Management Plan for Iberville Parish Property

To St. Gabriel Land Company

Property boundary for given parcel of land in Iberville Parish. Overall acreage
is 414 with 246 acres of forest habitat, 110 acres of wetland grasses, and 58
acres of mixed habitat.

Prepared by:

Josef Schuster
Schuster Consulting LLC
2190 Starring Ln, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
[email protected]
225-630-5460
1.0 Site Description and Project Scope
1.1 Site Description
The recently acquired property is located on the eastern side of Iberville
Parish just north of St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Historically, flooding has been
an issue on the property in the winter time due to its hydrologic connection
to Spanish Lake and Bayou Manchac. Within the past 50 years, landscape
manipulations have altered the property hydrology due to a series of levees
and berms being made as part of construction for the Hurry Sundown
movie filming. These levees and berms inadvertently created drainage
ditches, canals, and ephemeral streams across the site. Shortly afterwards,
the property switched hands to the LSU AgCenter and became agricultural
land. Parts of the property have been used more than other parts based
upon the clear-cut agricultural fields next to dense continuous cover of the
forest. The property has a few trails that were meant to be used by vehicles,
Figure 1.
but are not. Only one road leads in and out of the property.
Generalized locator map of the
proposed property.
1.2 Recreation
Bubba also emphasized that he had an interest in recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and
other recreational activities. To provide that, we will look to minimally disturb the property if possible, in
order to provide opportunities. Some of the paths/tracks throughout the property will be maintained for
vehicle access in the short term if necessary, for manipulation and for foot access in the long run. Providing
high quality habitat including forage, shelter, and reliable water sources on the property for aquatic and
terrestrial species is the overarching goal so that there is sufficient hunting, fishing, and viewing
opportunities for species of interest.

1.3 Wild Lands

One of the goals that Bubba emphasized was to maintain “wild land” or “healthy woods” on the property.
This is of utmost importance to us. We want to make sure that the property is not developed for any sort of
commercial usage unless the landowner changes his mind. Minimal habitat degradation and disturbance
should provide serenity for all parties involved and superb.

1.4 Timber
Producing and managing resources for sale or additional revenue is of least importance. In this case,
forestry, hunting leases, and commercial production would not be focused upon as highly. These topics will
still be discussed so that in the future, if you decide to change the management strategy for the property,
Bubba might have some additional ideas that can be used to make additional revenue.

1.6 Easements
Bubba showed that he had an interest in learning more about potential easements that he would be and
would not be eligible for so that he could know some general background about what they are, what is
required to apply, the regulations and lease times for them, and if he was not eligible for one, what made
him ineligible or unable to enroll.
2.0 Recreation
2.1 Current Wildlife Conditions
A variety of terrestrial animals are known to frequent the property including White-Tailed Deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), other game
species, small critters, and herpetofauna. All of them have some presence whether through scat, tracks,
rubs, visually observed, or seen through camera traps. Just because they can be found here does not
necessarily mean that the habitat is ideal for them. This is why we use the habitat suitability index model to
assess the how suitable a habitat is for a particular species given some important characteristics. Habitat
suitability indices (HSI) provide information on food availability, cover, survival, and condition. Each of
these variables are measured on a scale from 0 to 1 and are ultimately multiplied together and raised to a
power to scale it. The closer to 1 that the overall value is, the more suitable the habitat is for that species.
Each variable that goes into the equation is also scaled from 0 to 1. 0 means that it is not optimal habitat
given that it is either impaired or some facet of environment is not conducive to supporting this species.
However, this does not mean that they cannot be there though. On the other end of the spectrum, 1 means
that the habitat is ideal in every way, however, this is usually an unattainable goal. This shows that good
habitat allows for animals to survive given that essential requirements such as structure, food, and other
resources are present in high enough quantity and quality to support populations of that species (Stuber et
al. 1982). The equation below is listed in case Bubba would like to know how the total HSI values were
calculated.

Our calculations show that while some habitat is modestly suitable, other habitat is not. Overall, though,
they all could use improvement. The main species of interest for the HSIs were White-Tailed Deer and
Eastern Wild Turkey. For our data, we used browse surveys and canopy cover data will help to build an
HSI to inform us on the suitability of the habitat for any larger, harder to sample terrestrial animals and to
see what type of activity is going on throughout the property by looking for indicative signs such as scraps,
pellets, and foot tracks (McComb 2010).

2.2 Wildlife Recommendations

Top Recommendation:
Manage mainly for White-Tailed Deer and Eastern Wild Turkey by select cutting both dominant and
overstory species. In turn, the management actions for these species should help increase the food
availability for small mammals, songbirds, and herpetofauna.

Rationale:
Based off of the HSI values for both deer and turkey, we know that they do not need a lot to have suitable
habitat to survive and if they have a nice mosaic of early and late successional growth, they are happy
campers. For deer, we know that this is a large enough area and that there is enough water availability for
deer to live here. However, according to QDMA estimate, the property has a density of roughly 6 deer per
square mile. Based on the remaining HSI variables, both percent thermal cover which is the average
percent canopy cover and the browse data which refers to the percent stems browsed in an area, we see that
they are both quite low averaging less than 0.5 which suggests that the habitat is roughly middle of the road
in that deer can live there, but there needs to be improvements in order to support more. Ultimately, browse
conditions and canopy cover need to be improved upon in order to make it more suitable. In order to allow
for browse species to grow, select cutting for dominant and overstory species will open up the canopy
cover to allow for understory growth including browse species. For turkey, we know that they like cover
and need lots of mast to support their diets. In this scenario, we can help control these HSI variables for
these two prominent game species by selecting what we choose to cut and let regenerate. By selecting what
we want to cut, we can make sure to leave some pulpwood behind so that it can provide additional benefits
such as snags, cavities, and soft mast for bird species and small mammals. After cutting, planting favorable
species may allow for more canopy closure in the future if the tree planted is an overstory tree type
(Schroeder 1985, Short 1986).

