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.
Record of Decision

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Liz Agpaoa

USDA Forest Service, Southern Region

1720 Peachtree Road, NW

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

For information, contact: Forest Supervisor

National Forests in Mississippi

200 South Lamar St., Suite 500-N

Jackson, MS 39201

601-965-1600

Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

My Decision........................................................................................................................ 2

Highlights of the Selected Alternative................................................................................ 5

Background......................................................................................................................... 7

Purpose and Need for Action.............................................................................................. 8

Public and Other Agency Involvement............................................................................... 8

Alternatives......................................................................................................................... 9

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study......................................... 11

Rationale for Decision ...................................................................................................... 12

Response to the Issues ...................................................................................................... 14

Management Concerns...................................................................................................... 19

Net Public Benefits........................................................................................................... 19

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ........................................................................... 20

Science Consistency.......................................................................................................... 21

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities.............................................................. 23

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes........................... 25

Environmental Justice....................................................................................................... 25

Effective Date and Plan Implementation .......................................................................... 26

Transition to the Revised Forest Plan ............................................................................... 26

Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................... 27

Plan Amendments............................................................................................................. 27

Appeal Information........................................................................................................... 28

Contact Information.......................................................................................................... 28

Approval ........................................................................................................................... 29

1

Introduction 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for approving the 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan) for the National 

Forests in Mississippi (NFs in MS), which will provide management direction for 

approximately 1.2 million acres of land in Mississippi. The previous Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the NFs in MS was approved in 1985. 

This Revised Forest Plan is part of the long-range resource planning framework 

established by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

(RPA), the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the 2007 

Revision of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan. The National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires all units of the National Forest System to develop plans 

that direct resource management activities on the forests. 

The Revised Forest Plan establishes a framework for future decision-making by outlining 

a broad, general program for achieving desired conditions and objectives for the NFs in 

MS over the next 10 to 15 years. Once approved by this decision, the Revised Forest 

Plan is carried out at the “project level” by implementing specific projects at specific 

locations (such as relocating a trail, prescribed burning an area, or harvesting timber), 

over time, ensuring each project is consistent with the guiding direction in the Revised 

Forest Plan.

The Revised Forest Plan does not direct specific management activities to occur at 

specific locations, nor does it dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry 

on the Forest Service’s internal operations (i.e., personnel matters, law enforcement, fleet 

equipment, or internal organization changes).

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that accompanies the Revised Forest 

Plan provides analytical data that discloses the environmental consequences of the 

alternative management strategies considered and discusses how these alternatives 

respond to issues and concerns. 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Forest Plan were developed 

according to the NFMA, its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 219, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. The current Planning 

Rule, published on April 9, 2012, at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3) allows for plan revisions 

initiated before May 9, 2012 to be revised in conformance with the provisions of the prior 

planning regulations, including its transition provisions. According to 36 CFR 219.35 

and Appendix B to 219.35 of those prior regulations (see 36 CFR 219, published at 36 

CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010), the responsible official may elect to 

use the provisions of the 1982 planning regulations to prepare plan amendments and 

revisions. For this revision of the NFs in MS Land and Resource Management Plan, I 

have elected to follow the provisions of the 1982 planning rule as published on 

September 30, 1982 and subsequently amended.)

This decision applies only to National Forest System lands of the National Forests in 

Mississippi. It does not apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although the 
2

effects of these lands and the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the national 

forest are also considered.

My Decision

I have selected Alternative C from the FEIS as the Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the National Forests in Mississippi. My decision is described 

below and is supplemented by maps and information in the FEIS and the project record. 

Components of the Decision

The FEIS and Revised Forest Plan were developed according to the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 219 (1982 

planning regulations). Components of forest plan decisions are outlined in the National 

Forest Management Act (1976). The decisions I am making in this Record of Decision

for the Revised Forest Plan are:

Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals, desired conditions and 

objectives (36 CFR 219.11(b))

This management direction is intended to provide for ecological sustainability, multiple 

use and sustained yield of the products and services people use from the Forest, including 

outdoor recreation, timber, water, wildlife, fish, and wilderness. The Revised Forest Plan 

establishes the desired conditions for the NFs in MS in Chapter 2 and the objectives 

needed to work toward those desired conditions are established in Chapter 3. 

Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards and 

guidelines) (36 CFR 219.11(c) & 219.27)

Forestwide standards and guidelines are found in Chapter 4 of the Revised Forest Plan. 

Standards are limitations on actions or thresholds not to be exceeded. Guidelines are 

requirements that should be followed unless a different management action demonstrably 

achieves the same intent as the guideline. To simplify the Revised Forest Plan, direction 

that would duplicate laws, policies, Forest Service Manual, and Forest Service Handbook 

direction or other regional directives is not included.

Establishment of management areas and the management prescriptions 

applied to those areas (36 CFR 219.11(c)).

Management areas reflect biological, physical, and social differences; and management 

prescriptions reflect different desired conditions. Management areas and prescriptions 

are described in Chapter 4 of the Revised Forest Plan. The Revised Forest Plan identifies 

two different types of management areas. There are ecosystem-based management areas 

that are based upon the primary theme of restoring and sustaining the different native 

ecological communities within the NFs in MS. The other types of management areas are 

geographically-based. The geographic-based management areas are:

• Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Management Areas (HMAs)

• Administrative Areas

• Developed Recreation Areas
3

• Botanical Areas

• Scenic Areas

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

• Wilderness Areas

• Archaeological Site

• Recreational Areas

• Experimental Forests

• Research Natural Areas

The ecologically-based management areas do not have precise boundaries and may 

contain less-common ecosystems or other designated geographic areas. Where there is 

an overlap in management areas, the most restrictive plan direction would apply.

Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (36 CFR 219.14) 

and establishment of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of timber (36 CFR 

219.16).

The determination of lands suitable for timber production is found in Chapter 4 of the 

Revised Forest Plan. Approximately 954,265 acres or 81 percent of the NFs in MS is

identified as suitable for timber production.

The Revised Forest Plan establishes an ASQ of 178.7 MMCF (million cubic feet) for the 

next 10 years (see also Appendix B of the Revised Forest Plan). 

Recommendations for non-wilderness allocations and recommendations for 

wilderness status (36 CFR 219.17).

As is documented in Appendix C to the FEIS, no areas were found in the NFs in MS that 

met the criteria for inclusion in the inventory of potential wilderness areas. 

Consequently, no areas were evaluated and there are no areas to recommend for additions 

to the National Wilderness System within the NFs in MS. 

Recommendations for wild and scenic rivers and other special use 

designations.

There is one Congressionally-designated Wild and Scenic River located on the NFs in 

MS, the Black Creek Scenic River. No rivers outside of Black Creek have been 

identified as eligible for further study. The Revised Forest Plan establishes the Black 

Creek Corridor Scenic Management Area, which is a corridor along Black Creek that 

extends approximately 41 miles. This Corridor includes both the Congressionallydesignated Scenic River portion, as well as non-designated portions. All portions of this 

Corridor will have the same management emphasis.

Based upon the recommendations of Alternative C in the FEIS, this Record of Decision 

establishes the following areas as Research Natural Areas (RNAs):

• Nutmeg Hickory RNA (Bienville District, 307 acres)

• Granny Creek Bay RNA (De Soto District, 127 acres)

The following areas will also be designated as Botanical Areas on the NFs in MS:
4

• Laurel Oak Botanical Area (Chickasawhay District, 277 acres)

• Railroad Creek Titi Botanical Area (De Soto District, 451 acres)

• Little Florida Botanical Area (De Soto District, 121 acres)

• Pitcher Plant Botanical Area (De Soto District, 251 acres)

• Buttercup Flat Botanical Area (De Soto District, 164 acres)

• Loblolly Bay Botanical Area (De Soto District, 93 acres)

• Ragland Hills Botanical Area (De Soto District, 237 acres)

• Wyatt Hills Botanical Area (De Soto District, 100 acres)

• Cypress Bayou Botanical Area (Delta District, 262 acres)

• LA-2 Botanical Area (Holly Springs District, 12 acres)

• LA-6 Botanical Area (Holly Springs District, 158 acres)

• Sandy Creek Botanical Area (Homochitto District, 300 acres)

• Shagbark Hickory Botanical Area (Tombigbee District, 109 acres)

• Choctaw #4 Botanical Area (Tombigbee District, 45 acres)

• Prairie Mount Botanical Area (Tombigbee District, 370 acres)

• Bogue Cully Botanical Area (Tombigbee District, 500 acres) 

These RNAs and Botanical Areas are described in Chapter 4 of the Revised Forest Plan 

and identified on the Revised Forest Plan Maps (see Revised Plan, Appendix F).

