soils and watershed specialist...
Post on 03-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
1
Soils and Watershed Specialist Report
Relevant Laws, Regulations and Policy
All alternatives are designed to guide the KNF’s management activities in meeting all applicable Federal and State
laws, regulations, and policies.
Clean Water Act (see Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 - Requires that public lands be managed in a
manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric,
water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in
their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will
provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. Also states that the United States shall receive fair
market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by law.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act) - Enacted to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and ecological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Provides for measures to prevent,
reduce, and eliminate water pollution; recognizes, preserves, and protects the responsibilities and rights of States to
prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation,
and enhancement) of land and water resources; and provides for Federal support and aid of research relating to the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, and Federal technical services and financial aid to state and
interstate agencies and municipalities for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.
Established goals for the elimination of water pollution; required all municipal and industrial wastewater to be
treated before being discharged into waterways; increased Federal assistance for municipal treatment plant
construction; strengthened and streamlined enforcement policies; and expanded the Federal role while retaining the
responsibility of States for day-to-day implementation of the law.
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 - Directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment every ten years; to transmit a recommended Renewable
Resources Program to the President every five years; to develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and
resource management plans for units of the National Forest System; and to ensure that the development and
administration of the resources of the National Forest System are in full accord with the concepts of multiple use
and sustained yield.
Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 - Authorizes the President to modify or revoke any instrument
creating a national forest; states that no national forest may be established except to improve and protect the forest
within its boundaries, for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous
supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture
to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate the use and occupancy of the national forests.
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 - States that it is the policy of Congress that the national
forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and
fish purposes, and authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable
surface resources of the national forests for the multiple use and sustained yield of products and services.
National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 - Directs all Federal agencies to consider and report the
potential environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions, and established the Council on Environmental
Quality.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
2
National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 - The National Forest Management Act reorganized,
expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which
called for the management of renewable resources on National Forest System lands. The National Forest
Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based
on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the
National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of National Forests.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954 - Establishes policy that the Federal
government should cooperate with states and their political subdivisions, soil or water conservation districts, flood
prevention or control districts, and other local public agencies for the purposes of preventing erosion, floodwater,
and sediment damages in the watersheds of the rivers and streams of the United States; furthering the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and the conservation and utilization of land; and thereby
preserving, protecting, and improving the Nation's land and water resources and the quality of the environment.
Methodology and Analysis Process
Soil Productivity
A narrative was used to describe the effects of each proposed activity. Asoils analysis was developed by using a
GIS soil survey layer and soil suitability ratings. The suitability ratings were developed by Forest Service soil
scientist. This process was also used for cumulative effects analysis.
Direct and indirect effects of proposed activities and, past, present and future activities were considered when
analyzing cumulative effects.
Water Quality and Quantity
A narrative was used to describe the effects of each proposed activity. No physical stream measurements were
taken to determine water quality.Water quality status of streams and waterbodies were identified from the2012
Louisiana Water Quality Inventory, prepared by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).
A sedimentation model, Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Use, was
used to evaluate cumulative effects on Water Quality. Past, present, and expected sediment loading in three 6th
hydrologic unit code (HUC) sub-watershedswere used to calculate the amount of sediment yield for each
alternative. Past activities predict the average annual sediment delivered as a result of the historical
management within the watershed. Present activities are those occurring or committed to occur, with a
temporal bound of three years for timber management and road construction; two years for site preparation
and prescribed burning.Those results were compared, as a percentage, to an established pre-European
threshold of 1,650 percent.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
3
Resource Protection Measures
Resource protection measures listed in Table 1 include references to the Revised Land and Resource Management
Plan (RLRMP) and the Recommended Forestry Best Management Practices for Louisiana (Louisiana Forestry
Association et al.) These protection measures are known as Best Management Practices (BMP’s). Forestwide
(FW) represents the numbering system for FW Standards and Guidelines found in the RLRMP. BMP’s are not
needed for the No Action Alternative since no ground disturbance would occur.
Table 1. Resource Protection Measures Required for All Action Alternatives
BMP # FW Mitigation Objective
BMP’s Common To Various Activities
#1 073
Implement erosion control measures at the time of ground-
disturbing activities. Revegetate areas as promptly as practical.
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#2 094
Construct sediment traps or stream stabilization structures, or
plant or manipulate vegetation to protect and improve aquatic
and streamside habitat, or where management activity is
causing or may cause deterioration of the streamside
environment.
To minimize erosion and protect water quality
#3 100
As determined by site-specific analysis, require appropriate
structures at all stream crossings of designated trails and
permanent and temporary roads
Consider the feasibility of using bridges as drainage
structures on all perennial streams.
At intermittent and ephemeral streams consider
crossing alternatives including culverts, bridges,
aggregate and / or concrete fords.
Minimize crossings for roads and trails with deeply
incised stream banks.
Construct crossings at right angles to the stream.
To minimize erosion and protect water quality
#4 510
Plan and conduct forest management activities within a zone at
least 50 feet from a scour channel and extending at least 50 feet
from the end of the channel. Prohibit the following practices:
Clearcutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood regeneration
methods
Salvage of single / double trees
Removal of overstory or understory vegetation within
5 feet of the scour channel
Mechanical site preparation
Log decks or landings
Extraction of common variety minerals
To protect soil, water, and riparian associated resources.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
4
BMP # FW Mitigation Objective
#5 513
Within SHPZS do not allow the following practices:
Roads, multiple-use trails, plow lines, and skid trails
that run parallel to the scour channel, if feasible
Stream crossings, unless they 1) run at right angles to
the scour channel, 2) are site-designated to minimize
soil and water impacts, and 3) do not impede fish
passage
Timber harvest treatments, unless they 1) remove less
than 4.5 CCF per acre, 2) occur only when soils are
dry, and 3) are intended to improve wildlife habitat,
maintain or restore specific vegetation communities, or
improve old growth structure
Harvesting and site preparation methods that expose
bare soil on more than 10 percent of the site
Tractor-plow firelinesunless they are: 1) used only for
wildfire suppression; or 2) are more than 33 feet from
the scour channel for prescribed fire and used only for
tie-in. For wildfires, revegetate plow lines as soon as
possible. For prescribed fire, hand rake and
subsequently revegetate the fireline between the end of
the tractor-plow line and the edge of the scour channel
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#6 518
Within Riparian Area Protection Zones (RAPZS) do not allow
the following practices:
Roads, plow lines, and skid trails that run parallel to
the scour channel, if feasible
Log decks or landings, unless they cannot be
effectively placed elsewhere
Even-aged regeneration, temporary roads, skid trails,
and mechanical site preparation, unless
1) needed to restore or improve riparian vegetation
community
2) the actions can occur without fragmenting riparian
habitat linkages, and
3) soil rutting and compaction impacts can be
adequately mitigated. Adequate mitigation may
consist of one or a combination of the following:
Schedule treatments to occur during
seasonally dry periods.
