitat types in the Central Appalachians and Northeast (Butler et al. In prep; Manoment). Vulnerabilities for central oak pine forests were generally found to be lower in the most northern parts of the region, including Pennsylvania. This forest type is likely to expand its range into areas that are currently dominated by northern hardwoods. However, oak species are currently difficult to regenerate in the absence of fire or other agents that can partially open the canopy, resulting in a general downward trend for many oak species (Loftis and McGee 1993; Iverson et al. 2004). Although suitable habitat for oak species is predicted to increase from climate change, Iverson et al. (2008) and Barnes (2009) suggest that it is unlikely that the decline of oak species will be reversed simply as a result of climate change. Iverson et al. assert; “Forest and land management (or non-management) also have much to do with final outcomes.” In this case, management activities that reintroduce fire or physical disturbance that mimics fire would have a profound and immediate effect on oak-hickory regeneration success.

Suitable habitat for red maple is projected to remain relatively stable under the low emissions scenario (PCM B1), but experience a large decrease under the high emissions scenario (GFDL A1FI) (Landscape Change Research Group 2014). The unique natural history traits of red maple facilitate successful competition with oak seedlings and other species, because it is an opportunistic and persistent invader of adjacent dry habitats dominated by oaks and pines. Therefore, red maple is likely to fare better than

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

models predict, especially in the absence of fire, which favors oak seedlings over red maple and other competitors. Barnes (2009) states “Given today’s human-disturbed ecosystems, almost any climatic- change scenario (warm, dry or wet, fire or no-fire) will probably favor red maple for centuries to come.” Based on these factors, climate change by itself would be unlikely to alter the current trend in oak regeneration in the project area and in the ANF, regardless of the scenario that is realized.

Environmental Consequences

MI-1: Effects of the alternatives to retention and restoration of oak type forest and associated habitats and forest health

No Action ANF Forest Plan objectives for habitat management of oak forest types would not be advanced or achieved. Fire return intervals would remain unchanged. Factors complicating the regeneration and maintenance of oak types within the project area would persist. In the absence of active management or natural disturbance, oak-hickory forest types within the project area would continue to transition to other hardwood species. Seedbeds would continue to be inhospitable for acorn crops. Understory conditions would continue to be dominated by other hardwood species, which would compete with any existing oak regeneration for sunlight and other resources. Acorn production from mature trees would decline in as mature trees age and eventually become replaced with other species when they die. Without restoration of a more frequent fire return interval or other active management, oak ecosystems on the ANF are certain to transition to other hardwood species as mature oaks in the forest canopy die. Red maple would likely replace oak species as the dominant canopy tree throughout much of the project area. Any effect from changing climate is unlikely to alter this trend, especially within the life of the project (20 years).

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would contribute to achieving ANF Forest Plan goals by applying treatments that would interrupt processes that are driving a transition to other hardwood species and restore or mimic natural processes that support the regeneration and maintenance of oak forest types and associated plant and animal communities.

Application of periodic prescribed fire would restore the primary process that supported regeneration and maintenance of oak forest types prior to European settlement. Where applied, fire would address most factors that have prevented or limited oak regeneration and successful competition with other hardwood species. Fire would improve seed bed conditions by decreasing midstory density (which would increase understory light), and reducing the thickness of the litter layer, which can be a barrier to germination and seedling establishment (Carvell and Tryon 1961, Wang et al. 2005). Fire at the seedbed preparation phase would also suppress acorn pests already present and cause soil conditions to become too dry to provide a seed bed for competing species (Riccardi et al. 2004, Barnes and Van Lear 1998). Even in stands not scheduled for even-aged regeneration, prescribed fire would help to ensure that acorn crops result in the establishment of advanced oak seedlings. This advanced oak regeneration would provide a reserve oak component that could grow into the canopy in the event of disturbance or mortality to the oak overstory. Furthermore, with time and periodic disturbance from prescribed fires, some of this oak regeneration will persist, growing into the midstory and eventually into larger canopy gaps.

Figure 3: Photos of typical flame lengths from prescribed fire in oak stands

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The objective of the burn in a red oak stands in the photos was to remove low woody interference from beech brush and striped maple, reduce the leaf litter, and prepare the site for a possible acorn crop. Photos by P. Brose.

Prescribed fire does not usually succeed in killing or suppressing all non-oak tree species, fern, grass and sedges, all of which prevent oak seedlings from germinating and increasing shade on the forest floor. Manual or chemical site preparation (cutting and application of herbicides) would further reduce this competing vegetation and prepare stands for soil scarification. Mechanical scarification would also improve seed bed conditions for acorn crops by disrupting mats of organic material, exposing mineral soil, mixing organic matter with mineral soil, and burying acorns from any recent crops. Because the combination of site preparation and scarification could be applied as an alternative to prescribed fire, seed bed preparation would be achieved over a larger portion of the project area than would occur otherwise.

These three management tools (prescribed fire, site preparation and scarification) are also critical to creating and maintaining suitable seed bed conditions necessary to initiate the oak shelterwood regeneration sequence. A full shelterwood sequence of treatments occurs within the 20 year time frame required for oaks to become established and competitive with other species. A three-step shelterwood sequence is typically applied to regenerate oak stands. The first step consists of a shelterwood preparation harvest, which typically removes less than 25% of the smaller overstory trees, retaining at least 70% relative density. This harvest is typically used to promote oak seedling establishment or sustain newly established oak seedlings. The second treatment in the sequence is typically a shelterwood seed cut, which reduces the overstory relative density to around 50%, in order to partially release well established oak regeneration and enhance oak seedling vigor, while maintaining enough shade to suppress growth of other competing seedlings. The final step in the sequence is the shelterwood removal cut, which occurs once the area is well stocked with oak seedlings that are considered competitive and highly likely to become dominant or codominant in the new stand.

In addition to improving seed bed conditions with prescribed fire, site preparation and scarification, shelterwood treatments improve conditions for oak seedling establishment by reducing shade from competing, and gradually increasing the amount of available sunlight for established oak regeneration. These treatments are used in conjunction with periodic prescribed burns in order to reduce the abundance of competing vegetation and maintain the competitiveness and vigor of oak regeneration. Fire applied when root collars of young oaks are at least 0.25 inches in diameter only kills the above-ground portion of the plant. Once the roots are well established, young oaks can resprout multiple times after fire. Herbicide applied at recommended rates at the proper time and using the optimal method of application differentially affects ferns, sedges and competing hardwood species without damaging young oaks (Brose et al. 2008). Ultimately, this treatment sequence results in a vigorous, well-stocked even-aged stands of oaks. The benefits resulting from the use of shelterwood sequence treatments have been thoroughly studied in the mid-Atlantic region by scientists with the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

These studies included oak shelterwood-burn treatments conducted on the ANF, and the process is well- described in Brose et al. 2008.

Cleaning and weeding treatments would remove competing non-oak saplings from across an area, to release oak seedlings and saplings, and enhance their vigor and competitiveness. Crop tree release (CTR) would remove (cut) competing trees around individual trees, including species other than oak, mimicking small natural disturbances that reduce completion between dominant and codominant trees in the canopy. In general, an oak crop tree has desirable characteristics that assist in meeting management objectives, can respond to CTR, and can remain competitive for many years. CTR and reforestation treatments address problems with oak regeneration primarily by invigorating and maintaining the existing oak component in mixed-species stands, rather than by initiating regeneration of a new oak stand. Other desirable tree species would be retained or in some cases released, resulting in diverse hardwood stands that would enhance the existing oak component. CTR would improve the vigor and productivity of all remaining canopy trees, which would ensure that dominant and codominant oaks remain competitive (Brose et al. 2008). Additional weed-and-release treatments or crop tree release (CTR) cuts from future projects would continue to maintain vigor and competitiveness of young oak trees.

Mixed hardwood stands in generally in poor condition would be subjected to a broader range of treatments, including site preparation and weed-and-release to improve health and vigor of these stands. These treatments would either improve the overall growing conditions for any existing oaks, or create conditions suitable for future regeneration of oak species from residual trees.

The objective of removing artificially established red pine plantations is not specifically intended to reestablish even-aged oak stands. However, proposed treatments would release and enhance the growth of existing oak trees in these areas. These stands would eventually become diverse mixed hardwood and hardwood- pine stands, some of which would have an oak component released from the competition of the red pine overstory. Site preparation, herbicide application, planting and weed-and-release treatments would enhance the growth of desirable species, including any oak component.

Proposed project activities would reintroduce fire into existing oak habitat, which would address one of the major limitations to oak regeneration under any climate change scenario. Use of fire to achieve oak regeneration is based on recent local research (Brose et al 2008, Brose et al. 2013). Assuming current suitable habitat for oak species will remain suitable through various potential climate change scenarios, project activities would assist future oak stands in developing and adapting to climate change by reducing competition, improving vigor of oak species that regenerate, and regenerating stands more rapidly. These factors would maintain the presence of and facilitate resilience of oak habitat regardless of the uncertainties regarding potential climate change scenarios.

Summary of effects from all treatments The Proposed Action would restore periodic fire and simulate other natural disturbances that assist with development and maintenance of oak type forests on up to 6,612 acres. Restoration of periodic fire within any stand that is suitable habitat for oak forest types, whether currently occupied by oak species or not, would increase the likelihood of oak regeneration from an acorn crop.

Application of the shelterwood sequence of treatments as proposed would improve conditions for oak seedling establishment on 2,018 acres of stands currently dominated by oak species. In areas where acorn crops produce seedlings, growing conditions would be further improved by proceeding to the second stage of the sequence on 1,009 acres, including repeated treatments to control competing vegetation. Ultimately, in the resulting 505 acres where the most vigorous oak regeneration responds, shelterwood removal harvest will fully release 5-40 acre patches of new, even-aged oak stands.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Because the occurrence, frequency, and successful germination of acorn crops is not predictable, and the purpose of the adaptive management strategy is to respond to successful regeneration when and where it occurs, the pattern and distribution of newly regenerated even-aged oak stands resulting from the Proposed Action cannot be forecast accurately. Depending on the timing of oak seedling establishment, most oak regeneration that becomes established, but is not released by the shelterwood removal cut will likely die off. Some of these seedlings may develop to some extent due to natural disturbance factors that create small canopy openings. This regeneration could be enhanced by future project proposals. The shelterwood sequence of treatments as proposed would ensure that the most efforts are focused on fully developing and releasing competitive oak regeneration in a timely manner, with the greatest likelihood of developing into an oak-dominated stand.

Reforestation, crop tree release and red pine removal would improve the competitiveness of existing oaks in mixed-species stands, and create conditions to sustain oak in future decades. These treatments would maintain oak competitiveness and ensure that oak species remain a component of mixed hardwood and mixed hardwood-conifer in the future.

Oak stands regenerated by project activities could provide a seed source of expansion of oak species into areas formerly occupied by northern hardwood forest types as climate change diminishes the capacity of these stands to maintain regeneration of the current species mix. Project activities would facilitate a transition to communities more suited to changing temperature and precipitation pattern, and because of these factors, more resistant to other stressors that result from climate change.

Cumulative effects Although direct effects to vegetation would be limited to oak stands within the project area where treatment is applied, proposed activities would contribute to the maintenance of the current distribution of the mixed oak ecosystem across the Allegheny National Forest. Because the presence and successful germination of acorn crops varies across the national forest in any year, the ability to respond to these events when they occur with effective management tools would encourage regeneration over a larger area. This would be beneficial to the overall effort to maintain oak habitat and achieve Forest Plan objectives.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix B - Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix C1 Biological Evaluation Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Al Wetzel Wildlife Biologist Bradford Ranger District December 6, 2013

Edited and Reviewed by:

Pam Thurston Wildlife Biologist Allegheny National Forest December 6, 2013

Updated by

Collin Shephard Forest Ecologist Allegheny National Forest April 27, 2016 /S/ Collin Shephard

and Steve Dowlan Planning Team Leader Bradford Ranger District May 21, 2016

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents I. Introduction and Proposed Action ...... 1 Description of the Izenbrown Corners Project Area ...... 1 Project Area Location ...... 1 Habitat Summary of the Project Area ...... 3 Alternatives considered ...... 4 No Action ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 4 Summary of Alternatives ...... 5 II. Threatened And Endangered Species ...... 7 Species status, occurrence and habitat ...... 7 Critical Habitat ...... 8 Cumulative Effects Analysis Area and Period ...... 8 Species with suitable occupied habitat in the project area ...... 9 Northern long-eared bat (Myotis sepntentrionalis) ...... 9 Species with suitable unoccupied habitat in the project area ...... 17 Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) ...... 17 Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus)...... 19 Species with no suitable habitat in the project area but the cumulative effects analysis has suitable occupied habitat ...... 21 Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), Clubshell (Pleurobema clava), and Rayed-Bean (Villosa fabalis) ...... 21 Species with no suitable habitat in the project area but the cumulative effects analysis has suitable unoccupied habitat ...... 24 Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), and Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) ...... 24 III. Summary Of Determinations For The Izenbrown Corners Project ...... 25 References ...... 26 Tables Table 1: Izenbrown Corners project area habitat summary for NFS lands. ______3 Table 2: Proposed activities by alternative in the Izenbrown Corners Environmental Assessment. ______5 Table 3: Status of federally listed species in the project area. ______7 Table 4: Summary of mist net survey results for northern long-eared bat in or within ¼ mile of the project boundary. ______11 Table 5: Treatments that may have direct or indirect effects on the northern long-eared bat. ______14 Table 6: Summary of species determinations. ______25

Figures Figure 1: Northern long-eared bat pre- and post- WNS captures on the ANF. ______11

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

I. Introduction and Proposed Action This biological assessment (BA) includes a brief description of the habitat for federally threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species followed by an analysis of potential effects associated with each alternative being considered in the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment (EA). This assessment evaluates the effects of alternatives in order to: • Determine potential effects on federally threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing or with candidate status (FSM 2670.31). • Analyze the significance of the potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole if impacts cannot be avoided, (FSM 2670.32).

The analysis presented in the: Biological Evaluation for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate Species on the Allegheny National Forest (ANF) (Forest BE) (USDA-FS 2007c); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurrence letter (USDI-FWS 2007); the FWS Biological Opinion for Effects to the Northern Long-eared Bat from Ongoing Activities on the ANF (USDI-FWS 2015a); the Forest Service Eastern Region (R9) Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Northern Long-eared Bat (USDA-FS 2015); and the FWS Biological Opinion for Activities Affecting the Northern Long-eared Bat on Eastern Regional National Forests (USDI-FWS 2015b) are not repeated in this biological assessment; however, they are incorporated by reference. This assessment will serve as biological input to ensure compliance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as amended. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This assessment also provides a process to ensure that endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species receive full consideration in the decision making process. If the scope of the project changes or new information regarding a species changes significantly, this analysis will be updated.

The primary purpose of the Izenbrown Corners Project is to implement the 2007 ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) by moving the existing forest condition towards a desired condition as outlined in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The Forest Plan divides the ANF into Management Areas (MA) with specific goals, objectives and associated standards and guidelines (S&G) for a multitude of resources. The Forest Plan provides programmatic direction of how the ANF is to be managed for sustainable, multiple benefits. The goals and objectives of this project for vegetation management, wildlife habitat, non-native invasive plant treatments or transportation developments follow those outlined for MA 1.0, 2.2, 3.0, 5.1, 6.1, and 8.1, and 8.1p in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 26-29).

Management strategies such as critical timing of harvests, site-specific herbicide applications, prescribed fire, adjustments of shade intensity (canopy and understory closure), and area fencing (deer exclosures) may be employed to achieve silvicultural (vegetation) objectives. Other opportunities exist to develop a diversity of tree seedlings in areas dominated by fern, grass, or undesirable woody vegetation.

Description of the Izenbrown Corners Project Area Project Area Location The United States Department of Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service (USDA-FS) is proposing to implement the Izenbrown Corners Project, which is located on the Bradford Ranger District of the ANF, in Harmony and Hickory Townships in Forest County and Limestone, Triumph and Watson Townships in Warren County, Pennsylvania (PA). The northern project boundary is roughly defined by the southern boundary of the National Recreation Area near Cobham Hill Road (SR337 to the Allegheny River), the Allegheny River to the Marienville/Bradford District Boundary at SR 62 and SR 666 on the west, while the southern

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

boundary follows SR 666 east for 3.3 miles from the intersection of SR 666 and SR 62 to the southeast corner of the project area. The eastern boundary follows the private block from SR 666 for ~2.85 miles northeast and ~2.35 miles northwest to East Hickory Creek where it continues north along the west side boundary of the Hickory Creek Wilderness, back to SR 337 at Cobham Hill Road in the north. The project area consists of 9,477 acres of National Forest System (NFS) Lands and 11,330 acres of private land, totaling 20,807 acres for the environmental analysis.

The entire project area is located within the “13% Area” that drains directly into the unimpounded section of the Allegheny River. The project area is contained entirely within a portion of the South Allegheny Front Watershed (a 5th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (LHUC) – 0501000301) and includes at least 22 small watersheds. They include: Allegheny River, Beaver Run, Otter Creek, East Hickory Creek, Reno Run, Queen Creek, Jaybuck Run, Beers Hollow, Dunn Run, Dale Run, Myers Run, Baugher Run, Camp Run, Dutchmans Run, Bimber Run, Waid Run, Alex Magee Run, and Bully Hollow. The project area also includes an Equestrian Use Area (EUAs).

The cumulative effect area is somewhat larger than the actual project area. It includes the river and all the lands west of the river within the Proclamation Boundary (mostly Triumph Hill) from the north end to the south end of the project area. The combined project and cumulative effects analysis is approximately 26,454 acres in size consisting of both federal lands (11,610 acres) and non-federal lands (14,844 acres including 1,016 acres of river habitat). The cumulative effects analysis alone totals 5,647 acres, with 2,133 acres of federal lands and 3,514 acres of non-federal lands.

Oil and gas management assumptions for the Izenbrown Corners Project Area Because oil and gas activity has been occurring within the project area for several decades, there is no definitive point in time from which to start the analysis period. As a result, potential effects include all past oil and gas development that has occurred within the analysis area prior to 2015, as well as development that is anticipated to occur between 2015 and 2035. The date 2035 was chosen as the end of the analysis period because that is the point in time in which anticipated effects of timber harvest are evaluated (after the first decade and canopy closure is complete after the second decade). We will continue to negotiate with the subsurface mineral owners to mitigate and manage the surface impacts of this future development under the Standards and Guidelines from the 1986 Forest Plan as directed by the 2/15/08 ANF Forest Plan appeals decision. Adherence to Pennsylvania Best Management Practices (BMPs) will minimize effects to water resources from private oil and gas development.

There are presently 51 wells (1 well/407.8 acres) in the project area. This includes 36 active wells on NFS lands within the project area and 15 wells on private land within the project analysis area. Using an average 1.3 acres of land impacted per well (including pad, access roads, supply lines, etc.) (USDA-FS 2007d, Appendix F), approximately 59 (51 and 8) acres of forestland has been converted to non-forest habitat in the cumulative effects analysis. One Marcellus pad has been constructed off Kelly Hill Road in 2013 and it impacts approximately 10 acres on private lands. Another pad has been permitted on private land but it is not under construction at this time. Full field build-out for cumulative effects in the project area over the next 20 years indicates there is room for approximately 102 additional wells impacting 133 acres. In addition, there are currently 8 wells in the wildlife cumulative effects analysis on the west side of the river impacting 8 more acres of Federal lands. There are no wells on private land west of the river at this time. Full field build-out for cumulative effects in the wildlife cumulative effects analysis (includes west of the river) over the next 20 years indicates there is room for a total of 153 wells impacting 184 acres. The land ownership percentage ratio was calculated to project private development. There are no Marcellus sites on federal lands within the cumulative effects analysis. These assumptions are based on oil and gas development over the past 10 years within the cumulative effects analysis and across the ANF. It is not possible to determine how long it would take full field development to occur.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Habitat Summary of the Project Area Habitat conditions on National Forest System lands within the project area are summarized in Table 1. The project area is predominantly forested (99%), with approximately 78% of the area occurring as mature second growth forest and approximately 21% as young forest less than 50 years of age. There is no old growth forest within the project area. The availability of seedling or young forest has varied over time and between the early 1990s and present, early structural forest <20 years of age has been provided on <1% of the project area (60 of the 90 acres of that age will age up to mid-structural age within 2 years of present). Early structural vegetation has been declining during the last decade and there is almost none present in the federal ownership at this time.

The predominant forest types include upland hardwoods (91%). The project area includes 53 stands typed as conifer. Approximately 9% of the federally owned lands in the project area occur as conifer or mixed conifer forest, with most of the conifer occurring as red pine, white pine, or hemlock in the proposed MA 1.0 and 2.2 portions of the project area. These conifer stands are mostly distributed on the slopes above the Allegheny River and throughout the Economite area. There is also a small amount of aspen (<1%) included in other stand types. The aspen component will be greatly expanded from present condition if the MA change for 1.0 is approved and then managed more as a wildlife/hunting/recreation area. The entire project area is in the beech bark disease killing front and as a result there has been extensive mortality of beech trees throughout. The beech mortality, combined with scattered mortality of white ash and sugar maple, has resulted in a higher density of large diameter snags than might be expected across the ANF. A total of 2,589 acres or ~12% of the project area occurs within Management Area 2.2. This area serves to link those areas currently being managed for late structural/old growth forest conditions across the ANF. It provides predominantly late structural forest conditions including older trees, maintenance of a predominantly high forest canopy and increased vertical structure. These lands also contain an understory conifer component and as a result are good candidates to eventually provide conditions characteristic of true old growth forest in Pennsylvania. There are no old growth stands (those greater than 300 years of age) currently within the project area. The remainder of the mature forest in the project area is currently being managed as MA 8.1 or the Wild and Scenic Area and MA 3.0 which is meant to maintain or create a mosaic of age and structural diversity on lands suitable for timber management.

Non-forested habitat (<1% of Izenbrown Corners Project Area) occurs on 27 sites (~ 150 acres) across the project area, with most existing openings (66%) being less than 10 acres in size and openings 1 acre or less making up ~25% of the total number of sites. There are 2 opening sites 10 acres or greater in size and of these, 35 acres are associated with the Hall Barn Property (CS 348/049). The other large opening (~25 acres) is a shrub type area along SR 337. Shrub openings are found on 12 sites while the rest of the existing openings are predominantly grass/forb openings. Approximately 17 of the existing openings within the project area are being maintained and/or have received past wildlife treatments such as planting, fencing or seeding.

Table 1: Izenbrown Corners project area habitat summary for NFS lands. Amount in Project Area in % of Project Area Habitat/Landscape Condition Acres (cumulative effects (% in cumulative effects analysis) analysis) Total Project Area Acreage 20,807 100% Forest Service Ownership 9,491 46% Non-Forest Service Ownership 11,310 54% Combined Project and (cumulative effects 26,454 (5,647) 100% (21%) analysis) Forest Service Ownership 11,610 (2,133) 44% (38%) Non-Forest Service Ownership 14,844 (3,514) 56% (62%)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Amount in Project Area in % of Project Area Habitat/Landscape Condition Acres (cumulative effects (% in cumulative effects analysis) analysis) ANF Forest Communities Deciduous Hardwood 8,333 91% Conifer 867 9% Forested Age Class 0 to 20 years 88 <1% 21 to 50 years 1,874 20% 51 to 80 years 532 <6% 81 to 110 years 4,576 48% 111 to 140 years 2,263 24% 141 to 300 years 125 1% 301 plus years 0 0 Non-Forest Communities 1% Grass/forb Openings (Type 99) 86 <1% Shrub Openings (Type 97 & 98) 35 <1% Stream/Riparian/Wetlands National Wetland Inventory Wetlands1 145 (1,477) acres Streams2 (in miles) ~121 Allegheny River ~14 Riparian 1,966 acres Stream/floodplain3 1,020 acres River4 1 – Includes federal and non-federal ownership and river habitat 2 – Includes streams and river across federal and non-federal ownership 3 - Stream/riparian habitat - includes all land within 100’ of a perennial or intermittent stream. 4 – Allegheny River riparian habitat includes islands and land within 300’ of the river edge (both banks).

Approximately 9% of the project area (combined private and federal land) has been identified as stream riparian habitat, floodplain or other riparian habitat. The riparian habitat or area of influence includes river islands, the area within 300 ft. of the Allegheny River, and 100 ft. from any perennial or intermittent stream. This distance was used because the number of tributary springs and seeps dispersed along most stream corridors are quite numerous and variable in size and shape. Wildlife use of these seeps occurs year round. The project area also includes 145 acres of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands (combined federal and non-federal ownerships). Non-FS lands comprise slightly less than 54% of the project area and contain ~64 % of the total stream miles and ~59% of the NWI wetlands are on private lands. The Wild and Scenic River section is ~14 miles long and includes ~1,020 acres along both sides of the river.

Alternatives considered No Action There are no new federal actions proposed under this alternative. The No Action Alternative will serve as a baseline or reference point from which effects of the action alternative (Alt. 2) can be evaluated. This alternative responds to concerns of those who do not want management activities to occur in the project area and will let ecological processes control vegetation development. Habitat changes will occur primarily from natural disturbances. Oil and gas development is also expected to continue on private mineral leases (having outstanding sub-surface rights) on both private and federal land within the project area.

Proposed Action This alternative is based on the site specific purpose and need for the project area. The proposed activities use adaptive management techniques to move the project area from the present condition, to the desired

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

future condition identified in the Forest Plan. Land designated as MA 3.0 in the south end of the Economite Area will be re-designated as MA 2.2. The new MA 2.2 area will cover the south end of the Economite Area. This will impact ~ 292 acres. The north portion of the Economite will then be designated as MA 1.0 instead of 2.2. This will impact ~346 acres. A designated horse trail will be constructed in the Economite Equestrian Use Area (EUA). The Proposed Action uses a variety of 2-aged, uneven-aged and even-aged timber harvest treatments as well as prescribed burn, wildlife habitat improvement, NNIP, and understory treatments to achieve a more balanced age class distribution, improve stand structure and diversity, enhance wildlife habitat conditions, and improve forest health in MA 1.0 and 2.2. Transportation activities include road construction, road reconstruction, decommissioning system roads, and removal of Forest Service roads from the system. This alternative includes 600 acres of NNIP treatment – a combination of manual/mechanical and/or herbicide treatments. Activities are expected to be implemented over a 20 year period (2015-2035).

Summary of Alternatives Table 2 summarizes activities for each of the alternatives identified above. The No Action Alternative is also displayed because private OGM activities will likely occur even if there are no treatments proposed under this alternative.

Table 2: Proposed activities by alternative in the Izenbrown Corners Environmental Assessment. Activity No Action Proposed Action Vegetation Management acres Even-aged Treatments Shelter-wood Sequence - Preparation/Seed Cut/Removal 0 2,018/1,009/505 Early Structural Adaptive Management 0 224 Red Pine Clear-cut 0 111 Uneven-aged Treatments Group Selection (Wildlife Patch Cut) 0 48 Reforestation Treatments Site preparation 0 3,219 Scarification 0 2,018 Weed and Release 0 3,219 Planting 0 76 Fence Construction 0 505 Crop Tree Release 0 790 Prescribed Fire 0 6,836

Timber Outputs Millions of Board Feet First Entry 0 6.7 Second Entry 0 11.8 Third Entry 0 10.5 Total Volume (MMBF) 0 29.0

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Acres Create Opening 0 15 Restore & Maintain Opening 0 103 Opening Release 0 69 Herbicide (Spot & Broadcast) 0 98 Aspen Regeneration or Planting 0 10 Burn Warm & Cool Season Grasses 0 84 Fence/Plant shrubs/fruit/conifer trees in openings (# of Cribs) 1 0 179 Cribs Plant Butternut2 0 2 Plant/Under-plant Miscellaneous Pine 0 54 acres Plant White Spruce (Groups) 3 0 98 Groups Prune & Release Fruit Trees (Estimated # of trees) 0 1,000 Trees

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Northern Flying Squirrel Boxes 0 5 Nest Boxes Blue Bird Boxes 0 80 Nest Boxes Rehabilitate Pond downslope of NS37186 0 1 acre Hardened parking area for horse trailers 0 5 1Fence/Plant shrubs/fruit/conifer trees in openings (# of Cribs): Cribs can be 8’x16’, 8’x20’, or 4’x4’, 2Plant Butternut: 1 acre each at 2 sites - C/S348/049 and 280/004, 3Plant White Spruce Groups: White Spruce (1 group = 8 to 10 trees planted 10’ to 15’ apart in a half-moon, each group about 100 meters apart). Pollinator areas will be up to 1 acre in size at 14 locations. Aspen planting in Red Pine Stands, White Pine (50/acre). Northern Flying Squirrel Boxes C/S 327/048 - Hickory Creek Wilderness buffer stand, Blue Bird Boxes dispersed in wildlife openings at discretion of Wildlife Biologist. NNIP Treatments Acres A combination of herbicide applications, manual and mechanical 0 600 treatments for NNIS Transportation Road Construction – New Corridor 0 3.1 Road Construction - Existing Corridor 0 5.1 Road Reconstruction - Realignment 0 0.4 Decommission Forest Roads 0 1.2 Remove FSR from the system 0 0.6 Recreation miles Designated Horse Trail in EAU 0 8.5 MA Changes in Economite Area acres MA 2.2 & 3.0 to MA 1.0 0 346 MA 3.0 to MA 2.2 0 292

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

II. Threatened And Endangered Species Species status, occurrence and habitat This BA will evaluate the effects of the project on the nine federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species that have been documented or have suitable habitat on the ANF. Of the nine federally list species, one has occupied habitat and two have suitable habitat but their presence has not been documented in the project area (Table 3). Effects evaluated are based on those discussed in the Forest BE (USDA-FS 2007c), the amended BE (USDA-FS 2012), the FWS concurrence letter for the Forest Plan (USDI-FWS 2007), the FWS biological opinion for the northern long-eared bat for ongoing activities on the ANF (USDI-FWS 2015a), the Forest Service Eastern Region programmatic biological assessment (USDA-FS 2015), and the FWS biological opinion on activities affecting the northern long- eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests (USDI-FWS 2015b). While the Indiana bat was considered in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a), available information, which is summarized below Table 3, indicates that this species does not occur on the ANF.

Table 3: Status of federally listed species in the project area. Species Distribution Relative to the Project and Species Status Cumulative Effects Areas Mammals Northern long-eared bat (Myotis Threatened Suitable habitat exists and presence of species has septentrionalis) been documented in project area. Plants Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened Suitable habitat exists but presence of species not documented in project area. Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) Endangered Suitable habitat exists but presence of species not documented in project area. Mollusks Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) Endangered No suitable habitat in the project area. Suitable occupied habitat in the cumulative effects analysis. Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa Endangered rangiana) No suitable habitat in the project area. Suitable occupied habitat in the cumulative effects Rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) Endangered analysis.

No suitable habitat in the project area. Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical) Threatened Suitable occupied habitat in the cumulative effects analysis. Sheepnose (Plethobasis cyphyus) Endangered No suitable habitat in the project area. Suitable unoccupied habitat in the cumulative Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) effects analysis. Endangered No suitable habitat in the project area. Suitable unoccupied habitat in the cumulative effects analysis.

No suitable habitat in the project area. Suitable unoccupied habitat in the cumulative effects analysis.

Between 1998 and 2015, substantial sampling effort was taken on the ANF to document the presence and distribution of Indiana bat. One male was captured in the southeast portion of the ANF in 1998 (Jones Township, Elk County) and another male was captured on private land adjacent to the northeast corner of the Forest in 2001 (McKean County). These data suggested the ANF likely only supported a low density

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

of adult male Indiana bats whose presence on the ANF was transient (USDI-FWS 2007). Research corroborated this finding by concluding the ANF is not preferred summer habitat for reproductive female bats due to the latitude, elevation, and relatively short, cool summers with high precipitation (Brack et al. 2002). In terms of winter habitat, the ANF has four hibernacula within or immediately adjacent to its boundary and the Indiana bat has not been documented at any of these sites. Based in part on the ANF’s Indiana bat summer and winter habitat survey efforts, the FWS revised the Indiana bat range map for Pennsylvania to reflect that the distribution of potential Indiana bat summer and winter habitat does not include the ANF (USDI-FWS 2014).

Critical Habitat There is no designated critical habitat for any federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate Species within the Izenbrown Corners Project Area or on the ANF (16 U.S.C. 1532 (5) (A)).

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area and Period Analysis Period: Analysis of cumulative effects includes identification and evaluation of direct and indirect effects, that when considered cumulatively over time, and/or in combination with effects on private land, may result in significant effects to federally listed species or their habitats. The year 2005 was chosen as the start of the analysis period because only final harvest treatments that have occurred in the last 10 years are readily apparent on aerial photographs. However because final harvest treatments on private industrial forest land often use a 2-step cutting method, including a shelterwood treatment within the next 10 years followed by a final harvest treatment in 10-20 years out, 2035 was chosen as the end of the analysis period. As a result, the cumulative effects analysis period for regeneration or final harvest spans a period of 30 years (2005-2035).

Analysis Area: The geographic scope or cumulative effects (CE) analysis boundary used to evaluate effects to the wildlife resource is larger than the Izenbrown Corners project boundary. The cumulative effects analysis totals 26,448 acres. It includes 11,630 acres of NFS land and 14,818 acres of private land and stream/reservoir. The project area includes 20,807 acres of private (11,310 acres) and National Forest System lands (9,491 acres). Rationale for selection of the CE boundary includes the following:

• Private oil and gas development is considered a potential cumulative effect to species viability. These lands need to be considered to adequately assess potential impacts to plants and wildlife.

• The adjacent lands to the east, west, north and south of the project area contain similar levels of oil and gas activity as those proposed or occurring across the project area. There is little oil and gas development west of the Forest proclamation boundary (SR 127). As a result, adding lands beyond the Proclamation Boundary will identify additional cumulative effects but may “inflate or dilute” potential cumulative effects.

• The movements of many wildlife species are influenced by larger streams, impoundments and roads. The project boundary along the west side of the project area is defined by the Allegheny River and by State Route 62. These natural and man-made barriers are likely to limit some individual access from the west or towards the west. There are no active eagle nests in the project area but there are two active bald eagle nests and two inactive nests within the cumulative effects analysis. Eagles are regularly observed foraging along both sides of the river and well away from the river. Additionally, the Hickory Creek Wilderness (immediately east of the project area) will attract wildlife and influence the movement of some species within the project area because there is limited human activity when compared to the project area.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• It is difficult to compartmentalize the project area because it is a variable aged forest with areas of heavy private oil and gas development, open fields and residential areas separated by large tracts of forest. The forest is divided by numerous Municipal, Forest Service system and non-system roads and some large overhead electric/pipeline right of ways (ROWs) but these are not generally considered as barriers to movement. The forested habitat is a mix of hardwoods, conifer and various oak types. The same wildlife species use the project area from west to east and north to south. The effects of proposed activities and changes in habitat availability will be similar across the entire project area.

• The southeast portion of the project boundary mirrors the southwest boundary of the Coalbed Project area which was analyzed during the summer of 2011.

• The southern border of the project follows SR 666 and mirrors the northern project boundary of the North End Project which was analyzed in 2008.

• The northeastern and north boundaries mirror the west boundary of the Hickory Creek Wilderness Area and south boundary of the National Recreation Areas.

• The western boundary of the Project Area is identified by the eastern shore of the Allegheny River while the CE boundary follows the ANF Proclamation Boundary west of the river.

• This analysis area will be used for all species analyzed under this BA.

Species with suitable occupied habitat in the project area Northern long-eared bat (Myotis sepntentrionalis) Background The life history and biology, population trends, threats, and habitat status related to the northern long- eared bat is located in the FWS Service Biological Opinion for Effects to the Northern Long-eared Bat from Ongoing Activities on the ANF (USDI-FWS 2015a) and the Forest Service Eastern Region (R9) Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Northern Long-eared Bat (USDA-FS 2015).

White-nose Syndrome (WNS) Hibernating bats in the eastern United States are dying in record numbers. This outbreak is named for the white fungus evident on the muzzles and wings of affected bats. It was first documented in eastern New York in the winter of 2006-07. White-nose syndrome (WNS) has rapidly spread throughout the eastern United State and Canada, including Region 9 (Forest Service). Researchers associate it with a newly identified fungus (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) that thrives in the cold and humid conditions of caves and mines used by bats. In January 2009, WNS was found for the first time in Pennsylvania. One bat found dead outside a cave on State Game Lands 29 in Warren County and a second dead bat from Cook Forest State Park in Forest County were sent to a lab for testing in late March of 2012. In addition, Bradford District wildlife biologists received numerous reports of daylight bat activity in the very early spring of that year when no bats should have been active. The ANF was notified by PGC staff that WNS was confirmed present in both Forest and Warren Counties on July 27, 2012. WNS has not been confirmed in either Elk or McKean counties.

No other threat is as severe and immediate for the northern long-eared bat as WNS. It is unlikely that northern long-eared bat populations would be declining so dramatically without the impact of WNS. Population numbers of northern long-eared bat have declined by 99 in the northeast, which along with

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Canada, has been considered the core of the species’ range. In general, the FWS believes that WNS has significantly reduced the redundancy and resiliency of the northern long-eared bat (USDI-FWS 2015a).

The ANF carefully considered impacts of resource management on forest bats in preparing the 2007 Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan. Forest projects, like Izenbrown Corners, tier to and incorporate the Forest Plan analysis by reference. In early 2007, bat diseases were not considered a major threat to bats and WNS was unknown. The ANF first considered the best scientific information available with regard to WNS and National Forest management in a 2008 Review of New Information for White- Nose Syndrome (WNS) and Bat Populations (USDA-FS 2008) with subsequent updates in 2009 (USDA- FS 2009) and 2013 (USDA-FS 2013). The ANF will continue to follow the WNS Regional Response Plan and Forest Plan guidance for bat conservation and habitat management at the landscape, stand, and site level (USDA-FS 2013). The ANF will also continue to protect cave habitat (USDA-FS 2009b) and manage summer habitats to provide high quality environments that help all bats find adequate food, water, cover and roost sites to survive and successfully reproduce on the Forest. Project Area Habitat As defined by the FWS (USDI-FWS 2015c), suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors.

The ANF conducted mist net surveys for Indiana bat in 1998-2006, 2010, and 2013. In 2014 and 2015, mist net surveys were conducted with the specific objective to net, transmitter, and track the northern long-eared bat in order to locate maternity colony activity. These surveys documented that the northern long-eared bat occurred across the ANF (Figure 3).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Figure 1: Northern long-eared bat pre- and post- WNS captures on the ANF. Surveys completed in or within ¼ mile of the project boundary (four separate survey efforts by three different contractors distributed across four sites spanning three survey years) resulted in the capture of 519 individuals representing five different species (Table 4). X northern long-eared bat individuals were netted (representing 0.58% of the bats captured) indicating suitable occupied habitat in the project area. No northern long-eared bat maternity colonies were documented in or within ¼ mile of the project boundary.

Table 4: Summary of mist net survey results for northern long-eared bat in or within ¼ mile of the project boundary.

Surveyor Year Local ID or Contract ID NLEB Total Number of Individuals / Number Captured Total Species Captured

M. Gannon PSU 1998 bat0007 1 9/3

M. Gannon PSU 1998 bat0021 2 145/3 0 Bat Conservation & 2010 Bat0401_BRD10_03 357/1 Management 0 Sanders Environmental 2013 Bat30453 8/3 Inc.

To estimate the number of expected northern long-eared maternity colonies on the ANF, FWS considers the amount of suitable habitat, home range size, and WNS-related reductions (USDI-FWS 2015a, USDI- FWS 2015b). Individual northern long-eared bat maternity roost areas have been estimated at 167 acres per colony (USDI-FWS 2015b). If we assume that the forested habitat under Forest Service ownership within the project area (9,200 acres) is suitable for the northern long-eared bat and use a maternity roost area of 167 acres (USDI-FWS 2015b), the project area may have provided habitat for 55 northern long- eared bat maternity colonies pre-WNS. Observed reductions in northern long-eared bat summer capture rates across Pennsylvania were 76% in 2013 (USDI-FWS 2015a) resulting in an estimate of 13 northern long-eared bat colonies within the project area post-WNS.

There are four known northern long-eared bat hibernacula within or near the ANF boundary, none of which are in or within a ¼ mile of the project boundary.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber Harvest and Other Tree Removal Risk of death or injury of individual northern long-eared bats from timber harvest or other tree removal varies depending on the timing of activities, the location, type of harvest, and extent of removal.

Female northern long-eared bats typically roost colonially, with their largest population counts occurring in the spring, presumably as one way to reduce thermal costs for individual bats (Foster and Kurta 1999). While bats do have the ability to flee their roosts during tree removal, removal of occupied roosts during the active season while the bats are present (spring through fall, roughly April 1 through November 14 for the northern long-eared bat in Pennsylvania) will also likely cause injury or mortality to those roosting bats. During the entire active season, bats are likely to be injured or killed during the spring months when bats often use torpor (temporary unresponsive state) to survive cool weather and low prey availability. Bats are further likely to be killed or injured during early to mid summer (approximately June-July) when flightless pups or inexperienced flying juveniles are present.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 11

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Removal of trees outside these periods is less likely to result in direct injury or mortality when the majority of bats can fly and are more dispersed.

The location of timber harvest activities also influences the likelihood and extent of impacts. Timber harvest activities outside of northern long-eared bat summer home ranges or away from hibernacula will not result in death or injury to individuals. The greatest risk of take is associated with projects within known northern long-eared bat home ranges where no or few roost trees have been located. The risk of death or injury of bats from timber harvest or other tree removal within known home ranges with documented roost trees is less as some of the trees occupied by roosting bats should be left undisturbed during the pup season (USDI-FWS 2015a). The best available data indicate that the northern long-eared bat shows a varied degree of sensitivity to timber harvesting practices so long as there are sufficient roosts available for their use (Menzel et al. 2002, Owen et al. 2002). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001) stated that silvicultural practices could meet both male and female roosting requirements by maintaining large-diameter snags, while allowing for regeneration of forests.

Lastly, the likelihood and extent of impacts are influenced by the type/scope of the timber harvest/tree removal relative to the amount of remaining suitable roosting and foraging habitat. Within a given home range northern long-eared bat use multiple roosts throughout the season. Therefore, only a certain number of roosts are anticipated to be occupied in any given day and within any given year. The risk of encountering roosting northern long-eared bats during a given forest treatment is associated with the percentage of home range impacted and the type of forest treatment. Larger acreages of treatment have greater risk than smaller acreages. Similarly, clearcuts have greater risk than selective harvest treatments (individual or group) because more trees in a given treatment area will be removed (USDI- FWS 2015a).

In addition to impacts on roost sites, timber harvest practices can also affect foraging and traveling habitat, and thus, northern long-eared bat fitness. In general, northern long-eared bats prefer intact mixed-type forests with small gaps (i.e., forest trails, small roads or forest covered creeks) in forest with sparse or medium vegetation for foraging and traveling rather than fragmented habitat or areas that have been clearcut.

Timber harvest activities do not typically lead to permanent losses of suitable roosting, foraging, or traveling habitat for the northern long-eared bat. On the contrary, timber harvest activities are expected to maintain a forest over the long term for the species. Many timber harvest regimes will result in minimal change in terms of providing suitable roosting or foraging habitat for the northern long-eared bat. For example, selective harvest regimes are not anticipated to result in alterations of forest to the point where northern long-eared bats would be expected to significantly alter their normal behaviors. This is because the treatment areas will still be forested with small openings. Similarly, small patch cuts, wildlife openings, and forest roads would be expected to serve as foraging areas or travel corridors. Therefore, the only impacts of concern from these forest treatments are the potential for death or injury during active season tree removal.

However, localized long-term reductions in suitable roosting and/or foraging habitat can occur from various forest practices. For example, large clearcuts (that remove a large portion of a known or assumed home range) would result in a temporary "loss" of forest for the northern long-eared bat. In these cases, "temporary" would be for many years (amount of time to reproduce suitable roosting/foraging habitat). Foraging would be possible prior to roosting depending on the juxtaposition of cuts to other forest regimes. Northern long-eared bats have been found in forests that have been managed to varying degrees and as long as there is sufficient suitable roosting and foraging habitat within their home range and travel corridors between those areas, we would expect northern long-eared bat colonies to persist in managed landscapes (USDI-FWS 2015a).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 12

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Prescribed Burning Conducting prescribed fires outside the hibernation period could result in direct mortality or injury to the northern long-eared bat by burning, heat exposure, or smoke inhalation. Bats also may be exposed to elevated concentrations of potentially harmful compounds within the smoke (e.g., carbon monoxide and irritants) (Dickinson et al. 2009). Indirect effects of prescribed burning may include short-term loss of roost trees and decreases in prey abundance, followed by long-term increases in roost abundance and suitability, and in prey abundance (USDI-FWS 2015a).

No Action No tree removal or alteration of habitat is expected therefore there will be no direct and indirect effect on the northern long-eared bat.

Proposed Action The treatments in Table 6 have the potential to result in direct or indirect effects to the northern long- eared bat.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 13

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 5: Treatments that may have direct or indirect effects on the northern long-eared bat.

Activity No Action Proposed Action

Vegetation Management Acres

Shelterwood Sequence – Preparation Cut/Seed Cut/Removal 0 2,018/1,009/505

Early structural adaptive management 0 224

Clearcut (Red Pine) 0 111

Group Selection 0 48

Reforestation Acres

Site preparation 0 3,219

Weed and Release 0 3,219

Fence Construction 0 505

Crop Tree Release 0 790

Prescribed burn 0 6,836

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Acres

Create Opening 0 15

Opening Release 0 69

Aspen Regeneration 0 10

Burn Warm & Cool Season Grasses 0 84

Prune & Release Fruit Trees 0 1,000 trees

Transportation Miles/Acres

Road Construction - new 0 3.1/11.3

Road Construction – existing 0 5.1/3.1

Road Reconstruction - realignment 0 0.4/0.01

Decommission Forest Roads 0 1.2/0.01

Based on available suitable habitat, an estimated 13 northern long-eared bat maternity colonies may be within the project area. Looking at the proposed treatments spatially, i.e., only counting the area treated without multiple entries or multiple reforestation efforts, approximately 3,327.42 acres of tree removal is anticipated. This is approximately 16% of the entire project area. If we assume that all of the treated area is forest habitat that is suitable for the northern long-eared bat and we use a home range size of 167 acres, the treated area of the project area may have provided habitat for 19 northern long-eared

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 14

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

maternity colonies pre-WNS. With reductions due to WNS, there is the potential for an estimated 5 northern long-eared bat colonies to occur within the spatially treated portion of the project area. These numbers reflect a very low probability that a northern long-eared bat maternity colony will occur within the spatially treated area over the 20-year implementation timeframe.

Prescribed burns on the ANF are generally conducted during the spring (March 15 – May 1) or fall (October 15 – November 15), outside the maternity season, such that non-volant bats should not be present in the area during burning. Due to the anticipated timing of the burns, non-volant young will not be present during the majority of the burns and most bats should be mobile during the burning activities. Fire operation plans will protect selective solitary potential roost trees within the burn area, typically by raking a wet line around it.

Conservation Measures Conservation measures are those actions taken to benefit or promote the recovery of the species. The following measures were developed for the northern long-eared bat as part of the Forest Service Eastern Region (R9) Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDA-FS 2015) and will be implemented in where applicable:

(1) Designate caves and mines that are occupied by bats as smoke-sensitive targets. Avoid smoke entering these caves and mines any time of the year when Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) bats are present. (2) Within 0.25 miles of known, occupied NLEB hibernacula, timber harvest will be designed to maintain, enhance, or restore swarming, staging, roosting, and foraging habitat. The future desired condition is that these areas will feature structurally complex, resilient forest communities with a continuous supply of snags, culls, cavities, and other quality roosts. (3) Application of herbicides and other pesticides will be planned to avoid or minimize direct and indirect effects to known, occupied TES bat hibernacula and maternity roosts. (4) Before old buildings, wells, cisterns, bridges, and other man-made structures are structurally modified or demolished, they will be surveyed for bats. If TES bat roosting is found, demolition or modification of these structures will not occur when bats are present and the need for alternative roosts will be evaluated. (5) Avoid cutting or destroying known, occupied NLEB maternity roost trees unless they are an immediate safety hazard. (6) Where needed to provide drinking sources for bats, create small wetlands or water holes.

In addition, Forest Plan S&G, specifically those listed on pp. 74-84, will also benefit the northern long- eared bat (USDA-FS 2007a).

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pp. 10-12 above.

Potential effects of private oil and gas development on the northern long-eared bat and its habitat can be both beneficial and harmful. For example, this development often can result in improved thermal conditions of suitable roost trees adjacent to well pads and along road and pipeline ROWs and northern long-eared bat roosting habitat will be maintained and possibly improved in areas where development occurs. Conversely, the northern long-eared bat and its habitat can be adversely affected by the actual construction of roads, well pads and other facilities associated with development.

Because private oil and gas activity has been occurring within the project area for several decades, there is no definitive point in time from which to start the analysis period. As a result, potential effects include all past private oil and gas development that has occurred within the analysis area prior to 2015, as well as development that is anticipated to occur between 2015 and 2035. The date 2035 was chosen as the end of

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 15

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

the analysis period because that is the point in time in which anticipated effects of timber harvest (described below) are evaluated.

There are presently 59 active wells and one Marcellus well impacting a total of 69 acres within the CE analysis area (includes public and private lands). Over the next 20 years, it is estimated that approximately 102 new wells will be developed on private and National Forest System lands. Using an average 1.3 acres of land impacted per well (including pad, access roads, supply lines, etc.) (USDA-FS 2007d, Appendix F), approximately 133 acres of additional forestland will be converted to non-forest habitat. This oil and gas related disturbance is a measure of northern long-eared bat habitat that has become unsuitable due to oil and gas development within the analysis area.

Using GIS and aerial photos, it is estimated that 333 acres of regeneration harvest have occurred on private land within the project area in the last 10 years (2005-2015). Anticipated regeneration on private land was based upon local research, which indicates industrial forestlands around the ANF regenerate approximately 10% per decade, as well as specific estimates that are based on the history of past harvest on both industrial and non-industrial lands. Using these assumptions, it is estimated that will be 280 acres of final harvest activities on private lands per decade, for a total of 560 acres of anticipated future regeneration (2015-2035).

Direct mortality or injury to individual or small groups of roosting northern long-eared bats could occur when harvesting or removing trees during oil and gas development or timber harvest on private lands. While the ANF has committed to a number of conservation measures designed to minimize impacts to the northern long-eared bat, these conservation measures are not applicable to private ownership. There is the possibility of removing a tree that serves as a roost for a maternity colony or individual northern long- eared bat; however, given the reduction in the population of northern long-eared bat post-WNS this likelihood is low. Considering the widespread availability of suitable habitat within the project area and across the ANF (USDA-FS 2015), there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects to individuals or bat habitat anticipated.

Determination and Rationale

No Action A ‘no effect’ determination is made for the northern long-eared bat under this alternative because there are no Federal activities proposed under this alternative. Although impacts from reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest activities and oil and gas development will continue to occur, the effects of this project will not contribute cumulatively under this alternative. Proposed Action A ‘may affect, likely to adversely affect’ determination is made for the northern long-eared bat for the action alternative. The likelihood of direct mortality or injury to individuals when removing trees or conducting prescribed burns outside the hibernation period that harbor undetected roosts is very low, but the risk still exists. The possibility of having an adverse indirect effect on important habitat components of the northern long-eared bat is equally unlikely. The impact of this project on individuals and habitat, however, is not considered to be significant and not expected to adversely affect the conservation and recovery efforts for the species. This project will not modify or destroy critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of the northern long-eared bat.

Currently there are no known northern long-eared bat roost trees or hibernaculum within the project area. An abundant and continual supply of suitable maternity roosts, day-roost trees and foraging habitat available to the northern long-eared bat across the district and ANF is not likely to substantially change. Further protection for northern long-eared bat is achieved with the implementation of Forest Plan S&G (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 74-84) and conservations measures from the Forest Service Eastern Region Programmatic Biological Assessment for the northern long-eared bat (USDA-FS 2015).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 16

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Species with suitable unoccupied habitat in the project area Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Background The life history, population trends, threats, and habitat status related to the small-whorled pogonia is located in the Forest Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, 125 to 130).

Project Area Habitat A large portion of the project area has interfering vegetation from fern, grass, beech and striped maple. Although much of the project area provides favorable growing conditions for the small-whorled pogonia, the project’s well stocked canopy, high level of woody understory vegetation and dense fern and grass (competing ground cover) decrease the potential of finding the small whorled pogonia.

Approximately 2,305 acres within the Izenbrown Corners project area were surveyed for the small whorled pogonia or suitable habitat. Surveys included all stands where earth disturbing activities are proposed. Many of the sites on National Forest System lands contained high priority habitat described by the Forest GIS model, and roadside habitat. Although several associated species including round leaved orchids were documented, no small whorled pogonias were found. The project area is considered suitable, unoccupied small-whorled pogonia habitat based on project level survey work.

Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed activities in the project area would have no direct effects on the small whorled pogonia considering this species has not been documented in the project area. Forest management activities such as timber harvesting, herbicide application, fertilization, fence construction, wildlife opening construction, horse trail construction, NNIP treatments, gravel pit expansion, prescribed burning, or area fence construction (along the fence line) have the potential to directly and/or indirectly affect the species or potentially suitable habitat. Adverse direct affects such as the destruction of a local population is possible if these activities inadvertently impact an unknown community of plants. Impacts associated with prescribed burn activity may be considered as short-term and any unknown plants would likely rebound quickly. Impacts associated with horse trail construction will impact habitat but the likelihood of any direct, indirect or cumulative impacts from this activity are slight and may be considered negligible.

Soil-disturbing activities identified in Table 2 have the potential to adversely affect this species as a result of direct mortality or disturbance, if an unknown individual or population exists. Any treatments that result in the conversion of forest to non-forest or timber harvest treatments that maintain forest vegetation but significantly alter site conditions have the potential to result in indirect effects through habitat modification. Final harvest treatments (described previously) can result in a significant change in site conditions due to changes in light, temperature and moisture conditions. A substantial increase in competing vegetation can also occur on the site in addition to the above changes.

The overall result of these changes is the affected site will no longer provide desirable small-whorled pogonia site conditions. Although forest habitat is not permanently lost, suitable growing conditions will be unavailable to the SWP for 40 to 50 years or until tree seedlings grow into more mature trees. Other treatments such as road construction – new corridor could also have adverse indirect effects, since these treatments will result in a permanent or long-term loss of forest cover on the site.

In addition to earth disturbing activities, proposed herbicide application could also have a direct effect if it is applied to a site where an unknown population exists. Herbicide application could have a beneficial indirect effect, since application will reduce competing ground cover and understory vegetation, which could provide more suitable growing conditions for the plant. Similarly, while actual construction of a

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 17

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

fence could have an adverse direct effect if an unknown population exits, a positive indirect effect of area fencing could result due to the exclusion of deer and reduced browsing pressure.

Further protection for the small whorled pogonia will be achieved by implementing the following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines prior to ground-disturbing and/or vegetation management activities or during any phase of a project’s development (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 84):

Standard If plants or populations are found, temporarily halt any activities that may cause impact within 300 feet of the area of influence surrounding plants and/or populations. The area of influence includes suitable occupied habitat as well as appropriate area to conserve populations and their habitat. Consideration of site characteristics such as aspect, landform, overstory, midstory and understory shading, site topography, forest cover and hydrologic features will be used to determine this area of influence. Consult with the FWS to determine and implement appropriate site-specific conservation measures before resuming activities.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pp. 10-12 above.

Suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia will be reduced on approximately ~2% of the CE analysis area that is affected by road construction, oil and gas development, and pit development. In addition to this, suitable habitat on another 7% of the analysis area could be adversely affected over the short term due to proposed final harvest treatments under Proposed Action. Cumulatively, suitable habitat for this species will be reduced on approximately 9% of the CE analysis area over the short term, while another 9% of the analysis area occurs as unsuitable habitat in the form of existing openings, horse trails or regenerating forest. Considering this, it is estimated that at the end of the analysis period, at least 80% or more of the analysis area will continue to exist as potentially suitable small-whorled pogonia habitat under all alternatives. No additional direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated under either alternative when one takes into account the continued availability of suitable habitat and that this species has not been found within the project area or on the ANF.

