United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Region

Appendix H - By-unit Analysis for various 

Ecological Systems and 

Species Associations

Prepared for Land Management Plan Revision 

December 2012 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 

(TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-i

Table of Contents

H.1 Ecosystems................................................................................................................................................. H-1

H.1.1 Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland...................................................................................... H-1

H.1.2 Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland .......................................................................................... H-4

H.1.3 Loblolly Forest.................................................................................................................................... H-8

H.1.4 Slash Pine ......................................................................................................................................... H-11

H.1.5 Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest ........................................................................................... H-15

H.1.6 Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest ........................................................................................... H-17

H.1.7 Southern Mesic Slope Forest ............................................................................................................ H-19

H.1.8 Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest .................................................................................................... H-20

H.1.9 Floodplain Forest.............................................................................................................................. H-22

H.1.10 Xeric Sandhills.................................................................................................................................. H-24

H.1.11 Cypress Dominated Wetlands........................................................................................................... H-25

H.1.12 Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps .............................................................................................. H-26

H.1.13 Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats................................................................................................. H-27

H.2 Species Groups and Associations........................................................................................... ................ H-29

H.2.1 Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Associates................................................................................. H-29

H.2.2 Mature Mesic Deciduous Forest Associates ....................................................................................... H-30

H.2.3 Mature Open Pine Grass Associates................................................................................................... H-31

H.2.4 Mature Riparian Forest Associates ..................................................................................................... H-32

H.2.5 Mature Upland Pine-Hardwood Associates........................................................................................ H-33

H.2.6 Prairie Associates................................................................................................................................ H-34

H.2.7 Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Associates .............................................................................. H-35

H.2.8 Bat Roost Structure Group.................................................................................................................. H-36

H.2.9 Den Tree Associates ........................................................................................................................... H-37

H.2.10 Forest Interior Birds Group............................................................................................................... H-38

H.2.11 Species Dependent on Fire to Maintain Habitat ............................................................................... H-39

H.2.12 Species Sensitive to Hydrologic Modification of Wetlands ............................................................. H-40

H.2.13 Calciphiles Associates ...................................................................................................................... H-41

H.2.14 Species Sensitive to Canopy Cover .................................................................................................. H-41

List of Tables

Table H 1. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by 

unit and alternative........................................................................................................................................... H-1

Table H 2. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit 

and alternative.................................................................................................................................................. H-4 

Table H 3. Loblolly forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative........... H-8

Table H 4. Slash pine forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative ...... H-12

Table H 5. Northern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-15 

Table H 6. Southern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-18 

Table H 7. Southern mesic slope forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative

...................................................................................................................................................... H-20 

Table H 8. Northern mesic hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-21 

Table H 9. Floodplain forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative ..... H-23

Table H 10. Cypress dominated wetlands ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-26 

Table H 11. Seeps, springs, and seepage swamps ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-26 
H-ii National Forests in Mississippi 

Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

Table H 12. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-27 

Table H 13. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings 

by unit and alternative..................................................................................................................................... H-29 

Table H 14. Mature mesic deciduous forest associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by 

unit and alternative.......................................................................................................................................... H-30 

Table H 15. Mature open pine-grass associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ....................................................................................................................................................... H-31 

Table H 16. Mature riparian forest associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative ....................................................................................................................................................... H-32 

Table H 17. Mature upland pine-hardwood associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by 

unit and alternative.......................................................................................................................................... H-33 

Table H 18. Prairie associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative ..... H-34 

Table H 19. Seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by

unit and alternative............................................................................................................................... ....... H-35 

Table H 20. Bat roost structure group ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative 

........................................................................................................................................................................ H-36 

Table H 21. Den tree associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative .. H-37 

Table H 22. Calciphiles associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and alternative H-41 

List of Figures

Figure H 1. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and 

unit ................................................................................................................................................................... H-1 

Figure H 2. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland restoration acres by alternative and unit ............................ H-2 

Figure H 3. Percent of upland longleaf pine forest and woodland in mature open canopy condition ...................... H-3 

Figure H 4. Percent of upland longleaf pine forest and woodland burned at desired interval by alternative and unit H3 

Figure H 5. Percent of upland longleaf pine forest and woodland burned in the growing season by alternative and 

unit ................................................................................................................................................................... H-4 

Figure H 6. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and 

unit ................................................................................................................................................................... H-5 

Figure H 7. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland percentage in appropriate system by alternative and unit ...... H-5 

Figure H 8. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland percentage mature open by alternative and unit .................... H-6 

Figure H 9. Percent of shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland burned at desired interval by alternative and unit . H-7 

Figure H 10. Percent of shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland burned in the growing season by alternative and unit 

......................................................................................................................................................................... H-7 

Figure H 11. Loblolly pine forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit ..................... H-8 

Figure H 12. Acres of loblolly restored to appropriate system................................................................................. H-9 

Figure H 13. Percent of loblolly forest in mature open (high function) condition.................................................. H-10 

Figure H 14. Percent of loblolly burned at the desired interval by alternative and unit ......................................... H-11 

Figure H 15. Percent of loblolly pine forest burned in the growing season by alternative and unit ....................... H-11 

Figure H 16. Slash pine forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit ........................ H-12 

Figure H 17. Slash pine forest percent burned in growing season at desired interval ............................................ H-13 

Figure H 18. Percent of slash pine forest in mature open (high function) condition .............................................. H-13 

Figure H 19. Percent of slash pine forest burned at desired interval by alternative and unit .................................. H-14 

Figure H 20. Percent of slash pine forest burned in the growing season by alternative and unit ........................... H-14

Figure H 21. Northern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit 

....................................................................................................................................................................... H-15 

Figure H 22. Percent of northern dry upland hardwood forest exposed to fire at desired interval by alternative and unit

................................................................................................................................................................. H-16 