Designate on-site locations that can / cannot
be treated.
Limit the size of even-aged regeneration
harvests to less than 20 acres.
Harvesting and site preparation methods that expose
bare soil on more than 10 percent of the site
Tractor-plow firelinesunless they are:
To protect soil, water, and riparian associated resources.To minimize erosion, rutting, and compaction of soils.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
5
BMP # FW Mitigation Objective
1) used only for wildfire suppression; or
2) are more than 33 feet from the scour channel for
prescribed fire and used only for tie-in. For
wildfires, revegetate plow lines as soon as possible.
For prescribed fire, hand rake and subsequently
revegetate the fireline between the end of the
tractor-plow line and the edge of the scour channel
#7 525
Within the SHPZ and RAPZ:
Locate roads and multiple-use trails outside of SHPZ
zones as much as possible;
Minimize vegetation clearing widths for roads and
road-stream crossings;
Minimize clearing and ground disturbance at stream
crossings;
Locate crossings at points of low bank slope and firm
surfaces, at right angles to the stream; and, Design
roads, trails, and crossings to minimizeimpacts on
riparian zones. Design roads, trails, and crossings to
minimize impacts on riparian zones.
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#8 528
Install barriers, fences, or other methods in steams to create
artificial sediment trap buffers. To minimize the chance of sediment being lost downstream during construction
#9 529
Limit the use of construction equipment in streams to the
amount of time absolutely essential for completion of the
project.
To minimize stream erosion and sedimentation
#10 530
Establish fords only under conditions which will not cause
significant streambank erosion To minimize the amount of streambank erosion and stream sedimentation
#11 531
Construct and maintain roads and trails to minimize
sedimentation and protect riparian and aquatic habitats. To minimize the amount of streambank erosion and stream sedimentation
#12 600
Mechanical equipment should be used on soils with a severe compaction hazard or severe rutting hazard during dry conditions only.
To limit soil compaction and rutting. To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#13 601
At least 85 percent of an activity area should be left in a
condition of acceptable potential soil productivity following
silvicultural or other land management activities
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
Trail System
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
6
BMP # FW Mitigation Objective
#14 361
Divert water runoff from trails and contour trails or construct
drain dips. Construct waterbars on long pitches with greater
than five percent slopes. If possible, avoid impacting soil with
a severe erosion hazard.
To minimize soil erosion and stream sedimentation
#15 362
Minimize the number of stream crossings as much as possible.
Construct crossings at right angles to the stream.
Harden crossings or use bridges on larger streams to reduce
sedimentation.
To minimize soil erosion and stream sedimentation
Transportation System
#16 101
Protect road approaches at perennial streams with aggregate,
concrete, or asphalt for a minimum distance of 20 feet from the
edge of the stream channel. Determine on a case-by-case basis
the need for reinforced bridge approaches. Protection may be
required to extend to the gradient break to include nearby
transitions between the stream floodplain and other landforms.
Construct wing ditches to buffer stream channels from direct
road runoff.
To minimize erosion and protect water quality
#17 527
Utilize rip-rap, plants, mats or other methods to stabilize fill
around road crossings and culverts to prevent erosion. To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#18 556
Minimize the miles of new road construction through use or
improvement of existing corridors. Develop roads for resource
management according to the following priorities:
Use existing facilities, with no improvement, for year-
round service.
If the existing facility is not adequate for year-round
service, restrict use to acceptable seasons or conditions.
If the existing facility is not adequate for the intended
use under any condition, improve to a standard capable
of providing service with control relative to the season
or soil conditions.
If seasonal or other part-time service is unacceptable,
improve the facility to provide adequate year-round
use.
If no existing facility is available to serve required
access needs, construct the minimum facility adequate
to provide needed services under controlled seasonal or
part time use.
If the existing road is causing unacceptable resource
damage that cannot be mitigated in a cost effective
manner and there is need for the road for resource
management, obliterate and construct the minimum
standard road needed in a more acceptable location.
If year-round use is needed for a documented purpose,
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
7
BMP # FW Mitigation Objective
construct the minimum all-weather road.
#19 560
Reduce short-term impacts of road construction /
reconstruction on water quality by:
Monitoring and controlling construction /
reconstruction activities within and immediately
adjacent to water courses to periods of low flow; and
Ensuring that effective erosion control measures are
used during construction / reconstruction of major
drainage structures and approaches.
To minimize soil erosion and protect water quality.
#20 561
Reduce long-term impact of road construction and
reconstruction on erosion and sedimentation of adjacent land,
and protect the road investment by:
Providing adequate, timely temporary erosion control
during construction / reconstruction in highly erodible
soil areas
Requiring permanent vegetation on cut and fill slopes
for all roads
Requiring permanent vegetation on entire roadway
width, including road prism, for all local roads
managed as intermittent service
Restricting or prohibiting use as warranted to reduce
unacceptable soil / water impacts and protect road
investments.
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
Vegetation Management
#21 523
Protect channel stability of perennial and intermittent streams
by retaining all woody understory vegetation within at least 5
feet of the bank and by keeping slash accumulations out of the
stream.
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#22 524
Within SHPZS leave at least 75 percent of crown cover along
perennial streams receiving timber harvest treatments. To allow for crown cover to intercept rain fall and dissipate rain droplet energy
#23 599
Do not allow mechanical site preparation on slopes greater than 20 percent
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#33 600
Mechanical equipment should be used on soils with a severe compaction hazard or severe rutting hazard during dry conditions only.
To limit soil compaction and rutting. To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
8
BMP # FW Mitigation Objective
#34 601
At least 85 percent of an activity area should be left in a
condition of acceptable potential soil productivity following
silvicultural or other land management activities. No more than
15 percent of an area (including landings and skid trails) may
be rutted, compacted, eroded, displaced, puddled, etc.
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#35 602
Mechanical equipment is operated so that furrows and soil
indentations are aligned on the contour (with grades under 5
percent).
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#36 605 Prompt revegetation is done if treatments leave insufficient ground cover to control erosion by the end of the first growing season.
To maintain long-term soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.
#41 660
Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not
located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or
other sensitive areas.
To prevent herbicides from entering water related resources. Water protection for aquatic, public, and domestic sources.
Kisatchie NF, Forest Plan Desired Conditions
Forestwide Objectives related to Soil and Water
Maintain or improve the Forest’s long-term soil productivity. This is accomplished through land
management practices designed to meet requirements for minimizing soil erosion and compaction, bynot
exceeding allowable soil loss for any given soil, by revegetating disturbed areas, and by restoring degraded
areas to a natural condition(USDA Forest Service. 1999c, p 2-3).
Maintain or improve the integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide for high water quality, stream-channel
stability, natural flow regimes, water yield, and aquatic resources by managing in accordance with the
Clean Water Act and by meeting all State and federal water quality standards(USDA Forest Service. 1999c,
p 2-3).