2.3 Alternative Wildlife Recommendations

Backup Recommendation:
We could focus on small mammals such as squirrels and raccoons (Procyon lotor) as well as waterfowl
like Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) and Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) instead of deer and turkeys.

Rationale:
By focusing on small mammals and waterfowl, we are giving Bubba access to another potential avenues
for recreation. Managing for small game would entail promoting the development of many of the same
variables that we would like to improve for both deer and turkey, however, the focus would be on
producing more suitable habitat for these less popular game species as opposed to the namesake game
species.

For example, raccoons are known to be on the property due to scat and tracks. The habitat meets a lot of the
habitat requirements including having ample forested habitat with access to wetlands, provides lots of
cover types like snags and tree cavities, lots of water, and provides lots of foraging opportunities for these
omnivorous animals (Timossi et al. 1995). However, raccoons can have quite extensive territories which
can lead to low population densities (Lotze and Anderson 1979 as cited in Timossi et al. 1995). Ultimately,
other small such as beavers, river otters, and squirrels are on the property in some degree but by managing
for these species, there may be an overabundance of these species which can have detrimental impacts on
the ecosystem.

For waterfowl such as Wood Ducks, we know that they already use the current habitat throughout the year,
however, management would most likely have to focus on improving current habitat by providing more
cavities which may or may not become occupied by them as opposed to other critters, installing nest boxes
and predator-proof guards to protect breeding Wood Ducks on the property (Sousa and Farmer 1983). For
wintering mallards, we know that there is plenty of canopy cover from trees, however, the trees currently
there are not ideal since wintering mallards prefer oak species as opposed to our predominantly Sugarberry,
American Elm, and Green ash forest stands (Allen 1986). Areas could be developed for them specifically
which would make more sense to help promote biodiversity with a mosaic of alternative habitat types
instead of trying to change all of the current habitat to suitable wintering mallard and Wood Duck habitat.

At the end of the day, managing for the smaller species would not lead to many poor consequences wince it
is leading to enhanced forage, but it may allow for some of these R-selected species to grow out of control
given increased resource availability. Increased intra- and interspecific competition might cause decreased
condition for all of those animals.
2.5 Current Fisheries Conditions
Conditions currently in both the ponds and waterways
around the property show signs of impairment and
could use restoration to make them more suitable for
fish species as well as other aquatic and semi-aquatic
species on the property. There are three main water
features: the gun range pond (yellow star), the forested
pond (red star), and the canals and ditches (blue lines)
(Figure 2). They currently do not have the data to
support it, but there are some recreational species in
there including Largemouth Bass and Bluegill. There
are a variety of other fish species that are not as highly
prized. There are some undesirable species such as
Green Sunfish and Black Crappie which can often
overtake ponds easily and disrupt fisheries for more
important recreational species. Using HSI values, we
were able to calculate that the ponds and large ditch are
quite suitable for being habitat for Largemouth Bass
and in turn Bluegill since they have many similar
habitats, water quality, and cover requirements Figure 2. Water Features of the property
The yellow star is the gun range pond and the red star is
An interesting factor though is that we ran various the forested pond. All blue lines are ditches and canals.
Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBI) including % EPT
which measures for the number of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plectoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera
(caddisfly) taxa out of all of the species in a sample (Fore et al. 1994), the Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index
which estimates the overall tolerance of a community of sampled, as well as a hybrid version of the tiered
aquatic life uses IBI which allows for quick bioassessment using commonly measured stream variables
(Daniel et al. 2014). The % EPT IBI gave us a value of 0 which means that we did not sample any species
from any of those orders. Our Hilsenhoff gave us 3 different values for the gun range pond, the forested
pond, and the canal. Between the three areas, the tolerance value was roughly 3 which signifies that the
waterbodies are in excellent condition. However, after calculating the Hybrid Tiered Aquatic Life Use (H-
TALU) IBI with 5 of the 7 main variables. Ultimately, both the gun range pond and the canal were
characterized with very low ecological integrity with the highest levels of anthropogenic disturbance.

Our data is based on previous data collections that used a variety of different methods from electrofishing
to cast nets to hoop nets. Backpack electroshocking was used due to its lack of selectivity and it can
provide both qualitative and quantitative data and will be used in standardized ways to collect both. When
done in a standardized manner, this data could be used to calculate metrics such as catch-per-unit effort
(CPUE) in some scenarios, how abundant species are in an area, and potentially give population size
estimates for each system. Other methods were used since they are other standardized methods to catch and
assess fish assemblages. Using these methods, we were able to catch a broad array of species that included
various mussels, aquatic insects, and crayfish as well as common fish species like Bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), Red Ear Sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), and Green Sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus). Some other species were caught including Spotted and Alligator Gar, Gizzard Shad,
Gambusia, and 1 Largemouth Bass.

Fish were measured and weighed only if they were greater than 150 mm in length since Fulton’s K which
estimates condition for a fish does not work well with small fish. 150 mm seems to be the cutoff to where it
works. condition, collecting lengths, girths, and weights can help us develop growth curves and relative
size indices to determine if the fish population is healthy or if there is a need for adjustment.