Figure H 23. Percent of northern dry upland hardwood forest in appropriate system by alternative and unit ....... H-17 

Figure H 24. Percent of northern dry upland hardwood forest in mature forest ..................................................... H-17 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-iii

Figure H 25. Southern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit 

....................................................................................................................................................................... H-18 

Figure H 26. Percent of southern dry upland hardwood forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit ....... H-19 

Figure H 27. Southern mesic slope forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit ...... H-19 

Figure H 28. Percent of southern mesic slope forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit ....................... H-20 

Figure H 29. Northern mesic hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit H-21 

Figure H 30. Percent of northern mesic slope forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit ....................... H-22 

Figure H 31. Floodplain forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit ....................... H-22 

Figure H 32. Percent of floodplain forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit........................................ H-24 

Figure H 33. Percent of xeric sandhills burned at desired interval by alternative and unit..................................... H-24 

Figure H 34. Percent of xeric sandhills burned in the growing season by alternative and unit .............................. H-25 

Figure H 35. Cypress dominated wetlands ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit..... H-25 

Figure H 36. Percent of herbaceous seepage bogs and flats burned at desired interval by alternative ................... H-27 

Figure H 37. Percent of herbaceous seepage bogs and flats burned in the growing season by alternative ............. H-28 

Figure H 38. Mature mesic deciduous forest associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores by unit and alternative......................................................................................................................... H-30 

Figure H 39. Mature open pine-grass associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

unit and alternative......................................................................................................................................... H-31 

Figure H 40. Mature riparian forest associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

unit and alternative......................................................................................................................................... H-32 

Figure H 41. Mature upland pine-hardwood associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores by unit and alternative......................................................................................................................... H-33 

Figure H 42. Prairie associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-34 

Figure H 43. Seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates current and estimated ecological sustainability 

evaluation scores by unit and alternative ........................................................................................................ H-35 

Figure H 44. Bat roost structure group current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-36 

Figure H 45. Den tree associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-37 

Figure H 46. Forest interior birds group current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

alternative and unit......................................................................................................................................... H-38 

Figure H 47. Species dependent on fire to maintain habitat current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores by alternative and unit......................................................................................................................... H-39 

Figure H 48. Species sensitive to hydrologic modification of wetlands current and estimated ecological sustainability 

evaluation scores by alternative and unit ....................................................................................................... H-40 

Figure H 49. Calciphiles associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores by unit and 

alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... H-41 

Figure H 50. Species sensitive to canopy cover modifications current and estimated ecological sustainability 

evaluation scores by unit and alternative ....................................................................................................... H-42 
This page intentionally left blank 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-1 

This appendix was created to include additional by unit analysis for ecosystems and species associations 

where data was available and necessary to better understand the effects of each alternative within the EIS. 

H.1 Ecosystems

H.1.1 Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland

As shown in Figure H 1 and Table H 1, alternatives A and B contribute little to the restoration and 

maintenance of upland longleaf. Alternatives C, D, and E are more successful, but will still require 

decades to achieve all restoration goals. 

Figure H 1. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores 

by alternative and unit

Table H 1. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores 

and rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current Alt. A 1st

Decade

Alt. A 5th

Decade

Alt. B 1st

Decade

Alt. B 5th

Decade

Alt. C 1st

Decade

Alt. C 5th

Decade

Alt. D 1st

Decade

Alt. D 5th

Decade

Alt. E 1st

Decade

Alt. E 5th

Decade

Bienville 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.07 2.19 1.97 2.19 2.35 2.30 2.35 2.30 1.97 2.41 2.16 

Chickasawhay 

Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good 

2.69 2.31 2.21 2.31 2.02 2.69 2.79 2.88 2.69 2.50 2.79 

De Soto 

Good Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Good 

2.53 2.33 2.38 2.52 2.22 2.62 2.33 2.62 2.48 2.72 2.78 

Homochitto 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.35 2.08 2.05 2.19 1.86 2.08 2.05 2.19 2.38 2.19 2.30 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-2 National Forests in Mississippi 

The key attributes and corresponding actions to assure the ecological sustainability are as follows: 

• Percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 2) 

• Percent of occurrences in mature open canopy conditions (Figure H 3) 

• Percent acres burned at the desired interval and seasonality/intensity (Figure H 4 and Figure H 5) 

Figure H 2. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland restoration acres by alternative and unit

Despite the impressive change over time depicted in Figure H 2, and the acreage being restored, upland 

longleaf pine ecosystem still only scores as “good” in even the most ambitious alternatives. These scores 

are due in part to the fact that less than 3 percent of the original longleaf coverage remains rangewide due 

to forest management practices of the 20th century. While National Forest System lands, in general, 

harbor more longleaf than the surrounding landscape, National Forests in Mississippi has not been 

immune to longleaf decline. The amount of restoration needed to achieve a “good” rating is likely to 

require intensive efforts well into the 22nd century. 

Alternative A contributes little to the restoration of upland longleaf while alternative B, based on our 

current trajectory, shows some improvement by the 5th decade. Alternatives C, D, and E are considerably 

more successful, but will still require decades to achieve all restoration goals. 

It is worth noting that lower restoration rates, particularly on the Bienville, are due, in part, to 

management of red-cockaded woodpeckers in mature loblolly pine forests. This management limits the 

number of acres that can be restored to upland longleaf in the near term. As adjacent restored longleaf 

stands mature to the point of accommodating red-cockaded woodpecker needs, the need to retain mature 

loblolly will decrease accordingly. 