In summary, there are no substantial cumulative effects anticipated on the small whorled pogonia or its habitat from non-federal activities within the 26,454 acre CE analysis area. This species would not be adversely affected because a) the small whorled pogonia has not been found on the project or ANF, b) field surveys will continue to be conducted on a project-specific basis for any soil disturbing project proposed on federal land, c) suitable small whorled pogonia habitat remains widely distributed and abundant across the project area and the Forest, and d) it is very likely that similar growing conditions and limiting factors are found on private land in the cumulative effects analysis. Suitable habitat for this species is not expected to be affected by these activities. There are no substantial cumulative effects anticipated on this endangered plant under any alternative in light of the above factors.

Determination and Rationale No Action and Proposed Action A ‘no effect’ determination is reached for the small whorled pogonia under these two alternatives. The Forest BE provides direction for the protection of this orchid if found within the ANF proclamation boundary. The potential for cumulative effects is negligible. There are no adverse effects to the small- whorled pogonia anticipated under either alternative due to the absence of documented occurrence on the ANF and considering all proposed treatment sites have been surveyed.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 18

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) Background The life history, population trends, threats, and habitat status related to the northeastern bulrush is located in the Forest Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, 120 to 123).

Project Area Habitat A limited amount of potentially suitable habitat is available in the Izenbrown Corners Project area as 145 acres of wetlands have been identified in the project area according to GIS data based on the National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands are associated with riparian areas, primarily the Allegheny River and the larger streams across the project area. Field surveys in the project area by the district botany and wildlife groups did not document the northeastern bulrush in wetlands contained within stands to be treated. The majority of the 145 acres of classified NWI wetlands found in the project area are forested wetlands associated with either deciduous or evergreen forest that are temporary or semi- permanent/seasonal in nature. Some are classified as small ponds with the remaining few acres being emergent or open water. Some of the unclassified wetlands are associated with past or present beaver activity. None of the NWI wetlands are identified as lacustrine wetlands. There are a number of small ponds (usually associated to older OGM activity) scattered across the project and cumulative effects analysis.

Direct and Indirect Effects Management activities identified in Table 2 that have could have potential adverse effects to northeastern bulrush include: gravel pit development or expansion, prescribed burns, herbicide application, fertilization, horse trail construction, intermediate (partial) and final timber harvests treatments, NNIPs control, road construction in new or existing corridors, and road decommissioning. Possible effects from these activities include: forest canopy alteration, direct mortality, non-native invasive plant introduction or spread, changes to local hydrology, compact soil, nutrient enrichment, trampling and/or improve access for (illegal) collecting.

Adverse direct or indirect effects on the northeastern bulrush are not likely to occur because field surveys have failed to document the species in any stand slated for earth-disturbing activity and potentially suitable habitat will be avoided by implementing project design features protecting wetlands, beaver ponds, vernal pools, and riparian areas.

Herbicide applications will reduce undesirable ground cover and understory vegetation in other poorly- drained areas (micro sites) and could provide suitable growing conditions for the plant. The other reforestation activities (including prescribed fire) have the potential to provide beneficial effects by removing undesirable or competitive understory and ground cover species, removing low shade- producing trees and shrubs, and increasing sunlight that reaches the forest floor. Area fencing can benefit the species by excluding deer and eliminating browsing pressure. Control of NNIPs species allows native species such as the bulrush to populate areas where the invasive species occupied potential habitat. Horse trail designation and construction may trample an undocumented plant but this is not likely. Reforestation and vegetation management activities that promote forest sustainability, limiting road access, or protection from herbivory are potential indirect beneficial effects to the northeastern bulrush.

An adverse indirect effect could occur when there is a permanent loss of potential habitat such as the conversion of suitable forest habitat into an opening from activities such as new road construction, oil and gas lease development, and gravel pit expansion and development. However, this adverse effect is not likely to occur since these activities avoid suitable habitat. The most suitable growing conditions for these species in the project area can be found in the riparian zones along perennial streams. The proposed activities in the project will not impact wetland or riparian habitat with implementation of appropriate

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 19

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

project design features and Forest Plan S&Gs (USDA-FS 2007a, 74 to 79). These activities will have no adverse effect on potentially suitable habitat under both alternatives.

The following Forest Plan Standard will be implemented for soil disturbing activities and/or implementation of vegetation management activities for any project:

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pp. 10-12 above.

The northeastern bulrush depends on an intact, well-functioning wetland and riparian ecosystem. Cumulative effects to this species could result from any approved or future projects that may increase sedimentation, degrade water quality, or (most importantly) physically impact soils or vegetation of these ecosystems. Approximately 44% of the CE analysis area is under jurisdiction of the ANF where the Forest-wide standards and guidelines apply. There are approximately 1,622 acres of wetlands designated by the NWI within the cumulative effects analysis.

The major non-federal activities that typically occur on the ANF or within the cumulative effects analysis include: oil and gas development (reserved and/or outstanding rights), industrial/commercial timber management on private property, and to a lesser degree, the development of private land to non-forest uses. Final harvests maintain forest habitat but the resulting early structural seedling/sapling habitat is unsuitable for some plant species over the short term. Intermediate harvests partially open the forest canopy at least for the short-term. Typically these types of treatments on private lands do not occur in wetlands because of operability and regulations. Based on current information, no known populations of the northeastern bulrush are found on the private lands ownership. Interpretation of aerial photographs indicates that privately-owned forestland appears to provide habitat similar to that found on the National Forest. In general, except for commercial timber lands, private forestland owners tend not to invest in herbicide applications, site preparation, or area fencing that either increase the risk of adverse effects or provide benefits for the species or its habitat.

Suitable habitat could be reduced (lost) over the next decade as a result of oil and gas development on both federal and private lands in the cumulative effects analysis. Oil and gas development results in a permanent alteration in habitat, specifically the loss of suitable wetland habitat and creation of opening and edge habitat. All oil and gas development operate under regulations including a permit process designed to protect and maintain wetland habitat. Based on development rates across the ANF, it is estimated that 102 additional wells could be constructed in the cumulative effects analysis over the next two decades. Using an average of 1.3-acre of impact per well, approximately 184 acres of forestland (federal and private) would be converted to opening habitat that is unsuitable for the northeastern bulrush. Approximately 2% of the cumulative effects analysis is projected to be affected by OGM activity over the next 20 years. Private oil and gas development (ground disturbance from road building, well pads, tank batteries, etc.) could cause direct mortality to unknown populations or habitat alteration or degradation particularly in winter months when vernal pools and other suitable habitat for the northeastern bulrush may not be visible or identifiable.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 20

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The following standard for private mineral development on ANF lands is included in the Forest BA: During review of the plan of operation, known occurrences or habitat of federally-listed, proposed, threatened, or endangered species that are located in the vicinity of a proposed mineral development, will be documented in a letter to the operator and copied to the FWS Field Office in State College, Pennsylvania. This letter will direct the operator to contact the FWS to resolve issues related to threatened and endangered species prior to proceeding with any tree cutting or earth disturbance.

Forest Service road construction and reconstruction along with pit development or expansion are currently planned during the CE period. This road construction is planned in the cumulative effects analysis over the next 10 years. Road construction establishes a short-term break in the forest canopy allowing additional sunlight to reach the forest floor (at least on the ‘edge’ of the roadside). The canopy over these roads tends to close over a relatively short period of time. However, similar to the vegetation management activities, road construction and horse trail construction will not produce adverse direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the northeastern bulrush because surveys have failed to document the species on any area slated for soil-disturbing activity and potentially suitable habitat is avoided by implementing project design features.

In summary, there are no substantial cumulative effects on the northeastern bulrush or its habitat from non-federal activities within the 26,454 acre CE analysis area. This species would not be adversely affected because a) the northeastern bulrush has not been found on the project or ANF, b) field surveys will continue to be conducted on a project-specific basis for any soil disturbing project proposed on federal land, c) suitable bulrush habitat remains widely distributed and abundant across the riparian and wetland habitat on the Forest, and d) it is very likely that similar growing conditions and limiting factors are found on private land in the cumulative effects analysis. Suitable habitat (wetlands and riparian areas) for the northeastern bulrush is not expected to be affected by these activities. There are no substantial cumulative effects anticipated on this endangered plant under any alternative in light of the above factors.

Determination and Rationale No Action and Proposed Action A ‘no effect’ determination is reached for the northeastern bulrush under these alternatives. The Forest BA provides direction for the protection of this species if found within the ANF proclamation boundary. Due to the absence of documented occurrence on the forest and considering all proposed treatment sites have been surveyed and no plants were found, there is no adverse effects to the northeastern bulrush anticipated under either alternative. Regardless of the alternative selected, the implementation of Forest- wide standards and guidelines regarding the protection of wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian areas will ensure the project will have ‘no effect’ on the northeastern bulrush.

Species with no suitable habitat in the project area but the cumulative effects analysis has suitable occupied habitat Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), Clubshell (Pleurobema clava), and Rayed-Bean (Villosa fabalis) Project Area Habitat There is no suitable habitat in the project area. The Allegheny River which is part of the cumulative effects analysis provides the only suitable habitat for these three mussel species because it drains glaciated lands making the river productive. Other streams on the ANF drain unglaciated lands and are less suitable. All three species have been documented in the Allegheny River.

Aquatic and riparian systems are linear, connected, and form larger systems. Any impacts to the perennial or upper reaches (intermittent sections) of any of the streams within the project area could have an impact on suitable habitat further downstream.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 21

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects

No Action Potential effects to these mussel species could occur as a result of not implementing beneficial activities to address runoff concerns. Specifically, there would be no limestone surfacing on dirt and gravel roads at areas identified as a concern for runoff into streams. Sedimentation would continue at streams flowing into the Allegheny River. Similarly, road decommissioning would not occur, allowing sedimentation to the stream to continue.

Proposed Action The northern riffleshell, clubshell, and rayed-bean section in the ANF Biological Evaluation (page 69) identifies activities with negligible effects, potential beneficial effects, and potential adverse effects. These effects not only apply to the two endangered mussels, but to the other mussel and aquatic species as well. These effects are incorporated here by reference and are also summarized below with specifics of the proposed activities.

Affects are primarily associated with land-disturbing activities within the 13% Area, as well as from the introduction of zebra mussels into the Allegheny Reservoir or Allegheny River at Forest Service boat launches. Activities with potential beneficial effects include road decommissioning and NNIPs control. The primary, potential adverse effect from land-disturbing activities is sedimentation and/or degradation of water quality. Activities with the potential to cause these effects include: road reconstruction - existing, the construction and maintenance of horse trails in the EUA, pit development, prescribed fire, and herbicide treatments. The possible introduction of zebra mussels from the operation of boat launches is the primary activity that could have an effect on river mussels.

Within the project area, the activities that would have potential beneficial effects include road decommissioning and the treatment of non-native invasive species. A total of 0.6 miles of system roads are proposed for decommissioning. Another 0.6 miles will be removed from the system. With the decommissioning, a long-term sediment source will be eliminated. The treatment of non-native invasive species within riparian areas, including areas along the streams and river, will help maintain native vegetation along these critical areas.

The proposed activities that could adversely affect mussels include road work such as road construction on FR 698. This road is currently grassed over but upgrading approximately 0.75 miles for timber removal may temporarily impact water quality. Additionally, some adverse impacts could occur from the use on dirt and gravel roads within 300’ feet of a stream, operation and use of motorized trails, herbicide treatments, and the introduction of zebra mussels from boats launching. Specifically, several roads will be surfaced with limestone to reduce sediment runoff. Routine maintenance of the newly designated horse trail will continue to address runoff concerns when they are identified. Several sections of the trail will be surfaced with limestone in areas where runoff is a concern. As for herbicide treatments, buffers along waterways will be implemented following Forest Plan S&G’s. And lastly, the threat of zebra mussel introduction is low from launches taking place at Bully Hollow. The boats that typically launch are canoes and occasionally small motor boats. These normally are not high risk boats because of how they are used, e.g., are primarily day-use boats in smaller bodies of water. In addition, signage posted on the bulletin boards at the launch will continue to alert boaters of the zebra mussel threat and how they can help prevent their spread.

There are no adverse direct or indirect effects anticipated for these species or their habitat under either alternative with implementation of Forest Plan S&G’s, and conservation measures outlined by the ANF and FWS.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 22

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pp. 10-12 above.

The cumulative effects described in the Forest BE (page 72-74) for the clubshell and northern riffleshell also apply to all the mussel species. The Izenbrown Corners project is within the 13% Area. These effects relate to the potential zebra mussel infestation from areas outside the ANF and oil and gas development. These are not ANF actions, but can have an effect on the species and its suitable habitat. These effects are summarized below.

The zebra mussels have been documented well upstream of the project area in the Allegheny River. If the mussels continue to move downstream in the river and their numbers increase, their impact on suitable habitat and existing populations could become adverse. Any incursion of zebra mussels could result in a further decline of the species depending on the severity of the infestation.

Water temperature tends to moderate the further downstream one travels from the Kinzua Dam. Suitable temperatures combined with the minimum flow releases from the dam have likely provided a more stable environment for the riffleshell, actually providing more suitable habitat over a longer period of time.

The potential for cumulative effects from private oil and gas activity has increased in recent years as a result of increased drilling. Numerous private leases within the project area exist on both ANF and non- ANF land. It is reasonable to assume that new and existing private oil and gas developments within the 13% Area will continue to result in delivering some sedimentation to streams, primarily from clearing dirt and gravel roads.

Many new wells and associated roads could be constructed on ANF lands. Although these roads may be constructed to a lower standard at more sensitive areas than ANF roads, forest personnel work closely with developers to decrease sedimentation and water quality impacts. Site specific mitigations would be implemented to minimize adverse effects. Additionally, as more wells are developed, the potential for oil spills increases. Pollution Prevention and Spill Response Plans are filed with Pennsylvania DEP and the ANF that outline emergency action steps that would take place should a spill occur.

Horse trail construction activities will eliminate an insignificant amount of potential habitat (~4 acres) but are not likely to adversely affect water quality for these mussel species provided the designated horse trail follows LRMP direction and the site specific mitigations as follows:

• Forest Service personnel will conduct a walking survey with the construction contractor prior to any construction activities to ensure construction of this trail follows best management practices and minimizes the potential to degrade water quality.

Adverse cumulative effects are likely to occur in the Allegheny River by the year 2020 as a result of the likely zebra mussel infestation. It is unclear at this time how heavy a zebra mussel infestation would be, but depending on the rate of spread and realizing that numbers for these three mussel species are low to begin with in this section of river, even a low number of zebra mussels could result in an adverse affect to the existing mussel populations. This affect though is not a result of ANF activities.

Determination and Rationale There is a ‘no effect’ determination for these species under the no action alternative. The northern riffleshell, clubshell and rayed-bean have been documented within the cumulative effects analysis. Implementing the Forest Plan Standards and Guides as outlined on page 74 and 75 of the Forest BE will minimize but not necessarily eliminate all water quality related impacts to these three mussel species. However, these potential impacts are considered to be negligible. Therefore, a ‘may affect, but not

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 23

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

likely to adversely affect’ determination is made for these three mussel species under the proposed action.

Species with no suitable habitat in the project area but the cumulative effects analysis has suitable unoccupied habitat Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), and Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) None of these three mussel species have suitable habitat in the project. They do have suitable habitat in the river portion of the cumulative effects analysis but they have not been documented within the Izenbrown Corners cumulative effects analysis. A ‘no effect’ determination is made for these three species under both alternatives. No further discussion of these species will occur.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 24

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

III. Summary Of Determinations For The Izenbrown Corners Project Based on the above analysis, the following table (Table 6) displays the determinations reached for the species analyzed in this BA. Table 6: Summary of species determinations.

Species No Action Proposed Action

Northern long-eared bat ‘No Effect’ ‘May affect, likely to adversely affect’ Small whorled pogonia ‘No Effect’ ‘No Effect’ Northeastern bulrush ‘No Effect’ ‘No Effect’ ‘May affect, but not likely to adversely affect’ with no Northern riffleshell, clubshell, ‘No Effect’ effects beyond those addressed in the Concurrence Letter rayed bean issued to the Allegheny National Forest (1/31/07). Sheepnose, snuffbox, rabbitsfoot ‘No Effect’ ‘No Effect’

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 25

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

References Literature Cited Brack V, Jr, Stihler CW, Reynolds RJ, Butchkoski CM, Hobson CS. Effect of climate and elevation on distribution and abundance in the mideastern United States. In: Kurta A, Kennedy J, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Austin, TX: Bat Conservation International; 2002. pp. 21–28.

Dickinson, M.B., M.J. Lacki, and D.R. Cox. 2009. Fire and the endangered Indiana bat. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference GTR-NRS-P-46, p. 51-75. Foster, R.W., and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80(2):659-672. Lacki, M.J., and J.H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-roost characteristics of northern bats in mixed mesophytic forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):482-488. Menzel, M.A., S.F. Owen, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, P.B. Wood, B.R. Chapman, and K.V. Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis ) maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 155:107-114. Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, and P.B. Wood. 2002. Roost tree selection by maternal colonies of Northern long-eared Myotis in an intensively managed forest. USDA Forest Service. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 10 pp. USDA-FS. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 296 pp.

USDA-FS. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 708 pp.

USDA-FS. 2007c. Biological Evaluation for the Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 340 pp.

USDA-FS. 2007d. Appendix F to the Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 16 pp.

USDA-FS. 2008. Review of New Information (RONI) for White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) and Bat Populations. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest.

USDA-FS. 2009a. Review of New Information (RONI) for White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) and Bat Populations. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest.

USDA-FS. 2009b. News Release: Forest Service Issues Cave and Mine Closure Order to Protect Endangered Bat Species.

USDA-FS. 2012. Draft Addendum to 2007 Forest Biological Evaluation. Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest. 131 pp.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 26

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

USDA-FS. 2013. Draft Review of New Information (RONI) for White-Nose Syndrome (WNS). Warren, PA: USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest.

USDA-FS. 2015. Programmatic biological assessment: northern long-eared bat. For Land and Resource Management Plans of the Forest Service Eastern Region. Milwaukee, WI: USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region Regional Office. 214 pp.

USDI-FWS. 1999b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat.

USDI-FWS. 2007. Concurrence letter for the Biological Analysis on the Impacts of Forest Management and Other Activities to the Indiana bat, Small-whorled Pogonia, Northeastern bulrush, Clubshell and Northern Riffleshell on the ANF. USFWS Project #2007-0214. 20 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2014. Indiana bat range in Pennsylvania (February 2014). State College, PA: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Field Office.

USDI-FWS. 2015a. Biological opinion: effects to the northern long-eared bat from ongoing activities on the Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania. State College, PA: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Field Office. 41 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2015b. Biological opinion: activities affecting the northern long-eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests. Bloomington, MN: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office. 112 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2015c. Range-wide Indiana bat summer survey guidelines. Regions 2, 3, 4, & 5. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/2015IndianaBatSummerSur veyGuidelines01April2015.pdf

Personal Communications

Brent Pence - Fish Biologist, Allegheny National Forest

April Moore – Botanist, Allegheny National Forest

Pam Thurston – Biologist, Allegheny National Forest

Craig Kostrzewski – Fire Operation Specialist, Allegheny National Forest

/s/ Alan Wetzel Bradford Ranger District Wildlife Biologist December 6 2013

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C1 - Biological Assessment Page 27

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix C2 Biological Evaluation Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Al Wetzel Wildlife Biologist Bradford Ranger District December 6, 2013

Edited and Reviewed by:

Pam Thurston Wildlife Biologist Allegheny National Forest December 6, 2013

Updated by

Collin Shephard Forest Ecologist Allegheny National Forest April 11, 2016 /S/ Collin Shephard

and Steve Dowlan Planning Team Leader Bradford Ranger District May 21, 2016

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents

Regional Forester Sensitive Species ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Izenbrown Corners Project Area ...... 1 Alternatives Considered ...... 2 Proposed Activities ...... 2 Species Status ...... 2 Species with suitable occupied habitat in the project and cumulative effects analysis areas ...... 4 Birds ...... 4 Reptiles ...... 8 Aquatic Invertebrates ...... 10 Species with suitable occupied habitat in the project area and suitable unoccupied habitat in the cumulative effects analysis area ...... 11 Mammals ...... 11 Fish ...... 15 Species with suitable occupied habitat in the cumulative effects area and suitable unoccupied habitat in the project area ...... 15 Plants ...... 15 Fish ...... 18 Species with occupied suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area but no suitable habitat in the project area ...... 19 Invertebrates ...... 19 Fish ...... 21 Species with suitable habitat in both the project area and cumulative effects areas but presence not documented in either area ...... 22 Aquatic Invertebrates ...... 22 Terrestrial Invertebrates ...... 26 Plants ...... 27 Fish ...... 30 Mammals ...... 32 Birds ...... 35 Amphibians ...... 40 Reptiles ...... 42 Species with unoccupied suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area but no suitable habitat in the project area ...... 43 All taxa ...... 43 Species with no suitable habitat in the project or cumulative effect area ...... 45 All taxa ...... 45 Summary Of Determinations ...... 45 References ...... 48

Table 1 Regional Forester Sensitive Species ______2 Table 2 Changes in habitat across the project area ______7 Table 3 Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species ______45

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Regional Forester Sensitive Species Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) includes a brief description of project area habitat for those species found on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) list for the Allegheny National Forest (ANF) and includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with each alternative being considered in the Izenbrown Corners Environmental Assessment. This analysis evaluates the impacts of alternatives in order to:

• Avoid or minimize impacts to RFSS, whose viability has been identified as a concern (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.32). • Analyze the significance of the potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole if impacts cannot be avoided (FSM 2670.32).

The analyses presented in the Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species and RFSS on the Allegheny National Forest, January 2007 (Forest biological evaluation) (USDA-FS 2007) are not repeated in this biological evaluation. Likewise, the distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, (negligible, adverse and beneficial) direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for these species, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation which is incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 133 to 292). Habitat information in this document can be found in the Izenbrown Corners Project Wildlife Report which is here by incorporated by reference (IBCPWR 2012).

The Eastern Region (R9) RFSS list was last updated on December 23, 2011. Seven species were removed and 27 species were added to the new list. This version updated the November 8, 2006 RFSS list and resulted in a list of 81 RFSS for the ANF. Since the completion of the ANF Biological Evaluation for the revised Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007), the bald eagle has been taken off the Endangered Species List (August 9, 2007) by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It is now included on the ANF RFSS list. The status of the sheepnose, snuffbox, and rayed-bean mussels has been changed to federally “Threatened” on the ANF. They are analyzed and included in the Izenbrown Corners Biological Assessment dated September 30, 2012 (USDA-FS 2012a, p. 33). The seven species removed from the 2006 Regional Forester Sensitive Species list on the ANF: gravel chub (Erimystax x-punctata), kidney- leaved twayblade (Listera smallii), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), resolute damsel (Coenagrion resolutum), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), and Wiegand's sedge (Carex wiegandii).

Izenbrown Corners Project Area The project area was previously described in the project biological assessment and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area and Period The project analysis period and area were previously described in the project biological assessment and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Oil and Gas Management Information for the Izenbrown Corners Project Area The project oil and gas information were previously described in the project biological assessment and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Summary of the Project Area

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The habitat summary of the project area was previously described in the project biological assessment and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Alternatives Considered No Action This alternative was previously described in the project biological assessment and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Proposed Action This alternative was previously described in the project biological assessment and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Summary of Alternatives A summary of both alternatives was included in the project biological assessment and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Proposed Activities Two alternatives are evaluated in the Izenbrown Corners EA. They were previously described in the project biological assessment and are hereby incorporated by reference.

This biological evaluation focuses on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that proposed activities may have on the current RFSS listed for the ANF. All species will be evaluated to determine their status in the project area based on habitat preferences, historic range, and suitability of the available habitat.

The evaluation will concentrate on those species having occupied or suitable unoccupied habitat in the project. An evaluation of cumulative effects on RFSS will use the same analysis area and time period selected for the biological assessment of T&E Species, and may include any pertinent information regarding private land adjacent to the analysis area. For this particular project, the cumulative effects analysis area does contain some private land, a portion of the Allegheny River and the Triumph Hill area within the ANF Proclamation Boundary.

Species Status Table 1 summarizes the status of sensitive species found in the Izenbrown Corners project area. Each species is placed in one of the following three categories depending on their known occurrence and available habitat: 1) species occurrence has been documented in the past and there is occupied habitat in the project area, 2) occurrence has not been documented in the project area, but suitable habitat is present and 3) occurrence has not been documented in the recent past and suitable habitat is not present.

Table 1 Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Suitable Habitat No Suitable Occupied Species (Presence not Habitat Habitat Documented) Present Mammals PA CE PA CE PA CE Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) X X Northern flying (squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus) X X Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) X X Mollusks PA CE PA CE PA CE

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Suitable Habitat No Suitable Occupied Species (Presence not Habitat Habitat Documented) Present Creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa) X X Long-solid mussel (Fusconaia subrotundra) X X Round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) X X Threeridge (Amblema plicata) X X Wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia flava) X X White heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata) X X Invertebrates PA CE PA CE PA CE Amber-winged spreadwing (Lestes eurinus) X X American emerald (Cordulia shurtleffi) X X Band-winged meadowhawk (Sympetrum semicinctum) X X Black-tipped darner (Aeshna tuberculifera) X X Boreal bluet (Enallagma boreal) X X Brush-tipped emerald (Somatochlora walshii) X X Crimson-ringed whiteface (Leucorrhinia glacialis) X X Comet darner (Anax longipes) X X Green-faced clubtail (Gomphus viridifrons) X X Green-striped darner (Aeshna verticalis) X X Harpoon clubtail (Gomphus descriptus) X X Maine snaketail (Ophiogomphus mainensis) X X Midland clubtail (Gomphus fraternus) X X Mocha emerald (Somatochlora linearis) X X Mustached clubtail (Gomphus adelphus ) X X Northern bluet (Enallagma annexum) X X Ocellated darner (Boyeria grafiana) X X Rapids clubtail (Gomphus quadricolor) X X Riffle snaketail (Ophiogomphus carolus) X X Sable clubtail (Gomphus rogersi) X X Ski-tipped emerald (Somatochlora elongata) X X Uhler's sundragon (Helocordulia uhleri) X X White-faced meadowhawk (Sympetrum obtrusum) X X Zebra clubtail (Stylurus scudderi) X X Terrestrial Insects PA CE PA CE PA CE Eyed brown (Lethe eurydice) X X West Virginia white (Pieris virginiensis) X X Birds PA CE PA CE PA CE Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) X X Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) X X Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus) X X Yellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) X X Reptiles PA CE PA CE PA CE Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) X X Wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) X X Amphibians PA CE PA CE PA CE Eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) X X

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Suitable Habitat No Suitable Occupied Species (Presence not Habitat Habitat Documented) Present Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) X X Plants PA CE PA CE PA CE American fever-few (Parthenium integrifolium) X X American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) X X Awned sedge (Carex atherodes) X X Bartram shadbush (Amelanchier bartramiana) X X Blue wild indigo (Baptisia australis var. australis) X X Boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica ssp. Irrigua) X X Boreal starwort (Stellaria borealis ssp. Borealis) X X Bristly black currant (Ribes lacustre) X X Butternut (Juglans cinerea) X X Canada yew (Taxus canadensis) X X Checkered rattlesnake-plantain (Goodyera tesselata) X X Creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula) X X Great-spurred violet (Viola selkirkii) X X Hooker's orchid (Platanthera hookeri) X X Mountain wood fern (Dryopteris campyloptera) X X Philadelphia panicgrass (Panicum philadelphicum) X X Queen-of-the-prairie (Filipendula rubra) X X Rough cotton-grass (Eriophorum tenellum) X X Swamp red currant (Ribes triste) X X Stalked bulrush (Scirpus pedicellatus) X X Sweet-scented Indian-plantain (Hasteola suaveolens) X X Thread rush (Juncus filiformis) X X Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa) X X White trout-lily (Erythronium albidum) X X Fish PA CE PA CE PA CE Bluebreast darter (Etheostoma camurum) X X Burbot (Lota lota) X X Channel darter (Percina copelandi) X X Gilt darter (Percina evides) X X Longhead darter (Percina macrocephala) X X Mountain brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi) X X Mountain madtom (Noturus eleutherus) X X Northern madtom (Noturus stigmosus) X X Ohio lamprey (Ichthyomyzon bdellium) X X Spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum) X X Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe) X X PA = project area. CE = cumulative effects analysis area.

Species with suitable occupied habitat in the project and cumulative effects analysis areas Birds Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Background The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for the RFSS bald eagle is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and is incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 25 to 46).

Project Area Habitat Nesting Habitat - Primary nesting habitat (PNH) in the project area for the bald eagle is defined in the ANF biological evaluation as acreage within ½ mile of the Allegheny River and Reservoir. It consists of approximately 4,527 acres in the project area and includes 3,545 acres on the west shore of the river which is in the wildlife cumulative effects area (8,072 total acres). There are currently no documented eagle nests within the project area but there is one active nest and three inactive nests in the cumulative effects Area. The Grove Run 3 eagle nest, also known as WSN3335, was active since 2011 and produced two young in 2011, 2012 and 2013. It is located south of Tidioute, on the west side of Wheelock Island just north of the confluence of Grove Run and the River. The island is owned by the USDA Forest Service. The other nests are named as follows: the Trunkeyville 2 nest (WSN3277) has been inactive for at least 2 years; Grove Run 2 nest (WSN 3336) was last known to be active in 2010; and the Hall Barn nest (WSN3273) was last active in 2011. Trunkeyville 2 is located on federally owned Horserace Island near the Warren/Forest Counties border and Grove Run 2 is on federal lands on the hillside west of the river and south of Grove Run. The Hall Barn nest is on a privately owned island near Trunkeyville. These four nest sites are approximately ¼ mile or less from the project area. The town of Tidioute, in addition to hundreds of homes and camps are within the PNH. Recreational boating, swimming, ORV use, hiking, and camping are common human activities that occur within easy viewing and hearing of all these nests. Other active eagle nests are found upstream and downstream of the project area.

While much of the project and cumulative effects area PNH provides mature forest only those portions of the project area that do not receive intensive oil and gas activity, other heavy public use and/or are not near heavily traveled roads are typically considered suitable bald eagle primary nesting habitat. In an effort to identify the most un-disturbed and least accessible areas, a GIS analysis of the project area was done to identify those areas in the project area that are greater than 300 feet from an existing road. Six large, irregular shaped blocks of approximately 1,000 acres or larger were identified within the project and cumulative effects areas. The most suitable nesting habitat in the cumulative effects area appears to be any of the various islands in the river. River islands get some visitors but not a lot. These islands are somewhat isolated, free of roads and OGM development and provide the best opportunities for expansion of future eagle nesting territories.

Foraging/Roosting Habitat – The Allegheny River which flows along the west boundary of the project area from Cobham Run Road at the north end to the East Hickory Creek Confluence in the south provides the best foraging and roosting habitat in the project area. Despite continuous human activity, there is recent documentation of eagles foraging and roosting along both sides of the river edge adjacent to the project area. Eagles have been documented all along the river corridor in the project area and the cumulative effects area. It is assumed that frequent eagle use occurs. Primary foraging and roosting habitat is lacking on about 90% of the project area.

Winter Habitat - The Forest biological evaluation states that during the winter, bald eagles congregate in areas where there is an abundant, readily available source of food, along with one or more suitable night roost trees. This tendency for bald eagles to congregate at certain locations such as the island below the Kinzua Dam during the wintering period is well documented. There is periodic open water winter habitat available in the cumulative effects area adjacent to this project area for bald eagles but often there is pancake ice covering large portions of the river. This ice prevents access to food sources.

Direct Effects - No Action

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

There are no direct effects anticipated to the bald eagle since there are no previously approved activities or new proposed activities under this alternative that will impact eagle habitat.

Direct Effects - Proposed Action Direct mortality or injury to adults, embryonic young, nestlings, or fledglings could occur if a nest tree collapsed or the forested area surrounding the nest is harvested. Additionally, direct mortality can occur if Forest Plan S&G for herbicide applications are not implemented correctly and herbicides are spilled in concentration or applied too close to nest sites. Despite the amount of human activity that already occurs along with the proposed harvests and burns, no direct effects to eagles or their habitat is likely to occur provided that the design criteria on page 82 through 83 of the 2007 Forest Plan are followed.

Indirect effects - No Action There are no indirect effects anticipated to the bald eagle since there are no previously approved activities or new proposed activities under this alternative that will impact eagle habitat.

Indirect effects - Proposed Action Adverse indirect effects to the bald eagle could occur from any forest management activities that alter suitable habitat (creating a loss of potential nest or roost trees), cause repeated or long-term disturbances (such as heavy machinery use or alter water quality (adversely affecting an existing fishery, i.e., foraging habitat). Smoke management is a consideration in developing a burn plan and burning will be conducted when wind direction and burning conditions will minimize impacts to the Allegheny River corridor. Potential effects to bald eagle foraging could occur if proposed actions reduce water quality conditions to a level that the existing fishery is adversely affected. However, there are not expected to be any direct effects from harvesting timber on water quality, since all treatments will implement Forest Plan design criteria from pages 82 and 83. Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. However, to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone to reduce this potential impact.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the project biological assessment.

Potential cumulative effects include any activities that make suitable eagle habitat unsuitable. These activities include final harvest treatments that essentially eliminate mature forest conditions on the site, any activity that converts forest to non-forest such as oil and gas development, opening construction and any activity that causes disturbance to eagle foraging, roosting or nesting habitat. Potential cumulative effects will be evaluated by looking at how much of the analysis area is made unsuitable from past, present and future actions, as well as how much suitable habitat will continue to be available at the end of the analysis period.

Oil and Gas Development Oil and gas development assumptions are listed on pages 4 and 5 in the project biological assessment. As a result, the cumulative past, present and anticipated future oil and gas development totals on the combined federal and non-federal lands is 283 wells which will result in an estimated 368 acres (~1.4% of the cumulative effects area) of actual disturbance or conversion of forest to non-forest conditions across the cumulative effects area. The IBC project and cumulative effects areas contain 7,002 acres or~15% of the primary bald eagle nesting habitat across the ANF.

Non-native Invasive Plant Treatments

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Non-native invasive plants have been documented along both sides of Allegheny River, its islands and across the project area. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for proper use of herbicides are found on page 40 of the Forest biological evaluation and in Appendix G1 and G2 of the FEIS.

Openings In addition to oil and gas activity that converts forest to non-forest, proposed opening construction will also make mature forest habitat unsuitable as eagle nesting habitat. Approximately 122 acres of anticipated past, present and 184 acres of future openings on private and National Forest System lands within the project and CE analysis area are displayed in Table 2 below. Only a few of these openings are actually within primary nesting habitat.

Timber Harvest Anticipated timber harvest that is expected to occur within the analysis area during the analysis period is displayed in Table 2. There are no eagle nests known to exist in the project area. There is one active and two non-active eagle nests within the river corridor/CE area. No silvicultural treatments are scheduled for harvest within the PNH area. Suitable nesting habitat will continue to be widely available along the river corridor.

Cumulative Effects Summary Cumulative effect changes will be evaluated by looking at the amount of unsuitable habitat (openings, area affected by OGM development, seedling stands and sapling pole stands), by looking at the amount of habitat affected by disturbance associated with commercial harvest (partial harvest), and by looking at the total amount of suitable habitat that will be available under each of the alternatives in the year 2032. This information is displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 Changes in habitat across the project area

Present Proposed Activity No Action Condition Action Seedling/Sapling Stands (Unsuitable) 88 ac 0ac 618 ac 0% 0% <7% OGM Development (Unsuitable) 69 ac 202 ac 202ac <1% <1% <1% Openings (Unsuitable) 122 ac 122 ac 184 ac <1% <1% 2% Pole Stands (Unsuitable) 761 ac 28ac 287 ac 8% <1% 3% Forested acres across IZENBROWN CORNERS PROJECT AREA 8,451 ac 9,139 ac 8,200 ac remaining after timber harvest 89 % 96 % 86 %

Based on anticipated cumulative effects, forested habitat will be reduced by 3% over the short- and long- term under the Proposed Action from the present condition and increase by 7% under the No Action Alternative. No activities in the Proposed Action that will change canopy closure are located within suitable nesting or foraging habitat. However, suitable nesting habitat for the bald eagle will remain almost unchanged and continue to be widespread across the forest and the project area. As a result, there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated to the bald eagle or its habitat.

Bald Eagle Determination and Rationale - No Action There are no previously approved treatments within the project area that will convert primary nesting and foraging habitat from suitable to unsuitable. Eagle nesting and foraging habitat will continue to be widely available. There are no federal activities proposed under this alternative that will impact the bald eagle or decrease the amount of available habitat. However, ongoing OGM development could occur on some of the available primary bald eagle nesting habitat. This means there is a ‘may impact individuals but is

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability’ determination anticipated for the bald eagle or its habitat.

Bald Eagle Determination and Rationale - Proposed Action Based on the analysis presented above, there is a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability’ determination to the bald eagle anticipated under this alternative. The likelihood of direct or indirect mortality as a result of implementation of this project is not high but could occur. This determination is made based on the following rationale:

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water resources and non-native invasive plant treatments will maintain existing water quality and native fish in ANF streams, impoundments, and reservoirs within the project area. This is expected to maintain eagle foraging habitat. The standards and guidelines will reduce the likelihood that a bald eagle is harassed or harmed as a result of proposed activities.

Although the bald eagle is no longer considered a federally listed species, management guidelines identified in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act will protect the eagle into the future.

• Management of riparian habitat (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality and riparian dependent species, as well as restoring healthy forest conditions and associated bald eagle primary nesting, roosting and foraging habitat. • Suitable bald eagle nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives. • All conservation measures in the USFWS concurrence letter and site specific mitigations related to bald eagles apply to proposed Forest Service activities and oil and gas developments.

With implementation of Forest Plan Standards and guidelines and site specific mitigations, there will be a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability’ determination on individuals. Although suitable habitat will be altered it will continue to be widely available.

Reptiles Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for timber rattlesnakes, is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 274- 285).

Project Area Habitat A few snakes have been documented over the years in this project area but none within the last five years. Rock outcroppings suitable for den sites occur in several locations across the project area and it is believed these areas have a high potential to provide occupied habitat. The project area also contains numerous dry oak sites that provide habitat conditions preferred by the timber rattlesnake. Several unconfirmed sightings have been reported to the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (Personal Communication – Turben, 2011). Stand surveys did not confirm any active den sites or observations in the project or CE area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Direct effects include mortality that may occur during implementation of timber harvest, herbicide use, road construction or other earth disturbing activities identified in Table 2. Activities such as changes in road management that increase public access into den locations also have the potential to result in direct mortality through hunting, or result in increased interaction with humans, who may kill snakes. Proposed

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

activities may also result in indirect effects, or changes in habitat conditions, with effects being both positive and negative. Adverse effects could occur if there is no timber harvest because the trees will grow over and shade basking sites and potential hibernacula by closing the forest canopy making these locations less useful to the species. Beneficial impacts may occur at a den or basking site if conditions are modified to expose these locations to direct sunlight through either disturbance or vegetation manipulation. The project area has a large oak component which will provide food source for a large small mammal (prey) population. Final harvest treatments proposed under these alternatives could increase the diversity and abundance of small mammals and ultimately improve foraging conditions for timber rattlesnakes.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Based on anticipated effects described in Table 2 above, mature forest habitat will be reduced on approximately 3% of the cumulative effects analysis area that is affected by oil and gas development and final harvest timber treatments. Cumulatively over the next 20 years, it is anticipated that up to 16% of the analysis area may be affected by some form of disturbance that could either result in harassment or harm to the timber rattlesnake or alter habitat conditions.

On the ANF, the timber rattlesnake is identified as a Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List and a Forest Species of Concern. As a result, the timber rattlesnake receives special management protection and is used to monitor trends of wildlife that utilize similar habitat. Specific Forest Plan direction related to this species includes protection and improvement of potential den sites and closure of local roads to reduce human/snake interactions. Some of the sites proposed for treatment contain what may be suitable den habitat but considering public access will be restricted during any proposed new road construction, there are no proposed management activities that would increase access into suitable habitat and the potential for harassment or harm to snakes at these potential den sites is considered extremely remote. If logging occurs at a time when snakes are away from their dens, there is a possibility that a rattlesnake could be killed or harmed if a snake is dispersing or foraging within a treatment site when logging occurs. However, for the following reasons the potential impacts from logging or oil and gas development are expected to be reduced and as a result, effects are not expected to cause a trend toward federal listing.

• There is no logging or road construction proposed in preferred foraging areas along stream bottom, or over rocky areas that could be utilized for basking. • The Forest works closely with oil and gas development to avoid rocky areas and it is anticipated that impacts from future oil and gas development will be mitigated to reduce potential impacts. • Roads associated with oil and gas development will be closed to public access. • Approximately 85 percent or more of the project area will be unaffected by proposed timber and road activities under both alternatives.

Timber rattlesnake Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination as a result of the Izenbrown Corners Project. However, on previously approved and future projects on National Forest land or private forestland within the cumulative effects analysis area, these activities will alter foraging habitat. In addition, there is a remote chance that oil and gas activities may impact (harm or harass) foraging individuals if activities occur during the species’ active period, but these actions are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing of this species. Proposed Action – ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability’. Suitable foraging habitat may be altered, but this change is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing of the species. These activities will also alter foraging habitat on projected

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

projects on National Forest land or private forestland within the cumulative effects analysis area. There is a remote chance that these actions may impact (harm or harass) foraging individuals if activities occur during the species’ active period.

A ‘may impact individuals, but neither alternative is likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination is made for this species under both alternatives with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Aquatic Invertebrates Harpoon Clubtail (Gomphus descriptus)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the harpoon clubtail is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 186- 187).

Project Area Habitat There is a variety of aquatic habitats found across the project and cumulative effects areas and some amount of suitable habitat is available for this species. Larger streams in particular provides suitable habitat. No surveys were conducted specifically for this project and none were found in the surveys that were completed. This species has been documented within both the project and cumulative effects areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to this species since there are no new activities proposed within its habitat under this alternative. The primary habitat is larger streams and rivers, and water quality is protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Additionally, no beneficial effects would occur under this alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action Direct mortality or injury to immature larvae or adults could occur if they were crushed or hit while working during a hatch. Removing or cutting trees too close to the stream banks could smother benthic invertebrates by increasing sediment potential. Adverse indirect effects to these species could occur from any of the same upland management activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb stream channels), create sedimentation, or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature individuals). Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. Roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation.

The proposed timber harvests, oil and gas development activities, and road developments proposed on federal lands are not expected to result in direct effects to these species under either alternative with implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan standards and guidelines or site-specific mitigations.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation and/or non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide, fertilizer applications, and road construction activities under the treatments in the Proposed Action, along with oil and gas development if these project activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will be implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Proposed activities designed to provide beneficial effects and maintain water quality over the long-term under the Proposed Action include: • Road maintenance (improving road-runoff management). • Limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and movement). • Road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat and natural drainage patterns within these corridors).

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all larger streams. No significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated for this species or its habitat.

Harpoon Clubtail Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’, proposed treatments to improve water quality such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for the species or aquatic habitat.

Proposed Action - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a ‘no impact’ determination under the Proposed Action. This determination is based on the following points: 1) Management of riparian habitat and aquatic (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve associated invertebrate habitat, and 3) Suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives. The probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. However, the effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads.

Species with suitable occupied habitat in the project area and suitable unoccupied habitat in the cumulative effects analysis area Mammals Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the little brown bat are discussed in the Forest BE Supplement (USDA-FS 2012).

Project Area Habitat This species occupies mature mixed deciduous forest. Its summer habitat includes foraging along wooded streams and corridors of all types. Roosts (maternity and day-roosts) include exfoliating bark, snags, tree hollows and man-made structures. Suitable bat habitat is abundant and widely distributed across the project area.

There are two documented maternity colonies (Hall Barn and Hall Barn Condo) in the project area known to be used by the little brown bat. Suitable snags (providing potential roosts) appear to be well distributed across the project and CE area. Field surveys found that many standing-dead trees have cavities, crevices or exfoliating bark.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 11

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The ANF conducted surveys on 26 sites distributed across the ANF during the summer of 2013. These sites targeted suitable bat habitat and maternity roost colonies in a variety of watersheds, management areas, and regions of the Forest. The combined Hall Barn and Condo (Bat0401) in the project area were surveyed in 2010. Harp trap nets were used to sample the bat condo at the Hall Barn. In addition, the Hall Barn was bag trapped and two 12 meter nets were set up in the edge of the field between the Hall Barn condo and the Allegheny River. One night of survey produced 79 little brown bats caught with a bag trap at the Hall Barn, 203 caught at the condo by two harp traps, and 75 caught in the two single 12 meter nets along the bottom edge of the field behind (west of) the barn.

This species is currently being adversely affected by white-nose syndrome (WNS), primarily at its hibernacula off-Forest. For additional information on WNS, see the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA.

Direct and Indirect Effects No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Due to its preferred habitat, the little brown bat is anticipated to experience direct and indirect effects similar to that of the northern long-eared bat (see the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA).

Cumulative Effects No Proposed Action Alternative See the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA.

Proposed Action Alternative See the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA.

Little brown bat Determination and Rationale

No Proposed Action Alternative There is a “no impact” determination for the little brown bat and its habitat anticipated since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative.

Proposed Action Alternative There is a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability’ determination for this species under this alternative based on the analysis and rationale presented in the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA. The likelihood of direct or indirect mortality as a result of implementation of this project may be considered negligible, but could occur.

Mitigations for Bats: • Implement Forest Plan S&Gs (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 74-84) in order to minimize potential harm or harassment to these species and to retain key habitat components on the stand and landscape level.

In summary, the chances of a little brown bat being impacted by any of the activities undertaken in this project is very low due to the limited geographic extent of the activities within the project

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 12

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

that could affect habitat, and to the timing of activities that would limit exposure of the bats to direct impacts. The potential for indirect impacts on habitat (loss of roost trees or foraging habitat) is limited to a small portion of the project area.

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the little brown bat and northern myotis are discussed in the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012).

Project Area Habitat Both species occupy mature mixed deciduous forest. Their summer habitat includes foraging along wooded streams and corridors of all types. Their roosts (maternity and day-roosts) include exfoliating bark, snags, tree hollows and man-made structures. Suitable bat habitat is abundant and widely distributed across the project area. For a detailed description of forest habitat in the project, see the Indiana Bat analysis in the project biological assessment.

The project area was evaluated to determine the amount and distribution of Indiana bat habitat. The analysis of habitat is based on the Habitat Suitability Model (H.S.I.) developed by Romme et al. (1995) and includes an evaluation of canopy closure conditions, as well as an assessment of the availability of potential roost trees. The habitat analysis in the project biological assessment, the Forest biological assessment (USDA-FS 2007) and the Concurrence Letter (USDI-FWS 2007) are based on the best available science at this time.

There are two documented maternity colonies (Hall Barn and Hall Barn Condo) in the project area known to be used by the Little Brown Myotis. Although hardwood mortality and decline are somewhat common, there are concentrated areas of potential roost trees where disease has impacted stands often used by Northern Myotis. Suitable snags (providing potential roosts) appear to be well distributed across the project and cumulative effects area. Field surveys found that many standing-dead trees have cavities, crevices or exfoliating bark.

Edge habitat exists along Forest Service, State, and lease roads, pipelines, a variety of openings, and utility corridors. These environments along with the stream corridors appear to provide the most suitable foraging conditions in the project. The project area provides an ample amount of preferred summer range for the both bat species. The ANF conducted surveys on 26 sites distributed across the ANF during the summer of 2013. These sites targeted suitable bat habitat and maternity roost colonies in a variety of watersheds, management areas, and regions of the Forest. The combined Hall Barn and Condo (Bat0401) in the project area were surveyed in 2010. Harp trap nets were used to sample the bat condo at the Hall Barn. In addition, the Hall Barn was bag trapped and two 12 meter nets were set up in the edge of the field between the Hall Barn condo and the Allegheny River. One night of survey produced 79 Little Brown Myotis caught with a bag trap at the Hall Barn, 203 caught at the condo by two harp traps and 75 caught in the two single 12 meter nets along the bottom edge of the field behind the barn.

These species are currently being adversely affected by white-nose syndrome (see WNS below), primarily at their hibernacula off-Forest. This can lead to decreased numbers over the next several years. Therefore, maintaining summer habitat for the core, reproducing populations appears crucial for bats on the Forest. Application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the federally endangered Indiana bat will also protect and maintain habitat features for the little brown and northern myotis.

White Nose Syndrome (WNS)

Three bat species were added to the RFSS list in 2011 in response to the White Nose Syndrome outbreak. WNS is a devastating disease which has decimated large populations of cave and mine-hibernating bats in

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 13

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

the eastern United States. The little brown bat, northern myotis, and tri-colored bat were once considered common because of their wide distribution, conspicuous maternity colonies (especially little browns) and relatively stable populations. All three hibernate in caves or mines, indicating that these species may be in sharp decline due to the rapidly spreading white-nose syndrome (WNS) that has resulted in several extirpations. If unchecked, WNS is ultimately expected to cause regional and range-wide extinction of the little brown myotis in a very short ecological time frame (Kunz and Reichard, 2010). As of 2006, widespread recreational use of caves and disturbance caused by humans during the hibernation posed the greatest known threat to the northern myotis (as well as little browns). In 2009 the ANF issued a cave closure order in a regional effort to prevent the spread of WNS (USDA-FS 2009). WNS causes chronic disturbance of hibernating bats and subsequent high rates of winter mortality. Summer roosting and maternity habitat is plentiful across the ANF despite the fact that caves and mines are rare here. For more information regarding white nose syndrome on the ANF see the project biological assessment and the ANF WNS Supplemental Information Report (USDA-FS 2012).

One bat found dead outside a cave on State Game Lands 29 in Warren County and a second dead bat from Cook State Forest in Forest County were sent to a lab for testing in late March of 2012. The game lands are found within the ANF Proclamation Boundary and are less than five miles from the northeast corner of the project area. Cook State Forest is outside the proclamation boundary but less than 5 miles west of the south end of the Marienville District on the ANF. In addition, Bradford District wildlife biologists received numerous reports of daylight bat activity in the very early spring when no bats should be active here on the ANF. The ANF was notified that WNS was confirmed present in both Forest and Warren Counties on July 27, 2012.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Due to their preferred habitat, the little brown myotis and northern myotis effects are very similar to that of the Indiana bat. See the Indiana Bat analysis in the project biological assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species for analysis on these two species.

Cumulative Effects - No Action See the Indiana Bat analysis in the project biological assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species for analysis on these two species.

Cumulative Effects - Proposed Action See the Indiana Bat analysis in the project biological assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species for analysis on these two species.

Little brown bat and Northern myotis Determination and Rationale

No Action There is a “no impact” determination for the Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis or their habitat anticipated since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative.

Proposed Action There is a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability’ determination for these bats under this alternative based on the analysis and rationale presented in the Indiana Bat analysis in the project biological assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species. The likelihood of direct or indirect mortality as a result of implementation of this project may be considered negligible but could occur.

Mitigations for bat species:

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 14

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• Implement Forest Plan Indiana bat standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 81-82, USDI- FWS 2007) in order to minimize potential harm or harassment to these species and to retain key habitat components on the stand and landscape level.

In summary, the chances of a little brown myotis or northern myotis being impacted by any of the activities undertaken in this project is very low due to the limited geographic extent of the activities within the project that could affect habitat, and to the timing of activities that would limit exposure of the bats to direct impacts. The potential for indirect impacts on habitat (loss of roost trees or foraging habitat) is limited to a small portion of the project area.

Forest-wide monitoring for all bats will continue every three years as established in the Forest Plan. In addition, annual monitoring via acoustic transects will continue by gathering data for all foraging bats across the Forest. This data may aid in measuring the impact of WNS over time on bat distribution and abundance at the landscape level.

Fish Ocellated Darner (Boyeria grafiana)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for the ocellated darner are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 193).

Project Area Habitat There is a variety of aquatic habitats found across the project area and some amount of suitable habitat is available for this species. Larger, clear, cold, rocky streams in particular provide suitable habitat. No surveys were conducted specifically for this project but it has been documented within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives The direct and indirect effects anticipated to this species are the same as those listed above for the harpoon clubtail.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

The cumulative effects anticipated to this species are the same as those listed above for the harpoon clubtail.

Ocellated Darner Determination and Rationale No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives – ‘no impact’ under both alternatives, see harpoon clubtail above.

Species with suitable occupied habitat in the cumulative effects area and suitable unoccupied habitat in the project area Plants Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 15

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for this tree are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 254 to 260).

Project Area Habitat Butternut occupies a mesic-hydric forest in sun to partial shade. This species has been documented within the project area but none were found during proposed treatment stand surveys. There are several known butternut trees found on private lands within the cumulative effects area. These trees are located upstream of Tidioute near the river. There is suitable habitat in both the project and cumulative effects areas. There are no documented butternut trees in the project area but two ¼ to ½ acre areas are proposed to be established on either side of SR 62 at the Hall Barn Property (C/S 348/049).

Direct and Indirect Effects No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Management activities proposed in Table 1 are considered to have negligible direct (species related) or indirect (habitat related) impacts based on suitable habitat (open canopy, moist to wet conditions) and/or the methods used to accomplish those activities include: reforestation activities (fencing, planting, tree shelters, and fertilization), prescribed fire, wildlife habitat improvements and non-native invasive plant control (manual/mechanical) (see ANF biological evaluation pages 256-257 for additional discussion (USDA-FS 2007)).

Management activities proposed in Table 1 that are considered to have either potential direct or indirect adverse impacts include: timber harvest (if a butternut is cut/damaged by mistake), reforestation (herbicide application), non-native invasive plants (herbicide treatment), prescribed fire, road construction (new corridor), road construction (existing corridor), and road decommissioning. Potential impacts from timber harvest, reforestation and non-native invasive plant treatment activities include direct mortality (trampling/removal of plant during implementation, herbiciding extant trees). Since butternut is a shade intolerant species it would benefit from increased light conditions. Potential impacts from road construction existing corridor, or road decommissioning include trampling/disturbance, removal – access for collection (direct mortality), changes in local hydrology from soil compaction/removal, and non- native invasive species introduction and/or spread via equipment (habitat alteration). The use of landscape burns has not been a typical activity but unknown individuals or populations could be impacted. Fire could kill a tree or just burn the bark edges. The likelihood of killing a tree is remote and since none were found during stand surveys potential for impacts may be considered negligible. Except for road construction activities under the Proposed Action, no loss in forested habitat is anticipated by federal activities. Areas where activities are proposed have been surveyed and this species has not been documented. Appropriate measures will be taken to protect and conserve this species if it is found during implementation (see page 212 -213 of the ANF biological evaluation USDA-FS 2007 for a compilation of standards and guidelines or the Forest Plan sections 2080, 2400 and 2600 USDA-FS 2007a). There are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to this species under either alternative.

Proposed activities within Table 1 of the biological assessment that are beneficial to this species or its habitat include release, fencing, lessening the impacts from non-native invasive plant species through manual/mechanical or herbicide treatment and road decommissioning which may decrease the impacts to habitat from the introduction/spread of non-native invasive species along road corridors and also limiting access to plant collection/disturbance.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 16

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Based on topographic maps, vegetation types, habitat conditions, and aerial photographs, the project and cumulative effects areas contain a large protected river valley which is well-suited for the butternut. The Hall Barn property provides the best suitable habitat while larger areas across the privately owned portion also provide potential suitable habitat having a lack of competing (woody) vegetation. Additional suitable habitat exists in the semi-open savannah/orchard areas along the streams and lower slope elevations. This habitat type is somewhat limited within both the project and cumulative effects areas.

It is estimated that a relatively small amount of the cumulative effects area will be final harvested (not including oil and gas development) over the next two decades. Large portions of the project and cumulative effects area were managed as farmland/homesteads prior to the Forest Service acquiring these areas. Field surveys will continue to be conducted in order to find RFSS including the butternut as future projects are developed. If the species is found in these future projects or anywhere on the Forest, it will be protected and the habitat enhanced as needed. The Forest Plan provides direction for the protection and enhancement of habitat for TES species, as well as, protecting unique plant communities (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 80- 89).