Introduction
The effects of each alternative on soil and water resources are disclosed in this section and form the scientific basis
for comparisons.The analysis that follows has considered the best available science when evaluating the affects.
While it is impractical to eliminate all affects to soil and water resources, it is possible to limit them through design
and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Environmental consequences are based on the
application of all resource protection measures listed in Table 1.
The No Action (Alt A) assumes potential disturbance that would result cumulatively from other projects or actions.
Prescribed fire will continue within the watersheds. Approximately 5,517 acres of the project area is scheduled to
be burned in 2 – 3 year increments.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
9
Proposed Activities
The resource areas that could be affected are soil productivity, water quality, and quantity (including affects to
streams, riparian areas, and wetlands). Table 2 summarizes the proposed activities. The following activities were
considered but not included in this analysis: Inserting artificial cavities/predator excluders, hand planting of
longleaf pine stands, hand tool-only invasive plant species treatment, and property boundary maintenance.
Table 2. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
Proposed Activities Units Alternatives
A B
Commercially thin (first thinning) loblolly pine plantations to a range
of 50 to 60 BA to reduce tree density and SPB hazard
Acres 0 5,517
Seasonally open (only open from 10/1 – 1/31) for hunting season to
street legal vehicle use only (see Chapter 2)
Miles 0 1
Permanently close roads to motorized vehicles Miles 0 9
Alternatives
Alternative A is the no action alternative. There would be no changes in current management and the forest plan
would continue to be implemented. Projects with previous NEPA decisions (the use of prescribed fire) would
continue to be implemented. Alternative A is the point of reference for assessing action Alternative B.
Alternative B is the proposed action alternative. Activities would occur on approximately 5,517 acres within
compartments 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91,
93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 103. This alternative would commercially thin approximately 5,517 acres of
loblolly, shortleaf and longleaf pine (first thinning) within the Catahoula Ranger District.
Treatments would reduce the tree density within pine stands to improve forest health (reduce tree competition,
reduce the hazard rating for Southern Pine Beetle), increase the grass and forb understory and improve growing
conditions for all pine species.
To provide access to the treatment area, approximately 140 miles of Forest Service and 10 miles of Motor Vehicle
Use Map (MVUM) existing, open roads would be improved throughout the project (including culvert replacement
and road resurfacing). Approximately 9 miles of existing Forest Service roads that are in poor condition would be
closed to motorized vehicles to improve soil and water condition and reduce public health and safety risks. The
status of approximately 1 mile of road would change from open to seasonally open for hunting season (10/1 to
1/31) for street legal vehicle use only would be utilized.
Soil Productivity
Current Conditions
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
10
The Catahoula Ranger District is located in the Western Coastal Plains Subsection in the High Terrace Rolling
Uplands Landtype Association (LTA). Soils consist mostly of Pleistocene age formations containingclays, silts
and sands. The land-surface form is mostly upland flats with moderate-to-steep sideslopes with gradient averages
of 1-5 percent(USDA Forest Service. 1999b, p 3-120).
A site specific soil analysis was used during project planning to identify the properties, suitability, and
management limitations of each soil type, presented in Tables 3 and 4.A mosaic of 13 soil series occur in the
project area,totaling 5,526acres (Figure 1). The project area is mostly upland flats consisting of Smithdale soils.
Caddo, Guyton and Mayhew soils are the only soils that are very poorly drained and encompass only 433 acres
(0.07%). Fifty-five percent of the soils, 3,092 acres, occur on slopes of 1 – 5 percent.
Table 3 Soil types and associated characteristics
(Properties)
Soil Series Texture Landform Drainage % Slope Acres
Briley (BS) Loamy fine sand Side slope Well drained 5-12 18
Caddo (CA) Very fine sandy loam Upland Flat Poorly drained 0-1 133
Cadeville (CD) Very fine sandy loam Ridge top Moderately Well
drained 1-5 561
Cahaba (CB) Fine sandy loam Stream terrace Well drained 1-5 10
Glenmora (GN) Very fine sandy loam Upland flat Moderately well
drained 1-5 293
Gore (GR) Very fine sandy loam Ridgetop Moderately well
drained 1-5 107
Guyton (GY) Silt loam Alluvial floodplain Poorly drained 0-1 177
Malbis (MA) Fine sandy loam Upland flat Moderately well
drained 1-5 611
Mayhew (ME) Silt clay loam Upland flat Poorly drained 1-5 123
Metcalf (MF) Very fine sandy loam Upland flat Moderately well
drained 0-2 404
Rigolette-
Kisatchie (RK) Loamy sand Steep side slope
Moderately well
drained 5-30 140
Ruston (RU) Fine sandy loam Ridgetop Well drained 1-5 1,387
Smithdale (SM) Fine sandy loam Side slope Well drained 5-20 1,541
Rigolette-Kisatchie is the only soil that have a severe erosion potential (2.5%).Approximately 2,227 acres (40%) of
the soils have an erosion potential of moderate. Approximately 3,138 acres (56%) of the soils have an erosion
potential of slight. Caddo, Guyton and Mayhew are the soil series that has a rutting hazard of severe and
encompasses 433 acres (7.8%). Caddo, Cadeville, Glenmora, Gore, Guyton, MalbisMayhew, Metcalf and
Rigolette-Kisatchiesoils have a compaction rating of severe, approximately 2,549 acres (46%).
Table 4 Soil types and associated characteristics
(Suitability)
Soil Series Soil Erosion Rutting Compaction Preferred Acres
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
11
Symbol Hazard Hazard Hazard Species
Briley BS Moderate Slight Slight Longleaf 18
Caddo CA Slight Severe Severe Loblolly 133
Cadeville CD Moderate Moderate Severe
Shortleaf pine-
oak 561
Cahaba CB Slight Slight Moderate
Loblolly pine-
hardwood 10
Glenmora GN Slight Moderate Severe Longleaf 293
Gore GR Moderate Moderate Severe Shortleaf 107
Guyton GY Slight Severe Severe Sweetgum 177
Malbis MA Slight Moderate Severe Longleaf 611
Mayhew ME Slight Severe Severe Loblolly 123
Metcalf MF Slight Moderate Severe Loblolly 404
Rigolette-
Kisatchie RK Severe Moderate Severe Longleaf 140
Ruston RU Slight Slight Moderate Longleaf 1,387
Smithdale SM Moderate Slight Moderate Longleaf 1,541
Figure 1.Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Soil Series Map
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
12
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
13
Environmental Consequences Environmental consequences are based on the application of all resource protection measures listed in Table 1.
Effects on Soil Productivity
Productivity, a site’s ability to grow vegetation over time, depends on physical, chemical, and biological qualities
of the soil. Productive soils have loose and porous structure, ample reserves of organic matter and nutrients, and
balanced populations of small organisms. Sensitivity to disturbance varies with soil fertility (USDA, Forest
Service. 1989b p. IV-80).