Where upland longleaf currently exists or restoration is planned, the desired condition of occurrences is 

canopy closure of less than 80 percent and trees 60 years old and older. Under all but alternative A, 

occurrences extant at any given time are in most cases meeting the criteria for mature open conditions 

(Figure H 3) based on thinning and burning activities. The percentages shown for alternative B, while 

impressive, are based on fewer restored acres than alternatives C, D, and E. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-3 

Figure H 3. Percent of upland longleaf pine forest and woodland in mature open canopy condition

Figure H 4 and Figure H 5 show fire regime variables by alternative. Herbaceous dominated understories, 

including grasses and forbs, are important attributes of healthy longleaf ecosystems best achieved by the 

application of frequent growing season fire, ideally once every 1 to 3 years (desired interval). These data 

show that both fire frequency and seasonality/intensity, in most cases, are well within the “good” to “very 

good” range and increase respectively from alternatives C thru E. It is worth noting, that alternatives C, 

D, and E, due to increasing restored acres by alternative, are achieving high scores while burning 

significantly more acres. 

Figure H 4. Percent of upland longleaf pine forest and woodland burned at desired interval by 

alternative and unit
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-4 National Forests in Mississippi 

Figure H 5. Percent of upland longleaf pine forest and woodland burned in the growing season by 

alternative and unit

H.1.2 Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland

As shown in Figure H 6 and Table H 2, alternative A contributes little to the restoration and maintenance 

of shortleaf-oak while alternatives B and E, shows some improvement over time but still all show a fair 

overall ecological sustainability evaluation score. Alternatives C and D are more successful, but will still 

require decades to achieve all restoration goals. Only alternatives C and D show acceptable rates of 

ecological sustainability by the 5th decade. 

Table H 2. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current Alt. A 1st

Decade

Alt. A 5th

Decade

Alt. B 1st

Decade

Alt. B 5th

Decade

Alt. C 1st

Decade

Alt. C 5th

Decade

Alt. D 1st

Decade

Alt. D 5th

Decade

Alt. E 1st

Decade

Alt. E 5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

1.83 1.49 1.49 2.03 2.46 1.97 2.62 1.86 2.81 1.86 2.38 

Bienville 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.08 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.14 2.22 2.14 2.14 2.25 2.33 

Holly 

Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

2.16 1.72 1.61 2.06 2.39 2.56 2.67 2.33 2.78 2.42 2.42 

Trace 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

1.74 1.53 1.53 2.03 2.41 2.03 2.59 1.94 2.79 1.94 2.44 

Yalobusha 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Fair 

2.28 1.74 1.63 2.03 2.34 2.51 2.63 2.51 2.86 2.46 2.43 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-5 

Figure H 6. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

alternative and unit

The primary key attributes and corresponding actions to assure the ecological sustainability are as 

follows: 

• Percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 7) 

• Percent of occurrences in mature open canopy conditions (Figure H 8) 

• Percent acres burned at the desired interval and seasonality/intensity (Figure H 9 and Figure H 10). 

Figure H 7. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland percentage in appropriate system by 

alternative and unit
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-6 National Forests in Mississippi 

Alternative A does not increase the coverage of this ecosystem over time. In alternatives B and C, 

however, coverage does increase somewhat by the 5th decade. Alternatives D and E, on the other hand, 

contribute significantly to the increased abundance of this system type especially on the Holly Springs 

and Yalobusha units. The Bienville unit contains relatively little potential acreage for this system type and 

therefore changes little over time by alternative. 

Figure H 8. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland percentage mature open by alternative and 

unit

With the exception of the Bienville unit which contains little shortleaf-oak, estimated outcomes regarding 

mature open conditions vary widely by alternative and unit. Overall, alternative D and to a lesser extent 

alternative E, provide the best canopy and age class conditions by the 5th decade due to more extensive 

thinning activities. Alternative C also provides some improvements in both decades while alternative B 

provides only modest improvements. Alternative A shows degradation to the system by the 5th decade, 

again with the exception of the Bienville unit which is related to red-cockaded woodpecker habitat 

management mandates. 

Figure H 9 and Figure H 10 below show fire regime variables by alternative. Herbaceous dominated 

understories, including grasses and forbs, are important attributes of healthy shortleaf-oak ecosystems 

best achieved by the application of frequent growing season fire, ideally once every 1 to 3 years (desired 

interval). 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-7 

Figure H 9. Percent of shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland burned at desired interval by 

alternative and unit

Alternative A does not allow for any prescribed fire on the following units: Ackerman, Holly Springs, 

Trace, and Yalobusha. As a result, only Bienville occurrences of shortleaf-oak will receive prescribed fire 

under this alternative due to threatened and endangered mandates. 

All other alternatives show general improvement in fire regimes by the 5th decade although alternative B 

show somewhat mixed results when examined by unit. Alternatives C, D, and E are estimated to best 

provide for the long-term fire needs of this ecosystem, scoring “good” or “very good” for each decade by 

each alternative for each unit. 

Figure H 10. Percent of shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland burned in the growing season by 

alternative and unit
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-8 National Forests in Mississippi 

H.1.3 Loblolly Forest

Figure H 11. Loblolly pine forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit

Table H 3. Loblolly forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative

Unit Current Alt. A 1st

Decade

Alt. A 5th

Decade

Alt. B 1st

Decade

Alt. B 5th

Decade

Alt. C 1st

Decade

Alt. C 5th

Decade

Alt. D 1st

Decade

Alt. D 5th

Decade

Alt. E 1st

Decade

Alt. E 5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good 

2.32 1.80 1.80 2.12 2.12 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.88 2.44 2.76 

Bienville 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good 

2.06 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.64 2.64 

Chickasawhay 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.25 2.24 2.36 2.24 2.36 2.56 2.68 2.56 2.68 2.56 2.68 

De Soto 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.33 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.96 2.96 

Holly Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.22 1.88 1.88 2.04 2.04 2.52 2.64 2.52 2.64 2.68 2.80 

Homochitto 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good 

2.03 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.28 2.28 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 

Trace 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good 

2.16 1.80 1.80 2.12 2.12 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.88 2.44 2.76 

Yalobusha 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.34 1.88 1.88 2.04 2.04 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.64 2.68 2.80 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-9 

As shown in Figure H 11 and Table H 3, alternatives A and B contribute little to the restoration loblolly 

pine forest to native ecosystems while alternatives C, D, and E, are more successful achieving acceptable 

ratings forest-wide by the 1st decade, but will still require decades to achieve all restoration goals. 