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and/or site mitigation measures to conserve this species would be implemented, and approved activities will not have significant adverse impacts to this species or its habitat. In addition, oil and gas development is likely to continue across the project and cumulative effects areas increasing the amount of non-forest habitat to some extent. Oil and gas developers on private land are not required to search for or protect butternut. They may cut it just as any other tree within designated rights-of-way or well pads. Consequently, there is a chance that unknown or unrecognized individuals could be impacted on private land relative to oil and gas developments just as might happen on federal lands. Activities on non-Forest Service administered land within the cumulative effects boundary that have the potential to impact this species include: direct mortality from over- collection of plants or plant parts, changes in local hydrology, habitat alteration/loss from timber harvest, non-native invasive plant species, residential development, roads, gravel pits, trails or oil and gas development. There is no information regarding the presence of butternut on private land in the cumulative effects area. Currently, forestland owners on private property within the cumulative effects area appear to be employing Pennsylvania Best Management Practices.

The greatest potential impact to butternut viability is from butternut canker (USDA-FS 2007, p. 255). There are no adverse cumulative impacts anticipated to this species under either alternative. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or site specific mitigation measures will be implemented if this species is found during project implementation.

Butternut Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’ determination for the butternut or its habitat anticipated since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative. The proposed plantings (beneficial effect) would not occur.

Proposed Action Because 1) Butternut trees are found within the cumulative effects area but no butternut trees were found in the project area during stand surveys where timber harvest treatment or wildlife improvements are proposed, 2) 2 small areas (< 1 acre) are proposed for planting, 3) unknown trees could accidently be harvested during oil and gas development, and 4) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be implemented to conserve suitable habitat. The determination for this species is ‘may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward the federal listing or loss of viability of this species’ with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 17

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Fish The following two fish species are evaluated as a group: Channel Darter (Percina copelandi), (USDA-FS -2007, 172 to 173) and Gilt Darter (Percina evides), (USDA-FS 2007, p. 173- 174). These fishes will be discussed as a group since they both use similar types of suitable habitat within the Izenbrown Corners project area and the cumulative effects area. They are good indicators of habitat integrity and water quality, and depend on intact, well-functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) and Gilt Darter (Percina evides)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and which is incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 167-182). The analysis presented here relies heavily on the information presented in the Forest biological evaluation. No surveys were conducted specifically for these species in the project area and none have been found in the surveys that have been conducted. They have been found in the cumulative effects area during previous surveys.

Project Area Habitat This project area falls within both the 13% area of the ANF and the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. Suitable habitat has been documented in the larger streams and Allegheny River for these species. These two sensitive fish species have been documented in the cumulative effects area and have suitable unoccupied habitat within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to these species or their habitats since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action While the majority of stands proposed for treatment are located away from streams and water resources, some streams and water features occur within stands proposed for treatment and it is possible that one of these species could be adversely affected by proposed treatments. They could be found in the river edge of the project area. If the design criteria and Forest Service standards and guidelines to protect water quality, aquatic species, stream habitat and riparian areas are not implemented there could be short and long term adverse impacts to individuals and their habitats. This scenario is not very likely but is possible.

Adverse indirect effects to these species could occur from any of the same upland management activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb stream channels), create sedimentation, or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature individuals). Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. Roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 18

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation and/or non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide, fertilizer applications, and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in the Proposed Action, along with private oil and gas development if these project activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will be implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in the river and larger streams. No significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

Channel Darter and Gilt Darter Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’, proposed treatments to improve water quality or instream habitat such as fish habitat improvements, limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for this species or aquatic habitats.

Proposed Action - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a ‘no impact’ determination under the Proposed Action. The following points justify this determination: 1) Management of riparian and instream habitats (forest- wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent and instream species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve their habitat, 3) Suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives, and 4) these species are mobile and able to move away from degraded habitats. The probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. The effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads.

Species with occupied suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area but no suitable habitat in the project area Invertebrates The following three mussel species are evaluated as a group: Long-Solid Mussel (Fusconaia subrotundra), (USDA-FS -2007, 187), Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia), (USDA-FS -2007, 198), and White Heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata), (USDA-FS 2007, p. 204). These mussels will be discussed as a group since all three have suitable habitat within the cumulative effects area but no suitable habitat the project area. They are a good indicator of habitat integrity and water quality, and depend on intact, well-functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Long-solid Mussel (Fusconaia subrotundra), Round Pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia), White Heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 19

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and which are incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 187, 198, 204). The analysis presented here relies heavily on the information presented in the Forest biological evaluation. These mussel species are discussed collectively because they depend on maintaining water quality and the integrity of stream and riparian habitat within the project area. No surveys were conducted specifically for these species in the project area and none have been found in the surveys that have been conducted.

Project Area Habitat This project area falls within both the 13% area of the ANF and the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The Allegheny River is considered suitable habitat for these species. They have been documented within the Allegheny River which is part of the cumulative effects area but not part of the actual project area. There is no suitable habitat in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to these species or their habitats since there are no new instream activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. The Allegheny River serves as the primary habitat. Water quality is protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. No beneficial impacts will occur under this alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action The potential effects to these species or their habitat are the same as described for the Channel darter. While the majority of stands proposed for treatment are located away from streams and water resources, some streams and water features occur within stands proposed for treatment and it is possible that one of these three species could be adversely affected by proposed treatments. There could be short and long term adverse impacts to individuals and their habitats if the design criteria and Forest Plan standards and guidelines to protect water quality, aquatic species, stream habitat and riparian areas are not implemented. This scenario is not very likely but is possible. Adverse indirect effects are similar to those for the channel darter as outlined above. • Timber harvests, oil and gas development activities, and road development proposed on federal lands are not expected to result in direct effects to these species under either alternative with implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation or non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide, fertilizer applications, and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in the Proposed Action, along with oil and gas development if these project activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will be implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 20

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread along the Allegheny River. No significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

Long-solid, Round pigtoe and White heelsplitter Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’, proposed treatments to maintain water quality such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for these species or their habitats.

Proposed Action - A ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination is made under the Proposed Action as outlined in the ANF biological evaluation (USDA-FS, 2007). The following points justify this determination: 1) Management of riparian and instream habitats (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent and instream species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF rivers, streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve their habitat, 3) Suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives, and 4) These species are not mobile and impacts may be negligible but they could possibly occur. The probability is also low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. The effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads.

Fish Northern Madtom (Noturus stigmosus)

Background: The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for this darter, is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and is incorporated here by reference .

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to this species since there are no new activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. Their primary habitats are larger streams and rivers, and water quality is protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action The potential effects to this species or its habitat are the same as described for the Channel darter. While the majority of stands proposed for treatment are located away from streams and water resources, some streams and water features occur within stands proposed for treatment and it is possible that one of these three species could be adversely affected by proposed treatments. There could be short and long term adverse impacts to individuals and their habitats if the design criteria and standards and guidelines to protect water quality, aquatic species, stream habitat and riparian areas are not implemented. This scenario is not very likely but is possible. Adverse indirect effects are similar to those for the channel darter as outlined above.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 21

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• Timber harvests, oil and gas development activities, and road development proposed on federal lands are not expected to result in direct effects to these species under either alternative with implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation and non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer applications, and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in the Proposed Action, along with oil and gas development if these project activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will be implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all larger streams. No significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated for this species or its habitat.

Northern Madtom Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’, proposed treatments to improve water quality or instream habitat such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for this species or aquatic habitats.

Proposed Action - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a ‘no impact’ determination under this alternative. The following points support this determination: 1) Management of riparian and instream habitats (forest- wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent and instream species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF rivers, streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain their habitat, 3) Suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives, and 4) This species is mobile and is able to leave an area if necessary. The probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. However, the effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads.

Species with suitable habitat in both the project area and cumulative effects areas but presence not documented in either area Aquatic Invertebrates American Emerald (Cordulia shurtleffi), Black-tipped Darner (Aeshna tuberculifera), Boreal Bluet (Enallagma boreal), Brush-Tipped Emerald (Somatochlora walshii), Green-faced Clubtail (Gomphus viridifrons), Green-striped Darner (Aeshna verticalis), Maine Snaketail (Ophiogomphus mainensis), Midland Clubtail (Gomphus fraternus), Mocha Emerald (Somatochlora linearis), Mustached Clubtail (Gomphus adelphus ), Northern Bluet (Enallagma annexum), Rapids Clubtail (Gomphus quadricolor),

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 22

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Riffle Snaketail (Ophiogomphus carolus), Sable Clubtail (Gomphus rogersi), Ski-tailed Emerald (Somatochlora elongata), Uhler's Sundragon (Helocordulia uhleri), Zebra Clubtail (Stylurus scudderi)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for these 17 species, are discussed in the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012) and the ANF Biological Evaluation and are incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 183 - 206).

Project Area Habitat The 17 species of aquatic insects listed above are good indicators of habitat integrity and water quality, and depend on intact, well-functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Some aquatic invertebrates are less tolerant to altered stream conditions while others are more tolerant of disturbance. There is a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitats found across the project area. Many small streams provide the clear, cold-water, forested, rapid streams with floodplains, long-term ponds and sandy shorelines required by some of these species. Habitat along the Allegheny River satisfies some of the requirements for large pond species. Beaver ponds are also suitable habitat for some species and these species utilize off-channel areas that are not within any proposed activities.

The American emerald belongs to the group of pond-breeding odonates. Adult foraging habitat around breeding sites ranges from 30 to 300 meters. Pond-breeding odonates may wander but generally stay within a few km of their emergence pond. The ANF has a number of ponds on the forest, all of which were created by man or beavers.

The black-tipped darner is a pond breeding odonate, and prefers acidic waters. Most standing bodies of water on the ANF are acidic along with many streams especially in the Clarion River drainage. On the ANF, there are no naturally occurring lakes or ponds as all bodies of water have been built by man or beavers.

The boreal bluet belongs to the group of pond-breeding odonates, but also inhabits flowing water. The species occurs along lakes, ponds, marshes, and streams with slow to moderate flow. It occurs in a wide variety of habitats from sagebrush desert to mountain lakes. Habitat on the ANF is relatively abundant with numerous water-bodies and streams similar in size to where it has been collected.

The brush-tipped emerald belongs to a group of river-breeding odonates. It inhabits open swamps and bogs with small streams flowing through them. The ANF has an abundance of small waterways which flow through wetlands and beaver ponds.

The green-faced clubtail can be found in high-quality streams and rivers of moderate relief with gravel/sand substrates. Considering that this dragonfly is found in medium to large streams the Allegheny River is large enough to provide suitable habitat for this species.

The green-striped darner belongs to the group of pond-breeding odonates. Pond-breeding odonates may wander but generally stay close to their emergence pond. The ANF has a number of relatively large water-bodies on the forest, all of which are impoundments created by man or beavers.

The Maine snaketail is found in clear, forested rapid streams and rivers with exposed rocks, often in headwaters. The microhabitat includes areas proximal to rapids or to surface breaking structure such as cobbles, boulders, or deadwood.

The midland clubtail inhabits medium to large-sized rivers and large wind-swept lakes. It can also be found in moderate to rapidly flowing streams to larger rivers with clay to sandy substrates or ponds to larger lakes with adequate emergent vegetation.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 23

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The mocha emerald is one of the river-breeding dragonflies and inhabits small, shaded streams in forested areas that are one to three yards wide with sand, gravel, or rocky substrates. Larvae are aquatic while adults are terrestrial and found in forested habitats surrounding streams.

The northern bluet is a pond-breeding damselfly. The collection made in Spring Creek Township was taken from a wetland complex that is primarily a sphagnum bog drained by a network of small streams.

The mustached clubtail inhabits clear, small to medium swift moving forested streams and rivers and lakes with exposed shorelines.

The northern bluet is a pond-breeding damselfly. The collection made in Spring Creek Township was taken from a wetland complex that is primarily a sphagnum bog drained by a network of small streams.

The rapids clubtail is typically encountered in clean, rocky, well-forested streams and rivers. It is found in the riffle of streams with a gravel substrate.

The riffle snaketail is a river breeding dragonfly. Lands within the ANF proclamation boundary (both public and private) have numerous medium to large streams and two rivers.

The sable clubtail is a river-breeding dragonfly. The species inhabit clear, moderately flowing streams with sand, silt, or rocky substrate. Adults are terrestrial and found in habitats surrounding forested streams. The habitat where larvae were collected on Salmon Creek (Marienville Ranger District) was among overhanging roots and vegetation along banks, organic debris and mud in channel pools. The larger streams on the ANF provide for a considerable amount of habitat.

The ski-tailed emerald utilizes low gradient streams near wetlands, bogs, lake inlets/outlets, and marshy beaver ponds. It is also found along shorelines of larger streams often perching on grass or debris.

Uhler’s sundragon can be found in clean rivers and streams with abundant forest cover. Adults can be found in clearings, perching on brush and weeds, and sometimes on the ground.

The zebra clubtail is typically found in clear, forested, rapid streams and rivers of alternating current velocity but containing riffle areas. Substrates are gravel and finer organic matter and sand and larvae will burrow deep into these substrates in pools.

The white-faced meadowhawk belongs to a group of pond-breeding odonates. Adult foraging habitat around breeding sites ranges from 30 to 300 meters based on studies. The ANF has an abundance of water-bodies created by man or beavers.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no direct or indirect impacts anticipated to these species or their habitats since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative. Their primary habitats are streams, rivers, and ponds, and water quality is protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action Removing or cutting trees too close to the stream banks could smother benthic invertebrates by increasing sediment potential. Adverse indirect effects to these species could occur from any of the same upland,

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 24

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

stream edge management activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb stream channels), create sedimentation, cause repeated or long-term disturbances, or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature individuals). Indirect effects to water quality from harvesting timber may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. However, to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone that will reduce this potential impact.

This alternative proposes to rehabilitate the small pond in C/S 328/38. This pond will be breeched and emptied prior to removing woody stemmed vegetation on the berm. The pond is less than ¼ acre and numerous ponds are found across the project area. These species have not been found during previous surveys and the probability of these species being present in this pond is not very likely. Any impacts to the pond will be short-term at worst probably be more usable after the project is implemented.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the project biological assessment.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation and/or non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide, fertilizer applications, and road construction and pond rehabilitation activities under the proposed treatments in this alternative, along with oil and gas development if these project activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will be implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats.

Proposed activities designed to provide beneficial effects and maintain water quality over the long-term under this alternative include: • Road maintenance (improving road-runoff management). • Limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and movement). • Road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat and natural drainage patterns within these corridors).

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all larger streams. No significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

Aquatic Invertebrate Species Determination and Rationale

No Action – ‘no impact’, proposed treatments to improve water quality such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for the species or aquatic habitats.

Proposed Action - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a ‘no impact’ determination under this alternative. This determination is based on the following points: 1) Management of riparian habitat and aquatic habitat (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve associated invertebrate habitat, 3) Suitable pond, instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives, and 4) Site specific mitigations (the same as listed for the

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 25

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

channel darter) will be implemented prior to and during all proposed work. The probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. However, the effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads.

Terrestrial Invertebrates West Virginia White (Pieris virginiensis) Background: The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for this RFSS species is discussed in the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012).

Project Area Habitat The West Virginia White butterfly inhabits mesic hardwood forests, hardwood-northern conifer-mixed forests on rich soils, and hardwood swamps. An important feature of suitable habitat is a plentiful supply of the food plants, specifically toothworts, over a substantial area. The species is more likely to occur if there are many substantial food plant patches in a large tract of unbroken forests which can sustain a metapopulation. Large areas of closed canopy forest are available in the project area. Garlic mustard looks similar to the preferred food plants but it is poisonous to this species larvae. Garlic mustard is common along roads and openings across the project and cumulative effects area but it has not moved very far into the canopied forest at this time so its impact is probably minimal to the West Virginia white.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no new activities proposed in this alternative and therefore there are no direct or effects from proposed activities. The greatest amount of available mid-structural to late-structural forest habitat is anticipated under this Alternative. The proposed non-native invasive plant treatments and their associated benefits for this species would not be realized under this alternative and the continued existence and expansion of non-native invasive plants (garlic mustard) may be harmful to larvae of this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action The proposed vegetation management activities will alter canopy closure in varying amounts across the project area. This is based on the type of activity and will affect some of the current suitable habitat under this alternative. Some activities will occur in stages over the same area over different time periods. Mid- story shade may become sufficient for this species as areas with vegetation management transition from early regeneration to a more mature condition. It is anticipated that in areas where regeneration harvests occur may take decades but can still be considered short term impacts. Suitable habitat is not anticipated to return over the long term in areas permanently converted from forest to non-forest. These areas are generally small and their loss can be considered likely but negligible.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the project biological assessment.

Although suitable habitat can only be determined by site-specific conditions, mature mixed deciduous mesic forest habitat occurs on approximately 90% of the analysis area. The majority of the conifer consists of red pine stands with some white pine and hemlock mixed across the landscape. The stands in the Economite area will convert older red-pine stands into a forested area with about a 50 year rotation cycle. Activities with potential adverse effects to suitable habitat include those identified in Table 2 and private timber harvest and oil and gas development. Cumulative treatments with the potential to adversely affect this species will be implemented on up to 10% of the analysis area by 2032. Although it is likely indirect effects to mature forest habitat will occur, approximately 86% of the analysis area will be remain unchanged. Potentially suitable habitat would be expected to receive some protection on non-NFS

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 26

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

lands considering private timber harvest will apply Best Management Practices (PADEP 2005) and the Forest Service works with OGM operators to minimize impacts to wetter sites. The main long-term cumulative effect anticipated under either alternative is the conversion of forest to non-forest. Some suitable habitat will be converted to unsuitable over the short term but these changes are associated with timber harvest and will recover over time. No suitable habitat was documented as occupied. No known occupied habitat is proposed for treatment so Forest Plan Standards & Guides will protect suitable habitat and ensure the conservation of this species if found during implementation. Potentially suitable mature mixed deciduous mesic-hydric habitat will continue to be widely available. West Virginia White Determination and Rationale

No Action – a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination for the project under this alternative. Future oil and gas development will increase the amount of non-forested habitat even if no federal actions are taken under this alternative. The beneficial effects of non-native invasive plant treatments would not occur and adversely impact larvae success.

Proposed Action: The determination under this alternative is ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 1) Suitable habitat for this butterfly is found within the cumulative effects area but none were found during stand surveys where timber harvest or wildlife treatments are actually proposed, 2) treatments proposed will modify suitable habitat. There is a possibility that a plant could go undetected and be adversely affected by treatments, and 3) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be implemented to conserve suitable habitat. Oil and gas development activities will also continue under this alternative. There is a slight possibility that proposed treatments will impact an individual but this potential is remote almost to the point of negligible. Suitable habitat will continue to be widely available.

Plants Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 211- 273) and the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS, 2012). They are incorporated here by reference.

The plants are analyzed according to their habitat breakdown in the Forest-wide biological evaluation. It should be noted that many of these plants primary habitats are either riparian or wetland, which is given preferential treatment under the Forest Plan and standards and guidelines are implemented to protect this type of habitat. Some plants may occur in openings or upland forest as well as in inclusions in wet areas. Forest plan Standards and guidelines gives preferential treatment to these areas and unique plant communities will be protected using reserve areas or other guidelines. The habitat for these plants may be altered over the short term but suitable habitat will continue to be widely available and over the long term areas will return to a forested condition.

Non-Forest (Hydric) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 219- 233) - Awned Sedge (Carex atherodes)

Project Area Habitat The awned sedge is usually found on open slopes with seeps. It is a perennial of wetland habitats and can grow in deeper water than other Carex. This sedge has been found in floodplain meadows and open woods, old fields, wet ditches, stream sides, open river and lake shores, willow shrub-swamps, power-line or utility cuts and other wet open habitats. On the ANF, it is found in riparian forest and scrub-shrub habitat along Tionesta Creek. There are no known individuals or populations within the project or cumulative effects areas.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 27

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Non-Forest (Hydric) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 219- 233) - Creeping Snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula)

Project Area Habitat Habitat for this species is generally best described as bogs and wet woods, where it may occur on a variety of substrates including downed logs, stumps, mosses, mud and bare ground. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed. Although creeping snowberry is not known to occur within the project or cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations.

Non-Forest (Hydric) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 219- 233) - Stalked Bulrush (Scirpus pedicellatus)

Project Area Habitat It occurs along the Allegheny River at the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission river access area in Tionesta (CMNH 2004) in a seep along the edge of the river. While this species is not known to occur within the project or cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Mature Mixed Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 241-247) - Mountain Wood Fern (Dryopteris campyloptera)

Project Area Habitat Suitable habitat (mature mixed deciduous forest) is broadly distributed and abundant across the ANF. Small habitat gaps may occur as non-forested areas/open canopy areas. On the ANF it has been found in a red pine stand. While this species is not known to occur within the project or cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Mature Mixed Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 241-247) - Hooker’s Orchid (Platanthera hookeri)

Project Area Habitat It can be found in semi-shade in coniferous woods, especially in well-drained soil of a sandy texture; occasionally reported from beech-sugar maple woods. While this species is not known to occur within the project and cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Mature Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (Shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 233- 240) - American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)

Project Area Habitat On the ANF, this species is typically found on north facing slopes under sugar maple, white ash and basswood canopies. There are no known populations in the project or cumulative effects areas. Suitable habitat does occur at numerous locations across the project and cumulative effects areas. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Mature Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (Shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 233- 240) - Great-Spurred Violet (Viola selkirkii)

Project Area Habitat

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 28

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

This species inhabits moist woods throughout its range, particularly on calcareous or limestone substrates. In Pennsylvania, it grows in cool, moist woods, often on mossy rock outcrops and boulders. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Mature Deciduous Forest (Mesic) (Shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 233- 240) - White Trout-Lily (Erythronium albidum)

Project Area Habitat The white trout-lily is found in mature, deciduous, mesic forest, under shade. While this species is not known to occur within the project or cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites.

Mature Mixed Deciduous (Mesic/Hydric) (Sun to Partial shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 253-254) - Bristly Black Currant (Ribes lacustre)

Project Area Habitat It can grow in semi-shade (light woodland) or no shade (PFAF 2004). In sunlight it grows erect, but in shade, branches are often reclining or trailing. Bristly black currant occurs in woods, forests, and shrublands. While this species is not known to occur within the project or cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites.

Mature Mixed Deciduous (Mesic/Hydric) (Partial shade to shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 260-268) - Canada Yew (Taxus canadensis)

Project Area Habitat The Canada yew occupies humid, continental climates. It can be found in cool, rich, damp woods and wooded swamps, stream banks, bog margins and ravines. Growth is best in at least partial shade. Two ANF locations are on large rocks under a mature mixed deciduous canopy that are not accessible by deer. A third location is in a riparian corridor with a mixed deciduous canopy. All stands proposed for timber harvest or wildlife treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Mature Mixed Deciduous (Mesic/Hydric) (Partial shade to shade) (USDA-FS 2007, p. 260-268) - Swamp Red Currant (Ribes triste)

Project Area Habitat It has been found at two locations during a survey in a bottomland wetland forest in 2000 and during an OGM review in 2007. While this species is not known to occur within the project or cumulative effects areas, suitable habitat does occur at scattered locations. All stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives The potential effects to these species are the same as described in the Forest-wide Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 211-273). Forest Plan standards and guidelines and site-specific mitigations will reduce or avoid impacts to the all the potential suitable environments. These species all use a wide variety of habitats that can be found across the project area. The use of landscape burns has not been a typical activity on the ANF but unknown individuals or populations could be impacted either adversely or beneficially. Fire could kill a plant(s) or just top-kill it (them) and help the return in a more robust manner. The likelihood of this happening is remote and since none were found during stand surveys, potential impacts may be considered negligible. All the other activities proposed for this project have

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 29

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

been addressed as negligible, adverse or beneficial in the Forest-wide biological evaluation and are incorporated here by reference.

The level of activities directly affecting their habitats is low. Design features and Forest Plan standards and guidelines will protect and maintain the various habitats.

Based on the analysis presented in the Forest-wide biological evaluation which includes design features and Forest Plan Standards and guidelines, adverse impacts to these species may be considered negligible under either of these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Activities that have the potential to adversely affect these species or their habitats are discussed under the direct and indirect effects section of the Forest-wide biological evaluation and above. If plants are found during project implementation, appropriate measures will be taken to protect/conserve these species. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or site specific mitigation measures will be implemented. Activities on non-federal lands that have the potential to impact these species include; over-collection of plants or plant parts, changes in local hydrology, habitat alteration, residential development, nutrient enrichment, herbicides, road construction, non-native invasive plant species, and oil and gas development. Private landowners have not been using fire to improve habitat conditions in the recent past.

Plant Determinations and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’ determination for these species or their habitats is anticipated since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative. No beneficial effects would occur. Proposed Action - is ‘may impact individuals, but will not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In addition:

• If plants or populations are found on ANF administered land, Forest Plan standards and guidelines and/or site specific mitigation measures will be implemented to conserve this species. • Habitat and species protection/conservation on private land is regulated under Chapter 45 - Conservation of Pennsylvania Native Wild Plants. Fish The following five fish species are evaluated as a group: LONGHEAD DARTER (Percina macrocephala) (USDA-FS -2007, 175 to 177), MOUNTAIN BROOK LAMPREY (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi) (USDA-FS-2007, 177-178), OHIO LAMPREY (Ichthyomyzon bdellium) (Conservation Assessment, 2012), SPOTTED DARTER (Etheostoma maculatum) (USDA-FS-2007, 180-181), and TIPPECANOE DARTER (Etheostoma tippecanoe)(USDA-FS 2007, p. 181- 182). These fishes will be discussed as a group since they all have suitable habitat within the Izenbrown Corners project and cumulative effects area. They are good indicators of habitat integrity and water quality, and depend on intact, well-functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Longhead Darter (Percina macrocephala), Mountain Brook Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi), Ohio Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon bdellium), Spotted Darter (Etheostoma maculatum), Tippecanoe Darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for these species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012) which are incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, p. 167-182). No surveys were conducted specifically for these species in the project area and none have been found in

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 30

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

the surveys that have been conducted. The analysis presented here relies heavily on the information presented in the Forest biological evaluation and its supplement. These sensitive fish species have suitable habitat within the project and cumulative effects areas but have not been documented in either area.

Project Area Habitat Suitable habitat has been documented in larger streams and the Allegheny River for these species. They have been documented in streams on the ANF but not within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no direct or indirect effects anticipated to these species or their habitats since there are no new activities proposed within their habitats under this alternative. Their primary habitats are larger streams and rivers, and water quality is protected and maintained through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. No beneficial effects will occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action The potential effects to these species or their habitat are the same as described for the Channel darter. While the majority of stands proposed for treatment are located away from streams and water resources, some streams and water features occur within stands proposed for treatment and it is possible that one of the following species could be adversely affected by proposed treatments. Some or all of these species could be found in the project area. If the design criteria and standards and guidelines to protect water quality, aquatic species, stream habitat and riparian areas are not implemented there could be short and long term adverse impacts to individuals and their habitats. This scenario is not very likely but is possible.

Adverse indirect effects to these species could occur from any of the upland management activities that might alter suitable habitat (physically disturb stream channels), create sedimentation or alter water quality (adversely affecting immature individuals). Indirect effects of harvesting timber on water quality may include an increase in sediment delivery to streams associated with road use during hauling of harvested timber. However, to reduce the risk of haul related sedimentation, roads within 300’ of a stream would be surfaced with limestone that will reduce this potential impact.

Proposed activities on federal lands are not expected to result in direct effects to these species under either alternative with implementation of the appropriate Forest Plan standards and guidelines or site specific mitigations.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives - Water quality and potential habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation and/or non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide, fertilizer applications, and road construction activities under the proposed treatments in this alternative, along with oil and gas development if these project activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. However, Forest Plan Standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will be implemented to minimize impacts and protect aquatic and riparian habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 31

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in the river and larger streams. No significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated for these species or their habitats.

Fish species Determination and Rationale No Action– ‘no impact’, proposed treatments to maintain water quality such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for these species or aquatic habitats.

Proposed Action - The probability of actual impact for species with suitable habitat can be considered low or negligible enough as to be considered a ‘no impact’ determination under this alternative. The following points justify this determination: 1) Management of riparian and instream habitats (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent and instream species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic organisms in ANF streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain or improve their habitat, 3) Suitable instream and riparian habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives, and 4) The probability is low that individuals or local populations would be impacted by the projected increase in oil and gas activity, specifically the amount of dirt and gravel roads to be constructed. The effects will depend on the amount and location of these roads.

Mammals Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus macrotis)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for sensitive mammals are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation and are incorporated here by reference (USDA-FS 2007, 207 to 210).

Project Area Habitat Forest Plan direction emphasizes a variety of forest types (USDA-FS 2007a, 1 to14) including providing a conifer component on a minimum of 10% of the ANF (USDA-FS 2007a, 19). One northern flying squirrel was captured in 2005 during nest box surveys on State Game Lands (SGL) 29 within the ANF which is outside the project area. There are no nest-boxes currently in the project area and northern flying squirrels have not been documented in the Izenbrown Corners project area. There is no old growth timber in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action No direct or indirect impacts to the northern flying squirrel are anticipated under this alternative. The hemlock woolly adelgid has the potential to decrease habitat by reducing the hemlock in the pure and mixed conifer/hardwood stands. However, proactive efforts are under way on the ANF, including working with Forest Pest management and other agencies, to find methods in addressing the HWA concern.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action This project area supports a little over 9% conifer (as hemlock, red pine, and white pine stands along with mixed hardwood/conifer stands) that may provide suitable habitat. This habitat is mostly located in the northern part of the project area and there will be some reduction in available suitable habitat as red pine stands in MA 1.0 are converted to species adapted to a shorter rotation cycle (~50 years).

Under this alternative, proposed final harvests, overstory removals or shelterwood removals will convert almost 1,100 acres of mature hardwood forest habitat into early structural forest habitat within the project.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 32

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Some of these areas will retain conifer inclusions as reserve trees and reserve wildlife clumps. In the short-term, forest conditions will not provide suitable habitat. Over the long-term however, suitable growing conditions are expected to return to these areas as the forest grows and matures. Treatments do occur near riparian areas, but Forest Plan standards and guidelines protect these areas, and riparian areas are given preferential treatment.

In addition to 19 acres of road construction activities and 15 acres of opening construction under the Proposed Action, no other loss in forested habitat is anticipated. As a result, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to this species or its habitat under this alternative as habitat in the mid to late structural forest will remain on over 85% of the project area.

Up to five nest boxes will be placed in suitable habitat under the Proposed Action. They will be monitored annually during the life of the project. While the proposed structures would provide suitable nesting habitat for this species, the primary effect of this activity will be increased knowledge related to the distribution and habitat for this species. The following project design criteria will be employed under either alternative:

• Maintain the existing white pine and hemlock component, and retain all hemlock and white pine > 18” DBH.

Project design criteria and Forest Plan standards and guidelines that protect snags and den trees as well as riparian corridors will be implemented. There are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to this species under either alternative.

Cumulative Impacts The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Potential cumulative effects: There are no previously approved treatments in hemlock/conifer stands. While this species or its habitat could be adversely affected by OGM development (the loss of habitat), future infestation of the hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) poses the greatest risk to this species on a landscape scale. The HWA impact to large hemlocks (especially) along the stream bottoms could be severe to northern flying squirrels (Steele et al. 2004) if the HWA reaches the ANF. Up to 50% of the mature hemlock on the ANF could be lost without an effective method for controlling the HWA. Development of private mineral rights in suitable northern flying squirrel habitat also has the potential to cause adverse impacts to forest habitat. These activities could increase the amount of non-forest habitat by almost 10% in the cumulative effects area over the next 20 years.

Past and future federal actions within the cumulative effects area involving vegetation management, road construction activities and private land vegetation management may alter suitable habitat, but Forest Plan Standards and guidelines favor conifer species and the conifer/deciduous forest will remain relatively intact on federal land. In addition, at least 85% of the habitat will be managed as mature forest habitat in the cumulative effects area.

Northern flying squirrel Determination and Rationale The state has conducted relatively extensive monitoring across Pennsylvania and only one location of the northern flying squirrel has been documented in NW Pennsylvania. The loss or reduction of the conifer component could be detrimental to this species because its primary habitat consists of mature mixed coniferous/deciduous closed canopy forest. The long-term perpetuation of the conifer component where soils are suitable is in the best interest of the species. The devastating effect of the HWA on hemlock Forest-wide elevates the importance of maintaining conifer across the landscape in order to help provide habitat for the species and its use of large diameter conifer trees (as dens). Potential habitat will be

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 33

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

maintained and enhanced as additional den sites are provided through implementation of the project design features and Forest Plan Standards and guidelines. Since the project treatments are located primarily in upland terrain, potential ‘prime’ habitat in the form of late-structural bottomland mixed conifer/deciduous forest will remain relatively intact in the project and cumulative effects analysis area under all alternatives.

No Action – ‘no impact’ determination anticipated, except for the potential impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid and ongoing private oil and gas development.

Proposed Action - is expected to have a “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability (with implementation of Forest Plan Standards and guidelines)”, determination on individuals. An undocumented nest tree could be cut without knowledge of its existence. Suitable habitat may be altered by oil and gas development. Implementation of the project design feature and Forest Plan standards and guidelines are expected to maintain suitable habitat and important habitat components across the project and cumulative effects areas. Nest boxes may provide additional den habitat and monitoring a subset of those boxes (District-wide) every three years will provide needed information on species status.

Tri-Colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)

Background: The background, including distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts, and indirect impacts for these RFSS species is discussed in the Forest BE Supplement (USDA- FS 2012) and is incorporated here by reference.

Project Area Habitat This bat generally prefers landscapes with partly open country with large trees and woodland edges. It avoids deep woods and open fields. The tri-colored bat seems to prefer watercourses for foraging but is not restricted to these sites and will also feed at forest edges. The species has been noted to roost among the foliage of trees, in buildings, in the twilight zone (a cool, damp area with some light) of caves, and in Spanish moss. Initial information concerning summer habitat indicates the use of deciduous forest trees in landscapes that include interspersed non-forested patches. Generally, maternity colonies utilize manmade structures or tree cavities; often in open sites that would not be tolerated by most other bats. The tri- colored bat uses caves, mines, and rock crevices as hibernation sites in winter, roosting in the warmer parts of the structure. Survey results from seven mist-netting sites near the project area resulted in no captures of this species. Only three of these bats have been mist-netted on the forest and none of those 3 were found in this project or CE area.

There are two known maternity colonies in the project area and they are not known to be used by the tri- colored bat and although hardwood mortality and decline are somewhat common, there are concentrated areas of potential roost trees of the type where disease has impacted stands often used by this species. Suitable snags (providing potential roosts) appear to be well distributed across the analysis area. Field surveys found that many standing-dead trees have cavities, crevices or exfoliating bark.

Edge habitat exists along Forest Service, State, and lease roads, pipelines, a wide variety of openings, and utility corridors. These environments along with the stream corridors appear to provide the most suitable foraging conditions in the project. The project area provides an ample amount of preferred summer range for this bat species.

The ANF conducted surveys on 31 sites in 2010 and 26 sites distributed across the ANF during the summer of 2013. These sites targeted suitable bat habitat in a variety of watersheds, management areas,

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 34

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

and regions of the Forest. The combined Hall Barn and the Hall Barn Condo (Bat0401) from the IBC project area were included during the year 2010. Harp trap nets were used to sample the bat condos at the Hall Barn. In addition, the Hall Barn was trapped and two 12 meter nets were set up in the edge of the field between the Hall Barn condo and the Allegheny River. One night of survey produced 79 little brown bats caught with a bag trap at the Hall Barn, 203 caught at the condo by two harp traps, and 75 caught in the two single 12 meter nets along the bottom edge of the field behind (west of) the barn.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Due to its preferred habitat, the tri-colored bat is anticipated to experience direct and indirect effects similar to that of the northern long-eared bat (see the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA).

Cumulative Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives See the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA.

Tri-colored bat Determination and Rationale

No Action - A “no impact” determination for the tri-colored bat and its habitat is anticipated since there are no new activities proposed under this alternative.

Proposed Action There is a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability’ determination for this species under this alternative based on the analysis and rationale presented in the northern long-eared bat analysis in the project BA. The likelihood of direct or indirect mortality as a result of implementation of this project may be considered negligible, but could occur.

In summary, the chances of a tri-colored bat being exposed to any of the activities undertaken in this project is very low due to the limited geographic extent of the activities within the project that could affect habitat, to the timing of activities that would limit exposure of the bats to direct impacts, and to the fact that these bats are not very common on the ANF. The potential for indirect impacts on habitat (loss of roost trees or foraging habitat) is limited to a small part of the project area.

Birds Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, threats, direct impacts and indirect impacts for the northern goshawk, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS -2007, 133 to 154).

Project Area Habitat The mature forest habitat within the Izenbrown Corners project area provides many of the preferred nesting and foraging conditions including a preference for conifer (Only 9% of the project area supports conifer stands or inclusions). No active nests were found during stand surveys. Although goshawks will

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 35

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

nest near low standard forest roads, they will not tolerate continuous amounts of human activity (Forest Plan FEIS, page 3-231). The highest quality habitat can be found along the western edge of the Hickory Creek Wilderness Area, Bully Hollow area, the Alex Magee Run area on FR 555 and 555A and Warrant 5203.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Although suitable nesting habitat will be slightly reduced on a portion of the project area due to anticipated regeneration harvest, sites receiving the proposed treatments on ANF lands will continue to provide suitable goshawk foraging and post-fledgling habitat. Implementation of Forest-wide standards and guidelines will protect known nests and enhance foraging/post-fledgling habitat. Based on Forest- wide monitoring, the small amount of opening construction and new road construction proposed is consistent with goshawk use and suitable goshawk habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives.

Forest-wide design criteria are expected to reduce potential impacts from proposed activities to a level that will allow continued use and successful reproduction of active nests and territories if any are found. While the amount of suitable nesting habitat varies by alternative, both alternatives will maintain the structural conditions preferred by the northern goshawk for nesting and foraging across the landscape. Also based on the level of harvest proposed and the continued availability of suitable habitat, both alternatives will maintain adequate habitat to meet Forest-wide population objectives for the northern goshawk.

Direct effects to the northern goshawk could result from any activity that causes harm or harassment to nesting birds and any activity that occurs within active goshawk territories or any activity that creates unsuitable goshawk habitat could have adverse direct or indirect impacts. In order to reduce potential harm or harassment to nesting birds the Forest Plan includes design criteria to restrict activities (standards and guidelines) within 1320 ft. of active nests. There are no known active nests or territories in the project or cumulative effects areas. There are no anticipated direct impacts to the goshawk anticipated under any alternative with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the protection of the species.

Indirect impacts may result from habitat change. Both alternatives will maintain forested habitat (at least 85% of the area in mature forest condition) across the project area. Suitable nesting/post-fledgling habitat will be maintained over the long-term. There are a minimal but discountable amount of adverse direct or indirect impacts to the northern goshawk or its habitat anticipated under either alternative. The Proposed Action would reduce the amount of mature forest within the project area over the short term. Therefore, suitable habitat will be altered but forest habitat will remain and over the long term the forest will continue to mature and grow, providing suitable habitat once again.

There are several large, irregular shaped blocks of roadless area relative to wildlife resources within the project and cumulative effects analysis area. One of these blocks in the project area is over 2,250 acres. Additionally, two blocks in the project area are over 1,500 acres each and two more blocks are in the 1,000 acre range. One block west of the river in the cumulative effects area is also over 1,000 acres. They contribute runoff to East Hickory Creek or the Allegheny River. There are 18 additional, smaller blocks between 100 and 700 acres. These large blocks consist of all federal, all private or a combination of federal/private ownership. Many of these blocks are likely to be further dissected by oil and gas development in the future (short and long term) by the time this project is implemented. There are 63 additional unroaded areas in the project and cumulative effects areas and 38 are between 1 and 100 acres in size.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 36

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The size of the larger blocks were determined by assuming a 300 feet buffer from any documented road (classified or unclassified) rather than using the 0.25 mile buffer described in the unroaded ANF GIS data layer. Many generalist wildlife species are very adaptable and quite successful using small or large blocks of unroaded habitat with a 300 feet buffer. Interior forest species on the other hand, may need a larger buffer (>300 meters) in order to support the full complement of species the ANF may have supported prior to massive human-induced changes on the ANF landscape. The larger buffer would severely shrink the size of the unroaded areas as described above as well as the polygons defined by the current Unroaded GIS layer. Nine of the ten known, active goshawk nests on the ANF during 2012 were found less than 300 meters from a road. The severe reduction in size has not seemed to limit the landscapes ability to provide sufficient habitat for some interior forest species to be successful over the long term.

Several of the large roadless areas mentioned above are considered somewhat unique in character when compared to the rest of the ANF in that they have an open field component (usually associated to the private ownership). Similar areas exist nearby and on other areas of the forest. They consist of varying aged stands and are best characterized as extremely irregular shaped tracts of early age through mature growth forest. Some stands are beginning to develop old growth characteristics. Suitable nesting habitat for large birds of prey such as northern goshawks or red-shouldered hawks might be found in these areas.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Anticipated non-federal actions within the analysis area include commercial timber harvest on private land and private oil and gas development on both private and National Forest System lands within the analysis area (26,454 acres). Both alternatives will result in some reduction of suitable goshawk habitat. About 75% of the cumulative effects area will be maintained as suitable habitat unaffected by potential cumulative effects and considering goshawks are successfully utilizing areas managed at similar levels of oil and gas and timber harvest, there are no adverse effects anticipated to this species that would reduce local viability under any alternative.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur on over 75% of the forest in the project area. As a result, there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the northern goshawk or its habitat anticipated.

Northern Goshawk Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘no impact’ determination anticipated. Impacts from HWA may occur and the forest will continue to age.

Proposed Action - Based on the analysis above, particularly the protection provided to active nests, there is a ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination for this species. Although suitable habitat will be altered it will continue to be widely available. The impacts determination to habitat from this project ‘is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus Ustulatus)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the Swainson’s thrush, are discussed in the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012) and are incorporated here by reference.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 37

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Project Area Habitat This species frequently nests in the understory, particularly in thickets of deciduous shrubs or conifer saplings. Swainson’s thrush is a boreal species that prefers dense conifer forests for breeding. The preferred habitat in the northeast is northern mixed hardwood or conifer forests, such as the ANF. It has been found in mixed hemlock riparian forest and older-growth stand of eastern hemlock, white pine, and American beech on the ANF. These types of stands are found in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives This species and its habitat could be adversely affected by any activity that would disturb nesting birds or modify suitable habitat conditions on private or National Forest land such as oil and gas development or timber harvest on private lands. However, potential direct and indirect effects in the project and cumulative effects areas are expected to be minimized through implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines that call for the protection of suitable habitat. Additionally much of the potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs within riparian areas, which are managed to promote natural conditions and have reduced levels of management. As a result, this is expected to further reduce potential impacts.

Effects to the Swainson’s thrush are similar to that of the northern flying squirrel and the yellow-bellied flycatcher due to its preferred habitat. See the northern flying squirrel and yellow-bellied flycatcher section for analysis.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Potential cumulative effects include any activities that make suitable Swainson’s thrush habitat unsuitable. These activities include those that have the potential to cause disturbance to foraging or nesting habitats. Impacts can be evaluated by looking at how much of the analysis area is made unsuitable by federal activities from past, present and future actions. The most likely actions to cause long term effects on federal lands will be associated with new road construction and oil and gas development. No other activities are proposed during this projects timeline. These activities along with timber harvest and or home/opening development are most likely to occur on private land in amounts similar to activities as occur on federal lands. Suitable habitat for this species is protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines as well as site specific mitigation measures. Further, all stands proposed for treatments were surveyed and this species was not documented on any of the sites.

Past and future federal actions within the cumulative effects area involving vegetation management, road construction activities, oil and gas development and private land vegetation management may alter suitable habitat, but Forest Plan Standards and guidelines favor conifer species and the conifer/deciduous forest will remain relatively intact on federal land. In addition, at least 85% of the habitat will be managed as mature forest habitat in the cumulative effects area.

Swainson’s thrush Determination and Rationale No Action - a ‘no impact’ determination is made for this alternative. There are no direct or indirect impacts anticipated to this species since there are no new activities proposed within their habitat under this alternative. Therefore, beneficial effects will not occur for this species or its habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 38

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

applications near watercourses will not directly or indirectly impact this species or its habitat under the Proposed Action on federal lands.

Suitable habitat for this species will be protected through Forest Plan standards and guidelines Over 50% of the potentially suitable habitat occurs within riparian areas that are specifically managed to provide conditions preferred by the Swainson’s thrush: • Resource specialists on the ANF will work closely with OGM developers to avoid or mitigate impacts to suitable habitat that may occur from future oil and gas development.

Yellow-Bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the Yellow-bellied flycatcher, are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 161-166) and are incorporated here by reference.

Project Area Habitat There are only a few sites that contain the four criteria identified as being required by this species. Suitable habitat is defined as having all of the following: 1) the presence of saturated soils, 2) a substantial conifer component, 3) dense undergrowth, especially sphagnum moss and 4) are at least 1.5 acres in size. No flycatchers were found at any of the sites on the ANF surveyed by the Northeast Forest Experiment Station (Stoleson and Ordiway 2003). At least 50 avian species were observed or heard during field surveys in 2002 and 2003 by district personnel, but the yellow-bellied flycatcher was not documented in the Izenbrown Corners Project Area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives This species and its habitat could be adversely affected by any activity that would disturb nesting birds or modify suitable habitat conditions on private or National Forest land such as oil and gas development or timber harvest on private lands. However potential direct and indirect effects on National Forest lands are expected to be minimized through implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines that call for the protection of suitable habitat. Additionally much of the potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs within riparian areas, which are managed to promote natural conditions and have reduced levels of management. As a result, this is expected to further reduce potential impacts.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Suitable habitat for this species will be avoided and is further protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and site specific mitigation measures. Additionally, all stands proposed for treatments were surveyed and none of the sites include the habitat conditions preferred by this species. As a result, there are no cumulative effects to this species anticipated under either alternative.

Yellow-bellied flycatcher Determination and Rationale No Action Alternative - a ‘no impact’ determination is made for this alternative. No activities are proposed under this alternative. Therefore, the beneficial effects will not accrue for this species or its habitat.

Proposed Action - Based on the analysis and the rationale presented above, a ‘may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination is made for this species. Oil and gas impacts may occur closer to suitable habitat on both federal and private lands as well as timber harvest on private lands. The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project wide design features will ensure that proposed timber harvests, herbicide and fertilizer

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 39

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

applications near watercourses will not directly or indirectly impact this species or its habitat under the Proposed Action on federal lands.

Suitable habitat for this species will be protected through Forest Plan standards and guidelines Over 50% of potentially suitable habitat occurs within riparian areas that are specifically managed to provide conditions preferred by the yellow-bellied flycatcher • Resource specialists on the ANF work closely with OGM developers to avoid or mitigate impacts to suitable habitat that may occur from future oil and gas development.

Amphibians

Four-Toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the four-toed salamander are discussed in the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012) and are incorporated here by reference.

Project Area Habitat The four-toed is a lung-less salamander so moist environments are critical to its survival. It is considered a habitat specialist and although it is not a vernal pool obligate, it is often found in association with such habitats. Adults live under logs or among mosses in swamps, boggy streams, and wet, wooded or open areas near ponds or quiet, mossy or grass/sedge pools (larval habitat). Sphagnum moss is commonly abundant in suitable habitat. This habitat is available but scattered across the project area. No surveys were conducted specifically for this species but all stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Due to their preferred habitat, effects to this species can occur and are very similar to those that may impact any species requiring aquatic habitat types. There is a possibility of causing direct harm or death to individuals while implementing project activities. Additionally, when these activities occur they have the potential to degrade or destroy habitat, isolate populations or create barriers. In other words, all ground disturbing activities have the potential to create threats, as previously described, to the four-toed salamander. Individuals could be run over by heavy equipment during timber harvest activities but this would be almost impossible to document.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Suitable habitat for this species will be avoided and is further protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and site specific mitigation measures. Additionally, all stands proposed for treatments were surveyed. While some of the sites include the habitat conditions preferred by this species they can be protected by including them in reserve areas. ODG activities on private and federal lands could impact this species or its habitat. As a result, there are cumulative effects to this species anticipated under either alternative.

Four-toed salamander Determination and Rationale No Action - a ‘no impact’ determination is made for this alternative. There are no direct or indirect impacts anticipated to this species since there are no new activities proposed within their habitat under this alternative. Beneficial effects will not occur for this species or its habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 40

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Proposed Action – Based on the analysis and the rationale presented above, a ‘may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’ determination is made for this species. Oil and gas impacts may occur closer to suitable habitat on both federal and private lands as well as timber harvest on private lands. The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project wide design features will ensure that proposed timber harvests, herbicide and fertilizer applications near watercourses will not directly or indirectly impact this species or its habitat under the Proposed Action on federal lands. Suitable habitat for this species will be protected through Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleghaniesis)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the Eastern hellbender are discussed in the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012) and are incorporated here by reference.

Project Area Habitat The hellbender is found in Allegheny River and some larger streams on the ANF. Hellbenders prefer swift running, well oxygenated, unpolluted streams and rivers. They are completely aquatic and prefer clear, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated streams and rivers. The stream bottom should contain many large flat boulders, logs, and debris. In Virginia, hellbenders have been observed in streams as small as 5 meters and rivers over 100 meters wide. This habitat is rare in the project area but does occur and the river in the cumulative effects area is entirely suitable. No surveys were conducted specifically for this species but all stands proposed for treatment were surveyed and this species was not found on any of the sites surveyed.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action Due to their preferred habitat, effects to this species or its habitat are not likely. There is a slim but negligible possibility of causing direct harm or death to individuals while implementing project activities. Implementing Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Suitable habitat for this species is the Allegheny River in the cumulative effects area. It will be avoided and is further protected through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and site specific mitigation measures. Additionally, all stands proposed for treatments were surveyed. None of the sites include the habitat conditions preferred by this species. ODG activities on private and federal lands could impact this species or its habitat but Forest Plan standards and guidelines as well as state permitting requirements will prevent or minimize adverse impacts.

Eastern hellbender Determination and Rationale No Action - a ‘no impact’ determination is made for this alternative. There are no direct or indirect impacts anticipated to this species since there are no new activities proposed within their habitat under this alternative. Beneficial effects will not occur for this species or its habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 41

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Proposed Action – Based on the analysis and the rationale presented above, a ‘no impact’ determination is made for this species. Oil and gas impacts may occur closer to suitable habitat on both federal and private lands as well as timber harvest on private lands. The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project wide design features will ensure that proposed timber harvests, herbicide and fertilizer applications near watercourses will not directly or indirectly impact this species or its habitat under the Proposed Action on federal lands. Suitable habitat for this species will be protected through state and Forest Plan standards and guidelines and continue to be widely available.

Reptiles Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta)

Background: The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for wood turtles, is discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, p. 285- 290).

Project Area Habitat Wooded riparian flood plains are abundant on the ANF, however, riparian flood plains that possess enough openings in the canopy to support a thick herbaceous understory may be limiting. Other limiting features include areas of sandy stream and river banks and suitable habitat that is not heavily disturbed by human recreational use. Suitable habitat is present in both the project area and cumulative effects area. No riparian surveys were conducted specifically for this species and its presence has not been documented in the either the project or cumulative effects areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives This species is a good indicator of habitat integrity and water quality, and depends on intact, well- functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems; therefore the impacts, design features, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines as well as site-specific mitigations discussed under the channel darter, fish and invertebrates apply to the wood turtle as well.

The open and semi-open savannah/orchard habitat associated with riparian areas has the best chance to contain inclusions of suitable foraging habitat. Whether there are riparian areas, wetlands, or savannah/orchards, the proposed timber harvesting and reforestation activities in the Izenbrown Corners project do not occur in these habitats. The proposed timber harvest under the Proposed Action has the potential to impact individuals if a harvested tree would fall on a foraging individual.

Proposed road activities and access are not anticipated to increase or encourage shooting or poaching of the turtle which is a primary threat to individuals. In addition, some roads will be closed or restricted to public use and this will lessen the likelihood of road mortality. This risk will continue in roads open to the public. Threats or risks regarding direct removal of wood turtles will remain under either of the alternatives.

In addition to FP standards and guidelines concerning water quality, guidelines will be implemented if a wood turtle is discovered during project implementation, and include the protection of its habitat home range (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 87)

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 42

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Activities that have the potential to adversely affect this species or its habitat is discussed under the direct and indirect effects section of the Forest-wide biological evaluation. If wood turtles are found, appropriate measures will be taken to protect/conserve this species. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and site-specific mitigation measures as listed under the channel darter will be implemented. Activities on non-federal lands that have the potential to adversely affect these species include; over-collection of turtles, changes in local hydrology, habitat alteration/loss from housing development, nutrient enrichment, herbicides, road construction, timber harvest, invasive plant species, and oil and gas development.

Suitable habitat will continue to be widespread and occur in all large stream watersheds. As a result, there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated for the wood turtle or its habitat.

Wood turtle Determination and Rationale No Action – ‘may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability’, although proposed treatments to improve instream habitat and water quality such as limestone surfacing, road decommissioning, road reconstruction will not be implemented. Therefore, the beneficial effects will not occur to aquatic habitat.

Proposed Action - A “May impact individuals, but neither alternative is likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability” determination is made for this species under both alternatives with implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and site-specific mitigations. This determination is made because if a) a tree being harvested under a proposed timber harvest or wildlife opening creation fell on a foraging individual it could cause the death or injury to a turtle or b) equipment to move or place a tree or rock for instream structures either runs over or drops material on a foraging or hibernating wood turtle. However, impacts can be minimized by the following: 1) Management of riparian habitat (forest- wide) will focus on protection of water quality, the protection of riparian dependent species and restoring healthy forest conditions, 2) Forest Plan standards and guidelines will maintain water quality and aquatic habitat in ANF rivers, streams, impoundments, and reservoirs and this is expected to maintain associated wood turtle habitat, 3) Suitable wood turtle habitat will continue to be widely available under all alternatives, and 4) Most project related activities (timber sales) are generally positioned in upland locations. Site-specific mitigations as outlined in the channel darter section will be implemented prior to any work in streams or riparian areas.

Species with unoccupied suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area but no suitable habitat in the project area All taxa Blue wild indigo (Baptisia australis var. australis), Philadelphia panicgrass (Panicum philadelphicum), Queen-of-the-prairie (Filipendula rubra), Sweet-scented Indian-plantain (Hasteola suaveolens), Thread rush (Juncus filiformis), Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), Creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa), Rainbow (Villosa iris), Threeridge (Amblema plicata), Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava), Bluebreast darter (Etheostoma camurum), Mountain madtom (Noturus eleutherus).

Background: No surveys were conducted specifically for these species in this project area and none have been found in the surveys that have been conducted. The distribution and abundance, status, habitat, and threats for the species are discussed in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007) and the Forest biological evaluation Supplement (USDA-FS 2012) which are incorporated here by reference.

Project Area Habitat

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 43

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

These species all have suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area and are associated with riverine habitat along the Allegheny River (not part of the project area) or its islands. None of these species are known to occur within the project area. Further, all stands with proposed treatments were surveyed and none of the sites include the habitat conditions preferred by these species. To date, they are not known to occur within this section of the Allegheny River drainage on the ANF. They have not been documented within the cumulative effects area of the Izenbrown Corners project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects - No Action There are no new activities proposed in this alternative and therefore there are no direct or indirect effects from proposed activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Proposed Action No federal activities are proposed in suitable habitat for these species under this alternative. Any negative impacts that might occur under this alternative would be indirect and likely negligible when Standards and Guides are followed during implementation. Non-native invasive plant treatments proposed in the adjacent project area will prevent or at least decrease further non-native invasive plant encroachment into the suitable habitat for these species. Water quality and suitable habitat could be affected by timber harvest, some reforestation and/or non-native invasive plant treatments such as herbicide and fertilizer applications, prescribed fire, road construction activities, and oil and gas development if these activities are not properly designed, located, or buffered. No instream improvements have been proposed. However, Forest Plan standards and guidelines discussed throughout this biological evaluation will at least maintain aquatic and riparian habitats.