The protection of soil productivity can be accomplished through proper planning and implementation of resource
protection measures listed in Table 1. Retaining and redistributing logging slash across the stand is one of the most
important tools used to protect soil productivity.
Alternative A (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
There would be no direct effects because there are no ground disturbing activities. Biological processes would
continue to occur. Soil productivity would be affected naturally through leaching and weathering.
Without thinning, current conditions within the project area will persist. High tree densities could contribute to
increased potential for insects & disease and hazardous fuels. Fire hazard increases progressively as litter
accumulates, flammable understory shrubs increase in size, and needle drape develops (USDA, Forest Service.
1989b p. IV-114). Wildfires with higher severity could have adverse effects caused by soil heating, soil erosion,
and nutrient leaching. Soil heating can kill soil biota, alter soil structure, consume organic matter, and remove site
nutrients during the burn (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-80).Soil productivity could be affected if wildfires
were to occur with a high severity.
Soil productivity could continue to be affected by not closing the 9 miles of roads. Continued usage of these roads
could further increase compaction, rutting, rill, and sheet erosion.Soil productivity would continue to be affected.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing and foreseeable activities in Alternative A could affect soil productivity. Those activities include the
continuation of prescribed burning in each stand in the project area totaling approximately 5,517 acres in 2 to 3
year increments.
Prescribed fire (underburns) has favorable (indirect) effects that are temporarily enhanced nutrient availability and
phosphorus cycling and reduced soil acidity. Adverse effects are caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrients
leaching (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-80).
Soil heating has little effect on litter-duff biota and fully recover between burns. Loss of organic matter is about 5
percent. Nitrogen loss may be 100-150 lb/ac for dormant season burns and 400-450 lb/ac for growing season
burns (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-81). Soil erosion is generally negligible. Nutrient leaching is not
significant because nutrients are retained through uptake by unburned plants (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-
81). See discussion under Alternative B for effects from timber management.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
14
Due to the span of time that occurs between each treatment and the use of resource protection measures, the
cumulative effects from these treatments on long term soil productivity would be negligible.
Alternative B
Direct and Indirect Effects
Timber Management Activities
Timber management activities would occuron approximately 5,517 acres and may directly affect soil productivity
throughsoil erosion, rutting, compaction, and nutrient leaching.These impacts would be temporary, lasting only
until growth of existing vegetation and the establishment of new vegetation. Establishment of new vegetation and
increased growth of existing vegetation would occur within 1-2 growing seasons after the timber harvest (B. Bell,
personal communication, 7 March 2014).
There is low potential for erosion and rutting as 56% of the soils in the project area have an erosion potential of
slight and only 7.8% of the soils have a rutting hazard of severe (table 4). Potential erosion decreases with greater
ground cover provided by vegetation, litter, rock, and fine roots (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-82).The
practice of spreading logging slash back over the site, particularly skid trails and other disturbed areas, would help
prevent erosion from occurring on slopes and also lessen adverse impacts to soil productivity (USDA Forest
Service. 1999b, p 4-13). The effects of erosion and rutting to soil productivity would be negligible.
There is potential for compaction as most of the soils have a compaction rating of moderate to severe (table 4).
Compaction hazard depends on soil type, moisture, cover and the number of machine passes. Compaction hazard is
less for methods that remove little slash, litter, and duff (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-87-88). Results from
theNorth American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study indicated that improvements in soil properties suggest that
the sites in the study are recovering well from the experimental compaction(Scott et al, 2004 p. 338). Harvesting
practices that leave coarse woody debris on site and allow herbaceous and woody plants to grow will generally
increase this natural amelioration (Scott et al, 2004 p. 338). Soil compaction would occur but studies suggest that
these sites are recovering well.Soil compaction would be minimized by allowing management activities to occur
only during dry conditions and by adhering to BMP # 34, 35, and 36. Effects from compaction would be
negligible.
Indirectly, nutrient losses (leaching) from mechanical methods could occur. Results from the North American
Long-Term Soil Productivity Study indicated that removing tree tops reduced soil productivity (Scott et al, 2004 p.
338).Nitrogen budgets show that timber harvest followed by piling produces neutral nitrogen budgets (USDA,
Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-90). These techniques are more invasive then the stem-only harvest and slash
retention method that would be used for this project. Nutrient leaching would be negligible.
It is not practical to measure all soil properties and processes; therefore, monitoring harvest techniques that are
known to protect soil productivity are of utmost importance. BMP’s are being monitored for implementation and
effectiveness.Monitoring reports for timber management practices (similar to those proposed for Catahoula Forest
Health 2015) on the Catahoula and Kisatchie District (Appendix A)indicate that BMPs (table 1) are effectively
being used.Overall, the effects to long term (greater than 2 years post treatment) soil productivity would be
negligible.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
15
Road Management Activities
Alternatives B would permanently close 9 miles and seasonally open (10/1 – 1/31) 1 mile of roads with native
surfacing.These roads would not be decommissioned. Louisiana’s semi-tropical climate and long growing season
would allow for natural regeneration of herbaceous and woody plants to occur. This vegetation coupled with the
accumulation of leaf litter would naturally improve the current condition and soil productivity. Natural recovery of
soils from compaction occurs primarily through the process of shrinking and swelling, freezing and thawing, and
through biological disturbances such as root penetration and biopedoturbation (Scott et al. 2004 p. 337). This
would be a long-term process, taking anywhere from 5 to 10 years. Long-term soil productivity should be
improved on the closed roads.
Summary of Effects
Timber management would have negligible effects and could prevent adverse effects to soil productivity by
decreasing the chances of having wildfires with higher severity. Closing roads would benefit soil productivity in
the long-term by converting these areas back to forested land.
Cumulative Effects
The effect to long-term soil productivity as a consequence of those actions being proposed in the Proposed Action
Alternative Brelate to the cumulative effectson physical, chemical, and biological qualities of the soil. All
proposed, committed, and foreseeableactivitiesare considered when analyzing cumulative effects. Timber
management would have negligible effects and could prevent adverse effects to soil productivity by decreasing the
chances of having wildfires with higher severity. Closing roads would benefit soil productivity in the long-term by
converting these areas back to forested land. Ongoing and foreseeable activities that could directly affect soil
productivity include the continuation of prescribed burning in each stand in the project area totaling approximately
5,517 acres in 2 to 3 year increments. Due to the span between normal entries into treated areas and the use of
resource protection measures (table 1),cumulative effects of vegetation treatments and prescribed fire on long
term soil productivity would be negligible.
Water Qualityand Quantity
Current Conditions
The Catahoula Ranger District is located in the Western Coastal Plains Subsection in the High Terrace Rolling
Uplands Landtype Association (LTA). Numerous small streams with associated narrow, level floodplains and
small stream terraces dissect the LTA (USDA, Forest Service. 1999b p. 3-120). The soils and subsoils are
typically loamy. They are highly permeable, with high infiltration and low surface runoff, and experience
significant groundwater storage with subsequent recharge to stream base flows. Perennial streams are
characterized by well sustained, relatively constant base flows in dry months. Flood peaks are low, and so are
suspended sediment loads. Streams are shallow with frequent deep pools, clear water, and significant amounts of
large woody debris. Stream bottoms are generally sandy. (USDA, Forest Service. 1999b p. 3-121).
