Allegheny Defense Project
Protecting and Restoring the Forests of the Allegheny Bioregion
Cryptobranchus alleganiensus, the Hellbender
August 2009
Re: North End Project Appeal
Kent Connaughton, Appeal Deciding Officer
Attn: Appeals and Litigation
USDA-Forest Service
Eastern Region
626 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Appeal Deciding Officer Connaughton:
Pursuant to 36 CFR 215, this is an administrative appeal of the Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact for the North End Project Environmental Assessment. We requested that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for this project in conjunction with the South
Branch Kinzua Creek Project given the scale, timing, geography, intensity and cumulative effects of
these projects as well as the cumulative effects of oil and gas drilling within a watershed that
includes one of the Allegheny National Forest’s only Wilderness Trout Streams.
We are incorporating by reference our comments and appeal for the South Branch Kinzua Creek
Project and our comments on the Upper Kinzua Project as many of the issues we raised during that
analysis are similar to the issues to be addressed in this analysis, most notably the impacts to South
Branch Kinzua Creek. We are also incorporating by reference our original comments on the North
End EA that were submitted on April 3, 2009.
If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please contact us at (814) 221-1408.
Need for an EIS
The North End Project and South Branch Kinzua Creek Project should have been considered in one
EIS. The two project areas are directly adjacent to each other. Most, if not the entire northern
boundary for the South Branch Kinzua Creek Project is the southern boundary for the North End
Project. South Branch Kinzua Creek itself, one of the only Wilderness Trout Streams in the
Allegheny National Forest, is this boundary between these two projects. There are two unroaded
areas that straddle the boundary of the two project areas and the Forest Service relied on the North
End Roads Analysis to develop proposals for both projects.
All of this, in addition to what we will outline below, should have compelled the Forest Service to
prepare a single EIS for both projects. Additionally, the Upper Kinzua Project must be consolidated
with the North End Project and considered in one EIS. The two projects are directly adjacent to
each other and have similar timing. All together, the South Branch Kinzua Creek Project, North
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org
End Project and Upper Kinzua Project constitutes one large timber sale from south to north that has
been illegally segmented under NEPA.
The Forest Service wrongly eliminated from detailed study an alternative to join the South Branch
Kinzua Creek and North End Projects “because the decision notice and finding of no significant
impact for the South Branch Kinzua Creek (SBKC) Project were signed on August 7, 2008.” North
End Project EA, p. 9. 2009. However, the very next sentences completely undermine the Forest
Service’s rationale for not combining the projects:
The cumulative effects analysis area for water resources for both projects is the same, the South
Branch Kinzua Creek watershed, and includes both project areas and proposed activities from each
project.
This is precisely why the two projects should have been and must be analyzed in a single EIS. The
Forest Service must halt all activities associated with the South Branch Kinzua Creek Project and
redo the analysis in the context of a single EIS in conjunction with the North End and Upper Kinzua
Projects.
There’s also a need for further disclosure of monitoring results in the North End project area. ADP
board member Jim Kleissler recently spent time on the ground in the North End project area and
noted that areas that have received previous shelterwood/clearcuts are not adequately regenerating.
The Forest Service must not proceed with more logging within the project area if it cannot prove
that its previous logging activities are in compliance with NFMA regulations. There is a brief
discussion of the past logging activities starting on page 43 of the EA but there is no disclosure of
the regeneration rates of these areas.
Cumulative Actions
On page 20 of the South Branch Kinzua Creek EA, the Forest Service incorporated the North End
Roads Analysis by reference and stated:
“This report contains recommendations that may be carried forward in the SBKC, North End, and
other projects.”
The Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations
state:
“Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant
impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.”1
There is little doubt that the North End and South Branch Kinzua Creek Projects, when viewed
together, will “have cumulatively significant impacts.” Therefore, the two projects “should [] be
discussed in the same impact statement.” The same goes for the Upper Kinzua Project.