Proposed activities designed to maintain water quality over the long-term under this alternative include: • road maintenance (improving road-runoff management) • limestone surfacing (armoring running surfaces to decrease sediment formation and movement) • road decommissioning (remove non-point sources of sedimentation and restores habitat and natural drainage patterns within these corridors.

Cumulative Effects The analysis boundary and time period were previously described in the biological assessment.

Anticipated non-federal actions within the analysis area that might impact these species or their habitats include direct mortality from over-collection of plants or plant parts, changes in local hydrology, habitat alteration /loss from timber harvest, prescribed fire, housing development, road construction, sedimentation, and oil and gas development. Private oil and gas development may be proposed on NFS lands at any time. However, if any of these species are found during the review process standards and guides such as those listed below to minimize impacts would be implemented. The riverine habitat is dynamic when compared to the adjacent uplands in that it will change continuously over time by natural and man-made processes whether this project is implemented or not. Both alternatives may result in some change of location or temporary reduction/increase in the amount of suitable habitat available. Much of the cumulative effects area will be unaffected by potential cumulative effects due to distance across open water, slope issues and the limited amount of developable land available for those activities. Suitable habitat will continue to be widely available but changing to some extent. Considering some of these species may be successfully utilizing areas managed at similar levels of oil and gas and timber harvest, there are no adverse effects anticipated to these species that would reduce local viability under either alternative.

Determination and Rationale No Action – a ‘no impact’ determination is anticipated. The beneficial effects will not occur for these species or their habitats.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 44

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Proposed Action - ‘no impact’ determination is made for these species under this alternative. Direct mortality as a result of implementation of this project is unlikely to occur. Further, the likelihood of indirect impacts to suitable habitats is also considered remote or negligible. These determinations are made based on the following rationale:

• Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be implemented to maintain water quality and protect aquatic and riparian species and their habitats. • Management of riparian habitat (forest-wide) will focus on protection of water quality, riparian dependent species and restoring healthy forest conditions and associated habitats. • Suitable habitat will continue to be widely available under both alternatives.

With implementation of Forest Plan Standards and guidelines, impacts to individuals or their habitat but the proposed federal activities will not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for this species.

Species with no suitable habitat in the project or cumulative effect area All taxa

American Fever-few (Parthenium integrifolium), Bartram shadbush (Amelanchier bartramiana), Boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica spp. Irrigua), Boreal starwort (Stellaria borealis spp. Borealis), Checkered rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera tesselata), Rough cotton-grass (Eriophorum tenellum), Burbot (Lota lota), Eyed brown (Satyrodes eurydice), Amber-winged spreadwing (Lestes eurinus), Band-winged meadowhawk (Sympetrum semicinctum), Crimson-ringed whiteface (Leucorrhinia glacialis), Comet darner (Anax longipes).

No surveys were conducted specifically for these 12 species in the project and cumulative effects areas and none have been found in the surveys that have been conducted.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives The project will have ‘no impact’ on these species. Suitable habitat is not present in the project or cumulative effects areas. No further discussion of the species with no suitable habitat will occur.

Summary Of Determinations Based on the above analysis, Table 3 displays the determinations reached for the species analyzed in this Biological Evaluation for the Izenbrown Corners Project EA. Species marked with an asterisk (*) have no suitable habitat in the project or cumulative effects area.

Table 3 Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Sensitive Species No Action Proposed Action

Mammals Little brown bat, Northern flying squirrel, Tri-colored ‘No Impact’ May impact individuals but is bat not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability (with implementation of Forest Plan Standards and

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 45

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Sensitive Species No Action Proposed Action

guidelines). Birds Northern goshawk, Swainson’s thrush, Yellow- ‘No impact’ May impact individuals but is bellied flycatcher not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability (with implementation of Forest Plan Standards and guidelines). Bald Eagle May impact individuals but is May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss toward federal listing or loss of viability (with of viability (with implementation of Forest implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Plan Standards and guidelines). guidelines). Fish Bluebreast darter, Channel darter, Gilt darter, ‘No impact’ ‘No impact’ Burbot*, Longhead darter, Mountain brook lamprey, Mountain madtom, Northern madtom, Ohio lamprey, Spotted darter, Tippecanoe darter Plants American fever-few*, Bartram shadbush*, Boreal ‘No impact’ ‘No impact’ Bog sedge*, Boreal starwort*, Checkered rattlesnake plantain*, Rough cotton-grass* American ginseng, Awned sedge, Bristly Black ‘No impact’ May impact individuals but is Currant, Blue wild indigo, Butternut, Canada yew, not likely to cause a trend Creeping snowberry, Great-spurred violet, Hooker’s toward federal listing or loss orchid, Mountain wood fern, Philadelphia of viability (with panicgrass, Queen-of-the-prairie, Stalked Bulrush, implementation of Forest Swamp Red Currant, Sweet-scented Indian-plantain, Plan Standards and Thread rush, Tufted hairgrass, White trout-lily guidelines). Aquatic Invertebrates (Insects and Mollusks) Amber-winged spreadwing*, American emerald, ‘No impact’ ‘No impact’ Band-winged meadowhawk*, Black-tipped darner, Boreal bluet, Brush-tipped emerald, Comet darner*, Crimson-ringed whiteface*, Green-faced clubtail, Green-striped darner, Harpoon clubtail, Maine snaketail, Mocha emerald, Mustached clubtail, Midland clubtail, Northern bluet, Ocellated darner, Rapids clubtail, Riffle snaketail, Sable clubtail, Ski- tailed emerald, Uhler's sundragon, White-faced meadowhawk, Zebra clubtail, Creek heelsplitter, Rainbow mussel, Threeridge, Wabash pigtoe Aquatic Invertebrates (Mollusks) Long-solid mussel, Round pigtoe, White heelsplitter ‘No impact’ May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability (with implementation of Forest Plan Standards and guidelines). Terrestrial Invertebrates Eyed brown* ‘No impact’ ‘No impact’

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 46

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Sensitive Species No Action Proposed Action

West Virginia white May impact individuals but is May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss toward federal listing or loss of viability (with of viability (with implementation of Forest implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Plan Standards and guidelines). guidelines). Amphibians and Reptiles Eastern Hellbender ‘No impact’ ‘No impact’

Four-toed salamander, Wood turtle ‘No impact’ May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability (with implementation of Forest Plan Standards and guidelines). Timber Rattlesnake May impact individuals but is May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss toward federal listing or loss of viability (with of viability (with implementation of Forest implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Plan Standards and guidelines). guidelines).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 47

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

References Literature Cited CMNH. 2004. Database Report for Warren, Forest, Elk, McKean counties: plant search 2004. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Field surveys. Unpublished.

Enviro Science Inc. 2001. Hickory Street Bridge Replacement Project. Biological Assessment/Freshwater Mussel Population Survey. Stow, Ohio, 44 pp.

Gleason, H.A. 1952. Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, Vol. 2. Published for the New York Botanical Garden by Hafner Press, New York, N.Y. 655 pp.

Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Second Edition. The New York Botanical Garden Press. Bronx, NY. 993 pp.

Hayes, M. 2001a. Conservation Assessment for creeping snowberry (Gaultheria hispidula). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 27 pp.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2005. Timber Harvest Operations Field Guide for Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control. Technical Guidance No. 3930-BK-DEP4016.

Plants for a Future Database. 2004. Plants for a Future Database is a resource center for rare and unusual plants, particularly those which have edible, medicinal or other uses. Available at: http://www.pfaf.org/

Steele, M.A., C. Mahan and G. Turner. 2004. A manual for long term monitoring and management of the threatened northern flying squirrel in PA. Final report and working manual. PA Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 138 pp.

Stoleson, S.H. and L. Ordiway. 2003. Surveys for Yellow-bellied Flycatchers (Empidonax flaviventris) on the Allegheny National Forest. Unpublished report. Northeast Forest Experiment Station. Irvine, Pa. 13pp.

Turner, A. 2005. Summary of fishes collected from streams on the Allegheny National Forest. Unpublished.

USACOE. 2006. Electrofishing Survey on the Allegheny River below the Allegheny Reservoir, near Warren, Pennsylvania. Prepared by Steve Foster, Huntington District, US Army Corps of Engineers. 12 pp.

USDA-FS 2007. Biological Evaluation, Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA

USDA-FS 2007a Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA.

USDA-FS 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2007d. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendices (A, B-F, & G). Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 48

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

USDA-FS 2012. Izenbrown Corners Wildlife Report, Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest. Bradford, PA 36pp.

USDA-FS 2012a. Izenbrown Corners Biological Assessment, Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest, Bradford. PA 36pp.

USDA-FS. 2012. Draft Addendum to 2007 Allegheny National Forest Biological Evaluation, Allegheny National Forest, Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2013. Response Of Northern Myotis (Myotis Septentrionalis) In The Eastern United States To White-Nose Syndrome And Global Climate Change Under No Action Alternative, Eastern Region. Milwaukee, WI 18 pp.

Western PA Conservancy. 1989b. Allegheny National Forest Wetland Rare plant survey. 67 pp.

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 2003. Spreadsheet of fish species of concern collected within the Allegheny National Forest. Pittsburgh, PA.

Wild Resource Conservation Fund. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Species of Pennsylvania. Wild Resource Conservation Fund, 80 pp.

Personal Communications/Consultants Andrea Hille – Forest Silviculturist April Moore – Botanist, Allegheny National Forest Brent Pence – Fisheries Biologist, Allegheny National Forest Scott Stoleson - Northeast Forest Experiment Station Pam Thurston – Wildlife Biologist, Allegheny National Forest Corey Turben – Rattlesnake Survey Team Volunteer, Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

/s/ Alan Wetzel District Wildlife Biologist December 6, 2013

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C2 - Biological Evaluation Page 49

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix C3 Wildlife Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by: Alan Wetzel Bradford Ranger District Wildlife Biologist

Edited and Reviewed by: Pam Thurston Allegheny National Forest Wildlife Biologist

Edited and Reviewed by: Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents

Methodology for Analysis ...... 3 I. Conduct project level surveys and incorporates Forest-level monitoring ...... 4 II. Review and utilize Forest-wide monitoring data ...... 5 III. Identify Present Wildlife Habitat Conditions ...... 6 Regulatory Framework ...... 7 Forest Plan Direction ...... 7 Present Condition of Wildlife Habitat ...... 9 IV. Identify Desired Conditions for Wildlife ...... 11 Present Condition and Forest Plan Direction ...... 11 Wildlife Objectives ...... 11 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 19 Affected Environment ...... 20 Environmental Consequences ...... 20 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for T&E species ...... 32 Regional Foresters Sensitive Species...... 32 V. Evaluate Effects to Wildlife ...... 34 Scale of Analysis...... 35 Fine Filter ...... 35 Coarse Filter ...... 35 Species with Viability Concerns ...... 35 Effects to Species with Viability Concerns ...... 36 Birds ...... 36 Reptiles ...... 40 Amphibians ...... 40 Other Species ...... 40 References ...... 42

Tables Table 1 Current forest condition by management area ______9 Table 2 Proposed Action - commercial and non-commercial timber harvest ______21 Table 3 Proposed wildlife structures ______29 Table 4 Habitat condition changes ______31 Table 5 Wildlife cumulative effects summary ______33 Table 6 Species with Viability Concerns and their status ______36

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Methodology for Analysis

Analysis Process This report identifies a five-step process that was used to provide wildlife analysis for the Izenbrown Corners Environmental Assessment (EA). Specifically, this process is used to: (1) identify the wildlife present condition or affected environment within the project area, (2) define the site-specific wildlife purpose and need or desired condition as it relates to the objectives of the Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (referred to elsewhere in this document as the Forest Plan), (3) identify activities that will help achieve desired wildlife habitat conditions, (4) identify unique or sensitive wildlife habitat conditions or communities that need to be protected or enhanced, and (5) evaluate potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat that may occur as a result of proposed activities.

Field surveys were conducted during the spring, summer and fall of 2011 and spring of 2012 to collect information related to vegetative and wildlife communities within the affected watersheds including: (1) a compartment examination survey to collect overstory and understory information related to wildlife habitat, (2) stand level surveys in all sites proposed for treatment by a wildlife biologist and wildlife technician and a botanist, (3) raptor nest searches, (4) breeding bird surveys with an emphasis on the cerulean warbler conducted by the Northern Research Station (conducted annually), and (5) bat mist net surveys.

This analysis of the wildlife resource is done using a multi-scale analysis that includes a combination of two basic strategies:

(1) A coarse filter approach is used to identify plant and associated wildlife communities across the watershed. This approach assumes that if the species, genetics, functions and processes are protected at the community level, then the bulk of the biotic species, both known and unknown, will also be protected.

(2) A second strategy, or fine filter approach, is used to assess habitat and effects on threatened and endangered species, as well as on unique or uncommon communities such as riparian areas, wetlands, and areas of rock outcroppings or concentrated spring seeps. A fine filter approach is used on these resources, since effects may not be apparent using the coarse filter approach. In addition, approaches #1 and #2 are used to analyze the additional Species with Viability Concerns that are not covered above.

Information in this site-specific analysis was tiered from the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) and FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b) analysis, which included contributions from agency scientists and resource specialists, other federal and state agencies such as informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and public comments. Together, that analysis combined with site-specific information here constitute the best available science for identifying the present wildlife habitat condition and the desired future condition. This information was also used to identify project design features and to evaluate effects of alternatives considered on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Professional judgment is the basic method used to forecast these effects. The judgment is backed by applying the most applicable scientific information available related to wildlife use on the ANF, by applying knowledge and experience related to the proposed actions and by 20 years experience observing and evaluating changes in wildlife use and habitat conditions from similarly proposed activities on the ANF and at other locations in past assignments. As stated, the Forest Plan was developed using these methods (USDA-FS 2007c, 40). In addition, the analysis contained in the Izenbrown Corners Project Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, and this wildlife report is tiered to the Forest Plan

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Biological Evaluation which was developed in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and input from other state and federal agencies as well as current scientific literature.

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

Research and field surveys to collect information related to vegetative and wildlife communities within the project area were conducted during the spring, summer, and fall of 2011 and 2012. This survey work has included the following;

• All available resources and information pertaining to the Izenbrown Corners project area were compiled. This included aerial photos, maps, past timber sale information, past wildlife surveys, past wildlife habitat projects, known compartment and stand information and private land information.

• This information helped field survey crews to establish surveys throughout the project area, paying close attention to areas where potential habitat for threatened and endangered species has been documented or where unique habitats occurred. Surveys followed an intuitive meander to cross a variety of habitats or intersect treatment proposals. The information collected included identification of unique stand features and collection of overstory and understory information necessary to evaluate wildlife habitat conditions, stand structural considerations, amount of coarse woody debris, seeps, springs and wetlands, stick nests, crown closure, amount of snags, and any wildlife seen during the survey. This survey data was used to identify many of the habitats that represent specific wildlife communities across the project area, as well as identify specialized habitat inclusions that influence wildlife distribution and use. Information from these surveys was also used to help identify wildlife needs, identify areas that needed further field survey and validation, and to identify habitat conditions for select threatened and endangered species.

• Using survey information and aerial photographs, unique habitats were validated on the ground. Areas that may be adversely affected by proposed management activities were also identified so that these areas can be either avoided prior to layout or mitigated during layout. Some treatments that are never carried forward as a proposed action are deferred in this way. This also helped to identify areas that should be given preferential consideration, per Forest Plan direction.

• Once preliminary management activities were identified, field reviews were conducted at sites proposed for treatment by a wildlife biologist, forester, forest or biological technician, and botanist. These surveys were in addition to the meandering transects. These were done in an effort to (1) identify unique wildlife and plant communities or habitats, (2) help to identify wildlife needs and habitat improvement opportunities on or near the site, and (3) identify the presence of wildlife threatened and endangered species, species of special concern on the ANF, or species for which there is a potential for a viability concern. These surveys also helped to refine the specific proposed action and often help to modify the treatment boundary (i.e. layout the stand to avoid a within-stand feature or have reserve areas important to wildlife). These surveys are also used to identify site-specific mitigation measures that are carried forward into implementation, as well as to help refine wildlife marking guidelines and recommendations.

• Raptor nest searches have been conducted repeatedly during the roads analysis and EA analysis period, and all stands proposed for treatment are visited to identify nest sites during survey, layout, and implementation. A review of the Forest geographic information systems (referred to as GIS elsewhere in this document) layers established a baseline of information for historic and active raptor nests.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• Small whorled pogonia surveys were conducted in areas of high potential as described by the small whorled pogonia habitat model, as well as on all areas proposed for treatment. To date, over 2,400 acres within the project area have been surveyed and high potential habitat within all stands proposed for timber treatments in particular were surveyed. Additional acres were surveyed during the resource impact review of scattered oil and gas development proposals as they were submitted to the ANF.

• Wetland plant surveys within the project area were conducted by the ANF botanist, the district wildlife biologist/surveyor, and by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (1989). These surveys occurred at larger wetlands and were done primarily to characterize flora on the site and identify threatened and endangered species plant species and species of special concern.

• Site specific plant surveys were conducted within the project area, which include (1) stand surveys used to determine the presence of species of concern or unique elements on a site proposed for treatment, (2) surveys in stands proposed for treatment to determine the presence of any threatened and endangered species plant species, Forest plant species of special concern (RFSS) or plant species where there may have been a viability concern, and (3) road and stand surveys to determine the status of undesirable weeds or non-native invasive plants within the project area. These surveys were conducted using wildlife survey methods as previously described, small whorled pogonia surveys, non-native invasive plants surveys, stocking surveys, or silvicultural data collection.

• Between 1998 and 2010 the project area five summer roost bat surveys were conducted which provided detailed information about the presence of bats in the project area.

Documentation of project level surveys can be found in the project file. Forest-wide survey work identified above is available upon request.

II. Review and utilize Forest-wide monitoring data

In addition to project level surveys identified above, information related to threatened and endangered species and unique plant and animal communities found on the ANF are also collected at the Forest level, often in the most suitable habitat available. Surveys and monitoring conducted across the Forest to date include: • Wetland rare plant survey (1989) • Allegheny River Wilderness Islands mussel surveys • Goshawk Survey (1992) • Mussel and dragonfly surveys for selected streams on the ANF (1994) • Invertebrate surveys for stands affected by elm spanworm 1996 • Songbird surveys at the Hall Barn and on FR 119 (2012) • Firefly surveys in Forest and Warren Counties (June 2012) • Survey and analysis of bat species richness in old growth versus second-growth forest stands, and Forest-wide bat surveys at 397 sites, including five sites within the project area (1997).

Past survey work, including survey protocols and results, are available upon request.

Wildlife monitoring at the Forest level has also been conducted by the Northeast Forest Experiment Station and, to date, wildlife monitoring data has been collected from 53 separate stands across the Forest.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The type of data collected varies by site, but usually includes information related to songbird, small mammal and amphibian communities, and data on deer numbers and habitat conditions.

Research and field biologists at the Northeast Forest Experiment Station have been interpreting the data collected at the above sites to identify habitat conditions specific to the ANF that may affect wildlife distribution and use. Preliminary analysis from this information was used in the Izenbrown Corners EA and the Izenbrown Corners roads report, and this information included the following;

• Identification of within-stand features relating to the presence and abundance of amphibians and reptiles. Within-stand features evaluated include seeps, sterile and vegetated springs, riparian areas, water zones and impoundments, wetland inclusions, surface boulders, and rock and rock shelters. • Identification of bird communities characteristic of a variety of overstory conditions found on the ANF including canopy dwelling species and nesters, species associated with a deciduous overstory with dense canopy closure, species associated with a coniferous overstory with dense canopy closure, species associated with a mixed coniferous and deciduous overstory, primary and secondary cavity nesters, and forest dwelling cavity nesters. • Identification of bird communities associated with specific within-stand features found on the ANF including wooded ravines, species associated with a dense shrub structure (ericaceous shrub, deciduous shrub, coniferous shrub, and herbaceous shrub), and species associated with temporary and permanent upland openings, lowland shrub and upland herbaceous openings, and savannas.

Information from monitoring data collected at these sites is used to assess anticipated effects to wildlife from proposed actions, including changes in wildlife habitat conditions and changes in the wildlife community. Since these sites and treatments are characteristic and representative of those being evaluated within the project area, this information frequently provides the most accurate prediction of anticipated changes to wildlife and wildlife habitat and is also used to help address Forest and project level issues.

Forest-wide Conservation Strategies Developing a conservation strategy requires thoroughly assessing habitat conditions. Through its Forest- wide wildlife monitoring efforts (wetland plant surveys, breeding bird transects, etc.), the ANF has been collecting necessary information from which conservation strategies can be developed. Additionally, the ANF is coordinating with other Forests across the Region, as well as other agencies, to develop conservation assessments and strategies for all of the RFSS. Conservation Assessments have been completed for a number of species and other conservation assessments are in various stages of development or review and include an assessment of habitat conditions, trends, limiting factors, and a summary of survey work completed, including on-Forest monitoring/surveying. Information from draft and final conservation assessments were considered in the effects analysis completed for the Izenbrown Corners EA and Biological Evaluation.

Effects to wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, which are the species most at risk, are evaluated in the Izenbrown Corners Project Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation, and these analyses used the most current and applicable science available to identify the present wildlife habitat condition and the desired future condition. Forest-wide surveys and documentation identified above is available upon request.

III. Identify Present Wildlife Habitat Conditions

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Project level and Forest-wide data is collected, and much of this information is stored in a GIS database. Maps and stand level tabular data are created using GIS to identify and describe forested and non-forested communities, specialized habitats or habitat inclusions, management emphasis areas or areas of special concern. This information is also used to describe the wildlife present condition, identify the wildlife purpose and need, and to identify wildlife habitat improvement work proposed. Information from this section is summarized in this wildlife report, the Izenbrown Corners EA, Biological Assessment, and Biological Evaluation.

This report describes the current wildlife habitat conditions that exist on the Izenbrown Corners project area and evaluates effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat from management activities proposed in the Izenbrown Corners EA. The project area was previously described in the project biological assessment and is hereby incorporated by reference.

The analysis presented considers regulatory direction related to wildlife resources, describes site specific habitat conditions that exist within the project area, and based on current conditions, and identifies the wildlife desired future condition identified in the ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) and management recommendations and treatments to move toward the Forest Plan desired future condition. Wildlife distribution and use is determined by both site specific and landscape level conditions. Therefore, a multi-scale analysis is presented that looks at changes in habitat conditions on specific stands proposed for treatment (fine filter analysis), as well as landscape considerations (coarse filter analysis), such as the availability of habitat within and adjacent to the project area. Although this report summarizes potential effects to species whose viability is considered most at risk (threatened, endangered and sensitive species), more detailed information on threatened and endangered species is presented in the biological assessment and biological evaluation, which are available in the Izenbrown Corners project file.

Regulatory Framework Regulatory direction applicable to the management of wildlife resources includes: • Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended) • Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) • Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended) • National Forest Management Act (NMFA) of 1976 (as amended) • Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) • ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) • Forest Service policy regarding wildlife (FSM 2600)

Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan contains specific goals, objectives, management direction and standards related to management of the Forests’ wildlife resources, which are summarized below:

Goals The following Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management Goals (USDA-FS 2007a, pages 13, 14 & 15) apply to the Izenbrown Corners project:

• Maintain and enhance the distribution and diversity of plant and animal species by providing a diversity of high quality habitats across the landscape. • Contribute to the conservation and enhancement of habitat integrity for species with viability concerns by protecting specific habitat elements crucial to the long-term sustainability of those species. Provide nesting sites, breeding area, and young-rearing habitat relatively free from human disturbance for species with viability concerns.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• In the spatial distribution of habitats, provide habitat connectivity, interior habitat, and remote habitat. • Provide habitat for game species to make opportunities available for quality hunting and fishing experiences while promoting the management of game species that sustains healthy forest understories. • Develop and maintain mast-producing species on a variety of sites including lowlands, mid-slopes and ridge-tops. Maintain a diversity of understory and overstory mast producing species. • In the oak type, habitat management should be directed to sustaining oak mast crops and large den trees in the long term through a combination of thinning, release, prescribed fire and regeneration treatments. • Conserve and enhance native plant diversity, abundance and distribution across the ANF. Explore opportunities for habitat restoration/enhancement and establishment of species in suitable unoccupied habitat. • Develop and implement a proactive, integrated noxious weed and invasive plant management program to conserve forest resources in a manner that presents the least hazard to humans and maintains or restores forest resources.

Objectives The following Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management Objectives (USDA-FS 2007a, pages 18 & 20) apply to the Izenbrown Corners project:

• Enhance wildlife habitat on 1,200 to 1,600 acres each year to provide desired cover and forage conditions. • Manage white-tailed deer populations to sustain herbaceous and woody species diversity across the landscape (10 to 20 deer per square mile). • Manage the following species to ensure a stable or increasing population trend for species with viability concerns: • Active great blue heron colonies; • Occupied northern flying squirrel nesting sites; • Known locations of plant species with viability concerns; • Suitable nesting habitat for yellow-bellied flycatcher; • Active northern goshawk hawk territories; • Active red-shouldered hawk territories; • Known and historic den locations for the timber rattlesnake; • Occupied osprey nesting sites. • Contribute to the recovery objectives for federally threatened, endangered and candidate species by: • Preventing the introduction of zebra mussels into the Allegheny Reservoir and Allegheny River from Forest Service boat launch sites. Assist other agencies in developing and implementing contingency plans and protocols for zebra mussel control and native mussel species protection in the event of zebra mussel incursion; • Providing optimum and suitable vegetative habitat for Indiana bats on a minimum of 30 percent of the ANF; • Maintaining or increasing productivity of bald eagles on the ANF (measured by the number of chicks that successfully fledge). • Complete 300 to 600 acres of invasive plant treatment annually. •

Direction The Izenbrown Corners project area includes a total of 9,477 acres (46% of the project area) of National Forest System lands. These lands are divided into management areas (MAs), each with specific goals and

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

objectives. These include; 2,588 acres in MA 2.2 (27%), 5321 acres in MA 3.0 (56%), and 1,565 acres in MA 8.1 (16%). The wildlife desired future condition and primary wildlife objectives within each of these management areas are described in the Forest Plan (pages 102,109, 113, 145) and hereby incorporated by reference.

Present Condition of Wildlife Habitat The forest composition and structure of the project has been greatly influenced by past timber harvesting activities. Evidence of the railroad-logging era (1900-1930) including railroad grades, cultural remains, and numerous small openings can be observed along the perennial streams in the affected watersheds. Since 1930, forest composition and structure have been affected by varying types and amounts of vegetation management. Recent declines in forest health due to drought, insect pests, and various complexes of diseases plus catastrophic wind storms have altered many forested stands throughout the region causing higher than normal tree mortality with numerous standing dead trees, trees with cavities available to, or made by, wildlife, trees with exfoliating bark, and additional coarse woody material on the forest floor.

The forest types and age classes for the stands in the Izenbrown Corners project area are displayed in Table 1. Primarily, wildlife habitat in the project consists of one principle forest age class. The majority of the project area (98%) is in the mid-structural class (21-150 years old) and is characteristic of that vegetative stage. By far, the dominant forest community types are oak, mixed oak, and Allegheny hardwoods and mixed upland hardwoods composed of black cherry, red maple, beech, and sugar maple. Mast-producing hardwood stands occupy approximately 97% of the project.

Table 1 Current forest condition by management area

MA 2.2 MA 3.0 MA 8.1 MA 8.1 p

project % acres % acres % acres % acres % Ownership area acres Forest Service1 9,491 46 2,588 27 5,321 56 1,565 16 0 0 Non-Forest Service2 11,309 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,650 15 Total 20,800 100 Forested Structural Class3 1,652 Early Structural 81 <1 0 0 81 <1 0 0 0 0 (0-20 yrs.) Mid-Structural 9,194 98 2,558 28 5,214 56 1,558 16 0 0 (21-140 yrs.) Late Structural 63 <1 30 <1 26 <1 7 <1 0 0 (141-300 yrs.) Old Growth (300+) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest Cover Types4 All Oak types (41, 52, 54, 55, 59, 4,505 47 928 10 2,704 28 872 9 60) Maple (76, 84, 85) 155 2 78 <1 72 <1 5 <1 Other Hardwoods (81, 83, 89) 3,679 40 1,016 11 2,062 23 600 6 Conifer (2, 3, 4, 5) 861 9 452 5 369 4 40 <1 Birch (96) 139 1 53 <1 80 <1 6 <1 Openings (97, 98, 99) 122 1 60 <1 25 <1 37 <1 Total 9,461 100 2,587 5,312 1,560 1 - NFS Lands, 2 – Private, 3 - % of NFS MA, 4 - NFS lands only

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Of the 9,477 acre project area (public land acres), <2% (~122 acres) is classified as opening habitat, specifically herbaceous openings and pits, overhead electric rights-of-way or openings associated as lowland shrubs. Other non-forest habitat exists as small inclusions within forested stands in the project and is mostly associated with roads, pipelines, utility corridors, private oil or gas developments, and log landings.

Unique plant communities, specialized habitat (raptor nests), sensitive ecosystems (springs and seeps), snags (standing dead trees), and coarse woody material (down logs) on the forest floor are conditions that would be protected or maintained at desired levels under the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as site-specific design features. Highly valued hard-mast trees (such as oak, etc.), soft-mast producing shrubs (witch hazel), and conifer (hemlock) that are minor components of the forest canopy or understory would be reserved and maintained. These components would be encouraged to increase their distribution in the new early structural forest condition.

Conifer Component Eastern hemlock is found mainly in the Izenbrown Corners riparian corridors and across upland areas near Camp Run, East Hickory Creek, Bimber Run and Bully Hollow Run in the project area (13 stands encompassing 289 acres). Some of the smaller stream corridors lack a conifer overstory and have only a minimal midstory component. There are 13 stands (204 acres) typed as white pine and 21 red pine stands (280 acres) documented in the project area. When it occurs, hemlock inclusions can be found in the understory, midstory and overstory. Approximately 9% of the project area is typed as conifer (50% or more of trees in the stand are conifer) and <1% of the area was recorded as having some conifer as described above.

Hemlock is susceptible to attack by a non-native insect pest; the hemlock woolly adelgid. There are no effective natural or artificial controls in place in the United States. The killing front is in eastern Pennsylvania and is expected to move slowly west and ultimately affect the ANF. Proactive efforts are being considered on the ANF to increase the health and vigor of hemlock and possibly increase its resistance to the insect pest. Another action being considered is to begin supplementing the current hemlock component with species that may provide similar structure or function such as white pine, white spruce, or red spruce. Successful under planting of conifers along stream corridors to increase basal area to 15 will likely increase bird diversity.

Red pine stands in the Economite Area are quickly approaching the stage where they are either collapsing or falling apart. Most of these stands have self-thinned and are now harboring large NNIPs populations. These stands will be harvested and then managed on a short-term cycle (up to 50 years of age) and continuously set back to early structural stands. See the Economite Area Management Plan in the project file for changing management strategy from MA 2.2 and 3.0 to MA 1.0 and 2.2.

Lack of High-Value Soft and Hard Mast-Producing Wildlife Trees and Shrubs Many stands in the project area support a dense understory of beech, striped maple, and birch saplings. This vegetative condition developed over several decades as overstory vegetation (in selected stands) developed natural canopy gaps (from insect infestations, disease, etc.) and as a consequence of past management activities. As a result, increased amounts of sunlight reached the forest floor and created favorable conditions for the growth of understory vegetation. At the same time, the selective browsing by high deer populations over the same period all but eliminated the more desirable trees (yellow poplar, cucumber, oak, and white ash) and shrubs (juneberry, witch hazel, mountain ash, mountain holly, and elderberry) leaving less nutritious (less valuable) species to dominate the understory layer in upland areas.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Oak, mixed oak transition and Allegheny hardwoods (black cherry, red maple and associated species) dominate the forest canopy throughout the project area. However, several stands are somewhat unique as they support small inclusions of yellow poplar, white ash and cucumber-tree. Unfortunately, over the last 20-year period, the hardwood forest on this section of the ANF has experienced four severe droughts and several outbreaks of insect defoliators such as the cherry scallop-shell moth, elm spanworm, and gypsy moth causing high rates of decline and mortality for many tree species. Additionally, the killing front of beech bark disease has reduced the abundance and vigor of the American beech throughout the area. Viruses and canker fungi have been identified as factors in the decline and mortality of white ash. Many factors including the lack of soil moisture and nutrients, Armillaria root rot, sugar maple borer, canker fungi, insect defoliators, injuries and air pollution have adversely affected sugar maple across the project. Not all trees have been lost, as many individual trees have been resilient, halted the decline, and even made a slight recovery in the past several growing seasons. However, taking into account the accelerated decline, the overall vigor, abundance, and diversity of trees species across the project area has suffered.

Woody trees and shrubs from past wildlife management treatments, including witch hazel, juneberry, ironwood, mountain ash, and willow plantings exist in the stream corridors. Efforts have been made to plant openings in the upland as well as these riparian and savanna bottomlands.

Stream and Riparian Values The perennial streams in the project area include: Camp Run (EV), East Hickory Creek, Jaybuck Run, Queen Creek, and Bully Hollow Run which are designated as High Quality - Cold Water Fish (HQ-CWF) streams. The uses for all the remaining streams in the project area are protected as Cold Water Fish (CWF). These include Alex Magee, Waid Run, Bimber Run, Dutchmans Run, Baugher Run, Dunn Run, Myers Run, Dale Run and a number of unnamed Allegheny River tributaries. Most of these streams support native brook trout. There are approximately 1,965 acres of riparian habitat. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) recognizes 1,477 acres of wetlands, with most being along the Allegheny River corridor and its islands.

IV. Identify Desired Conditions for Wildlife

Present Condition and Forest Plan Direction This section describes the present wildlife conditions within the Izenbrown Corners project area and includes a discussion of habitat conditions and the wildlife community that utilizes those habitats. Desired future conditions relating to wildlife and their habitats are identified by looking at the site specific conditions, as well as the desired future condition for wildlife identified in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a). Present condition information is also used to identify the wildlife purpose and need and identify proposed habitat improvement work.

Table 1 displays forest and non-forest communities that currently exist within the project area as a whole, as well as by management area. The following discussion describes the value of each of the communities to wildlife, Forest Plan direction related to that community or habitat component and management recommendations that led to the development of the project purpose and need and proposed wildlife habitat improvement work.

Wildlife Objectives Desired future conditions relating to wildlife and their habitats are identified by looking at the site specific conditions identified in the present condition, as well as the desired condition for wildlife, identified in the Forest Plan. This information is then used to develop activities, or wildlife proposed actions, that will

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 11

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

achieve site-specific wildlife objectives for the project area. Information for the desired future condition is summarized in this wildlife report, the EA, biological assessment, and biological evaluation. Habitat conditions, mitigations, restoration or maintenance activities and wildlife prescriptions in individual management areas are described below:

Management Area 1.0 - Forest-wide, MA 1.0 provides early structural habitat for a variety of game and non-game species. In this management area, vegetation management emphasizes a young forest of hardwood stands with interspersed conifers and openings for a variety of wildlife species.

Management Area 2.2 - Forest-wide, MA 2.2 emphasizes management of older to late structural forest habitat that link relatively large areas of older forests (core areas) across the landscape. In this management area, vegetation management will be completed to meet the objectives for restoring late structural forest conditions. Management will emphasize species with viability concerns, remote and interior species with a high sensitivity to disturbance, and protection of unique macro and micro habitats (e.g. rock/boulder outcropping). Much of the area will generally progress to a late successional condition.

Characteristics (i.e., structure and features of wildlife habitat) of mature forest habitat includes large trees creating a cool shady environment, dead (snags) and dying trees, coarse woody material on the forest floor, large and small trees containing cavities, forest canopy gaps, and an understory containing a variety of tree and shrub species (of various heights and density). The 2007 Forest Plan (page 80) states that specialized habitats and inclusions should receive treatments to specifically benefit game and non-game species, species with viability concerns or unique ecological communities. Proposed wildlife activities include tree, shrub, and conifer planting, fruit tree maintenance, and opening maintenance.

The proposed timber treatments in MA 2.2 will be implemented to achieve the goals and objectives to benefit wildlife and late structural conditions. Canopy gap formation, snags, and coarse woody material on the forest floor are conditions expected to be found and functioning in late successional forest. These features will be maintained by the implementation of standards and guidelines within these stands. An array of silvicultural treatments is proposed to establish conditions that would help re-establish diverse forest cover on some sites. Timber harvests should mimic natural disturbances. Included in MA 2.2 are non-commercial thinning, reforestation, wildlife tree and shrub planting, and fruit tree maintenance treatments. From a wildlife perspective, it is desirable to re-establish diverse forest cover and supplement hard and soft mast on these sites to continue to improve habitat for a multitude of wildlife species throughout the forest development process.

Management Area 3.0 Wildlife Objectives - MA 3.0 provides a forest that is a mix of predominantly shade intolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood stands of various ages and associated understories, and habitat for a diversity of plant and animal species. Habitat management is directed toward emphasizing early structural species, including white-tailed deer in all forest types. Forest managed under MA 3.0 guidelines will result in hardwood and oaks in a variety of age classes with inclusions of conifer, shrub, and herbaceous openings. Specialized habitats and inclusions will receive treatments to benefit small- game, non-game, and certain species with viability concern. Activities will protect spring seeps and other water areas critical to wintering wildlife. Wildlife habitat management would emphasize a variety of timber age classes. Management will recognize deer and turkey wintering areas to provide a sustained supply of winter thermal cover and food. Activities will provide for the retention of dead and down logs to maintain habitat for indigenous species. Proposed wildlife activities include tree, shrub, and conifer planting, apple tree maintenance, and opening maintenance.

Management Area 8.1 Wildlife Objectives - This area is managed to protect congressionally designated Wild and Scenic River corridors. It emphasizes habitat management for threatened and endangered species.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 12

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Forested Habitat Forest communities can be broken down into different structural stages, each of which provides different habitat conditions that support a different assemblage of wildlife. Because wildlife often select a specific community based on the vegetative structure provided, the following includes a discussion of the dominant structure and the availability of each habitat within the project area. A discussion of the structural conditions found on the Forest can be found on pages 3-184 to 3-188 of the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007b), whereas the project area availability of these communities is displayed in Table 1. Additional information on forest conditions, management strategies and specific treatments can be found in the appendix B of Izenbrown Corners EA (Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health).

Early Structural Forest - Early structural forest results from both natural and man-induced disturbances of the forest canopy. These disturbances result in rapid growth of understory vegetation (grasses, forbs, shrubs and young trees), which attract many wildlife species to the site because of the food and cover conditions provided. Of the total species that use this habitat, 30 species inhabit early structural forest exclusively, and another 150 species use a combination of early and mid to late structural communities. Wildlife use of early structural habitat is also affected by the length of time that habitat is available and DeGraaf et al (1992) found that regenerating forest provides the greatest benefit to wildlife when trees are generally less than 10-15 years old. This is due to the rapid growth of the woody vegetation and the short-lived nature of edges created between stands. Representative wildlife species that utilize early structural habitat can be found on page 3-185 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b). Early structural habitat currently exists on approximately <1% of the project area as a whole.

Forest Plan Direction: Forest Plan direction includes providing a diversity of high quality habitats across the landscape (USDA-FS 2007a, 14), although the amount of the different structural stages to be provided varies by management area. In order to maintain or create high quality habitat for game species within MA 3.0, early structural habitat is to be provided on 10-12% of the area (USDA-FS 2007a, 113-114).

Management Recommendations and Considerations: Early structural habitat within the project area will age out prior to this project being implemented. This habitat component will either be increased across the project area. Early structural habitat typically declines in most project areas which is similar to declines that are occurring throughout Pennsylvania and across the Mid-Atlantic Region (Trani et al 2001) and has raised concerns related to the conservation of early structural habitat and wildlife in the Eastern United States (Thompson et al 2001). Because of this decline and considering the present availability of early structural habitat is below Forest Plan objectives, efforts should be made to increase the amount and distribution of this habitat component. Treatments that are partially designed to achieve these recommendations include two-age harvest, shelterwood/final harvest treatments and delayed final harvest. In addition, implementation of proposed aspen clearcuts and canopy gap treatments will create a small early structural forest component within a mature forest stand that many wildlife species prefer or require.

Mid-structural Forest - Mid structural forest includes areas that are between 21 and 150 years of age (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-137), although the structure of this habitat and associated use by wildlife varies somewhat by age. Stands less than 50 years of age have trees five to ten inches in diameter with little or no understory development. Wildlife that occupies these areas is attracted to the dense cover conditions that result in the overstory and the absence of vegetation in the understory. By the time the site reaches 50 years of age the canopy begins to open up and patchy or scattered understory plants develop. This attracts many wildlife species to the site that utilize the developing understory vegetation for foraging or nesting. Mid-structural habitat between 50 and 150 years of age also contains larger diameter trees (12- 20 inches dbh), which results in increased mast production and greater amounts of large woody debris. As a result this older mid-structural habitat attracts many upper canopy and cavity nesting species.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 13

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Wildlife use of mid-structural forest is often determined by the availability of conifer or mast, which can vary by cover type. For example, in years when beech nuts or cherries are plentiful, wildlife spend more time in northern hardwood and Allegheny hardwood stands. Acorns are considered the most important wildlife food in the deciduous forests of North America (McShea and Healy 2002), and the amount and distribution of oak also greatly influences wildlife distribution on the ANF. The presence of conifer can also affect wildlife use, since conifer inclusions can provide feeding, nesting and winter shelter opportunities that pure hardwood stands cannot provide. On the ANF there are 23 species that exclusively utilize deciduous forest, 15 species that use a coniferous site and over 70 species that utilize a mid-structural mixed hardwood/conifer community. Representative wildlife species that utilize mid- structural habitat can be found on page 3-185 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b). Mid-structural forest currently predominates across the project area (~98%) and occurs on MA 2.2, 3.0 and 8.1.

Forest Plan Direction: The Forest Plan requires that a diversity of structural classes be provided across the landscape and Forest-wide, mid structural habitat is to be provided on 72% of the ANF (USDA-FS 2007a, 19). Although the amount mid-structural habitat varies by management area and within MA 3.0, a variety of structural stages should occur with mid-structural conditions predominating (USDA-FS 2007a, 113). Within MA 2.2, existing mid-structural habitat would progress through natural succession or management to late structural/old growth conditions and over time, mid to late structural habitat should occur on over 85% of the forested lands (USDA-FS 2007a, 109). Forest Plan direction also emphasis providing a variety of forest types (USDA-FS 2007a, 14), including providing an oak component on 15% to 20% of the forest, maintaining or enhancing the existing aspen component and providing a conifer component on a minimum of 10% of the ANF (USDA-FS 2007a, 19). Because of the importance of oak to wildlife, the Forest Plan also emphasizes the use of habitat management to sustain oak mast crops (USDA-FS 2007a, 15). There are 184 stands typed as various oak types in this project area, so oak is considered an emphasis species in this project. Landscape burns are proposed in order to improve and encourage oak regeneration.

Management Recommendations and Considerations: Because many forest wildlife species utilize a variety of forest types and structural classes, management should strive to maintain the predominately forested nature of the project area, while improving the diversity of forest types and structural classes across the landscape. Specific management recommendations related to maintaining forest conditions important to wildlife include 1) identify activities that will help increase the availability of hard mast in all forest types, 2) maintain the present distribution of mid-structural forest across the landscape, 3) regenerate remnant aspen stands to help maintain this declining but important forest community 4) implement treatments that will maintain or improve the distribution of conifer and 5) due to the anticipated infestation of the hemlock wooly adelgid, increase the amount and distribution of native conifer species that will be resistant to the hemlock wooly adelgid. Treatments that are partially designed to achieve these recommendations include; aspen treatment and area fencing, oak release, conifer planting and release and prescribed burning.

Late Structural/Old Growth - The Forest Plan defines late structural habitat as forested stands between 151 and 300 years of age, whereas old growth includes forests greater than 300 years old. While there are no stands within the project area that are 151 years old or older, there are areas that contain mid- structural forest that are starting to develop some late structural conditions such as larger diameter trees, increased amounts of dead wood and multiple canopy layers. Research on the ANF has shown that many wildlife species will have higher reproductive success in areas where these late structural/old growth conditions exist. Representative wildlife species that utilize late structural habitat can be found on page 3-185 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Forest Plan Direction: Plan direction related to providing late structural forest varies by management area. Within MA 3.0 late structural forest is to occur primarily as inclusions, particularly in riparian areas

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 14

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

or near key wildlife habitat (USDA-FS 2007a, 113), whereas late structural forest should dominate the landscape within MA 2.2 (USDA-FS 2007a, 109).

Management Recommendations and Considerations: Although only 63 acres of structural forest presently exists in the project area, efforts should be made to promote the structural conditions characteristic of these communities. Specifically, this includes promoting the creation of canopy gaps that result in the development of multiple canopy layers, increasing the availability of large diameter trees, and increasing herbaceous and shrub diversity. Because white pine was more abundant in Pennsylvania old growth forests than it is today, efforts should also be made to increase the distribution of this species across the project area. Although managed forests can have levels of dead wood comparable to that found in old growth stands, they generally lack the larger diameter downed woody debris (USDA-FS 2005b; see also Martin Run dead wood discussion) that is so important to this community. Efforts should be made to increase levels of large woody debris in areas that are being managed to provide late successional/old growth forest conditions. The value of dead wood for wildlife is also discussed below under special and unique features. Treatments that are designed to achieve these recommendations include; creating canopy gaps in mid-structural forest and conifer thinning treatments. In addition, MA 2.2 lands will be allowed to develop late structural conditions through natural processes or non-commercial treatment.

Non-Forested Habitat Openings or non-forested habitat are important habitat for many wildlife species. They provide food and cover requirements for distinct groups of species that require openings, and provide seasonally important elements for many wildlife species that use a combination of forest and non-forest habitat. Regenerating timber stands less than 10 years of age often serves as temporary openings, but wildlife communities associated with upland non-forested habitat are quite different from those found in regenerating stands. The difference is largely due to the amount of dense, continuous herbaceous cover, which lasts longer in permanent openings than in regenerating stands. The presence of upland non-forest vegetation is necessary for over 50 vertebrate species found on the ANF. Nine of these species rely totally on non- forested habitat (adapted from DeGraaf et al., 1992).

The size of an opening is also a consideration; species that utilize non-forest habitat exclusively tend to be found in larger openings, while species that utilize a combination of forest and non-forest types, are generally found using smaller-sized openings. The distribution of non-forested habitat can also greatly influence wildlife use and openings are an important habitat component for upland game birds such as turkey and grouse, as well as many landscape level species such as the red-shouldered hawk, ruffed grouse, white-tailed deer and black bear. These species utilize openings to raise their broods and forage, and need openings to be distributed across their home range.

Non-forested habitat occurs on approximately 131 acres or 1.4% of the project area (18 of 25 sites are greater than one acre). Only four of the wildlife openings are larger than 10 acres in size. Although there are not many openings of size on the federal lands base there are numerous large fields available for wildlife use on the private lands within the project area.

Forest Plan Direction: The Forest Plan recognized the importance of non-forested habitat for wildlife and includes Forest-wide direction related to this community. Specific Forest direction calls for development of openings and grasslands in upland areas to provide brood rearing habitat and habitat for species with viability concerns, sustaining woodcock singing grounds, maintaining existing old field habitat and enhancing food and cover conditions within existing openings (USDA-FS 2007a, 81).

Management Implications and Recommendations: Some of the smaller, existing openings are currently dominated by fern or deer tongue and can be improved by restoring or establishing herbaceous vegetation on the site. This will help to establish the structure preferred for brood habitat, as well as reduce the

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 15

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

encroachment of woody vegetation. In addition to restoration of herbaceous vegetation, activities that help the establishment of native shrubs and conifer should be implemented in order to help promote habitat for declining shrub nesting species, as well as enhance food and cover conditions. Treatments that are designed to improve cover and forage conditions in existing openings and improve the distribution of non-forest habitat include; opening expansion/construction, opening release, opening restoration, establishment of warm season grasses, herbicide application, burning, and shrub, conifer and mast tree planting and fencing. All the gaps in the gap selection cuts will eventually return to a forested condition. They will not be converted to openings and managed as part of the wildlife treatments proposed in the Proposed Action. This will not increase opening habitat in the project area because they will slowly grow into 2-aged stands heading towards late-structural habitat with a multi-tiered canopy.

Landscape Diversity The distribution or mixing of vegetative types, size classes, and other features to a large extent determines the wildlife communities that occur within forest vegetation (Smith 1962 In DeGraaf et al 1992). Horizontal and vertical diversity are two components of habitat structure and the number of species that occupy a given habitat is, in part, a function of vegetation composition and distribution that occur at both the site and landscape scale. Structural conditions that occur at the site or local scale are referred to as vertical diversity, whereas horizontal diversity is the amount of diversity across the landscape. Although vertical diversity has been reduced due to decades of overbrowsing by deer, the deer herd is currently down and opportunities exist to restore shrub and vegetative diversity and improve cover and forage conditions. Due to the predominance of mid-structural forest and a decreasing amount of early structural habitat, horizontal diversity across the project area is declining. The following is a discussion of how horizontal and vertical diversity can affect wildlife distribution and use within the project area.

Vertical Diversity and Wildlife: Vertical diversity refers to the extent to which plants are layered within a site and is evaluated at the stand scale. Stands with a high degree of vertical diversity typically develop multiple vegetative layers and are generally characterized by a diverse overstory, woody mid-story layers, and a well-developed herbaceous and shrub understory. Structural diversity has important implications for wildlife, because many species of songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians have specific requirements for differing amounts of structural diversity in their habitats. While some species require both types of diversity, vertical diversity is probably of greatest importance to birds (Anderson and Shugart 1974; Balada 1975 In DeGraaf et al 1992).

Decades of overbrowsing by deer have reduced the diversity of seedling, shrub and herbaceous species across the Allegheny Plateau (McShea et al., 1997; deCalesta, 1998). Deer have also eliminated or greatly reduced many shrub and herbaceous plant species and increased the levels of interfering vegetation including beech, striped maple, and fern. This has altered the structure and composition of forested stands over what would have occurred naturally had there been less deer browsing. Understory conditions today lack shrubs and often appear open or park-like. This reduction in vertical diversity has been found to reduce bird species diversity and impact wildlife habitat on the ANF (deCalesta 1994, deCalesta 1997). However in the last five years deer densities on the ANF have come down and although the forest is far from recovery, we are starting to see improved plant diversity and vertical structure within portions of the project area.

Forest Plan Desired Future Condition: Forest Plan direction related to improving vegetative diversity and associated vertical structure includes conserving and enhancing native plant diversity, abundance and distribution (USDA-FS 2007a, 15) and managing white-tailed deer populations to sustain herbaceous and woody species diversity across the landscape (USDA-FS 2007a, 20).

Management Implications and Recommendations: Because vertical diversity has been reduced across the project area and considering the deer herd has recently been reduced, management should pursue

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 16

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

activities that will help restore shrub and vegetative diversity and improve wildlife cover and forage conditions. Road management should also help facilitate the harvest of deer by promoting access for hunters on existing roads. Treatments that are partially designed to improve vertical diversity include; conifer release and thinning, herbicide application, prescribed burning, planting in forested and non- forested sites, oak release and creation of canopy gaps.

Horizontal Diversity and Wildlife: Wildlife species composition and abundance is greatly affected by the spatial relationships of available habitat and horizontal diversity refers to the complexity or spatial arrangement of plant communities and other habitats across the landscape (DeGraaf et al., 1992). For example, 72% of all wildlife in a Northern hardwood stand will utilize more than one size class (combination of seedling, sapling, and sawtimber). The bird community in a mature stand that is adjacent to a regenerating stand or opening may be different than the bird community in a stand that is surrounded by mature forest. Therefore, there is often a greater likelihood of meeting more species’ requirements when a variety of habitat conditions are present. Maintaining a variety of age classes and cover types is important for maintaining wildlife diversity in forested landscapes (McShea and Healy 2002), particularly landscape level birds and mammals (DeGraaf et al 1992).

Forest Plan Desired Future Condition: Forest Plan direction related to providing horizontal diversity varies by management area. In order to provide the diversity of structural stages required by many wildlife species, including many game species, landscapes within MA 3.0 should consist of primarily early and mid-structural stages, with some late structural inclusions (USDA-FS 2007a, 113). Landscapes within MA 2.2 should progress toward predominately late structural habitat, with smaller inclusions of early- and mid–structural habitat (USDA-FS 2007a, 106 & 109).

Management Implications and Recommendations: Large forested landscapes such as the project area present more opportunities to concurrently manage seasonal habitats for resident bird species, as well as short and long-distance migrants (DeGraaf et al 1992). Efforts should be made to increase the amount and distribution of this community to better meet Forest Plan objectives within MA 3.0 considering available early structural habitat has been eliminated. Additionally, because many forested species prefer or require landscapes that contain non-forested habitat, efforts should be made to manage or improve existing openings in order to provide desired cover and forage conditions.

Climate Change Climate change is a concern of global scope, and there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the degree and timeframes for geographic shifts of forest communities and species habitat. The contributions of the Izenbrown Corners project to global climate change are uncertain at best, as are the potential effects of climate change on this area over the long-term. Because there is currently no reliable way of predicting future climate change or its effects at the project level, the ANF Forest Plan provides for maintaining a diversity of plant and animal communities that will enhance the resiliency of the forest to respond to these changing conditions. In order to maintain forest ecosystem resistance and resiliency, and therefore integrity, particularly in the face of uncertainties such as future climates, and insect and disease infestations, the ANF Forest Plan emphasizes sustaining a diversity of forest structures and species composition across the landscape, using a flexible, adaptive approach (USDA-FS 2007a, 14, A-2, and USDA-FS 2007c, ROD-24). Izenbrown Corners vegetation treatments are designed to be adaptive and contribute towards these Forest Plan goals and desired conditions, particularly that of sustaining a diversity of vegetation patterns and species composition across the ANF landscape.

Special and Unique Habitat Features Many forest species prefer or require specialized habitats to meet all or part of their reproductive and foraging needs. These features are important because they provide habitat for a broad range of species at various trophic levels. It is also important to maintain these features because these sites often receive a

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 17

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

disproportionate amount of use. Specialized habitats include small pockets of ericaceous or deciduous shrubs for nesting or foraging, regenerating conifer, mast producing trees and shrubs, slash piles, wetlands, water features such as spring seeps and vernal pools, large diameter trees for nesting or roosting, and rock outcroppings for denning or roosting. Streamside habitat and the adjacent riparian zone also add greatly to the habitat diversity found on the forest. Riparian and streamside habitats, as well as ground vegetation associated with wetlands are particularly important and provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including many rare and uncommon species of plants. Buffers on riparian areas may help negate the effects sedimentation caused by future climatic change. Some regions are expected to experience severe changes in precipitation, both increase and drought. There are also a few small scattered pockets or depressional areas that are similar to vernal pools. These sites are characterized by a perched water table with little to no drainage and are often located on the plateau edges or top of drainages. Vegetation on these sites often includes understory hemlock, facultative, facultative wetland and obligate wetland vegetation and sphagnum moss.

Rock outcroppings and rock shelters provide a small but essential habitat feature for many wildlife species. The importance of this unique habitat type also exceeds its relatively minor occurrence in the landscape and rocky habitat provides a range of denning and nesting opportunities.