The project area lies within forty-one6th HUC watersheds (Figure 2). Fish Creek and Big Creek are the only creeks
within the project area that are listed as 303d by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. There are 47
miles of ephemeral, 16 miles of intermittent,1 miles of perennial streams, and one water body (3 acres) within the
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
16
project area. There are approximately 28,123 acres of riparian areas on the Catahoula. Riparian areas are
associated with a number of streams within the project area. These areas are designated as Riparian Area
Protection Zones (RAPZ). There are no large jurisdictional wetlands,although small wetlands may be located
within RAPZ’s. Iatt Lake is the major water body found within the watersheds but not near any treatment stands.
The existing land uses on Forest Service and private land in these subwatersheds includes pine, hardwood,
bottomland forest, and paved, gravel and dirt roads. Quarries, agriculture, residential, commercial and industrial
uses are located on private lands.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
17
Figure 2. Subwatersheds within Catahoula Forest Health 2015Project
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
18
Environmental Consequences
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
19
Environmental consequences are based on the application of all resource protection measures listed in Table 1.
Effects on Water Quality and Quantity
Forest management activities can alter water quantity and quality, the degree of which determines theeffects on
aquatic communities. Water quantity generally applies to the size and frequency of stormflows, while water quality
generally refers to the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water. Even in undisturbed forests,
floods occur and water is never pure. Concerns arise when channel stability, aquatic habitat, or water use is
impaired (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-92).
The protection of water quality can be accomplished through proper planning and implementation of resource
protection measures listed in Table 1. Streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZs) are one of the most important
tools used as it serves as a buffer to protect streams and aquatic life from upland management activities. Past
monitoring on the Forest indicates that the size of the SHPZs used would be more than adequate to filter sediment
and prevent it from reaching the stream channel(USDA, Forest Service. 1999b p. 4-15). SHPZs of at least 50 feet
are established along all streams and management activities are limited within these areas (BMP # 4, 5).
Alternative A (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
There would be no direct impacts to water quality because there are no ground disturbing activities. Biological
processes would continue to occur. Water quality would be affected naturally through leaching and weathering.
Without thinning, current conditions within the project area will persist. High tree densities could contribute to
increased potential for insects & disease and hazardous fuels. If wildfires were to occur with high severity water
quality and quantity could be affected.
Water quality could be affected by not applying travel restricts, improving degraded roads, and improving stream
crossing. Roads are the most common source of Forest erosion and sedimentation (USDA Forest Service. 1999b, p
4-12). Continued usage of these roads could further increase compaction, rutting, rilland sheet erosion, therefore,
affecting water quality.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing and foreseeable activities in Alternative A could affect water quality and quantity. Past, present, and
expected activities in the Fish Creek-Jesse Branch (8,196 acres), Big Creek-Middle (8,915 acres), Indian Creek-
Log Bayou (3,731 acres), Cypress Creek-West (3,080 acres), and Clear Creek-Lower (6,640 acres) subwatersheds
were used in a sedimentation yield model for evaluating cumulative effects. These five subwatersheds would have
the most treatment acres within them, therefore they were analyzed for having the effect. All alternatives were
evaluated in the cumulative discussion under Alternative B, see that section for details on methods and results.
Fish Creek-Jesse Branch
The threshold of 1,650 percent over the undisturbed Pre-European baseline would not be exceeded in this
watershed. There are no known stream impairments. Cumulatively, there would be no significant cumulative effect
to water quality because the effects would occur over an extended time period and the percent increase in sediment
yield would not exceed the threshold limit.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
20
The cumulative effects from Alternative A would be negligible.
Big Creek-Middle
The threshold is exceeded in this watershed before any present or expected activities would take place. The biggest
contributor to the estimated sediment yield are from agricultural activities in the watershed. The cumulative
sediment yield is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur between 3-5 years. There are no
known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this watershed, the small
increase in sediment yield should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effects from Alternative A would be negligible.
Indian Creek-Log Bayou
The threshold is exceeded in this watershed before any present or expected activities would take place. The biggest
contributor to the estimated sediment yield are from agricultural activities in the watershed. The cumulative
sediment yield is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur between 3-5 years. There are no
known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this watershed, the small
increase in sediment yield should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effects from Alternative A would be negligible.
Cypress Creek-West
The threshold is exceeded in this watershed before any present or expected activities would take place. The biggest
contributor to the estimated sediment yield are from agricultural activities in the watershed. The cumulative
sediment yield is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur between 3-5 years. There are no
known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this watershed, the small
increase in sediment yield should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effects from Alternative A would be negligible.
Clear Creek-Lower
The threshold is exceeded in this watershed before any present or expected activities would take place. The biggest
contributors to the estimated sediment yield are from agriculture and quarries in the watershed. The cumulative
sediment yield is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur between 3-5 years. There are no
known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this watershed, the small
increase in sediment yield should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effects from Alternative A would be negligible.
Alternative B
Direct and Indirect Effects
Timber Management Activities
Timber management activities would occur on approximately 5,517acres and could affect water quantity and
quality. Mechanical methods may increase stream nutrients, stormflows, and sediment loads.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
21
Some nutrients are lost from forest soils through a temporary increase of erosion and the reduced rate of water
uptake because of tree removal(USDA Forest Service. 1999b, p 4-13).Stream concentrations of some nutrients
may be increased. Many of the aquatic systems are nutrient poor, so small increases in nutrients could be
beneficial(USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-98).
Increased stormflow volumes and peaks in small (1-12 acre) watershed can increase. Shearing retains soil
infiltration capacity and cause small increases by reducing water use by vegetation. Typical increases in stormflow
volumes and peaks are 40 percent and they last one year (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-98). Timber
harvesting reduces evapotranspiration which makes more water available for subsurface flow. Subsurface flows
can reach stream channels and increase low flow. This could benefit aquatic biota during the low flows of summer
(USDA Forest Service. 1999b, p 4-14). Timber harvest has been shown to have little effect on total water yields or
the peak flows from large, infrequent storms. Effects to water quantity would be minimal and short term.
Mechanical methods can increase sediment loads from both surface and channel erosion in small (1-12 acre)
watersheds (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-98). Channel sediment tends to increase in proportion to peak
flow, with first-year increases of about 40 percent for shearing (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-99).
Establishment of new vegetation and increased growth of existing vegetation would occur. The most disturbed
areas would berehabbed by seeding and fertilizing.
The effects to water quality and quantity would be negligible.
