Appendix D Response to 30-Day Comments

Transcription

1 Appendix D Response to 30-Day Comments Introduction The 30-day comment period for the Pine Bear project ended on July 1, Comments were received from 47 respondents. Forty-five (45) of the respondents submitted the same comments (form letter). Forty-one of which requested that the Forest Service (ANF) include my comments in the official record for this project, but do NOT send me further documents or put me on any mailing lists. Four asked to be sent further documents on this project and be put on the mailing list for future projects. Respondent 1 Jean Public 2 Form Letter 3 Allegheny Defense Project a (ADP) a The comment letter from the ADP contained numerous photographs, figures, and maps, which for the sake of brevity are not included in this Response to 30-Day Comments. Photographs, figures, and maps were considered in the Response to 30-Day Comments. All of the comments received during the 30-day comment period are part of the project file for this project and available for review by the public. Comment 1-1 it is disgusting the way our national lands owned by national taxpayers are being destroyed based on cheap, sloppy, negligent eas [EAs], when a more complete more comprehensive eis should be prepared. Response: NEPA requires that Federal agencies follow certain procedures to examine the environmental impact of their proposed actions. If the agency proposes a major Federal action [that] significantly affect[s] the quality of the human environment, NEPA requires the agency prepare an EIS that, among other things, details the environmental impact of the proposed action. An EIS, however, is not required if the agency first prepares an environmental assessment (EA) providing sufficient evidence and analysis that an EIS is not necessary because the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment (40 CFR ). The decision notice and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for this project explains the rationale for the finding of no significant impact for this project by the responsible official. Comment 1-2 this is a complaint about that tactic being used by destroyers of national lands that national citizens labored and paid to protect. our fs has become a tool of destruction rather than an agency devoted to saving and protecting our national lands. Response: This is beyond the scope f this project. This project is consistent with the 2007 Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (or Forest Plan), and as stated in the decision notice/fonsi, can be implemented in an environmentally sound manner without significant impacts. Comment 1-3 allegheny with the many fracking permits issued is an example of the worst environmental records going. any "elk in elk county "certainly can t live there with the destroyed water that kills. Response: This is beyond the scope of this project because this project does not include any oil and gas development (OGD) proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF. Private citizens or companies hold outstanding or reserved sub-surface rights to minerals Pine Bear Project D-1

2 beneath 93 percent of the ANF. The Bureau of Oil and Gas Management of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the state regulatory agency that oversees oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania. The Bureau is responsible for reviewing and granting drilling permits allowing mineral owners access to their sub-surface mineral estates. The Forest Service (ANF) works with the oil and gas operators, Pennsylvania DEP, and other stakeholders to minimize impacts to National Forest System (NFS) lands, including impacts to water quality. Comment 1-4 i object to every detail cited on page v as an aim of this program. every single aim is destructive to the max Response: Objection noted. Page v of the EA contains the executive summary, lists the management activities for the proposed action, and briefly describes the project area, purpose and need, and other alternatives considered. Comment 1-5 page 3 - the alleged "multiple resource objectives" are much too vague to allow to be used on national lands that belong to national taxpayers. the public wants and needs specifics. Response: The purpose and need for the project are described on pages 3 and 4 of the EA. Forest Plan goals and objectives are described on pages of the Forest Plan. The action alternatives for this project (Alternatives 1 and 3) meet the purpose and need for the project and help achieve the desired condition described in the Forest Plan. Potential effects are analyzed and disclosed in Section III Environmental Consequences of the EA. Comment 1-6 there is no need to provide "diverse" habitat so gun wackos can come out to kill those creatures that general taxpayers have paid to protect to survive. the massive gun wacko money being poured into national lands, which should be for the use of all people in the usa, not just gun wackos is getting completely obsessive. Response: Proposed wildlife habitat improvements benefit non-game and game species. As of 2007, there were approximately 50 mammals, 206 birds, 21 reptiles, 25 amphibians and 84 fishes spending at least a portion of their life cycle on the ANF. From the wildlife report (see the project file), the primary wildlife needs identified in the Pine Bear Project include; a) to provide forage and cover for a variety of wildlife species through habitat enhancements, b) to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of habitat for species with viability concerns, c) to provide nesting sites, breeding areas, and young-rearing habitat free from human disturbance, d)in the special distribution of habitats, provide habitat connectivity, interior and remote habitat, and e) conserve and enhance native plant diversity, abundance and distribution. The 1,052 acres of habitat enhancements and 115 wildlife structures proposed in this project attempt to benefit the broadest spectrum of species, both game and non-game. It just happens that 20 mammals found on the ANF are considered game species and are managed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission while 26 are considered game fish and managed by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Comment 1-7 page 6 - I don t see why general taxpayers should pay for fruit - apple trees of l40 acres. I don t want to grow wildlife on my tax dollars so some gun wacko can come out and blow it away in a painful, horrific death for that animal that I paid good tax dollars to save. this is objectionable to the maximum. they want to blow it away. I paid to save it. why does my aim get less protection than his aim and why am I paying for his joy at killing? D-2 Pine Bear Project