The North End Project proposes a total of 1,650 acres of commercial logging and 1,261 acres of
herbicide spraying in the northern South Branch Kinzua Creek watershed. The South Branch
Kinzua Creek Project proposes 1,839 acres of commercial logging and 896 acres of herbicide
1
40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(2)
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org
spraying in the southern South Branch Kinzua Creek watershed. The Upper Kinzua Project
proposes over 2,200 acres of logging and 2,200 acres of herbicide spraying. Combined, the two
projects propose nearly 5,700 acres of logging and over 4,300 acres of herbicide spraying in the
South Branch Kinzua Creek and Kinzua Creek watersheds. This will certainly have a significant
impact on South Branch Kinzua Creek, a Wilderness Trout Stream.2
Furthermore, when you consider the likelihood of future oil and gas development within the project
areas, it makes sense for the Forest Service to consider these three projects and the cumulative
impacts of existing, proposed and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas developments in a single
impact statement. This includes but is certainly not limited to the cumulative impacts of oil and gas
drilling on local and regional air quality per the Forest Service Chief’s forest plan appeal decision.
Oil and gas development in the Allegheny has resulted in the removal of thousands of acres of high
quality forest habitat. The impacts of this logging were not included in the revised Forest Plan’s
analysis of the impacts of the agency’s logging program even though the Forest Service sells the
timber to the oil and gas companies. This has resulted in a significant understatement of the
impacts associated with oil and gas development. To put it another way, oil and gas development
has allowed the Forest Service to “hide” a significant portion of the actual logging that occurs on
the Allegheny National Forest. Any analysis for increased logging on the Allegheny must occur in
light of how much logging has occurred, is occurring and is likely to occur along with oil and gas
development.
The Forest Service must consider alternatives to offset the impacts of oil and gas development. The
Forest Service constantly points out the “uniqueness” of the Allegheny in having 93% of the
mineral rights privately owned. This requires the Forest Service to adjust its priorities. Quite
simply, with the amount of intense oil and gas development that has already occurred on the
Allegheny, the Forest Service cannot possibly implement an aggressive logging agenda, such as a
project like North End, and provide for all of the other uses our national forests are to be managed
for such as watersheds, wildlife and fish habitat, and outdoor recreation.3
This is particularly timely when you consider the Forest Service is proposing dramatic reductions in
developed recreation facilities as part of its “Recreation Facility Analysis.” The cumulative results
from rampant oil and gas development, an aggressive logging agenda and reduced recreation sites
and facilities will inevitably lead to an industrialized forest that is not managed in the public interest
but rather for the oil, gas and timber industries.
The Forest Service eliminated from detailed study an alternative to offset the impacts of oil and gas
development because “it does not meet the purpose and need for this project.” We disagree. One of
the goals stated in the purpose and need states:
To implement non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species treatment limiting the introduction and
spread of NNIP species and conserving forest resources in a manner that presents the least hazard to
humans and maintains or restores forest resources.
2
Of course, the standard for preparing an EIS is not whether the proposed action “will” have a significant impact, but
rather that it “may” have a significant impact. This strengthens the argument in favor of preparing a single EIS for both
projects.
3
16 USC § 528
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org
On November 12-13, 2008 the Regional Office in Milwaukee hosted a “Northeast and Midwest
Forests Oil and Gas Workshop.” A document produced for that workshop, titled “Impacts to Plants,
Animals and Habitat – Information Needs,” explicitly asks:
To what extent do oil and gas exploration, drilling, and site-maintenance contribute to the spread of
non-native invasive plant species?4
Thus, the impacts of oil and gas directly impact one of the goals stated in the purpose and need and
it is arbitrary and capricious for the Forest Service to state otherwise.
Additionally, in the Allegheny Forest Plan SEIS, the Forest Service has explicitly stated that,
[]a proposal that includes action to offset the OGM development…will be considered in the SEIS
analysis.5
It makes absolutely no sense for the Forest Service to say on the one hand that it will not consider
alternatives to offset the impacts to oil and gas drilling at the project level while on the other it says
it “will be considered” at the planning level in the SEIS analysis.