Designation of lands suitable for grazing (36 CFR 219.20).

The grazing program on the NFs in MS has declined to the point that an active range 

allotment program is no longer feasible. The only active range allotments occur on the 

De Soto NF and these existing allotments will continue until their permits expire. No 

new allotments will be authorized unless a significant increase in demand is realized and 

the Revised Forest Plan amended to allow for such authorization.

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11 

(d)).

Monitoring and evaluation requirements are found in Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest 

Plan. Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to the Revised 

Forest Plan desired conditions, objectives, standards, and specific regulatory 

requirements. These requirements ensure that the Revised Forest Plan is adaptive and that 

sustainability is being achieved or adjustments will be made.

Determination of lands administratively available for oil and gas leasing (36 

CFR 228.102 (d))

In August 2010, the National Forests in Mississippi renewed its decision for Lands 

Available for Oil and Gas Leasing (USDA Forest Service 2010) and the results of that 

decision are incorporated into the Revised Forest Plan. The 2010 decision did, however, 

defer making a leasing decision on the Sandy Creek RARE II Further Study Area. As a 

result of this FEIS, it has been determined that the 2,558 acres within the Sandy Creek 

RARE II Further Study Area will be available for oil and gas leasing. The approximately 

300 acre Sandy Creek Botanical Area within the Further Study Area will be available for 
5

leasing with a no-surface occupancy stipulation, and the remaining lands within the 

Further Study Area (which is also identified as an inventoried roadless area) will be 

available for leasing while still meeting the road construction/reconstruction limitations 

contained in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Highlights of the Selected Alternative

Overarching Themes of the Final Plan

The NFs in MS worked with stakeholders through an iterative process to identify 

important issues and desired conditions. While many different desired conditions were 

identified by stakeholders, widespread support among the public, Forest Service staff, 

other agencies, and interested parties for native ecosystem restoration, species diversity 

and habitat improvement for threatened and endangered (T&E) species made this the 

foundation for the overall direction taken in the final Plan. Public comments received on 

the proposed revised plan generally affirmed the collaborative consensus on the 

overarching themes that are the focus of the final Revised Plan. 

1. Restore native ecological systems –Restoration of native ecological systems is a 

major desired condition for stakeholders and serves as the primary framework for 

the final Revised Plan. Twenty-four native ecological systems were identified on 

the NFs in MS, including 9 unique communities or uncommon local features. 

Desired conditions include conversion of loblolly and slash pine stands to 

longleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak ecosystems, restoration of floodplain forests, 

and continued maintenance and enhancement of native hardwood ecosystems and 

unique communities such as native prairies and bogs. Over the next 10 years, 

proposed objectives include the conversion of approximately 23,000 acres to 

appropriate ecosystems and structural, age, and species improvements on 

approximately 150,000 acres. 

2. Protect diversity of species – One of the basic tenets of the final Revised Plan is 

that managing for a diversity of healthy native ecosystems is integral to providing 

appropriate ecological conditions for a diversity of plant and animal species. In 

developing the Plan, a list of all potential species that could occur on the NFs in 

MS was developed and analyzed through a series of collaborative meetings with 

technical experts and taxonomic specialists familiar with the plant and animal 

species across Mississippi. Species that could possibly occur on the NFs in MS

were further evaluated through a series of iterative screenings which identified 

federal T&E species, sensitive species, and locally rare species. As the direction 

of the final Plan was developed, the specific needs and habitats of species were 

addressed, primarily through the desired conditions and objectives for managing 

ecosystem diversity, and also though integrated program objectives for soils, 

water, fire regimes, and other resource areas. T&E species protection and habitat 

enhancement are emphasized in the final Plan, particularly the needs of the ten 

T&E species identified as potentially occurring on the NFs in MS (Dusky Gopher 

Frog, Mississippi Sandhill Crane, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Gulf Sturgeon, 

Pallid Sturgeon, Louisiana Black Bear, Gopher Tortoise, Louisiana Quillwort, 

Pondberry, and Indiana Bat).
6

3. Manage for healthy forests – The final Revised Plan emphasizes a shift in the 

primary focus from commodity production to native ecosystem restoration and 

forest health. Vegetation management practices support a variety of integrated 

desired resource management conditions, including the restoration of historically 

occurring ecosystems, the creation of a diversity of habitats, the improvement of 

resilience to natural disturbances and a changing climate, the reduction of impacts 

from insects and diseases, the control of non-native invasive species, and the 

production of quality timber commodities.

4. Conserve old growth communities – A diversity of tree ages, from regeneration 

to old growth, is emphasized in the final Revised Plan to support a sustainable 

mix of ecological conditions across the landscape. The overall strategy is to have 

a distribution of old growth stands in all ecological systems and all districts, with 

approximately 10% of each forest ecosystem in old growth conditions.

5. Restore historic fire conditions – On the NFs in MS, periodic prescribed 

burning is the most important tool for recreating historic fire regimes and 

reducing the risk of catastrophic fires while restoring conditions that favor 

desirable native ecosystems and habitats for T&E species. The final Revised Plan 

objectives for prescribed fire total 220,000 acres on average each year. The 

frequency of return intervals for prescribed burns and the percent of burns 

conducted during the growing season will vary depending on the ecosystem and 

habitat needs. 

6. Manage for healthy watersheds – Productive soils, clean water, and clean air 

were important desired conditions identified by stakeholders and are essential to 

sustaining the ecological function and productive capacity of NFs in MS lands. 

Final Revised Plan standards and guidelines focus on using best management 

practices for sustaining and improving watershed areas within the national forest.

Control and management approaches are identified to work cooperatively with 

other agencies and landowners to improve statewide watershed health. The final 

Plan emphasizes desired outcomes that relate to improving or sustaining a 

diversity of aquatic species and water-related ecosystems.

7. Maintain sustainable infrastructure and access – The desired conditions and 

objectives of the final Revised Plan focus on providing for the safety and 

maintenance of the existing roads, trails, and facilities that make up the NFs in 

MS infrastructure. This includes objectives for backlogged repairs and upgrades, 

improvements for environmental protection, disposal of facilities that are no 

longer needed, and rehabilitation of user-created trails and roads. The desired 

condition for the trails system is to sustain a forest-wide network of trails for a 

variety of uses across the state. The objective is to maintain existing designated 

trails to standard. Partnerships with other agencies, communities, and special 

interest groups were identified as key to offering additional seasonal access to 

wildlife management areas and expanding or adding new trails.

8. Maintain sustainable recreation – The final Revised Plan emphasizes sustaining 

outdoor recreation opportunities on the NFs in MS under anticipated funding 

levels. The desired conditions and objectives focus on maintaining and improving 
7

existing dispersed recreation opportunities and developed recreation sites, with

the addition of new facilities and amenities dependent on expanding local and 

state-wide partnerships. Instead of sustaining a full mix of recreation 

opportunities on every unit, recreation use would be considered from a forestwide perspective with an emphasis on sustainable programs and infrastructure that 

minimize impacts to the environment. Although the revision process included a 

thorough review of lands for potential wilderness, no areas were identified as 

potential wilderness areas and there are no wilderness recommendations.

9. Provide stable economic benefits – The national forest activities that generate 

the majority of the revenues that feed back into the local economy in Mississippi 

come from timber, minerals, and recreation. As a result of restoring native 

ecosystems to appropriate sites and maintaining healthy and resilient forests (the 

final Plan has an objective to harvest 91 MMBF [million board feet] annually); 

there should be a steady flow of economic benefits back to local communities.

10. Adapt to changing conditions – An increase in extreme weather events is the 

climate change factor most likely to affect the NFs in MS in the next 10-15 years. 

In response to potential effects from climate change, the final Revised Plan 

includes desired conditions that will reduce vulnerability by maintaining and 

restoring resilient native ecosystems, enhance adaptation by reducing impacts 

from serious disturbances and taking advantage of disruptions, use preventative 

measures to reduce risk of forest pests, and mitigate greenhouse emissions by 

reducing carbon loss from hurricanes.