3 Response: Please see response to comment 1-6. One of the Forest Plan goals (p. 14) is to 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. Comment 1-8 pg 7 - no new roads should be built. the high numbers of roads built for gas extraction is disgusting and completely harmful to this land that national taxpayers/land owners paid to save. Response: Alternative 3 No New Roads was developed in response to the concern about building new roads within the project area. This project does not include any OGD proposals. About 93 percent of the ANF subsurface mineral estate is privately owned, and the mineral estate owners have the right to access their minerals using best management practices, which includes building roads to access their minerals. Comment 1-9 pg 11 - shut down all logging in this forest, which has been decimated by money and greed. Response: Not allowing logging on the ANF is beyond the scope of this project. As noted in the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study section of the EA (p. 11), an alternative with no commercial timber harvesting was considered but eliminated from detailed study because it fails to meet the purpose and need for this project to improve the spatial arrangement of age classes in MA 3.0 and to restore and maintain forest health through the project area. The no action alternative is also responsive to this concern. Please see response to comment 1-2. Comment 1-10 pg 23 - you don t need 29 miles of nsf roads. 43 miles of fracking roads, no way should this be allowed. wildlife and birds get run over by these trucks. they also lose clean water to drink, along with people. this habitat destruction is entirely destructive to clean water. Response: In developing the proposed action, the ID team did not identify any Forest Service system roads that could be decommissioned. Discussions with the primary mineral estate owner in the project area did result in the proposal to reforest the well sites and access roads to three plugged wells. This will involve decommissioning the access roads to the plugged wells. The remaining lease roads are needed by the mineral operators to access their mineral estates. The Forest Service (ANF) works with the lease operators to minimize their impacts to NFS lands. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Pennsylvania BMPs, and project design features will ensure impacts to water quality, wildlife, and other resources are minimized. Comment 1-11 pg 58 - gen taxpayers are being ripped off to grow animals so gun wacko insanes can come in and murder them for their joy at killing. this is against all American values. this is wrong to tax general taxpayers to pay for the perverted gun wackos stupidity. Response: Please see the response to comment 1-6. One of the Forest Plan goals (p. 14) is to 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. Comment 1-12 pg 77 the bibliography is antique, antiquated, completely out of date in making a plan for l5 years forward. you are using information from 1962, when the world and allegheny was a joy to behold. you cannot use that information on what is going on in 2011 or what the permits issued Pine Bear Project D-3

4 are doing in the forthcoming years. this plan is antiquated and needs updating to 2026 and beyond. Response: None of the literature cited in the EA and listed on pages 77 and 78 of the EA is from The Forest Plan was revised in 2007 and provides a 10 to 15 year strategy for managing forest resources and will be amended or revised as needed to adapt to new information and changing conditions. The Forest Service (ANF) used the best available information and science for this project. Comment 1-13 in the response section to the complaints of the general public, i find the general public comments were completely disrespected with the words "this is a "non significant issues". when the national taxpayers/citizens own this land, everything they say is significant because they are the taxpayers who fund this land. Response: As discussed in Appendix A of the EA, issues are characterized as significant or nonsignificant. Significant issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. The characterization of comments is not meant to be disrespectful. The objective is to concentrate on issues that are significant to the proposal and help to focus the analysis. Comment 1-14 pg a-9 the ea of fs does not meet nepa. standards. Response: Page A-9 of Appendix A Scoping Comments Summary is the beginning of the Non- Issue comments section. It is not clear from the comment why page A-9 does not meet NEPA standards. Comment 1-15 pg a11 - no 8 - shows fs greed and selfishness and money grabbing at work. this is deplorable in a nationally finance by taxpayers situation to save and protect land. Response: As explained in the response to this non-issue comment (#8) in Appendix A of the EA (pp. A-11 and A-12) relocating all the reptiles and amphibians in every proposed final harvest would be impractical if not impossible due to the numbers of reptiles and amphibians present. There is also the possibility that the habitat of some species would be destroyed in the process of extracting them for relocation. Comment 1-16 pg 32 - the bibliography is so out of date it is beyond the pale. Response: The bibliography referenced in this comment is the literature cited for Appendix C Biological Assessment of Threatened and Endangered Species of the EA. The best available information was used in the project biological assessment and includes references from 1986 through Comment 2-1 The Pine Bear Project proposes approximately 3,000 acres of even-aged logging 1,324 acres of which are clearcuts, and 1,781 acres staged clearcuts. Additionally, the project calls for 2,294 acres of other treatments, 1,483 acres of herbiciding, 105 acres of burning every 3 to 5 years, over 500 acres of fencing, 12 acres of stone pit expansion, and 2.5 miles of new road. The scale and intensity of the proposed action must be analyzed in the context of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). D-4 Pine Bear Project