Alternative A does not allow for any forest management on the following units: Ackerman, Holly Springs, 

Trace, and Yalobusha. In other alternatives, restoration efforts will take longer on some units than on 

others depending on amount, age, and condition of loblolly pine forest to restore to desirable ecosystems. 

For example, on the Ackerman and Trace units, restoration of loblolly to native ecosystems is not as 

urgently needed as on other units where upland longleaf restoration is a high priority. The Bienville unit, 

on the other hand, contains red-cockaded woodpecker populations in loblolly forest which takes 

precedence over longleaf restoration. In this case, loblolly forest should not be removed until suitable 

mature longleaf stands are available nearby for red-cockaded woodpecker. 

The primary key attributes and corresponding actions to assure the ecological sustainability are as 

follows: 

• Percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 12) 

• Percent of occurrences in mature open canopy conditions (Figure H 13) 

• Percent acres burned at the desired interval and seasonality/intensity (Figure H 14 and Figure H 15). 

Figure H 12. Acres of loblolly restored to appropriate system

As loblolly forests are restored to native ecosystems, the remaining loblolly forest acreage decreases 

becoming easier to manage for desired structural conditions. Where loblolly forest currently exists or is 

not yet restored at any given time, the desired condition of occurrences is canopy closure of less than 80 

percent and trees 60 years old and older in order to achieve high function conditions that emulate mature 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-10 National Forests in Mississippi 

native ecosystem types such as longleaf. Under all alternatives, occurrences extant at any given time are 

in most cases not meeting the criteria for mature open conditions based on thinning, with the exception of 

the Chickasawhay unit. Due to the massive spatial extent of loblolly pine forest on most units, thinning 

operations are unlikely to be completed prior to restoration to longleaf. Thinned loblolly pine forest tends 

to revert to closed canopy conditions over time if not periodically re-thinned thus creating a cycle of 

thinning needs that is extremely difficult to successfully meet at the scale required. 

Figure H 13. Percent of loblolly forest in mature open (high function) condition

Fire frequency and seasonality/intensity goals also become easier as loblolly forest coverage decreases 

(Figure H 14 and Figure H 15). 

Alternative A does not allow for any prescribed fire on the following units: Ackerman, Holly Springs, 

Trace, and Yalobusha. All other alternatives show general improvement in fire regimes by the 5th decade 

although alternative B shows somewhat mixed results when examined by unit. Alternatives C, D, and E 

are expected to provide for the long-term fire needs of this ecosystem, scoring “good” or “very good” for 

each decade by each alternative for each unit. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-11

Figure H 14. Percent of loblolly burned at the desired interval by alternative and unit

Figure H 15. Percent of loblolly pine forest burned in the growing season by alternative and unit

H.1.4 Slash Pine

As shown in Figure H 16 and Table H 4, alternative A does not allow for any forest management on the 

following units: Ackerman, Trace, and Yalobusha. In other alternatives, restoration efforts will take longer 

on some units than on others depending on amount, age, and condition of slash pine forest to restore to 

desirable ecosystems. For example, on the Ackerman, Trace, and Yalobusha units, restoration of slash 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-12 National Forests in Mississippi 

pine to native ecosystems is not as urgently needed as on other units where upland longleaf restoration is 

a high priority. These units also contain very little slash pine forest and therefore are not represented in 

many scoring datasets. 

Figure H 16. Slash pine forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit

Table H 4. Slash pine forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative

Unit Current Alt. A 1st

Decade

Alt. A 5th

Decade

Alt. B 1st

Decade

Alt. B 5th

Decade

Alt. C 1st

Decade

Alt. C 5th

Decade

Alt. D 1st

Decade

Alt. D 5th

Decade

Alt. E 1st

Decade

Alt. E 5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair 

1.83 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 

Chickasawhay 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.34 2.24 2.24 2.40 2.40 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 

De Soto 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.25 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.84 2.88 3.24 2.88 3.24 3.04 3.40 

Trace 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.41 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 

Yalobusha 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.03 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 

The primary key attributes and corresponding actions to assure the ecological sustainability are as 

follows: 

• Percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored to native system types) (Figure H 

17) 

• Percent of occurrences in mature open canopy conditions (Figure H 18) 

• Percent acres burned at the desired interval and seasonality/intensity (Figure H 19 and Figure H 20). 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-13

Figure H 17. Slash pine forest percent burned in growing season at desired interval

As slash pine forests are restored to native ecosystems (Figure H 18), the remaining slash pine forest 

acreage decreases becoming easier to manage for desired structural conditions (Figure H 19). Where slash 

pine forest currently exists or is not yet restored at any given time, the desired condition of occurrences is 

canopy closure of less than 80 percent and trees 60 years old and older in order to achieve high function 

conditions that emulate mature native ecosystem types such as longleaf. Under all alternatives, 

occurrences extant at any given time do not, in most cases, meet the criteria for mature open conditions 

based on thinning, with the exception of the Chickasawhay Unit in the 5th decade of alternative E. Due to 

the massive spatial extent of slash pine forest on some southern units, thinning operations are unlikely to 

be completed prior to restoration of longleaf. Thinned slash pine forest tends to revert to closed canopy 

conditions over time if not periodically re-thinned thus creating a cycle of thinning needs that is extremely 

difficult to successfully meet at the scale required. 