Background

The National Forests in Mississippi (NFs in MS) encompass approximately 1.2 million 

acres located in six national forests dispersed across the state of Mississippi. The lands 

that make up the NFs in MS are not only representative of the ecological diversity of the 

different portions of the state but also serve as a cross-section of Mississippi’s natural and 

cultural heritage. 

Statewide, pine-dominated stands, many of which resulted from extensive reforestation 

efforts in the 1930s, are the most common forest communities. Large tracts of loblolly 

pine represent the most prevalent forest type, but there are also less-extensive 

communities of longleaf pine along the Gulf coastal plain and shortleaf pine on more 

Northern sites. Oaks and hickories dominate the dry slopes and ridges in the northern half 

of the state, and along the Mississippi River Delta, approximately 60,000 acres of

forested wetlands constitute the only bottomland hardwood national forest in the National 

Forest System (NFS). Other unique ecological systems within the NFs in MS include 

stands of bald cypress imbedded along oxbow lakes and sloughs, pitcher plant bogs, open 

grassy prairies, herbaceous seeps and flats, and xeric sandhills.

The six proclaimed national forests that make up the NFs in MS are administratively 

managed as seven ranger districts. Although each forest has unique characteristics and 

conditions, they all contribute to forest-wide desired conditions and are managed under 

one Land and Resource Management Plan. The seven ranger districts or national forests 

that make up the NFs in MS are:
8

• Bienville National Forest

• Chickasawhay Ranger District of the De Soto National Forest

• De Soto Ranger District of the De Soto National Forest

• Delta National Forest

• Holly Springs National Forest

• Homochitto National Forest

• Tombigbee National Forest

Purpose and Need for Action

The proposed action is to produce a revised forest plan which will guide resource 

management activities on the National Forests in Mississippi for the next 10-15 years. 

Forest plans are required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

(NFMA). The NFMA regulations require forest plans to be revised on a 10-15 year cycle 

or sooner when significant changes in conditions or demands occur in the forest plan 

coverage area. The current forest plan for the National Forests in Mississippi went into 

effect in 1985 and has been amended 18 times to date. Periodic reviews have identified 

numerous areas where conditions have changed since 1985. In some cases, new scientific 

understanding evolved, monitoring direction needed to shift to more important resource 

concerns, or current direction was not having the intended outcome. For other issues, 

there were new public priorities, and new desired conditions were needed. In recent 

years, restoration and maintenance of biodiversity, old-growth forest habitats, and 

ecosystem management have gained public and scientific interest and have emerged as 

forest management issues. The amount of time since the implementation of the 1985 

forest plan, new scientific understanding, and shifting public interests have all 

contributed to the need to revise the forest plan.

The National Forests in Mississippi began revision of the 1985 forest plan in 2000 under 

the existing requirements of the NFMA. In July 2005, the Forests transitioned the forest 

plan revision process to new 2005 planning rule requirements (36 CFR Part 219). After 

the 2005 rule was remanded and replaced with a new planning rule in March 2008, the 

Forests converted to the requirements under the 2008 rule. The 2008 planning regulations

were also successfully challenged in court, and the Forests subsequently elected to use 

the September 1982 version of the NFMA planning regulations (36 CFR 219) to 

complete the forest plan revision.

Public and Other Agency Involvement

The original Land and Resource Management Plan for the NFs in MS was signed in 

1985. The revision process began in 2000 and was interrupted several times by changing 

planning rules and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Since the revision process has 

covered a long time period, the NFs in MS has received input from thousands of 

Mississippi residents, visitors, conservation groups, recreation groups, industry 

representatives, community leaders, other agencies, and interested parties about the future 

they want to see for the six national forests within the state. Forest Service resource 

specialists and forest managers worked with universities, researchers, and other agencies 
9

to take into account the latest scientific findings, consider evolving management 

practices, and include new emerging issues such as urban expansion and climate change. 

Over 40 public meetings and workshops were held at various libraries, community 

centers, district offices, and local auditoriums across the state. Multiple communication 

tools were used, including facilitated public workshops, audiovisual presentations, 

newsletters, flyers, posters, mailings, and the NFs in MS website. Over the course of 

various delays and transitions, a special effort was made to ensure that earlier public 

feedback was included and considered as the revision process continued.

The Revised Plan establishes a strong commitment to an all-lands approach to conserve 

high priority forest ecosystems and landscapes in Mississippi. The Plan promotes 

achievement of many state-wide goals and objectives identified in Mississippi’s 

Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy (July 2010) including: 

restore and manage longleaf pine within its historical range; suppress and eradicate nonnative and invasive plants and pests; restore fire-adapted lands and reduce risk of wildfire 

impacts; protect and enhance water quality; protect, conserve, and enhance fish and 

wildlife resources; and manage forests to mitigate and adapt to global climate change.

The Draft Revised Forest Plan and associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

were released for notice and comment in February 2013. A Notice of Availability (NOA) 

was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2013. The forest hosted seven 

public workshops (meetings across the State) during the ninety-day comment period. The 

Content Analysis and Response Application (CARA) was utilized to record and 

document comments received. A total of nineteen unique comment letters were received 

on the Draft Plan and associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement resulting in a 

total of 311 public comments. Overall comments were generally supportive of the 

proposed plan direction with several commenters expressing a desire for increased 

management objectives to achieve desired conditions at a faster pace.

These comments and our responses are documented in Appendix A of the Final EIS. 

Appendix A further documents the public involvement process, and complete details are 

in the process record.

Alternatives

Five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the EIS. 

Alternative A – Custodial Management

This alternative allows natural succession to dominate the landscape with minimal 

intervention by active management practices. Resource management activities would 

focus on the protection of natural resources and meeting legally mandated requirements. 

Management for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species and 

their critical habitat would dominate as the primary management focus or emphasis. 

Ecosystem management strategies would favor natural succession and implementation of 

low intensity forest health management practices. Best management practices and 

regulations would be followed to protect water quality and riparian areas, but watershed 

restoration efforts would be limited. Recreation opportunities would emphasize low 
10

impact recreation opportunities (favor nonmotorized activities). Roads not needed for 

legal requirements and other resource needs would be closed or obliterated. 

Alternative B – No-Action (Current Management)

This alternative would continue implementation of the original 1985 Forest Plan, as 

amended and consistent with expected budget and staffing levels. This alternative serves 

as a baseline to measure opportunity cost trade-offs associated with proposed changes to 

management direction. Production of both commercial wood products and creation of a 

variety of wildlife habitats would be emphasized. Developed and dispersed recreation 

opportunities would be in a variety of settings—both natural and managed. Water quality 

and riparian areas would be protected through implementation of best management 

practices and streamside management zones, with minor investment in small watershed 

restoration projects. Access would be developed, maintained, and used as needed to meet 

the goals of balanced age classes, wildlife habitat, and production of timber products. 

Alternative C – Proposed Action (Selected Alternative)

The proposed action alternative is biologically based and driven, with emphasis on 

restoring natural resources and natural processes and creating and maintaining diverse 

wildlife habitats. Restoration of native ecological communities would be based on the 

ecological potential and capability of the land. Restoration activities would provide a mix 

of wildlife habitat conditions favorable for game and non-game species. Restoration 

activities would produce both large and small openings. Water quality and riparian areas 

would be protected through implementation of best management practices and streamside 

management zone, with minor investments in priority watershed restoration projects. A 

variety of recreation settings and opportunities would occur in areas where they would be 

compatible with restoration activities and in areas where restoration is not occurring. 

Access would be reduced, as needed, to restore and protect aquatic systems, soils, and 

plant and animal communities. Funding levels would be comparable to Alternative B 

having budget allocations similar to recent levels and held constant.

Alternative D – Accelerated Restoration

This alternative, like the proposed action alternative, is biologically based and driven, 

with emphasis on restoring natural resources and natural processes, and creating and 

maintaining diverse wildlife habitats. Restoration of native ecological communities 

would be based on the ecological potential and capability of the land, and the pace of 

restoration would be accelerated by additional regeneration activities. Restoration of 

native ecosystems would provide a mix of wildlife habitat conditions favorable for game 

and non-game species, and both large and small openings would be produced. This 

alternative directs additional resources toward meeting these accelerated native 

ecosystem restoration efforts. However, management activities contributing toward 

improved forest health, while greater than current management projections, would be less 

than that projected for Alternative C. Water quality and riparian areas would be protected 

through implementation of best management practices and streamside management zone, 

with minor investments in priority watershed restoration projects. A variety of recreation 

opportunities and settings would occur in areas where they would be compatible with 

restoration activities and in areas where restoration in not occurring. Access would be 
11

reduced, as needed, to restore and protect aquatic systems, soils, and plant and animal 

communities. 