2.5.1 Forested Pond

The forested pond currently has a large biodiversity of species (Figure 3). From previous work and our
depth and turbidity measurements, we know that it is only on average 1.6 meters (~5.3 feet) deep, has a
maximum depth of 2.46 meters (8.1 feet) deep, and had a turbidity reading of 30.5 cm. We know that this
pond receives some woody debris from the surrounding riparian vegetation, but more inputs may be more
conducive in the long run.
Figure 3.
Aquatic Organisms in the Forested Pond A simple bar plot of
all of the aquatic
Water scavenger beetle
organisms that were
Tadpole
sampled from the
Notonectidae spp.
forested pond. Data
SPECIES PRESENT

Nepidae spp.
Libellulidae spp. was compiled from
Hybrid Green Longear “Aquatic data for
Gizzard Shad 2020” and
Freshwater shrimp Invert_data_final”.
Chironomidae spp.
Bluegill
Belostomatidae spp.
3-toed amphiuma
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
COUNTS

2.5.2 Gun Range Pond

The Gun Range pond currently has a limited diversity of species (Figure). From previous work and our
depth and turbidity measurements, we know that it is only on average 1.05 meters (~3.4 feet) deep, has a
maximum depth of 1.32 meters (4.3 feet) deep, and had a turbidity reading of 14 cm. We know that the
pond receives little woody debris inputs due to the young timber that surround the entirety of the pond.
However, we do not have quantifiable data to back it up since we were unable to survey the pond. Given
that woody debris inputs contribute to the percent bottom cover,
 This ultimately contributes to the fact that the pond may seem like suitable habitat from the habitat
suitability calculations that we ran, but the pond will need improvement from

Figure 4.
Aquatic Organisms in the Gun Range Simple bar plot of all of the
Pond aquatic organisms that were
sampled from the gun range
Warmouth pond. Data was compiled
SPECIES PRESENT

Tanyderidae spp. from “Aquatic data for

Staphylinidae spp. 2020” and
Green Sunfish Invert_data_final”.
Chironomidae spp.
Bluegill
Alligator

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
COUNTS

2.5.3 Canals and Creeks

The canals are on average 0.86 meters (~2.8 feet) deep and is approximately 0.94 meters (~3.1 feet) at its
deepest. The creeks are also quite shallow and both of these systems have lots of organisms (Figures 5 &
6). There tended to be more microfauna sampled in these waterways than the others.

Aquatic Organisms in the Canals Aquatic Organisms in the Creeks

Warmouth White River Crawfish
Tadpole
SPECIES PRESENT

Spotted gar
SPECIES PRESENT

Planorbidae snail
Planorbidae snail Gambusia spp.
Freshwater shrimp
Largemouth Bass
Dwarf Swamp Crawfish
Chironomidae spp. Corbicula clam
Asian clam
Asian clam
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50
COUNTS COUNTS

Figure 5. Figure 6.
Simple bar plot of all of the aquatic organisms that were Simple bar plot of all of the aquatic organisms that were
sampled from the canals. sampled from the creeks.

2.6 Fisheries Recommendations

Top Recommendations:
Restart the ponds and expand them.
Rationale:
The original intentions for the ponds were never to be fully
functioning ecosystems. They were meant to be borrow pits to
build levees. The current conditions suggest that there are
functioning ecosystems in both, but the conditions are not ideal for
them to be there even our Fulton’s K values support that many of
the fish seem to be in good physical condition (Supplement 1).

Currently, there are two main water features that could potentially
support recreational fishing opportunities for Bubba, the pond on
the edge of the forest and the pond outside of the woods. Using the
HSI values for Largemouth bass, we determined that these two
water bodies provide suitable habitat, but at a cost: space (Stuber
et al. 1982). Theses are extremely small ponds and if Bubba is
going to have the opportunity to do recreational fishing, he should
be able to fish on a legitimate body of water. The plan would be to Figure 7.
expand both the forested pond and the gun range pond to large The current ponds are outlined in dark blue,
sizes. The forested pond would be expanded from its current size while the proposed ponds are outlined in
light blue.
of 0.37 acres up to 2 acres. The gun range pond would be enlarged .
from 0.43 acres up to 3.5 acres. These sizes are not outlandish in
terms of size and can provide lots of recreational fishing opportunities (Figure 7). To enlarge both ponds,
they would need to be drained into the adjacent water features which would be a ditch. Once drained, the
soil would be compacted to ensure that they are sealed to prevent leaks from occurring. Given that we have
property soils data, we know that we have only clay on the property which is promising to keep water in
the pond instead of flowing out (Figure 8). The goal would then to either drill a groundwater well between
50-100 feet down to tap into the Southern Hills Aquifer to groundwater (Supplement 2) as our way to refill
the ponds or we would refill by pumps depending on which would be more cost-efficient (USGS
4/28/2020). Any necessary permitting would be acquired from the respective agency so that we could drill
down to the aquifer if that is the better route. A potential natural water source for refilling the ponds could
potentially be rainfall, but pumping in water either by groundwater well or pumps would ensure that there
would always be water in the ponds. Lime would spread throughout the pond and would be mixed into the
soil before refilling to make sure that the pond has a buffer against any dramatic water quality (pH swings).
With the fill dirt, levees would be built around the perimeter of the pond to minimize the likelihood of any
catastrophic flooding events disrupting the pond ecosystem. There would be drainage in the form of water
control structure near the ditch in between them to allow for easy drainage. The ponds would be regraded
to the appropriate 3:1 slope gradient to ensure that potential erosion is not an issue since the historic 2016
flood most likely deposited quite a lot of sediment from adjacent areas and has changed the depth profile of
the waterbodies (Lutz et al. 2005). The ponds would only be about 6-8 feet maximum depth, but with much
more acreage, the ponds can handle more biomass and become reliable recreational options for Bubba. In
the long-term, fertilizing the pond would take place during the winter or early spring as to not disrupt any
algae in the pond (Lutz et al. 2005). To ensure that dissolved oxygen is at its best year-round, I would
recommend to try solar-powered aeration as to reduce any potential costs for having to try to run
mainstream grid power from either Bubba’s home or from the interstate to the pond edges. This could be
run from the gun range infrastructure by placing panels on top of the roof so that they are minimally
covered by trees and can receive direct sunlight. Power would be run from those panels on top of the gun
range infrastructure to the pond edge where diffused aeration manifolds would be set and would run air out
to different parts of the ponds. It would also be of interest to place automatic fish feeders at the pond edges
to disperse floating feed to supplement both the forage fish in the pond as well as the recreationally
important species.