Standing dead trees (snags) and downed woody material are other structural components that affect wildlife diversity. Over seventy wildlife species on the ANF are known to utilize dead wood. Levels of standing and downed woody debris also vary by stand age and by the amount and type of disturbance that has occurred on the site. The amount of standing and downed woody debris also varies between managed and un-managed stands. Surveys on the ANF (USDA-FS 1995) showed that debris or logs greater than 3” in diameter ranged from 154-886 cu. ft/ac. in un-harvested stands and 806-1646 cu. ft./ac. in salvage stands where dead and dying trees were removed. Additionally, although some of the harvested stands have total amounts of downed woody debris comparable to old growth stands, downed woody debris in harvested stands is smaller in diameter than that found in old growth stands. Downed woody debris in harvested stands also decomposes more rapidly and provides less desirable wildlife habitat than larger diameter material found in old growth and late successional forest stands. Natural disturbances within the project area that have affected the dead wood component on any given site include one or more of the following: 1) concentrated and scattered mortality of beech trees that are dying as a result of the beech bark disease, 2) mortality of sugar maple or ash that are dying due to site or insect and disease conditions 3) mortality in the oak forest resulting from gypsy moth infestations that occurred in the early 1990s and 4) mortality resulting from local wind events.

Approximately 9% of the project area has been identified as stream and floodplain riparian habitat. There are also wetlands, springs seeps and other water sources scattered throughout the project area.

Forest Plan Direction: The Forest Plan recognized the importance of riparian areas and specialized habitats discussed above. Specifically, the Plan calls for the retention of standing and downed woody debris to protect known roost trees and provide future dead wood for wildlife (USDS-FS 2007a, 82), provide den and cavity trees and large downed woody debris in all harvest units, protection of rock complexes, and management of specialized habitats to benefit game, non-game and species with viability concerns (USDA-FS 2007a, 80). The Forest Plan also includes specific direction to protect and maintain riparian habitat, wetlands, springs, seeps and vernal pools (USDA-FS 2007a, 77-78).

Management Implications and Recommendations: Most specialized habitat inclusions are identified during field surveys and monitoring. All sites proposed for treatment have been surveyed by a wildlife biologist and technician in an effort to avoid these areas and minimize potential impacts to wildlife. Specialized habitats identified during field surveys should be avoided during layout or mitigated during implementation.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 18

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

There is generally an adequate distribution of dead wood to meet the needs of many wildlife species due to beech bark disease mortality and decline of sugar maple and ash. Efforts should be made to increase levels of large downed woody debris, since this component is generally lacking in 2nd growth forest. Implementation of many of the design features referenced in this report will help ensure that special and unique features important to wildlife will be maintained.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Proposed Action Activities in Table 2 of the project biological assessment are hereby incorporated by reference. These activities are proposed to achieve the purpose and need for the Izenbrown Corners project and the Forest Plan desired future condition described previously.

No Action No Federal actions would be implemented under this alternative. The proposed Management Area changes, vegetation treatments, reforestation activities, and transportation activities (including horse trail) would not be completed at this time. Only previously approved and routine custodial or maintenance activities would occur in the project area. The Proposed Action would allow ecological processes control vegetation development and habitat changes will occur primarily from natural disturbances and continuing oil and gas development. This alternative provides a baseline or reference point from which effects of the Proposed Action can be evaluated.

Summary of design features, mitigation measures, and forest plan standards and guidelines recommended based on project analysis in the EA, biological assessment, and biological evaluation to be implemented in MA 1.0, 2.2, and 3.0 to maintain wildlife habitat features and protect habitat functions

Design Features are highlighted applications of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In some cases, the standards and guidelines provide options for how they may be applied. A design feature clarifies, where necessary, how these standards and guidelines may apply to specific actions in the project proposal. Design features for the Proposed Action include: • Created permanent openings in MA 1.0 should be one-half to one acre in size, and distribution should be one-tenth to one fifth of a mile apart. • Habitat should be managed to emphasize ruffed grouse and other species associated with early structural stages of vegetation. • No heavy equipment relating to harvest activities will be utilized for harvest within 100 feet of any stream in the project area. • All scattered or groups of blown-down trees within MA 2.2 will be left within the treatment stands to contribute to the coarse woody debris component within the management areas. • All snags (standing dead trees) and den trees will be retained unless considered unsafe during operations under OHSA regulations. • Fencing and herbicide will be accomplished in blocks that allow for landscape and wildlife habitat connectivity. These treatments will allow for wildlife travel lanes such as riparian corridors and other contiguous areas. Timing of treatment will be coordinated with district biologists to ensure habitat connectivity.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 19

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 2080 (Noxious Weeds), 2500 (Watershed and Air), 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Habitat) See Izenbrown Corners EA Wildlife/Biological Section and the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007, 53-54 and 74-78) for reference to applicable Forest Plan Standards and guidelines for a variety of wildlife and water resources. Below are some site specific mitigations where ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines should be applied.

• Compartment/Stand – 328, and 330 - Protect all unique plant communities with ¼ to ½ acre reserve areas with no treatment. If unique plant communities are found while marking, a reserve area with no treatment will be established to protect it. • Compartment 328 - Protect existing vernal pools and uncommon water features with either a 100 foot buffer or ¼ to ½ acre reserve area. If a unique vernal pool is found during marking, protect with reserve areas. • Compartments – 282, 283, and 348 - Protect large rocks, boulders, or outcrops as reserve areas (no treatment buffer zone). If large boulder complexes are found during marking, protect with reserve areas. • Implement the site-specific mitigations on Pages 18 and 19 of the Izenbrown Corners Biological Evaluation.

Affected Environment This section describes the status and distribution of wildlife species that could be affected. It also describes the environmental baseline and relevant habitat components that may or may not be affected by the alternatives. No site specific wildlife related issues were identified during the scoping process. Effects on wildlife will be evaluated by looking at effects to species whose viability is considered most at risk, or Threatened, Endangered and Regionally Sensitive species.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects on Wildlife The following is a discussion of the direct and indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat from activities under each alternative.

Timber Harvest Activities Timber Harvest - Although there are a variety of different treatments, some have similar effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. They have been grouped together to more clearly display anticipated effects. Groups used in this analysis include even-aged partial harvest, even-aged final harvest and uneven-aged management. Although direct effects to individuals will be less with non-commercial treatment, both commercial and non-commercial treatments would result in similar changes in wildlife habitat and both are considered below. Table 2 displays individual treatments for the Proposed Action, the category of timber harvest and the time period in which each activity is expected to occur. Effects of timber harvest on wildlife are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 20

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 2 Proposed Action - commercial and non-commercial timber harvest

Activity Dates Implemented Acres Even-aged Final Harvest Shelterwood Sequence 2015-2035 2018/1,009/505 Early Successional Adaptive Management (ESAM) 2015-2035 224 Clearcut 2015-2035 111 Total Final Harvest 840 Even-aged Partial Harvest Crop Tree Release 2015-2035 790 Reforestation 2015-2035 2995 Total Partial Harvest 3785 Uneven-aged Management Selection or Patch Cuts 2015-2035 48 Total Uneven-aged Management 48 Total Harvest 1.769

Even-aged Partial Timber Harvest: By 2035, even-aged partial harvest would occur on approximately ~9% of the project area. These treatments would result in the removal of approximately one-third of the trees during harvest, generally including material that is >= 5 inches in diameter. Mature forest conditions would continue to predominate on all sites receiving a partial harvest treatment, with approximately two-thirds of the existing overstory being retained. Although the residual crown closure and composition of material removed (conifer vs. hardwood) would vary somewhat by site and forest type, at least 50% crown closure would be maintained on sites proposed for partial harvest treatment.

Direct effects to wildlife from these types of treatments are generally short-term (<5 years) and may involve some direct mortality of some species during logging if cutting occurs during the breeding season. Cutting may result in avoidance of the site by some species sensitive to disturbance, while other species would be attracted to these sites because of the increased slash and associated cover.

Partial harvests alter stand structure and understory conditions by removing small to medium diameter trees and increasing light levels to the forest floor. This promotes the establishment of woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous (grass/forbs/fern) vegetation and is expected to improve wildlife forage and cover conditions on the site.

Even-aged partial harvest treatments would result in some changes in stand structure but wildlife diversity on these sites is not expected to be altered, since mature forest conditions will continue to predominate following treatment. This is supported by on-Forest monitoring of songbird, amphibian and small mammals in areas receiving partial harvest activities (deCalesta 1998). However, the abundance of certain species may change depending on the individual stand changes in the understory and midstory that develop. Although even age partial harvest is expected to favor mature forest species over early successional species, Forest monitoring indicates that some early successional species such as the mourning warbler will occur in low numbers on sites receiving a partial harvest treatment.

Even-aged Final Timber Harvest: Even-aged final harvest treatments are proposed on approximately ~9 % of the project area. As with partial harvest activities, effects include some direct mortality if cutting occurs during the breeding season and some species that are sensitive to disturbance would avoid these areas. Effects of these treatments on wildlife differ from those of partial harvest treatments since most of the mature overstory is removed. Although partial harvest treatments result in relatively minor changes in

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 21

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

wildlife use, final harvest treatments can result in a much more dramatic change and some mature forest wildlife may be displaced for up to 50 years, until a predominantly mature canopy is re-established. Reduction in overstory trees also results in a tremendous increase in herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and tree seedlings. This flush of understory vegetation provides habitat for early-successional species, as well as mature-forest species which also utilize seedling/sapling habitat.

Due to increases in herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, final harvest treatments are expected to favor early successional species over species that prefer or require mature forest conditions. Although species diversity is not expected to decrease on sites receiving a final harvest treatment, there will be a short term increase in the abundance of early successional species and a reduced abundance of some mature forest species following treatment. This increase in early successional species is considered short-term in nature, because early successional habitat conditions decline within 10 years and early successional species are replaced by wildlife that prefer the structural conditions provided by sapling/pole stands and some mature forest species (Thompson 2001, DeGraaf et al 1992). Reserve and wildlife trees are retained during all regeneration harvest activities on the ANF and the species present following regeneration harvest are expected to be similar to those that occupy the regeneration stage under natural succession (DeGraaf et al. 1992, DeCalesta 1998).

Uneven-aged Management: Uneven-aged management includes GAP or Group Selection Cut harvest and is proposed on 48 acres of the project area. These treatments are preceded by a shelterwood harvest (described above) that results in establishment of seedlings on the site.

Group selection is an uneven-aged regeneration technique and involves harvesting all trees in small groups, as well as harvesting individual trees between the groups. Group selection should generally follow patch selection applied across the stand. Every patch selection cut in the stand should apply appropriate reforestation practices to develop a new seedling age class with that entry. Single tree selection harvests in future entries may be necessary to develop additional advanced seedling regeneration outside previously created groups.

New standards and guidelines for the use of uneven-aged management will allow for larger group opening sizes, with the intent of increasing the success of this system on the ANF and regenerating a greater diversity of tree species, including shade-intolerant (black cherry, yellow poplar, ash, northern red oak) and mid-tolerant (red maple, birch, cucumber) species that are presently not subject to substantial forest health concerns. Group selection, to meet specific management area objectives, is appropriate with varying group sizes as specified below:

• Upland hardwoods: Generally 1 to 2 acres; up to 3 acres in stands where black cherry and tulip poplar comprise at least 40 percent of the overstory stocking. • Northern Hardwoods: 0.5 to 2 acres • Hemlock: 0.5 to 2 acres • Allegheny hardwoods: 2 to 3 acres • Oak hardwood: 1 (chestnut and white oaks) to 3 (northern red oaks) acres

Once applied, groups would occupy up to 15 to 20 percent of a stand to provide full sunlight conditions on the ground that enables the establishment, development, and growth of a diversity of seedlings. The groups would normally be purposely located where tree seedlings are already established in order to assure reforestation success for the same reasons discussed above for shelterwood removal cutting and two-aged harvesting. Each group selection cut in conjunction with single tree selection as necessary, occurs generally 15 to 20 years apart, and is designed to create temporary gaps in the forest canopy. Over the long term, red maple, birch, and other mid-shade tolerant species would dominate most openings, while some shade-intolerant species such as yellow poplar and black cherry would persist in the center of

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 22

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

the larger openings. Shade-tolerant species (eastern hemlock, American beech, sugar maple) would dominate the edges of the openings. Standard harvests in this category generally result in an average relative density of 50 percent across the stand. Because a mature overstory would continue to predominate on most of the stand, group selection would provide habitat for primarily mid to late successional wildlife species (USDA-FS 2007A). On the remainder of the site, treatment would involve removing up to one-third of the overstory trees in all size classes while retaining approximately two thirds of the existing overstory. It is anticipated that the distribution of groups will vary by site, creating heterogeneous stand conditions because the distribution and size of groups will be determined by the species of tree seedling established.

This treatment would provide habitat for primarily mature and late-successional species, including many species that prefer or require a small seedling forest component since a mature overstory is retained on most of the area treated. Also the 3 acre groups would be large enough to provide habitat for some shrub or brushland species (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003), many of which are declining regionally. As in even- age treatments, species sensitive to disturbance would likely move off the area during logging, while other species would be attracted to the increased levels of slash created on the site. Because one of the objectives of this treatment is to create late structural conditions, only wood greater than 10” in diameter will be removed and greater amounts of large woody debris will be left on site, than with even age harvest.

Reforestation Activities

Site Preparation - Site Preparation is proposed on approximately 6% of the project area. This treatment is proposed as a non-commercial reforestation treatment and results in the removal of woody vegetation in the midstory and reduces or eliminates habitat for some intermediate canopy nesting birds. Adverse effects include direct mortality and avoidance during treatment, although direct mortality of wildlife will be reduced with implementation of Forest-wide standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a, 80). Effects of site preparation are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Herbicide application (regeneration treatments, oak enhancement/planting, landscape underburn) Herbicide application is proposed on approximately 30% of the project area. Effects of herbicide application on aquatic and terrestrial communities are discussed on pages 3-215 to 3-217 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b), as well as in Appendix G1 (USDA-FS 2007d). As described in the FEIS, effects of herbicide application on wildlife are determined largely by the dependence of the individual species on the woody and herbaceous vegetation affected by treatment. Many of these effects are short- term in nature and considering all forested sites proposed for herbicide application will be followed by a removal cut within 5-10 years, long-term effects on wildlife will be determined largely by the dramatic changes in vegetation following the final harvest treatment (described previously).

Fence construction and maintenance - This treatment reduces deer browsing and promotes a greater diversity of seedlings, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation on the site. Deer is the species most affected by this treatment, since increases in forage would be unavailable. Movements for other large mammals would also be somewhat restricted by fencing. However the movements of most species will be unaffected and available food and cover will continue to be available in adjacent stands. Effects of area fencing are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Release – Release treatments will occur in pole stands that have been previously regenerated and result in the removal of regenerating pin cherry and striped maple. Like site preparation, this treatment would reduce habitat for some canopy nesting birds on the affected site and adverse effects include direct mortality and avoidance during treatment. Although these effects would be reduced with implementation of Forest standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a, 80) and tree regeneration would continue to be

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 23

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

available and provide habitat for bird species that utilize regenerating trees for reproduction or foraging. Effects of release are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Fertilization - Fertilization accelerates the growth of woody vegetation, particularly black cherry. Since fertilization essentially speeds up the development of sapling size trees, the primary effect of this treatment on wildlife is that the availability of seedling habitat may be reduced somewhat within five to ten years following treatment. Also some species will be displaced during implementation. Effects of fertilization are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Planting – This treatment involves planting desirable tree species on sites that currently have a predominance of undesirable herbaceous and tree species. Adverse effects to wildlife include short term avoidance during planting, whereas potential long term benefits may be realized due to the increased vegetative diversity that occurs on the site.

Mechanical scarification - This treatment involves traversing the site with a small machine that rakes the forest floor. The objective is to mix the forest floor and mineral soil surface, increase acorn and mineral soil contact, and lightly bury acorns in the surface soils. While there will be disturbance to the top few inches of soil during implementation, this treatment is not expected to result in wildlife mortality. Also, any change in habitat will be short term (less than 1 year) and litter and ground cover will be replaced within a year of treatment. Effects of scarification are also discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b).

Prescribed fire (includes landscape underburning) – Prescribed burning is proposed on approximately 72% of the project area. Anticipated effects of burning on wildlife are discussed on pages 3-217 to 3-218 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-217-218) and the following is a summary of the effects discussed.

Moderate intensity burns will be prescribed on all sites in order to meet management objectives related to establishment of seedlings and most undesirable direct effects are overcome by choosing proper times, places and methods of prescribed burning. Although some direct mortality is expected to occur, prescribed burning in the southeast indicates that deaths of wild animals are seldom attributed to fire (Landers 1987) and the ability of many species to go underground or move off the area during burning reduces fire related mortality (Wood 1981). Proposed burning will consist of relatively slow moving head-fires or backing fires, methods that reduce direct mortality of wildlife.

Indirect effects of proposed burning include modifications or changes in conditions on the affected sites. In the short term, effects on vegetation from burning include maintaining relatively open understory conditions followed by development of herbaceous and woody vegetation. Vertical structure may be temporarily reduced on prescribed burn sites, overall plant species diversity is expected to increase on the site (Hays unpublished 2001), as well as create more complex understory conditions then existed prior to the burn. Proposed burning may result in mortality of some overstory trees. However the creation of dead and dying trees provide important foraging sites for woodpeckers and other bark gleaning species such as the black and white warbler. Snags also provide perching/hawking sites and roosting/nesting habitat. Prescribed fire will stimulate understory herbaceous and woody plant species, especially those that are fire-adapted (i.e., mountain laurel, blueberry, and huckleberry. These sites are expected to be particularly attractive to wildlife, since the structure and vegetative diversity in adjacent stands have been reduced by deer.

It would take several years for many of the above effects to occur on sites that receive multiple burns. The effects related to increased vegetative structure and diversity and the associated effects on wildlife habitat would not occur until the final burn is completed. The final burn may not occur until the next

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 24

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

cycle through this same project area. Direct effects to wildlife discussed above would also be greater on sites receiving multiple burns. These effects would not be expected to reduce species abundance or diversity because of the small acreage being treated at any one site and the widespread availability of untreated habitat.

Wildlife habitat improvement - Based on field surveys and project area analysis, the interdisciplinary team has evaluated the Izenbrown Corners project area for opportunities to maintain and restore vegetation that has diminished or changed due to past management, insect and disease outbreak, and deer browsing. The project area contains a diversity of soft and hard mast producing trees and shrubs. In some areas, continuous forest canopy has been reduced or individual mast trees have been affected as a result of the insect and disease (beech scale). The team has evaluated opportunities to restore and improve upland vegetative components to benefit wildlife, including planting a diversity of trees and shrubs. Shrubs and trees will be planted in constructed openings and stands to receive treatments. This will provide future forage and cover for a variety of wildlife species. Some areas will be under-planted with a variety of trees and shrubs including a proposal to underplant chestnut trees in oak stands. Should reforestation efforts be successful and early structural forest habitat (of desired species) become established on its own, acres of planting to improve wildlife habitat may be modified or decreased depending on the availability of planting sites. The timing of some wildlife planting is dependent on the prior completion of herbicide and site prep treatments (through reforestation efforts). Installation of fencing and cribs or tree shelters will preserve planted species by protecting them from deer browsing. Some sites may not need protection if a treatment is fenced through silvicultural efforts. Fencing may not be necessary if seedlings can be planted among and beneath existing tree tops that will provide deer browsing protection.

Species planted or seeded may include white pine, white spruce, American chestnut, witch hazel, elderberry, mountain ash, apple, winterberry, hawthorn, crabapple, dogwood, chokeberry, and high bush blueberry. One concern is the spread of viburnum beetles in under-plantings and fenced cribs in wildlife openings. Chokeberry, elderberry and dogwoods are being planted in wildlife openings as substitutes for viburnum. White pine and white spruce will be planted in areas to provide a future conifer component. In anticipation of the spread of the introduced hemlock wooly adelgid, an insect proven fatal to the Eastern hemlock, these trees will supplement and provide future conifer cover for species requiring this type of conifer cover. Although conifer cover in the form of hemlock is fairly common in the riparian areas and in the understory in upland terrain, its future presence might be jeopardized as insects and disease concerns (hemlock woolly adelgid) may reach the area and affect the abundance of this native conifer. Proactive efforts are being proposed on the ANF to provide supplemental conifer cover through planting for the future such as white pine and white spruce that are similar in structure and function to the hemlock. With the onset of beech scale and other insect and disease problems, mast trees in the area have been reduced. Efforts will be made to establish midstory and understory hard and soft mast in certain areas. Species planted may include shagbark hickory, butternut and American chestnut on specific sites. Substitutions of plants could occur depending on final site selection and availability of stock.

Wildlife openings in general provide important nesting, feeding, and breeding opportunity areas for a wide variety of wildlife species. This project proposes 15 acres of opening construction, 69 acres of opening release, pushing back edge encroachment in some openings and the conversion of 12 acres of forest at four upland sites into managed opening habitat (grass strips) as well.

Restore and maintain openings - Opening restoration and release is proposed for 58 acres on 11 sites. Restoration would occur in existing openings that are dominated by fern and invasive grasses, as well as in openings that are starting to lose their forb and legume component. There would be no tree removal on sites proposed for this treatment. Activities involve plowing, disking or dozing vegetation and manual or mechanical establishment of cool season grasses and forbs or warm season grasses on the area treated. The objectives of these treatments are to replace existing fern or invasive grasses with more desirable

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 25

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

herbaceous vegetation and improve wildlife cover and forage conditions. Because these openings are relatively small in size or would be scattered with other forest vegetation, these treatments are expected to benefit primarily mature forest species that also utilize a small non-forest component. Adverse effects of this treatment on wildlife include possible direct mortality and avoidance during implementation. However, any displacement would be short term and will not last beyond the season the opening is reconditioned.

Opening release/edge encroachment - Opening maintenance is proposed on 69 acres at 21 sites. Release would also occur in existing openings and consists of removing invasive woody vegetation, mowing and topdressing (applying lime and fertilizer) existing openings, new openings and re-conditioned openings, so that legumes and forbs established on the site and desired wildlife cover and forage conditions are maintained. Adverse effects could include potential mortality during mowing, so implementation will be seasonally restricted to the non-nesting season (USDA-FS 2007a, 81).

Opening construction - Development of non-forested habitat is proposed on 12 acres on three sites. Treatment involves clearing all vegetation on the site and establishment of cool season grasses and forbs by herbicide, plowing and seeding. This treatment would provide the stand structure and vegetation that would exist in small naturally occurring forested openings. The objective is to improve the distribution of turkey brood habitat, as well as provide roosting and foraging habitat for a variety of other wildlife. As described previously, wildlife use of an opening is partially determined by the opening size and because the proposed openings will only be five acres or less in size, they will be utilized primarily by mature forest species that prefer or require the structure provided by small to medium sized openings. The proposed openings will not be large enough to attract grassland species, or species such as the cowbird, which prefers larger openings.

Adverse effects of this treatment on wildlife include possible direct mortality and avoidance during timber harvest and opening construction and effects include displacement of some mature forest species from the acres affected. The proposed opening will be constructed as an inclusion within the larger forested landscape because of its small size. Mature forest species would not be displaced from the area, nor are there any long-term avoidance effects anticipated.

Mowing - Opening maintenance is proposed on 98 acres, on 11 sites under the Proposed Action. This treatment consists of mowing and topdressing (applying lime and fertilizer) existing openings, new openings and re-conditioned openings, so that legumes and forbs established on the site are maintained over the long-term and in order to provide desired wildlife cover and forage conditions. Adverse effects include potential mortality during mowing. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure is expected to reduce wildlife mortality and avoidance. • In order to minimize impacts to wildlife, mowing of permanent openings will be restricted to the following period (June 15-July 31).

Tree/shrub planting and fencing - Non-forest planting of trees and shrubs is proposed on a total of 19 sites. All planting would occur on sites where the objective is to enhance non-forest habitat by improving cover/forage conditions. This treatment is expected to benefit a variety of game and non-game wildlife by improving nesting and hiding cover, as well as by providing a more reliable source of soft mast. Only native shrubs would be used and emphasis would be placed on species that produce fruit that persists into the late fall/early winter months. Since experience on the ANF has shown that most native shrubs cannot be established without protection from browsing, comparable acres of fencing and tube installation are proposed. Proposed fencing as 172 fenced cribs would involve a combination of the following: • Construction of individual 6 ft. fences around planted shrubs, • Construction of 10 X 40 ft. cribs in which 10-20 plants would be planted, and • Use of 5 ft. tree shelters.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 26

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Prescribed fire – Prescribed burning is proposed to maintain warm season grasses on a total of 30 acres at 1 site. This site (Hall Barn property) an existing opening and burning is proposed to reduce woody vegetation and maintain warm and cool season grasses on the site. Direct effects include possible mortality of slow moving species during burning. However implementation would be done prior to nesting and burning would involve a slow moving backing fire. This would allow most species to move off the site, resulting in lower direct mortality to wildlife (USDA-FS 2007b 3-17 to 3-18). Indirect effects include the long-term maintenance of the grass/forb community on sites treated.

Herbicide - Herbicide treatments are proposed for 98 acres on 17 sites. Effects of herbicide application on aquatic and terrestrial communities are discussed on pages 3-215 to 3-217 of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b), as well as in Appendix G1 (USDA-FS 2007d). As described in the FEIS, effects of herbicide application on wildlife are determined largely by the dependence of the individual species on the woody and herbaceous vegetation affected by treatment. Many of these effects are short-term in nature and, because all forested sites proposed for herbicide application will be followed by a removal cut within 5-10 years, long-term effects on wildlife will be determined largely by the dramatic changes in vegetation following the final harvest treatment (described previously).

Aspen regeneration – This treatment is proposed on 10 acres of mature aspen. They will be cut in order to allow these stands to regenerate from root suckers. Early structural aspen is a valuable food and cover source for grouse and fits in under MA 1.0 as described in the Forest Plan. This site contains remnant clones of aspen that are over mature and without disturbance in the near future, this component will be lost. Treatment is proposed to stimulate root suckering and regenerate and maintain existing aspen in this area.

Proposed regeneration could result in some direct mortality during cutting as well as short term avoidance of the site during implementation. Indirect effects of regeneration harvest include long-term maintenance of the aspen community in this area, and long-term wildlife benefits to wildlife that prefer or require aspen, particularly ruffed grouse.

Underplanting mast/conifer species and group selection cuts - This treatment is proposed on approximately 53 acres on 10 sites. It involves planting mast or conifer species and to speed up the creation of a multi-story canopy - vertical diversity. In order to help restore shrub and vegetative diversity on the project area and improve wildlife cover and forage conditions, shrub under-planting is to be implemented on suitable sites across the project area. Regarding conifer planting, it is recommended that white pine be planted on dry sites and white spruce be planted in moist sites. Conifer species may be mixed or substituted due to a change in site condition, canopy closure, exposure, etc. White pine and white spruce can become established in openings and the understory with partial forest canopy. Spruce will (generally) not need to be protected from deer browsing.

Prune and release fruit trees – Over 980 fruit trees have been identified in 16 openings for prune and release treatment. Pruning involves cutting dead wood and competing vegetation from existing trees and release involves girdling trees within 50 feet of the apple tree being treated. Both activities are expected to increase fruit production and vigor on existing trees, improving forage and cover conditions for many wildlife species. Wildlife mortality of breeding adults or young of the year is not anticipated because both activities will occur during the winter months.

Planting butternut - This activity is proposed to be implemented at two sites (the Hall Barn property) and on a long linear opening (C/S 280/004). These butternut trees (an ANF RFSS) will be planted and serve as small seed orchards for replanting at other locations in the future.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 27

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Group selection/canopy gaps – This treatment is proposed on 176 acres in MA 2.2. All the sites have closed canopy conditions that allow enough light to reach the forest floor and develop shade tolerant vegetation. The understories on all sites are dominated by fern due to past overbrowsing by deer. This treatment involves commercial or non-commercial timber harvest to open up the canopy and promote development of desired tree species, herbaceous vegetation and shrubs. Gaps up to 3 acres in size around selected trees are proposed to ensure adequate light for desired intolerant vegetation and to reduce the re- establishment of overstocked species. The primary objective of this treatment is to improve stand structure in existing homogeneous pole stands. The increased vertical diversity that results on these sites is expected to increase stand and landscape level diversity and improve habitat for a wide variety of species. Treatment will be restricted to the non-nesting season to eliminate potential impacts to breeding birds and direct impacts are restricted to short-term behavioral avoidance during implementation.

Install nest boxes - 5 nesting boxes for northern flying squirrels, and 50 bluebird boxes are proposed for installation. These nesting boxes will be installed in natural or man-made open areas to provide and supplement den trees that have been lost as a result of insect and disease or natural decline. They are meant to provide nesting and roosting opportunities in openings or along conifer dominated drainages for forest species of concern. Wildlife nest box structures (artificial) will be placed in a variety of habitats, but concentrated in natural or man-made openings.

Rehabilitate/construct vernal pools – 1 small, shallow pond created by a man-made dam will be developed in C/S 328/038 with shallow water table. This pond is meant to develop amphibian habitat in an area where it is lacking. The pool provides valuable breeding and foraging habitat for many amphibian species as well as drinking sources for many other species.

Release – Oak release occurs in closed canopy non-oak stands with a large oak component. Sites selected include stands that are likely to provide preferred cerulean warbler habitat due to their component of multiple oak species and close proximity to water. This treatment may be done commercially as a partial harvest treatment and non-commercially. Non-commercial treatment consists of girdling both oak and non-oak trees in order to release suppressed oak trees and increase mast, promote growth and development of existing white oak and create small canopy gaps to encourage use of the site by cerulean warblers. In addition, girdled trees will increase the amount of standing and future large downed woody debris on the site. Due to the collective increase in mast production, large woody debris, and increased vertical diversity resulting from canopy gaps, it is anticipated that habitat for mid- to late successional forest species will be improved on the sites treated. Direct effects include disturbance during implementation, although because no trees will be felled, effects are expected to be short term (one season) and minor.

It is anticipated that between 10% and 20% of the trees within any stand will be killed. Additionally, since the release component is not uniform, treatments will be scattered and highly variable and this treatment is expected to largely mimic individual or pockets of tree mortality that occurs naturally.

Grass and forb seeding - This treatment includes approximately 35 acres of grass/forb seeding. Seeding would occur on landings and skid trails disturbed during logging. Individual sites to be seeded are approximately ¼ acre in size and would be well distributed with at least one landing in each unit proposed for timber harvest. The seed mix used includes species that would stabilize the site, as well as species that are known to be utilized by wildlife for forage and cover. Effects of providing small openings to wildlife are well documented (Tucker 1992) and this treatment would improve habitat for a variety of game and non-game wildlife species. Potential adverse effects to wildlife include possible mortality or avoidance during treatment, and due to the small size of the areas seeded, there are no long term effects anticipated. These small openings will not change the habitat conditions within the affected stand, but

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 28

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

rather serve as a within-stand wildlife habitat inclusion and the wildlife community would be largely determined by the predominant structural conditions of the forest around the landing.

Non-native invasive plants - Noxious weed control (NNIP treatments) will occur on approximately 600 acres (openings and other stands), mainly along roadsides to control the spread of species including bull and Canada thistle, Japanese barberry, or multi-flora rose. Reduction of these species will allow for the establishment of native or more desirable species to take root.

The following activities are prescribed in order to maintain or enhance wildlife food and cover habitat and begin to restore the diversity of plant species in the project area. Tables 3 and 7 (end of this document) summarize the proposed wildlife habitat improvement projects under the Proposed Action in the Izenbrown Corners EA. Table 3 Proposed wildlife structures Butternut Seed Compartment/ Bluebird Northern Flying Pond Orchard & Parking Areas Stand Boxes* Squirrel Boxes Rehabilitation Fence 280/042 5 0 1 1 0 327/048 0 5 0 0 0 327/063 0 0 0 1 0 327/064 5 0 0 1 0 327/066 5 0 0 1 0 328/024 5 0 0 0 0 328/038 5 0 0 0 1 328/043 5 0 0 0 0 328/046 3 0 0 0 0 328/047 3 0 0 0 0 328/051 3 0 0 0 0 328/052 5 0 0 0 0 330/023 5 0 0 0 0 330/043 5 0 0 0 0 330/044 5 0 0 0 0 333/001 5 0 0 0 0 348/049 10 0 1 0 0 349/006 5 0 0 0 0 Totals 79 5 2 4 1

Transportation management activities Roads can provide wildlife habitat and adversely affect wildlife distribution and use, as well as directly affect terrestrial species habitat by altering the physical habitat conditions through establishment of a roadbed. Effects can be both positive and negative. Negative effects can occur if the species or its habitat is displaced by the road. Many species are sensitive to human disturbance and adverse effects from a road may occur due to increased traffic use or if new access is provided into an area that is presently unroaded. Positive effects may result for species that utilize the herbaceous Rights-of-Way (ROW) associated with roads, or in the case of low standard roads, the roadbed itself.

The status of the present road system within the project area, including identification of roads that are presently needed to meet wildlife objectives and road management recommendations related to protecting wildlife and providing hunter access are documented in the Izenbrown Corners transportation report (USDA-FS 2013c). This report integrates resource recommendations and concerns and provides a discussion of road related effects to wildlife. Information provided will not be repeated in the Izenbrown Corners EA, but is incorporated by reference.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 29

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The following is a discussion of transportation activities that are expected to have effects on wildlife or wildlife habitat. Effects on water quality and sedimentation are also discussed in the project biological assessment and biological evaluation.

Road Construction: Direct effects are limited to activities that occur to the roadbed and the proposed ROW. It may also include shaping, adding culverts, improving drainage, and applying surfacing material. The effects also include a short term increase in sediment, as well as possible mortality to less mobile wildlife species and behavioral avoidance of some wildlife species during construction. Road construction is proposed on 3.1 miles for new corridors such as FR 512, FR 555A, FR 556A, FR 558A, FR 558B and FR 855. Road construction is also proposed on 5.1 miles of existing corridors as FR 112C, FR112CA, FR 555AA, FR 555B, FR 557A, FR 558, FR 558C, FR 558D, FR 558 and FR 698.

Road Reconstruction: Direct effects are limited to activities that occur to the roadbed and the proposed ROW. It may also include shaping, adding culverts, improving drainage, and applying surfacing material. The effects also include a short term increase in sediment, as well as possible mortality to less mobile wildlife species and behavioral avoidance of some wildlife species during construction. Using an existing corridor would raise the standard of existing OGM roads and reduce potential long term sedimentation as described under physical environment.

Road reconstruction (realignment) would occur on 0.4 miles of system roads. The use of existing corridors would minimize potential for impacts to wildlife resources, since a new ROW would not have to be cleared. The risks of direct impacts are greatly reduced and effects are limited largely to behavioral avoidance during implementation. This work would also raise the standard of the existing forest road corridors and reduce potential long term sedimentation.

Monitoring on the ANF indicates that effects of roads on wildlife vary. As described below specifically for the northern goshawk, use of an area by wildlife is more often affected by the amount of road use rather than the mere presence of the road. This is a consideration when assessing effects of new road construction proposed in the project area, since the new roads proposed under the Proposed Action will be closed to the public.

Road Decommissioning: Decommissioning is proposed on 0.6 miles of FR 555A and FR 556, and 0.6 miles of Non-FSR. This activity would eliminate vehicular access and reduce both disturbance and sedimentation, which will produce some benefit to wildlife. Additionally, adverse impacts to small mammals and amphibians will be reduced somewhat when vegetation is re-established on the old road ROW. The non-FSR road will involve the restoration of the current horse trail corridor off FR 512. Long term benefits to wildlife sensitive to disturbance will be realized because these are permanent closures.

Habitat condition changes This section describes changes in habitat conditions resulting under each of the alternatives considered in the Izenbrown Corners EA and will be used to asses effects to threatened and endangered species described previously. Table 4 displays forest and non-forest conditions that presently occur within the project area, as well as habitat conditions that will occur under each of the alternatives over 20 years. The CE analysis period spans the thirty year period between 2005 and 2035, displaying changes in habitat during this period.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 30

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 4 Habitat condition changes

Year 2015 2035 No Action Proposed Action Community Ac % Ac % Ac % Forest Early Structure 81 <1% 0 0% 618 6% Mid-structure 9,194 97.1% 9,275 98% 8,682 92% Late Structure 25 <1% 25 <1% 25 <1% Old Growth 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 Total Forest 9,300 99% 9,300 99% 9,325 99% Non-Forest 121 1% 121 1% 170 1%

Most forested habitat will continue to occur as early and mid-structural habitat under both alternatives. Those stands over 150 years old will begin to display some late structural or even old growth characteristics. The change in non-forested habitat under the Proposed Action is due to openings that would result due to proposed wildlife habitat improvement work (26 acres). The greatest change between alternatives is in the amount of future early and mid-structural habitat that will be provided under the Proposed Action in 2035 (Table 4). In the first ten years, available early structural habitat will continue to decline and then recover in the second 10 year period under the Proposed Action. Early structural habitat will be completely eliminated from the project area (2035) under the No Action alternative and increase the amount of mid-structural habitat under the No Action alternative, as existing seedling stands mature.

Changes in early structural habitat and most of the changes in mid-structural habitat under the Proposed Action are due to proposed final harvest treatments. Most of the total final harvest proposed will occur within the second 10 years and by 2035, early structural habitat will increase across the project area under this alternative. By 2035 early structural habitat will increase to 6% of the project area under the Proposed Action, while mid-structural habitat will have a corresponding decrease at this time.

When viewed over time, the Proposed Action will maintain early and mid-structural habitat close to levels that existed in 2003, whereas the No Action alternative will continue the declining trend in early successional habitat and increasing trend in mid-structural habitat.

Wildlife habitat improvement work in non-forested communities under the Proposed Action emphasizes restoration and maintenance of existing openings and fern infested areas, improves wildlife cover and forage conditions, increases habitat for shrub nesting species, improves the availability and distribution of seasonal forage important to wildlife (green herbaceous vegetation, soft mast and winter forage production) and improves the distribution of non-forest habitat. Under the No Action alternative, there would be no improvement in wildlife cover and forage within existing openings. The distribution of small non-forested habitat would decline as wildlife openings shrank due to the encroachment of woody vegetation inward from the edges.

Riparian and specialized habitats and their importance to wildlife were described previously and the Forest Plan requires that the ecological functions and values associated with riparian areas be maintained (USDA-FS 2007a, 74). This is accomplished through avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and applicable standards and guidelines identified on pages 74-78 of the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) will be implemented under all alternatives. Riparian habitat associated with perennial and intermittent streams is identified using the upper bottom and floodplain ecological land types (ELT’s). No upper bottom habitat will be affected under No Action alternative and except for resurfacing roads with limestone, and road

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 31

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

decommissioning; no upper bottom habitat would be affected. Disturbance to riparian habitat from treatments will be short term (1 year) with implementation of Forest S & G’s, as well as site-specific mitigations related to the protection of this community. Many species of wildlife prefer unique or specialized habitat features that include wetlands, seeps and springs, rock outcroppings, and within-stand features such as hemlock, den trees and snags, raptor nest sites and mast species. These inclusions are scattered across the project area and may occur in or near stands proposed for treatment. Site specific and Forest Plan mitigation measures (USDA-FS 2007a, 74-89) are designed to reduce these impacts and implementation of these measures would ensure that adverse effects to unique or sensitive habitats would not occur under any alternative.

Many of the proposed timber harvesting and reforestation treatments would occur during the breeding season, so effects could include possible direct mortality of less-mobile individuals, including migratory bird nests and eggs. However wildlife monitoring on the Forest indicates that the level of activity and changes in available habitats considered under the Proposed Action would not reduce species diversity within the area, and that a diverse assemblage of songbirds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians would still exist in a variety of habitats (deCalesta 1998). Both alternatives provide sufficient early, mid and late structural habitat to support current populations of migratory birds, with implementation of Forest-wide Standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-257). Finally, the ANF is a partner in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and in compliance with Executive Order 13186- Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Direct mortality related to T&E species as well as RFSS is discussed in the biological assessment and biological evaluation.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for T&E species See Izenbrown Corners biological assessment, ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007e), and US Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Letter (1/31/07) for applicable conservation measures and Standards and Guidelines.

Regional Foresters Sensitive Species See the Izenbrown Corners Biological Evaluation and ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007e) for analysis of impacts and any applicable standards and guidelines.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area and rationale for its selection are described in the Project biological assessment. Specific cumulative effects to wildlife evaluated in this analysis include; 1) an assessment of past, present and anticipated future forest regeneration occurring on both non-federal and ANF lands, 2) an evaluation of proposed actions that will result in permanent or long term changes to wildlife habitat, 3) an assessment of the physical disturbance (well pads, roads, etc.) affected by oil and gas development on non-federal and ANF lands and 4) an evaluation of the changes in available wildlife habitat that have occurred within the project area during the CE period.

Conversion of Forest to Non-Forest Non-forest habitat within the CE boundary is largely the result of past road building, oil and gas development, wildlife openings, and industrial and residential development. Currently 1% of the CE area is considered non-forested habitat. Of this, most exists as permanent openings associated with oil and gas development and larger openings associated with residential and industrial development in the Tidioute area and the large fields of the analysis area and along SR 337. Openings on NFS lands are described above.

There will be a small addition to non-forest habitat due to construction of wildlife openings. This proposed activity will only convert about 15 acres of forest to future non-forested habitat. Minimizing this type of habitat conversion will increase the resilience of most ecological systems to climate change.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 32

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Similarly, it is anticipated that there will be little change in future residential and industrial development within the CE area and it is estimated that there will only be approximately 30 acres of new development on private lands. The greatest amount of future non-forested habitat will result due to anticipated oil and gas development. Based on projected levels of development identified in the FEIS for the revised Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a), it is estimated that by 2035 there will be an additional 587 acres of non-forested habitat created within the CE area, due to roads and well pad development. Cumulatively it is estimated that by 2035, non-forest habitat will exist on about 7% of the CE area under both alternatives. Past, present and anticipated future changes in non-forested habitat and oil and gas related disturbance are displayed in Table 5. Effects of private oil and gas development on species sensitive to disturbance are discussed below.

Regeneration Harvest Early structural habitat presently exists on approximately 1% of the CE area. As described above, there is no future final harvest on NFS lands under the No Action and 505 acres under Proposed Action. Due to the amount of shelterwood harvest in the last 20 years implemented on private land and considering the maturing forest conditions that predominate, it is expected that the level of future final harvest on private will remain somewhat constant and by 2035, it is anticipated that a similar amount of final harvest activities will be implemented on private land. Cumulatively by 2035, even age regeneration activities will have been implemented on 0% and 5% of the analysis area under both alternatives. Cumulative amounts of early structural habitat are displayed by alternative in Table 5.

Table 5 Wildlife cumulative effects summary Proposed Action Project Area = 20,807 acres Past and Present No Action Cumulative CE Area = 26,454 acres (2005-2015) Project Area Effects Analysis Area Timber Harvest Even age Regeneration NFS lands 0 0 618 Private 280 0 560 Total Final Harvest 280 0 1,178 % of CE Area ~1% 0% 4.5% OGM Development Wells (number) 60 110 110 OGM related disturbance 60 acres 143 ac. 143 ac. % of CE Area <1% <1% <1% Non-OGM Openings National Forest 122 acres 122 184 Private 1610 acres 1,610 ac. 1,610 Total Acres 1,732 acres 1,732 1,794 Total Non-Forest Habitat 2,072 1,875 2,555 % of CE Area 7.8% 7.1% 9.6%

Disturbance and Fragmentation As described above, oil and gas development has the greatest potential to convert forest to non-forest habitat and fragment remaining forest habitat (see direct and indirect effects). Although we can project anticipated levels of oil and gas development, it is very difficult to speculate on where or how much development will occur. Disturbance related effects to wildlife depend largely on the level of development and the amount of daily use or human activity required maintaining and operating in that area. Monitoring on the Forest indicates that many species that can be sensitive to disturbance such as

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 33

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

black bear, turkey and the Northern goshawk, tolerate and successfully reproduce in areas of low to moderate oil and gas development. This is because these areas often contain low-standard roads, are closed to public access and often receive little daily use (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-231). However, this monitoring also indicates that areas of intense oil and gas development can result in levels of disturbance that create marginally suitable or un-suitable habitat for some species, such as the Northern goshawk (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-269). Although there has been some oil and gas development outside of known oil and gas fields, the intense level of development that creates unsuitable or marginally suitable habitat for species such as the northern goshawk occurs primarily within known oil and gas fields (USDA-FS 2007d, Appendix F, 8) and this is expected to continue in the future.

To assess potential impacts related to private oil and gas development, a GIS analysis identified portions of the CE area that already contain a low level of private oil and gas development, as well as those portions of the CE area that contain existing oil and gas fields where most of the future high intensity private oil and gas development is likely to occur. Most past development is dispersed across Warrant 5203 in the project area along FR 558. Most of the anticipated future intense private oil and gas development is likely to occur on <10% of the CE area, or the south central and far eastern part of the area. Spatially most this occurs in proximity to both federal and non-federal ownership. A GIS analysis of interior habitat, which includes all forested lands greater than 300 ft. from a permanent opening or road, was also completed and presently approximately 35% of the CE area occurs as forested interior habitat. This includes 6 blocks close to or over 1,000 acres in size running north to south in the project area. Although these blocks are somewhat irregular in shape they are sufficiently sized to have value for all the wildlife species occupying this habitat.

Because there is no way to identify exactly where future oil and gas development will occur, it is not possible to identify how much interior habitat will be available in 2035. For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that much of the existing interior habitat that occurs within existing oil and gas fields would be lost due to potential future development. It is also expected that there will be some development and loss of interior habitat outside of known fields. By 2035 it as anticipated that interior habitat such as it is could be reduced to almost nothing due to future oil and gas development, with most of this expansion occurring in known oil fields in the CE area.

Landscape Level Changes in Habitat Table 5 summarizes present wildlife habitat conditions (2015) within the CE area and displays by alternative anticipated changes in 2035. Mid-structural forest will be reduced under the Proposed Action, by 2035, and mid-structural forest conditions will continue to predominate under both alternatives. Because the maximum amount of forest converted to non-forest under either alternative is less than 150 acres, there is virtually no difference between alternatives related to this habitat component. As described above, the primary loss of interior habitat under both alternatives is likely due to anticipated private oil and gas development, which could cumulatively impact most of the remaining large blocks of interior habitat within the CE area and would likely be the same regardless of the alternative selected by the Forest Service. It is not possible to predict exactly where future OGM activities may occur but chances are high that impacts to interior habitat will occur.

V. Evaluate Effects to Wildlife

Anticipated changes in wildlife habitat and the associated communities are predicted under various alternatives and associated effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat evaluated. GIS maps and present condition data are used to complete the coarse-filter analysis, identify and evaluate spatial relationships between habitat(s), and assess changes in horizontal diversity. Site-specific data is used in the fine filter analysis to evaluate vertical diversity, assess stand level changes in habitat and to ensure that specialized habitat and unique vegetative and physical habitat conditions are maintained and protected.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 34

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Scale of Analysis Wildlife distribution and use of an area is determined largely by the availability of suitable habitat and can be influenced by site-specific needs such as the vegetative structure or physical features on a site, as well as by landscape considerations such as the proximity to other habitat or the need for isolation or seclusion. As a result, a multi-scale analysis that looks at site-specific conditions in stands proposed for treatment (fine filter), as well as landscape considerations such as the proximity and availability to other habitat (coarse filter), will be considered. The following is a brief discussion of how the coarse and fine filter scales are used in this analysis.

Fine Filter This level of assessment involves evaluation of individual stands or sites proposed for treatment. Sites at this scale vary in size from less than 1 acre to 75 acres. Research on the ANF has shown that wildlife use is often influenced by specific conditions that can only be identified at the stand or site scale (Ordiway unpublished). For example, the specific vegetative structure or the presence of water or surface boulders on a given site may greatly affect the wildlife community present. Many of these characteristics cannot be identified at the landscape or coarse filter scale. As a result, a fine filter will be used to identify habitat conditions such as vertical structure, the presence of threatened and endangered species, and the presence of site specific conditions that affect wildlife use. This scale of analysis also identifies stand level habitat conditions that may need to be protected or enhanced and is used to identify site-specific mitigation measures.

Coarse Filter This level of assessment involves evaluation of habitat and direct and indirect effects across the entire project area or landscape scale. It facilitates the evaluation of private land influences and other activities such as oil and gas development, which may not be readily apparent at a smaller scale. A coarse filter scale of analysis also evaluates landscape level wildlife considerations such as horizontal diversity and will be used to assess the availability of habitats and wildlife communities on NFS lands across the landscape. Cumulative effects of all actions on federal and private lands within the project area are also evaluated at this scale.

Cumulative Effects - Analysis Period Cumulative effects related to wildlife are evaluated by looking at past, present and foreseeable future activities which could adversely affect wildlife and wildlife habitat when considered cumulatively over time. The primary activities contributing to cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are those resulting in conversion of forest to non-forest habitat, private oil and gas development and timber harvest. Since oil and gas development has occurred within the project area for several decades, there was no definitive point in time from which to start the cumulative effects analysis pertaining to oil and gas. The analysis period is therefore based on the period of time when the CE area would have been most affected by past timber harvest and for reasons described above, 2005 was selected as the start of the analysis period. Because it will take up to 20 years for all proposed activities to be completed and considering many wildlife effects will begin to fade beyond 20 years, 2035 was chosen as the end of the CE analysis period. The analysis boundary and time period are described in the project biological assessment. Species with Viability Concerns

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its implementing regulations require national forests to preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities to meet multiple use objectives based on the suitability and capability of the land. A total of 100 species have been identified with potential viability concerns for the ANF. Eight species are currently listed as federally threatened or endangered, one is a federal candidate species, and 81 are RFSS (includes the candidate species) (USDA-

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 35

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

FS 2007b). A total of eleven species with viability concerns are not included on the RFSS or threatened and endangered species list for the ANF, and will be discussed in this section. Migratory birds were considered in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-208) and developed as part of the Species Viability Evaluation. Migratory birds that occur on the ANF that were determined to have viability concerns were analyzed as part of the species viability process. The rationale and process for determining these species lists and the Forest-wide effects of management are located in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA- FS 2007b, 3-205 to 3-208) and Appendix E of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007c). Table 6 lists the species, their primary habitat, and whether their habitat is present or the species have been documented in the Izenbrown Corners project area.

Table 6 Species with Viability Concerns and their status

Suitable Species Primary Habitat1 Documented Habitat Birds

Black-throated blue warbler Mature Mixed Hardwood/Conifer X X Cerulean warbler Mature Oak X X Henslow’s sparrow Grassland Golden-winged warbler Seedling/Sapling X Great blue heron Mature Hardwood/Water (including X X open, river, and large stream) Red-shouldered hawk Mature Hardwood/Riparian X X Raven Mature Hardwood X X Swainson’s thrush Mature Mixed X Hardwood/Conifer/Riparian Reptiles Eastern box turtle Riparian X Coal skink Mature Oak X Amphibians Jefferson salamander Mature Hardwood/Conifer X Four-toed salamander Mature Hardwood X 1- Primary habitat is listed above and is not inclusive as to where the species may occur as they occupy other secondary habitats as well

With the exception of the Henslow’s sparrow, the remaining species with viability concerns have suitable habitat within the Izenbrown Corners project area. This includes the coal skink where the primary habitat is mature oak in which the project area has forest type as oak, but suitable habitat may also be in other mature hardwoods. Four of these species have been documented within the project area during field surveys or through general observations.

Effects to Species with Viability Concerns

Birds

Black-throated blue warbler, red-shouldered hawk, raven, and Swainson’s thrush With the exception of the Swainson’s thrush, all of these species have been documented in the Izenbrown Corners project area. These species use a combination of mature hardwoods or hardwoods mixed with conifer near riparian areas. Forest Plan Standards and guidelines will protect all wetlands (NWI identified approximately 145 acres) and all other water resources to reduce or avoid impacts. In addition, approximately 80% of the project will remain mature or over-mature hardwoods therefore habitat will remain widely available for all of these species. The conifer component is about 9% (>50% conifer in a forested stand) and up to 10% of a mixture of understory, midstory, and overstory is expected to remain

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 36

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

relatively intact. All conifer >18 dbh will not be cut. The hemlock wooly adelgid poses a threat to the hemlock component, thus it may pose a long-term threat to some of these species which utilize this mixed component, however habitat is expected to remain widely available for these species. Private oil and gas development may also pose a threat to these species, but private developers are encouraged to follow ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines which protect these species and their habitat. No known raptor stick nests are currently active for the red-shouldered hawk and raven. If a nest is discovered during implementation, ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines will be implemented to protect the site.

Cerulean Warbler - direct and indirect effects The cerulean warbler is closely tied to oak and oak transition forests on the ANF. There are numerous oak type stands in this project area and a few with a mixed component. Specific treatments within the oak forest type that could have effects on this species include final timber harvest, prescribed burning and oak release (enhancement) treatments. Potential effects of burning on breeding birds such as the cerulean warbler were discussed above and riverine habitat along the Allegheny River will essentially remain unchanged. The following is a discussion of alternative effects to oak and oak transition forest from proposed timber harvest.

As described in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-234 to 3-235), potential effects of timber harvest on cerulean warbler habitat can be both positive and negative, depending on the resulting canopy conditions. As a result effects will be evaluated by looking at changes in the amount of suitable oak habitat, as well as changes in the mature oak overstory that affect cerulean warbler density. The following is a summary of structural conditions characteristic of sites with documented cerulean warbler use on the ANF;

• Open Canopy Stands (~45- 75% stocked) – These sites have been found to have the highest densities of cerulean warblers in the ANF. • Moderately Stocked Stands (76-100% stocked) – These sites have documented cerulean warbler nesting, although densities are lower than those found in open canopy stands. • Closed Canopy Stands (>100% stocked) - Although these sites are considered suitable nest habitat, on the ANF cerulean warbler nesting has not been documented in closed canopy stands. • Unsuitable Nest Habitat – oak and oak transition stands <50 years of age that don’t provide adequate mature trees for nesting and foraging.

No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives Changes displayed under the No Action alternative reflect there is no pre-approved removal cutting in the oak type. There will be no decrease in suitable oak habitat, which is considered fully stocked over the short and long term.

The Forest Plan includes objectives related to managing cerulean warbler breeding habitat to provide preferred structural conditions (e.g. increase white oak and increase oak species where it is a minor component) (USDA FS 2007a, 20). Because there is no active oak management, the No Action alternative does not accomplish those objectives. Additionally, although there will be no anticipated changes in the amount of oak habitat during the analysis period (2015-2035), due to the absence of fire, anticipated increases in competing vegetation, and preferential browsing of white oak seedlings by deer, over time (>50 years) it is likely that there will be a reduction in oak forest and a corresponding reduction in cerulean warbler habitat.

Proposed Action Changes in available oak habitat under this alternative are no different than shown in the No Action alternative above. Suitable cerulean warbler nest habitat will change very little in the oak stands or along the Allegheny River riverine habitat.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 37

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Because the presence of the cerulean warbler was found to be correlated with large tracts of mature, semi- open forest (Robbins et al 1989), it can be affected by fragmentation. While effects of forest fragmentation (described below) from proposed timber harvest are expected to be temporary in nature, long-term effects such as increased nest predation and competition may occur along permanent roads or openings proposed under this alternative. As described in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-235 to 3-237) and below, this will vary depending on the landscape conditions and associated predator populations. Proposed new wildlife opening construction will result in the conversion of about 15 acres of forest to non-forested habitat. In addition, forested lands within 300 feet of the permanent edge created may also be affected by increased predation and cumulatively, new openings created under this alternative would be expected to reduce interior habitat, or lands within 300 feet of a permanent edge under this alternative. All the larger blocks of interior habitat in this project area are expected to be largely dissected due to continuous private oil and gas development over the long term.

In an effort to increase the availability of oak, oak species in general will be favored in mixed oak stands or stands with a small oak component, increasing the oak component on these sites.

The Proposed Action meets Forest Plan objectives related to managing cerulean warbler breeding habitat and providing the preferred structural conditions (USDA-FS 2007a, 20). This is because cerulean warbler nesting habitat within the project area will be improved under this alternative. Suitable habitat will be maintained on the oak habitat within the project area. Because this area is currently dominated by closed canopy stands, release treatments will improve the distribution of preferred open canopy nesting habitat within the project area.