5 Response: Please see response to comment 1-1 (for need for an EIS). As shown in Table 1 of the EA, the proposed action includes 1,022 acres of shelterwood seed cuts followed by a shelterwood removal cut; 172 acres of delayed shelterwood removal cuts; 130 acres of delayed shelterwood seed cuts; 1,752 acres of intermediate thinning, 2,294 acres of release treatments, and 500 acres of fencing. Release treatments are designed to free young trees from undesirable, usually overtopping, competing vegetation. Fencing is proposed as an option for 25 stands (500 acres); however, the number of stands to be fenced will likely be less as explained on page 5 of the EA. Comment 2-2 The Forest Service must prepare an EIS for this project. In Curry v. U.S. Forest Service, the Court ruled that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS. Specifically, the court agrees with plaintiffs that the magnitude of even-aged management as the predominant management technique undermine defendants determination that the project will not have a significant impact on the human environment. The project involves in excess of 5,000 acres of the Allegheny National Forest of which 4,775 have been designated for even-aged management techniques. Response: Please see response to comment 1-1 (for the need for an EIS and rationale for the finding of no significant impact). The concerns of the court in Curry were based upon its review of the Mortality II project record. The findings of the court do not equate NEPA significance to the magnitude of a project or suggest that this project will be significant based upon review of the 10 intensity factors of Section (b). We have evaluated the assertions set forth in the comment, but believe there are many differences between this project and the Mortality II project. Comment 2-3 Additionally, regarding intensity, the northwestern portion of the project area, the Sackett area, has been heavily fragmented and impacted by oil and gas drilling. Response: Please see response to comment 1-1 (for need for an EIS and rationale for the finding of no significant impact). This project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF. Potential cumulative effects of OGD were considered in the EA (pp , 29, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, 70 72, and Comment 2-4 In 2009, the U.S. Forest Service identified new oil and gas drilling areas in the Transition EIS to, "...authorize reasonable access for site-specific proposals to develop reserved and outstanding mineral rights within the Allegheny National Forest, with provisions to mitigate impacts to surface resources." Three of these areas are adjacent or in the Pine Bear Project area. The TEIS, Part II, predicts full mine out conditions in the Pine Bear project area (i.e., wells spaced every 500 feet in a grid across the landscape). Response: This project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF. None of the OGD proposals identified in the Transition EIS (TEIS) are located within the Pine Bear project area. TEIS Area 20m, 1 well, OGM case M-190, was not implemented, is no longer proposed, and is 0.4 miles from the project area boundary. TEIS Area 20p, 1 well, OGM case M-190, was also not implemented, is no longer proposed, and is 0.7 miles from the project area boundary. No other proposals from TEIS are closer than 2 miles. No other OGD proposals have been submitted in the project area. Pine Bear Project D-5

6 Part II analysis (full field development) was not done from company proposals, but projected future OGD where private mineral ownership could be developed. There are no indications that industry is planning full field development in this area at this time; therefore it would be speculative to analyze this level of development in this area. Full field development was one of the scenarios considered in the Project Level Cumulative Effects Analysis for Oil, Gas, and Minerals for the Pine Bear project (located in the project file). Potential cumulative effects of OGD were considered in the EA (pp , 29, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, 70 72, and Comment 2-5 There are at least three Marcellus Shale gas-drilling operations adjacent to this area, two in Gamelands 28, and one north of the project area, off of Road The impact to the Pine Bear Project area, which contains Bear Creek and its tributaries (a High Quality-Cold Water Fishery), from all of the oil and gas drilling (i.e., past, current, and predicted) including effects of fragmentation, water withdrawal, erosion and sedimentation, and air quality must be considered. Response: This project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF. Please see response to comment 2-C. The Project Level Cumulative Effects Analysis for Oil, Gas, and Minerals for the Pine Bear project (located in the project file) projected Marcellus Shale well development in the project area. Currently, there are no Marcellus Shale wells within the project area or any proposals for Marcellus Shale wells. In the summer of 2010, 2-D seismic testing was conducted to the northeast and southeast of the project area and 3-D seismic testing is occurring in the southern half of the Pine Bear project area this summer (2011). Comment 2-6 In addition, the agency must consider the ecosystem services being provided by the undisturbed forest in making a true cost/benefit analysis. These include carbon storage, air particulate filtration, watershed protection, habitat, and scenic beauty. What are the value of these services as the forest currently provides them without cost? How will the project affect these ecosystem services? Evidence indicates that such a massive project will degrade these services, at the same time that it will cost the taxpayers greatly. It s a double loss. Response: Costs and benefits of the alternatives are discussed in the Economics section of the EA (pp.72 74). The scope, level, and complexity of economic analysis are determined by the responsible official and depend on the potential social and economic effects of the project under review (Forest Service Manual ). NEPA does not require that the Forest Service to use a particular methodology to analyze the economic impacts of a proposed project or its alternatives. The Forest Service (ANF) recognizes that many values generated by the various alternatives (positive and negative) involve good and services not priced in the marketplace and thus not represented in this comparison. The purpose of the economic analysis in the EA is to compare the relative differences of the cost and benefits of the alternatives considered in detail and should not be viewed as actual yields or losses or as an attempt to analyze all resource values. Comment 2-7 Also included in the effects analysis should be a full accounting of the effects of the chemical poisons being proposed for use in non-native species control. Many of these chemicals have hormone disrupting capabilities, and can adversely affect humans and wildlife, even at very low levels of exposure. What kind of plans does the agency have for insuring that the disturbance created by the use of the plant poisons won t result in a worse invasion of non-native or nondesirable species? Response: Appendix G of the Forest Plan includes a human health risk assessment (Appendix G1) and a wildlife, terrestrial plant, and aquatic species risk assessment (Appendix G2) for the D-6 Pine Bear Project