Alternative E – Enhanced Forest Health

This alternative is biologically based and driven, with emphasis on restoring natural 

resources and natural processes and creating and maintaining diverse wildlife habitats. 

Restoration of native ecological communities would be based on the ecological potential 

and capability of the land, and the pace of restoration would be further accelerated by 

increasing both regeneration and thinning activities. The vegetation management program 

of this alternative would be around 75% of the estimated long-term sustained yield 

capacity for the National Forests in Mississippi land base. Management activities would 

provide a mix of wildlife habitat conditions favorable for game and non-game species 

and produce both large and small openings. This alternative directs additional resources 

toward the increased emphasis on improving healthy forest conditions while also 

achieving an increase in native ecosystem restoration objectives across the forest. While 

these restoration efforts would be greater than those in Alternative C, they would be less 

than Alternative D’s projected restoration objectives. Water quality and riparian areas 

would be protected through implementation of best management practices and streamside 

management zone, with additional investment in priority watershed restoration projects. 

A variety of recreation opportunities and settings would occur in areas where they would 

be compatible with restoration activities and in areas where restoration in not occurring. 

Access would be reduced, as needed, to restore and protect aquatic systems, soils, and 

plant and animal communities.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed 

Study

A broad range of alternatives was originally considered during the analysis process. 

Management scenarios for potential alternatives were analyzed for a variety of issues 

including effectiveness in meeting desired conditions, policy requirements, and 

implementation feasibility. Early in the revision process, comments were made to 

consider a strong commodity-driven focus that would emphasize production of high 

levels of goods and services for local markets. Under this scenario, timber management 

would provide a greater sustained yield of wood products with an emphasis on highquality sawtimber, as well as providing public demand for game species for hunting. In a 

similar manner, comments were also made to expand developed and dispersed recreation 

opportunities to a broader variety of settings across the state. Based on analysis, these 

options were considered but eliminated from further study. Although the Forest is 

capable of producing a sustained yield at a much higher level of timber production, and 

expanded recreation opportunities are possible within the land base, maximization of 

these resources would come at the expense of other resources. Anticipated agency 

funding levels would not support higher levels of timber production or expanded 

recreation facilities with their associated increase in operational and maintenance costs. 

Also, the multiple-use mandate would not be met in emphasizing singular resource 

programs. While these alternatives were not carried forward, portions of these scenarios 

were incorporated into alternatives C, D, and E. 
12

Another similar alternative considered but eliminated addressed comments about the low 

levels of timber harvest on the Forest and recommendations to at least harvest an amount 

equal to the annual growth. This alternative was not considered in detail because it would 

not be physically or biologically sustainable over the long term. At this level of timber 

harvest, there would be soil and water concerns for erosion damage, increased 

sedimentation, and reduction of water quality. There would also be biological concerns 

for reduction of species diversity and loss of habitat for threatened and endangered 

species. In addition, this alternative was not considered feasible because it would not 

meet the long-term sustained yield requirements of the NFMA. Another related 

alternative that considered production near long-term sustained yields was not carried 

forward because of similar unacceptable levels of environmental impact and lack of 

funding and staffing for these more intensive management levels.

Other alternatives considered looked at expanded emphasis on red-cockaded woodpecker 

(RCW) habitat. Comments were made during the plan revision process to consider 

emphasizing thinning existing forest settings for RCW and forgoing regeneration and 

restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems to accommodate immediate habitat improvement. 

While this alternative would provide appropriate habitat in the short term, it was not 

considered in detail because it would not sustain optimal habitat over the long term. A 

mix of thinnings and regeneration is needed to sustain optimal habitat for RCW 

populations.

Another RCW alternative considered the potential to supplement habitat for RCW 

populations located on the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge adjoining the Tombigbee 

National Forest (NF). Work is underway on the Noxubee Refuge to increase RCW 

populations, and this scenario would shift NFs in MS resources to the Tombigbee to 

support this expansion. This option was closely examined and modeled and found to be a 

possible opportunity in the future but not a viable option at this time. As population 

objectives are reached on the Noxubee in coming years, expanded habitat on the 

Tombigbee may be appropriate, but until RCW populations reach higher levels, this 

alternative would pull limited NFs in MS resources from other areas and impede the 

recovery efforts for RCW populations on existing habitat management areas (HMAs) on 

the NFs in MS.

Rationale for Decision

My decision to select Alternative C for implementation is based on a careful and 

reasoned comparison of the environmental consequences of and responses to issues and 

concerns for each alternative. I selected Alternative C because it represents the best mix 

and balance of management strategies that: 1) are responsive to the issues, concerns, and 

opportunities expressed by the public and other agencies; 2) establish ambitious but 

achievable objectives for ecosystem management and restoration and the management of 

the forest’s multiple uses; and 3) makes appropriate recommendations for Special Area 

designations.

Five alternatives were evaluated in detail in the final environmental impact statement. 

The emphases of these alternatives are described above in an earlier section of this 

document. Alternatives A, B, D and E were not selected for the following reasons: 
13

I did not select Alternative A because community diversity and species viability would 

likely decline.

• It does not provide for restoration of native ecosystems.

• A long-term reduction in the level of habitat management activities may 

negatively affect threatened and endangered species populations.

• An across the board reduction in ecosystem services and recreation opportunities 

does not address nor satisfy public expectations or desires.

Alternative B was not selected because continuation of current management direction 

would not result in an improvement in community diversity and species viability.

• No new special management areas would be established. 

• Continuation of current management direction does not incorporate best science 

practices for threatened and endangered species management nor old growth 

conservation.

• Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat management areas would remain set to their 

tentative boundaries. 

• A comprehensive old growth conservation management strategy would not be 

implemented. 

Alternative D and E were not selected primarily because additional funding necessary to 

support and sustain the projected level of management practices is currently not available 

nor anticipated in the foreseeable future. Total annual federal discretionary spending 

levels are not expected to increase in the near future. As a result our budget authority is 

expected to remain flat or decline during this plan cycle. These two alternatives do 

however, provide information on the opportunity costs and trade-offs involved if 

additional funding and program level increases were to become available during the plan 

period.

Alternative C, as reflected in the Revised Forest Plan, is responsive to the Forest 

Service’s National Strategic Plan (2007), and it meets our legal obligations to the people 

and environment that surrounds them. The optimal implementation rate for the Revised 

Forest Plan could require higher funding levels in some areas than those currently 

allocated; however, I believe the management direction changes envisioned in the 

Revised Plan can be implemented under current budget levels. The attainment of desired 

conditions and outputs in some areas, however, may be delayed or reduced if future 

budgets decrease.
14

In summary, I believe Alternative C sets the framework for future decisions better than 

the other alternatives because it:

• Includes reasonable strategies to implement endangered species recovery plans,

• Restores native ecosystems at a reasonable pace

• Integrates application of vegetation management practices and prescribed fire to 

achieve restoration of fire dependent ecosystems on a landscape scale

• Assures habitats are adequate to support positive trends for community diversity 

and species viability

• Develops strategies for sustaining rare communities and species by providing 

special interest areas as a refuge

• Includes reasonable strategies for treating non-native invasive species and 

addressing forest health concerns

• Provides appropriate management and protection for cultural resources

• Reduces risks to life, property and other resources from wildland fire

• Emphasizes the collaboration with local communities and governments, other 

federal and state agencies to create a shared vision about the cultural and 

environmental attributes that make this area special

• Responsibly addresses the need for resilient and adaptable ecosystems in the face 

of climate change

• Adequately responds to comments on the Draft EIS and Proposed Plan.

My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of 

relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the 

acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and 

risk. 