By restarting the pond over, we can control what

species start off in the pond. Given that we did both a
Largemouth Bass and Channel Catfish HSI, it would be
of interest to try and stock them into these larger pond
units. Based off of our initial HSI for Largemouth Bass,
we could put in more areas with gravel substrate which
would allow for good spawning areas would help
increase the overall suitability of the new ponds.
Structures would be used to provide cover and refuge
for both smaller and larger fish (Flickinger and Bulow
1993). The diffused aeration would hopefully limit the
amount of turnover from strong weather events to
prevent fish kills. Since we are starting fresh, we would
use recommended stocking rates per acre to repopulate
the ponds with Largemouth Bass, Coppernose Bluegill,
and Channel Catfish (Lutz et al. 2005). Fish would be
stocked at appropriate stages starting off by stocking
Coppernose Bluegill in the fall and Largemouth Bass
would be stocked in the following spring to allow for
the forage base to establish itself. Catfish could be
stocked in either the spring or fall. Gravel beds are
optimal spawning habitat for the Largemouth Bass and
Bluegill, however, if there is any interest in trying to
have natural catfish reproduction, shelters such as tires
and cans would need to be added to the ponds. Even
though most people shy away from stocking all of these Figure 8.
species into a single waterbody, there is potential for A soils map that shows all of the soils on
the property are a form of clay which is
coexistence and enhanced fisheries for all of these species
good for retaining water since it is not very
given that appropriate amounts of fish are removed each porous.
season (Lutz et al. 2005).

Yes, there would be costs in the short-term. In the long-term though, from potential sales of the parcel of
mitigated wetland that used to be the pasture as well as timber harvest during selective thinning and select
cutting, it is our belief that Bubba should come out revenue neutral.

2.7 Alternative Fisheries Recommendations

Backup Recommendation:
Supplemental stocking in both the gun range pond as well as the forested pond, remove undesirable species

Rationale:
If Bubba doesn’t feel like draining the ponds and regrading, we could try supplemental stocking of forage
species such as Fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), Golden Shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas), or
 Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense) should enhance the current forage base for recreationally important
species to have ample food (Lutz et al. 2005). However, the overall productivity of the pond will never
attain a status as a great recreational fishing pond as long as these fish are maintained in ponds of these
sizes. There are also several undesirable species that have been noted in catch surveys including Black
Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis), and Green Sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), and other rough fishes have the potential to predate on Largemouth Bass and Bluegill eggs and
fry as well as overpopulate the ponds throwing the aquatic ecosystem out of balance (Lutz et al. 2005).

Consequences of this would be limited since the forage base would be increased for recreationally
important species, undesirable species would be removed and would not impede with the development of
the important species. Ultimately, these ponds would become better recreational fishing ponds, but would
always limit by the size of the waterbody. Also, this may be a cosmetic cover up in that undesirable species
still may be able to enter in the long run and that problem would not be solved.

3.0 Wild Lands

3.1 Current Wild Land Condition
Ideally, we would like the property to be as natural as they can be with only native species, unimpaired
ecosystem function, and aesthetic beauty. However, this property has invasive species on it, impaired
ecosystem functionality, and could use some additions to enhance the aesthetic value of the property.

From trips to the site as well as some forestry, there are a variety of invasive plants such as Chinese Tallow
(Triadica sebifera), Japanese Climbing Fern (Lygodium japonicum), Southern Stinging Nettle (Urtica
dioica), and Stingweed dispersed throughout the forested areas. For aquatic species, there seems to be only
the Asian and the Corbicula clam. However, aquatic macrophytes such as Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta,
Alligator Weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), and Water Hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) are known to be in the surrounding watersheds due to observations of them. They
may not have been cataloged on the property yet through our data, but it only takes 1 animal to bring it
over and for it to establish itself. The hydrology of the land is highly fragmented due to anthropogenic
activities such as building levees and berms, putting up water control structures, and diverting water flow
to different areas. Lastly, areas such as the gun range have little to no aesthetic appeal and take away from
the feeling of the property being wild lands.

3.2 Wild Lands Recommendations

Top Recommendation:
Control for invasives species and plant some trees along the roadway.

Rationale:
Given that very few invasive species have been spotted and they generally haven’t been spotted in large
abundances, it seems rational to not plan for a heavy focus on this aspect of the recommendation. However,
it only takes one organism to introduce an invasive and I want to make sure that there is a plan in case of a
need to take care of removal. For control, it would either be in the form of mechanical removal or chemical
treatments to kill off and remove the invasive. Mechanical removal could involve hiring consultants to take
care of the removal process for submerged aquatic vegetation including by using a Weedoo boat or by
using a rake depending on density. Chemical treatments are not ideal, but could be a last resort option
given that the other methods do not work, but would prove quite effective if done correctly. Any spraying
treatments would need to be done by a certified sprayer.
Planting some trees such as oaks along the gravel driveway might add some aesthetic value to the currently
featureless Gun Range terrain. While there are a few oaks along the path, adding additional trees would
provide more hard mast and habitat for animals to use.