Figure H 18. Percent of slash pine forest in mature open (high function) condition
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-14 National Forests in Mississippi 

Figure H 19. Percent of slash pine forest burned at desired interval by alternative and unit

Figure H 20. Percent of slash pine forest burned in the growing season by alternative and unit

The following units contained very small amounts of slash pine and were not used to calculate scores for 

fire regime: Ackerman, Trace, and Yalobusha. Only the Chickasawhay and the De Soto were evaluated for 

fire regime scores. 

Fire frequency and seasonality/intensity goals also become easier as slash pine forest coverage decreases. 

Frequency goals are met with all alternatives on both units scoring “good” or “very good” with the 

highest scores concentrated in alternatives C, D, and E. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-15

Alternative A meets good status by the 5th decade for seasonality/intensity. Alternative B achieves only 

fair status for fire seasonality/intensity. All other alternatives show general improvement in fire 

seasonality/intensity by the 1st decade achieving “good” scores and in some cases “very good” by the 5th 

decade. 

H.1.5 Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest

Figure H 21. Northern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

alternative and unit

Table H 5. Northern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Fair 2.00 Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.05 2.00 2.00 2.57 2.69 2.23 2.80 2.34 2.46 2.46 2.11 

Holly 

Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good 

2.33 2.11 2.11 2.34 2.34 2.57 2.69 2.57 2.69 2.34 2.57 

Trace 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

2.23 2.06 2.06 2.48 2.61 2.30 2.91 2.42 2.55 2.48 2.18 

Yalobusha 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good 

2.29 2.15 2.15 2.35 2.38 2.53 2.76 2.65 2.76 2.38 2.62 

The primary key attributes and corresponding actions to assure the ecological sustainability are as 

follows: 

• Percent acres burned at the desired interval and seasonality/intensity (Figure H 22). 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-16 National Forests in Mississippi 

• Percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 23) 

• Percent of occurrences in mature condition (Figure H 24) 

Northern dry upland hardwoods are generally intermingled among the dominant pine ecosystems. As a 

result, this system will be exposed to prescribed fire with the same frequency and seasonality/intensity. 

Because this system burns less readily than the surrounding pine dominated systems, it is difficult to 

predict whether or not upland hardwoods will actually burn when exposed to fire. While it is fairly easy to 

predict interval of fire exposure, the actual burn rates may vary. It is especially difficult to predict 

seasonality/intensity due to the differences in ground cover moisture regimes between upland hardwoods 

and surrounding pine systems. It is considered natural and an ecologically appropriate attribute of fire 

behavior for embedded hardwood communities to burn at rates lower than fire exposure rates. Figure H 

22 shows exposure to fire at desired interval by alternative and unit. Due to the challenges described 

above, fire frequency/seasonality cannot be predicted with confidence and is not shown. Alternative A 

includes no prescribed fire for this ecosystem. Alternative B meets the lower end of “fair” on the Holly 

Springs and Yalobusha units while meeting the upper end of “fair” on the Ackerman and Trace units 

concerning burn interval. Alternative C allows for increased fire frequency compared to the latter 

alternatives but only reaches the upper end of “fair” value. Alternative D meets the upper end of “fair” on 

the Holly Springs and Yalobusha units while meeting “good” on the Ackerman and Trace units 

concerning burn interval. Alternative E meets “good” on all units. 

Figure H 22. Percent of northern dry upland hardwood forest exposed to fire at desired interval by 

alternative and unit

Alternative A shows a “poor” rating even after the 5th decade for percent of suitable acres occupied by 

appropriate ecosystem in Figure H 23 below. Alternatives B, C, and E reach a “fair” rating by the 5th 

decade of each while alternative D reaches a “good” rating in the Trace and Ackerman units in the 5th 

decade. The reasoning behind this system not reaching a sustainable level across all units by alternative 

for the most part is due to Forest priorities of upland longleaf restoration and management of threatened 

and endangered species which are not associated with this system. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-17

Figure H 23. Percent of northern dry upland hardwood forest in appropriate system by alternative 

and unit

The amount of mature forest in this ecosystem is an important attribute that demonstrates the amount of 

age structure distribution of the ecosystem (Figure H 24). All alternatives are in “poor” condition in the 

1st decade for all units. Alternative A continues to increase in percent mature forest in the 5th decade 

which increases the “poor” rating. This is due to no management of this ecosystem in this alternative. 

Alternatives B, D, and E all reach a “fair” attribute rating by the 5th decade while alternative C reaches a 

“very good” rating in the Ackerman and Trace units showing sustainability of this attribute while the 

Yalobusha and Holly Springs units only reach a “fair” rating. 

Figure H 24. Percent of northern dry upland hardwood forest in mature forest

H.1.6 Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest

As shown in Figure H 25 and Table H 6, all alternative scores by decade remain with a “good” overall 

ecological sustainability evaluation score despite little management due to few management needs for this 

system. 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-18 National Forests in Mississippi 

Figure H 25. Southern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

alternative and unit

Table H 6. Southern dry upland hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.20 2.86 2.86 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.06 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.30 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.57 2.79 2.57 2.79 2.79 2.82 2.68 2.82 2.86 2.82 2.82 

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.94 2.75 2.54 2.75 2.54 2.75 2.54 2.75 2.72 2.86 2.64 

The primary key attributes and corresponding actions to assure the ecological sustainability are as 

follows: 

• Percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 26) 

As seen in Figure H 26, the percent of southern dry upland hardwood forest in appropriate system does 

not change in each unit by alternative and time. This ecosystem is not the highest priority to restore to 

appropriate system on the Forests. The Bienville, Chickasawhay, and De Soto units are all rated “very 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-19

good” for this attribute. The Homochitto will remain poor concerning percent of ecosystem in appropriate 

system due to priority on this unit is upland longleaf restoration. 

Figure H 26. Percent of southern dry upland hardwood forest at appropriate system by alternative 

and unit

H.1.7 Southern Mesic Slope Forest

As shown in Figure H 27 and Table H 7, all alternative scores by decade remain with a “good” overall 

ESE score despite little management due to few management needs for this system. 