Response to the Issues

Issues, concerns, and opportunities are described in Chapter 1 of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement under the heading Purpose and Need. The proposed action was 

developed to address the issues, concerns, and opportunities identified during the 

collaborative planning process. Alternatives to the proposed action were developed when 

unresolved conflicts remained concerning alternative uses of limited resources, or to 

address issues with significant environmental impacts. The following issues and concerns 

were identified from the early stages of the planning process that followed publication of 

the Notice of Intent to revise the plan: (1) Native Ecosystem Restoration; (2) 

Biodiversity and Species Viability; (3) Forest Health; (4) Vegetation Management for 

Timber; (5) Fire Management; (6) Old Growth; (7) Watersheds and Water, Soils, Aquatic 

Resources, Riparian Environments; (8) Access Management; (9) Recreation; (10) Special 

Area Designations; (11) Land Use and Ownership; (12) Climate Change; (13) Minerals 

Management; and (14) Economic Benefits. 
15

Native Ecosystem Restoration

Ultimate desired conditions for the ecosystem-based management areas did not vary 

under the five alternatives, but the rate at which these conditions were achieved and the 

management actions and resources required were major distinguishing factors. In some 

locations on the Forests, the distribution of native ecosystems systems is close to what 

should occur based on landscape characteristics and soil classifications; however, in other 

settings, major regeneration activities and many decades will be needed to restore 

desirable native communities. In comparing the alternatives, restoration of native 

ecosystems will be slowest and restore the fewest acres over the life of the forest plan 

under alternative A – Custodial Management. Under the alternative A scenario, 

restoration changes would primarily result from natural succession, which would favor 

hardwood components over time. Alternatives B and C assume agency funding levels 

similar to current conditions but with more emphasis and integration of restoration 

actions under alternative C. Alternative D depicts a faster rate of progress toward desired 

conditions (more acres restored) by adding regeneration activities. Alternative E further 

increases restoration progress and forest health by treating more acres of dense forest that 

need thinning to be more resilient to damage from insects such as southern pine beetle 

and to survive severe storms. Alternatives D and E are projected to require additional 

funding opportunities and staffing above current budget levels but would make faster 

progress toward desired conditions. 

Biodiversity and Species Viability

Under Alternative A, community diversity and species viability would likely decline over 

time. This alternative would promote a tendency towards late succession with locally 

reduced species richness and minimal management practices to prevent species loss. Redcockaded woodpecker resource management activities would do the minimum necessary 

to sustain populations and would be focused only in designated red-cockaded 

woodpecker habitat management areas. Population expansion potential for gopher 

tortoise would be reduced compared to other more intensive alternative management 

themes.

Under alternatives C, D, and E, forest and woodland ecosystems would be managed to 

restore or maintain native communities that would provide the desired composition, 

structure and function. Emphasis would be placed on maintaining forest and plant 

community types not abundant on private lands. Expanded opportunities for additional 

red-cockaded woodpecker population growth would be provided on suitable areas outside 

of designated habitat management areas. Expansion of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat 

management areas would extend across the entire district on the Bienville and 

Chickasawhay Ranger Districts. Conservation management areas would be developed on 

the De Soto Ranger District for sandhill crane. Expanded opportunities for conservation 

and recovery of gopher tortoise populations would be provided by promoting improved 

habitat conditions on additional suitable habitat areas due to higher levels of vegetation 

management and prescribed fire application.
16

Forest Health

A shift in focus from commodity production to native ecosystem restoration and forest 

health was emphasized. Vegetation management practices support a variety of integrated 

resource strategies including converting loblolly and slash pine plantings to native 

ecosystems, creating a diversity of habitats, improving resilience to natural disturbances 

and a changing climate, reducing impacts of insects and diseases, controlling non-native 

invasive species, and producing quality timber commodities.

Vegetation Management for Timber

Under the custodial management focus of Alternative A, there would be minimal use of 

active management practices, natural succession would result in a greater hardwood 

component, longleaf pine restoration efforts would be limited to habitat management 

areas on the Bienville, De Soto, and Homochitto National Forests, and occurrence of 

shortleaf and loblolly pines would be reduced. Average annual timber production would 

be reduced from current levels and would be a byproduct from red-cockaded woodpecker 

habitat maintenance and enhancement and salvage and sanitation harvests from wind or 

southern pine beetle occurrences.

Alternative B is the no-action alternative and would continue current direction and levels 

of vegetation management. The average annual timber production level in Alternative B 

lists production levels for recent years under amendments to the 1985 forest plan and 

reflects reduced output and available management resources from the original forest plan.

Alternatives C, D, and E focus on restoring a variety of native ecosystems and habitats 

and creating healthier, more sustainable forests. Longleaf pine would be restored within 

its natural range; hardwood, and pine and hardwood management types would be grown 

and maintained where ecologically feasible on all districts; hardwood, and pine and 

hardwood management types would be grown and maintained on appropriate sites, and 

there would be an emphasis on restoration of shortleaf based on ecological potential and 

land capability. Forest products are produced as a result of vegetation management 

practices although they do not drive the process. Alternative C would move toward 

desired conditions at a realistic pace under current agency funding levels. Alternative D 

restores more native ecosystem acres through regeneration activities, and Alternative E 

further improves forest health through thinning. Alternative E would result in achieving 

desired conditions in the shortest (biologically feasible) timeframe while also ensuring 

compliance with the multiple-use sustained yield act requirements of non-declining 

sustained yields. However, alternatives D and E would require additional funding and 

management resources above current levels.

Fire Management

Alternative A would generate the lowest prescribed burn program and would be limited 

to threatened and endangered habitat management requirements and response to wildland 

fire occurrences. Alternatives C, D, and E would focus on burning historically maintained 

fire ecosystems to preserve natural diversity and would have annual prescribed fire levels 

slightly greater than under current management (Alternative B). Increased prescribed fire 

applications under C, D, and E would be necessary to support expanded ecosystem 

restoration goals and objectives.
17

Old Growth

Diversity of tree ages, from regeneration to old growth, was emphasized to support a 

sustainable mix of ecological conditions across the landscape. A strategy to have a 

distribution of old-growth stands in all ecological systems and all districts, with 

approximately 10 percent of each forest ecosystem in old-growth conditions was 

incorporated into alternatives C, D and E.

Watersheds and Water, Soils, Aquatic Resources, Riparian Environments

Productive soils, clean water, and clean air were important desired conditions identified 

by stakeholders and are essential to sustaining the ecological function and productive 

capacity of National Forest System lands. Use of best management practices for 

sustaining and improving watershed areas within national forest control while working 

cooperatively with other agencies and landowners to improve statewide watershed health 

were included in all alternatives. Desired outcomes that relate to improving or sustaining 

a diversity of aquatic species and water-related ecosystems were also emphasized.

Access Management

The main priorities for managing the roads, trails, and facilities that make up the Forests 

infrastructure are safety and maintenance of existing systems. This includes addressing

backlogged repairs and upgrades, improvements for environmental protection, disposal of 

facilities that are no longer needed, and rehabilitation of user-created trails and roads. For 

the remainder, there will be an emphasis on improving the maintenance of existing roads 

and trails, with a particular focus on improvements to important public safety and 

ecological features, such as bridges and stream culverts. The emphasis for the trails 

system is on sustaining a forestwide network of trails for a variety of uses across the state 

and bringing existing designated trails up to improved conditions. Partnerships with other 

agencies, communities, and special interest groups are identified as key to offering 

additional seasonal access to wildlife management areas and expanding or adding new 

trails.

Recreation

Forest management strategies for recreation considered an appropriate mix of sustainable 

recreation opportunities that would balance increasing and changing demands with 

concerns for public health and safety and ecosystem protection. For the National Forests 

in Mississippi, anticipated budget and staffing levels required the focus to be on 

maintaining current infrastructure and recreation opportunities rather than expanding and 

adding new facilities. This approach did not vary significantly by alternative, but there 

were slight differences between Alternative A, which would emphasize low impact 

recreation opportunities and minimal management, and alternatives C, D, and E, which 

would include the addition of a Backcountry special emphasis area on the Tombigbee 

National Forest.

Special Area Designations

Under alternatives A and B, current special areas would be retained but no additional 

designations would be planned. Alternatives C, D, and E would add sixteen new 
18

botanical areas and establish two new research natural areas. Management actions under 

alternatives C, D, and E would also include expansion of current red-cockaded 

woodpecker habitat management areas. Under alternatives A and B, new mineral leases 

in the Sandy Creek RARE II Further Study Area/Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) would 

not be authorized. Under alternatives C, D, and E the Sandy Creek RARE II Further 

Study Area/IRA would become available for new oil and gas leasing with a No Surface 

Occupancy stipulation on the 300-acre Sandy Creek Botanical Area and a stipulation that 

prohibits road construction or reconstruction for newly leased areas within the Sandy 

Creek inventoried roadless area.