7 use of two herbicides, glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl, used in treating non-native invasive plant species on the ANF. These assessments included updated reviews of available literature covering the behavior and toxicology of glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl. The human health risk assessment indicates that there is very little indication of any potential risk to human health, and the upper limits of hazard quotients are well below the level of concern for both workers and the general public at typical application rates for broadcast or backpack application of glyphosate or sulfometuron methyl, including for invasive species management (pp. G1-75 and G1-131). The wildlife, terrestrial plant, and aquatic species risk assessment (Appendix G2) indicates that adverse effects to wildlife from the use of glyphosate or sulfometuron on the ANF are not likely to occur (pp. G2-73 and G2-79), nor result in any adverse impacts to aquatic organisms (USDA-FS 2007b, pp. G2-77 and G2-81). Glyphosate and sulfometuron methyl are the only two herbicides proposed for use within this project area. Currently, most of the areas proposed for treatment are small (less than 200 square feet) and scattered, in which selective spot-spraying and cut-stem methods of treatment would be used to minimize impacts to nontarget vegetation. This selective treatment conserves and promotes the growth of desired vegetation by reducing competition for nutrients and increasing available growing space for desired vegetation. By reducing the abundance of non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, desirable plans are able to occupy available growing space on treated sites. As stated on page 6 of the EA, multiple treatments may be necessary for control of NNIP species. Comment 2-8 How will cutting trees and introducing large amounts of poisons into the environment affect the already stressed out bat population? When does the agency start to seriously pay attention to trying to reverse the astronomical losses to our bat populations from the white nosed syndrome? Response: Regarding the use of approved herbicides to treat undesirable forest vegetation on the project and their potential effects see the Response to Question 2-G. The effects of timber management including tree harvesting on tree-dwelling bats including the federally endangered Indiana bat has been analyzed in the 2007 ANF Biological Evaluation. Similar to the Forest analysis, the Biological Assessment for the Pine Bear Project reached a determination that proposed management activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat (or other tree-dwelling bats). To further reduce any potential adverse effects from forest management practices, the implementation of the Pine Bear Project will incorporate the Forest Plan standards and guidelines found on pages protecting federal threatened and endangered species including the Indiana bat. These standards and guidelines have been designed to provide the highest quality brood-rearing and foraging habitat possible for those individual bats fortunate enough to survive the syndrome. Since 2008, the ANF as well as the Eastern Region of the Forest Service has been active partners with the Fish and Wildlife Service and in developing population monitoring strategy and species recovery plans for all bats affected by white nose syndrome. Although the ANF provides suitable summer range for bats, the ANF does not have suitable hibernacula and the syndrome has not been documented here. Comment 2-9 The cumulative impacts of this project will be significant. Please withdraw this project. This is a bad use of taxpayers dollars at a time when national deficits are one of the most prominent national issues being discussed. If you proceed, then a full blown environmental impact statement is required. Response: The decision notice/fonsi for this project explains the rationale for the finding of no significant impact by the responsible official. Potential cumulative effects are discussed on pages 26 30, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, and of the EA. National deficits are national issues and beyond the scope of this project. Please see response to comment 1-1 (for the need for an EIS). Pine Bear Project D-7