Figure H 27. Southern mesic slope forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative 

and unit
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-20 National Forests in Mississippi 

Table H 7. Southern mesic slope forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings 

by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.17 3.10 2.90 3.23 3.03 3.23 3.03 3.23 3.37 3.23 3.37 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.20 2.93 2.93 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.17 2.67 2.67 2.87 2.77 2.87 2.80 2.90 2.83 3.00 2.93 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.94 3.07 2.86 3.07 2.96 3.18 2.86 3.21 2.89 3.32 3.00 

The primary key attribute and corresponding action to assure ecological sustainability for this ecosystem 

is percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 28). 

As seen in Figure H 28, the ratings for percent of southern mesic slope forest in appropriate system do not 

change from “fair” on the Chickasawhay and Homochitto units by alternative and time. This ecosystem is 

not a high priority to restore to appropriate system on these units. This attribute remains “poor” in 

alternatives A and B on the De Soto unit and becomes “fair” in alternatives C, D, and E which can be 

attributed to conversion from slash pine forest to appropriate systems in the latter alternatives. On the 

Bienville unit, alternatives A, B, and C are all rated as “good” for each time interval because the system 

on this unit is already in “good” condition and no change is expected. Alternatives D and E become “very 

good” through time since both alternatives are driven by increased restoration and/or increased timber 

management. 

Figure H 28. Percent of southern mesic slope forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit

H.1.8 Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest

As shown in Figure H 29 and Table H 8, all alternative scores by decade remain with a “good” overall 

ecological sustainability evaluation score despite little management due to few management needs for this 

system. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-21

Figure H 29. Northern mesic hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

alternative and unit

Table H 8. Northern mesic hardwood forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.82 2.65 2.77 2.96 2.92 2.88 2.69 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 

Holly 

Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.88 2.97 3.27 3.10 3.30 3.30 3.50 3.30 3.40 3.33 3.43 

Trace 

Good Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.72 2.43 2.53 2.83 2.80 2.77 2.60 2.77 2.90 2.77 2.90 

Yalobusha 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.27 2.97 3.27 3.10 3.30 3.30 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.33 3.43 

The primary key attribute and corresponding action to assure ecological sustainability for this ecosystem 

is percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 30). 

As seen in Figure H 30, the ratings for percent of northern mesic slope forest in appropriate system do not 

change from “poor” in alternative A while changes are seen with this attribute to “fair” in alternatives B, 

C, D, and E on the Ackerman and Trace units in the 5th decade. This attribute remains “very good” in all 

alternatives on the Holly Springs and Yalobusha units through time since the percent of this system in 

appropriate acres goals have already been reached and will not significantly change by alternative and 

time. 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-22 National Forests in Mississippi 

Figure H 30. Percent of northern mesic slope forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit

H.1.9 Floodplain Forest

As shown in Figure H 31 and Table H 9, all alternative scores by decade remain with a “good” overall 

ecological sustainability evaluation score despite little management due to few management needs for this 

system. 

Figure H 31. Floodplain forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-23

Table H 9. Floodplain forest ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.88 2.96 2.74 2.96 2.74 2.85 2.74 2.85 2.63 2.85 2.63 

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.36 3.44 3.22 3.44 3.22 3.44 3.22 3.44 3.22 3.44 3.22 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.24 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.44 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.44 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.24 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.07 3.30 3.07 

Holly Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.08 3.11 2.89 3.11 3.11 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.04 3.00 3.04 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.89 3.11 2.89 3.00 3.11 3.00 3.04 3.11 2.89 3.00 2.89 

Trace 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.88 2.96 2.74 2.96 2.74 2.85 2.74 2.85 2.63 2.85 2.63 

Yalobusha 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.13 3.48 3.22 3.48 3.48 3.35 3.22 3.35 3.22 3.35 3.35 

The primary key attribute and corresponding action to assure ecological sustainability for this ecosystem 

is percent acres in appropriate system type (including acres restored from previously converted system 

types) (Figure H 32). 

As seen in Figure H 32, the ratings for percent of floodplain forest in appropriate system do not change 

from “poor” in all alternatives on the Ackerman, De Soto, and Trace units and remain “fair” on the 

Bienville for all alternatives. These units show no change by alternative because floodplain forest 

restoration is not a priority for these units. On the Holly Springs and Yalobusha units, this attribute 

remains at “poor” in alternatives A, B, and C while and becomes “fair” condition in alternatives D and E 

which shows that some offsite pine will be restored to this ecosystem in these accelerated restoration and 

enhanced forest health alternatives. Alternative C shows changes in the Homochitto and Chickasawhay 

units from “poor” to “fair” which is expected with the all of the offsite pine being restored to natural 

systems. The Homochitto unit also shows a rating of “fair” in alternative D for the same reason. Since 

priorities are to restore offsite pine to appropriate systems in alternatives C, D, and E and to some extent 

in alternative B, this ecosystem is not expected to change much in relation to this attribute in the next half 

century. 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-24 National Forests in Mississippi 

Figure H 32. Percent of floodplain forest at appropriate system by alternative and unit

H.1.10 Xeric Sandhills

Figure H 33 and Figure H 34 show fire regime variables by alternative. Herbaceous dominated understories, including grasses and forbs, are important attributes of healthy longleaf ecosystems best achieved 

by the application of frequent growing season fire, ideally once every 1 to 3 years (desired interval). 

These data show that both fire frequency and seasonality/intensity, in most cases, are well within the 

“good” to “very good” range and increase respectively from alternatives C thru E. 