Land Use and Ownership

The population of Mississippi was approximately 2.5 million in the 1980s. Currently, the 

State population is over 2.9 million, with over 3 million residents projected by 2030. 

With an increasing population, development of private lands adjacent to the Forests has 

increased dramatically since 1985. This is particularly true for the De Soto National 

Forest close to the Gulf Coast and portions of the Holly Springs National Forest close to 

Memphis, Tennessee. The wildland-urban interface was not an issue in 1985 but is a 

growing factor in management decisions today. Also, land acquisition priorities in the 

1985 forest plan were on consolidating ownership to meet the timber demands more 

efficiently and provide access for removal of market goods. Land acquisition priorities 

today still focus on consolidating ownership, but the intent is to reduce fragmentation of 

forest communities, provide protected habitat for wildlife, protect heritage sites, and 

preserve desirable ecological communities. Today’s land ownership focus also includes 

lands that may not be contiguous but would preserve and enhance high-value habitats, 

rare species, or critical watersheds.

Climate Change

An increase in extreme weather events is the climate change factor most likely to affect 

the Forests in the next 10-15 years. In response to potential effects from climate change, 

strategies in the alternatives include reducing vulnerability by maintaining and restoring 

resilient native ecosystems, enhancing adaptation by reducing impacts from serious 

disturbances and taking advantage of disruptions, using preventative measures to reduce 

opportunities for forest pests, and mitigating greenhouse emissions by reducing carbon 

loss from hurricanes.

Minerals Management

In August 2010, the National Forests in Mississippi renewed its decision for Lands 

Available for Oil and Gas Leasing (National Forests in Mississippi - Lands Available for 

Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment, August 2010). The 2010 oil and gas 

leasing decision authorized all lands on the National Forests in Mississippi to be available 

for Federal oil and gas leasing through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), except 

for congressionally designated wilderness areas (Black Creek and Leaf) and it deferred

making a decision on the Sandy Creek RARE II Further Study Area. These lands, 

approximately 1.2 million acres, would be administratively available subject to 1) 

management direction in the National Forests in Mississippi Forest Plan, 2) oil and gas 

lease stipulations, 3) the wide range of laws and regulations that require environmental 
19

protections for oil and gas exploration and development and 4) site-specific 

environmental analysis as detailed exploration proposals are made by lease holders. 

Additionally, all administratively available lands will be available for lease by the BLM, 

subject to the standard USDA stipulations, and the environmental requirements of the 

standard federal lease terms detailed in Appendix B of the National Forests in Mississippi 

Lands Available for Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment, August 2010.

A decision regarding oil and gas leasing availability on the Sandy Creek RARE II Further 

Study Area/IRA was evaluated and addressed in this Final EIS for the Revised Forest 

Plan. Alternatives A and B would not authorize new oil and gas leasing in the 2,558 acre 

Sandy Creek Further Study Area/IRA. However, alternatives C, D, and E would permit 

new oil and gas leasing in the Sandy Creek Further Study Area/IRA subject to the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule restrictions. These restrictions include no new road 

construction or reconstruction permitted in the inventoried roadless area; therefore only 

existing system roads would be utilized as access for lease activities. (It should be noted 

that part of this area, approximately140 acres, is currently under lease.)

Economic Benefits

The national forest activities that generate the majority of the revenues that feed back into 

the local economy in Mississippi come from timber, minerals, and recreation. As a result 

of restoring native ecosystems to appropriate sites and maintaining healthy and resilient 

forests, there should be a steady flow of economic benefits back to local communities.

Management Concerns

In addition to the planning issues and public comments, the following factors were 

considered in making my decision:

• Consistency with applicable laws, policies, manual, and handbook direction that 

govern the development of a Forest Plan and management of national forest lands.

• Promotion of rural economic development and a quality rural environment.

• The effects on the people who use and depend on forest resources.

• Consistency with plans and policies of local, State, and other national government 

agencies.

• Operational and budget needs to fully implement the Plan decision.

Net Public Benefits

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (36 CFR 

219.1) state that forest plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of 

goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term 

net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner.” Net public benefits are defined 

as the overall long-term value to the Nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) , 

less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs), whether they can be quantitatively 

valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both quantitative and qualitative 

criteria rather than by a single measure or index. The maximization of net public benefits 

is consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield (36 CFR 219.3).
20

Net public benefits have two components – priced and non-priced benefits and costs. 

Prices for outputs and uses were estimated in the FEIS for each alternative and displayed 

in Chapter 4 of the FEIS and in FEIS, Appendix B. The Present Net Value (PNV) was 

used to measure the economic efficiency of each alternative and Alternative C provides 

the highest PNV among the alternatives. Most of the benefit value is derived from 

recreational uses, primarily hunting and fishing. Timber is a negative contributor to 

present net value at the program levels of Alternative A and B, but becomes positive at 

the program levels of Alternatives C through E. 

Alternative C has a higher calculated PNV than Alternatives D and E because the present 

value costs by program for range, minerals, recreation and wildlife were assumed to 

increase for Alternatives D and E because of the increased level of management activity 

occurring under these alternatives. However, there were no anticipated increases in 

present value benefits for those corresponding program areas. In conducting a sensitivity 

test, even if the budgets for range, minerals, recreation and wildlife were held constant 

with those estimated for Alternative C, the PNVs for Alternatives D and E would slightly 

increase, but they would still not be higher than Alternative C. This indicates that the 

other program costs associated with the increased level of management activities in

Alternatives D and E also exceed the additional revenues that would be gained from those 

higher activity levels. With respect to the non-priced benefits and costs, Alternatives C,

D, and E incorporate an integrated resource management approach that restores native 

ecosystems, restores habitats for threatened and endangered species, reduces the threat 

from wildland fire, and conserves special interest areas for future generation to enjoy. 

I believe that Alternative C provides direction to manage the national forest to produce 

goods, services, and use opportunities in a way that maximizes net public benefits. I 

believe Alternative C, the Selected Alternative, achieves a balance between the economic 

benefits and environmental issues and concerns voiced by the public. I believe the 

Selected Alternative will increase public benefits by moving the NFs in MS towards 

improved forest health through its emphasis on restoring native ecosystems and through 

its special attention to unique plant and animal habitats. I believe the Selected Alternative 

will contribute to the local economies through outputs of forest products and outstanding 

recreation opportunities. I am also confident that the management direction in the 

Revised Forest Plan is within the physical and biological capability of the land and can be 

accomplished without reducing that capability.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the “environmentally preferable” 

alternative as: “...the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as 

expressed in NEPA’s section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative 

which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.”

Alternative C, D and E incorporate management strategies that restore native ecosystems 

through implementation of integrated management activities to effectively accomplish 

natural resource management objectives while incorporating best science and best 

management practices. These three action alternatives adopt a common vision, 

collaboratively developed, that improves community diversity and species viability. All 
21

three action alternatives incorporate fire management practices to promote and preserve 

natural diversity in fire-dependent ecosystems. They each promote conservation and 

recovery of threatened and endangered species. They also implement a common oldgrowth management strategy designed to achieve a balanced mix of small, and mediumsized old-growth forest community types.

Alternative C, D, and E all promote improved forest health conditions; with restoration of 

native ecosystems, improvement in community diversity and species diversity, and 

restoration of historic fire regimes in fire-dependent ecosystems. All three action 

alternatives protect, preserve, and enhance historic, cultural and natural resources. They 

all promote positive environmentally preferred attributes. However, Alternative E makes 

progress towards and achieves ecological and forest health desired conditions across the 

landscape at a more positive and sustained pace that the other action alternatives. 

Therefore, Alternative E with its emphasis on promoting and enhancing healthy forest 

conditions in an environmentally sound basis makes it the environmentally preferred 

alternative. 

Science Consistency

The ecological sustainability framework used to support forest plan revision for the 

National Forests in Mississippi is built on a foundation of ecological system diversity. 

By restoring and maintaining the key characteristics, conditions, and functionality of 

native ecological systems, the National Forests in Mississippi should be able to not only 

improve ecological system diversity but also provide for the needs of diverse plant and 

animal species on the forest.