Returning to the “Northeast and Midwest Forests Oil and Gas Workshop” document, the Forest
Service also asked numerous other questions that speak directly to whether or not the Forest Service
is flying blind when it comes to understanding the impacts of oil and gas development on other
forest resources, not to mention whether those impacts are even being properly disclosed to the
public. For instance, the Forest Service asks:






To what extent do access roads, well sites, and pipelines serve as fragmenting
features in otherwise forested landscapes?
What species are affected by noise generated by oil and gas activities (at low vs. high
well densities)?
What are native planting recommendations for revegetation of disturbed areas at well
sites that will reduce invasion of non-native invasive plant species and limit off-site
soil movement?
What types of vegetation management at and around well sites benefit wildlife
species, at the local and landscape scale? Specific interests include pollinators,
American woodcock, bats, forest interior birds?
How does drilling and fracing affect groundwater?
What mitigation measures are most effective in maintaining the integrity and
productivity of springs and seeps?
Regarding the construction of oil and gas roads, the Forest Service asked:


At what density of roads are raptors adversely affected (e.g.,Northern goshawk)?
How does road density affect less mobile sensitive species, such as amphibians and
reptiles?
4
“Impacts to Plants, Animals and Habitat – Information Needs,” Northeast and Midwest Forests Oil and Gas
Workshop. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. November 12-13, 2008.
5
“Question and Answer Summary,” Public Meetings on the Allegheny Forest Plan SEIS. March 9-11, 2009.
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org



Do buffers between roads and nesting/denning sites limit disturbance to sensitive
species (e.g., Allegheny NF Forest Plan standards and guidelines)?
What level of aquatic habitat impacts occur at varying levels of road density?
Specific interests include sedimentation issues such as embeddedness and pool
filling?
What combination of road design, placement and surfacing can reduce adverse
impacts to aquatic habitat?
Finally, the Forest Service asked regarding surface pits constructed by oil and gas companies:


What wildlife species are attracted to surface pits to feed or drink, and to what
degree are individuals adversely affected?
What are successful wildlife exclusion techniques that can be used at pits?
It is reasonable to assume that if the Forest Service is asking these questions at the Regional Office
level, then these issues certainly have not been properly addressed yet at the forest level. The fact
that the Allegheny National Forest is preparing the Forest Plan SEIS to address oil and gas related
issues in the forest plan is proof of that. The Forest Service cannot so casually cast aside reasonable
alternatives that address the impacts of oil and gas drilling within the context of this analysis since
so many of the goals addressed in the purpose and need are directly impacted by decisions
regarding oil and gas development. The days of ignoring the direct, indirect and cumulative effects
of oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny are over and the Forest Service must address these issues
directly in any environmental analysis it prepares.
On April 9, 2009 Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Allegheny Defense Project
and Sierra Club signed a settlement agreement with the Forest Service dismissing our claims in
FSEEE v. U.S. Forest Service (Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-323). The settlement requires the Forest
Service to prepare the “appropriate NEPA analysis” on future oil and gas drilling proposals. The
Forest Service has decided to move forward with a Forest-Wide Oil and Gas Development EIS for
drilling proposals between 2010-2013.
Additionally, the Forest Service has developed six preliminary significant issues for the Forest Plan
SEIS that include: 1) Water quality; 2) Visual resources; 3) Hours of Operation or Seasonal
Operating Restrictions; 4) Marcellus shale; 5) Restoration/reclamation; and 6) Fragmentation.
Setting aside the unusual fact that the Forest Service did not consider oil and gas drilling a
significant issue in 2007 Forest Plan to begin with, this is nonetheless a significant shift that
requires the Forest Service to look at these same issues in the context of analyses such as this one.
Oil and gas drilling has had profound impacts on visual resources and forest fragmentation. The
Forest Service must be looking at restoration of areas impacted by oil and gas development, not
proposing more timber sales that simply increase the areas of Pennsylvania’s only national forest
that are impacted by industrial extraction. The fact that the Forest Service has identified Marcellus
shale drilling as a preliminary significant issue for the Forest Plan SEIS underscores the need to
reduce other impacts on the national forest. Marcellus shale well sites are much larger than shallow
oil and gas drilling sites and will significantly alter the Allegheny’s visual integrity and further the
need for a comprehensive restoration/reclamation strategy.