Effects Common to Both Alternatives Fragmentation of mature, deciduous breeding grounds, particularly along riparian corridors, is a threat that has contributed to the decline of the cerulean warbler (Hamel 2000) and the Forest Plan FEIS includes a discussion of fragmentation related effects on the cerulean warbler (USDA FS 2007a, 3-235 to 3-238). As described, effects of fragmentation are largely influenced by landscape considerations and because the Izenbrown Corners project area is over mostly forested, effects of fragmentation are greatly reduced. Minimizing fragmentation will also increase the chances that ecological systems can better withstand climatic changes. Following is a discussion of fragmentation related effects that may result due to final harvest treatments that would occur under both alternatives.

Although there are fewer fragmentation effects in predominately forested areas such as the ANF, recent research indicates that increased levels of nest predation can occur in association with final harvest activities in forested landscapes (Manolis et al 2002; USDA-FS 2007b, 3-236 to 3-239) such as the project area. Although nest predation has been found to be higher near edges, effects on songbird reproduction are complex. Recent research on the ANF has shown that populations of nest predators (eastern chipmunk) increase in areas that receive final harvest treatments, but songbird nest densities and success are also higher on the regenerated site than the uncut forest (USDA-FS 2007b, 3-237). As a result, the higher level of nest success and reproduction may offset adverse effects associated with increased nest predation (Stoleson 2006). Due to the rapid development of woody vegetation on the site, any changes in nest predation that result from proposed final harvest treatments would be considered temporary. Therefore, it is not anticipated that changes in nest predators will reduce songbird diversity or abundance under either alternative. Successful reproduction of forest interior species such as the cerulean warbler will likely continue and preferred site and landscape conditions will be maintained. This is supported by on-Forest monitoring of sites receiving even age timber harvest similar to that proposed, as well as uncut sites (deCalesta 1998, Stoleson 2006).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 38

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Many of the treatments proposed under the Proposed Action could occur during the breeding season, so effects could include direct mortality of less-mobile individuals and eggs. While habitat for migratory birds may be affected by these activities, implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project level design features would reduce effects to uncommon and unique habitats (described under affected environment) and help reduce mortality to migratory species such as the cerulean warbler. Also the Forest Service is a partner in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and in compliance with Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

In summary, there are no adverse effects the cerulean warbler or its habitat under either alternative that would result reduced species viability. Additionally, although there will be local changes in habitat and nesting density, neither alternative would be expected to result in regional changes in habitat or populations for this species due to the continued availability of suitable habitat. This is based on the above analysis and the following rationale:

• Most of existing cerulean warbler oak nesting habitat will be maintained under both alternatives. • Project activities under either alternative are not likely to decrease existing suitable habitat. • The effects of fragmentation will be reduced due to the extensively forested nature of the project area. • There are no anticipated effects under either alternative that were not considered in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA FS 2007b).

Cumulative Effects As described under direct and indirect effects, on the ANF the cerulean warbler utilizes almost exclusively riverine, oak or oak transition stands. Suitable oak habitat exists on ~47% of the analysis area. Just as on the NFS lands, there are numerous oak stands on private lands within the CE area. Cumulatively by 2035, available suitable cerulean habitat will continue to occur where it currently exists.

Although some habitat may be lost due to future oil and gas development, monitoring on the Forest indicates that OGM activity does not preclude use and mature oak and riverine habitat within areas of future development will continue to be available.

Past and anticipated future oil and gas development can increase fragmentation, as described under direct and indirect effects. There are fewer fragmentation related effects in predominately forested areas such as the Izenbrown Corners project area. Also cerulean warbler use has been documented on the ANF in areas where intense oil and gas development presently exists, indicating that this species successfully utilizes sites containing this level of activity. Considering that most of the suitable habitat will continue to provide suitable cerulean warbler nesting habitat, suitable habitat for this species will continue to be widely available.

Great blue heron No rookeries have been documented recently in the project or CE area. Most treatments avoid riparian areas that contain wetlands, beaver dams, and perennial streams. There are no adverse effects to water quality anticipated because all water resources are protected by ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines. Mature hardwood forest will remain on at least 85% of the project area as result of any decision in the project area. Large diameter trees and snags as well as numerous red pine stands will remain for potential rookery sites. In the event a rookery is found in the future, ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be followed and the rookery will be protected. One individual was found during stand surveys but no rookeries were found. Great blue herons have been documented flying along the river many times over the years.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 39

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Henslow’s sparrow None were found during stand surveys. Since there are no grasslands of substantial size within the Izenbrown Corners project area, there will be no effects to this species or its habitat. There are some larger open fields within the project area but these fields were on private lands and there has been no documented occurrence within the CE area.

Golden-winged warbler None were found during stand surveys. Suitable seedling/sapling habitat is expected to increase in the Izenbrown Corners project area due to management activities under the Proposed Action. By 2035, this habitat will represent approximately 12% of the CE area. Shrub components within mature forest and along riparian areas are retained regardless of the treatments. Habitat for this species is expected to be maintained in the area. There have been no documented occurrences within the project area.

Reptiles

Eastern box turtle None were found during stand surveys. Box turtles typically use riparian and forested habitat. See discussion for those species that utilize similar habitat. ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be implemented to protect its home range and habitat integrity if a box turtle is discovered.

Coal skink None were found during stand surveys. They typically use oak habitat, but could occur in other mature hardwoods. See discussion for those species that utilize similar habitat above. No occurrence has been documented and unique features such as rubble or boulder fields are protected from disturbance.

Amphibians

Jefferson salamander and Four-toed salamander None were found during stand surveys. Both of these amphibians occur in mature hardwoods and hardwoods mixed with conifers in or near vernal pools and ponds. These salamander species can occur in or near any water resource, but favor vernal pools, which are protected using ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Other Species

Synchronous Fireflies (Photinus carolinus) Ensuring the continued existence of firefly diversity has become an issue of concern over the past decade. The continuing success of synchronous fireflies (Photinus carolinus) in particular has caused consternation due to the lack of information. They are the only species in America whose individuals can synchronize their flashing light patterns. A study funded through the Secure Rural Schools Act and was conducted in cooperation with the USDA on the ANF in June of 2012 (Faust et al. 2012). The study focused firefly surveys in and around Forest and Warren Counties on the Allegheny National Forest. The primary emphasis of this study was to first determine if the synchronous firefly or a related species existed in this area and then specify its relative abundance (Faust et al, 2012, page 10-12). The secondary goal was to get a snapshot of the firefly species diversity in this same area. The results of the survey were compared to previous information collected in Butler County, Pennsylvania. The survey time period was chosen in advance because mid to late June (and early July, depending on the relative accumulated temperature of that specific year) is historically the time of maximum firefly activity and species diversity. Very early or late appearing species may have been missed by the survey.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 40

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Field studies with flash timings, microscopic exams and DNA analysis confirmed the robust and widespread existence of the species throughout the ANF in both counties. Many additional species were documented in specific habitats (e.g., open areas, deep forests, wet, open marshes, tree margins,) and flying at specific times of the day or night. Non-flashing day-active fireflies (depending on species) were found flying in the forest or, more commonly, perched on grass and low vegetation in open fields or along trails and forest roads. The varieties of habitats within the ANF are considered ideal for observing species diversity of all kinds. Fireflies are recognized as important in increasing the quality of human experience on National Forests

The survey found synchronous fireflies to be abundant and widespread in appropriate habitats at all surveyed locations. There were areas of greater abundance, especially in maturing second growth forests near streams. Healthy populations were found flashing far from water on the drier ridge tops. One explanation might be that the relatively open (caused by deer browsing and age) maturing forests of the ANF are conducive to the male display. Males must have a clear line of sight to synchronize with neighboring insects and this is difficult to accomplish in younger forests with dense underbrush. Based on the results of this study, implementing this project may impact individuals but is not likely to adversely impact populations of this species or its habitat.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 41

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

References

Literature Cited:

Anderson and Shugart 1974. In. DeGraaf, R. M. M Yamasaki, W. B. Leak and J. W. Lanier. 1992. New England Wildlife: Management of Forested Habitats. Gen. Tech. Report. NE –144. Radnor, PA. 271 pp.

Balada 1975. In. DeGraaf, R. M. M Yamasaki, W. B. Leak and J. W. Lanier. 1992. New England Wildlife: Management of Forested Habitats. Gen. Tech. Report. NE –144. Radnor, PA. 271 pp.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 711-718.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1997. Response to Scott Reitz on comments made by ADP.

DeCalesta, D.S. 1998. Affidavit of David deCalesta related to civil action No. 97-2187. 2 pp. Response to ADP

DeGraaf, R.M., M.Y. Yamasaki, W.B. Leak, and J.W. Lanier. 1992. New England Wildlife: Management of Forested Habitats. Northeast Forest Experiment Station. General Technical Report. NE-144. Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA.

DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2003. Options for managing early-successional forest and shrubland bird habitat in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 179-191.

Hamel, PB, 2000. Cerulean warbler - Dendroica cerulean. In Poole A and F. Gill Editors. The birds of North America Series No. 511, Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc. 20 pages.

Hays, M. 2001. Community Study Comparing the Flora of a Managed Oak Stand to an Adjacent Unmanaged Oak Stand. Unpublished.

Kimmel, J.T., and R.H. Yahner. 1994. The Northern Goshawk in Pennsylvania. Habitat Use, Survey Protocols and Status Final Report. School of Forestry Resources. Penn State University. 440 pages.

Landers, J.L. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. In The Role of Fire in Non-game Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions. NE Forest Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report. NE-288, 145 pp.

Manolis, J.C., D.E. Andersen and F.J. Cuthbert. 2002. Edge Effect on Nesting Success of Ground Nesting Birds Near Regenerating Clearcuts in a Forest Dominated Landscape. Auk. 955-970.

McShea, W.J., H.B. Underwood, and J.H. Rappole. 1997. The science of overabundance: Deer ecology and population management. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

McShea, W.J. and W. M. Healy. 2002. Oak Forest Ecosystems. Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Maryland. USA.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 42

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life (web application). 2010. Version 1.1. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. Timber Rattlesnake.

Robbins, C.S., D. K. Dawson and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat Area Requirements of Breeding Forest Birds of the Middle Atlantic States. J. Wildlife. Manage. 103: 1-34.

Thompson, F. R., R. M. DeGraaf and M. K. Trani. 2001. Conservation of Woody, Early Successional Habitats and Wildlife in the Eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2) 407-494.

Tucker, J.W. 1992. Wildlife Use of Log Landings in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University. 149 pp.

Trani, M.K., R.T. Brooks, T.L. Schmidt, V.A. Rudis, and C.M. Gabbard. 201. Patterns and trends of early successional forests in the eastern United States. In Conservation of woody, early successional habitats and wildlife in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 407-494.

USDA-FS 2005b. Martin Run Final Environmental Impact Statement - Old Growth. Allegheny National Forest. Bradford, Pa. 11pp.

USDA-FS 2007, Biological Evaluation, Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA.

USDA-FS 2007a, Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA.

USDA-FS 2007b, Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2007c, Allegheny National Forest Record of Decision (ROD) for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania.

USDA-FS 2007d, Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendix (A, B-F, or G). Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania.

Wood, Gene, W. ed. 1981. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. In Van Lear, D.H. and Waldrop, T.A. 1989. History, Uses and Effects of Fire in the Appalachians. Gen Tech. Rep. SE- 34. Asheville, N.C.U.S. Dep. Of Agric. Forest Service. SE Forest Exp. Sta. 20 pp.

Personal Communications: Stoleson - Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Research Station, Irvine, PA. Personal Communication - 2004 Stoleson - Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Research Station, Irvine, PA. Personal Communication - 2006 Stoleson - Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeast Research Station, Irvine, PA. Personal Communication - 2009

/s/ Alan Wetzel

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 43

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Bradford Ranger District Wildlife Biologist December 9, 2013

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix C3 - Biological Evaluation Page 44

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix D Non-native Invasive Plants Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

April Moore Bradford Ranger District Ecologist

Edited and Formatted by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Need ...... 1 Proposed Action ...... 1 Analysis Framework ...... 2 Project Area and Present Condition ...... 3 Environmental Consequences ...... 4 Direct and indirect short-term effects ...... 4 Direct and indirect long-term effects ...... 5 Cumulative Effects ...... 6 Short-term cumulative effects ...... 7 Long-term cumulative effects ...... 7 No Action Alternative ...... 8 References ...... 9

Tables Table 1 Direct and Indirect Effects - Forest Service Lands only ______6

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page ii

Introduction This report was prepared to support the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service (USDA-FS) environmental assessment (EA) for the Izenbrown Corners Project, proposed by the Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest (ANF).

Purpose and Need The ANF Forest Plan recognizes that, “The first line of defense and, over the long term, the most cost- effective strategy against invasive species is preventing them from becoming established” (NISC 2001) and includes NNIP prevention guidelines that will be incorporated during implementation of the proposed activities in the Izenbrown Project Area (USDA-FS 2007a). It is also recognized that ‘weeds know no boundaries’ and that effective long-term NNIP treatment within the Izenbrown Project area needs to acknowledge NNIP on non-forest service administered lands, this project does not propose federal treatment of NNIP on non-forest service lands at this time. However, under the Wyden Amendment (Public Law 109-54, Section 434) the ANF may enter into a cooperative agreement to have treatments conducted on non-forest service land to restore and/or enhance habitat.

Wyden Amendment authorizes the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements to benefit resources within watersheds on National Forest System lands. Agreements may be with willing Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and landowners to conduct activities on public or private lands for the following purposes: • Protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and other resources, • Reduction of risk for natural disaster where public safety is threatened, or • A combination of both.

Non-native invasive plant species (NNIP) have become established within the project area and there is a need to implement treatment activities that will limit the further introduction and/or spread of these species and conserve forest resources in a manner that presents the least hazard to humans and maintains or restores forest resources (USDA- FS 2007a, pg. 13).

The desired condition of the project area is to reduce the amount of area infested by NNIP and thereby reducing future potential for seed production and infestation of new areas through manual/mechanical and/or herbicide treatment. The NNIP program uses an adaptive management approach in that current inventories provide a snapshot in time and that existing infestations and/or NNIP species will change over time (Appendix B). Monitoring will include the effectiveness of treatment and whether additional treatment is required. It is anticipated that infestations will increase in size during the course of this project (20 years) and that additional sites and/or species may occur, for analysis purposes it is estimated that up to 600 acres of NNIP treatment may occur over the next 20 years (Map 3- Proposed NNIP Treatment Areas). All NNIP treatment will be implemented in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines addressing highest priority by species and/or site first and then treating other species/sites as feasible.

Proposed Action Non-native invasive plant treatment is proposed on up to 600 acres through a combination of manual/mechanical and/or herbicide treatments. Manual treatment includes pulling, digging, and hand roughing. Mechanical treatment includes weedwacking (use of a gas-powered string trimmer), mowing, and removal by motorized equipment or mastication with equipment.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 1

Herbicide treatment includes the use of glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl according to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a). At this time most of the application could be done using an airblast sprayer, backpack sprayers and cut-stump treatment. A combination of treatments may occur several times during a growing season and/or over a period of several years until the infestations have been deemed effectively treated which varies by species based on growth rate, age at maturity, resprouting capabilities, and available seed bank. Due to the nature of NNIP, additional infestations and/or species from the ANF Invasive Plant Species of Concern list maybe treated if found within the project area (see Appendix A - Allegheny National Forest Invasive Plant Species of Concern list and Appendix B – NNIP Adaptive Management Strategy for additional information) according to Forest Plan direction.

Definitions for management activities are found within the ANF Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA- FS 2007b pp. 2-49 to 2-52) and are incorporated here by reference. Refer to the Izenbrown Corners Project EA for Comparison of Activities by Alternative. The measurement indicator identified for the purpose of this environmental analysis is:

MI-5: Effects of proposed activities on causing or promoting the introduction or spread of NNIP species

Analysis Framework

An “invasive species” is defined as a species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112, FSM 2900). The general effects of management activities to NNIP (non-native invasive species) (listed as NNIS in FEIS) are found within the ANF Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA- FS 2007b, pp. 3-291 to 3-295, and are incorporated here by reference. In summary, management activities that cause ground disturbance or opening-up of the forest canopy have the greatest potential to facilitate the introduction and/or spread of NNIP on the ANF.

Information/research on non-native invasive plant species is readily available on websites such as: the Forest Service Invasive Species Program website http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/ and the PA Department of Conservation of Natural Resources http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/plants/invasiveplants/index.htm. NNIP species occupy available growing space and use nutrients that could be used by more desired native species, NNIP often lack their natural biotic controls that coevolved with them at their place of origin to keep them ‘in check’, and there is often a lag phase between first introduction and rapid expansion of the NNIP. Invasive plants, if left unchecked, will limit many uses on lands now and for future generations.

This analysis uses survey information for non-native invasive plants (NNIP) that was conducted in select treatment stands, riparian areas, wildlife openings and road corridors within the project area in 2011 (see project file for additional information). A total of 136 of 345 stands proposed from treatment were surveyed. Of approximately 2,334 acres surveyed, approximately 90 acres were found to be infested with NNIP (3.9% rate of infestation). This survey information has been used to estimate current and future distribution, spread and coverage of non-native invasive plants in the project area for the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. Because some activities may take place on the same area at different times, numbers are added to analyze the worse-case scenario.

The FY2008 – 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Allegheny National Forest (pages 172 to 173) describes the results of monitoring to determine the effectiveness of non-native invasive plant controls.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 2

The report concluded that a combination of manual/mechanical treatments and herbicide use has been effective in controlling targeted species in treatment areas. This analysis presumes that these treatments would be effective for the Izenbrown Corners project as well.

Of the proposed activities – vegetation management including prescribed fire, road management, equestrian trail construction, and wildlife habitat enhancement were identified in the ANF Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA- FS 2007b pp. 3-291 to 3-295) as having the potential for direct and/or indirect effects on NNIP.

For the purpose of estimating environmental consequences, short-term effects are from changes in canopy cover, allowing more sunlight enhances habitat for shade intolerant NNIP species. Long-term effects are considered to be forest conversion to openings (areas dominated by herbaceous plants) and non-forest conditions (roads). Roadways are considered the primary corridors for NNIP spread via human activities (Gucinski et al., 2000 ), and haul roads have been shown to be the primary conduit for the dispersal of introduced species into the interior of managed stands in upper Michigan and this study is considered to be applicable to the ANF as well (Buckley et al., 2002). These corridors facilitate infestation of bird- dispersed NNIP species through flight movement or through seed/plant propagule movement from vehicle tires or road maintenance activities such as grading when seed sources are present. It is also important to recognize the general concept of the ability of NNIP to be introduced or spread into an area is complex in that the level of disturbance it takes to do so varies by invasive plant species, habitat type disturbed, presence of a seed source and dispersal vectors (Parendes and Jones 2000). So, just because a forested area becomes a permanent opening, this does not necessarily mean the area will become infested with shade intolerant NNIP.

The ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) contains direction on the treatment of non-native invasive plants: Forest Plan Goal - Develop and implement a proactive, integrated noxious weed and invasive plant management program to conserve forest resources in a manner that presents the least hazard to humans and maintains or restores forest resources (pg. 13); Forest Plan Objective - Complete 300 to 600 acres of invasive plant treatment annually (pg. 18) through a combination of manual/mechanical and/or herbicide treatments; Management Area Suitability - Herbicide use is permitted in all management areas to treat native and non-native invasive species (pg. 35).

Project Area and Present Condition The Izenbrown Corners project area (Project Area) is located in northwestern Pennsylvania on the Bradford Ranger District of the Allegheny National Forest (ANF). The area within the project boundary is approximately 9,480 acres Forest Service and 11,327 acres of private land, totaling 20,807 acres. This project includes vegetation management, including timber harvest and subsequent reforestation activities, transportation activities, non-native invasive treatments and wildlife habitat improvement activities. The project area includes management areas associated with wild and scenic river values (MA 8.1), late- structural linkages (MA 2.2) and areas that focus on commercial timber production (MA 3.0). Adjacent to the project area is the Hickory Creek Wilderness area. Forests in much of the project area are dominated by oak species, but lack regeneration of oak in the understory. Oak forests on the ANF are a fire-adapted community that contribute to regional biodiversity and are very important to many plant and animal species. The Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Record of Decision (ROD) includes a specific goal for the oak type - habitat management should be directed to sustaining oak mast crops and large den trees in the long term through a combination of thinning, release, prescribed fire, and regeneration treatments.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 3

This project would initiate the process of restoring oak forest ecosystems on ANF by creating site conditions more suitable for oak regeneration. Associated with some oak stands is a diverse understory of oak associated forbs. A portion of the project area known as “Economite” includes plantation red pine stands and areas historically mowed periodically and maintained through cooperation of the Pennsylvania Game Commission for use by hunters and other recreational users. The Economite area is heavily infested with several non-native invasive plant species (NNIPS).

The project area is located in portions of Stewards Island, East Hickory Creek and Perry Magee Run watersheds (USDA-FS 2011). The project area contains approximately 49 miles of stream of which 33 miles (67%), has a protected use of Exceptional Value or High-Quality Cold Water Fisheries. Most streams are deeply incised often with v-shaped valleys.

Project Area Present Condition – Non-native invasive Plants (NNIP)

Surveys completed for this proposed project indicate the Economite area has the greatest infestation of NNIP, both by number of species of concern and the number of acres infested, followed by the Allegheny River corridor. Many stands in the Economite area are dominated by multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle. Infestations of single or small number of plants also occur within forested areas and along road corridors. NNIP species of concern documented to date include: Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), garlic mustard (Alliaria petilolata), non-native bush honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), English ivy (Hedra helix), periwinkle (Vinca minor), common reed (Phragmites australis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), cattail (Typha angustifolia), Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), queen-anne’s lace (Daucus carrota), privet (Ligustrum sp.),coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), and crown vetch (Securigera varia).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and indirect short-term effects Proposed oak habitat management activities on 6,723 acres include a variety of activities that would create ground disturbance and open canopy conditions (Table 1). These activities occur in a specific sequence and time and intensity varies depending on site conditions as they evolve. Activities proposed to restore and regenerate oak habitat would create conditions conducive to the spread of NNIP because:

• The life history characteristics of the documented NNIP of concern within the project area (fast growth, age at maturity, ample seed production, and seed dispersal vectors allows NNIP to occupy a site more readily than native species( see the Invasive Exotic Plants In Pennsylvania List http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/invasivetutorial/List.htm and Forest Invasive Species Program http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/speciesprofiles/index.shtml for additional information). • Areas where ground has been disturbed or vegetation has been trampled or removed creates an ‘opening’ in which NNIP may take advantage and become established; • This disturbance or removal of overstory creates new sites with suitable growing conditions for shade intolerant NNIP. • If shade tolerant species are present, they may produce more fruit or seeds or have increased growth rates due to more available sunlight for photosynthesis (growth).

Because of the temporary nature of these openings these are expected to be short-term effects. Within 10 years after harvest, herbaceous and shrubby vegetation would become overtopped and begin to disappear

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 4

from the stand. By the time the stand is 10-15 years old, the canopy would close again, reducing sunlight and growing space for shade tolerant species. Prescribed fire can also create conditions of disturbance where NNIP may be more competitive in the short-term. However, the objective of proposed activities is to regenerate and maintain forested conditions through the treatment of interfering vegetation such as NNIP through burning, mastication and herbicide treatment.

An estimated total of 618 total acres would be in a 0-20 year age class by 2035 (footnote - Table 1). Infestations of NNIP are not expected to expand or spread within the project area because:

• Treatment areas are scattered, and the estimated area of infestation is manageable, based on experience elsewhere on the Bradford Ranger District; • Oak habitat management treatments vary in frequency and intensity over 20 years, and NNIP would be applied at each step phase as necessary; • Timber sale contracts include equipment cleaning provisions to help prevent the introduction and/or movement of NNIP from one area to another, and these provisions have been found to be effective.

Direct and indirect long-term effects Road management activities may create conditions that promote the spread of NNIP due to ground disturbance or vegetation removal. The estimated area of disturbance for all roads within the project area is 655 acres, with an additional 46 acres of disturbance for new roads, road decommissioning, and road reconstruction (Table 2). The current rate of infestation for surveyed road corridors is approximately 7 %. Based on the amount and location of road management activities, and with the ongoing treatment of NNIP within road corridors, infestations of NNIP are not expected to expand or spread within the project area because:

• Standard operating procedures such as treatment of NNIP, equipment cleaning, and seeding with desired vegetation, will be implemented to reduce the potential for NNIP to become established and/or spread; • Noxious weed/invasive plant surveys or treatment would be conducted on roads prior to decommissioning (Forest Plan Guideline).

Equestrian trail construction, rehabilitation of existing trail and parking area construction may create conditions that promote the spread of NNIP due to ground disturbance and vegetation removal. Along the existing trail, the area of disturbance in which NNIP species may be promoted is estimated to be 20 feet, which includes the trail tread and the area where side-lighting would increase due to less vegetation. The current trail has an estimated area of disturbance of 20 acres. Trail construction, rehabilitation and parking area construction is anticipated to disturb an additional 23 acres. Separate estimates for NNIP along the existing trail and in proposed trail locations were not calculated, because there is overlap with the stands surveyed for oak management activities, NNIP treatment, and wildlife habitat enhancement improvement activities. From the NNIP perspective, the goal of trail construction is to minimize the amount of ground disturbance, and the goal of trail rehabilitation is to have desired vegetation along the trail. Infestations of NNIP are not expected to expand or spread within the project area because standard operating procedures such as treatment of NNIP, equipment cleaning, and seeding with desired vegetation would be implemented to reduce the potential for NNIP to become established and spread.

Wildlife habitat enhancement activities may create that promote spread of NNIP due to ground disturbance or vegetation removal. These activities include a variety of techniques, including but not limited to selective removal of overstory trees, opening creation, and opening release. Approximately 116 acres are estimated to be in nonforest conditions within the project area. A total of 402 acres of

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 5

wildlife activities have been proposed over the next two decades within the project area. Because these activities may take place on same area as other proposed activities, numbers are added to analyze maximum effect; therefore, the actual footprint of activities on the ground is less than 402 acres. Treatments goals are to create and maintain early age (structure) classes for plant and animal habitat. In order to achieve wildlife habitat management goals within this project area, it will be important to treat NNIP in many areas prior to other activities taking place.

Infestations of NNIP are not expected to expand or spread within the project area because standard operating procedures such as treatment of NNIP, equipment cleaning, and seeding with desired vegetation, will be implemented to reduce the potential for NNIP to become established and spread.

Table 1 Direct and Indirect Effects - Forest Service Lands only New activity Estimates Current Future Condition (2036) (2016 -2036) Activity Condition Proposed Proposed (2015) No Action No Action Action Action Short-term effects (<20 years) – Oak Management (Vegetation)

Current 0-20 year age class, Even-aged Overstory, 81 6,723 81 6,804 81 Reforestation, crop tree, red pine. Prescribed fire Treatments (acres)1 Total Acres 81 6,723 81 6,804 81 Long-term effects (> 20 years) Wildlife Habitat Enhancement- includes ESAM activities and mowing, opening creation, opening 116 402 116 518 116 release, restore, maintain openings, fire and aspen regeneration acres2 Roads -miles/acres3 133/655 9.77/42 133/655 142.77/697 133/655 Proposed Equestrian Trail and parking areas acres of 20 23 20 43 20 disturbance4

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary for NNIP is the same as the project area boundary because; measuring the spread of NNIP beyond this boundary as it relates to the proposed activities is not desirable due to the confounding effects of other dispersal methods (i.e., wind, water, and animals).

The time frame for the cumulative effects analysis is (2015-2035). Within 20 years it anticipated that proposed activities would be completed. Cumulative effects related to NNIP are evaluated by assessing

1 Activities may take place on same area, numbers added to analyze maximum effect. Long term goals are to regenerate and maintain forested conditions. Estimated that 618 acres would be 0-20 years old in 2035. 2 Activities may take place on same area, numbers added to analyze worse-case scenario. Treatments goals are to create and maintain early age (structure) classes. 3 With the average clearing width of Forest Service and non-system roads being 35 feet and state and township roads being an average of 50 feet, it is estimated that each mile of road consists of 4.24 acres and 6.05 acres respectively. 4 Trail area of influence – tread and side-lighting is estimated to be 20 feet based on average current conditions.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 6

the current condition, proposed and reasonably foreseeable activities on both Forest and non-Forest Service administered lands and activities.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a representation of impacts from past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. How and when these NNIP species were introduced is unclear. It is recognized that for species such as multiflora rose and Japanese barberry, the major mode of long-distance dispersal and the likely reason for current distribution in the project area is birds. However, multiflora rose was also historically planted for wildlife food and cover by various agencies throughout Pennsylvania, and by the ANF and within the project area. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

Based on the analysis presented under the direct and indirect effects section, activities most likely to result in effects from Forest Service management activities to NNIP within the cumulative effects area include: vegetation management including prescribed fire, road management, equestrian trail construction, and wildlife habitat enhancement

Non-Federal activities most likely to result in effects to NNIP within the cumulative effects area include short-term effects from timber harvest and long-term effects from roads, farm fields and oil and gas development.

Short-term cumulative effects Using aerial photos, an estimated 613 acres of timber harvest has occurred on private land within the project area. Anticipated regeneration on private land is based on local research, which indicates industrial forestlands around the ANF regenerate approximately 10% per decade, as well as specific estimates that are based on the history of past harvest on both industrial and non-industrial lands. Using these assumptions, it is estimated that an additional 2,260 acres may be regenerated by 2035.

Cumulatively, in 2035 the 0-20 age class resulting from final harvest is estimated to be less than 2,500 acres for both private and Forest Service lands.

This increase in 0-20 age class by 2035 is not anticipated to have significant effects on spread or expansion of NNIP based on the temporary nature of these openings, and the amount and scattered distribution of vegetation management activities and the uncertainty with which timber harvest would actually occur on private lands with steep slopes (>45%).

Long-term cumulative effects Openings or nonforest habitat that currently exist within the cumulative effects boundary are largely the result of past road building, oil and gas development, residential development and farming on non-Forest Service lands. Based on historic levels of residential development and current farming activities, it is anticipated that minimal residential development will occur and what might, would likely occur in areas that are already non-forest. It is anticipated that if any conversion happens the majority would be from oil and gas development on private lands. Based on projections, an additional 102 shallow wells could be developed within the project area resulting in up to 143 acres (0.69 percent of the project area) of additional disturbance over the next 20 years. The future intensity and coverage of deep well development is still uncertain. The Analysis Framework section of the Izenbrown Corners Environmental

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 7

Assessment discusses potential deep gas exploration and development, and it is estimated that approximately 40 acres of disturbance (0.19 percent of the project area) may occur over the next 20 years.

Based on the amount, location, timing and intensity of both Forest Service and non-forest service activities within the project area, the Proposed Action is not expected to contribute to any adverse cumulative effect.

No Action Alternative

Because NNIP treatments would not be authorized, existing NNIP infestations are anticipated to persist and spread.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 8

References Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Izenbrown EA – Project File

Buckley, D. S., T. R. Crow, E. A. Nauertz, and K. E. Schulz. 2003. Influence of skid trails and haul roads on understory plant richness and composition in managed forest landscapes in Upper Michigan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 175 (2003) 509-520.

Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999. Federal Register. Vol. 64 Number 25.

FSM 2900. Forest Service Manual – Invasive Species Management December 5, 2011.

Gucinski H, M.J. Furnisss, F.F. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. USDA Forest Service.

NISC 2001. National Invasive Species Council – Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge Management Plan. 74 pp.

Oil and Gas Estimates for Izenbrown Project EA – Project File

PA Department of Conservation of Natural Resources – Invasive Exotic Plant Tutorial for Natural Lands Managers http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/plants/invasiveplants/index.htm.

Parendes, L.A. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic Plant Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, Number 1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Land for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007d. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Land for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendix (A, B-F, or G). Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania.

USDA-FS. 2007e. Biological Evaluation for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. F8-978. 49 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/

USDA-FS. Forest Service Invasive Species Program website http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 9

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix D - Non-native Invasive Plants Report Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix E1 Soil Resources Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Roosevelt Carter Bradford Ranger District Soil Scientist

Edited and Reviewed by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader and Writer/Editor

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page i Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents

Analysis Framework ...... 1 Affected Environment ...... 2 Environmental Consequences ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 4 No Action ...... 6 Conversion of Forest and Prime Farmland ...... 7 Cumulative Effects...... 8 Literature Cited ...... 9

Tables

Table 1 Project activities that convert forest Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-forest and non-agricultural uses ...... 7 Table 2 Activities that contribute to a cumulative conversion of land to non-forest and non-agricultural uses ...... 8

Maps in the project record Map 1 – Designated Farmland in the Izenbrown Corners Project Area

Map 2 – Soils with Landslide Potential in the Izenbrown Corners Project Area

Map 3 – Soil Groups in the Izenbrown Corners Project Area

Map 4 – Soil Groups with Equipment Limitations in the Izenbrown Corners Project Area

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page ii Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Analysis Framework

The ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-7 to 3-8) describes the origin and condition of soils on the ANF, as well as potential effects to soils from management activities in terms of effects on: 1) soil nutrients; 2) soil erosion; and 3) soil compaction, puddling, and rutting (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-7 to 3- 21). These general effects are incorporated by reference.

One of the goals of the ANF Forest Plan is to manage soil disturbances from management activities so that they do not result in long-term loss of inherent soil quality and function (USDA-FS 2007a, page 14). This analysis assumes that all proposed activities would be consistent with ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Forest Service Handbook for Soil Management (2509.18), Pennsylvania Best Management Practices (BMPs), and any site-specific project design features, as well as all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Forest Service Eastern Region directives (USDA FS 2005a) limits detrimental soil disturbance from compaction, displacement, puddling and rutting, burning, erosion, and mass movement (combined) to 15 % of the activity area. Long-term soil productivity would be maintained through timing of treatments (seasonal restrictions), by reestablishing vegetation on disturbed areas, and through natural processes.

This analysis applies available geospatial information, other site-specific factors and recent peer-reviewed research to compare the potential effects of the Proposed Action with the No Action alternative, including the amount and category of soil disturbance and the likelihood of short-term effects (three years or less) and long-term soil impairment (beyond three years). Proposed activities that influence soil resources include: prescribed fire; fire containment line construction; herbicide application; scarification; timber harvest; log skidding; road construction and maintenance; wildlife opening creation; sustainable equestrian trail construction; and fence construction. Descriptions of soil types in the project area are provided in the appendices of this report. Maps displaying key soil types and soil limitations within the project area are available in the project record.

The extent and intensity of soil disturbance and potential effects to soil resources from some proposed activities are minor (not measurable); therefore, these activities will not be analyzed further, including: non-commercial and pre-commercial thinning; fruit tree release; site preparation; manual/mechanical non- native invasive plant treatments; planting; mowing; wildlife structure construction; and restoration.

The FY2008 – 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Allegheny National Forest describes the results of annual monitoring to determine compliance with Forest Service regional soil disturbance guidelines (pages 95 and 96). With one exception (a two acre stand), soil disturbance associated with skid trails and landings in all stands monitored was less than the 15% Forest Service Regional standard. The ANF Forest Plan established equestrian use areas intended to prevent resource damage from existing commercial and heavy recreational use in limited areas, including the EUA in the Economite area (USDA-FS 2007a, ROD-11). User-developed trails in the Economite area have resulted in impacts that could be minimized by developing a designed trail system that is constructed to address soil and water concerns (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-37).

Soils recognized as “prime farmland” and “farmland of statewide importance” are federally designated by the USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service. The project area includes 7,936 acres of federal and private land (38% of the project area) with soils in these categories. The Proposed Action includes treatment activities on 2,865 acres of farmland soil map units. Agricultural use is not designated in the ANF Forest Plan for any of these lands, nor would any occur under future projects.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Affected Environment

Sensitive Soils within the Treatment Areas

Three sensitivity categories have been applied to soil map units within the treatment areas based on soil interpretations from the Warren County Soil Survey Report. Tables 1, 2 and 3 (appendix B) include a summary of treatment acres referenced to Soil Survey of Warren County (1979) map units. Table 4 (appendix B) provides a summary of the total number of treatment area acres referenced to the three sensitivity categories. These were derived from GIS layers for the purpose of discussion in this report, and the actual, “on the ground conditions,” may differ somewhat from the information used in this discussion. A full narrative description of these soil types is in appendix A.

Wet soils have seasonally high water tables within 18 inches of the soil surface, and have a higher sensitivity to several types of disturbance such as compaction, rutting, and soil displacement. Certain wet soils exhibit ponding (water remains on the surface, often in depressional areas, following periods of rainfall). When disturbed to the depth of the water, wet soils have the ability to bring subsurface flows to the surface.

Soils in the Atkins, Brinkerton, Cavode (category 3), Cookport, and Ernest (category 2) series have reduced permeability, low strength, and seasonal wetness. Soil rutting and displacement would be likely to occur on roads, landings, skid trails, and general harvest areas, although, surface stoning and use of geotextile fabric during road and landing construction would greatly alleviate this problem. Likewise, road maintenance, landing placement, skid trail locations, and forest management activities, in general, will be scrutinized in the field in order to avoid problem areas having limitations due to wetness and other soil characteristics.

Table 3 (appendix B) provides a summary of soils within the project area with wetness and other types of limitations (See Map 3 attached to this report). As mentioned previously, there is a concern with placing skid roads across these soil series because skid roads cut into the seasonally high water table. Often, the soil surface appears dry, but the subsoil is wet above a denser subsurface soil layer, which perches the water and prevents it from flowing into the deeper portion of the profile. The majority of the water that flows out of the soil profile in a cutbank would be caught by the ditch line and directed through culverts under roads and back onto the landscape.

Potential effects of intersecting this subsurface water table are as follows:

• Erosion occurs on the cutbank, and head cutting can occur if flows are large enough.

• Sediment from the erosion moves along the ditch line.

• Changes occur in the hydrologic characteristics of the hill slope and the amount of change would be dependent upon the number of times these wet soils are intersected by roads.

In addition to wet soil and the two categories of farmland, Table 3 indicates the approximate acres of soils with other types of limitations. Soils with rutting hazards and equipment limitations tend to be on terrain fostering the development of wetter soils. Increased slope, especially in conjunction with wet soil conditions, can limit the operability of equipment. Mass wasting is harder to quantify, but certain soils overlaying shale geology have shown an increased, although rare, tendency toward instability, resulting in the occurrence of localized landslides.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Steep slopes are sensitive to land management activities. Activities proposed on steep slopes are examined closely for potential erosion, land slippage and problems with the use of mechanized equipment. Erosion potential usually increases with steepness and length of slope. Some of the project area is typed by the Warren County Soil Survey Report as Gilpin soil (map symbol GpF), with slopes ranging from 25 to 60 percent. An on the ground review indicated that many of these units are characterized by variable slopes, with many in the 40 percent range, and short lengths in excess of that range. Use of heavy equipment on these steeper slopes could either be restricted at the discretion of the sale administrator, or winching would be used to remove felled trees in accordance with guidelines for slopes greater than 40 percent (USDA-FS, 2007a, p. 72). Equipment use on soils susceptible to landslides (Map 2 attached to this report) - generally slopes greater than 15 percent with soils susceptible to mass movement when loaded, excavated, or wet (Forest Plan page 72) - would only occur when soils are dry, or not at all if risks cannot be avoided. Map 4 (attached to this report) indicates other areas within the project area with moderate to severe equipment limitations due to soil characteristics.

Soils classified as “prime farmland” and “farmland of statewide importance” are federally designated by the USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS – see Map 1 attached to this report). The NRCS requests that the Forest Service (and other federal agencies) notify the local NRCS office when conversions of farmland occur as a result of federal land management decisions. Although some of these soils fall into one of the two “farmland” categories, and some were formerly farmed for food crops or animal pasture, these stands will remain forested.

Wildlife treatments are not included in the total treatment acres in tables in appendix B because:

1. Including them would inflate the treatment acres where proposed wildlife treatments overlap a portion of a unit proposed for silviculture or a reforestation treatments, and; 2. Proposed wildlife treatments are relatively low impact and low intensity, and are expected to have little or no impact on the soil resource. A great deal of latitude exists to situate wildlife treatments within a treatment unit to avoid the potential of problematic soils. A possible exception to the low impact wildlife treatments is the wildlife opening maintenance planned as part of this project, and this activity, and its effects on the soil resource, is discussed in greater detail in the wildlife section of this report.

Soils within the stands proposed for herbicide treatment as part of the Izenbrown project have a loamy texture. The majority of the soils to be treated have a silt loam texture characterized by a 0 to 50 percent sand fraction, a 50 to 87 percent silt fraction, and a 0 to 27 percent clay fraction. Soil organic matter content for the silt loam soils in the project is in the 0.5 to 4 percent range, and these soils have a pH range of 3.6 to 5.5. (USDA-SCS 1987).

These soils fall within the range of soil conditions considered during the herbicide analysis for the EIS to the revised Forest Plan Appendix G (USDA-FS 2007c, pp. G2-59, G2-60, G2-70). Therefore, the risk characterization to wildlife and terrestrial plants, aquatic plants, and human health from water related exposures to both ground water and runoff (USDA-FS 2007c, Appendix G, pp. G2-73 to 82, G1-80 to 91, and G1-131 to 142) applies to the herbicide use proposed in this project. Overall risks from the planned use of glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl are expected to be low (USDA-FS 2007a, p. ROD-23). The proposed use of glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl will not adversely affect soil productivity or soils nutrient cycling (USDA-FS 2007c, Appendix G, pp. G2-44, G1-106, G2-33, and G2-42).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Environmental Consequences

MI-5: Effects of the alternatives on long-term soil productivity

Proposed Action

Soil nutrients Potential affects to soil nutrients are described in the ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b pp. 3-11 to 3-13). Specific proposed activities that may affect soil nutrients include timber harvest, prescribed fire, and herbicide application. The ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-7 to 3-8) recognizes and describes the process of soil acidification that is occurring on the ANF due to acid deposition, also called acid rain. Acidification occurs because minerals such as limestone and dolomite which contain base cations (physical properties of elements that help to buffer soil acidity) are naturally rare as geologic components of the ANF. These minerals increase the capacity of soil to buffer the effects of acid deposition. Without this buffering capacity, soils on the ANF are highly susceptible to becoming even more acidic. The bulk of acid deposition on the ANF is the result of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions near the ANF, and to a great extent, transported from the Ohio River Valley (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-53). The Proposed Action would have no effect on any factors that influence soil acidification.

Proposed overstory removal for oak shelterwood treatment, early successional adaptive management and wildlife habitat patch cuts (748 acres) would remove only merchantable trunks, leaving half of the nutrients in trees (branches, leaves, tree crowns) on-site to be recycled (LRMP 3-11). Treetops that remain after stem removal would store nutrients, releasing them slowly over time. Additional base cation depletion would not be expected to occur following site changes from timber extraction (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-11).

Low intensity fires would facilitate nutrient cycling and increase availability of some plant nutrients. Ash deposition increases soil pH thereby reducing and possibly retarding soil acidification (Boerner, 2000; Boerner and Brinkman, 2005). Prescribed fire in mixed oak forest ecosystems also results in increased calcium levels in the soil surface, therefore retarding soil acidification (Boerner and Brinkman, 2005). Fire and thinning can also produce mixed results for nitrogen availability in mixed oak forests. Fire alone has been demonstrated to decrease ammonia and nitrate concentrations produced by microbial populations, which results in a decrease in nitrogen leaching (Boerner, 2006).

Glyphosate herbicide binds readily to soils and becomes relatively immobile, so there is limited potential for residual effects or effects to soil nutrients (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-33). Sulfometuron methyl herbicide remains relatively mobile, but has a relatively rapid half-life in acidic soils such as those found on the ANF (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-12). It also is more strongly adsorbed to acidic soils. The ANF Forest Plan FEIS determined that with the application rates used on the ANF, the herbicides, glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl, would not adversely affect soil nutrient cycling, soil microorganisms, or soil productivity (USDA-2007b, pp. 3-12 and 3-14 and Appendix G, pp. G1-42–G1-44 and G1-104–G1-106). A review of the literature suggests that use of glyphosate in forests, especially at typical application rates used to control striped maple, American beech, and hayscented and New York fern, does not have lasting impacts on the fungal components in the soil (in project file).

Because the rate of acid deposition on the ANF is not connected to any project activities associated with Izenbrown Corners project, or any other ANF project, acidification will continue to occur at the current trend. Down woody debris will accumulate with time as trees die as a result of natural thinning due to a lack of adequate resources, blowdown, insects or disease. The main stems of dead trees that have fallen to

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

the ground would decompose much more slowly and provide these same benefits as treetops and other logging slash for a much longer time period.

Soil Erosion, Compaction, Puddling and Rutting

Potential affects to soil erosion, compaction, puddling and rutting are described in the FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-13- 3-15). Soil erosion is a natural process by which soil and rock are removed by processes such as wind or water flow, and then transported and deposited in other locations. Accelerated erosion may occur in any area that is stripped of vegetation, and these effects may also result from compaction, puddling and rutting where vehicles or hoofed animals pass repeatedly. Therefore, these effects are discussed together. Specific proposed activities that may affect soil erosion include timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, road decommissioning, prescribed fire and fire containment line construction, scarification, sustainable equestrian trail construction, and user-created equestrian trail rehabilitation.

Soil disturbance associated with timber harvest would cause moderate to low amounts of accelerated erosion by removing the vegetation and organic matter that protects the soil surface from raindrop impact. However, in a managed forest, erosion remains low due to the relatively long interval between treatment activities. Harvest equipment can compact the soil, reducing soil porosity and infiltration rates. Severe rutting, which concentrates sheet flow of water into rills and gullies can result in accelerated erosion. Regional Forest Service standards (USDA FS 2005a) limit the cumulative amount of soil disturbance from vegetation management activities to 15 % of the aerial extent of the activity area (112 acres). Where log skidding occurs, skid trails are usually approximately 12 feet wide. These trails would be ripped or subsoiled (plowed to the depth of the subsoil to reduce soil density) after use, and drainage would be directed off of skid trails using water bars or logs. Seasonally restricting timber harvest activities to dry or frozen conditions, use of low ground pressure equipment, and avoiding perennially wet areas and steep slopes would reduce the potential for long-term soil compaction and accelerated erosion. The upper few inches of soil recovers quickly from light to moderate compaction due to organic matter additions from logging debris, soil biota activity, freezing and thawing, and plant root growth from existing and new vegetation.

Road maintenance, construction, and use can cause accelerated erosion levels by changing rainfall impact on road and soil surfaces and surface runoff on roadbeds. Road maintenance can cause temporary increases in erosion and sedimentation, but will typically reduce erosion over the long-term. Design features such as improved drainage and more resistant surfacing can reduce the amount of road-related erosion or at least reduce sedimentation in nearby waterways. No new road construction is proposed on historic landslides or on mapped colluvial soils. Short-term increases in erosion can occur during implementation of road maintenance but overall sedimentation is expected to decrease with time.

Road decommissioning activities would likely cause short-term increases in erosion. However, because road decommissioning would involve removing the roadbed and recontouring the road prism, subsurface flow would be restored or at least improved, and plant growth would be more easily supported. In the long-term, erosion would be reduced, and soils would eventually regain some degree of productivity. The soil under and within decommissioned road prisms would exhibit qualities of a manmade soil for several decades.

The oak shelterwood sequence includes multiple applications prescribed fire over 20 years in combination with thinning to achieve conditions suitable for successful oak regeneration. Prescribed fire treatments would result in a greater increase in the amount of exposed mineral soil than would timber thinning (Boerner, 2006). Studies by Boerner indicate that thinning in one season and burning in the following

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

year results in more disturbance than just burning alone; however after 3 years of recovery there is no difference between mineral exposure of soil between burning stands, thinning stands, and burning and thinning stands (mixed oak forest) which indicates that initial effects may differ but recovery of the stand is rapid and effects are defined as short term. This same effect would be expected in the Izenbrown Corners project area due to the similarities of landscape between the project area and the research area used by Boerner (Allegheny Plateau Province, unglaciated, Alfisol – Inceptisol – Ultisol soil types).

The potential for sheet erosion and gullying increases only slightly with low to moderate intensity prescribed fire in oak forest types, because roots do not burn, and provide a physical barrier or protection. No available data or research suggests that litter with volatile organics burned at higher temperatures in mixed oak forests or that the burning of the litter produces a water repellent layer in the mineral soil resulting in sheet erosion or a lack of groundwater recharge.

The potential for accelerated erosion would be increased where soil would be displaced to construct fire containment lines. The degree of displacement would depend on the construction tools and methods that are applied. However, line would be constructed incorporating erosion, sedimentation and runoff control measures, and the potential for accelerated erosion would be mitigated by mulching, seeding with an annual grass, and installation of hand-dug water bars to dissipate the energy of water moving on the soil surface. Hand lines would typically remove litter layer to a depth of 2 to 3 cm, just to the mineral soil surface. This amount of duff removal is not expected to result in erosion beyond background levels. Although dozer lines would potentially be more intrusive, a skilled operator can construct a line that also removes only debris and duff, and displaces little mineral soil material. Complete removal of the uppermost mineral soil horizon would not likely occur. Since fire line construction using a dozer involves only a single pass, soil compaction is slight, and recovery occurs quickly.

The potential for mass movement of soil susceptible to landslides would be alleviated by application of the Forest Plan guideline (page 72) for heavy equipment use, as well as other Forest Plan standards and guidelines intended to control detrimental soil disturbance. Also, no new road construction would occur on soils susceptible to mass movement (Forest Plan page 73).

Scarification for oak regeneration would remove much of the litter layer and displace minor amounts of soil where it is applied. Because scarification usually takes place after acorn fall but during leaf fall, soil is exposed in the process but is quickly covered by the leaves. Leaves act as protection for the soil from raindrop impact, reducing the likelihood of accelerated erosion.

Within the Economite area, user created equestrian trails pass through wet soils where rutting and puddling has occurred. Riders have avoided the muddy, rutted trials by riding around them, creating additional damage adjacent to the original trails. Construction of the sustainable 36 inch wide (maximum) equestrian trail would result in an increase in hardened (compacted) soil surface on approximately 3.1 acres over 8.5 linear miles. The trail would be constructed in a manner consistent with Forest Service standards and guidelines, and would either avoid concern areas (USDA-FS 2007b, p. 3-37), or apply design standards to hardened trail surfaces that facilitate water movement through or under trails, and stabilize rutted soils.

No Action

Accelerated erosion may occur as a result of previously authorized road maintenance activities on less than five miles of Forest Service road corridors, as funding and management priorities permit. Potential short-term effects from previously authorized road maintenance activities could include increases in soil movement during road maintenance activities. However, these activities would stabilize roadside soils and reduce erosion potential in the long term.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Accelerated erosion would also continue from user-created equestrian trails in the Economite area EUA. However, the rutting and puddling that has resulted from user-created trails is limited to small local areas, and none of the trials are adjacent to perennial streams. Any sediment that originates in ruts or puddles would be filtered through vegetation before reaching streams. However, because off-trail riding will be permitted within the EUA until a designated trial system is available, and user-created trails are unplanned and not designed to reduce or avoid accelerated erosion, new trails could be developed in locations that could result in rutting and puddling that will create accelerated erosion that does reach streams.

Conversion of Forest and Prime Farmland

The Proposed Action includes potential oak shelterwood removal on 514 acres of designated farmland. However, shelterwood removal would only occur if competitive oak seedlings at least three feet tall are present over at least 50% of a portion or portions of farmland soil map units. Therefore, it is unlikely that shelterwood removal would occur on all of the 514 acres of designated farmland. Overstory removal of red pine would occur on 89 acres. Reforestation, crop tree release, early successional adaptive management, and wildlife habitat patch cuts would occur on 725 acres of designated farmland. None of the proposed overstory removal activities remove topsoil, cover the surface or otherwise impair land designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Table 1 Project activities that convert forest Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- forest and non-agricultural uses Roads miles acres miles acres1 total total farmland farmland Road construction - new corridor 3.1 9.40 1.3 3.9 Road construction - existing corridor2 5.1 15.5 0 0 Road reconstruction – realignment 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.7 Total acres converted to non-forest 26 Total acres of designated farmland converted to non-agricultural uses 4.6 1Acres have been calculated for road construction using a 25 ft. width for road surface and ditches. Clearing limits are presumed to be 35 feet. 2Road construction in existing corridors is not presumed to be new conversion of designated farmland.

Road construction and road reconstruction would result in permanent conversion of 26 acres of land managed as forest. Of that amount, 4.6 acres of designated farmland would be converted to non- agricultural use (.16 % of designated farmland within the project area).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Cumulative Effects

The Izenbrown Corners Environmental Assessment describes previously approved activities in the cumulative effects analysis area, and provides an estimate of private oil and gas development over the next two decades. The cumulative effect of proposed project activities and projected development of private oil and gas resources would be the permanent conversion of 199 acres of forested land (0.95 % of the project area) from forest management or other uses (Table 2). Because the actual locations for new oil and gas development cannot be predicted, cumulative conversion of designated farmland cannot be projected.

Table 2 Activities that contribute to a cumulative conversion of land to non-forest and non-agricultural uses % of the project area Activity acres (private and Forest Service) Proposed project activities 26.0 0.12 Pvt. shallow well development (projected) 1 133 0.64 Pvt. deep gas well development (projected) 2 40 0.19 Totals 199 0.95 1 Calculation based on 1.3 acres of disturbance per well pad 2 Calculation based on 10 acres of disturbance per deep well pad

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Literature Cited

Adams, M.B., J.A. Burger, A.B. Jenkins, and L. Zelazny. 2000. Impact of harvesting and atmospheric pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern U.S. hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management 138:301-319.

Adams, Mary B. 1999. Acidic deposition and sustainable forest management in the central Appalachians, USA, Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 122, Issues 1-2, p 17-28.

Adams, Mary B. and J.N. Kochenderfer. 1998. The Fernow Whole-watershed Acidification Study: Soil Chemistry. In “The Effects of Acid Deposition on Pennsylvania’s Forests.” (W.E. Sharpe and J.R. Drohan, eds.) Proceedings of the 1998 PA Acidic Deposition Conference, Vol. 1. Environmental Resources Research Institute, University Park, PA.

Adams, P.W., 1991. Soil Compaction on Woodland Properties. Oregon State University Extension Service. The Woodland Workbook. Extension Circular 1109, Revised January 1991.

Bailey, S.W., S.B. Horsley, and R.P. Long. 2004. Personal communication, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station).

Bailey, S.W., S.B. Horsley, R.P. Long, and R.A. Hallett. 2004. Influence of edaphic factors on Sugar Maple nutrition and health on the Allegheny Plateau. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:243-252.

Bailey, S.W., S.B. Horsley, and R.P. Long. 2005. Thirty years of change in forest soils of the Allegheny Plateau, Pennsylvania. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. In Process.

Berger, A.L., K.J. Puettmann, and G.E. Host. 2004. Harvesting impacts on soil and understory vegetation: the influence of season of harvest and within-site disturbance patterns on clear-cut aspen stands in Minnesota. Can. J. For. Res. 34:2159-2168.

Blake, L., K.W. Goulding, C.J.B. Mott, and A.E. Johnston. 1999. Changes in Soil Chemistry Accompanying acidification over more than 100 years under woodland and grass at Rothamsted Experimental Station, U.K.

Boerner, R.E.J. 2000. Effects of Fire on the Ecology of the Forest Floor and Soil of Central Hardwood Forests. From Proceedings: Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central Hardwood Landscape. (D. A. Yaussy, ed.) GTN-NE-274.

Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. The nature and properties of soils, 13th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Burger, J.A., et. al. 1985. Impact of tracked and rubber-tired tractors on a forest soil. Amer. Soc. of Agric. Engineers. Paper No. 83-1621.

Elliott, K.J. and J.D. Knoepp. 2005. The effects of three regeneration harvest methods on plant diversity and soil characteristics in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 211:296- 317.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. National air quality and emissions trends report. EPA 454/R-00-003.

Fernandez, I.J., et al. 2003. Experimental acidification causes soil base-cation depletion at the Bear Brook Watershed in Maine. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:1909-1919.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Gbondo-Tugbwaa, S.S. and C.T. Driscoll. 2002. Retrospective analysis of the response of soil and stream chemistry of a northern forest ecosystem to atmospheric deposition controls from the 1970 and 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 4717-4720.

Grigal, D.F. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 138 (2000) 167-185.

Hatchell, G.E., C.W. Ralston. 1971. Natural Recovery of Surface Soils Disturbed in Logging. Tree Planters Notes 2292: 5-9.