3.3 Alternative Wild Lands Recommendations

Backup Recommendation:
Remove the gun range infrastructure, fill in the borrow pit and pizza slices with water as potential habitat
for crayfish and waterfowl, and put some wedge dams into the creeks and canals

Rationale:
If Bubba truly wants only wild lands, then having man-made infrastructure would be something of interest
to remove. I would recommend against it since the costs associated with taking it down and moving the
leftover material out may ultimately not be worth the hassle of arranging to get that work done.

Flooding the borrow pond and the Pizza Slices could be an option if Bubba wanted to have more crayfish
on his property as forage for some of the species that may rely on them as an energy source. After
evaluating the Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) habitat suitability index, it shows that the
habitat could be conducive to being habitat for them given that the ponds are monitored and changed
throughout the year for variables such as water depth from July to September as well as October through
June. The main way to control these would be to use a water control structure that would lead to some
development which might go against the convention of wild lands (Romaire 2016, Schilderman et al.
1999). However, this could be incorporated with some waterfowl management for Wood Ducks and
Mallards even though they prefer different bottom contours.

Lastly, putting in wedge dams in the creeks and canals may be of interest if there is interest in improving
the pool to riffle ratio of these ephemeral or intermittent creeks and canals. While improving the pool to
riffle ratio, it may not be of much use given that the waters can be quite stagnant, they do not have a high
flow rate, and there is little to no elevation change that would allow for pools and riffles to truly form
besides in a few very selective areas. They also can get quite low on water as the season progresses into
midsummer and ultimately would not provide suitable habitat for species that we would want in any pools
or riffles that we were able to make (Seehorn 1992).

There are no major consequences for these actions since these would be more cosmetic fix ups that may
ultimately prove to be ineffective (wedge dams). The habitat suitability would increase for waterfowl
species and ultimately there would be an increased abundance of an important energy source for many of
the mesocarnivores such as raccoons on the property with the increased suitability of the habitat for the
crayfish.
.
4.0 Timber Resources
4.1 Current Timber Resource Conditions
A variety of tree species can be found around the property
and we would like to conduct timber cruises and assess
canopy cover for current tree stands. By going out in the
field and collecting diameter at breast height measurements
with D-tapes and tree heights with hypsometers on our
timber cruises, we were able to assess average tree sizes, the
quality of timber, potential stand volume, and a volume
estimation for timber amounts and values (USFS 2/12/20).
Removing some of the timber and selling it to neighboring
timber mills may allow for Bubba to earn some money with
which he can invest that money into other activities or for
personal gain.

Sugarberry, American Elm, and Green ash were the tree

most prominent tree species on the property and vastly
outnumbered the majority of the other species.
Figure 9.
Timber Cruise Plots
4.2 Timber Resource Recommendations
Top Recommendation:
Tree thinning around the edges of each area (Pizza Slices, Bottom Land Hardwoods, and Swamplands). In
order to make an additional cash flow, both sawtimber and pulpwood would need to be harvested. The
range of thinning that we are thinking would be in the range of 10-20% of each area.

Rationale:
Tree thinning throughout these areas would provide an opportunity to clear out some of the less desirable
species that may not be important mast producers or valuable trees. This could allow for potential
regeneration of more favorable species for both future tree production if Bubba would like to remove some
trees every so often as an additional revenue stream in the future. To make this action worthwhile and
potentially profitable, it is recommended to harvest some sawtimber as well to increase the value of the
harvest. Given a 10% thinning, the estimated value of timber harvested from these three areas should be
approximately $51,300. Given a 20% thinning with current sawtimber and pulpwood prices, the value of
the timber harvest should be approximately $102, 600 (Table 1). This revenue would be useful for
investing in the development of other projects on the property and would ultimately leave some space for
regeneration of herbaceous species. However, there would be costs associated with getting foresters to thin
the trees, haul them out, and take them to a sawmill. This would be the same sort of situation with the
alternative recommendation though.

Total Value/Acre Block A ($2295.31) Block B ($2573.66) Block C ($1753.66) Total

Acres (92.18) Acres (82.22) Acres (51.27)
10% Harvest $21158.17 $21155.49 $8991.01 $51,304.67
20% Harvest $42316.34 $42310.97 $17982.03 $102,609.34
Table 1.
Estimations of timber value from both sawtimber and pulpwood using the total value per acre estimation.
 Additional benefits of trimming some of the trees is that we can be selective of what we choose to cut and
ultimately double up on making some additional revenue as well as doing management actions to improve
both the white-tailed deer and turkey HSIs. Clearing some of this pulpwood and sawtimber will open up
the upper canopy so that more sunlight can reach the forest floor and aid in the development of herbaceous
plants and trees. Given that we can’t control all of the trees that could regenerate in place of their
predecessor, there will be pulpwood growth again and even though it is not the most valuable product out
on the property, it can provide additional benefits such as snags, cavities, and soft mast for bird species and
small mammals.

4.3 Alternative Timber Resource Recommendations

Backup Recommendation:
Leave the timber as is and wait until pulpwood prices increase before thinning.

Rationale:
By leaving the timber alone, the property will maintain a diverse size structure for the tree species present
as well as the composition of the bottomland hardwood forest on the property (LMVJV 2007). The
eventual goal would be to harvest the pulpwood when prices are higher so that more money can be earned
from there sale. Higher sale prices can ultimately contribute to more money going into restoration and
other management actions.

Consequences of this alternative action are minimal. Ultimately, recreation might suffer in the short term
since there would not be any active management to improve habitat, but in the long run, there would
hopefully be additional revenue made from waiting as a reward.