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org
Similar Actions
NEPA states:
“Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions,
have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such
as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact
statement. It should do so when the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar
actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.”6
The North End, South Branch Kinzua Creek and Upper Kinzua Projects “have similarities that
provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together [].” Therefore, the Forest
Service should “analyze these actions in the same impact statement” because it is “the best way to
assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions
[].”
The North End, South Branch Kinzua Creek and Upper Kinzua Projects are clearly similar
geographically since the three project areas share boundaries. Two of the project areas, North End
and South Branch Kinzua Creek, also share portions of two unroaded areas identified in the 2003
Forest Wide Roads Analysis. As for timing, the South Branch Kinzua Creek Project EA is
instructive here. According to the EA:
“In addition to [projects previously implemented in the cumulative effects analysis area] the North
End project is scheduled to begin within the next three years within the CE area and timber harvests
are proposed for this project this decade.”7
The proposed actions in both the South Branch Kinzua Creek and North End Projects would clearly
overlap in both timing and geographic cumulative effects. The Forest Service even acknowledges
this when it stated in the very next sentence:
“However, the potential cumulative effect on streamflow is limited.”8
The Forest Service provides no data to support this conclusory statement. And it seems to be
contradicted elsewhere in the EA:
“Potential treatments for the North End project are not yet confirmed on the ground and the potential
effects to the stream or size and shape of the unroaded areas by that project or any other project will
be analyzed in the future…[p]otential treatments for the North End project are preliminary and have
not been analyzed yet.”9
The Forest Service cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim in one section of the South Branch
Kinzua Creek EA that “the potential cumulative effect on streamflow” of both the South Branch
Kinzua Creek and North End Projects “is limited,” while later in the same EA claim that “potential
treatments for the North End project are preliminary and have not been analyzed yet.”
6
40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(3)
USDA-FS, South Branch Kinzua Creek EA, p. 93. 2007.
8
Id.
9
Id. at 124.
7
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org
These statements confirm that even during the previous analysis on the South Branch Kinzua Creek
Project, the Forest Service recognized that, at the very least, these two projects were connected.
These statements also underscore the need to consider these projects, as well as the Upper Kinzua
project, in a single EIS.
Segmentation
The Forest Service must consider:
“Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant
impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by
breaking it down into small component parts.”10
It is “reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment” if the North
End, South Branch Kinzua Creek and Upper Kinzua Projects are implemented. The three projects
propose approximately 5,700 acres of commercial logging and 4,300 acres of herbicide spraying
within the Kinzua and South Branch Kinzua Creek watersheds, the latter of which is a Wilderness
Trout Stream watershed. These three projects share similar timing, geography and should not have
been segmented. Therefore, the Forest Service must immediately halt all logging associated with
the South Branch Kinzua Creek Project and prepare a single EIS for the North End, South Branch
Kinzua Creek and Upper Kinzua Projects because “significance cannot be avoided by terming an
action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.”
Individual Timber Sale Stands
We request that the following stands be dropped from any further analysis of the North End Project
due to their proximity to South Branch Kinzua Creek:
Compartment 477
Compartment 807
Compartment 808
Compartment 809
Stand 010
Stand 025
Stand 026
Stand 012
Stand 014
Stand 030
Stand 031
Stand 034
Stand 036
Stand 038
Stand 050
Stand 060
Eliminating stands 809031would also eliminate the need for the proposed road construction off FR
495. We also request that stands 815004 and 815021 be eliminated, thus removing the need for the
proposed road construction of FR 295.
Conclusion
The North End, South Branch Kinzua Creek and Upper Kinzua Projects must be consolidated and
considered together in one EIS. Considering the three projects together in one EIS will be more
10
40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(7)
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org
efficient for the Forest Service and give the public a better understanding of the scope of the
proposals.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ryan Talbott
RYAN TALBOTT
Forest Watch Coordinator
Allegheny Defense Project, 311 Pitt Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15221; (814) 221-1408
info@alleghenydefense.org; www.alleghenydefense.org