8 Comment 3-1 The Allegheny Defense Project demands that the USFS immediately exercise its authority to protect and restore the public surface of the Allegheny National Forest by suspending the proposed action in the project area. Response: The Forest Service (ANF) acknowledges ADP s request to suspend the Pine Bear project. Under the no action alterantive (Alternative 2), the proposed action would not be implemented within the project area. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Pennsylvania BMPs, and project design features will minimize effects of the proposed activities. Please see the response to comment 1-2. Comment 3-2 Clearly, the analysis in the Pine Bear Project EA is insufficient. The Forest Service must conduct an Environmental Impact Study for the Pine Bear Project. Response: The Forest Service (ANF) disagrees that the analysis conducted for the Pine Bear project is insufficient. Please see response to comment 1-1 (for need for an EIS). Comment 3-3 It becomes increasingly clear, as the ANF is now scoping its eighth logging project since November 2009 (with at least three more being developed in the Marienville District and at least one more in the Bradford District), that the ANF will never conduct an EIS on a logging project or consider the cumulative impacts of its actions 1) on the level of the Forest because the 2007 FEIS never considered oil and gas development a significant issue, and developed its vegetative management plans without that extremely important context; and 2) on the site-specific stand level. If the USFS is conducting site-specific analysis at the stand level, that data is not provided to the public in a way that the public can clearly see the decision-making process in identifying stands for treatments. The pre-decisional analysis that informs the proposed action is unavailable, and for the public, non-existent. The Forest Service process demands that we put trust in agency without the benefit of transparency. What is also becoming clear in this series of projects is that the Forest Service is manipulating project boundary definitions, using what should be a tool for ecosystem protection a watershed approach to defining projects to break up adjacent projects which should be considered as one project. Response: Please see response to comment 1-1 (for need for an EIS). This project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF. Potential cumulative effects of OGD are discussed on pages 26 30, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, and of the EA. The purpose and need for the project was identified in the scoping package and on pages 3 and 4 of the EA. Site specific stand level data used in the analysis is disclosed in the EA, its Appendices, and the project file. Watershed boundaries are often considered when determining project areas and for bounding cumulative effects analysis areas (USDA-FS 2007b, pp ). These projects are similar in nature and not connected actions. Each project can be implemented independently of the other vegetative management projects listed in the comment letter. Comment 3-4 During the De Young project Appeal Resolution meeting (1 April 2011), District Ranger Fallon explained to us that energy is a public use of the forest. Presumably he was relaying to us a policy position of the USDA. This statement and position ignores history, environmental reality, and common sense. Increasingly it becomes clear that the USDA and the USFS serve first the corporate interests of the extractive industry. Secondary, are the concerns of the public who live in and around the ANF, or who interact with the ANF for purposes of passive recreation, spirituality, hunting, fishing, or foraging, who are concerned for watershed D-8 Pine Bear Project

9 protection (not to mention the purpose of forming the ANF in 1923) and environmental integrity. For the purposes of NEPA, if energy is considered a "public use" NEPA requires that the Forest Service evaluate all effects, even positive ones when considering whether or not there is a significant impact. NEPA does not operate on a good-effects minus bad-effects principal when determining significance. If good effects and bad effects (in combination) are potentially significant the Forest Service must conduct an EIS. The Forest Service is also not bound by only legal alternatives and effects. Just because the law requires it or allows it does not excuse the Forest Service from considering its effects. Response: Please see responses to comments 1-1 (for need for an EIS) and 3-3. One of the Forest Plan goals is to encourage, facilitate, and administer the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral resources and reasonably protect surface values and mitigate impacts caused by oil, gas, and mineral (OGM) operations by working cooperatively with OGM operators and Commonwealth and Federal regulatory agencies (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 15). The proposed action is consistent with the 2007 Forest Plan. Comment 3-5 The Pine Bear project represents the eighth logging project since November 2009 (ninth counting the North End project) on the Allegheny National Forest (ANF), including Southwest Reservoir, Coalbed Run, De Young, Upper Kinzua, Millsteck, Salmon West, and Morrison Run projects. These projects collectively represent over 20,000 acres of serial clear-cuts, and over 10,000 acres of herbicide application, in addition to on-going logging on other previously approved projects. The Pine Bear project calls for over 3,000 acres of even-aged logging. However it is contiguous with both the Millsteck project and the De Young Project. The Forest Service must prepare an EIS for this project. The Millsteck project, the Pine Bear project, and the De Young project must be considered together as the same action. Together they amount to over 11,563 acres of clearcutting activity, and over 4,948 acres of herbicide application taking place in the context of the devastating impact of oil and gas drilling including Marcellus shale gas extraction. These activities will have a significant impact on the environment and require the preparation of an EIS to fully disclose these impacts to the public. The total acreage of the nine projects illustrated above, including the North End Project (8,587 acres), De Young (16,672 acres), Millsteck (26,251 acres), Pine Bear (10,055 acres), Southwest Reservoir (18,940 acres), Coalbed Run (15,000 acres), Morrison Run (19,098 acres), and Salmon West (15,090 acres), and Upper Kinzua (28, 221 acres) is 157, 914 acres. These activities will have a significant impact on the environment and require the preparation of an EIS to fully disclose these impacts to the public. Response: Please see response to comment 1-1 (for need for an EIS). The respondent is including proposed intermediate thinnings with other even-aged final harvests (mostly shelterwood removal cuts not clearcuts) in the over 20,000 acres of serial clear-cuts. While the Pine Bear and De Young projects are adjacent, the De Young project lies within the Spring Creek 5 th level watershed and the Pine Bear project lies within Upper Clarion River 5 th level watershed. The Millsteck project is not adjacent to the Pine Bear or De Young project areas and lies mostly in the Lower Clarion River 5 th level watershed. Potential cumulative effects of OGD are discussed on pages 26 30, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, and of the EA. Comment 3-6 The Forest Service must prepare an EIS for this project to conduct an actual site-specific level of analysis that focuses on the specific conditions of treatment areas and includes data such as stand composition, species surveys in the site-specific treatment areas (e.g., entomological, and mycological surveys, and surveys for the existence of wetlands, vernal pools, forested bogs, Pine Bear Project D-9