5.0 Easements
5.1 Current Easement Conditions
The 110 acres of open pasture land could be used as potential area as
part of a conservation easement. This property used to a historic
wetland before it was converted into pasture land which now lays
unused. These easements are meant to be voluntary programs that
provide aid in the form of financial aid to eligible landowners to
address wetland and wildlife habitat concerns in a cost-effective and
environmentally friendly manner. The property has lots of invasive
grasses and provides an opportunity to potentially be enrolled as part
of a wetland mitigation bank in the future after restoration with the
idea being that we could look to restore, enhance, or create additional
wetland habitat on the property to auction off as part of a mitigation
bank. offset damage caused mostly from development. The property
would be appraised and given a mitigation credit value. Companies
or groups who need to mitigate for development projects can
approach these mitigations banks and buy as many credits as they Figure 10.
want from the mitigation bank until the bank has no credits left. The Location of ~110-acre portion of
pasture land that could be used for
companies that buy the credits pay the mitigation bank and Bubba
wetland mitigation or as a conservation
would maintain the property (Green Coast 2019). easement.
Some of the plant species observed there according to previous data collections including clovers, grasses,
and berry producers to name a few. Out of the roughly 23 species compiled in the
“Capstone_All_Pasture_Plots_Field_Data” sheet, only 11 species have any wetland indicator status and
they are vastly outnumbered by frequency of occurrence compared to other species. The landscape is
currently dominated by non-wetland associated species.

5.2 Easement Recommendations

Top Recommendation:
Enroll the pasture land in the Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE) program with the hope of getting funding
for restoration actions in the near future. Roll that portion of the property into a wetland mitigation bank.

Rationale:
There are large caveats to this recommendation. First off, the land would have to be enrolled into the WRE
program which will require some work. Generally, individuals are required to have owned the property for
at least 2 years before individuals can offer land up for an easement unless the property was inherited or it
can be shown that the purpose of acquiring the property was not to enroll it in the program. Given that
Bubba never specifically said that he wanted to make it an easement and that he just wanted to know about
the potential easement programs that he could enroll in if he wanted to, Bubba would be qualified for a
waiver request. The land must also be farmed or prior converted wetlands which is what the pasture was
before its current life. This conservation easement is just like many of the others in that the transaction may
take a while; up to a few years even. This easement plan also does not guarantee funding to help cover
costs associated with restoration of the property. However, we would look to try to obtain funding. It is a
long-term commitment (either in 30-year easements or permanent easements), but the payoff can be
worthwhile if individuals can get funding or not (NRCS 2016).

If Bubba can get funding given that this pasture land restoration is competitive enough, enrolling in a 30-
year easement can yield easement payments valued at 75% of what would be paid for a permanent
easement and the USDA will pay for 75% of the restoration costs. If Bubba cannot get funding from the
WRE, it becomes more expensive, but can pay off in the long run (NRCS 2016). Bubba would have to
adhere to the restrictions stated in the WRE easement agreement as well as apply for compatible use
permits to maintain the area. In regards to restoration actions, the goal would be to try to restore the
functionality of the system while doing minimally invasive practices if possible. Since the pasture is full of
mostly invasive grasses, it would be the first objective to remove invasive plants by mechanical methods
before restoring the area with native species. It would be ideal if we could kill the invasives and use
bioengineering to use the dead plant material to fertilize and allow for the proliferation of the native species
that we replant. A restoration method that may be conducive to stopping future invasives from establishing
themselves in the field might be to use a tile break so that our downstream drainage can be maintained as
well as fill the wetland area up with some water (Michigan DNR 5/6/20).

This could pay off in the long run since Bubba would hopefully enroll this parcel of restored land into a
wetland mitigation bank. He would already be legally able to do that given that he is protected by legal
documentation (TAMU 3/27/20, TALT 3/27/20). By doing this, it should have a high mitigation value per
acre based off an LRAM evaluation. Individuals ultimately looking to purchase wetland mitigation credits
to offset adverse impacts to other wetlands through projects may have interest in buying an area of land
that is already restored instead of having to hire others to manage and perform restoration activities. Based
off of estimates by my colleagues, we calculated that the mitigation potential for this property could be 1.5
credits per acre. The pasture is made of 110 acres giving us a value of 165 credits. According to an industry
resource, the price of a credit was around $25,000. Given that this purchase is made, Bubba would make
$4,125,000 from the sale of that parcel of land.

5.3 Alternative Easement Recommendations

Backup Recommendation:
Either enroll in just an easement like the WRE solely or not enroll in an easement at all.

Rationale:
The difference between the backup recommendation and the top recommendation is that Bubba would not
look to roll over the property into a wetland mitigation bank in the future as stated in the top
recommendation. This opens up other potential options for Bubba. Wetland Reserve easements have term
periods for either 30 years or permanently. By enrolling in in the 30-year term lease WRE, Bubba would
incur losses associated with restoration whether or not he was funded or not by the NRCS (either 100%of
restoration costs if not funded and 25% of costs if funded). The permanent lease would provide Bubba with
the potential for the NRCS to cover 100% of the restoration costs if funded. In the long run, by just
enrolling in an easement, Bubba would be limited with what he could do with the property. The 30-year
easement would allow for Bubba to get control of the property back in 30 years. The permanent easement
restricts any potential development indefinitely.

The other option is to not enroll in any easement program at all. However, this would leave the primary
area of focus (pasture) unattended to. It does allow for potential development there if Bubba has a change
of heart on maintaining wild lands in the future.

Consequences would mainly lie in the fact that there would be no additional revenues from the sale of the
restored wetland that Bubba would get from the top recommendation.

5.4 Non-Eligible Easement Options

While there are a wide range of easement options that we went through, there were many that you would
not be eligible for given the easement requirements and criteria. I will briefly go over these to address why
they are not valid for your purposes.