Figure H 33. Percent of xeric sandhills burned at desired interval by alternative and unit
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-25

Figure H 34. Percent of xeric sandhills burned in the growing season by alternative and unit

H.1.11 Cypress Dominated Wetlands

All overall ecological sustainability evaluation scores were calculated as “good” for this system for all 

alternatives and all time intervals (Figure H 35 and Table H 10). There are many data needs for this 

system including location and size of this system across the Forests. 

Figure H 35. Cypress dominated wetlands ecological sustainability evaluation scores by 

alternative and unit
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-26 National Forests in Mississippi 

Table H 10. Cypress dominated wetlands ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings 

by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Bienville 4.00 Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Delta 4.00 Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Holly 

Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.12 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.97 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 

H.1.12 Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps

Ecological sustainability evaluation scores were calculated as “good” for all alternatives and all time 

intervals where data was available among units and rated as “good” and “very good” with no differences 

for each between alternatives (Table H 11). There are many data needs for this system including location 

and size of this system across the Forests. 

Table H 11. Seeps, springs, and seepage swamps ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 1.00 Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.74 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 

Chickasawhay 

Good Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

3.12 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 

De Soto 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

3.59 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 

Holly Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.86 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 

Homochitto 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.36 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 

Trace 2.80 Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Yalobusha 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.87 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-27

H.1.13 Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats

Ecological sustainability evaluation scores were calculated as “good” with no differences between 

alternatives and time intervals where data was available (Table H 12). There are many data needs for this 

system including location and size of this system across the Forests. 

Table H 12. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Chickasawhay 2.71 Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.80 2.91 2.91 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 

Figure H 36 and Figure H 37 show fire regime variables by alternative. Open canopy and herbaceous 

dominated under-stories, including grasses and forbs, are important attributes of healthy herbaceous 

seepage bogs and flats best achieved by the application of frequent fire, ideally once every 1 to 3 years 

(desired interval). Figure H 36 shows that fire frequency is well within the “very good” range in 

alternatives B thru E while alternative A only reaches “fair.” 

Prescribed fire, as stated previously, plays an integral part of restoring this ecosystem. Growing season 

prescribed fire (Figure H 37) differs between alternatives. Alternatives A, B and C score “fair” although 

the actual value of alternative C (40 percent) does meet minimum desired condition. Both alternatives D 

and E obtain a “good” rating for this attribute. 

Figure H 36. Percent of herbaceous seepage bogs and flats burned at desired interval by 

alternative
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-28 National Forests in Mississippi 

Figure H 37. Percent of herbaceous seepage bogs and flats burned in the growing season by 

alternative
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-29

H.2 Species Groups and Associations

H.2.1 Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Associates

Table H 13. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats associates ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores and rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Chickasawhay 2.71 Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

Data 

Need 

De Soto 2.78 2.80 2.80 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 

   
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-30 National Forests in Mississippi 

H.2.2 Mature Mesic Deciduous Forest Associates

Figure H 38. Mature mesic deciduous forest associates current and estimated ecological 

sustainability evaluation scores by unit and alternative

Table H 14. Mature mesic deciduous forest associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores 

and rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.77 2.75 2.88 2.92 2.88 2.92 2.71 3.08 3.04 3.08 3.04 

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.21 3.19 2.96 3.26 3.04 3.26 3.04 3.26 3.37 3.26 3.37 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.24 3.00 3.00 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 3.07 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.18 2.73 2.73 2.96 2.85 2.96 2.85 2.92 2.81 3.04 2.92 

Holly Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.86 2.96 3.31 3.04 3.27 3.27 3.50 3.27 3.38 3.35 3.46 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.79 2.88 2.77 2.88 2.90 2.96 2.90 3.00 2.98 3.04 3.10 

Trace 

Good Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.61 2.50 2.62 2.77 2.77 2.81 2.69 2.81 2.96 2.81 2.96 

Yalobusha 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good Good Good 

3.34 3.00 3.33 3.07 3.30 3.30 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.37 3.48 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-31

H.2.3 Mature Open Pine Grass Associates

Figure H 39. Mature open pine-grass associates current and estimated ecological sustainability 

evaluation scores by unit and alternative

Table H 15. Mature open pine-grass associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good 

2.12 1.92 1.92 2.14 2.23 2.37 2.45 2.37 2.65 2.37 2.59 

Bienville 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair Good Good 

2.14 2.45 2.37 2.45 2.45 2.61 2.53 2.61 2.49 2.77 2.65 

Chickasawhay 

Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.80 2.44 2.32 2.50 2.38 2.83 2.75 2.83 2.75 2.75 2.75 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.69 2.94 2.86 2.94 2.86 3.09 3.12 3.09 3.05 3.24 3.22 

Holly Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good 

2.17 1.72 1.67 1.87 1.98 2.37 2.50 2.43 2.59 2.57 2.63 

Homochitto 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good 

2.27 2.21 2.16 2.26 2.10 2.29 2.24 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 

Trace 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair 

2.09 1.81 1.81 2.01 2.17 2.21 2.38 2.21 2.59 2.21 2.46 

Yalobusha 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good Good 

2.25 2.00 1.96 2.11 2.19 2.49 2.53 2.49 2.69 2.64 2.68 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-32 National Forests in Mississippi

H.2.4 Mature Riparian Forest Associates

Figure H 40. Mature riparian forest associates current and estimated ecological sustainability 

evaluation scores by unit and alternative

Table H 16. Mature riparian forest associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and 

rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.86 2.83 2.67 2.83 2.67 2.75 2.67 2.75 2.58 2.75 2.58 

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.31 3.39 3.22 3.39 3.22 3.39 3.22 3.39 3.22 3.39 3.22 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.20 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.42 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.42 

Delta 

Very 

Good Good Good Good Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

3.60 3.41 3.26 3.41 3.63 3.63 3.70 3.63 3.70 3.63 3.70 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.20 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.08 3.25 3.08 

Holly Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.06 3.00 2.83 3.00 3.00 2.92 2.92 2.92 3.00 2.92 3.00 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.93 3.00 2.83 2.92 3.00 2.92 3.00 3.00 2.83 2.92 2.83 