Joslin, J.D., J.M. Kelly, and H. Van Miegroet. 1992. Soil chemistry and nutrition of North American spruce-fir stands: evidence for recent change. J. Environ. Qual. 21:12-30.

Kochenderfer, J. 1977. Area in Skidroads, Truck Roads, and Landings in the Central Appalachians. Journal of Forestry. 75:507-508.

Kochenderfer, J. and Edwards, P. 1997. Hydrologic Impacts of Logging an Appalachian Watershed Using West Virginia’s Best Management Practices. North. J. Appl. For. 14(4) 207-218.

Kozlowski, T.T. 1999. Soil compaction and growth of woody plants. Scand. J. For. Res. 14: 596-619, 1999.

Lawrence, G.B. and Huntington, T.G. USGS Report WRIR 98-4267. February 1999. Soil Calcium Depletion Linked to Acid Rain and Forest Growth in the Eastern United States.

Mann, I.K., D.W. Johnson, D.C. West, D.W. Cole, J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, H. Riekerk, C.T. Smith, W.T. Swank, L.M. Tritton and D.H. Van Lear. 1988. Effects of whole-tree and stem only clear-cutting on post-harvest hydrologic losses, nutrient capital, and regrowth. For. Sci. 34(2): 412-428.

Markewitz, D., et al. 1998. Three decades of observed soil acidification in the Calhoun Experimental Forest: Has acid rain made a difference? Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:1428-1439.

Pritchett, W.L. 1979. Properties and Management of Forest soils. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Schreffler, A.M. and W.E. Sharpe. 2003. Effects of Lime, Fertilizer, and Herbicide on Forest Soil and Soil Solution Chemistry, Hardwood Regeneration, and Hardwood Growth Following Shelterwood Harvest. Forest Ecology and Management, no. 177:471-484.

Sparks, D.L. 2003. Environmental Soil Chemistry. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.

USDA-FS. 2005. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 Soil Management Region 9 supplement of Chapter 2: Soil Quality Monitoring. 17 pp.

USDA-FS. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA. 168 pp., and Appendices A, B, C, and D, totaling 60 pp.

USDA-FS. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement. Warren, PA. 667 pp.

USDA-FS. 2007c. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement. Warren, PA. Appendices G1, G2 and G3, totaling 280 pp.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

USDA-FS. 2007d. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement, Warren, PA. Appendices B through F, totaling 260 pp.

USDA-FS. 2014. Allegheny National Forest FY2008-2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Warren, PA. 282 pages.

USDA-SCS. 1979. Soil Survey of Warren County, Pennsylvania.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Soil-calcium depletion linked to acid rain and forest growth in the eastern United States. USGS 98-4267.

Yanai, R.D., R.P. Phillips, M.A. Arthur, T.G. Siccama, and E.N. Hane. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation in calcium and aluminum in northern hardwood forest floors. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 160:109-118.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E1 - Soils Report Page 11

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix E2 Water Resources Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Chuck Keeports Allegheny National Forest Hydrologist

Edited and Formatted by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents Project Area ...... 1 Analysis Framework ...... 1 Environmental Consequences ...... 2 Measurement Indicator-6: Effects of the alternatives on water quality and water quantity ...... 2 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 2 Monitoring ...... 7 Cumulative Effects Analysis Area ...... 7 Protected Water Uses and Criteria Necessary to Protect Each Use ...... 8 References ...... 10

Tables

Table 1 Basal area reduction, including cumulative effects of non-Forest Service activities ______4 Table 2 – Comparison of effects of proposed activities on water quality and water quantity ______5 Table 3 - Watershed hierarchy for the Izenbrown Corners Project analysis area ______8

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Project Area

The project area drains directly into the section of the Allegheny River between Kinzua Dam and Tionesta Dam referred to as the “13 Percent Area”. This area is so named (USDA – FS 2007a, p. 83) because it makes up 13% of the total land base managed by the ANF. More restrictive ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines are applied to ANF management activities in this area due to the presence of federally threatened and endangered mussel species. For instance, herbicide use and timber harvesting should not occur within the riparian corridors.

Analysis Framework

This analysis presumes that all Forest Plan standards and guidelines and design criteria (USDA-FS 2007a) would be applied where relevant. The ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b) determined that effects to water quality and water quantity are minimal when forestry-related activities are dispersed over the watershed.

Road construction, reconstruction and decommissioning

Accelerated sedimentation from roads is the principle concern for water quality, and accelerated runoff from roads is the principle concern for water quantity. New road construction within 300 feet of streams has the greatest potential to affect both water quality and quantity within the project area and the cumulative effects analysis area. Road reconstruction in existing corridors and hauling on roads within 300 feet of streams has the next greatest potential for adverse effects to water quality and water quantity. (USDA-FS 2007b).

Forest Service system roads, numbered non-system roads, and rights-of-way were assessed in 2011 for runoff concerns in 2011. Rights-of-way and unidentified, non-numbered forest roads were located using aerial images, and specific areas were visited for assessment. This assessment was used to inform the analysis and develop site-specific project design feature (appendix A of this analysis).

Timber harvest and vegetation management

Measurable annual changes to stream flow are predicted to occur when more than 25% of a watershed changes from forested to regenerating forest in a three to ten year period (Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 2000, Lynch and Corbett 1990, Hornbeck et al. 1993). This value serves as a goal for minimizing changes to water quality or quantity, and is not a set threshold beyond which impairment will occur. When changes to streamflow occur from exceeding this value, changes to water yield would be expected to occur as an increase in summer low flow, as opposed to peak flows, and would occur primarily during the growing season (Megahan and Hornbeck, 2000). Even-aged harvests typically result in a vigorous increase in herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and tree seedlings on the ANF. Once this flush of understory vegetation is established, changes to stream flow would be diminished to pre-harvest conditions.

Basal-area reduction was analyzed for even-aged silvicultural treatments, including shelterwood removal harvests, and clearcuts, and these treatments were estimated to remove 90 % of the basal area of the stand. Intermediate treatments such as crop tree release, patch cuts, and shelterwood seed cuts were also considered for basal area reduction, and these treatments were estimated to remove 25 % of the basal area of the stand. The average time required for hydrologic recovery after an even-aged harvest is between three and ten years (Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 2000), and streamflow regime recovery in central Pennsylvania takes approximately four years (Lynch and Corbett 1990). Based on the Pennsylvania study, we will be assuming hydrologic recovery will occur after five years.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Prescribed Fire

Effects to water quality and water quantity have been considered in the context of intensity and severity of fire on areas prescribed for burning and fire’s effect to soil surface conditions, as well as the quantity of water needed from nearby sources to manage fires. The contribution of prescribed fire to cumulative effects was considered together with private oil and gas development within the project area, which also requires use of water resources.

Private Oil and Gas Development

A summary of current and project oil and gas development can be found in the affected environment section of the environmental assessment. See the project record for supporting documents. Because specific data regarding the number of future wells that may be developed, water requirements for hydraulic fracturing, and the sources of water that will be used for hydraulic fracturing are not available, potential impacts of private oil and gas development on water quantity can only be discussed in general terms. Environmental Consequences

Measurement Indicator-6: Effects of the alternatives on water quality and water quantity

Direct and Indirect Effects

ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines (USDA-FS 2007a) would be applied to all Forest Service activities. For instance, commercial timber harvests will not occur within riparian zones (e.g. 100 feet of perennial streams and water bodies or 50 feet of intermittent streams) or wetland management zones (e.g. 100 feet of wetlands, springs, and seeps or within 200 feet of vernal pools). Actions within the riparian zone and wetland management zones are limited to minimize changes to water quality and water quantity (Stuart and Edwards 2006). The ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b) provides documentation, which demonstrates minimal effects to water temperature, nutrient concentrations, and sediment concentrations from proposed activities when ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines are applied.

Road construction, reconstruction and decommissioning

Existing nonsystem road corridors within 300 feet of streams that are converted to Forest Service System roads may reduce sedimentation and runoff where roads are improved to Forest Service standards. Road maintenance would correct portions of roads that are contributing increased sedimentation and runoff to streams by diverting water into effective filter and infiltration areas (Scheetz and Bloser 2008).

The Proposed Action includes 3.1 miles of new road construction. These roads would not be expected to have an adverse effect to water quality and quantity since none are within 300 feet of streams, and no new stream crossings would be constructed. New road construction would increase soil compaction locally but would have minimal effects within the affected watersheds because only 15.6 acres would be disturbed. This is not expected to in adverse effects to stream flow because streams and wetlands would be avoided. New road construction activities would be consistent with Standards and guidelines and implement the BMPs to minimize the extent of these impacts.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

The Proposed Action also includes 5.1 miles of road reconstruction to Forest Service standards within existing corridors. One of these corridors crosses an intermittent stream (an unnamed tributary to Camp Run), and 0.2 miles of the proposed road reconstruction is within 300 feet of a stream. There would be a small decrease in runoff and sediment as a result of improvements to this road. Because no improvements to nonsystem roads would occur under the No Action Alternative, reduction of sediment and runoff would occur at a much slower rate than under the Proposed Action.

Road maintenance would be likely to occur at a faster rate in the Proposed Action because funds would be generated from timber sales to improve road condition. Maintenance of haul routes and the addition of commercial surfacing within 300 feet of streams would be expected to mitigate effects to water quality that may occur as a result of an increase in heavy truck traffic within the cumulative effects analysis area. Limestone durable surface aggregate (DSA) would be applied on roads within 300 feet of streams. Maintenance of FS system roads within 300 feet of streams would disconnect the roads from streams to reduce sediment and runoff delivery. Limestone DSA application may provide a beneficial effect to water chemistry through the addition of base cations (e.g., calcium and magnesium) to the local watershed, which would have the potential to help buffer nearby streams against episodic and chronic acidification. In addition, applying limestone sand to the ditchlines on existing and new roads at stream crossings would also provide increases in alkalinity.

Road decommissioning is proposed on 0.6 miles of FR 555A and 556, and 0.6 miles of a non-system road. These segments are not within 300 feet of streams, so decommissioning is not likely to adversely affect or improve water quality or quantity.

Benefits to water quality would be slightly less under the No Action alternative.

Timber harvest and vegetation management

Increases in streamflow are not anticipated from proposed harvest activities because basal area reduction from timber harvest would not exceed 25 % in the project area (see Table 1). Shelterwood removal treatments were evaluated on 30 small watersheds within the project area to determine if basal area reduction would exceed 25 %. Only 16 watersheds had even-aged treatments on more than 10 acres. These watershed areas ranged in size from 279 acres to 8753 acres with the average size of 1285 acres. If all of the treatments were implemented at once, basal area reduction could range from 12 to 19 % for four watersheds, and would be less than 10 % in 11 watersheds. Basal area reduction was 27 % in the Camp Run watershed, although changes to streamflow are still not expected to be measurable from this small margin over the 25 % value. Also, it is unlikely that all of the treatments would occur at the same time. Because treatments are spread throughout the project area and spread over 20 years, timber harvest activities would not have any adverse effect (increase) to water quantity discharged to streams within the project area.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 1 Basal area reduction, including cumulative effects of non-Forest Service activities Forest Forest Service Private Cumulative Private Total Service percent percent Percent Project area acres 9473 11328 20801 45 55 100

Basal area reduction From proposed action, -1138 -560 -1698 121 52 8 timber harvest From proposed action, new -16 0 -16 <11 0 <1 road construction oil and gas development 0 -173 -173 0 <12 <1 Total basal area 131 62 9 reduction 1 Represents percentage of Forest Service land only 2 Represents percentage of private land only

No other Forest Service timber harvest from previous NEPA decisions remains to be implemented within the project area or the cumulative effects analysis are. An estimated 560 acres of even-aged timber harvest is projected to occur over the next 20 years on private land within the project area. Pennsylvania BMPs for road construction and timber harvesting would minimize effects to water resources (PADEP 2005).The addition of a projected 102 shallow wells within the project area would result in basal area reduction on up to 133 acres, and 40 acres of disturbance and the projected addition of four deep shale gas wells would result in basal area reduction on an additional 40 acres. Pennsylvania BMPs include guidelines for road and well pad construction for oil and gas development to control erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to streamflow regimes. Protection of water resources would be accomplished by providing buffers from streams and wetlands and controlling erosion and runoff from roads, particularly at stream crossings. Although these conservation measures are effective at reducing effects, sediment and increased runoff could reach streams and wetlands, wherever they are crossed. Sedimentation would be the greatest during construction and would lessen once areas are stabilized. Both older and newer wells would need to be monitored to ensure that Pennsylvania BMPs are being maintained.

Based on an assumption that implementation of proposed timber harvest activities would occur at one time and in combination with private timber harvest and oil and gas development activities, cumulative basal area reduction would not exceed 9% within the project area. Because basal area reduction would actually occur incrementally over 20 years, basal area reduction would remain below 9% at any point in time over 20 years, and measurable increased stream flow would not be anticipated.

The 2007 ANF Forest Plan encourages that slash, including tops and branches is left on site to maintain about half of the nutrients and base cations in the stand (USDA-FS 2007a). The extra base cations left on site would help buffer the effects of acid precipitation in soils and maintain the water quality of the streams.

Under the No Action alternative, basal area reductions would only occur through natural processes, private timber actions, or private oil and gas development.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 2 – Comparison of effects of proposed activities on water quality and water quantity Proposed Activity No Action Proposed Action No existing road corridors would Miles of existing road be reconstructed. These non- corridor within 300’ of 0.2 miles of existing road corridor would be system roads would continue to a stream reconstructed, reducing a sediment source. contribute high levels of runoff and reconstructed. sediment to streams.

Miles of new road No new roads would be constructed No new roads would be constructed within 300’ of constructed within within 300’ of a stream. a stream. 300’ of a stream.

Miles of road decommissioned No roads would be decommissioned No roads would be decommissioned that are within 300’ of a within 300’ of a stream. within 300’ of a stream. stream.

Proposed treatments would reduce basal area by Basal area reductions would only be up to 12 % of NFS lands in the project area and through natural processes, 5.5 % of the CE area. No measurable effects in Even-aged treatments harvesting on private lands, or oil water quantity are anticipated: ≤ 8.9 % basal area resulting in basal area and gas development. No effects reduction in the CE area from even-aged % reductions. are anticipated to water quantity as treatments on Private and NFS Lands. Including BA reduction would be 4.7 %, and new oil and gas development, basal area would decline to 1.1 % by 2033. reduction < 10 %. Basal area reduction would decline to 1.3 % by 2033.

Miles of new 0.3 miles of new trail would be constructed in this sustainable No new sustainable equestrian trails area. Due to these segments crossing streams at equestrian trails would be constructed within 300’ of existing road crossings, there would be a low constructed within a stream. possibility of increased runoff reaching a stream 300’ of a stream. at the new stream crossing.

Herbicide Use

Herbicide treatments would not be expected to have an adverse effect to water quality in the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action proposes herbicide applications on 11 % (up to 2,318 acres) of the project area. The majority of herbicide treatments are located away from streams. Where treatments overlap streams or riparian areas, those resources would be protected through buffers identified in the herbicide standards of the ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 57-58). This project is within 13 % area so no herbicides would be applied within riparian corridors, unless it is necessary to control invasive exotic plant species (USDA-FS 2007a, pp. 83-84).

Prescribed Fire

The risk of adverse effects to water quality from the prescribed fires is low. Prescribed fire would result in minimal, short-term effects to water quality and quantity because burns would be of low to moderate intensity and low to moderate severity fires, where vegetation usually returns very quickly after this disturbance (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 3-41). Prescribed fire would consume ground cover and leaf litter, but temperatures would not be high enough to consume the organic layer of the soil or the roots, so erosion will be minimal. After intense precipitation that may cause overland runoff, some movement of ash to nearby streams may occur. Low to moderate intensity fires can facilitate nutrient cycling and may increase soil pH, which may cause beneficial short term improvements to water quality.

Ground scarification may be used along with or in place of prescribed burning to promote oak regeneration. Because a buffer zone would be applied along streams and wetlands to avoid direct

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

disturbances and minimize erosion near these resources, effects are expected to be minimal and short- term.

An estimated 600 to 900 gallons of water per day over two days (up to 1800 gallons) could be withdrawn to facilitate burning and mop-up of an estimated 400 acres each year, based on current capacity (suitable conditions, trained staff and equipment) for managing prescribed fire on the Allegheny National Forest. Because prescribed conditions may not be achieved every year during project implementation, burning may not occur every year. Implementation of ANF Forest Plan guidelines would ensure that the drafting of water from a stream for this and other incidental uses would maintain existing uses such as fish and aquatic life (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 76).

Private oil and gas development may also result in surface water use within the project area. The water used for hydraulic fracturing is typically hauled in from a PADEP-approved surface or groundwater withdrawal site. Surface water withdrawal for hydraulic fracturing is also a possibility and could potentially be withdrawn from East Hickory Creek. These streams are not listed by the Commonwealth as impaired (PADEP 2010a).

Shallow wells generally use between 30,000 and 50,000 gallons of water for fracturing (Kuzma and Gleason 2009, personal communication). Within the cumulative effects analysis area, we project that the construction of an average of five new wells per year could use up to 250,000 gallons per year. Withdrawal of surface water typically occurs at larger streams for ease of pumping and to minimize effects to the stream. The ten-year baseflow of East Hickory Creek at the SR 666 Bridge in Endeavor is 35 cubic feet per second (CFS) or 22,685,664 gallons per day. Assuming operators would withdraw water for only one well per day at 50,000 gallons per day, this represents less than 1 % of the 10-year baseflow of East Hickory Creek. Base flow is the part of streamflow attributed to ground-water discharge into a stream, without surface runoff, and is described here as the mean annual flow expected to occur every ten years.

Marcellus shale well pads may use three to five million gallons of water (Kuzma and Gleason 2009, personal communication). Marcellus shale well developers are required to submit Water Management Plans to the PADEP whether the water is withdrawn from local sources or hauled in. The PADEP reviews these plans for individual and cumulative impacts and will not approve plans unless sufficient water remains to maintain existing and designated uses. If a shale well developer decided to draw from a stream in the project area, an appropriately sized stream may be East Hickory Creek. Assuming that a shale well developer would pump about 250,000 gallons per day, this would represent about 1.1 % of the ten-year baseflow of East Hickory Creek at the State Route 666 Bridge in Endeavor.

Because prescribed fire may not be applied every year, and would not likely exceed 400 acres in any one year, the Proposed Action would be unlikely to contribute to a measurable adverse cumulative effect to water quantity or water quality of usable surface waters within the project area.

Sustainable Equestrian Trail

The risk of adverse impacts to water quality or water quantity from the sustainable equestrian trail is low. Only 0.3 miles of proposed sustainable equestrian trail would be constructed within 300 feet of streams. Because the trail segments cross streams at existing road crossings, there would be a low possibility of increased runoff reaching streams. After the trail has been completed and the user-created trails have been rehabilitated, there would be a long term reduction in sedimentation in the project area and an improvement to water quality.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Cumulative effects

The water used for hydraulic fracturing is typically hauled in from a PADEP-approved surface or groundwater withdrawal site. Surface water withdrawal for hydraulic fracturing is also a possibility and could potentially be withdrawn from East Hickory Creek. These streams are not listed by the Commonwealth as impaired (PADEP 2010a).

Shallow wells generally use between 30,000 and 50,000 gallons of water for fracturing (Kuzma and Gleason 2009, personal communication). Within the cumulative effects analysis area, we predict that the construction of an average of five new wells per year could use up to 250,000 gallons per year. Withdrawal of surface water typically occurs at larger streams for ease of pumping and to minimize effects to the stream. The ten-year baseflow of East Hickory Creek at the SR 666 Bridge in Endeavor is 35 cubic feet per second (CFS) or 22,685,664 gallons per day. Assuming operators would withdraw water for only one well per day at 50,000 gallons per day, this represents less than 1 % of the 10-year baseflow of East Hickory Creek. Base flow is the part of streamflow attributed to ground-water discharge into a stream, without surface runoff, and is described here as the mean annual flow expected to occur every ten years.

Design criteria and application of Pennsylvania BMPs during project implementation would ensure that effects from the project would have no adverse effects to water resources.

Monitoring

The implementation and effectiveness of BMPs, including ANF Forest Plan Standards and guidelines for roads, timber sales, and herbicides would be monitored within the project area to ensure protection of water quality or water quantity. This monitoring would be focused where activities overlap riparian corridors or are located adjacent to riparian corridors.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area

Time frame: 2015-2035

Rationale: The potential effects of basal area reduction are diminished beyond 5 years after the last removal cut is completed. The timeframe includes any previous effects of activities and natural events with current, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future activities.

Boundary: The Hydrology CE area is the Project Boundary, 9,461 acres of Forest Service land and 11,339 acres of private land.

The CE covers 6.7 % of the Stewards Island-Allegheny River, 31 % of the Perry Magee Run-Allegheny River subwatershed, 26.2 % of the East Hickory Creek watershed.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Rationale: The effects are not expected to be identifiable using the entire area of all 3 subwatersheds because this covers 96,020 acres and would dilute the effects. The effects are not identifiable beyond the CE boundary. Cumulative effects of the proposed activities would be masked, or diluted, to the point that ties with potential site disturbance would not be apparent or measurable.

Table 3 - Watershed hierarchy for the Izenbrown Corners Project analysis area 6th field subwatersheds 5th field Major streams within Project 4th field subbasin watershed (Project Area/ Total Boundary subwatershed area)

Allegheny River- Middle Upper (1954 acres/ 29144 acres (6.7 Bully Hollow/ Slater Run %))

South Allegheny River- Middle Lower Bimber Run/ Dale Run/ Dunn Allegheny River Allegheny Front (8686 acres/ 28035 acres (31%)) Run (Upper)

South East Hickory Creek (10640 East Hickory Creek/ Jaybuck Allegheny Front acres/ 38,841 acres (26.2 %)) Run/ Camp Run (Lower)

Protected Water Uses and Criteria Necessary to Protect Each Use

Protected water uses were designated by the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for all Commonwealth waters. The perennial streams in the project area include: Camp Run (EV), East Hickory Creek, Jaybuck Run, Queen Creek, and Bully Hollow Run which are designated as High Quality - Cold Water Fish (HQ-CWF) streams. These streams should be managed in a way that maintains and/or propagates fish species as well as flora and fauna, which are indigenous to a cold-water habitat and the water quality shall be maintained and protected. The uses for all the remaining streams in the project area are protected as Cold Water Fish (CWF), and should also be managed in a way that maintains and/or propagates fish species as well as flora and fauna, which are indigenous to a cold-water habitat. These include Alex Magee, Waid Run, Bimber Run, Dutchmans Run, Baugher Run, Dunn Run, Myers Run, Dale Run and a number of unnamed Allegheny River tributaries. Most of these streams support a reproducing population of native brook trout. Suitable aquatic invertebrate habitat occurs within all perennial streams within the project area, which includes 16.0 miles of cold water fishery, 31.3 miles of high quality cold water fishery and 1.3 miles of exceptional value stream. In addition the project includes intermittent streams, seeps, springs, vernal pools, and wetlands that can provide suitable habitat to aquatic insects. There are ~14 miles of river shoreline on the western project boundary. There are approximately 1,965 acres of riparian habitat. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) recognizes 1,477 acres of wetlands, with most being along the Allegheny River corridor and its islands. The Allegheny River is the only body of water listed as impaired from meeting Commonwealth water quality standards within the project area (PDEP 2010). The Allegheny River is listed for fish consumption due to Mercury from “unknown sources.”

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Water chemistry in the area is marginal due to soils and bedrock with low buffering capacity, in combination with acid deposition, which specifically affects mineral content and causes the water to be more acidic by lowering the water’s acid neutralizing capacity (USFS 2007b, p. 3- 27). During snow melt or large rain events, episodic acidification can exacerbate pH, acid neutralizing capacity, and alkalinity and release high levels of aluminum by causing a pulse of acids and/or dilution of base cations (e.g., calcium and magnesium). Research on streams in central and southwestern Pennsylvania have shown severe and chronic episodic acidification causing fish mortality and affecting fish distribution (Baker et al. 1996). Many streams in the project area have low pH values (<5.0) and low alkalinity (< 5 mg/L), even during summer baseflow when pH and alkalinity usually improve.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

References

Baker, J. P.; J. Van Sickle; C.J. Gagen; D.R. DeWalle; W.E. Sharpe; R.F. Carline; B.P. Baldigo; P.S. Murdoch; D.W. Bath; W.A. Kretser; H.A. Simonin, and P.J. Wigington, Jr. Episodic Acidification of Small Streams in the Northeastern United States: Effects on Fish Populations. Ecological Applications. 1996; 6(2):422-437. Dolloff, C. Andrew, and Jackson R. Webster. 2000. Particulate organic contributions from forests to streams: debris isn’t so bad. In: Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Edited by E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff. Ch. 7, 131-132. Hornbeck, J.W., and J.N. Kochenderfer. 2000. Linkages between forest and streams: A perspective in time. In: Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Edited by E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff. Ch. 5, pp. 89-93. Lynch, James A., and Edward S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Controlling Nonpoint Pollution From Silvicultural Operations. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(1): 41-52. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Timber Harvest Operations Field Guide for Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control. Technical Guidance No. 3930-BK- DEP4016. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. 2010. 2010 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report - Streams, Category 5 Water Bodies, Pollutants Requiring a TMDL. Harrisburg, PA: pp 397-402, 406, 408, 418, 438, 444, and 461. Scheetz, Barry and Steve Bloser. 2008. Research Summary: Sediment Reduction from Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance Practices on Unpaved Roads. Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies, the Pennsylvania State University. Stuart, Gordon W. and Pamela J. Edwards. 2006. Concepts about Forests and Water. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(1): 11-19. USDA-FS. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren PA. USDA-FS. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Land and Resource Management Plan, Warren, PA. USDA-FS. 2007d. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement, Herbicide Appendix, Warren, PA.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix E2 - Water Resources Report Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix F Air Quality Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Ralph Perron U.S.D.A. Forest Service Region 9 Zoned Air Quality Specialist

Edited and Formatted by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader and Writer/Editor

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Analysis Framework ...... 1 Environmental Consequences...... 3 Measurement Indicator-7: Effects of proposed activities on the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 3 Cumulative Effects ...... 4 References ...... 7

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page iii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Analysis Framework

The Clean Air Act, last amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants (US EPA 2014). These “criteria pollutants” are commonly found and can be hazardous to human health, the environment, and can potentially cause property damage. The EPA regulates these six pollutants by setting scientifically-based permissible levels. The six criteria pollutants identified by the EPA are: ground-level Ozone (O3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Particulate Matter (PM2.5, 10), and Lead (Pb).

Ozone, which occurs naturally in the stratosphere, protects life on Earth. However, ground level ozone (smog) is harmful and is created by a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. The proposed activities which may create O3 include motor vehicle exhaust and gasoline vapors from timber harvest and oil and gas activities. Pennsylvania O3 levels are attributable to local influences and, to a more significant extent, to O3 and O3 precursors transported from outside Pennsylvania from states to the south and west (PADEP 2009).

Sulfur dioxide is a highly reactive gas which has adverse effects on the respiratory system and is created by fossil fuel combustion at power plants and other industrial facilities. Other sources include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and burning high-sulfur-containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment. The proposed activities which may create SO2 include diesel powered equipment utilized during timber harvesting.

Carbon monoxide is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes over half of CO emissions nationwide. Other sources include construction equipment, industrial processes, residential wood burning, prescribed fires, and wildland fires. The proposed activities which may create CO include vehicles and equipment used for timber harvesting and prescribed fire.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of highly reactive gasses for which nitrogen dioxide is the indicator. Emissions from cars, trucks, buses, power plants, and off-road equipment create NO2 which contributes to ground-level ozone, and fine particle pollution. Particulate matter is composed of small particles and liquid droplets which can be inhaled and affect the heart and lungs. PMs that are between 2.5 and 10 micrometers are “inhalable coarse particles” found near roadways and dusty industries. PMs that are 2.5 micrometers and smaller are “fine particles” found in smoke or haze. Smoke from prescribed fires and emissions from motor vehicles are potential sources of these PMs. Smoke plumes from prescribed fire with high particulate concentrations may also reduce visibility at intersecting roads and highways.

Lead smelters are the leading cause for lead emissions and, to a lesser extent, waste incinerators, utilities and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The nearest lead smelter is located in southwestern Pennsylvania, about 128 miles from the ANF.

Monitoring of the NAAQS occurs at the state level and is enforced through EPA-approved State Implementation Plans. The plans typically include a collection of monitoring devices throughout the state which provide actual measurements of the concentrations in the air and identify whether an area is

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

meeting the air quality standards. Those areas which do not meet the standards are considered in “nonattainment” status and must implement strategies which will reduce emissions. This report uses the most current information available from the PA Department of Environmental Protection and EPA websites and assumes that the monitoring stations, which are located in highly urbanized areas, are an overstatement of expected values on the ANF. This assumption is based on the knowledge that the combined ANF four-county population estimate for 2014 (121,969; Elk – 31,194, Forest – 7,518, McKean – 42,554, Warren – 40,703) is less than half the 2014 population estimate of Erie County (278,443) (USDOC 2015).The nearest EPA-approved monitoring stations for CO, NO2 and PM2.5, 10 are located in Erie, PA. The nearest EPA-approved monitoring station for O3 is located in the Kane Experimental Forest (KEF) in Elk County, PA. There is an EPA-approved monitor for SO2 located in the city of Warren, PA. The nearest monitor for lead is located in Beaver County (US EPA 2015c).

Currently, the four county area of Pennsylvania, in which the ANF is located, is in attainment of all the NAAQS except SO2 (US EPA 2015c) (Table 1). Effective October 4, 2013, an area consisting of Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren were designated as a nonattainment area for pollutant SO2 (USGPO 2013). The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is directed by the Clean Air Act to meet the 1-hour SO2 standard for this newly designated nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018 (USGPO 2013). A portion of the newly designated SO2 nonattainment area, in the vicinity of the City of Warren, is within the proclamation boundary of the ANF, however, nothing proposed in the Izenbrown Corners Project is within the nonattainment area.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Environmental Consequences

Measurement Indicator-7: Effects of proposed activities on the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Direct and Indirect Effects

Proposed activities that generate emissions include operation of engines used to perform silvicultural treatments and prescribed fires. Under the No Action Alternative, no prescribed fires or proposed silvicultural activities would occur on national forest lands.

The Proposed Action would implement silvicultural activities and prescribed burning. For timber harvest, there are 24,605 CCF proposed to be harvested in the first entry (approximately 2017-2021), 9,081 CCF is proposed to be harvested in the second entry (approximately 2022-2026), and 8,128 CCF in the third entry (approximately 2027-2031). The greatest amount of acres that could be prescribed burned in one year under the Proposed Action would be up to 3,000 acres of forest understory.

The amount of pollutants added to the atmosphere by the dispersed proposed activities listed above is not expected to exceed the NAAQS. This conclusion is supported by the most recent available data (US EPA 2015c) from the nearest Pennsylvania air quality monitors that have shown NAAQS attainment for CO, Pb, NO2, O3, and PM2.5, 10 (Table 1). The impact of each activity on air quality is quickly diffused due to the amounts projected over time and space within the project area. The proposed prescribed fires are short lived, and last only a matter of hours, or possibly as long as a few days. Burn plans would address general concerns with prescribed fires, such as reduction in visibility or to inhalation of fine particulates. Mitigations will be employed in smoke sensitive areas to avoid concentrating smoke in population concentrated areas.

Additionally, ozone is a pollutant which is measured at the Kinzua Experimental Forest (referred to as the KEF). The KEF ozone monitoring station is recognized as a NAAQS monitoring station. The average annual ozone concentration for the 4th highest 8 hour average, at the KEF monitoring station from 2012- 2014, was 0.066 ppm (USEPA 2015a), which is below the NAAQS. Further discussion on ozone monitoring can be found in the most recent ANF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA-FS 2014).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 1 - Criteria Pollutant monitoring data, NAAQS compared to PA DEP measurements, as would be reported by EPA for attainment designation (US EPA 2015c)

Attainment Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Level (USEPA 2015)

O3 8 hour 0.075 ppm Yes

SO2 1 hour 75 ppb No CO 8 hour 9.0 ppm Yes

NO2 1 hour 100 ppb Yes

3 PM10 24 hour 150 µg/m Yes

3 PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m Yes Pb 3 month average 0.15 µg/m3 Yes

Cumulative Effects

The largest emissions of O3 precursor NOx, under the No Action alternative, are due to private, shallow, traditional OGD (Table 2). Private OGD emissions include the equipment from the normal maintenance of operating shallow traditional wells, in addition to predicted emissions from new shallow traditional well development. Increases in emissions from private shallow traditional OGD between 2015 and 2020 are due to the estimated 11 new wells per year in the project area. Under the Proposed Action, the largest emissions of NOx are due to prescribed fire.

VOC is another O3 precursor. The largest source of VOC from the No Action alternative is due to private shallow traditional OGD (Table 2). Private OGD emissions are discussed in the previous paragraph. The largest source of VOC from the Proposed Action is prescribed fire. As mentioned above, the impact of each activity on air quality is quickly diffused due to the amounts projected over time and space within the project area. It is not expected that the emissions from the ANF will have an effect on the continued attainment status for O3 in the project area.

The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast group modeled expected decreasing ozone concentrations trends in the ANF four-county area, as measured at KEF, since ozone precursors (VOC and NOx) are predicted to be lower in 2020 than in 2010, due to improved efficiencies which would reduce vehicle and equipment emissions per unit (USDA FS 2005).

Particulate matter is expected to increase in the county and in the project area, while CO levels are predicted to decrease (USDA FS 2005). For PM and CO, the largest emissions source for the No Action alternative is Private OGD, while for the Proposed Action, prescribed fire is expected to be the largest emission source. As shown in Table 1, PM and CO are in attainment, as measured by PA DEP. Expected PM and CO emissions due to the proposed action are not expected to have an effect on the continued attainment status for PM and CO in the project area.

SO2 levels in the project area are expected to continue to decrease with increased pollution controls on major emission sources, and with the implementation of a new Pennsylvania low sulfur fuel oil limit

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

(USGPO 2014). Emissions from non-road engines, as part of these proposed actions, are not expected to have an effect on ambient SO2 concentrations in the project area.

Lead is not discussed in this report because none of the proposed activities will contribute to air quality emissions for this pollutant. In Pennsylvania, only portions of Beaver and Berks Counties are considered to be in nonattainment for lead as part of initial EPA designations in November, 2010 (US EPA 2015c).

The cumulative effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future federal and non-federal actions are not expected to bring any of the criteria air pollutants, currently in attainment, to levels that exceed the NAAQS, nor are these actions expected to have any noticeable effect on ambient SO2 levels .

Table 2 Estimated emissions for prescribed fire, timber harvest, and private shallow traditional OGD for the project area compared to the 4 county area. Emission estimates are not available beyond 2020 (USDA FS 2005) for the 4 county area. Current year (2015) and highest project area timber harvest emission years

Rx Fire Emissions Timber Harvest Emissions OGD Emissions (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year)

Pollutant 2015 2017 2020 2015 2017 2020 2015 2017 2020 VOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 No PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Action NOx 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 19 22 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 38 46 VOC 0 67 67 0 2 2 3 4 4 Proposed PM 0 146 146 0 0 0 1 1 1 Action NOx 0 26 26 0 7 7 16 19 22 CO 0 1,501 1,501 0 19 19 33 38 46

ANF Management Emissions 4 County Emissions % ANF Mgmt of 4 County (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) Emissions

Pollutant 2015 2017 2020 2015 2017 2020 2015 2017 2020 VOC 3 4 4 8,886 8,400 7,671 0.03 0.05 0.05 No PM 1 1 1 4,151 4,257 4,416 0.02 0.02 0.02

Action NOx 16 19 22 10,135 9,973 9,731 0.16 0.19 0.23 CO 33 38 46 49,613 46,975 43,018 0.07 0.08 0.11 VOC 3 73 72 8,886 8,400 7,671 0.03 0.87 0.94 Proposed PM 1 147 147 4,151 4,257 4,416 0.02 3.45 3.33

Action NOx 16 52 50 10,135 9,973 9,731 0.16 0.52 0.51 CO 33 1558 1554 49,613 46,975 43,018 0.07 3.32 3.61

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Air quality effects due to the development of the one developed Marcellus deep well pad on private land in the project area has not been determined. A project by the US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Lab (NETL), conducted targeted on-site measurements of air emissions from oil and natural gas exploration and production activities that may impact the ANF environment (Pekney et al 2013). While NETL was not completing compliance monitoring, NETL was using calibrated EPA federal reference method instruments. Although it would not be appropriate to compare the NETL results to the NAAQS, the NETL did not record any data that could have been considered a NAAQS standard exceedance. One of the results from the project is that the authors believe their data could be used as a baseline to document any potential impacts from future Marcellus well development. It is expected that 4 Marcellus deep well pads will be developed in the project area by 2032.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection completed three Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Reports. These reports were completed for Southwestern Pennsylvania (PADEP 2010), Northcentral Pennsylvania (PADEP 2011a), and Northeastern Pennsylvania (PADEP 2011b). None of the short-term ambient air sampling detected levels of CO, NO2, or O3 above the NAAQS at any of the sampling sites. The northcentral and northeastern sites also sampled SO2, and neither site detected levels above the NAAQS. The studies did not review potential cumulative emissions from development of Marcellus gas and oil plays.

On April 17, 2012, the US EPA administrator signed a notice announcing the final rule: “Oil and Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews” (US EPA 2012b). These rules include the first federal air standards for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured to reduce the harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry (US EPA 2012c). There are also requirements in the rule for several other sources of pollution in the oil and gas industry that are not regulated at the federal level. A significant reduction in VOCs emitted from new hydraulically fractured wells is expected from this rule (US EPA 2012c).

It is not expected that the current, or proposed, Marcellus wells in the project area will create an exceedance for any of the NAAQS that are in attainment, nor are these actions expected to have any noticeable effect on ambient SO2 levels.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

References

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. An Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Air Quality Program. Located at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/DEPUTATE/AIRWASTE/AQ/attain/APCA%205- Year%20Report%20042209.pdf Accessed 2015 July 26.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Southwestern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report. Located at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/aqm/docs/Marcellus_SW_11-01-10.pdf Accessed 2015 July 30.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection. 2011a. Northcentral Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report. Located at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/aqm/docs/Marcellus_NC_05-06-11.pdf Accessed 2015 July 30.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection. 2011b. Northeastern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report. Located at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/aqm/docs/Marcellus_NE_01-12-11.pdf Accessed 2015 July 30.

Pekney, N., G. Veloski, M. Reeder, J. Tamilia, E. Rupp, and A. Wetzel. 2014. Measurement of atmospheric pollutants associated with oil and natural gas exploration and production activity in Pennsylvania's Allegheny National Forest, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Located at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10962247.2014.897270 Accessed 2015 July 26.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. VISTAS Emission Tool [Web Page]. Located at: http://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/emissions/ Accessed 2009 Dec 3.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. FY 2008 – FY 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Allegheny National Forest Located at: https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3821598.pdf Accessed 2015 July 26.

US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2015. Population Estimates, County Totals [Web Page]. Located at: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml Accessed 2015 July 26.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. Oil and Gas, Final Rule EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417finalrule.pdf Accessed 2015 July 30.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Overview of Final Amendments to Air Regulations for the Oil and Gas Industry, Fact Sheet. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417fs.pdf Accessed 2015 July 30.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) [Webpage]. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html Accessed 2015 July 14.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Clean air status and trends network (CASTNET) [Webpage]. Located at: http://epa.gov/castnet/javaweb/ozone.html Accessed 2015 July 14.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. Sulfur Dioxide [Web Page]. Located at: http://epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/ Accessed 2015 July 14.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015c. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html Accessed 2015 July 14.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 2013. Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150. Located at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-05/html/2013-18835.htm Accessed 2015 July 26.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 2014. Federal Register Federal Volume 79, Number 132. Located at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-10/html/2014-16087.htm Accessed 2015 July 26.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix F - Air Quality Report Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix G Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Julie Moyer Recreation Team Leader Bradford Ranger District

Editing and formatting by:

Steve Dowlan Planning Team Leader and Writer/Editor

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report ...... i Analysis Framework ...... 1 Landscape character and scenic integrity levels ...... 1 Recreation Opportunities ...... 3 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Setting ...... 3 Recreation Activities and Use Patterns ...... 3 Cumulative Effects Analysis Area ...... 5 Oil and Gas Development Activities ...... 6 Environmental Consequences ...... 7 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...... 15 Recreation Activities and Use Patterns ...... 16 Literature Cited ...... 21

Tables Table 1 Existing scenic integrity level conditions ______2 Table 2 Existing recreation activities and use patterns ______4 Table 3 Comparison of alternatives regarding changes to landscape character and scenic Integrity levels11 Table 4 Forest stand age classes of Forest Service land by alternative ______13 Table 5 Comparison of alternatives by effects to ROS Setting Indicators ______16 Table 6 Changes to the recreation opportunity spectrum and recreation use patterns______18

Figures Figure 1 View of the MA 8.1 area visible from Althom Road and potentially affected by shelterwood sequence treatments. ______10

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Analysis Framework

The ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-370 to 3-372) describes established national guidelines for managing scenery with the Scenery Management System (SMS). These guidelines are used to inventory the landscape and classify the effects of management activities. General effects to scenery from management activities in terms of effects from: 1) vegetation management and associated activities; and 2) recreation management and construction (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-373 to 3-377) are described in the FEIS, and are incorporated by reference.

This analysis applies available geospatial information, other site-specific factors based on local knowledge and recent peer-reviewed research to compare the potential effects of the Proposed Action with the No Action alternative using two qualitative indicators: (1) changes to the existing overall landscape character of the project area, and (2) whether the project area and alternative meet the specified Forest Plan scenic integrity level.

Landscape character and scenic integrity levels Landscape character combines the physical, biological, and cultural attributes that makes each landscape identifiable or unique. The landscape character includes the landform, surface water, vegetation, land use patterns, and cultural features of the forest. The vegetation of the project area primarily consists of oak with other hardwood species such as red maple, sugar maple, beech, white ash, black cherry and yellow popular mixed in with native (hemlock and white pine) and non-native conifers (red pine). The topography is made up of forested plateaus bisected by small drainages, streams. Large sandstone rocks are scattered throughout the area. Oil and gas wells and utility rights-of-way are found in the area along with private residences and industrial land used for small crop farming and livestock grazing.

Scenic integrity levels are determined by analyzing four components: Concern Levels: Concern levels measure forest visitors’ concern for the scenic quality of the national forest and are determined using locations where visitors are most likely to view the environment, such as travel routes (roads and trails), concentrated use areas (vistas), or water bodies (streams and Allegheny Reservoir). Concern levels may be classified as: • CL1, high sensitivity; • CL2, average sensitivity; • CL3, low sensitivity. Foreground views are generally the most sensitive to viewers from CL1 or CL2 view facilities. Foreground is described as 0 to 0.25 mile from the observer based on the standards for a flat landscape and limited distant views on the plateau. Middle ground is 0.25 to 3 miles and background is 3 miles and over. Allegheny National Forest concern level inventory can be found in the Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2006, table B-49, pages B-57−B-61). Izenbrown Corners Project Area CL view facilities are listed in Table 1 below. Scenic Attractiveness: Scenic attractiveness is assigned according to the “scenic importance of a landscape based on human perceptions of the intrinsic beauty of landform, rockform, waterform and vegetative pattern” (USDA Forest Service 1986, page A-29). Scenic attractiveness may be classified as: • Variety Class A, distinctive;

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• Variety Class B, common; • Variety Class C, minimal. Allegheny National Forest scenic attractiveness levels are mapped and stored in the Forest Supervisor’s GIS Library (USDA Forest Service 2006). Most of the Izenbrown Corners Project Area is mapped as Variety Class B, with the area situated nearest the Allegheny River corridor mapped as Variety Class A. The plateau tops are mapped as Variety Class C. Scenic Classes: Scenic classes are units of measure defining scenic integrity levels, becoming scenic integrity objectives when adopted. Scenic classes are the product of landscape visibility and scenic attractiveness, and are assigned to eight priorities; priority 1 is the most attractive, and priority 8 is the least attractive, based on human perceptions of the landscape visibility and scenic attractiveness. Scenic classes are mapped and are also stored in the Forest Supervisor’s GIS Library (USDA Forest Service 2006). The majority of the Izenbrown Corners Project Area is mapped as Priority 2, with the Allegheny River corridor mapped as Priority 1.

Management Areas: A Management area (MA) is a spatially identified areas within the Allegheny National Forest that links certain areas with applicable Forest Plan direction (standards and guidelines). Management areas (MAs) are also mapped and are stored in the Forest Supervisor’s GIS Library (USDA Forest Service 2006). Management areas within this project area include 2.2 (Late Structural Linkages), 3.0 (Even-aged Management), and 8.1 (Wild and Scenic River Corridor). Scenic integrity levels under the Scenery Management System define the different levels of acceptable alteration to scenic resources. These objectives range from very high (unaltered) to very low (heavily altered), and are based on views from the priority view facility. The Forest Plan management allocations for scenic integrity levels are assigned values of very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and unacceptable. The combined values from concern level, scenic attractiveness, scenic class and management area result in a prescribed scenic integrity level or management goal for the prescription area. A scenic integrity level of very high has the most stringent visual restrictions, and a scenic integrity level of very low has the least stringent. The table below describes the scenic integrity levels found within the Izenbrown Corners Project Area.

Table 1 Existing scenic integrity level conditions Desired Condition View Facility

Appears Unaltered – The valued landscape character High appears intact. Deviations may be present, but are not CL1 - Allegheny River, Tidioute Scenic evident because they repeat the form, line, color, texture, Overlook, Tionesta Creek, State Integrity and pattern common to the landscape character so Routes 62 and 666 and Township (H) completely and at the appropriate scale (USDA-FS, Road 442 2006cm, p. III-11).

Moderate Appears Slightly Altered – The valued landscape CL2 – State Legislative Routes Scenic character appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations 3005, 3020, 3018, Township Integrity must remain visually subordinate to the landscape being Roads 665, 416, 328 and 332, and (M) viewed (USDA-FS, 2006cm, p. III-11). FR 119 (ASL – Allegheny Snowmobile Loop Connector #5)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appears Altered – Deviations from the valued landscape Low character may begin to dominate the landscape being Scenic viewed, but they should borrow valued attributes such as CL3 – all system and non-system Integrity size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, roads and streams not specified as (L) vegetative type changes, or architectural styles that may CL1 and CL2 occur elsewhere (USDA-FS, 2006cm, p. III-12).

*Note – Izenbrown Corners Project Area borders with CL1 Congressionally Designated “Special Areas” including the Allegheny National Recreation Area to the north and the Hickory Creek Wilderness Area to the east, along with Courson Island (compartment 329) designated as an Allegheny River Wilderness Island. The ANF LRMP allows management activities to occur adjacent to Congressionally Designated Special Areas without specifying buffers.

Recreation Opportunities The ANF Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-298 to 3-299) describes nationally recognized classification system that describes different recreation settings, opportunities, and experiences known as the Recreation Opportunity spectrum (ROS). General effects to ROS classifications and recreational opportunities from management activities in terms of effects from a range of management activities (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. 3-312 to 3-315 and 3-216 to 3-317) are described in the FEIS, and are incorporated by reference.

This analysis applies available geospatial information, other site-specific factors based on local knowledge and recent peer-reviewed research to compare the potential effects of the Proposed Action with the No Action alternative using two qualitative indicators: (1) whether the activities in each alternative would be consistent with the recreation opportunity spectrum settings established in the Forest Plan, and (2) whether the activities proposed in each alternative would alter existing recreation activities and their use patterns within the project area.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Setting The recreation opportunity spectrum is a system for planning and managing recreational settings by distinguishing the varying conditions and qualities in the landscape. This distinction helps land managers to provide a diverse range of opportunities and experiences to recreationists. The following indicators help to determine recreation opportunity spectrum settings: (1) access, (2) site management, (3) visitor management, (4) social encounters, and (5) visitor impacts.

Using the above-listed indicators, recreational settings are arranged along a continuum of six recreation opportunity spectrum classes, progressing from least to greatest development: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban (USDA Forest Service 2007, pages C-3−C-4). On the Allegheny National Forest, recreation opportunity spectrum classes range from semi-primitive non-motorized to rural (Forest Plan FEIS, page C-2).

The Izenbrown Corners Project Area is located in a “roaded natural” (management areas 2.2 and 3.0) and “rural” (management area 8.1 – recreational river segment) recreation opportunity spectrum settings (Forest Plan appendix C).

Recreation Activities and Use Patterns The recreation activities and their use patterns analyzed generally receive the greatest attention by recreationists within the project area.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 2 Existing recreation activities and use patterns

Recreation Activity Use Patterns

• Tidioute Overlook (compartment 329) – small development level (DL) 3 area with the following facilities provided: gravel surfaced parking area (10 Developed Recreation vehicles), single vault toilet, picnic tables with pedestal grills, gravel surfaced trails leading to scenic vistas overlooking views of the Allegheny River and the village of Tidioute

• Allegheny Snowmobile Loop (ASL) Connector 5 is 1.6 miles and is collocated on FR 119 • On average there is sufficient snow for 25-30 days of snowmobiling activity during winter activity season (mid December to April 1). When snow cover is deep (groomable), use is high, especially on weekends. ASL Connector #5 is groomed and provides connections to private property where the following Motorized Trails services are provided: trailhead parking, lodging (camping), food (restaurant), public telephone and equestrian riding services. • There is evidence of illegal all-terrain vehicle (ATV) activity throughout the project area most notably in the vicinity of FR 555, 555A, 427, 425, 424, 558, 446 and Township Road 414. Some of the activity can be associated with Oil and Gas Development, but most activity can be attributed to local land owners using National Forest land to connect to private riding areas.

• Heavily used campsites are located off of FR 119 and Township 317. These campsites are used often by campers with horses who ride the numerous undeveloped equestrian routes throughout National Forest and private lands within the project area referred to as the EUA (see project map #5). Dispersed Camping • Lightly used campsites are located off of FR 555 and 555A • There are several borrow pits that show evidence of dispersed camping and target shooting located off of FR 556 and 558.

• Hunting occurs throughout the project area and is highest during the first few days of deer season (late November through early December). Parking is usually in short supply and hunters are noted to park their vehicles along FR 119, Township Road 317 and SR 3005. Those roads border an area referred to as “Economite” which is primarily managed to provide habitat for a variety of game and non-game wildlife species. Managed habitat includes: red pine Hunting and Fishing plantations, managed wildlife openings and mowed trails. FR 558 is classified as a restricted road, but usually is open to vehicle traffic during hunting season to allow better hunter access to a remote location. • Fishing opportunities are plentiful in the water bodies bordering the project area, including the Allegheny River to the west and Tionesta Creek to the south. East Hickory Creek is the only stocked trout stream within the project area and is heavily used during the first few weeks of trout season.

• There are no identified unroaded areas within the project boundary. Two inventoried roadless areas exist adjacent to the project boundary. Hickory Unroaded Areas Creek Wilderness (6,596 acres) to the east and National Recreation Area (4,675 Allegheny Front) to the north.

• The only CL1 travel route within the project area is Tidioute Overlook. CL1 High Recreation Use travel routes bordering the project area include: Allegheny River, Tionesta Corridors Creek, State Routes 62 and 666 and Township Road 442.

Unique Features and • The 2007 ANF Forest Plan designated a EUA within compartment 328, Special Events (Economite area), of this project area. Local historic and on-going cross- country equestrian use has created a network of unplanned user-created trails

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 4

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Recreation Activity Use Patterns

in this EUA area resulting in excessive erosion and resource conflicts with other management objectives. • The Forest Service added to the historic equestrian use of the area by issuing a Special Use Permit to the Hickory Creek Wilderness Ranch, which is located on private land within compartment 328, to provide guided day and overnight equestrian riding tours on established routes within the project area. The Hickory Creek Wilderness Ranch stables several horses and boards others, as well as, offers horse camping facilities that cater to equestrians. Ranch equestrian visitors, (campers/boarders), also use the unplanned trail network to further add erosion and resource concerns. The Ranch hosts several regional bull riding special events that entice hundreds of riders each year to the Economite area. • Unique features or Congressionally Designated Special Areas bordering the project area include the Hickory Creek Wilderness (MA 5.1), Allegheny National Recreation Area (MA 8.2) and the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River (MA 8.1). • The 9337 acre Hickory Creek Wilderness Area is managed for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation uses, such as, hiking, backpacking, dispersed primitive camping, fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing. Visitors are encouraged to use already established campsites and remove all traces of human presence. Opportunities for silence and solitude are encouraged. Group sizes should not exceed 10 people. • A portion of the Allegheny National Recreation Area is situated just north of the project boundary. Primary management objectives of the NRA are very similar to Wilderness with scenery and dispersed recreation opportunities emphasized. Some low development recreational facilities are permitted to enhance the visitor’s experience. • A portion of the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River is included in the western portion of the project area. The management objective of this “Recreational River Segment” is to provide outstanding water-based recreational opportunities, such as, boating, swimming, fishing, hunting, sightseeing and hiking. Although timber production is considered unsuitable for MA 8.1, harvest for other resource purposes, including wildlife concerns and forest health is considered to be suitable. Specific design criteria apply (Forest Plan page 145). • Courson Island, one of seven designated Wilderness Islands is located within the Wild and Scenic River corridor just west of compartment 284. The islands are popular for dispersed camping, exploration and viewing scenery and wildlife. Dense grasses and other thick vegetation make access limited.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area The cumulative effects analysis area is project area, as well as adjacent Special Areas including the Allegheny National Recreation Area, Hickory Creek Wilderness and the Allegheny River along with Courson Island. Past resource management activities, along with proposed new activities should be considered cumulatively when assessing changes in both recreation and scenery management. In order to consider effects from past activities (already approved projects not yet completed) and the anticipated completion of activities proposed through this project, the time period considered for the cumulative effects is 20 years prior to the current time, and 20 years into the future. This time period provides an overall view of the incremental impact of natural resource management, both public and private, along with oil and gas development activities in combination with past, current, and future project proposals.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 5

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Oil and Gas Development Activities There are currently 51 existing (active or dormant) private shallow oil and gas wells within the project area (1 well for every 186 acres). Four future shallow well development scenarios (ranging from 102 to 2,029 new wells) were considered for shallow OGD within the project area (see project file) over the next two decades. The scenario using the projections from the past five years was selected because it appears to be the most reasonably foreseeable future estimate of shallow OGD within the project area based on past shallow OGD within the project area and current shallow OGD on the ANF and within the project area. Using this scenario, an additional 102 shallow wells could be developed within the project area resulting in up to 133 acres (0.64 % of the project area) of additional disturbance over the next 20 years. The project area has a comparatively small amount of private oil and gas development in comparison to much of the Bradford Ranger District.

Oil and gas development can change at any time and is based on economics, technology, and supply and demand. The effects of expanding oil and gas development on recreational opportunity spectrum and recreation activities and their use patterns would include a loss of solitude (due to machinery noise and vehicle traffic), easier access (due to additional roads for access), a more modified environment (due to additional roads and well pads), and a reduction in visual quality. These effects do accumulate over time and may result in further concentrating recreation use on areas of public land that have not been developed for oil and gas. Field observations show that intensively developed oil and gas fields do not receive the same density of recreation use as do undeveloped areas in the same management area.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 6

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Environmental Consequences

All proposed activities would have some direct and or indirect effect on the recreation opportunity spectrum, recreation activities and their use patterns, landscape character and the scenic integrity levels of the project area, especially if activities are located near sensitive forest visitor travel corridors (concern level 1 or 2 view facilities). As a result, Forest Plan design criteria (pages 59−62) are applied prior to implementation so that no drastic change would occur to the recreation opportunity spectrum, recreation activities and use patterns, landscape character, and the scenic integrity levels within the project area.

IM-8: Effects of proposed activities to landscape character and scenic integrity levels

Proposed Action The effects of implementing the Proposed Action upon the project area’s ability to meet scenic integrity level guidelines are analyzed in detail in Scenery Analysis Table (project record). All vegetation, wildlife and non-native invasive plants treatments have been analyzed. Visually sensitive stands (concern level 1 and 2) have been identified, and Forest Plan design standards and guidelines have been prescribed for these stands.