10 springs, etc). These data were not provided during the scoping process, in the scoping package. Without this site-specific data it is difficult for the public to raise important issues during the scoping stage. ADP has been telling the Forest Service for years that scoping notices are deficient and do not contain sufficient data for the public to make informed comment. Response: Please see response to comment 1-1 (for the need for an EIS). The Pine Bear scoping package provided the public with the five parts (who, what, how, where, and when) that comprise the proposed action (FHS , Chapter 10, Section 11.2). The respondent did not request additional data or information during the scoping period. The Forest Service (ANF) considers requests for additional information or data on the proposed action or project area and provides requested data or information, if available. ANF Geospatial Data was and is also available to the public from the ANF website. Site specific data used in the analysis is available in the EA, its Appendices, and the project file. The issue of deficient scoping notices was not brought up during scoping for this project by the respondent. Comment 3-7 Consistently, throughout the scoping, EA, and appeal process, ADP has reiterated the fact that these projects must be suspended because the programmatic planning document, the 2007 FEIS, on which these new logging projects rely, is invalid. The Forest Service has countered, that, although the Forest Service Chief called for a supplemental EIS for oil and gas standards and guidelines for the 2007 FEIS, the Forest Service Chief affirmed the vegetative management aspects of the 2007 FEIS. It was not until we received the ARO comments from the Southwest Reservoir Appeal that we fully understood your lack of understanding, and confusion regarding our position. So we will here attempt to clarify our concerns. Response: The environmental assessment teirs to the 2007 Forest Plan FEIS. In the context of NEPA, tiering specifically refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analysis (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate under two circumstances: (a) From program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program, plan, or policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement or analysis and (b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering is such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe (40 CFR ). Thus, tiering to the 2007 Forest Plan FEIS in this project simply avoids repetition of more general, already finalized, material and is entirely appropriate. Tiering is described in the FSH as a process of summarizing and incorporating by reference other environmental documents of a broader scope to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision (FSH , Chapter 42.1). The decision to be made for the Pine Bear project is whether to manage vegetation and other natural resources in the project area to help achieve the desired conditions identified in the 2007 Forest Plan. The decision for this project will not involve the approval of private OGD or revision of the Forest Plan. This project is consistent with the Forest Plan, which was affirmed by the Chief s 2008 appeal decision. The analysis for this project incorporated the best available science and information as D-10 Pine Bear Project