Road Maintenance and Road Closures
In Alternative B approximately 140 miles of Forest Service roads will be needed to provide access to treatment
areas. Approximately 10 miles of MVUM open roads will be improved for the life of the project.These
improvements would channel water run-off from rain events and stabilize the affected road beds (Robertson,
unpublished report, 2014).Road maintenance could have short term effects associated with initial soil disturbance.
The erosion and sedimentation from roads would be mitigated but not totally eliminated. Water-barring, seeding,
and fertilization of reconstructed roads would help reduce erosion and sedimentation. Short term effects would
occur until soil stabilizes and vegetation is established (2 months to 1 year for vegetation establishment, depending
on the amount of moisture and sunlight). The direct effects from culvert installation would be attributed to the
disturbance of streambanks and substrate. Short term effects would coincide with the duration of culvert
replacement and would take approximately half a day per culvert (N. Strahan, personal communication). There
would be beneficial long term effects as stream function would be improved with the decrease of stream
sedimentation. Stream impairment would be unlikely because of the short term duration of the projects.
An additional 1 mile of open road would be improved in the short term (up to 10 years or the life of the project)
and then managed as seasonally open (10/1 to 1/31). This action is needed to improve soil and water condition and
reduce public health and safety risks. The closed roads would not be decommissioned.Nine miles of roads are
proposed to be closed to motorized use. These roads are in poor condition and resource damage is occurring. All-
terrain vehicles (ATV) are using these roads to access unauthorized (user created) trails, some of which are
associated with stream crossings. The amount of user created trails is unknown. Closing and or limiting access to
roads would reduce resource damage and decrease soil disturbance and erosion; therefore, resulting in beneficial
long term effects.
Overall water quality would be improved.
Cumulative Effects
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
22
A sedimentation model, Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Use (USDA
Forest Service, 1999a), was used to determine cumulative affects to water quality. Sediment is the best measure to
determine the effect of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands.
Sediment increases adversely affect fish productivity and diversity. The sedimentation model uses predicted
sediment yield as the surrogate for determining cumulative impacts for water quality (USDA Forest Service, 1999a
p.3).
Sediment loading is calculated for both private and National Forest lands. Current baseline is derived from past
activities that predict the average annual sediment delivered as a result of the historical management within the
watershed. Undisturbed Pre-European baseline is the predicted annual sediment yield that occurred Pre-European.
Committed activities on Forest Service are those projects, such as prescribed fire and timber management, which
would continue to be implemented. Predicted activities are those activities that are predicted to occur on private
lands.
Percent increase above current baseline andundisturbed Pre-European baseline were calculated.Significance is
suggested when the effects are compared to a threshold. The results from cumulative effects were compared, as a
percentage, to an established threshold of 1,650 percent over pre-European levels.
The model allows for the comparison of total overall sediment yield due to all activities that would occur in the
watershed by alternatives. It is assumed that current conditions are similar to those that were used in the
development of the baselines and thresholds. Estimates are inflated because it assumes worst case scenarios and
that all treatments would occur in the same year.
Predicted sale dates are 2017-2019. In addition to past land use, activities that have or will occur are predicted for
the years 2017-2021.
Tables 5, 7, 9, 11 &13display the acres/miles of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Fish Creek-
Jesse Branch (8,196 acres), Big Creek-Middle (8,915 acres), Indian Creek-Log Bayou (3,731 acres),Cypress
Creek-West (3,080 acres), Clear Creek-Lower (6,640 acres) and Clear Creek-Lower (6,640 acres).
Tables 6, 8, 10, 12 & 14 display the percent increase in sediment yield above current and undisturbed baselines for
the same subwatersheds.
Fish Creek-Jesse Branch Subwatershed
Table 5 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Fish Creek-Jesse
BranchSubwatershed (8,196 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands
in this watershed.
Table 6 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and
undisturbed baseline.
Table 5. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Fish Creek-Jesse BranchSubwatershed
Activity Alternative A
Alternative B
Committed Activities on
Forest Service
Predicted Activities on Private
Thinning (ac) 0 541 0 0
Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
23
Activity Alternative A
Alternative B
Committed Activities on
Forest Service
Predicted Activities on Private
Midstory work (ac) 0 0 0
Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 541 0
Total Acres 0 541 541 0
Table 6. Fish Creek-Jesse BranchSubwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Fish Creek-Jesse Branch Watershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Increase above
Current Baseline
Increase above
Undisturbed
Pre-European Baseline
Alternative A 15% 571%
Alternative B 25% 629%
Neither alternative would exceed the threshold of 1,650 percent (Pre-European). Agriculture contributes the
most sediment to the watershed. Alternative B would result in a ten percent increase above the Alternative A.
This increase is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur in between three to five years.
There are no known stream impairments in this watershed. There would be no significant cumulative effect to
water quality because the effects would occur over an extended time period and the threshold would not be
exceeded.
The cumulative effects from Alternative B would be negligible.
Big Creek-Middle Subwatershed
Table 7 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Big Creek-Middlesubwatershed
(8,915 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this watershed.
Table 8 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and
undisturbed baseline.
Table 7. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Big Creek-MiddleSubwatershed
Activity Alternative A
Alternative B
Committed Activities on
Forest Service
Predicated Activities on Private
Thinning (ac) 0 387 0 0
Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0
Midstory work (ac) 0 0 0 0
Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 387 0
Total Acres 0 387 387 0
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
24
Table 8. Big Creek-MiddleSubwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Big Creek-Middle Watershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Increase above
Current Baseline
Increase above
Undisturbed
Pre-European Baseline
Alternative A 9% 578%
Alternative B 6% 617%
In this watershed, the threshold would not be exceeded after any work would take place (Alternatives A and
B).The biggest contributor to the estimated sediment yield is from agriculture in the watershed. Alternative B
would result in a seven percent increase above Alternative A. This increase is estimated to occur in the same year;
it is more likely to occur in between three to five years. There are no known stream impairments in this watershed.
The small increase in sediment yield from Alternative B should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effects from Alternative B would be negligible.
Indian Creek-Log BayouSubwatershed
Table 9 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Indian Creek-Log Bayou
Subwatershed (3,731 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this
watershed.
Table 10 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and
undisturbed baseline.
Table 9. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Indian Creek-Log Bayou Subwatershed
Activity Alternative
A Alternative
B Committed
Activities on Forest Service
Predicated Activities on Private
Thinning (ac) 0 377 0 0
Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0
Midstory work (ac) 0 0
Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 377 0
Total Acres 0 377 377 0
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
25
Table 10. Indian Creek-Log BayouSubwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Indian Creek-Log Bayou Watershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Increase above
Current Baseline
Increase above
Undisturbed
Pre-European Baseline
Alternative A 23% 610%
Alternative B 38% 698%
In this watershed, the threshold would not be exceeded after any work would take place (Alternatives A and B).
The biggest contributor to the estimated sediment yield is from agriculture in the watershed. Alternative B would
result in a fifteen percent increase above Alternative. This increase is estimated to occur in the same year; it is
more likely to occur in between three to five years. There are no known stream impairments in this watershed. The
small increase in sediment yield from Alternative B should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effect from Alternative B would be negligible.