Much of the information used in establishment of our ecological sustainability framework 

was derived from data compiled by NatureServe under a participating agreement with the 

Forest Service. Our partnership with NatureServe was sought as a means to ensure that 

the best available information on species status and habitat relationships was used. Under 

this agreement, NatureServe staff engaged numerous species experts and state heritage 

programs to develop a relational database that includes relevant information on species’ 

status, habitat relationships, and threats to viability. 

Experts knowledgeable about ecological conditions and species in Mississippi 

participated in identifying key characteristics and performance measures. Experts 

reviewed lists and definitions of ecological systems and suggested important ecological 

characteristics and performance measures. Final determinations of ecological 

sustainability components were based on consideration of expert input, subsequent 

additional information from a variety of sources, and needs of associated species.

This provided the basis for development of an ecological sustainability evaluation 

database and evaluation tool from which the overall framework for many of the forest 

plan components and the systems-based direction in the revised forest plan was derived. 

The ecological sustainability evaluation database and evaluation tool will also be an 

important source of data and guidance for sustaining native ecological systems and 

species when implementing the revised forest plan.

The National Forests in Mississippi provides habitat for ten federally listed threatened 

and endangered species. The plan revision process facilitated a comprehensive review of 
22

the long-term resource management activities on National Forest System lands. The 

revision process updated and clarified desired resource conditions, resource management 

practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability of suitable 

land for resource management, and monitoring and evaluation requirements for effective 

implementation. 

As a result, threatened and endangered species habitat conditions and their respective 

conservation measures were reviewed and incorporated. The revised plan incorporates 

the most recent threatened and endangered species recovery plan conservation measures 

for species known to occur on National Forests in Mississippi administered lands. The 

revised plan establishes habitat management areas for red-cockaded woodpeckers and 

cooperative management units for the dusky gopher frog and the Mississippi sandhill 

crane. The establishment of cooperative management units creates a focus point for 

management needs to ensure the latest most relevant conservation measures are 

implemented and that the spatial extent of their respective range supports population 

expansion.

Creating appropriate fire regimes for native ecological communities is recognized as a 

necessary part of the desired conditions and objectives for ecosystem diversity. The 

revised plan fire management strategy reflects an increasing knowledge of the critical 

role of fire in restoring habitats for fire-dependent species such as red-cockaded 

woodpecker and gopher tortoise, and maintaining desirable stands of longleaf and 

shortleaf pines and rare communities such as prairies and pitcher plant bogs. 

Management of wildfires and prescribed burns can serve to restore and maintain native 

ecosystems while also protecting national forest and adjacent lands from the negative 

effects of fire. The revised plan fire management direction is consistent with and 

implements the policies and science-based strategies of the National Cohesive Wildland 

Fire Management Strategy and its companion National Action Plan developed and adopted 

by the National Fire Leadership Council.

The National Forests in Mississippi recognize climate change may affect the future 

biodiversity and function of forest ecosystems. In developing management strategies to 

deal with a changing climate, forests can play an important role in both mitigating and 

adapting to climate change. However, there are uncertainties about the direction of 

change, especially at the local level, on how natural ecosystems will respond to future 

natural and human-induced pressures. 

The National Forests in Mississippi identified a key area of climate change most likely to 

be a concern to the Forest in the next 10 – 15 years and that was an increase in extreme 

weather events and other natural disasters. Recent studies following Hurricane Katrina 

indicate that longleaf is less damaged from storms than loblolly, appears to have less 

insect and pathogen problems, and has greater fire resistance. Restoration of longleaf 

pine on appropriate sites serve multiple useful strategies for achieving desired ecosystem 

and species diversity conditions, enhancing resilience to climate change, and mitigating 

carbon loss. 

Based on native site conditions, longleaf pine would be expected to have higher resilience 

to a changing climate that is warmer, dryer, and likely to have higher fire hazards. 

Recent research indicates that longleaf pines appear to outgrow other pine species beyond 
23

25 years, may capture more carbon below ground, and may have a higher wood specific 

gravity – all of which potentially increase carbon sequestration. Restoration of other 

native ecosystems such as shortleaf pines, oaks, bogs, savannas, and prairies would also 

move the forest toward desired conditions while enhancing resilience.

These and other scientific information were also used: 

• To inform the collaborative planning group of the need to change various other 

management approaches such as the need to increase prescribed burning and to 

treat non-native invasive species. This in turn served to inform the development 

of plan components to address these needs. 

• As source material for descriptions of the affected environment and 

environmental consequences evaluations in all relevant sections of the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and to inform the Terrestrial Species 

Viability Evaluation, the Aquatic Species Viability Evaluation, and the Biological 

Assessment.

One of the basic tenets of the revised Plan is that managing for a diversity of healthy 

native ecosystems is integral to providing appropriate ecological conditions for a 

diversity of plant and animal species. As was mentioned previously, there were a series of 

collaborative meetings with technical experts and taxonomic specialists familiar with the 

plant and animal species across Mississippi. These experts reviewed the definitions of 

ecological systems and suggested important ecological characteristics and performance 

measures, which lead to the development of the Plan’s desired conditions. A list of all 

potential species that could occur on the NFs in MS and their habitat needs were also 

developed and analyzed. 

Management direction for addressing the restoration of longleaf pine was coordinated 

with the Southern Research Station, and the Southern Research Station was also 

instrumental in the analysis of climate change effects to the NFs in MS, and in the 

development of responses to those impacts.

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities

I have considered the statutes governing management of the National Forests in 

Mississippi, and I believe that this decision represents the best possible approach to both 

harmonizing and reconciling the current statutory duties of the USDA Forest Service. 

Following are summaries of how the Revised Forest Plan addresses the Clean Air Act, 

Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Endangered Species Act.

Clean Air Act

As discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, Air Resources section, all lands 

managed by the National Forests in Mississippi are currently in attainment with National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. According to the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Organic 

Administration Act of 1897, the USDA Forest Service has the responsibility to protect 

the air, land, and water resources from the impacts of air pollutants produced within the 

national forest boundaries and to work with states to protect those same resources from 

degradation associated with the impacts of air pollution emitted outside of the national 

forest.
24

Prescribed burning is the activity most likely to contribute air emissions. Smoke 

emissions from prescribed fires are managed through best available smoke management 

practices. These practices are conducted in accordance with the Clean Air Act, the State 

Implementation Plan, and the Southern Smoke Management Guidebook. Since air issues 

are often regional in nature, the Forest Service also works cooperatively with State and 

Federal air management agencies and regional haze reduction organizations to improve 

air quality for the region.

Clean Water Act

The Revised Forest Plan contains direction to ensure all projects meet or exceed State 

Best Management Practices prepared under guidance of the Clean Water Act. Direction 

for the protection of water resources is located in the Standards and Guidelines section of 

the Revised Forest Plan. Implementation of the Revised Forest Plan is expected to 

contribute to protecting or restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of 

waters of the United States in accordance with the Clean Water Act.

National Historic Preservation Laws

The Revised Forest Plan is a programmatic action and does not authorize any sitespecific projects. The Plan does designate Special Areas which include areas that will be 

managed with an emphasis on historic and cultural preservation and protection. Projects 

undertaken in response to direction in the Forest Plan will fully comply with the Plan 

Standards and Guidelines as well as the laws and regulations that require consideration of 

cultural resources. The Forest Plan contains direction for cultural resource management, 

including direction to integrate cultural resource management with other resource 

management activities. 

The Mississippi State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted during the

development of this plan. The Forest Plan tiers to the Programmatic Agreement among 

the USDA Forest Service, the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the process for compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It is my determination that the 

Revised Forest Plan complies with the National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act and other statutes that pertain to the protection 

of cultural resources.

Endangered Species Act Section 7: Consultation

A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for the Revised Forest Plan and submitted 

to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Jackson Field Office requesting formal 

consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Subsequently, the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a programmatic Biological Opinion 

(BO) that outlines the consultation approach that will be followed during plan 

implementation. The Biological Opinion, issued on April 14, 2014, concurred with the 

findings of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the Louisiana black bear, 

Mississippi sandhill crane, Red-cockaded woodpecker, Gulf sturgeon, Pallid sturgeon, 

Gopher tortoise, Louisiana quillwort and Pondberry.