Trace 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.80 2.83 2.67 2.83 2.67 2.75 2.67 2.75 2.58 2.75 2.58 

Yalobusha 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.23 3.40 3.20 3.40 3.40 3.30 3.20 3.30 3.20 3.30 3.30 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-33 

H.2.5 Mature Upland Pine-Hardwood Associates

Figure H 41. Mature upland pine-hardwood associates current and estimated ecological 

sustainability evaluation scores by unit and alternative

Table H 17. Mature upland pine-hardwood associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores 

and rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.07 2.07 2.07 2.50 2.61 2.29 2.75 2.36 2.50 2.43 2.14 

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.17 2.93 2.93 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.00 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 

De Soto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

3.30 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 

Holly Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair Good 

2.50 2.21 2.21 2.34 2.41 2.48 2.62 2.55 2.62 2.38 2.59 

Homochitto 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.79 2.81 2.59 2.81 2.81 2.78 2.70 2.78 2.81 2.78 2.78 

Trace 

Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

2.16 2.10 2.10 2.52 2.62 2.31 2.90 2.38 2.52 2.45 2.17 

Yalobusha 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair Good 

2.39 2.21 2.21 2.34 2.41 2.48 2.72 2.62 2.72 2.38 2.59 

   
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-34 National Forests in Mississippi

H.2.6 Prairie Associates

Figure H 42. Prairie associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores 

by unit and alternative

Table H 18. Prairie associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit and 

alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Bienville 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.39 2.62 2.79 2.96 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 

Trace 

Good Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.67 2.05 2.05 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-35 

H.2.7 Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Associates

Figure H 43. Seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates current and estimated ecological 

sustainability evaluation scores by unit and alternative

Table H 19. Seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores and rankings by unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Bienville 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.70 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 

Chickasawhay 

Good Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

3.04 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 

De Soto 

Good Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

Very 

Good 

3.32 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 

Holly Springs 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.73 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 

Homochitto 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.35 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 

Yalobusha 

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.95 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.08 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-36 National Forests in Mississippi

H.2.8 Bat Roost Structure Group

Figure H 44. Bat roost structure group current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores by unit and alternative

Table H 20. Bat roost structure group ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by 

unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Poor 

1.50 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 

Bienville 

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair 

3.50 3.00 1.67 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 3.00 1.83 3.00 1.83 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair 

3.00 3.00 1.75 3.00 1.75 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 

Delta 

Fair Good Poor Good Very 

Good Good Very 

Good Good Very 

Good Good Very 

Good 

2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 

De Soto 

Very 

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Poor Good Fair 

4.00 3.00 1.75 3.50 2.00 3.50 1.75 3.25 1.50 3.50 2.00 

Holly Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.75 2.25 2.00 2.25 1.75 

Homochitto 

Good Very 

Good Fair Very Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Good Fair 

3.50 3.75 2.00 3.75 3.00 3.00 1.75 3.00 1.50 2.75 1.75 

Trace 

Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Poor 

1.50 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 

Yalobusha 

Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

2.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.75 2.50 2.75 2.25 2.00 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-37 

H.2.9 Den Tree Associates

Figure H 45. Den tree associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation scores 

by unit and alternative

Table H 21. Den tree associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by unit 

and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Ackerman 

Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Poor 

1.50 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 

Bienville 

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair 

3.50 3.00 1.67 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 3.00 1.83 3.00 1.83 

Chickasawhay 

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair 

3.00 3.00 1.75 3.00 1.75 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 

Delta 

Fair Good Poor Good Very 

Good Good Very 

Good Good Very 

Good Good Very 

Good 

2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 

De Soto 

Very 

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Poor Good Fair 

4.00 3.00 1.75 3.50 2.00 3.50 1.75 3.25 1.50 3.50 2.00 

Holly Springs 

Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair 

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.75 2.25 2.00 2.25 1.75 

Homochitto 

Good Very 

Good Fair Very Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Good Fair 

3.50 3.75 2.00 3.75 3.00 3.00 1.75 3.00 1.50 2.75 1.75 

Trace 

Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Poor 

1.50 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 

Yalobusha 

Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair 

2.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.75 2.50 2.75 2.25 2.00 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-38 National Forests in Mississippi

H.2.10 Forest Interior Birds Group

Figure H 46. Forest interior birds group current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores by alternative and unit
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-39 

H.2.11 Species Dependent on Fire to Maintain Habitat

Figure H 47. Species dependent on fire to maintain habitat current and estimated ecological 

sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-40 National Forests in Mississippi

H.2.12 Species Sensitive to Hydrologic Modification of Wetlands

Figure H 48. Species sensitive to hydrologic modification of wetlands current and estimated 

ecological sustainability evaluation scores by alternative and unit
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi H-41 

H.2.13 Calciphiles Associates

Figure H 49. Calciphiles associates current and estimated ecological sustainability evaluation 

scores by unit and alternative

Table H 22. Calciphiles associates ecological sustainability evaluation scores and rankings by 

unit and alternative

Unit Current

Alt. A

1st

Decade

Alt. A

5th

Decade

Alt. B

1st

Decade

Alt. B

5th

Decade

Alt. C

1st

Decade

Alt. C

5th

Decade

Alt. D

1st

Decade

Alt. D

5th

Decade

Alt. E

1st

Decade

Alt. E

5th

Decade

Bienville 

Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.43 2.62 2.79 2.96 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 

Trace 

Good Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good 

2.61 2.13 2.13 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 
Appendix H - By-Unit Analysis for various Ecological Systems and Species Associations

H-42 National Forests in Mississippi

H.2.14 Species Sensitive to Canopy Cover

Figure H 50. Species sensitive to canopy cover modifications current and estimated ecological 

sustainability evaluation scores by unit and alternative