Cypress Creek-West Subwatershed
Table 11 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Cypress Creek-West
Subwatershed (3,080 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this
watershed.
Table 12 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and
undisturbed baseline.
Table 11. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Cypress Creek-West Subwatershed
Activity Alternative
A Alternative
B Committed
Activities on Forest Service
Predicated Activities on Private
Thinning (ac) 0 359 0 0
Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0
Midstory work (ac) 0 0
Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 359 0
Total Acres 0 359 359 0
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
26
Table 12. Cypress Creek-WestSubwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Cypress Creek-West Watershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Increase above
Current Baseline
Increase above
Undisturbed
Pre-European Baseline
Alternative A 22% 515%
Alternative B 37% 590%
In this watershed, the threshold wouldn’t be exceeded after any work would take place (Alternatives A and B). The
biggest contributor to the estimated sediment yield is from agriculture in the watershed. Alternative B would result
in a fifteen percent increase above Alternative A and 33 tons per year of total sediment yield. This increase is
estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur in between three to five years. There are no known
stream impairments in this watershed. The small increase in sediment yield from Alternative B should not be
sufficient enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effect from Alternative B would be negligible.
Clear Creek-Lower Subwatershed
Table 13 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Clear Creek-Lower
Subwatershed (6,640 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this
watershed.
Table 14 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and
undisturbed baseline.
Table 13. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Clear Creek-Lower Subwatershed
Activity Alternative
A Alternative
B Committed
Activities on Forest Service
Predicated Activities on Private
Thinning (ac) 0 329 0 0
Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0
Midstory work (ac) 0 0
Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 329 0
Total Acres 0 329 329 0
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
27
Table 14. Clear Creek-Lower Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Clear Creek-Lower Watershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield
Increase above
Current Baseline
Increase above
Undisturbed
Pre-European Baseline
Alternative A 3% 2073%
Alternative B 5% 2115%
In this watershed, the threshold of 1,650 would be exceeded after the work would take place (Alternatives A and
B). Activities with Alternatives A and B would only contribute, at the most, 2% of sedimentation over the
threshold. The biggest contributors to the estimated sediment yield are from agriculture and quarries in the
watershed. These quarries make up five percent of all sediment yield. Alternative B would result in a two percent
increase above Alternative A. This increase is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur in
between three to five years. There are no known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is
exceeded for this watershed, the small increase in sediment yield from Alternative B should not be sufficient
enough to effect water quality.
The cumulative effect from Alternative B would be negligible.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
28
References
Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana. 2012 Louisiana Water Quality Inventory: Integrated Report
(305(b)/303(d)) FINAL. Appendix A: 2012 Integrated Report of Water Quality in Louisiana19 Mar.
2014.http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/WaterPermits/WaterQualityStandardsAssessment/WaterQu
alityInventorySection305b/2012IntegratedReport.aspx
Louisiana Forestry Association, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of
Agriculture. (no date). Recommended Forestry Best Management Practices for Louisiana
Scott, D. Andrew, Novosad, John,and Goldsmith, G. J. 2004. Ten-year Results from the North American Long-Term
Soil Productivity Study in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth
Science Conference.San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004, Portland OR.
USDA Forest Service.1999a, August. Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial
Uses National Forests in Mississsippi. 21 pages.
USDA Forest Service. 1999b, August. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and
Resource Management Plan,Kisatchie National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1999c, August. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan,Kisatchie National Forest.
USDA, Forest Service. 1989a, January. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the
Coastal Plain/Piedmont, Appendices. Volume II. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-23.
USDA, Forest Service. 1989b, January. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the
Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Volume I. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-23.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
29
Appendix A
Monitoring reports for
Timber Management Practices on the
Catahoula and Kisatchie District
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
30
Soil and Water Monitoring on Timber Management Activities
Catahoula Ranger District
Timber removal activities on the Catahoula Ranger District were monitored for compliance with
Standards and Guideline (S&G’s) as they relate to the protection of Soil and Water. S&G’s can be
found in the Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.
The persons involve in the review were Ted Soileau, Roderick Alfred, and Linda Higgs.
On August 10, 2012, three sale units in two different compartments were monitored. Compartment
76, Units 3 and 4, were clear-cuts. All parameters monitored were in full compliance, see Attachment
1. Equipment was used only during dry conditions and there was no evidence of rutting, compaction,
or erosion. Slash was spread over skid trails and landings to prevent erosion. Unit 4 had some bare
soil on the skid trails but no erosion was observed. The unit layout was well planned and the RAPZ
and SHPz were excluded from the unit boundary.
Compartment 24, Unit 11, was a 1st thinning. All parameters monitored were in full compliance, see
Attachment 2. Equipment was used only during dry conditions and there was no evidence of rutting,
compaction, or erosion. Slash was spread over skid trails and landings to prevent erosion. The unit
layout was well planned and the RAPZ and SHPz were excluded from the unit boundary.
Overall, district personnel did a great job of complying with forest S&G’s. All parameters monitored
were in full compliance. The entire operation was well planned, implement, and monitored.
Ted Soileau
Natural Resource Specialist
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
31
Timber Removal – Soil and Water Implementation Monitoring Evaluation Form
District Catahoula Compartment 76 Unit 3,4 Attachment 1
Date 08/10/12
Reviewers Ted Soileau, Roderick Alfred, Linda Higgs
Exceeds1
Full
Compliance
Minor
Departure2
Major
Departure3 Comments/Recommendations
1) Mechanical equipment only
during dry conditions
(FW-600)
Unit 3
Unit 4
Operations occurred only during dry
conditions.
2) No more than 15% of an area
rutted, compacted, eroded (FW-
601)
Unit 3
Unit 4
No evidence of rutting or compaction.
3) Erosion control measures
implemented effectively
(FW-450, 605)
Unit 3
Unit 4
Slash was spread over skid trails and landing.
Unit 4 had some bare soil on skid trails but no
erosion observed.
4) SHPZs meet S&Gs for layout
(FW-510, MA___)
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit boundary excluded the nearby SHPZ.
5) RAPZs meet S&Gs for layout
(FW-515)
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit boundary excluded the nearby RAPZ.
6) SHPZs meet S&G restrictions
for protection of soil and water –
disturb., bare soil, bank stability,
etc. (FW-510,513,523,524)
Unit 3
Unit 4
No activity within SHPZ.
7) RAPZs meet S&G restrictions
for protection of soil and water –
disturbance, bare soil, dry
conditions, etc. (FW-518)
Unit 3
Unit 4
No activity within RAPZ.
8) Stream crossings (skid trails,
roads) minimize impacts to
water quality
(FW-100,513,525,527,530,
531,559)
N/A
No streams were crossed.