First off, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was a program very similar to the Wetland Reserve
Easement program that I have recommended, however there are inherently some differences. They were
similar in the fact that they both offered a permanent easement option as well as a 30-year easement option.
However, the WRP differed in that there was a third option which was an agreement to reestablish
degraded or lost wetland and is not bound as an easement. When properties were enrolled in the WRP,
landowners agreed to restore and manage portions of land as wetlands and they needed to restrict both
agricultural and other activities that might be detrimental to the wetland management. They retained the
title for the property and control of recreational uses, enjoyment, access, and water rights not implicated
with the wetland management on the property. They even provided compensation for the right to restore
the land. Unfortunately, the WRP was repealed by the Agricultural Act of 2014 and merged into the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) making it not possible for you to enroll in it (NRCS
2/12/20).
 Secondly, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) was another promising option given that it offers
landowners technical and financial assistance to improve wildlife habitat on agricultural land or non-
industrial private forest land with relatively short-term contracts compared to other easement programs (10
years maximum). However, this was also repealed by the Agricultural Act of 2014 given that it was merged
into the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) (NRCS 2/12/20).

Third, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) is another voluntary conservation program
that is meant to balance environmental quality with agricultural practices. Individuals enrolled in this
program can receive financial and technical assistance to implement land management and conservation
practices. The biggest stipulation of this program is that an individual has to be engaged in some sort of
agricultural production whether that is livestock, forestry, or crop production. Even though you may have
an eligible land type (pasture), given that you are not an active agriculture producer, this program does not
fit (NRCS 2/12/20).

Next, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is another conservation easement program that contracts
agricultural producers to remove environmental sensitive land from potential agriculture use and devote
that land to conservation. For doing this, farmers receive rental payments as well as potential cost-sharing
for any sort of restoration. These contracts are also relatively short with a term duration of 10-15 years.
However, you must be an agricultural producer and you must have owned or operated the land for at least
12 months prior to the signup deadline. Unfortunately, Bubba does not fit into either of those situations
(FSA 3/27/20).

Lastly, there are also non-governmental organization (NGO) conservation easements such as Ducks
Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) that can provide provides easement opportunities to private
landowners, however, their data on restrictions and regulations are difficult to access (Ducks 2/12/20).
These organizations often rely on voluntary easement donations if they do not have the funding to purchase
those rights. Even if these NGOs have the funding to buy up conservation easements, they may not be
willing to purchase it if it does not have a high enough conservation priority for them or does not line up
with their organization’s interests. However, they may help to find another organization to accept or
possibly purchase the easement.

6.0 Other Things to Consider

6.1 Gun Range Condition
The gun range currently is in useable condition as evidenced by the fact that before the purchase of the
property, the range was used for firearm training. The facilities are minimal so it is not very intrusive. To
remove it might cost more than it is worth so my recommendation is to repurpose it.

6.2 Gun Range Recommendations

Top Recommendation:
Use the standing infrastructure to build some sort of storage building for fish feed, tools, and equipment.
Install solar panels on top of the infrastructure to act as both a power source for any electrical appliances in
the building, but mainly as an energy source for the diffused aeration at both of the ponds.

Rationale:
Using the standing infrastructure puts that area of the property to use and could even increase the value of
the property in the long run if maintained. At the end of the day, it would be a storage shed that could hold
equipment such as fishing poles, tools, and additional items that Bubba may have. Storing fish feed in the
shed would provide a dry place to ensure that the feed does not become saturated and would ultimately
limit the distance for bringing fish feed to feeders at the pond edges for supplemental feeding. This is not
the main intention behind repurposing the gun range, but provides additional benefits at a marginal cost.

The true intention of the repurposed gun range is to provide a place to put multiple solar panels that are out
of the way. Placing them on top of the roof provides both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages might
include that they would be in a position where nothing would cover them like a tree might and it is out of
the way and is not an eye sore to look at. However, maintenance could be tricky and would most likely
require someone with expertise in maintenance to repair them if they were to get damaged. Most
companies do provide long term warranties on such items so if something were to break, they could
potentially cover it. This setup would allow for your power source to be fully powered by solar energy
which would save costs on electricity as well as on costs associated with trying to get electricity out to that
portion of the property. All of the power would be centralized around the gun range storage shed and
electricity could be run out to the pond edges from this one source.

6.3 Alternative Recommendation

Backup Recommendation:
Leave the gun range alone or tear it down.

Rationale:
No action here is another feasible option if you don’t want to invest in it, but you should ultimately keep
maintaining it so that there is no structural failure from rusting or diminishing structural integrity. I would
say though that if you plan to maintain it, you might as well make use of it in some shape or form if you
already have it. If you don’t plan to maintain it, it will fall and then it will either have to be left or removed
which might end up being an additional thing to worry about.

You could tear it down. It would cost some money to hire a crew or to get equipment there to level the gun
range framework as well as breaking up the foundation if you want to completely get rid of it. At that point
you would probably want to have the material removed which might be incur additional charges or even
require others to be brought in. The difficult that might be potentially linked to tearing it down seems to be
more trouble than you or I would prefer to deal with. Also, heavy machinery would most certainly ruin the
wild lands given that there would be loud man-made noises for an extended period of time which might
scare off animals.
Supplement:
Species Location Average K Value
Alligator Gar pond in forest 0.31
Black Crappie pond in forest 1.32
Gizzard Shad canal 0.83
Gizzard Shad pond in forest 0.66
Largemouth Bass canal 1.25
Red Ear Sunfish pond in forest 1.11
Smallmouth Buffalo canal 1.56
Spotted Gar canal 0.42
Warmouth canal 1.87
Supplement 1. Fulton’s K values
A Fulton’s K value of over is indicative of good condition while a value close to 0 signifies poor condition. As we can see,
there are only 2 species (Alligator and Spotted gar) that have K values less than 0.5. This shows that the majority of
species are doing well in these conditions, however, by providing additional resources, the K values could go even higher.

