Soils and Watershed Specialist Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954 - Establishes

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.


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.


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.


#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.


4


#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


#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.


5


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.


#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


Trail System


6


#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.


#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,



7


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.


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.


#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


#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.


8


#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.


#35 602

Mechanical equipment is operated so that furrows and soil

indentations are aligned on the contour (with grades under 5

percent).


#36 605 Prompt revegetation is done if treatments leave insufficient ground cover to control erosion by the end of the first growing season.


#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.


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


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


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


12


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.


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


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.


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


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.


17

Figure 2. Subwatersheds within Catahoula Forest Health 2015Project


18

Environmental Consequences


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)


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.


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.


Indian Creek-Log Bayou







Cypress Creek-West







Clear Creek-Lower


contributors to the estimated sediment yield are from agriculture and quarries in the watershed. The cumulative





Alternative B


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.


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


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


23


Alternative B


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 7. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Big Creek-MiddleSubwatershed


Alternative B


Forest Service

Predicated Activities on Private



Midstory work (ac) 0 0 0 0




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




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 9. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Indian Creek-Log Bayou Subwatershed

Activity Alternative

A Alternative

B Committed

Activities on Forest Service




Midstory work (ac) 0 0




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




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


watershed.



Table 11. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Cypress Creek-West Subwatershed


A Alternative

B Committed









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




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.


Clear Creek-Lower Subwatershed

Table 13 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Clear Creek-Lower


watershed.



Table 13. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Clear Creek-Lower Subwatershed


A Alternative

B Committed









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




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.



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.

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/WaterPermits/WaterQualityStandardsAssessment/WaterQualityInventorySection305b/2012IntegratedReport.aspx




29

Appendix A

Monitoring reports for

Timber Management Practices on the

Catahoula and Kisatchie 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


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


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.


32


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




(FW-600)

X


conditions.



601)

X




(FW-450, 605)

X

Slash was spread over skid trails and landing.

There was no evidence of erosion.


(FW-510, MA___)

X

Unit boundary excluded the nearby SHPZ.


(FW-515)

X

Unit boundary excluded the nearby RAPZ.




etc. (FW-510,513,523,524)

X

No activity within SHPZ.





X

No activity within RAPZ.



water quality

(FW-100,513,525,527,530,

531,559)

N/A

No streams were crossed.



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


34


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



(FW-600)

X


conditions.

2) No more than 15% of an

area rutted, compacted, eroded

(FW-601)

X




(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



7) RAPZs meet S&G

restrictions for protection of

soil and water – disturbance,

bare soil, dry conditions, etc.

(FW-518)

N/A



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.


35


District Kisatchie Compartment 9 Unit 14 Attachment 2

Date 08/03/12 Reviewers Ted Soileau, Kelly Boles

Exceeds1

Full

Compliance

Minor

Departure2

Major




(FW-600)

X


conditions.



601)

X




(FW-450, 605)

X

Slash was spread over skid trails and landings.

There was no evidence of erosion.


(FW-510, MA___)

X




(FW-515)

N/A




etc. (FW-510,513,523,524)

X







N/A



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.



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.


37

Description:The skid

trail leading up to

stream has adequate

slash.

Compartment:7 Unit:7 Photo: 3

Documents

Soils and Watershed Specialist Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954 - Establishes