All vegetative/wildlife/non-native invasive plants management activities would have some direct and or indirect effects on the landscape character and the scenic integrity level of the forest especially if the activities were located along sensitive forest visitor travel corridors (CL1 or CL2 view facilities). As a result, ANF Forest Plan S&Gs (USDA-FS, 2007, pp. 62-64) and mitigation measures have been used to design or alter treatments prior to implementation so they would not drastically change the landscape character and or the scenic integrity level of the area. Even without application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, it is unlikely that any of the stands for which management activities have been proposed would change the overall landscape character of the project area.

Generally for scenery analysis purposes, timber harvest treatments fall into three broad categories; final harvest treatments, partial harvest treatments, and reforestation treatments.

Regeneration harvest treatments where the forest canopy would be removed, (shelterwood removal cut – third entry, prescribed fire, scarification, site preparation, herbicide, weed-and-release), would have the greatest short term (3 to 5 years) direct visual effects to the landscape character and scenic integrity level of the area. With the forest canopy open, the area no longer has mature landscape character and vegetative management is apparent. On the other hand, the open canopy allows sunlight to reach the ground and stimulate new seedling growth making the area green very quickly. Soil disturbance during and immediately after regeneration harvesting operation also has a great short term effect on the landscape character. Although most areas will revegetate on their own, heavily impacted areas, such as log landings and skid trails, may need to be seeded. Within one growing season, these heavily impacted areas become green and blend into the natural landscape softening the visual contrast of the harvest. When the new vegetation is established, the altered site has a natural appearance that is within ANF Forest Plan (USDA-FS, 2007, pp. 62-64) design criteria of a visually acceptable landscape character.

Intermediate (partial) harvest treatments (first entry cut and shelterwood seed cut - second entry) do not have as great a visual effect as regeneration treatments because they only remove a portion of mature trees and maintain the appearance of an intact landscape character. Based on past experience, most of the activities associated with intermediate harvesting methods meet the scenic integrity level goals of M (Moderate), and exceed the scenic integrity level for L (Low) allowed by the ANF Forest Plan in MA 2.2 and 3.0.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 7

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Reforestation treatments (site preparation, weed-and-release for maintenance, planting and prescribed fire) kill competing understory and midstory vegetation that hinder seedling development either through chemical or mechanical means. The short term visual effects are an increase in the amount of dead vegetation and brown leaves on the ground. Within one to three years, the new growth of seedlings and other herbaceous cover would diminish the short term visual effects of these treatments with a more naturally appearing landscape character with a more favorable scenic integrity level.

Other reforestation/wildlife treatments, such as planting, fencing and fertilizing improve the ability of a stand to more rapidly reach maturity and have a positive long term (beyond 5 years) indirect effect on the landscape character and scenic integrity level. Planting in an opening provides more vegetative variety and screening. Fencing stands protects young seedlings from deer browse, allowing rapid growth helping the stand to return to a more natural appearing condition. Fertilization has no immediate visual effects, however, it encourages faster seedling growth, resulting in saplings and pole-size trees more quickly developing, thus reducing the visual effects of harvesting.

Management Area 8.1

Because proposed vegetation management activities are focused on wildlife concerns and forest health1, timber harvest and prescribed fire within the wild and scenic river corridor is consistent with design criteria for the recreational river segment (Forest Plan page 145). Even-aged management is acceptable in Scenic and Recreational segments. All cutting, sale, and removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of another suitable management activity (Forest Plan page 145).

Within the six stands proposed for the shelterwood sequence (155 acres), no effects would be visible from U.S. Highway 62 because vegetation along the highway and upslope would screen these effects. Effects to the forest understory from prescribed fire or site preparation activities would not be visible from the river or from Althom Road on the opposite side of the river. The shelterwood preparation cut would be applied to all stands within the MA 8.1 viewshed, and this would change the visual texture of the canopies of stands when viewed from the river or from Althom Road. Small canopy gaps may be visible, but not obvious, and the stands would still appear forested.

If a shelterwood seed cut is applied to any portion of these stands, larger canopy gaps would be visible, but the affected area would still appear forested. If none of these treated areas produce competitive oak seedlings of adequate size and density to trigger that shelterwood removal cut, no temporary openings would be created, and the visual texture of treated stands would blend in completely with the rest of the view within 25 years2.

Depending on the final location and configuration of shelterwood removal areas, temporary openings may be visible from some reaches of the Allegheny River, and Althom road on the opposite shore of the river. Because of distance and angle of view, these temporary openings may not be obvious, and may appear natural if noticed. Harvested portions of stands that are behind the shoulder of the slope would not be visible, and none would be visible from Pleasant Drive or any other municipal road in the project area. If the area of visible disturbance is proportional to the total area of stands within MA 8.1, temporary openings would be limited to no more than 39 acres (approximately 2.5%) of MA 8.1 within the project area.

1 Purpose and Need for the Proposal second bullet statement: Restore, retain and regenerate oak habitat and associated plant and animal communities that are currently declining due to unsuitable understory conditions for seedling growth, lack of natural disturbance by fire, and forest health threats such as non-native invasive plant species and insects (ANF Forest Plan pages 14, 19, 20, 109 and A-14) 2 At 50% relative density, those stands are moderately stocked according to the ANF Forest Plan. At 1% per year, they would reach the threshold for well-stocked (75%) in 25 years.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 8

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

These potential effects to scenery are consistent with the desired condition for MA 8.1 (Forest Plan page 142 and 147) because:

• Visible human influence on vegetation is expected within the corridor; • Within Recreational segments of Federally designated wild and scenic river segments, there may be substantial evidence of human activity and development along the shores of these river segments; • A natural appearing setting would be maintained; • No specific standards or guidelines for vegetation management apply to Recreational wild and scenic river segments.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 9

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Figure 1 View of the MA 8.1 area visible from Althom Road and potentially affected by shelterwood sequence treatments.

No Action

Any changes to vegetation would be the result of natural stand development or disturbance processes. Indirect effects in the long term would include:

• High density stands would not maintain the visual depth or age class diversity which are characteristic of great scenic value; • Few seedlings or shrubs would develop in the understory due to untreated present interfering vegetation;

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 10

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

• Areas damaged by previous wind events would remain untreated and the dead or damaged trees would continue to contrast visually with the surrounding landscape; • Declining vigor and health could result in pockets of dead and dying trees, which could alter the landscape character of the area over time; • Declining trees would also remain susceptible to disease or pests, and the stand as a whole would not retain a healthy condition; • Non-native invasive plant species occupy available growing space and use nutrients that could be used by more desired native species. Landscape character and the scenic integrity levels within the project area would change if vegetative stands were not eventually managed for timber, wildlife or non-native plant species control purposes.

Comparison of effects between alternatives

Table 3 Comparison of alternatives regarding changes to landscape character and scenic Integrity levels Projected Effects Short term effects = 3 to 5 years after implementation Treatment Long term effects = beyond 5 years after implementation No Action Proposed Action Direct effects: landscape character and Direct effects: landscape character and scenic integrity level of the area will scenic integrity level of the area may remain the same for the short term. change (negative visual effects) in Indirect effects: landscape character treatment units where vegetation is cut or and scenic integrity level of the area may killed at least short term (3-5 years) until change, (negative visual effects), in the green vegetation is reestablished. Proposed Oak long term in untreated stands due to the Indirect effects: No long term Habitat lack of species diversity and poor health landscape character and scenic integrity Management caused by insect and disease and the level effects with any of the proposed Activities establishment and continued increase of Oak Habitat treatments especially with

non-native invasive plants species. the implementation of ANF Forest Plan Design Criteria (S&G) and mitigation measures. The landscape character and scenic integrity level will be within the limits specified in the ANF Forest Plan for each MA.

Direct effects: landscape character and Direct and indirect effects: landscape scenic integrity level of the area will character and scenic integrity level of the remain the same short term. area will remain the same short term, but Indirect effects: landscape character long term will change with the proposed Proposed and scenic integrity level of the area may vegetation management treatments that Management Area change, long term, due to untreated will be more appropriate to the desired Changes stands in any MA and the lack of species conditions of each specific MA. diversity and poor health due to insect and disease and the establishment and continued increase of non-native invasive plants.

Direct effects: landscape character and Direct effects: landscape character and scenic integrity level of the area will scenic integrity level will change short remain the same short term. term, (3-5 years), until green native Indirect effects: landscape character vegetation is reestablished. Landscape Nonnative Invasive and scenic integrity level of the area may character and scenic integrity level Plant Treatments change, long term, due to untreated non- should remain intact indefinitely as long native invasive plants species and their as the non-native invasive plants species predicted spread. Non-native invasive are not permitted to reestablish plants species occupy available growing themselves. space and use nutrients that could be

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 11

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Projected Effects Short term effects = 3 to 5 years after implementation Treatment Long term effects = beyond 5 years after implementation No Action Proposed Action used by more desired native species. Indirect effects: With the Non-native invasive plants species, if left implementation of ANF Forest Plan unchecked, will limit many uses on lands Design Criteria (S&G) and mitigation now and in the future. measures, the landscape character and scenic integrity level will be within the limits specified in the ANF Forest Plan for each MA.

Direct effects: landscape character and Direct effects: landscape character and scenic integrity level of the area will scenic integrity level of the area may remain the same for the short term. change (negative visual effects) in Indirect effects: landscape character treatment units where vegetation is and scenic integrity level of the area may removed or killed (herbicide) at least Proposed Wildlife change, long term, due to untreated short term (3-5 years) until green Habitat stands and the lack of species diversity vegetation is reestablished. Enhancement and poor health due to insect, disease Indirect effects: No long term Activities and non-native invasive plants species. landscape character and scenic integrity level effects with any of the ESAM proposed treatments or the wildlife opening treatments with the implementation of ANF Forest Plan Design Criteria (S&G) and mitigation measures designed for each MA.

Direct effects: landscape character and Direct effects: landscape character scenic integrity level of the area will and scenic integrity level will change remain the same for the short term. short term (cleared vegetation for trail Indirect effects: landscape character construction, parking areas, signs, Proposed and scenic integrity level of the area kiosks and gates). Equestrian Trail may change, long term, due to Indirect effects: landscape character Management unmanaged dispersed recreation and scenic integrity level will change Activities in the activities (user created horse trails and long term. Once sustainable trail Economite Area parking areas). Trampled vegetation (resistant to erosion) is constructed, and compacted soils encourage the cross country riding would be spread of non-native invasive plants prohibited. User made trails would be species and encourage the growth of obliterated and rehabilitated so native desired native vegetation vegetation could be reestablished.

Direct and Indirect effects: Direct effects: landscape character and landscape character and scenic scenic integrity level would change integrity level of the area would remain slightly, when vegetation is removed for the same. new road, but would meet MA objectives Proposed Roads with implementation of ANF Forest Plan Required for Design Criteria (S&G). Management Indirect effects: landscape character and scenic integrity level would change slightly, when vegetation is reestablished on the decommissioned road corridor.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 12

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Cumulative Effects

Project activities would not contribute an adverse or beneficial cumulative effect to landscape character and scenic integrity levels because:

• Harvest activity will be gradual, occurring in increments over a period of 20 years, with new growth establishing itself prior to new timber cutting; • Visually sensitive stands (CL1 and CL2) have been identified, and Forest Plan design criteria (S&G) and mitigation measures (Scenery Analysis Table - project record) have been specified; • Proposed activities are consistent with past management on public and private land, and compatible with the current scenery integrity objective (SIO) of the area; • Private oil and gas development is not extensive and almost unnoticeable within the project area; • Future oil and gas development is projected to continue this trend.

This indicates that other factors are unlikely to combine with the Proposed Action to create any cumulative effect.

Table 4 Forest stand age classes of Forest Service land by alternative

2 - 20 0 Year 21 - 50 51 - 90 300+ 91 - 110 111 - 140 141 - 300 Age Class Age Nonforest Alternative

Project 82 1859 1296 3638 2283 187 0 105 area CE 0 282 5745 7658 732 0 0 257 2016 Existing area Condition Total 82 2148 6744 1129 3013 187 0 362 Acres 6 % >1 9 28 47 13 1 0 2 Project 0 748 1354 1135 5164 944 0 105 area CE 0 276 528 5225 8312 76 0 257 area No Action Total 0 1024 1882 6360 13476 1020 0 362 Acres % 0 4 8 26 56 4 0 2 Project 2035 Proposed area and 0 1024 1882 6360 13476 1020 0 362 Action CE Area ESAM +218 -10 -4 -166 -38 0 0 0 Red pine CC +111 -17 -17 -77 0 0 0 0 Shelterwood3 +507 0 -10 -10 -406 -81 0 0 Total CE Acres 836 997 1851 6107 13032 939 0 362 Percent of total CE 3 4 8 25 54 4 0 2 acres 1 ANF Forest Plan identified old growth (USDA-FS, 2007, pp. 29 and 153) 2 Ecological old growth 3 Presumes shelterwood removals would be in proportion to age classes of stands available for the full shelterwood treatment sequence

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 13

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 14

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

IM-9: Changes to the recreation opportunity spectrum classifications from proposed activities

Proposed Action

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Access The proposed road activities in the action alternative would have some direct effects on access. Road activities would provide more miles and better vehicle access for not only harvest, reforestation and wildlife treatments, but also for hunting and dispersed camping opportunities. Additional road miles may also open up additional opportunities for illegal ATV activity by local property and seasonal camp owners. Approximately 1.2 miles of roads would be closed to vehicle use to prevent sediment movement and improve water quality. Road closures would decrease vehicle access to the area, but increase opportunities for a remote recreation experience.

Remoteness In the action alternative, the indicator of remoteness may temporarily shift to “inconsistent” in the Roaded Natural setting as a result of the noise from harvest activities especially near Hickory Creek Wilderness Area (stands 280/38, 280/42, 280/4, 327/66, 327/55, 327/56), and for dispersed campers using established campsites along FR 119 (stands 327/64, 328/46, 328/47, 333/19, 333/20, 333/2) and Township Road 317 (stands 328/39, 328/47, 328/29, 328/40) See Map 2. The increased noise and traffic from harvest activities throughout the entire project area would not be out of the norm for Roaded Natural areas as frequent “sights and sounds of man” are considered normal. Mitigation measures would be specified to control times of the year when activities could occur so noise effects to publics are low during prime seasons of use.

Site Management Site management values, (DL – development level), would not change because the proposed activities in the action alternative would have no negative effects to existing developed or dispersed recreation facilities or activities in the project area. (The standard for Roaded Natural areas is DL3 or lower). Some resource modifications would take place during harvest and reforestation activities (vegetation feathering and seasonal timing of activities) to protect the existing developed or dispersed recreation facilities and activities of the area. An effort to harmonize modifications with the environment would be made through design features and mitigation measures.

Visitor Management Visitor management techniques proposed in action alternative include the installation of controlling structures, such as, gates on roads and fenced harvest units. The effect of the activities in the action alternative would not have any effect on the ROS class of Roaded Natural setting because the standard for a roaded natural setting is noticeable regimentation and controls that harmonize with the natural environment.

Social Encounters Social encounters may temporarily increase or decrease due to harvest and reforestation treatments, because some public displacement would occur (hunters and dispersed campers, for example). The effect of harvest and or reforestation activities might cause some forest users to use other areas of the forest or the project area. No change to the values of the ROS setting indicators is expected for the Roaded Natural ROS class within the project area.

Visitor Impacts

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 15

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Visitor management techniques proposed in action alternative include the installation of controlling structures, such as, gates on roads and fenced harvest units. The effects of the activities in the action alternative would not have any effect on the ROS class of Roaded Natural setting because the standard for a roaded natural setting is noticeable regimentation and controls that harmonize with the natural environment.

Table 5 Comparison of alternatives by effects to ROS Setting Indicators

No Action Alternative Action Alternative Setting

Indicators Roaded Natural ROS Roaded Natural ROS

Access Meets Meets Remoteness Meets Meets Site Management Meets Meets Visitor Management Meets Meets Social Encounters Meets Meets Visitor Impacts Meets Meets

Recreation Activities and Use Patterns

In general, with implementation of ANF Forest Plan design criteria (USDA-FS 2007, pp. 60-64) the harvest and reforestation activities, as well as road work proposed in the action alternative would have limited effect on recreation activities and use patterns in the project area. Direct effects to forest visitors in areas of concentrated use of harvest activities and road construction may include a temporary interruption of the recreation experience (camping, hiking, driving for pleasure, hunting and snowmobiling) encountered from those CL1 and CL2 view facilities. Some recreation activities may decrease temporarily as a result of proposed activities, but others may actually increase (i.e., bird watching or hunting for species that are dependent on early succession habitat). Field observation indicates that recreationists who are affected by vegetation harvesting and road maintenance activities and who are displaced will simply move to another location and resume their recreation experience, often within a few miles. Reforestation activities, such as, fencing, herbicide and or burning may displace forest visitors to adjacent areas of the forest for their recreation activity for six months to three years after treatment (until green leafy vegetation returns), depending personal preference.

Road maintenance activities would generally improve roads and permit better access to ANF lands across the project area. Driving for pleasure is a very popular activity on the ANF, especially during the spring wildflower, fall color, and hunting seasons.

Early structural adaptive management treatment units are located adjacent to (within the foreground) of the proposed Equestrian Trail through the Economite area. If any of these ESAM treatments occur after the equestrian trail has been completed, direct effects to users of the Equestrian Trail would include a disruption of the horse riding experience from obvious harvesting or reforestation activities. Stands 327/64, 328/46, 328/47, 333/19, 333/20, 333/2 are all located near a Connector to the ASL. Direct effects to the users of the ASL would include safety hazards of meeting large vehicles/equipment on the driving surfaces of project area roads (also designated snowmobile trail). Vegetation harvesting and reforestation treatments would be very evident to forest visitors traveling on Township Roads 317, 416, 418, 420 and Legislative Routes 3018 and 3005. ANF Forest Plan design criteria (USDA-FS 2007, pp. 60-64) specify layout of nearby treatment units to not interfere with the recreational experience or visual quality of forest visitors using the CL1 and CL2 view facilities. Sample design features include edge-feathering of vegetation to create transition zones between open and forested areas and installing fences away from

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 16

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

roads and trails to make harvesting and reforestation activities not so obvious. Harvest and hauling activities would be completed within seasons of use or time of year (weekend or holidays) when the CL1 or CL2 view facilities receives less use.

Management Area 8.1

All proposed activities would be consistent with a “Rural” recreation opportunity spectrum setting. None of the stands proposed for vegetation management treatment within MA 8.1 are adjacent to or visible from designated trails. Because none of the proposed activities would occur adjacent to the river, none would result in any direct or indirect impediment to any water-based recreational activities. Direct effects to recreational use would occur only occur if for anyone who would use:

• FR555A during decommissioning of the original segment and construction of the realigned segment; • Vegetation management activities and hauling on the realigned segment of FR555A to access stands 282004, 282005 and 282035; • Vegetation management and hauling on FR555 to access stand 283034; • Decommissioning of a portion of FR556; • Vegetation management and hauling on FR556 to access stand 284026.

These roads are subject to almost no noticeable vehicle use now, and foot traffic is likely infrequent, and mostly for the purpose of hunting.

No Action

Any changes to vegetation would be the result of natural stand development or disturbance processes. Without treatment, many stands would develop dense interfering vegetation that would create less than ideal conditions for hunting and dispersed camping. This may result in a negative effect to recreation activities and use patterns. Areas with damaged trees, debris, or downed trees would continue to hinder hunting and camping activities. Large wildlife species, (deer, bear, and turkey), would shy away from the mature forests due to the low food source (no young seedlings) in the area, which would make mature stands not viable hunting areas. Non-native invasive plant species, if left unchecked, would also discourage hunters, and may cause campers to look for dispersed campsites where more desirable vegetation is present.

In the long term, landscape character and the scenic integrity level of the project area would also change without vegetation, wildlife habitat enhancement, and non-native invasive species management activities. Indirect negative effects to the landscape character and scenic integrity level of the area would include:

• High density stands that would not maintain visual depth or age class diversity, which are characteristic of great scenic value; • Interfering vegetation that would suppress seedling and shrub development in the understory; • Areas damaged by previous wind events that would remain untreated, and the dead or damaged trees would continue to contrast visually with the surrounding landscape; • Declining vigor and health that could result in pockets of dead and dying trees; • Declining trees that would remain susceptible to disease or pests, so that the stand as a whole would not retain a healthy condition; • Non-native invasive species that occupy available growing space and use nutrients that could be used by more desired native species.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 17

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Comparison of Effects between Alternatives

Table 6 Changes to the recreation opportunity spectrum and recreation use patterns Projected Effects Short term effects = 3 to 5 years after implementation Treatment Long term effects = beyond 5 years after implementation No Action Proposed Action Direct effects: Both the ROS and Direct effects: ROS and recreation recreation activities and their use activities and use patterns may change patterns would remain the same for short term. the short term. Indirect effects: With the Indirect effects: ROS of the area implementation of ANF Forest Plan would remain the same. Recreation Design Criteria (S&G), the ROS would Proposed Oak Habitat activities and their use patterns may meet roaded natural. Some dispersed Management Activities change long term due to the lack of recreation activities may not be untreated vegetation causing limited available and their use patterns may species diversity and poor health alter, but the general activity would be from insect and disease and the available elsewhere in the project area. establishment and continued increase of non-native invasive plants species

Direct effects: Both the ROS and Direct effects: ROS and recreation recreation activities and their use activities and their use patterns may patterns would remain the same for change short term. the short term. Indirect effects: With the Indirect effects: ROS of the area implementation of ANF Forest Plan Proposed would remain the same. Recreation Design Criteria (S&G), the ROS would Management Area activities and their use patterns may meet roaded natural. Specific Changes change long term due to untreated recreation activities may not be stands in any MA and the lack of available and their use patterns may species diversity and poor health due alter, but the general activity would be to insect and disease and the available elsewhere in the project area. establishment and continued increase of non-native invasive plants

Direct effects: Both the ROS and Direct effects: ROS and recreation recreation activities and their use activities and their use patterns may patterns would remain the same for change short term. the short term. Indirect effects: With the Indirect effects: ROS of the area implementation of ANF Forest Plan would remain the same. Recreation Design Criteria (S&G), the ROS would activities and their use patterns may meet roaded natural. Specific change, long term due to untreated recreation activities may not be Non-native Invasive non-native invasive plants species available and their use patterns may Plant Treatments and their predicted spread. Non- alter, but the general activity would be native invasive plants species occupy available elsewhere in the project area. available growing space and use nutrients that could be used by more desired native species. Non-native invasive plants species, if left unchecked, will limit many uses on lands now and in the future.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 18

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Projected Effects Short term effects = 3 to 5 years after implementation Treatment Long term effects = beyond 5 years after implementation No Action Proposed Action Direct effects: Both the ROS and Direct effects: ROS and recreation recreation activities and their use activities and their use patterns may patterns would remain the same for change short term. the short term. Indirect effects: All reforestation Indirect effects: ROS of the area treatments are designed to encourage Proposed Wildlife would remain the same. Recreation rapid growth, therefore, with the Habitat Enhancement activities and their use patterns may implementation of ANF Forest Plan Activities change long term due to untreated Design Criteria (S&G), the ROS would stands and the lack of species meet roaded natural. Specific diversity and poor health due to recreation activities may not be disease and unchecked non-native available and their use patterns may invasive plants species. alter, but the general activity would be available elsewhere in the project area.

Direct effects: Both the ROS and Direct effects: ROS of the area would recreation activities and their use remain the same. Specific recreation patterns would remain the same for activities and their use patterns may the short term. change short term during the Indirect effects: ROS of the area construction phase. Proposed Equestrian would remain the same. Recreation Indirect effects: With the Trail Management activities and their use patterns may implementation of ANF Forest Plan Activities in the change long term due to Design Criteria (S&G), the ROS would Economite Area unsustainable user-created meet Roaded natural. Recreation equestrian trails forcing forest visitors activities and their use patterns will to seek alternative non-rutted/eroded change long-term. Equestrian trail areas to recreate experiences should improve with hardened trails and more trailhead facilities.

No direct or indirect effects to ROS Direct and indirect effects: With the and recreation activities and their use implementation of ANF Forest Plan patterns Design Criteria (S&G) the ROS would Proposed Roads meet roaded natural. Specific Required for recreation activities may not be Management available and their use patterns may

alter, but the general activity would be available elsewhere in the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Project activities would not contribute an adverse or beneficial cumulative effect to the recreation opportunity spectrum or recreation activities and use because:

• No previously Forest Service management activities approved in previous decisions remain to be implemented; • Effects of vegetation management to recreation uses do not accumulate over time; • Private oil and gas development is not extensive and almost unnoticeable within the project area; • Future oil and gas development is projected to continue this trend; • Proposed activities are consistent with past vegetation management and compatible with the recreational opportunity spectrum and current recreation activities and their use patterns.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 19

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Claims are often made that vegetation harvest has reduced recreation opportunities on the ANF. Even though new harvest treatment areas (<20 years of age) are more difficult for forest visitors to use because fencing is impeding access, slash is abundant, and sapling or briar growth is very thick, forest visitors are able to utilize most stands in young forest (21 to 50 years of age) or mature forest (51

Approximately 3 percent of the project area would be in an early structural condition over the next two decades if the Proposed Action is fully implemented. The first stands converted to early structural habitat would be progressing to mid structural habitat around the same time as overstory would be removed from the last stand. Proposed overstory removal treatments would affect the appearance and amount of recreational use these areas receive. However, many of these stands are not heavily used for recreation outside of hunting season. Forest visitors may be displaced from these areas for 10 to 50 years, depending on personal preference, but other areas within the project area (88 percent in mid-structural condition and 4 percent in late structural condition) would provide desired conditions for recreation.

Due to the history of vegetation management within the project area (both public and private lands), the activities proposed in the action alternative are consistent with past management and compatible with the current scenic integrity levels of the area. Cumulatively, the effects resulting from past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future management activities would not exceed the established scenic integrity levels of the project areas.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 20

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Literature Cited

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985. ROS users guide.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1986. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Allegheny National Forest. Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Allegheny National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Accompany the Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan. Appendices A-F. Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix G - Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report Page 21 Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Appendix H Health and Human Safety Report Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Reviewed by:

Erin Leet Allegheny National Forest Safety Officer

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix H - Health and Human Safety Report Page i

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table of Contents Analysis Framework ...... 1 Environmental Consequences ...... 2 References ...... 4

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix H - Health and Human Safety Report Page ii

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Analysis Framework

Potential effects to public health and safety from the proposed action include the use of herbicides and smoke emissions from prescribed fires. Herbicides such as glyphosate or sulfometuron-methyl are used to control interfering plants and non-native invasive plants on the Allegheny National Forest. Human risks are discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS and appendix G of that plan (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Broadcast treatments are generally completed a substantial distance away from private residences and their water sources. Herbicide application would not occur within 150 feet of any private residence. Herbicides would be applied following Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to minimize the risk of accidental exposure. This would include warning signs, maximum wind caps (10 mph), directional spraying near property lines and trails, landowner notification, timing, and buffers to minimize accidental contact or exposure.

Risk of contaminating well water from Forest Service application rates was considered in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA FS 2007b G1-44). Based on peer-reviewed studies that were assessed, the analysis concluded that there is no likelihood of groundwater contamination from the proposed applications on the ANF.

A complete list of standards and guidelines that apply to pesticide application (including herbicides and insecticides) can be reviewed in the Forest Plan (pages 55 to 60). Further information regarding risks to human health from herbicide use for seedling establishment and its safety may be found in the Forest Plan (pages 54–59; pages A-33–A-38), the Forest Plan FEIS (pages 3-119–3-122), and appendix G of the Forest Plan FEIS. Specific risks to human health associated with use of glyphosate have also been assessed more recently in Durkin (2011), a report prepared for the Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Other literature references submitted by members of the public during the scoping period have been evaluated for relevance specific to glyphosate formulas, application rates and use practices applied by the Forest Service for the Izenbrown Corners project.

The FY 2008 – 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report (pages 185 to 191) for the ANF evaluated effectiveness of herbicide design criteria. Based on the results of random sampling, instances of insufficient buffers along water features were found to be relatively few and have been declining since implementation of the 2007 Forest Plan was implemented. For the years 2007 through 2013, no visible injury or death of vegetation from herbicide treatment was noted inside any designated watercourse or other buffer areas, or no overspray was observed in any of the sampled stands. Based on these findings, this analysis presumes that Forest Plan buffers for herbicide use would be applied, and would be effective.

Prescribed fires can pose a hazard to forest users and those driving through the project area. Wind shifts may cause smoke to temporarily impair visibility for humans, and smoke-related health issues may arise. Multiple safety and control measures would be incorporated into each prescribed fire burn plan. The FY 2008 – 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report (pages 103 to 106) includes smoke monitoring results from two prescribed fire operations applied in 2012 and 2013. For both fires, particulate matter 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5, also known as “fine particles”) remained well below the human health benchmark level for human health concern. Based on these findings, this analysis presumes that ANF burn plans have been effective in applying Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Further information regarding prescribed fires can be found in the Forest Plan (pages 70 and A-32) and the Forest Plan FEIS (page 3-125).

Potential safety hazards associated with use of national forest lands include situational awareness for changing weather conditions, terrain and topography, aggressive or stinging animals and toxic plants, and

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix H - Health and Human Safety Report Page 1

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

driving on narrow roads constructed to a standard for lower speed, among others. As with any outdoor activity, these potential hazards are typically addressed by normal measures of caution and preparedness, as well as heeding any warnings and advisories provided by on-site signs or other available media. Oil and gas development activities within the project area include drilling, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), well construction, access road use, electric lines, pipelines that are either buried or above ground, pump jacks, collection tanks, and other miscellaneous equipment. Heavy truck traffic usually increases during drilling and major maintenance activities. People working at or traveling around oil and gas development sites during recreational activities and the associated equipment may be exposed to related hazards.

Environmental Consequences No Action

Normal levels of caution and preparedness would apply for all outdoor activities in and around the project area, including recreational uses near oil and gas facilities in place or under development.

Proposed Action

Measurement Indicator 10: Risks to human health and safety from proposed activities

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Levels of caution and preparedness for recreational users of the project area would need to be expanded to include potential hazards from herbicide use, prescribed fire, and logging activities.

Overall risks from the planned use of glyphosate and sulfometuron-methyl on 1,931 acres (Table 25) are expected to be low (USDA Forest Service 2007a, page ROD-23). Forest Plan standards and guidelines for pesticide application (which includes herbicides and insecticides) would be applied (USDA Forest Service 2007a, pages 54–59), and are based on the human health risk assessment (USDA Forest Service 2007b, appendix G) completed for the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2007b). A more recent human health and ecological risk assessment published in 2011 by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (Durkin, 2011) examined potential hazards from use of glyphosate and concluded: • The preponderance of the available data…clearly indicates that the mammalian toxicity of glyphosate is low, and very few specific hazards can be identified. • Many glyphosate formulations include surfactants, and the toxicity of these surfactants is of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than is the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate. • There are obvious, and in many cases substantial, differences among the toxicities of technical grade glyphosate, glyphosate formulations that do not contain a surfactant, and some glyphosate formulations that contain polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) surfactants. • In general, it would be prudent to classify any formulation that contains a POEA surfactant as more toxic, except when there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. • For members of the general public, the only non-accidental exposure scenario of concern is for acute exposure involving the consumption of contaminated vegetation shortly after glyphosate is applied.

The surfactant POEA is not in any of the formulations proposed for use by the ANF in the proposed action, or any management activities. Appendix A of the ANF Forest Plan (pages A-43−A-45) also contains additional information on site selection, herbicide selection, and application methods and rates. Based on monitoring results from previous projects with similar activities herbicide treatments are anticipated to have negligible effects to public health or safety.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix H - Health and Human Safety Report Page 2

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

Table 1 Summary of acres proposed for herbicide use Maximum Available Maximum treatment area area Shelterwood sequence 2018 10091 Reforestation 76 76 Red pine overstory removal 246 246 NNIP treatment 600 600 Total Acres 2940 1931 1 Herbicide would be applied only to the portion of the available treatment area where the shelterwood seed cut is applied, which would be up to half of total shelterwood treatment area.

Smoke emissions from prescribed burning proposed to maintain oak forest types would be of short duration. Smoke management through dispersion would be addressed in the burning parameters of the burn plan. Emissions from prescribed burning would not exceed federal air quality standards. The Forest Service will develop safeguards in burn plans to ensure the protection of human life, surrounding private lands or structures, other fire sensitive forest communities, and local resources present on the sites.

The Proposed Action would avoid adverse impacts to public health and safety through implementation of ANF Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Pennsylvania Best Management Practices, any relevant project design features, timber sale contract requirements, Office of Safety and Health Administration requirements, and standard operating safety procedures (including OGD operations). Actions, such as dust abatement, signing of roads, identifying the area as an active timber sale area, safely securing truck loads, and maintaining the timber haul routes, are standard precautionary measures that would be applied.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix H - Health and Human Safety Report Page 3

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest

References

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Warren, PA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Warren, PA.

Durkin, P.R. 2011. Glyphosate, Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. A report prepared for the USDA Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Manlius, NY

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Allegheny National Forest monitoring and evaluation report – FY 2008 - 2013. Warren, PA.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix H - Health and Human Safety Report Page 4

Appendix I Response to Scoping Comments Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan

USDA Forest Service Allegheny National Forest Bradford Ranger District

Prepared and signed by:

Steve Dowlan Bradford Ranger District Planning Team Leader

Edited and Reviewed by:

Glenn Howard Allegheny National Forest Environmental Coordinator

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page i This report summarizes the scoping process for the Izenbrown Corners Environmental Assessment (EA) and presents content analyses of the public comments received. The USDA Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest (ANF), Bradford Ranger District is proposing to implement the Izenbrown Corners Project. This project includes tree harvesting, reforestation activities, wildlife habitat enhancement activities, removal of non-native invasive plants, construction of a sustainable equestrian trail, and road construction and decommissioning within the Izenbrown Corners Project Area.

On May 14, 2013, a scoping package was mailed to interested individuals and organizations, including adjacent landowners and subsurface mineral owners and posted on the ANF website on May 14, 2013. A news release was sent to local media on May 13, 2013. The Izenbrown Corners project was listed in the ANF schedule of proposed actions starting with the January 2012 issue. The scoping comment period for this project ended on June 21, 2013. Comments were received from the 29 respondents listed below.

Response # Commenter Received Via Comment Type Allegheny Defense Project and 1 Comments database Unique Heartwood (R. Talbot and E. Reed) 2 Daniel Beck, East Waterford, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Thomas Bell, McMurray, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Barbara Benson, Coopersburg, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Michael Cornell, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Carol Dominics, Irwin, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Joan Douglas, Langhorne, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Elizabeth Edelstein, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Jan Haagensen, Enon Valley, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Christine Hendryx, Tionesta, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Jean Hricik, NY Comments database Form letter 2 Josh Knauer, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Bette Kovac, Irwin, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Ryan Little, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Barb Lucia, Warren, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Amanda Meiers, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Rachael Ness, Orchard Park, NY Comments database Form letter 2 Cathy Pedler, Erie, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Charles Phillips, Boonville, MO Comments database Form letter 2 Rachael Shade, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Form letter 2 N Vaughan, Aliquippa, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Tim White, Centre Hall, PA Comments database Form letter 2 Ronald Wisnieski, Marienville, PA Comments database Form letter Form letter 3 Celia Jayne, Tionesta, PA Comments database variation Form letter 4 Christina Wulf, Staunton, VA Comments database variation 5 Dick Artley, Grangeville, ID Comments database Unique 6 Matt Peters, Pittsburgh, PA Comments database Unique 7 Timothy Price, Cranberry Twp., PA Us mail Unique Pennsylvania Equine Council Email to the Project 8 Unique (G. Wills) Leader

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 1 The Izenbrown Corners interdisciplinary team (ID team) reviewed and responded to the comments received. Specific comments within each response are identified by the response number, followed by a number assigned to each comment based on content. All form letters contained identical comments. The comments were organized into three general categories based on criteria described below.

Unresolved and Resolved Issues Unresolved Issues. Unresolved issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. Issues are unresolved because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects, or the intensity of interest or resource conflict.

Resolved Issues. These are issues which are not used in the environmental analysis. A reason must be cited if the issue is considered to be resolved. Reasons may include: • The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action; • The issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; • The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made; • The issue is conjectural and not supported by factual evidence; • The issue will be addressed in the effects section of the Izenbrown Corners EA.

Non-Issues. Non-issues are comments that do not identify a dispute with the proposed action based on anticipated effect. Non-issues include: • Opinions; • Comments on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process used; • Requests for further information or other documents.

Unresolved Issues No unresolved issues were identified within the scoping comments by the interdisciplinary team.

Resolved Issues

These comments are resolved issues because they have been addressed in the effects section of the Izenbrown Corners project environmental assessment and its supporting documents.

The importance of oak habitat

Comment 7-1: Why is it considered desirable to restore the percentage of oak trees back to the time period of "hundreds to thousands of years" that Native Americans used fire in the forest? What specifically is the problem with other trees increasing in number? (Price)

Response: The importance of oak habitat is addressed in appendix B, Analysis of Effects to Vegetation and Forest Health (affected environment).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 2 Affects to local air and water resources Comment 7-2: What impact will there be to the air and water, including our wells, with a regular schedule of prescribed fires and herbicide treatments that could last for the next 20 years? (Price)

Response: A summary of potential effects to air and water resources from all proposed project activities is included in the Izenbrown Corners project EA. These summary effects are described in greater detail in appendix F, Air Quality Report, appendix E2, Water Resources Report. Potential effects human health and safety, including risk of contaminating well water as a result of glyphosate use are addressed in appendix H, Human Health and Safety Report.

Comment 7-3: How are you applying the herbicide? How will you control overspray and run-off? Since your plan is to apply herbicide in very close proximity to my home, how will you ensure your actions will not impact my health and property? (Price)

Response: A complete list of standards and guidelines that apply to pesticide application (including herbicides and insecticides) can be reviewed in the Forest Plan (pages 55 to 60). These standards and guidelines are incorporated by references as design features for the Izenbrown Corners project.

Effects to wildlife

Comment 7-5: What impact will this have to wildlife during the fires and herbiciding? (Price)

Response: A summary of potential effects to wildlife resources from all proposed project activities is included in the Izenbrown Corners project EA. Potential effects to wildlife species and wildlife habitat are addressed in greater detail in appendix C1 (Biological Assessment), appendix C2 (Biological Evaluation), and appendix C3 (Wildlife Report).

Effects to scenery

Comment 7-6: Where "most remaining mature trees would be harvested" from a chosen area, would this leave the forest visibly scarred? (Price)

Response: A summary of potential effects to scenery resources from all proposed project activities is included in the Izenbrown Corners project EA. Potential effects to scenery resources are addressed in greater detail in appendix G (Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report).

Effects to recreation and visitor experiences

Comment 6-1: Recreation and eco-tourism represent a significant industry for the region, providing jobs for residents and tax revenue for the Commonwealth. The impact on this source of jobs and revenue must be taken into account. (Peters)

Comment 7-4: What impact will there be to recreational activities? Will roads be blocked off? Will sections of the forest be off limits to those wanting to enjoy the forest? (Price)

Comment 7-7: How much noise will this project create over the next 20 years? (Price) Response: These issues are addressed in the summary of effects section of the Izenbrown

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 3 Corners EA. Potential effects to the recreation opportunity spectrum are addressed in greater detail in appendix G (Forest Settings and Recreation Opportunities Report).

Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service

Comment 1-5: In February 2012, the USFWS listed the rayed bean and snuffbox mussels as endangered. 77 Fed. Reg. 8,632 (Feb. 14, 2012). In March 2012, the USFWS listed the sheepnose mussel as endangered. 77 Fed. Reg. 14,914 (Mar. 13, 2012). The Forest Service must engage in formal consultation with the USFWS regarding the potential impacts of the Izenbrown Corners project to all of the threatened and endangered mussel species in the Allegheny River (ADP/Heartwood page 4).

Comment 1-6: The Forest Service must explain why it is that “most streams on the ANF are too cold and with limited productivity to support” the rayed bean when another part of the BE indicates that the species “is characteristic of small streams,” which tend to be colder than larger streams and rivers. It could very well be that the Allegheny River is not the only suitable habitat in the ANF for the rayed bean. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-11: In light of the information provided above about the rayed bean, snuffbox, and sheepnose mussels, the Forest Service must engage in formal consultation with the USFWS regarding the potential impacts to these species from implementing the Izenbrown Corners project. (ADP/Heartwood page 13)

Comment 2-6: Furthermore, the Allegheny Wild & Scenic River contains habitat for the clubshell, northern riffleshell, sheepnose, rayed bean, and snuffbox mussels, all of which are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Forest Service must engage in formal consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to determine the potential impacts (including cumulative impacts) to these endangered species as a result of implementing this project. (form letter, Jayne, Wulf)

Comment 2-9: That EIS must also disclose the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species, including several endangered species of mussels in the Allegheny Wild & Scenic River. (form letter, Jayne, Wulf, Peters)

Response: This is a resolved issue because it will be addressed in the effects section of the Izenbrown Corners project environmental assessment, and all legally required consultation will be completed before a decision notice is signed for the project. The findings of the EA will determine whether an EIS is required.

The 2007 Forest Plan BE refers to the species in general as “characteristic of small streams”, but also refers to rayed-bean as “a river, lake, and stream species, apparently associated with water willow stands, often in very shallow water.” The 2007 Forest Plan BE refers to the requirement for a host fish species to be present in order for rayed-bean to reproduce, as well as several specific habitat requirements, including stream productivity. The BE also states that “10 smaller streams within the ANF were surveyed by Western Pennsylvania Conservancy in which neither mussel was documented (Bier et al. 1997, page 41)”. The EA will incorporate the best available information that was used to develop the proposed action and conduct the environmental analysis, including literature cited.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 4 Proposed Management Area Changes

Comment 1-13: We agree with those portions of the proposed amendment that would transfer land in MA 3 to MA 2.2. We do not agree, however, with the proposed changes from MA 2.2 to MA 1 or from MA 3 to MA 1. The Forest Service should consider an alternative that looks at combining the existing and proposed MA 2.2 together (i.e., decrease lands in MA 3 and do not propose lands to be added as MA 1). (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-14: The Forest Service needs to provide more detail about the proposed management change in an FEIS. It is unclear that the objectives the Forest Service says it wants to attain will be attained by the proposed Forest Plan amendment. (ADP/Heartwood page 14)

Comment 6-4: The maps indicate some existing wildlife openings and pine plantations, these can be more easily and cost-effectively remediated to rejoin the native forest canopy, than the extensive and expensive activity proposed herein. Such a proposal should be considered under the “reasonable range of alternatives” directive in NEPA. (Peters)

Response: A summary of potential effects resulting from proposed management area changes is included in the Izenbrown Corners project EA. The area affected by the proposed management area change is described in detail in appendix A (Analysis of Proposed Management Area Changes). An alternative that would change all of the Economite area to MA 2.2 and add no MA 1.0 was considered, but eliminated from detailed study. The rationale for this is provided in the EA. The comment does not offer any specific methods or strategy that would more easily and cost-effectively remediate the area “to rejoin the native forest canopy.”

Climate change analysis

Comment 1-15: This project should address and analyze the environmental impacts and economic effects that this project has on the ability of the project area to mitigate climate change and stabilize climate. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-16: This project should address and analyze the cumulative environmental and economic effects that this project, in concert with all other surface disturbing projects, and how they contribute to the ability of the Allegheny National Forest to mitigate climate change and stabilize climate. This should include, but not limited to, timber sales, prescribed burns, vegetation and wildlife management, restoration projects and oil and gas exploration or production that have been implemented over the last six years, since the implementation of the 2007 Forest Plan and those that are likely to be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future in the Allegheny National Forest. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-17: This project should address and analyze the cumulative environmental and economic effects that this project, in concert with all other surface disturbing projects and how they contribute to the ability of all Region 9 forests to mitigate climate change and stabilize climate. This should include, but not limited to, timber sales, prescribed burns, vegetation and wildlife management, restoration projects and oil and gas exploration or production that have been implemented over the last 6 years, since the implementation of the 2007 Forest Plan and those that are likely to be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future in the Allegheny National Forest. (ADP/Heartwood)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 5 Comment 1-18: The project analysis should consider the cumulative environmental impacts of all aspects of the project at the aforementioned landscape and temporal scales, including all direct consequential environmental impacts on climate including but not limited to the transportation, storage and intended use (including incineration) of forest resources with regard to carbon storage and atmospheric release of carbon dioxide. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-19: We request that the project EIS provide a monitoring framework that identifies measurable goals and objectives for climate adaptation and mitigation and monitors progress towards them. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-20: We request that the project EIS adequately address basic considerations of climate change. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-21: We request that an analysis of the range of alternatives compare long term Net Public Benefits with respect to climate change mitigation, CO2 emissions, and carbon sequestration. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 2-10: This project must be evaluated in the context of our changing climate. The impacts of climate change on the project area must be fully understood before a project of this magnitude is undertaken, and conversely the impact of the proposed project on climate change must also be thoroughly studied. The carbon release from the logging, burning, and combustion of fossil fuels (chainsaws, bulldozers, etc.) must be quantified and analyzed, and the impacts of this carbon release into the atmosphere must also be examined. (form letter, Jayne, Wulf, Peters)

Response: The interdisciplinary team applied CEQ guidance to consider the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action, and the potential effects of the proposed action on climate change as indicated by its GHG emissions (see the Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change Report in the project record). Based on the results of this report, it has been determined that a detailed project-level comparison of long term net public benefits with respect to climate change mitigation, CO2 emissions, and carbon sequestration would not inform the decision because of the small scale of effects (annual GHG contributions below 25,000 metric tons) spread over 20 years. The Proposed Action would not substantially change the ability of the project area to provide a very small incremental contribution to offset GHG inputs elsewhere via carbon sequestration.

Compliance with NEPA

Comment 5-3: Please comply with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(a) by responding to each opposing view in Attachments #9a and #18. (Artley)

Response: The referenced opposing views as excerpted from literature citations have been considered in the environmental analysis. See Consideration of Science/Literature Submitted by the Public in the project record.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 6 These issues are resolved issues because they are outside the scope of Proposed Action

Forest Plan analysis of potential cumulative effects from shale gas drilling

Comment 1-9: These statements in the DSEIS again underscore the need to, at a minimum, either finalize the SEIS or amend the 2007 Forest Plan. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-7: First, the Forest Plan revision process was substantially flawed because the Forest Service did not consider oil and gas drilling a significant revision issue. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-8: Second, the Forest Service failed to consider the impacts of shale gas development in the Marcellus, Utica and other shale layers, despite the fact that potential development of shale gas was known at the time. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-10: So on June 25, 2009, the leadership of the ANF made several statements under penalty of perjury that the Forest Service could no longer ensure that watersheds and wildlife could be protected because of the amount of existing, ongoing and projected oil and gas development, but, just a couple weeks later, stated in the 2007 Forest Plan DSEIS that the “cumulative effects” of oil and gas drilling “are expected to be minimized.” Both of these cannot be true. The Forest Service must explain this discrepancy in an EIS for the Izenbrown Corners project. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 1-12: Moreover, this underscores the need to either finalize the 2007 Forest Plan DSEIS or amend the 2007 Forest Plan. (ADP/Heartwood)

Response: The scope of analysis and process used in the 2007 Forest Plan revision is outside the scope of the Izenbrown Corners project analysis. Potential private oil and gas development was assessed for the project area to inform cumulative effects analyses for individual resources. The scenarios considered and the rationale used to select these scenarios can be found in the following documents in project record; Project Level Cumulative Effects Analyses for Deep Well Gas Development Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan; and Project Level Cumulative Effects Analyses for Oil and Gas Development Prepared to Support the Izenbrown Corners Project Environmental Assessment and Implementation Plan.

Effects to public safety from prescribed fire

Comment 6-6: On-the ground surveys must be conducted across the entire region. If there is an abandoned well or pipeline leaking gas or petroleum fluids, prescribed burn activity could cause an explosion or other disaster. The region should also be surveyed for illegal or historic garbage dumps, where tires, plastic items and other materials inappropriate for open combustion can be identified and mitigated. (Peters)

Response: Regional surveys for abandoned wells, pipelines, and illegal or historic garbage dumps are beyond the scope of the Izenbrown Corners project. Potential hazards are identified in advance for specific areas where prescribed fire is implemented.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 7 These comments are resolved issues because they have already have been decided by the Forest Plan

Public perception of timber sales

Comment 5-1: This timber sale is inconsistent with what the public wants the agency employees administering the national forest to do as documented in the USFS authored document: Gen. Tech. Report RMRS-GTR-95. Explain why you feel that you have been given the authority to violate the public trust. (Artley)

Comment 5-2: There is no “timber famine” as the USFS has been so fond of predicting for many decades. There is no shortage of raw materials for paper and wood products in the United States otherwise the owners of private timberland would not be exporting their lumber. The public doesn’t want their public land logged for any reason. You violate the public trust in your zeal to serve your timber industry masters. (Artley)

Response: This is a resolved issue because application of timber harvest has already been decided by the Forest Plan. Public comments regarding this project were requested and considered during the designated scoping comment period, and the draft EA will be subject to a 30 day comment period.

Herbicide use

Comment 5-3: The chemicals listed above kill aquatic life even if the concentrations of the chemical in water are very low. Fish deaths will occur in the streams in the project area and the herbicide toxicity will extend many miles downstream. Herbicides must never be allowed to contact water … even so-called aquatic-safe herbicides. (Artley)

Response: This is a resolved issue because it is already decided by the Forest Plan. The Izenbrown Corners Project would apply all ANF Forest Plan standards and guidelines (pages 57 and 58) , including buffers for perennial streams, impoundments, seeps, springs, intermittent streams wet areas with standing water, and any of these features which are dry at the time of application.

Use of timber harvest and prescribed fire to restore and regenerate oak habitat

Comment 1-1: Comment 1-1: At a minimum, the Forest Service must disclose the research it is relying on to justify logging and burning thousands of acres in the Allegheny in an EIS. (ADP/Heartwood page 1)

Comment 1-2: If the Forest Service is going to rely on a particular study to justify a significant AMS whereby thousands of acres will be burned and logged, it should provide the citation to that research so the public can access it to verify that that is indeed what the research says. (ADP/Heartwood page 2)

Comment 2-8: The Forest Service, at a minimum, must prepare an EIS for the Izenbrown Corners Project. That EIS should disclose all of the relevant science regarding the presence of oak in this area and why the use of clearcutting and burning is necessary to manage this area today. (form letter)

Comment 3-1: The Forest Service must disclose the research it is relying on to justify logging and

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 8 burning thousands of acres in the Allegheny. (Jayne)

Comment 6-3: Historically, fire has virtually no place in the native forest ecosystems of this region. (Peters)

Comment 3-4: The Forest Service, at a minimum, must prepare an EIS for the Izenbrown Corners Project. That EIS should disclose all of the relevant science regarding the presence of oak in this area and why the use of clearcutting and burning is necessary to manage this area today. (Jayne)

Comment 4-1: The Forest Service must disclose the research it is relying on to justify logging and burning thousands of acres in the Allegheny. (Wulf)

Response: This is a non-issue because the Forest Plan (ROD-23, ROD-32, 15, and 19) emphasizes and provides guidance for the reintroduction of fire in fire-adapted ecosystems in order to restore ecosystem structure and function. Oak species on the ANF are well adapted to survive and thrive in a periodic surface fire regime. The Forest Service is not relying on any single study to provide a rationale for the silvicultural practices intended to achieve desired conditions. The benefits of using fire to restore retain and regenerate oak habitat and associated plant and animal communities is well documented in numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, some of which were conducted in the region and on ANF. The appropriateness and optimality of proposed vegetation management practices intended to restore and regenerate oak habitat, including prescribed fire is described in detail the Forest Plan (pages A14 to A15, A-18 and A-32).

The EA will provide citations for information used to conduct the environmental analysis, and copies of all cited references will be available in the project record. The findings of the EA will determine whether an EIS is required.

Non-Issues

These comments are non-issues because they express opinions that do not identify a clear dispute with the proposed action based on anticipated effect

The relationship between Native American use of fire and the presence and distribution of oak forests

Comment 1-3: We respectfully request that the research discussed above be considered by the Forest Service and made part of the project record. The Forest Service should discuss the relevant science in an EIS so that the public has a better understanding of the relationship between anthropogenic forces and the presence of oak trees in the project area. (ADP/Heartwood)

Comment 2-2: Contrary to the scoping notice, a 2006 study revealed that many of the historical accounts that Native Americans used fire in this manner was questionable due to bias. (Abrams, et al. Native American influences on the forest composition of the Allegheny Plateau, northwest Pennsylvania. Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 36, 2006). Furthermore, recent research does not reveal the kind of direct “cause and effect” relationship that the Forest Service asserts in the scoping notice. For example, the 2006 Abrams study stated that while “Native Americans had at least some association with forest composition … the degree of the relationship is not quantified.” (form letter)

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 9

Comment 2-3: The Forest Service must further analyze the historical development of oak in the ANF region in the context of an EIS because the science is not nearly as conclusive as the Forest Service claims it is. (form letter)

Comment 2-4: Indeed, at a 2005 conference, researchers indicated that, “oak occurred in uneven-aged stands historically, maintained by surface fires and regenerated in canopy gaps” and that “red oak and chestnut oak increased post-logging boom.” (Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers Conference. 2005). This suggests that the “dominance” of oak forests today may be more of a result of the clearcutting that occurred throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries rather than Native American’s use of fire “for hundreds to thousands of years.” (form letter)

Comment 3-2: The Forest Service must further analyze the historical development of oak in the ANF region in the context of an EIS because the science is not nearly as conclusive as the Forest Service claims it is. (Jayne and Wulf)

Comment 6-2: The argument that Native Americans used fire, therefore we should too, is without merit primarily on the basis of intent. Indigenous societies using fire for forest management were operating under a very different set of management goals than the USDA-FS. Native peoples were not looking to provide a steady supply of oak for the timber industry. (Peters)

Comment 6-3: The question of historic oak dominance is also without merit, as the loss of the Chestnut set in motion complex ecological changes that are at best poorly understood. (Peters)

Response: These comments are non-issues because it they express opinions relating to interpretation of peer-reviewed research and do not identify clear disputes with the proposed action based on anticipated effect. One element of the Purpose and Need for the project is to “restore, retain and regenerate oak habitat and associated plant and animal communities that are currently declining due to unsuitable understory conditions for seedling growth, lack of natural disturbance by fire, and forest health threats such as nonnative invasive plant species (NNIP) and insects” (scoping letter). Oak forests on the ANF contribute to regional biodiversity and are very important to many plant and animal species (Forest Plan ROD-23). Of particular importance are the high amounts of hard mast the oaks produce for wildlife forage. The possible or likely influence of Native Americans on the presence and distribution of oak communities throughout the Allegheny National Forest and the region provides prehistoric and historic context only.

Oak species on ANF are well adapted to survive and thrive in a periodic surface fire regime. The Forest Service is not relying on any single study to provide a rationale for the silvicultural practices intended to achieve desired conditions. The benefits of using fire to restore retain and regenerate oak habitat and associated plant and animal communities is well documented in numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, some of which were conducted in the region and on ANF. The appropriateness and optimality of proposed vegetation management practices intended to restore and regenerate oak habitat, including prescribed fire is described in detail the Forest Plan (pages A14 to A15, A-18 and A-32).

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 10 Management Area changes

Comment 6-5: The proposal to change MA status of these lands in order to conduct this proposed extensive logging, burning, herbiciding and more logging in the name of an extinct religious movement, the New Economists, is perhaps the most outrageous violation of the Constitutional separation between church and state that I have ever seen. (Peters)

Response: This comment is a non-issue because it is an opinion regarding interpretation of the stated Purpose and Need for the project. The commenter apparently misinterpreted a sentence in the scoping letter which provided context for the commonly-known name for a minor part of the Izenbrown Corners project area. No connection was stated or implied regarding any religious practice by the extinct society known as the Economites or any other religious group and any element of the Proposed Action, nor has any been intended.

Izenbrown Corners Project Appendix I – Response to Public Scoping Comments Page 11