Supplement 2: Groundwater Map

Groundwater map from USGS report
on the Water Resources of the
Southern Hills Regional Aquifer
System, Southeastern Louisiana. The
purpose of this supplement is to
justify why a groundwater well might
work, but the inherent risks associated
with it. By drilling too deep, the
groundwater composition changes
from freshwater to saltwater. That is
why less than 100 feet depth would be
ideal to reach the groundwater
reserves in the area. NGVD is the
term for sea level. The red circle
denotes Iberville Parish and the red
line indicates the relative depth of the
groundwater well.
7.0 Literature Cited
Allen, A.W. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: Mallard (Winter habitat, Lower Mississippi Valley). United
States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Representative. 82(10.132). 37 pp.
Daniel. W. M., K. M. Brown, and M. D. Kaller. 2014. A tiered aquatic life unit bioassessment model for Gulf of
Mexico coastal streams. Fisheries Management and Ecology 21:491-502.
Deer Management Assistance Program 2016-2017. n.d. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
(LDWF). <http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/pagehunting/41394-deer-management-
assistance-program-dmap/dmap_annual_report_16-17.pdf>. Accessed 12 Feb 2020.
Ducks Unlimited Conservation Easements. n.d.
<http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation/Conservation_Documents/_documents/ConservationEasme
ntBrochure.pdf > Accessed 12 Feb 2020.
Farm Service Agency (FSA). n.d. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). <
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-
program/>. Accessed 27 April 2020.
Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr, and L. L. Conquest. 1994. Statistical Properties of an Index of Biological Integrity Used
to Evaluate Water Resources. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51(5):1077-1087.
Flickinger, S.A., Bulow, F.J. 1993. Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American Fisheries
Society. Chapter 20: Small Impoundments, p. 469-492.
Green Coast. 2019. Wetland Mitigation Overview: 9 Pros and Cons to Consider. Green Coast.
<https://greencoast.org/wetland-mitigation/> Accessed 12 Feb 2020.
Huebner, C. D. 2007. NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 14(2). Second edition.
Kaller, M. D., Kelso, W. E., and Trexler, J. C. 2013. Wetland Techniques. Volume 2. Organisms, Springer,
Dordrecht. Chapter 6: Wetland Fish Monitoring and Assessment, p.197-265.
LMVJV Forest Resource Conservation Working Group. 2007. Restoration, Management, and Monitoring of
Forest Resources in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Recommendations for Enhancing Wildlife Habitat.
< https://www.landcan.org/pdfs/MAV_Desired_Forest_Conditions_Final_Report_2007.pdf>. Accessed
28 April 2020.
Lutz, C. G., T. Hymel, and W. E. Kelso. 2005. Management of Recreational and Farm Ponds in Louisiana.
Louisiana State University AgCenter. Publication ID:2573.
McComb, B. C. 2010. Monitoring animal populations and their habitats: a practitioner’s guide. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources [Michigan DNR]. n.d. Wetland Restoration Techniques. <
https://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Landowners_Guide/Resource_D
ir/Acrobat/Wetland_Restoration_Techniques.PDF>. Accessed 6 May 2020.
Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. n.d. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
<https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/>.Accessed 12 Feb 2020.
Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2016. How NRCS Wetland Reserve Easements Work. <
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd888660.pdf>. Accessed 27 April
2020.
Romaire, R. P. 2016. 2017 Coastal Master Plan: C3-19 – Crayfish, Procambarus clarkii and P. zonangulus,
Habitat Suitability Index Model. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Version II:1-29. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
Schilderman, P. A. E. L., E. J. C. Moonen, L. M. Maas, I. Welle, and J. C. S. Kleinjans. 1999. Use of Crayfish
in Biomonitoring Studies of Environmental Pollution of the River Meuse. Exotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 44(3):241-252.
Schroeder, R. L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Eastern wild turkey. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service
Biological Representative. 82(10.106). 33 pp.
Seehorn, M. E. 1992. Stream Habitat Improvement Handbook. United States Forest Service [USFS]. Technical
Publication R8-TP 16.
Short, H. L. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: White-tailed deer in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
coastal plains. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biological Representative. 82(10.123). 36 pp.
Sousa, P. J., and A. H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Wood duck. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-92/10.43. 27 pp.
Stuber, R. J., G. Gebgart, and O. E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Largemouth bass. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.16. 32 pp.
Texas A&M AGRILIFE Extension [TAMU]. n.d. Mitigation Banking. < https://valuewetlands.tamu.edu/land-
use-goals-and-resources/mitigation-banking/>. Accessed 27 April 2020.
Texas Agricultural Land Trust [TALT]. n.d. Mitigation & Conservation Banking in a Nutshell. <
https://www.txaglandtrust.org/conservation/mitigationbanking/>. Accessed 27 April 2020.
Timossi, I. C., E. L. Woodard, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Habitat suitability models for use with ARC/INFO:
Raccoon. California Department of Fish and Game. CWHR Program, Sacramento, CA. CWHR Tech.
Report No. 18. 19 pp.
United States Forest Service [USFS]. n.d. About Forest Products Measurement.
<https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/measurement/aboutus.shtml> Accessed 12 Feb
2020.
United States Geologic Survey [USGS]. n.d. Water Resources of the Southern Hills Regional Aquifer System,
Southeastern Louisiana. < https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2017/3010/fs20173010.pdf>. Accessed 28 April
2020.