With respect to the Indiana bat and Dusky gopher frog, the Biological Assessment 

determined that the Revised Plan “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the Indiana bat 
25

and Dusky gopher frog. In the BO, the USFWS anticipates the incidental take of the 

Indiana bat and the Dusky gopher frog as a result of implementing the Revised Plan, and 

identifies reasonable and prudent measures necessary and appropriate to minimize the 

take of the Indiana bat and the Dusky gopher frog. The BO then concludes that this level 

of expected take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the Indiana bat or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. Similarly, the BO also concluded that the actions 

conducted under the Revised Plan will support the survival and recovery of the Dusky 

gopher frog and are not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or 

adversely modification of its critical habitat.

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the Forest Service 

must comply with the terms and conditions of the incidental take statements in the 

Biological Opinion, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures. These terms 

and conditions are non-discretionary. A copy of the Biological Opinion’s Incidental 

Take Statement (with its accompanying terms and conditions) is included in Appendix G

of the Revised Forest Plan. 

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian 

Tribes

The Revised Forest Plan has been developed with public participation that involved 

coordination and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies including the USDI 

Bureau of Land Management; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; Mississippi Department 

of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks; the Mississippi Forestry Commission; and local 

community leaders. Contact with the Chickasaw Nation and the Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma clarified that their interests are largely addressed through project-level analysis 

as the plan is implemented in the years to come.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 Federal Register 7629, 1994) directs federal agencies to 

identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the local communities. I have determined, from the analysis disclosed in the FEIS, that 

the Revised Forest Plan is in compliance with Executive Order 12898 and that there are 

no disproportionate environmental or health effects to minority or low-income 

populations anticipated from implementing the selected alternative.
26

Effective Date and Plan Implementation

The Revised Forest Plan will become effective 30 days from the date that the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement appears in the Federal Register. 

Forest Plans are permissive in that they allow, but do not mandate, the occurrence of 

certain activities. The Revised Forest Plan will be implemented through a series of 

project-level decisions based on site-specific environmental analysis and public 

involvement. The Revised Forest Plan seeks to guide management activities and projects 

by establishing a clear desired condition for the National Forests in Mississippi and for 

each management area, rather than by establishing schedules for actions. This approach 

leaves more flexibility for managers to adapt program and project selection as changes 

take place in budgets, resource capabilities, and management priorities.

Outputs in the FEIS are projections of probable outcomes. They were used to 

approximate activities and practices, in order to estimate the likely environmental effects 

of following the direction provided by the Revised Forest Plan.

During implementation, specific projects and activities will be proposed and analyzed. 

These analyses will be documented in the appropriate NEPA documents, i.e., 

Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, or Categorical 

Exclusions. Projects, practices, and activities will be designed to achieve the desired 

conditions, objectives, and applicable standards and guidelines as described in the 

Revised Forest Plan.

Transition to the Revised Forest Plan

Revised Forest Plan direction will apply to all projects that have decisions made on or 

after the implementation date of this Record of Decision.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that “permits, contracts, and 

other instruments for the use and occupancy” of National Forest System lands be 

“consistent” with the current Land and Resource Management Plan [16 U.S.C. 1604(i)]. 

In the context of a Revised Forest Plan, NFMA specifically qualifies this requirement in 

three ways: 1) these documents must be revised only “when necessary”, 2) these 

documents must be revised “as soon as practicable”, and 3) any revisions are “subject to 

valid existing rights.”

There are many management actions that have decisions made before the effective date 

of this ROD. These “pre-existing actions” were considered part of the baseline in 

developing each alternative and the Revised Forest Plan. The projected effects of these 

actions are part of the cumulative effects analyses documented in the FEIS and Biological 

Assessment. Additional review concluded that the continued implementation of these 

previously decided actions would still be consistent with the desired conditions,

objectives and management requirements of this Revised Forest Plan. 

I have not identified any need to modify any agency actions involving permits, contracts, 

or other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands due to 

conflicts with the Revised Forest Plan. These actions will be implemented according to 
27

the terms of the applicable instrument. However, should the need arise, the Forest 

Supervisor has the discretion to modify these permits, contracts, or other instruments for 

the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands.

After approval of the Revised Plan, the Forest Supervisor shall ensure that future permits, 

contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of the affected National Forest 

System lands will be consistent with the Revised Plan.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation is used to assess the degree to which on-the-ground 

management is maintaining or making progress toward the goals, desired conditions, and 

objectives in the plan. The monitoring program is described in Chapter 5, “Monitoring 

and Evaluation”, of the Revised Forest Plan. This monitoring program was developed 

with public participation and focuses on key plan components where management 

projects and activities are likely to cause a change over time. 

Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to Revised Forest Plan 

desired conditions, objectives, standards, and specific regulatory requirements. Only 

selected desired conditions, objectives, and standards are monitored. Relevancy to issues, 

compliance with legal and agency policy, scientific credibility, administrative feasibility, 

long- and short-term budget considerations, and impact on work force all influence 

monitoring priorities.

Monitoring information will be evaluated and used to update inventory data, improve 

current and future mitigation measures, and assess the need to change the Revised Forest 

Plan. Evaluation of monitoring results is directly linked to the decision maker’s ability to 

respond to changing conditions, emerging trends, public concerns, and new information 

and technology. No single monitoring item or parameter automatically triggers a change 

in Revised Forest Plan direction. An interdisciplinary approach is used to evaluate 

information and decide what changes are needed. 

Plan Amendments

The Revised Forest Plan is a dynamic instrument that can be changed with appropriate 

public involvement and environmental analysis. Through the life of the Revised Forest 

Plan, amendments may be needed to incorporate new information, new policy and 

direction, or changing values and resource conditions. Amendments will keep the 

Revised Forest Plan current, relevant, and responsive to agency and public concerns. 

Amendments are needed whenever any of the Revised Forest Plan decisions should be 

changed due to any of the above conditions. The Revised Forest Plan also can be 

amended for specific projects if during project design it is determined that the best 

method of meeting goals and objectives conflicts with existing plan direction. There will 

be opportunities for the public to be involved in any future changes to the Revised Forest 

Plan.
28

Appeal Information

This decision is subject to administrative review. According to 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), if 

the responsible official chooses to complete an ongoing planning process under the 

provisions of the prior planning regulation, the responsible official can choose to allow 

for either an administrative appeal or can follow the objection process identified in 36 

CFR Subpart B. For this decision, I have decided to use the administrative appeal 

process. Under the prior planning regulations at Appendix A to 36 CFR 219.35 (see 36 

CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010), when 

the option is made to proceed under the 1982 regulations and to follow the administrative 

appeal process, the “Optional Appeal Procedures Available during the Planning Rule 

Transition Period” (the former 36 CFR 217 appeal procedures that were in effect prior to 

November 9, 2000) are to be used.

A written notice of appeal must be filed in duplicate and postmarked or received within 

90 days after the date the legal notice of this decision is published in the newspaper of 

record (Clarion-Ledger, published daily in Jackson, MS). The appeal must clearly state 

that it is a Notice of Appeal being filed pursuant to the Optional Appeal Procedures. 

Appeals must meet the content requirements of Section 9 of the Optional Appeal 

Procedures, which are available for review at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf

Appeals must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service at:

Address for UPS and Federal Express deliveries:

USDA - Forest Service

Attn: Administrative Reviews (EMC/2nd Floor Central)

201 14th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20250

(Note: If a phone number is needed for carrier delivery, use 202-205-1449)

Regular Mail:

USDA - Forest Service

Attn: Administrative Reviews

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Mail Stop #1104

Washington, DC 20250

Appeals may also be faxed (Fax number is 202-649-1172) or appeals may be mailed 

electronically in a common digital format to:

appeals-chief@fs.fed.us

Requests to stay the approval of this Revised Forest Plan shall not be granted (Section 10 

of the Optional Appeal Procedures).
29

Final decisions on proposed projects implementing the Revised Forest Plan will be made 

on a site-specific basis using appropriate analysis and documentation in compliance with 

NEPA. Project decisions may be subject to an objection process at that time. 

Contact Information

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, 

contact:

Forest Supervisor 

National Forests in Mississippi

200 South Lamar St., Suite 500-N

Jackson, MS 39201

601-965-1600

Approval

I am pleased to announce my decision to select Alternative C for the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the National Forests in Mississippi. This 

Revised Forest Plan has been built on a strong foundation of science along with 

collaboration and engagement with members of the public, conservation agencies and 

organizations. 

LIZ AGPAOA Date

Regional Forester

Southern Region, USDA Forest Service