1/Creatively applied to provide greater than required protection. 2/Applied but does not fully comply. 3/Not applied.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
32
Timber Removal – Soil and Water Implementation Monitoring Evaluation Form
District Catahoula Compartment 24 Unit 11 Attachment 2
Date 08/10/12 Reviewers Ted Soileau, Roderick Alfred, Linda Higgs
Exceeds1
Full
Compliance
Minor
Departure2
Major
Departure3 Comments/Recommendations
1) Mechanical equipment only
during dry conditions
(FW-600)
X
Operations occurred only during dry
conditions.
2) No more than 15% of an area
rutted, compacted, eroded (FW-
601)
X
No evidence of rutting or compaction.
3) Erosion control measures
implemented effectively
(FW-450, 605)
X
Slash was spread over skid trails and landing.
There was no evidence of erosion.
4) SHPZs meet S&Gs for layout
(FW-510, MA___)
X
Unit boundary excluded the nearby SHPZ.
5) RAPZs meet S&Gs for layout
(FW-515)
X
Unit boundary excluded the nearby RAPZ.
6) SHPZs meet S&G restrictions
for protection of soil and water –
disturb., bare soil, bank stability,
etc. (FW-510,513,523,524)
X
No activity within SHPZ.
7) RAPZs meet S&G restrictions
for protection of soil and water –
disturbance, bare soil, dry
conditions, etc. (FW-518)
X
No activity within RAPZ.
8) Stream crossings (skid trails,
roads) minimize impacts to
water quality
(FW-100,513,525,527,530,
531,559)
N/A
No streams were crossed.
1/Creatively applied to provide greater than required protection. 2/Applied but does not fully comply. 3/Not applied.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
33
Soil and Water Monitoring on Timber Management Activities
Kisatchie Ranger District
Timber removal activities on the Kisatchie Ranger District were monitored for compliance with
Standards and Guideline (S&G’s) as they relate to the protection of Soil and Water. S&G’s can be
found in the Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.
The persons involve in the review were Ted Soileau and Kelly Boles. On August 15, 2012, two sale
units in two different compartments were monitored.
Compartment 7, Unit 7, was a 1st thinning. All parameters monitored were rated as exceeds or in full
compliance, see Attachment 1. Equipment was used only during dry conditions and there was no
evidence of rutting, compaction, or erosion. Slash was spread over skid trails and landing to prevent
erosion (see photo 1). There was no activity in the SHPZ except for the areas where the streams were
crossed. Two streams were appropriately crossed at right angles and there was no impact to the
stream. Piles of slash were placed on both sides of the stream to prevent runoff from the skid trail
(see photo 2). The stream crossing parameter was rated as exceeds because of the well planned and
implemented crossing.
Compartment 9, Unit 14, was a thinning. All parameters monitored were rated as exceeds or in full
compliance, see Attachment 2. Equipment was used only during dry conditions and there was no
evidence of rutting, compaction, or erosion. Slash was spread over skid trails and landing to prevent
erosion. There was no activity in the SHPZ except for the area where the stream was crossed. The
one stream crossing on this unit also received a rating of exceeds. The skid trail leading to the stream
received sufficient amounts of slash that is preventing any erosion (see photo 3).
Overall, district personnel did a great job of complying with forest S&G’s. All parameters monitored
were rated as exceeds or in full compliance. The entire operation was well planned and implement,
especially the stream crossings.
Ted Soileau
Natural Resource Specialist
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
34
Timber Removal – Soil and Water Implementation Monitoring Evaluation Form
District Kisatchie Compartment 7 Unit 7 Attachment 1
Date 08/03/12
Reviewers Ted Soileau, Kelly Boles
Exceeds
1
Full
Compliance
Minor
Departure2
Major
Departure3
Comments/Recommendations
1) Mechanical equipment only
during dry conditions
(FW-600)
X
Operations occurred only during dry
conditions.
2) No more than 15% of an
area rutted, compacted, eroded
(FW-601)
X
No evidence of rutting or compaction.
3) Erosion control measures
implemented effectively
(FW-450, 605)
X
Slash was spread over skid trails and
landings. There was no evidence of erosion.
4) SHPZs meet S&Gs for
layout (FW-510, MA___)
X
The only area of activity was in the approach
for the stream crossing.
5) RAPZs meet S&Gs for
layout (FW-515)
N/A
6) SHPZs meet S&G
restrictions for protection of
soil and water – disturb., bare
soil, bank stability, etc. (FW-
510,513,523,524)
X
The only area of activity was in the approach
for the stream crossing.
7) RAPZs meet S&G
restrictions for protection of
soil and water – disturbance,
bare soil, dry conditions, etc.
(FW-518)
N/A
8) Stream crossings (skid trails,
roads) minimize impacts to
water quality
(FW-100,513,525,527,530,
531,559)
X
Slash on the stream bank was placed parallel
to the stream, creating a berm to prevent
runoff from the skid trail to the stream.
1/Creatively applied to provide greater than required protection.
2/Applied but does not fully comply.
3/Not applied.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
35
Timber Removal – Soil and Water Implementation Monitoring Evaluation Form
District Kisatchie Compartment 9 Unit 14 Attachment 2
Date 08/03/12 Reviewers Ted Soileau, Kelly Boles
Exceeds1
Full
Compliance
Minor
Departure2
Major
Departure3 Comments/Recommendations
1) Mechanical equipment only
during dry conditions
(FW-600)
X
Operations occurred only during dry
conditions.
2) No more than 15% of an area
rutted, compacted, eroded (FW-
601)
X
No evidence of rutting or compaction.
3) Erosion control measures
implemented effectively
(FW-450, 605)
X
Slash was spread over skid trails and landings.
There was no evidence of erosion.
4) SHPZs meet S&Gs for layout
(FW-510, MA___)
X
The only area of activity was in the approach
for the stream crossing.
5) RAPZs meet S&Gs for layout
(FW-515)
N/A
6) SHPZs meet S&G restrictions
for protection of soil and water –
disturb., bare soil, bank stability,
etc. (FW-510,513,523,524)
X
The only area of activity was in the approach
for the stream crossing.
7) RAPZs meet S&G restrictions
for protection of soil and water –
disturbance, bare soil, dry
conditions, etc. (FW-518)
N/A
8) Stream crossings (skid trails,
roads) minimize impacts to
water quality
(FW-100,513,525,527,530,
531,559)
X
Slash on the stream bank was placed parallel to
the stream, creating a berm to prevent runoff
from the skid trail to the stream.
1/Creatively applied to provide greater than required protection. 2/Applied but does not fully comply. 3/Not applied.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
36
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Compartment:7 Unit:7 Photo: 1
Description:Very good
slash on skid trail.
Compartment:7 Unit: 7 Photo: 2
Description:Slash
placed on both sides of
the stream.
Catahoula Forest Health 2015 Project,Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District
37
Description:The skid
trail leading up to
stream has adequate
slash.
Compartment:7 Unit:7 Photo: 3
top related