11 summarized in the Programmatic Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest and the Site-specific Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest documents, which are located in the project file. These unpublished documents comprehensively address issues from the Chief s 2008 appeal decision pertaining to private OGD, as well as the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of private OGD on the ANF. Regarding the 2007 Forest Plan, the Chief of the Forest Service upheld the Forest Plan except for certain items related to oil and gas that are currently under review. The ongoing programmatic review of these areas does not require the Forest Service (ANF) to halt management of vegetation and other multiple-use resources. Comment 3-8 Issue 1.0. The Site-Specific Treatments in the Pine Bear Project including those referenced in the following Pine Bear Project EA Documents, which are incorporated by reference Appendix B Site Specific Proposals; Map 1: Existing Condition; Map 2A: Silvicultural Treatments First Entry Timber Harvest (Alternative 1 Proposed Action); Map 2B: Silvicultural Treatments Second Entry Timber Harvest (Alternative 1 Proposed Action); Map 3: Transportation and Recreation Proposals Alternative 1 Proposed Action); Map 4: Habitat Improvements for Wildlife (Alternatives 1 and 3); Map 5: Non-native Invasive Plant (NNIP) Species Treatment Areas (Alternatives 1 and 3); Map 6: Stream and Wetland Buffers; Map 7A: Silvicultural Treatments First Entry Timber Harvest (Alternative 3 No New Roads)); Map 7B: Silvicultural Treatments Second Entry Timber Harvest (Alternative 3 No New Roads); Map 8: Transportation and Recreation Proposals Alternative 3 (No New Roads); and Map 9: Cumulative Effects Area for Soils, Hydrology, Wildlife and Plants, NNIP Species, Heritage, Recreation, and Scenery are based on an invalid Forest Plan that did not consider the impacts from OGD as a significant, primary issue in developing the 2007 FEIS, including the vegetative management plan. The Forest Service must suspend action on the Pine Bear Project and other timber sales and projects that were approved under the 2007 Forest Plan (see Attachment 1, ADP July 9, 2009 Letter To Region Nine), and any projects (including the Southwest Reservoir Project, the De Young Project, the Coalbed Run Project, Millsteck Project, Upper Kinzua Project, the Morrison Run Project, and the Salmon West Project) that tier to, or incorporate by reference analysis in the FEIS. Response: Please see response to comment 3-7. This project does not involve the approval of private OGD or revision of the Forest Plan. Potential cumulative effects of OGD have been considered on pages 26 30, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, and in the EA Comment 3-9 Further, the Forest Service must comprehensively review the entire Forest Plan process in light of the legal opinion by Ronald Mulach, and what is says about the Forest Service s adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). Response: This comment references an USDA Office of the General Counsel legal opinion provided to the Forest Service concerning the applicability of NEPA to private OGD on the ANF. As such, the 2007 opinion pertains to private OGD activities and is not relevant to the proposed activities in the Pine Bear project. The issues surrounding the Forest Service s legal authority regarding private OGD are pending in court. Comment 3-10 Issue 2.0. The Pine Bear Project Cannot Satisfy its NEPA Obligations by Tiering To or Incorporating by Reference Unfinished NEPA Analysis. The analysis for the Pine Bear Project cannot rely on unpublished, unfinished analyses which themselves have not completed the NEPA Pine Bear Project D-11

12 process. Two documents, which are not NEPA compliant, have been relied on in the Pine Bear and the other seven logging projects currently being processed including, Upper Kinzua, De Young, Southwest Reservoir, Coalbed Run, Millsteck, Morrison Run, and Salmon West. These projects rely on, or tier to, or incorporate by reference, the Programmatic Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest (USDA-FS 2010, unpublished) [the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)] and Site-Specific Oil and Gas Development on the Allegheny National Forest (USDA-FS 2010, unpublished) [the Transitional Environmental Impact Statement (TEIS)] However, the Forest Service can only tier to NEPA-compliant documents. The Forest Service can only incorporate by reference documents that were not prepared for the purpose of complying with NEPA. The Forest Service cannot satisfy its NEPA obligations by tiering to or incorporating by reference unfinished NEPA analysis. For this reason the Coalbed Run EA, and the other project analyses that have, or will, rely on, tier to, or incorporate by reference, analysis in the SEIS, or the TEIS (or the white papers referenced above that are the results of the SEIS and TEIS to date) are invalid and those projects must be suspended until NEPA compliant analyses are done which include analyses of the site-specific treatment areas at the stand level. Response: Please see response to comment 3-7. The Pine Bear EA incorporates by reference and does not tier to the Programmatic Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest and the Site-specific Effects of Private Oil and Gas Activity on the Allegheny National Forest documents. These documents are part of the project file and were available to the public during the 30-day comment period. They present the best available scientific information on the status and projections of private OGD on the ANF and set forth the best available scientific information on OGD environmental effects. Both documents are referenced on page 25 of the EA. Comment The Forest Service must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The scale and intensity of the proposed action must be analyzed in the context of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Forest Service must prepare an EIS for this project. In Curry v. U.S. Forest Service, the Court ruled that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS. Response: Please see responses to comments 1-1 (for the need for an EIS) and 2-2. Comment 3-12 The Forest Service must disclose any data it has on how the project area has been affected from these previous projects. For example, what are the figures for percent of areas stocked within 5 years of previous clearcutting and/or regeneration cutting? This and other regeneration and reforestation data is critical for measuring the Forest Service s use of even-aged management. Response: This comment was raised during scoping and responded to in Appendix A of the EA (Non-Issue 14, p. A-14). Effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities are shown and discussed on pages and in Section III Environmental Consequences of the EA. A map showing the current stocking level of each stand in the project area is located in the project file. Data on stocking within five years of regeneration harvest is shown on pages 3 5 of the most recent ANF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (2007). D-12 Pine Bear Project

13 Comment The Pine Bear Project area meets the significant impact criteria of 40 CFR The Pine Bear Project shows significant local (contextual) short-term and long-term impacts and must be subjected to an EIS. Response: Please see responses to comments 1-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5. Potential cumulative effects are discussed in Section III Environmental Consequences of the EA. Comment 3-14 There are already at least three Marcellus shale gas well complexes in close proximity to the Pine Bear Project with at least four more currently planned (see Figure 9 below). The Forest Service cannot downplay the current and future cumulative impacts of these facilities by claiming that the future is uncertain. The geographic plan and geologic profile maps of the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale are illustrated in the images below (Figure 5 in ADP s comment letter). Response: Potential cumulative effects of OGD are discussed on pages 26 30, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, and of the EA. Please see response to comment 2-5. Comment 3-15 In a recent New York Times [NYT] article (Regulation Lax as Gas Wells Tainted Water Hits Rivers, NYT, February 27, 2011, see attached and below), the NYT documents concerns that radionuclides and other contaminates are being dumped in PA waterways and have the potential to spill on Marcellus sites within the footprint of the forest and in the project area. These issues must be considered as part of the context of the proposed action when determining the significance of the impact of the Pine Bear Project! The Forest Service must also study the impact of untreated Marcellus Shale Wastewater being dumped into the Allegheny River at Warren and in the Clarion River at Ridgeway. Response: This is beyond the scope of this project because this project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD, including OGD wastewater, on the ANF. Please see response to comment 2-5. Currently, there are no Marcellus shale wells or proposals within the Pine Bear project area. Comment 3-16 Radioactive materials from shallower formations have been buried in brine pits across the forest for years. There has been no monitoring or accounting of this contamination. This must be considered as part of significance of the context of this action, and must be studied in an EIS as part of cumulative effects. Response: Materials buried within brine pits would not be disturbed under any alternative because project activities solely relate to surface management. Oil and Gas administrators as well as Pennsylvania DEP field representatives monitor oil and gas operations across the ANF on a daily basis. When evidence of any occurrence of contamination occurs, the facts are investigated and depending on circumstances dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. This is beyond the scope of this project because this project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD, including the proper or illegal disposal of contaminants, on the ANF. The Forest Plan FEIS states that [b]y definition, a shallow well does not penetrate the boundary between the Middle and Upper Devonian Series, or the top of the Tully Limestone or its equivalent in Pennsylvania. This generally equates to well depths of between 500 and 5,000 feet Pine Bear Project D-13

14 (USDA-FS 2007b, Appendix F, p. F-3). In 1994, the Pennsylvania DEP analyzed 23 samples from brine pits for radioactivity and found concentrations of uranium and thorium chain isotopes were not greater than 5 picocuries per gram. Total radium concentrations were found not to exceed 3 picocuries per gram (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 1999). Comment 3-17 Clearly, the huge areas disturbed and mulched by OGD are a major potential source for invasive species. The Forest Service must study the introduction of non-native invasive species from OGD practices as part of the contextual significance of the proposed action in the Pine Bear Project area. Response: Treatment of non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species and prevention of their introduction and spread are discussed on pages of the EA. Please see response to comment 1-1 (for the need for an EIS). Comment 3-18 the Forest Service must consider the cumulative effect of water withdrawals for oil and gas drilling and fracking (both shallow and deep wells) in the project area, in the cumulative effects area, on the ANF, and in the region. Response: This project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF. Potential effects of water withdrawal are discussed on pages of the EA. Please see response to comment 2-5. Comment Water withdrawal. The USFS must, as riparian owners, stop the illegal withdrawals of surface water by the oil and gas industry on the ANF. (see attached letters to John Hanger, July 26, 2010 and November 15, 2010; and letter to Leanne Marten, August 13, 2010). Response: This project does not include any OGD proposals or involve the management of private OGD on the ANF; therefore, this is beyond the scope of this project. Potential effects of OGD are discussed on pages 26 30, 36, 39 41, 45 46, 50 59, 67, and of the EA. Please see response to comment Comment 3-20 The Forest Service must consider the cumulative effect of water withdrawals for oil and gas drilling and fracking (both shallow and deep wells) in the project area, and in a redefined cumulative effects area. Response: Potential cumulative effects of water withdrawals for OGD are discussed on pages of the EA. Please see the responses to comment 3-18 and Rationale for cumulative effects analysis area for hydrology is explained in Table 11 (p. 31) of the EA. Comment The Pine Bear Project shows significant intensity Intensity: 40CFR (b) 3 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 40 CFR (b) 3 D-14 Pine Bear Project